User talk:Stephfo/Archive 2

"A disruptive editor is an editor who:

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles."

You can claim that the discussion is "an edit promoted by a single editor and rejected by a strong consensus (i.e. this was NOT a dispute between just "two parties")" because you witch-hunt everybody who is not in line with your POV and are able to close the discussion even after just 2h:45min 441759190 441781320 if you (alleged "strong consensus" group) do not like the point, so that any editors potentially having NPOV from your own POV get disillusioned about WP and step out, such cases can be found in WP if you search discussion pages of editors, like this one discussion, for example, between two editors: "I am glad that you have the ability to comprehend major flaws in Evolutionary thinking, however, the Evolution talk page is not a forum for debate. I fear that if I brought something like this up they would call it Fringe or find some wiki-policy and close it immediately without further discussion. Or they would simply find some back ally html website that claims to counter that argument as this has happened to me before as well. Thanks for the help, I will keep researching.--Jacksoncw (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)" --Stephfo (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello User:Nick-D! I am chiming in here to voice my concerns. I do not think that User:Stephfo should be indefinitely blocked. In the past, I saw the situation occurring on the article and noticed that User:Stephfo was temporarily blocked; as such, since he was a new editor, I offered him/her advice on the talk page, telling him/her to add and format the references to content that he inserts in the future. When User:Stephfo was unblocked, he/she simply tried to do this at the article; he/she, in my view, was simply trying to follow my advice, as his recent edits demonstrate. Moreover, after his edits were reverted, he did not revert a single time, but tried to discuss his new insertions on the talk page. I honestly think that blocking him/her indefinitely is going a little too far. Rather, I would suggest cautioning him/her from editing that particular article in the future, if that is the problem. If you'll look at some of his/her other edits, it's evident that he/she respects others and does take the concerns of others into consideration. Furthermore, being a very new editor, I do not think that this is an appropriate punishment. I hope that this request is taken into consideration. Have a good day User:Nick-D! With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose lifting the block on this editor as he has been a combative SPA here only to push creationist POV. After multiple warnings, previous blocks and countless explanations he continues to systematically abuse horses and his attitude has not changed at all - there is no indication that he understands why his behavior is wrong and at some point WP:COMPETENCE has to come into play. I don't know if it's a language thing or a maturity thing or what, but the consequences are such that it's bad for the encyclopedia.

I propose that the block only be lifted if Stephfo abstains from all creation and evolution articles, broadly construed, though I doubt he'd be interested in editing other articles. And even then, I think he needs to demonstrate that he understands why his editing has been problematic thus far. N^oformation ^Talk 22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=Before I will officially request for unblock I'd like to ask whom with I can discuss aspects of my block, especially I'd like to learn whether there is any administrator who could navigate me to the claimed CONSENSUS that I was declared to breach (''"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Objections_to_evolution&action=historysubmit&diff=448203342&oldid=447917312 this edit], which was made despite a consensus against including this material on the article's talk page which was reached several weeks ago"''), namely: Who post that CONSENSUS, WHERE, WHEN and WHAT is the WORDING (Actual statement) of that particular CONSENSUS by time of my disputed edit at 10:01, 3 September 2011, alternatively a link to edit that would provide all these information. I do declare as being blocked, I'm not aware of any other possibility for such request for clarification. Thanx in advance [[User:Stephfo|Stephfo]] ([[User talk:Stephfo#top|talk]]) 21:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)}}

I've turned off this request as it indicates it is not, in fact, an unblock request. The best person to discuss aspects of your block with is the blocking admin. Anupam has already asked them to comment here. I will mention that the key points here are whether or not you were edit warring and the perception that you have an overly combative attitude that clashes with Wikipedia's collaborative style. Whether your editing was in line with or opposed to an established consensus is less important than whether or not you edit warred, which is always the wrong thing to do unless reverting blatant vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

