User talk:Stephfo/Archive 3

Follow-up: Summary of accusations

I'd like to try to move forward from deadlock situation and address all accusations one-by-one gradually:

• Accusation#1. Nick-D, please advise if you are able to explain me what I should have done differently on this particular occasion, this edit, that you refer to as "made despite a consensus against including this material on the article's talk page which was reached several weeks ago)" even though nobody is capable to identify that consensus (neither its wording or authorship nor birth or voting results) that should had been reached several weeks ago. I do declare that I believe I addressed in that particular edit of mine in good faith the concerns of others {The primary concern was related to absence of 3rd-party source ("Provide reliable sources that meet QP policy requirements!!!!" -I provided, if someone disagrees I guess he/she should go for WP:RSN to find out the reliability status of Texas A&M University press, "Finding sources is YOUR responsibility." -I took it as my responsibility, "do you ever intend to start editing according to policy, finding sources for your claims" -I found the required source according to wish, "We have as yet no third-party source" -I did provide the 3rd-party source) that, I believe, I satisfied by providing quote from Texas A&M University press that addressed all remaining concerns as well.} and at the same time I followed the clear 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)")} that nobody else opposed. At the same time, I answered at article talk page the summarized concerns of others one-by-one while numbering them and had been waiting for 15days to see if someone might have anything against that, and then when nobody raised any opposing opinion, I performed the given edit in line with WP rule that consensus arrives with absence of objections. Please, advise what would you do differently if you were in my shoes (I guess believe it is difficult to conclude that the call for 3rd party reliable source should be read as CONSENSUS against provision of such source), and then we can move onto your next accusation. If you agree with proposition expressed in above discussion that this was not real reason of my blockage (despite your opposite original claim), please let me know so that I clearly can understand that no behavioural change is required wrt. this edit and I will not be blamed that I endlessly go around points that have been allegedly answered (I apologize I cannot find any answer that would clearly explain what I should have done differently and this explanation is needed for my unblock if I understand it correctly). Thanks a lot in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As this question was addressed to the blocking administrator (i.e. Nick-D) to learn his reasons and rationale for my blockage, I will answer your (i.e. Noformation's) concerns and arguments in separate section. Thank you very much for expressing your opinion.--Stephfo (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Answering concerns and arguments presented by Noformation

There is a clear WP:CONSENSUS against Stephfo's edit on this talkpage. Further attempts to unilaterally impose it on the article is therefore WP:EDITWARring and further attempts to argue it here on article talk are WP:DEADHORSE -- and both are WP:Disruptive editing. I would therefore recommend that if Stephfo wishes to argue this further, that he engage in the WP:DISPUTE resolution process, e.g. by calling a WP:RFC, or making a post on an appropriate noticeboard (e.g. WP:FTN or WP:NPOVN). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

People might not respond to you because of your history of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and your POV pushing, it is getting tiresome and disruptive as hell. Please stop. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Please also 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) 22:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm adding to the consensus that the addition is a bad idea. Intelligent design is a religiously-motivated political tactic that has been rejected as worthless by the scientific community. Intelligent design is not a "threat" to the theory of evolution. The "compromise" is still objectionable because of the inappropriate weight it gives to intelligent design. Intelligent design is recognized by the scientific and judicial community as an updated version of the religiously-motivated argument from design discredited during Darwin's lifetime. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Add. the lead is not the place to give these views WP:UNDUE weight; poor references; poor grammar and reference formatting

I could go on but I think that's sufficient. N^oformation ^Talk 22:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thank you very much again for expressing your opinion. I very much appreciate it, however I'm still forced to regard your arguments for kind of awkward in multiple ways:

Point#1) You basically declare that edit of mine made at 10:01, 3 September 2011 could be legitimately declared as violating alleged CONSENSUS, declaration of which you ascribe to user Hrafn and made at 11:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC), i.e. one and half hour later. I do hope I do not risk being declared again as kind of disruptive devil on WP and being labelled as WP:wikilawyering if I'd modestly declare that in my humbled opinion that should not be physically possible. If you would still declare that I should admit wrongdoing in this respect, and also should declare that in future cases I will change my behaviour and look into some glass ball prior to my edit to see whether some other editors might not post some opposing one-sided statement on alleged consensus some hours later, then I'd like to learn where I can get such miraculous glass ball (pls. take it easy, it is not meant as any offence whatsoever).