But How can I discuss with blocking admin? I can only do it as non-logged-in and then he will change the reasoning for blockage to block evasion, as he did last time.--Stephfo (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems fairly typical of the attitude that is causing you such difficulties here. You apparently failed to comprehend what I just said, either because you did not read it thoroughly or because you are only responding to your emotional reaction to it as opposed to the actual message. The blocking admin has already been asked to comment here. I've asked him again on your behalf, but he does not appear to be on-wiki at the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have much more to add beyond the diffs in my block message above, which I note that Stephfo hasn't responded to. The discussion on the material Stephfo recently re-added to the article is at Talk:Objections to evolution#Revert Explanation - from this discussion in early August there was almost no support from other editors to include the material, with several editors expressing exasperation with Stephfo's approach. This also needs to be seen in the context of Stephfo's aggressive editing of this article and articles on related topics and rude talk page posts over the last few months (see also the last few threads at Talk:Objections to evolution/Archive 7). I've set the block duration as indefinite because this aggressive and disruptive behaviour is Stephfo's standard operating procedure, and previous time-limited blocks haven't been successful in altering it. Moreover, Stephfo's attempt to make WP:POINT changes to the core policy WP:EW represents a fairly significant escalation of what was already unacceptable behaviour. Stephfo; you're welcome to appeal this block, but I think that the ball is really in your court here and it's only going to be lifted if and when you give firm and convincing commitments to alter your editing style. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Nick-D, one thing that we must keep in mind is that when he/she added content to that article recently, he/she did so following my suggestion to add supporting references with the content (which he/she did not do before). In my opinion, this, itself, demonstrates a commitment to improvement. User:Stephfo, the reviewing administrator, User:Nick-D, has stated that he may lift your block if you "give firm and convincing commitments to alter your editing style." I would recommend reading the relevant policies and then offer an amicable statement regarding your future editing. I'm sure that if you do this, User:Nick-D or another administrator will unblock you. I hope this helps! With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that he doesn't think he's done anything wrong; he thinks it's everyone else that's the problem. This goes beyond simply following your advice this one time, Stephfo has been a problem since he started editing and, as I said above, I'm sure it's a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Perhaps he should be directed to his native language Wikipedia. N^oformation ^Talk 23:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I do declare I will willingly accept accusation of doing wrong, but first I have to understand what that wrong is, for example, please, explain what I should do differently, for example, in the last enlisted edit:[1]. The user reverted my CN tag [2] even though it was placed in line with WP:source policy on missing verifiability (cf."All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable.") and properly explained in edit summary [3]. User:Mann Jess reacted on my kind pointing out that he did not explained his revert by acknowledging mistake and allowing me to put that CN back: "1) I have no problem with your CN tag. That was just a part of your other edits which were reverted. Feel free to put that back in if you want." What's wrong with that and why it is deemed as disruptive editing? What I should do differently?--Stephfo (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think that was a polite post? You were engaged in a content dispute over material you wanted to add to the Level of support for evolution article with Mann jess (talk · contribs), and that post on his talk page was basically a demand that he undo part of his changes (complete with an uncivil edit summary which read "Removal of template w/o reson might be presceived as EW, I guess that was a mistake from your side"). Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What is impolite in using form "I'd like to kindly ask you..."? I provided the reason for the kind asking and reference to article talk page for more detailed explanation of such kind asking, we have not started the content dispute yet ("On the rest I will react later, Thanks for allowing for CN."). If there is more common/better form usually used in WP than "I'd like to kindly ask you..." I have no problem to adopt it, please let me know what it would be and I can use it instead, if this one is deemed as disruptive. Thanx in advance. --Stephfo (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As for edit summary, it does not allow you to write things as you'd like, I have to cut my sentences there many times, that's why you have to be stating things in as few words as possible. "Removal of template w/o reason might be perceived as EW" is statement of truth, I believe, and "I guess that was a mistake from your side" was assumption that proved to be correct later on ("I have no problem with your CN tag. That was just a part of your other edits which were reverted.").--Stephfo (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What was impolite, as NickD already explained, is coming to my page after being reverted and accusing me of edit warring, then demanding that I self-revert. Since I reverted you once, with a clearly explained reason, the appropriate way to handle that would have been to post on the article talk page, and allow me to respond there. BTW, you're misrepresenting me all over the place, by suggesting that my wording on the talk page supports you in some way. It doesn't. I didn't have a problem with the CN tag because I haven't read the source you placed it immediately before, so I'm in no position to judge. It simply got mixed in during my revert of your other content, and I commented in order to say that I had no particular opinion on the tag. (Note, other editors do have a problem with it, apparently) Please stop using my words as some sort of support for your other editing, which has almost wholly been combative and disruptive. That edit had nothing to do with your block in any case, so bringing it up repeatedly is just sidestepping the actual issue. If you legitimately want to contribute constructively, start at the beginning, and read through the mountains of advice you've received from other editors. It can't be explained better than it already has, which is why you're getting little response to your queries now.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note your revert did not actually provide any reason for removing CN tag ("Reverted 3 edits by Stephfo (talk): This study is outdated, has admitted problems, and is being used to advance a POV on education. Please discuss on talk.") but only for other edit ("the study") and that was actually my reason why I asked you to revert it back (I mean as partial revert, The CN tag was inserted due to "There is no source of such claim by any creationist provided, but just general explanation why argumentum ad populum is not acceptable") which had nothing to do with the study you used as explanation for all edits removals in "one go"). Please also note that I have not accused you of edit warring but provided statement of truth that removing tag w/o explanation "might be perceived as EW" what is conditional sentence, as I expected that you did remove the tag by mistake and I believe your sentence "It simply got mixed in during my revert of your other content" proves that removing this tag was not your original intention. If I'd like to be impolite I would put CN tag back w/o asking as others usually do. Please also note I followed "the appropriate way to handle that" and "have been to post on the article talk page" and even "allow[ed you] to respond there", but since I was waiting for some time and there was no response coming I was not sure whether you will notice that and thus decided to better secure it and specifically let you know about the talk page discussion. I hope there is nothing wrong with that. Thanx for you understanding.--Stephfo (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You posted on my talk page one hour after the article talk page, at a time when I wasn't active on wiki. Accusing me of edit warring because I hadn't responded to you within an hour is unacceptable. I'm really not interested in discussing this matter further. I only posted here to ask you to stop suggesting that I've supported your edits. I have not. Our discussion is not related to your block, and in no way indicates any support of your contributions. If you want to get anywhere, you're going to have to understand why you got blocked, and I've done as much as I can to explain that to you already; I simply can't be of any further help. As such, I won't be posting back here again, unless there's a particularly compelling reason. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please note again I did not accuse you of EW, but provided general statement of truth why removing something w/o rationale is deemed by WP as wrong. I'm acknowledging my kindly asking you to react was after just short time, but it was because I was not sure if you will notice my post (at article discussion page) at all by next day and since I myself was going to sleep, I decided to try explicitly let you know about it on your own talk page. There was no intention to push you or any other bad-faith intention, I just wanted to bring your attention onto discussion, nothing more and nothing less. I do not suggest that you supported my edits with the only exception on putting the CN back, it would be extremely difficult to conclude that "feel free to put [CN] back" should be interpreted as disagreement with such action. Thanks for nice honest wish. --Stephfo (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if User:Stephfo apologizes for any caused offense, that should be sufficient. As such, I have seen that recently, he/she has added references to his insertions and has attempted to discuss them on the talk page, without reverting. In my opinion, this behaviour should not be penalized, especially when dealing with a controversial article. Moreover, I looked at the cited differences and User:Stephfo has also "kindly asked" and "thanked" the users he was working with in comments. I think that we should wait for User:Stephfo to read the administrator's comment and see if he/she replies appropriately, which will contribute to the administrator's decision in this matter. I hope this helps. Best wishes, Anupam^Talk 23:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be missing the context of Stephfo's talk page posts: he or she was using 'please' and 'thanks' while demanding that other editors either agree to his or her positions or explain themselves in detail. They weren't polite messages. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I never demand other editors to agree with me, that's quite far from truth, but it is correct that I ask other editors to explain themselves in [more] detail if their standpoint is not clear, especially if they use their arguments in line with slogan "their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion" and do not bother anyhow to prove their claims by any evidence whatsoever. As far as I could read WP policies, there is nothing wrong with that. For example, one such request for clarification was also labelled as disruptive edit:[4] in my blockage reasoning. WP:IDONLIKEIT policy states: "Such claims [declaration of deletions as appropriate] require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion". Here I'm admitting I overdid it a bit and my position could be presented in more civil way, I apologize to whoever might feel offended by this edit of mine, but still this was caused by experience that editors who have good faith and collaborative approach normally fix the formatting and grammar deficiencies w/o using them as pretext for content deletion ("poor references; poor grammar and reference formatting"). And if they deem fixing deficiencies as not possible, the WP rule states "the rationale for deletion" (why given claim applies) should be provided, which was clearly not (Pls. note the missing rationale is actually perceived by WP as legitimate qualification of given delete as "IDONLIKEIT" approach thus unacceptable). I wonder, if you do not regard the missing explanation of deletion (why poor grammar and poor formatting applies) as disruptive (but controversially my asking for clarification you do), what is your own understanding what grammar and formatting rule was allegedly breached (I even admire you if you are able to understand it from given deletion) and why in your opinion the editor omitted to state (for example, after my request if not right away as experienced editor) why that policy applies (alleged breached grammar rule) in spite of clear guidance by WP to do so? In my opinion collaborative good-faith editors should do so, otherwise it looks like someone is stating his/her objection in such a way so that it never can be fixed and satisfied. I do declare I'm not able to understand the deletion grammar and formatting deficiencies if they are not presented and if asking them to be clarified is deemed as disruptive, then please provide explanation what other way I should use to find them out. Please also note, contrary to attitude I met after my asking, I would never avoid to provide explanation if I'd be asked for it. Thanks for your kind understanding --Stephfo (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That talk page post basically ignored the comments made by Hrafn about the material you'd re-added to the Objections to evolution article as well as the previous discussion of this material in which there was little support for including it in the article. Instead, you claimed that editors who opposed including the material were acting dishonestly. Nick-D (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your point, but when my sentence began with "I would like to ask again what is the demonstration of claim "poor grammar and reference formatting" of my edit" then I believe my Q was ignored first what I deemed as impolite and I tried to point out that it would be perhaps polite to answer it first before we move to other topic. Please explain why you deem as collaborative approach to ignore just my Q and then when I demand the answer after the topic was changed w/o providing that answer you accuse me for disruptive ignoring behaviour whereas the other party which started the ignoring attitude first is perceived as OK. Please note: WP:DE "A disruptive editor is an editor who: Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;" I believe my repeated request for answer was in line with that WP:Policy, as other party did not engage in consensus building and my Q at the beginning of section on deletion explanation had been clearly disregarded.

As for CONSENSUS, please explain: I'd like to ask whom with I can discuss aspects of my block, especially I'd like to learn whether there is any administrator who could navigate me to the claimed CONSENSUS that I was declared to breach ("this edit, which was made despite a consensus against including this material on the article's talk page which was reached several weeks ago"), namely: Who posted that CONSENSUS, WHERE, WHEN and WHAT is the WORDING (Actual statement) of that particular CONSENSUS by time of my disputed edit at 10:01, 3 September 2011, alternatively a link to edit that would provide all these information. I do declare that I really do not understand when the moment of reaching CONSENSUS had occurred on time-line (so that from that moment onwards any my potential edit addition against the given CONSENSUS claim was becoming illegitimate) and I really would appreciate if somebody could explain it to me. I do declare that I have tried to follow the following WP rule: WP:TE "This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions" If you investigate the discussion in more detail, you would find out that there is no reaction on my arguments presented at 15:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Thanx in advance for kind explanations. --Stephfo (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What I said over at Talk:Objections to evolution bears repeating, especially since Stephfo saw fit to totally ignore it, in that "...be aware that consensus may not be assumed if other editors are shunning you for constantly annoying and attacking them with your nonstop tendentious editing and edit-warring."--Mr Fink (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

For my better understanding, may you pls. identify the major edits of mine that you refer to as annoying and attacking you so that I know what are you "talking about"? Thanks a lot in advance for demonstrating your claim.--Stephfo (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean besides your incessant edit-warring on Objections to Evolution and Support for evolution where you constantly tried to give undue weight to Intelligent Design and the tiny minority of scientists who support it? What about your constant badgering of Mann Jess which was mentioned above? Or what about the time you kept coming over to my talkpage in order to demand that I explain my actions to your own personal likings in nauseating detail, then repeatedly threaten to report me for vandalism each time I told you to take the thread to the article's talkpage?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not regard first time content add-ons from verifiable sources as edit warring, there is no other way to create Wikipedia. It is truth that at the beginning when I did not know how things go around here I participated in revert wars, especially if I regarded them (members of opposing opinion) unjust and unethically stating something without bothering to prove it. I do not care about ID actual POV, but if someone misrepresents position of others and maliciously damages his/her/their reputation, I have strong objections against such approach. I apologize for any inconvenience, but I really do not regard kindly asking with "thank you for your civility" for badgering, again, if you are aware of better form how to approach others, I'm willing to adopt it.