Another problem what I have tough time to understand is related to the actual CONSENSUS declaration. Even though he/she declared that there was so called "clear consensus" against my edit, I believe it is violating the very basic principles of logic to conclude that 4 voices calling for 3rd party resource (see above in section addressed to Nick-D) should be understood as actually a ban to use such resource. In my strong opinion it violates the very basic principles of WP wrt. assuming a good faith, since it implies that all these calls for 3rd party resource were just hypocrisy and your fellow editors did not really meant what they wrote. I decided to take approach in line with spirit of WP and assume the good faith, i.e. assume hat they really meant honestly their call for 3rd party resource.

Not especially important, but at the same time I'd like to point out that you as administrators seem to apply double standards, namely you tolerate potentially aggressive (at least WP calls it so) behaviour when user Hrafn clearly involved in the dispute posted a warning message at my talk page, although when I did the very same as new editor before based on my experience with warning at may talk page, I was immediately reproached with claim of inadequacy of such approach: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down.". Do you approve his approach and it is unacceptable only in my case?

It is also difficult to assume "clear consensus" against my edit if there is no single "oppose" presented against proposition of 3rd party editor expressed as: "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!" Please regard this simultaneously as reply to your 2nd and 3rd argument, even if you'd regard me for being intrinsically some kind of devil on WP that is by default preventing other editors to be able to reply on my arguments, still I believe they should have clean relationship with 3rd party editor and not feel halted to oppose his proposition in the discussion. I'd have more to add on these accusations by assertions, but it would just make this already lengthy tough discussion even longer hence I refrain from it at the moment (we could take some example from alleged TE cases later if necessary to clean out the table and try to understand each other).

The best presented proposition in your point 1 is to go for dispute resolution process, and I honestly was ready to go for it, unfortunately I was blocked just few hours after this was presented and since the idea seemed to have no support from other editors my understanding was that we should continue trying to resolve our dispute at article talk page until we will mutually agree in wide consensus there is no other way to continue our consensus-building process on article text than going for this external dispute resolution options. I'm admitting this was possibly wrong approach from my side as it gave opportunity to my accusers to declare my involvement in discussion after proposition was made as inappropriate. Still, I take it for somewhat awkward that during my last blockage I was encouraged to reduce myself to article talk discussion when dispute occurs, and here the following the very same advice is declared as disruptive. I have tough time to understand such contradiction.

Point#4) This post was made after I was blocked hence I regard it for irrelevant wrt. any possible violations of WP rules leading to my blockage. Still pls. note we would inevitably enter the content discussion which would be another distraction from the very essential topic here which is my blockage, there seems to be a clear perception in the WP community that administrators should not use their administrator powers for content resolution process, I will try to address these aspects later by making dedicated section.

Point#5) This is again content-related point. Still I'd like to note that you seem to have a great deal of tolerance for content removals which are violating the basic principle of WP that such removal/deletion should be associated with:

• which policy the content fails and
• explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion

If you are able to identify the 2nd required part (explanation of why...) in your referenced edit please copy and paste it, I do declare that I was not able to find it and I regard for ridiculous that effort to comply with this explicit WP: rule is designated as disruptive behaviour.

My summary: Although I appreciate your contribution to my un/block resolution process, still pls. note my Q was what would you (or originally Nick-D to be precise) do differently if you were in my shoes. If you are able to advise, you are very welcome, if not, please stop shooting another waves of accusations (and pls.evaluate whether it might not drive discussion to distraction), it was already enough of them, although rarely associated with demonstrating its validity, and I clearly understand you are very good in accusing, but you seem to be unable to advise what should have been done differently on these referenced occasions. Please, do not go further with your accusations, better explain what you would have done differently. Thanx for your understanding--Stephfo (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

When you can learn to express yourself succinctly in less than a paragraph I will respond to you. I'm done wasting time on your walls of text that state the same thing over and over again after everything has been explained to you. On second thought, I'm just done. I have no faith that you will ever understand what is going on here no matter how many times it's explained to you. N^oformation ^Talk 00:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)