As for you, I apologized above in my unblock requests ("P.S.1: Pls. note I'm admitting that I did this SINGLE REVERT BY MISTAKE (but still within allowed 1-revert rule) when based on erasing my Qs I mistakenly assumed that the person who undid my content addition is trying to escape discussion and thus I regarded it for vandalism thus performed this SINGLE REVERT; - from this perspective I regard the accusations that I'm ill(disruptive)-spirited for extremely awkward.") and I can do it again if you like, but you started to constantly erase my question first what made me to react how I reacted. As for reason why I generally prefer 1:1 discussion (cf."Given such debates are generally theatre rather than serious expositions of the subject" stated by Talk on other occasion) - this is based on my experience with "strong consensus group", you start to shoot accusations one after another, without bothering to prove it, and in discrepancy with WP rule on providing the rationale, and when the thread becomes too long, you close the discussion as dead hoarse w/o addressing any of my arguments, even though the WP calls such attitude disruptive editing and non-collaborative ("A disruptive editor is an editor who: Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits"). You often adapt Argumentum ad populum even though it is not right according to your own standards: "No scientific issue is ever decided by such argumentum ad populum" or "Truth never is determined by popular opinion or majority vote." Pls. also note during discussion process you made declaration that you were not able to prove ("the "prominent proponents of ID" have repeatedly stated that they have religious and not scientific objections to Evolutionary Biology"), If I were in your shoes, I would have no problem to acknowledge the mistake or inability as an adherence to WP:Civility (cf."Sorry, I have not noticed that the French revolution -chronology - has dedicated page, I'm accepting your point.--Stephfo (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)" 440622711). Asking for verifiable source, for example, of given claim, when none provided, is not that much nauseating detail IMHO.--Stephfo (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As for pushing POV and tendentious editing, I do declare that I'm convinced the content I'm adding is objectively verifiable and completely independent of my own POV. On the other hand, I believe I can demonstrate the pushing POV and tendentious editing of the members of "strong Consensus" group:

Example#1 (of tendentious editing IMHO): Everybody accepted the sentence which was there Objections to evolution perhaps since the beginning of existence of article or at least for very long and I don't even know who the author was:

"While objections primarily originate from the United States, there is widespread belief in creationism in the Muslim world[8] and South Africa[9] with smaller followings in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada.[10]"

Until I added verifiable Harvard-university press-sourced information [5] about the countries that do not look up to wishes of POV of article authors:

"While objections primarily originate from the United States, there is widespread belief in creationism in the Muslim world[8], South Africa[9], South Korea ("the creationist capital of the world in density") and Brazil (in 2004 governor of state of Rio de Janeiro announced that public schools would be teaching creationism) with smaller followings in Israel[10], Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada.[11]"

From that time on, previously ever-present acceptable sentence became unacceptable, after more balanced NPOV was added: User:Hrafn:"geographic extent of Creationism is mentioned nowhere in article body; nor is it related to the article topic which is the THEMATIC extent of creationism".--Stephfo (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Example#2: "Strong Consensus" group evidently pushes POV that to believe Evolution is right and scientific, to believe creationism is bad and just for stupid and/or poorly educated (Please note I personally do not care whether it is better to be evolutionist or creationist, but I strongly disagree if somebody is misrepresenting positions of others and tries to portray them as inferior group): "Support for creationism was stronger among the poor and the least educated." Level of support for evolution#Public support (Brazil). This is obviously "acceptable", in line with the POV of article authors.

WP in general encourages editors to balance articles if they (articles) obviously push just single POV.("When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral.") Being aware of quite contrary statement, I added it into the article: "Another report on survey performed in 2005 declared "The survey showed education level had only a slight influence on people's beliefs. Only 10% of those with a university degree believed in evolution unguided by a God, whereas among those without a university education, the figure was 6%." 448083392. Huh, this is not welcome, let's remove it immediately under pretext of alleged problems with survey (but do not mention that given problems are actually that creationists deemed survey as biased in favour of evolutionism). I was blamed for pushing POV, but whatever my POV is, the sentence "The survey showed education level had only a slight influence on people's beliefs" is 1:1 citation of verifiable source completely independent of my wishes or opinions, whether someone likes it or not. The only POV that can be attributed to me is the introductory sentence "Another report on survey performed in 2005 declared", and that one does not show much about my attitude to given topic. --Stephfo (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Add. battlefield mentality: I'd like to present my opinion what I deem as "battlefield mentality". As a case study we can use the situation at Level of support for evolution article page. After being encouraged by Jess (He will probably try to claim I misrepresent him, but the wording is clear beyond any doubt), namely by this sentence: "1) I have no problem with your CN tag. That was just a part of your other edits which were reverted. Feel free to put that back in if you want." I performed this edit of mine: 448210271 where I explained in edit summary that the reason for putting CN back is not only my own wish, but also I've been encouraged to do so "if [I] want": "See: Feel free to put [CN] back in if you want. at atlk page and edit 18:57, 2 September 2011" and at talk page I also explained other motifs why I deemed as appropriate to instert this tag.

User Hrafn, even though the information on "feel free to put CN back" and other explanation on talk page was available in edit summary, unilaterally ignored the indication that there was specific approval for given insertion by 3-rd party editor ("feel free to put that back"), disregarded other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits at talk page ("A disruptive editor is an editor who: Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits") and simply removed the given CN tag 448210528, even though IMHO it asks for complete betrayal of logic if someone would like to claim that that given in-line citation supports the associated claim, IMHO the statements are exactly opposite:

Premise 1: "Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory."

Premise 2 (In-line Citation allegedly proving such claim): "No scientific issue is ever decided by such argumentum ad populum (Introduction to Logic, I.M. Copi, Macmillan, New York, 1978). The only thing that matters in science is if the data available match the predictions of a given scientific theory. As pointed out by creationist Bert Thompson, "Truth never is determined by popular opinion or majority vote." (The Day the Scientists Voted, Bert Thompson, Apologetics Press: Sensible Science)"

I do not believe there might be more blatant discrepancy between attributed and actual claim, but of course I obviously do not have the licence for truth that "strong consensus" group obviously has.

Inconvenient truth, the convenient reaction at hand:

"As Stephfo has now been indef-blocked" 448357992 let's close the discussion, concerns not welcome, but finally solved by perfect rationale: "User indef blocked." 448493541. Problem solved. (cf."I fear that if I brought something like this up they would call it Fringe or find some wiki-policy and close it immediately without further discussion. Or they would simply find some back ally html website that claims to counter that argument as this has happened to me before as well. Thanks for the help, I will keep researching.--Jacksoncw (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)").

P.S. Pls. note if I were in Hrafn's shoes, prior to trying to remove CN tag I would most likely try to approach Jess and explain him why I oppose his suggestion on putting the tag back and I would try also to address the concerns at the article discussion page, at least to some slight remote extent, before I would initiate a battle by accusing for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. It is very deep internal Logic beyond my comprehension:

1. Feel free to put it [VN tag] back if you wish.

2. You actually did? Well, you are disruptive editor!

Very nice and civil WP:Civility. But I acknowledge nobody is perfect, neither I'm, but still I regard for nice if people acknowledge as humans when making mistakes, I'm at least open to do so if someone is able to explain what I did wrong. --Stephfo (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I'm certainly not convinced by any of this. If you want this block to be lifted you need to file another unblock request that either

1. Explains clearly and succinctly why you were not edit warring and not being overly confrontational with other users
2. Admits that you were edit warring and being overly confrontational and detail specifically what would be different if you were to be unblocked.

Another administrator will come along and review any such requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Pls. note I have not filed any unblock request yet but I'm trying to understand why I was blocked first, and not very successfully to be honest. I'd really appreciate if someone, pls., might be able to answer this Q:

As for CONSENSUS, please explain: I'd like to ask whom with I can discuss aspects of my block, especially I'd like to learn whether there is any administrator who could navigate me to the claimed CONSENSUS that I was declared to breach ("this edit, which was made despite a consensus against including this material on the article's talk page which was reached several weeks ago"), namely: Who posted that CONSENSUS, WHERE, WHEN EXACTLY (several weeks ago?)and WHAT is the WORDING (Actual statement) of that particular CONSENSUS by time of my disputed edit at 10:01, 3 September 2011, alternatively a link to edit that would provide all these information. I do declare that I really do not understand when the moment of reaching CONSENSUS had occurred on time-line (so that from that moment onwards any my potential edit addition against the given CONSENSUS claim was becoming illegitimate) and I really would appreciate if somebody could explain it to me. I do declare that I have tried to follow the following WP rule: WP:TE "This obligation applies to all editors: consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions" If you investigate the discussion in more detail, you would find out that there is no reaction on my arguments presented at 15:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Thanx in advance for any kind explanation. --Stephfo (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

1. IMHO to specify "why I was [declared] EW" should the party who did that declaration, if they are not doing so, I will hardly read their minds. I can only learn the reasons they provide, and one of them is that I breached CONSENSUS that was reached at some specific date few weeks ago, but to tell my standpoint, I first need to identify that CONSENSUS. I regard for somehow odd that I should myself find the reasons to justify my block, I believe those who accused me should have clear picture about them and explain them to me.

2. I also take for strange that I should admit that I was EW before being provided with the evidence that the CONSENSUS was reached so that I clearly violated it. I only can detail specifically what would be different in future if I know what was wrong now. The best would be if accusers advise what they suggest to do differently.

--Stephfo (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the elephant in the room that nobody seems to want to bring up: half the time what you write here is nearly incomprehensible. Is English maybe not your first language? For example, from your post right above this one: " IMHO to specify "why I was [declared] EW" should the party who did that declaration, if they are not doing so, I will hardly read their minds." If I stare at that long enough I can almost make sense of it, but not really. Anyway, as I have told quite plainly here [6] consensus really isn't the main issue here. Edit warring is edit warring whether you are on the side of consensus or not. You don't seem to be able to grasp that point, and once again you are issuing demands and becoming agitated when they are not met as fast as you would like. This convinces me the block is correct and should remain in place, I won't be commenting here any further and am unwatching your page. I suggest you consider the standard offer for blocked users and come back when you are more able to collaborate with others and communicate effectively without issuing demands in near-incomprehensible wording. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvenience, but CONSENSUS, namely breaching it, is directly mentioned as reason for my blockage, hence it is either reason for my blockage, and then it is an issue, or it is not a reason for my blockage, and then it should not be mentioned whatsoever. Please advise if you suggest that this reason should be regarded as nullified/withdrawn or still in force. Thanx in advance for your kind explanation. I do declare I'm not able to understand how could I breach reported CONSENSUS if nobody is able identify neither its occurrence on time-line, nor authorship, let alone actual wording. I really would appreciate if someone could navigate me in what exact time this CONSENSUS popped up so that from that particular moment on any my edit add-on became a breach of some hopefully objective WP:rules. Thanx again, kind regards. --Stephfo (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, after User:Stephfo was last blocked, he/she did not edit war. Rather, he/she took the advice I offered to him/her on the talk page, telling him/her to add and format the references to content that he inserts in the future. User:Stephfo, in my view, was simply trying to follow my advice, as his recent edits demonstrate. Moreover, after his/her edits were reverted, he/she did not revert a single time, but tried to discuss his new insertions on the talk page. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-adding controversial material which had attracted almost no support in a previous discussion on the article's talk page is edit warring. The other editors who had commented on the talk page didn't support including the material, so your support of it doesn't mean that it was OK to re-add it, and Stephfo's decision to interpret the lack of response to your post as support for the material he wanted to add ([7]) runs against the whole point of consensus based editing given the other posts expressing wider concerns about the material and the opposition to his previous changes to the article. Your decision to re-add a version of the material as a 'comprise' [8] and then edit war to try to keep it in the article (including with this misleading edit summary and this edit summary which basically requested that the material be included in the article before a consensus to include it was reached on the article's talk page) was a bad call, particularly given the response to Stephfo's edit (eg [9], [10]). Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you opinion on actions of Anupam, however I believe we will agree his/her actions are not justification for my blockage. I'd like to ask you if you could similarly explain when does the CONSENSUS in your opinion occurred on time-line few weeks ago, who was author of that consensus and what was the actual wording. I can only understand what I did wrong if you will explain me when that moment of CONSENSUS few weeks ago came into an existence, otherwise it is beyond my comprehension. Thanks in advance for your kind explanation. Have a nice day.--Stephfo (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The first edit was due to an edit conflict. However, I will accept your statement in saying that it may have been a bad call for me to try to enforce a compromise, rather than gaining a further consensus. Nevertheless, this conversation is about User:Stephfo. I don't see how an indefinite block is the appropriate decision to take, especially in light of the fact that he/she is a new user and was not personally edit warring himself/herself. This comment, however, is my humble opinion and I understand that you might respectfully disagree. I hope you have a nice evening. With regards, Anupam^Talk 01:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Look how large this talk page has gotten over the past few months trying to deal with Stephfo's battleground mentality and walls of text. You can also see the same if you look at the respective article talk pages. That is reason enough for an indef block as it completely wastes the time of numerous other editors. The bottom line is that he doesn't contribute to the project; I've posted WP:COMPETENCE a couple times now, but evidently I still have to reiterate it. N^oformation ^Talk 01:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

There could be also other reasons for large talk page - if you have to repeat the same Q 3 times and the other party still pretends not seeing it, turns deaf ear and just continues accusations of EW incl. breaching CONSENSUS while not providing any details when, in what wording, and by whom that CONSENSUS was declared.--Stephfo (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Please also note the completely wasting the time of numerous other editors might very well occur due to other reasons, namely, for example, because some editors are not being able or willing to explain their reverts in 1:1 discussions and prefer to make appeals to the populum, which are then possibly used as final as final justification of their action instead of addressing the questions in line with WP:policies.--Stephfo (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• Noformation is, I think, quite right. This talk page provides ample confirmation that the block is right, in various ways, the principal one being the continuing demonstration of battleground mentality. Particularly striking is Stephfo's last post, in which he/she seems to think that he/she is defending him/her-self against accusations of battleground mentality, but in fact simply continues to demonstrate exactly that mentality. I think that there is clearly a very serious WP:COMPETENCE problem here, and it seems unlikely that the editor will be able to contribute constructively, as he/she really does not seem to understand any of the problems which have been patiently explained over and again. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not have battleground mentality, but I deem as appropriate that if someone declares that I breached some consensus, then he/she should be able to identify that CONSENSUS, otherwise it is not possible to understand what he/she is referring to. Please note understanding is declared as being necessary to move on, but the key to it is not in my hands. I have no problem to acknowledge any mistake or wrongdoing but I strongly protest if somebody forces me by unproven and/or unexplained accusation to defend myself (e.g. against breaching CONSENSUS that so far nobody is able to identify and some already started to designate it as unimportant) and then at the end declares my enforced defence against such unprovable (or so far unproven) accusations as battleground mentality. Thanks for your understanding. How you would react if somebody would block you by giving reason he/she is not able/willing to demonstrate? Do you deem it as OK to make references to CONSENSUS that is unidentifiable? How can be unidentifiable CONSENSUS breached or kept? How we are going to reach CONSENSUS here on what I should do differently in future if you do not "engage in consensus building" and "repeatedly disregard other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits" (Pls. note WP refers to such person as disruptive editor)? Please advise. --Stephfo (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe WP:ROPE to end the debate, if he can behave so be it, otherwise there will be no more room for complaint if he messes up again? — raekyt 09:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Rope can't apply if the blocked user doesn't understand why they are blocked in the first place. N^oformation ^Talk`

Editors aren't unblocked as an experiment to see if they continue to cause problems. As I noted above, Stephfo is welcome to request that this block be reviewed, but I personally don't think that there's any likelihood of it being lifted given their above comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, that is very true statement that I do not understand why I'm blocked in the first place. Nick-D, do you declare that you understand when the CONSENSUS that according to your claim was reached few weeks ago and that I should have breached came into existence, namely when exactly, in what wording, and by whom it was presented? If being so, please share with me this information. It is impossible to understand that breaching that CONSENSUS was very bad thing causing my sanctioning if that CONSENSUS is not identified. Thanks in advance for your kind collaboration on consensus building process.--Stephfo (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see my above post made at 23:01 on 4 September 2011. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I read it, my preliminary comment would be that there is no such information as what is deemed as given CONSENSUS, who declared it and from what moment on it was coming in force, I have more to add but lack of time at the moment, will comment later. Maybe this would help also for my better understanding, pls. try to fill in:

The CONSENSUS WAS (wording):

It was declared by:

It came in force:

Thanx a lot for kind cooperation.--Stephfo (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You are miss-understanding the meaning of the word consensus if you look at the article called Consensus it explains it in the context of Wikipedia. Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks, the closest indication of what Nick-D deems for CONSENSUS is perhaps the sentence: "The discussion on the material Stephfo recently re-added to the article is at Talk:Objections to evolution#Revert Explanation - from this discussion in early August there was almost no support from other editors to include the material, with several editors expressing exasperation with Stephfo's approach." In my understanding of that discussion the lack of support for inclusion of the material was due to specific reasons expressed by criteria that, I believe, when fulfilled, would be deemed by good-faith assuming collaborators as not valid anymore as material-stoppers. Namely, editors presented several Qs/concerns that I tried to number and answer/address one by one on 15:04, 19 August 2011 [445676721]

(The primary concern was related to absence of 3rd-party source ("Provide reliable sources that meet QP policy requirements!!!!","Finding sources is YOUR responsibility.", "do you ever intend to start editing according to policy, finding sources for your claims", "We have as yet no third-party source") that, I believe, I satisfied by providing quote from Texas university press that addressed all remaining concerns as well. I also believe that if it is due to mention some information in the University press, then the content of this quote should not harm WP either (it is difficult to claim that author of an influential textbook on the chemical origin of life would not be prominent enough). [11])

(Pls. also note I regard posting Q like this: “Yes, it is questioned” as response on original point [Do you question:] “4.Smt. else? (there is actually nothing else in this sentence)” as incomprehensible and even maybe expressing the battleground mentality, the civil answer would be to bring up something else what is allegedly questioned, IMHO).

As I regard for collaborative to allow for enough time to react, I’ve been waiting till 10:01, 3 September 2011 448203342, i.e. ca 15days until I assumed, obviously in line with WP:CON “Consensus ... Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections”, that absence of objections against my 15day-old propositions entitles me to follow the previous advice of other editor “Perhaps, if you add references after the content in the format that I have done in this article (with the title, publisher, original quote, etc.), your edits will not be disputed as much. I hope this helps!”. (cf."Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. ... --Lambiam 07:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)") What did I wrong to follow this rule and what I should do differently in future? Is WP:CON wrong in stating that CONSENSUS arrives with absence of objections?--Stephfo (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, the answer to your question about consensus is that there is no answer. The consensus policy is vague and it appears you've been relying on rarely used provisions of policies that have come back to bite you. Anyway if you're waiting for someone to explain things to you it's going to be a long wait. The real problem facing you, that they haven't told you as of yet, is that you've pissed off too many people. So how do you get unblocked? Well, we're a pretty forgiving group and if you're abundantly contrite and can explain the error of your ways in your request you'll be fine. Just read WP:APPEAL. At this point your situation is, well, let's just say challenging. You have to get a mentor, and they have to be an admin. No admin mentor, no unblock. And turn on your email--we really don't need to, and don't want to see the forthcoming wall of text between you and your mentor. You can throw in some self-imposed stuff for that extra touch... Self-ban from Jess' talk page, self imposed 1RR for 6 mos., you know, promise you're gonna do stuff. I'm sure Anupam will post a mentoring request on the talk page of the admin of your choice. Hopefully they'll neglect to read your talk page, lol. Btw if anyone bothers you in the future just post WP:DONTBITE and drop the name of you admin mentor and if you're lucky they'll leave you alone, lol. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Lionelt, what would you do if you were in my shoes? Pls. advise. (I do not understand all your sentences, especially with abbreviations, and also have no clue what you refer to as "throw in some self-imposed stuff", "extra touch"; "self-ban..."; "self imposed 1RR for 6 mos.").--Stephfo (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• You have been blocked for "disruptive editing". That disruptive editing included editing contrary to consensus, but was not restricted to doing so. It included, for example, your ridiculous edit to WP:Edit warring. That edit was clearly a deliberate attempt to be disruptive to make a point in retaliation against actions of others. It also seriously misrepresented policy in a way that was either deliberate disruption or such a gross misunderstanding as to indicate that you lack the competence to edit within English Wikipedia's framework, as I have stated above. Your disruptive editing has also included various other problems, including harassing and attacking other edits, edit warring, persistently attempting to impose your point of view on article content, endlessly repeating the same points after they have been answered several times, and so on and so on. Therefore your endless harping on about consensus as though it were the only issue is somewhat missing the point. However, since you attach so much importance to the issue, let me explain. You have repeatedly made changes which you have known perfectly well the other editors involved have disagreed with. That means that you have repeatedly edited contrary to consensus. No amount of wikilawyering about exactly what constitutes consensus will alter that. Taking quotes from various places out of context and demanding that people spend their time addressing the exact wording of those fragmentary quotes is not constructive. Wikipedia guidelines and policies are not legal statutes, and they do not work by exact legalistic analysis of the precise meaning of each sentence and each phrase and clause within each sentence. They are rather general descriptions to give an indication of the essential framework in which we work. Your endless attempts to lead others into such pedantic wikilawyering discussions are disruptive. Your endless protracted posts explaining why you are right and everyone else is wrong are disruptive. Both in your editing before you were blocked and in your posts to this talk page following your block have been disruptive. A blocked editor is usually allowed talk page access to allow them to make constructive requests for unblock, and to engage in constructive discussion relating to such requests. You, however, have been using talk page access in ways that are disruptive, and which have wasted a considerable amount of time for a number of people. If you continue in the same way then your talk page access is likely to be withdrawn. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I will try to address your points later, but preliminarily I can say that from my perspective disruptive is to claim accusations that are in blatant discrepancy with reality. Please note I really have no problem to accept wrongdoing, but if someone declares that since my last block I "have repeatedly made changes which [I] have known perfectly well the other editors involved have disagreed with" then I have to strongly protest against such accusation. You shoot one accusation after other without bothering if it has anything to do with reality and without demonstrating it (cf. "their testimony was primarily by way of bare assertion") and then when I'm forced due to your accusations defend myself, you declare me disruptive. I do believe I did only single repetitive action since my last block, namely putting back CN flag that other editor explicitly allowed me to put back after he removed it mistakenly with other edits in one go and I only added material when I knew that it addressed the concerns of community expressed at talk page (IMHO this is the very basic principle of WP, to address the concerns of others) and when I have not received any objections in 15 days. (Please note I'd like to have constructive dialogue, I'm trying to find out why I was blocked and what I should do differently, but when I ask, nobody responses how differently I should have acted when others had raised concerns and I've tried to address them).--Stephfo (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You were told exactly what to do right above, but let me restate it in case you missed it: "You have to get a mentor, and they have to be an admin. No admin mentor, no unblock. And turn on your email--we really don't need to, and don't want to see the forthcoming wall of text between you and your mentor. You can throw in some self-imposed stuff for that extra touch... Self-ban from Jess' talk page, self imposed 1RR for 6 mos., you know, promise you're gonna do stuff." I would recommend you agree not to edit articles in which you have a strong, vested interest as well. N^oformation ^Talk 06:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Noformation, you obviously misunderstood the nature of the Q referring to the past, namely to accusation that I had allegedly breached CONSENSUS, whereas in my strong opinion I was just abiding WP rules, namely:

1.) I addressed concerns of others expressed at the talk page (cf."Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion.")

2.) I provided enough time to react (15d) (“Consensus ... Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections”)

From this perspective your answer does not really answers the Q raised, i.e. what I should have done differently on that particular occasion, referred to as reason for my current block (please note I'm aware that not only one (i.e.reason) but still presented as valid reason, I'm also able to address all others one by one, if necessary later on).

If I understand my "challenging" situation, before I give try to appeal to ArbCom, I have to make one more formal unblock request here. However, to be able to do that, I have to first understand why my addressing concerns of others and granting them 15d for reply was deemed as disruptive, what I clearly do not understand (some already have suggested that it might not have been real reason for my blockage at all but then I do not understand it even more, namely whether it implies that this reason is invalidated or still in force).

Before I make this last unblock request preceding appeal to ArbCom, I have 2 Qs:

1.) I'd like to kindly learn what was the triggering event for Nick-D to block me since my last block expiration on ca 07:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC), whether Nick-D acted on his own initiative or whether there was any ANI report (or any other report or complaint) that made him to block me after the expiration of my previous block. If such report does exist, I'd like to see the reason(s) provided there in for my blockage. Thanks.

2.) I'd like to ask whether I can discuss my case 1:1 (prior to making unblock request) with some admin that was not involved in my previous unblock request declines (I consider this group of admins for possibly biased, I apologize for that, I'd like to assume a good faith but the evidence does not support that faith, I can explain why but at the moment to make the story short I will refrain from that); preferably I'd like to discuss my case with TP if someone can let him know on my behalf. Thanks a lot in advance. --Stephfo (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I notified Tparis of the discussion. I'm not endorsing (or not endorsing) anything here in doing so. I just thought he should know because he was mentioned by name. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't an ANI report or similar - you would have been notified of this by the reporting editor and I would have also noted it in the block message. Following the previous block I watchlisted this talk page and the Objections to evolution and I responded to your disruptive editing after it occurred. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Since WP:IDHT seems to be your MO, let me quote from above once more from James: "You have been blocked for "DISRUPTIVE EDITING". That disruptive editing included editing contrary to consensus, but was *NOT RESTRICTED TO DOING SO*. It included, for example, your RIDICULOUS EDIT TO WP:EDIT WARRING. That edit was clearly a deliberate attempt to be disruptive to make a point in retaliation against actions of others. It also seriously misrepresented policy in a way that was either deliberate disruption or such a gross misunderstanding as to indicate that you lack the competence to edit within English Wikipedia's framework, as I have stated above. Your disruptive editing has also included ***VARIOUS OTHER PROBLEMS***, including ***HARASSING AND ATTACKING OTHER EDITS***, ***EDIT WARRING***, ***PERSISTENTLY ATTEMPTING TO IMPOSE YOUR POINT OF VIEW ON ARTICLE CONTENT***, ***ENDLESSLY REPEATING THE SAME POINTS AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN ANSWERED SEVERAL TIMES***, and so on and so on. Therefore ***YOUR ENDLESS HARPING ON ABOUT CONSENSUS AS THOUGH IT WERE THE ONLY ISSUE IS SOMEWHAT MISSING THE POINT***. However, since you attach so much importance to the issue, let me explain. You have repeatedly made changes which you have known perfectly well the other editors involved have disagreed with. That means that you have repeatedly edited contrary to consensus. No amount of wikilawyering about exactly what constitutes consensus will alter that. Taking quotes from various places out of context and demanding that people spend their time addressing the exact wording of those fragmentary quotes is not constructive. Wikipedia guidelines and policies are not legal statutes, and they do not work by exact legalistic analysis of the precise meaning of each sentence and each phrase and clause within each sentence. They are rather general descriptions to give an indication of the essential framework in which we work. Your endless attempts to lead others into such pedantic wikilawyering discussions are disruptive. ***YOUR ENDLESS PROTRACTED POSTS EXPLAINING WHY YOU ARE RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG ARE DISRUPTIVE***. Both in your editing before you were blocked and in your posts to this talk page following your block have been disruptive. [...]" Bold, caps and emphasis mine. N^oformation ^Talk 09:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, as I had mentioned earlier, there is such big flood of accusations (as there is no demonstration of their validity, preliminarily I'm forced to consider them for Argument by assertion- and Guilty by Suspicion -type of arguments) that I will need quite some time to react (what will perhaps cause "good faith"-assuming collaborators again to perceive me as incurably "disruptive", but I am not aware of any other way how to clean my name from accusations that are IMHO not 100% fair). Still, in the meantime, I'd like to ask you whether you agree with proposition that I "have repeatedly edited contrary to consensus" since my last block, and if yes, whether it would be kindly possible to identify these repetitive edits of mine, so that I can clearly understand what went wrong in my attitude, i.e. why it has been labelled as disruptive wrt. repetitive activity. Thanks in advance for your patient explanation.--Stephfo (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Arb break

I've reviewed the (lengthly) talk page and I can't see any help I could provide. I was supportive during the first block because at this 3RR report I feel that User:Dominus Vobisdu grosly violated procedure when he gave levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 warnings at the same time in this edit. However, this latest block was done with full knowledge on what edit warring was and was done after some disruptive edits. I can no longer support an unblock unless there is some serious self reflection. What I am willing to do is hear User:Stephfo out and maybe clarify some things, but I'm not willing to revert User:Nick-D's block. I can't see how much more help I can provide after what has already been given by others though.--v/r - TP 18:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your opinion, I will need some time to react, in the meantime I'd like to ask Nick-D whether he could answer the Q addressed to him; Thanks. --Stephfo (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Jess, I’d like to ask you to approach TParis on my behalf and, if possible, to inform him that I’d like to accept his offer for explanation of things wrt. my blockage. After reading my above case he obviously identified himself with opinion that this edit of mine (bare addition of template that I deemed as justified) with provision of explanation on article talk page could be classified as disruptive. I do declare that I honestly do not understand such accusation that he approved and would like to have better grasp of it to prevent ending up in this cyber-prison in future cases, if there is a chance that I ever will be unblocked.

In my strong opinion, while still respecting opinions of others, the following in-line citation: "As pointed out by creationist Bert Thompson, Truth never is determined by popular opinion or majority vote." absolutely does not support the preceding article claim: “Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of its validity as a scientific theory.” and in fact they (i.e. claims) are in blatant contradiction. Please, advise: Do you believe the given in-line citation supports the preceding claim? Even if yes, does it mean I have no right to challenge such, from my perspective clear contradiction if not even absurdity (I really believe this contradiction is not compliant to WP standards and potentially spreading notion about WP as poor-quality resource), by inserting template and if doing so, it is legitimate to label me as WP:DE? Please explain so that I know how to change my behaviour in the future up to satisfaction of enforcing administrators. Thanks in advance. --Stephfo (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)