Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:34, 19 June 2009

Welcome! (unless you're a stalker)

June 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Whale Wars. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You are over 3 reverts in one day on the article. Consider taking your concerns to the talkpage. Both warring editors are being warned. Terrillja _talk 01:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Terrilja,
Actually the dispute is over a related page, Sea Shepherd.
Two weeks ago the other editor, Mr.NRen, quietly ammended "violent" in the middle of the group's Method: direct action (info-box).

Now, if it had been in the body text, no big deal  right.
But that info box is fairly prominent. And apparently he made no attempt to discuss this change beforehand. Nonetheless, the archived record shows no clear consensus about hypernyms like violence and terrorism as they apply to SSCS, although Mr.NR shows his early bias there. (More on that later)

Back to current talk page: when another editor objected, Mr.NR quoted two ambiguous sources on what constitutes violence (in wikipedia and two dictionaries) -- saying "it's pretty clear" when, actually, it isn't. The primary definition of violence is force against people.

Although the SSCS engages in violence against property, it is decidedly not against people.
The page on direct action lists nonviolent and violent direct action. But it doesn't really list "violent direct action" as an accepted term/label, and that's where I think he took liberty in applying it to the SSCS.

Unfortunately, I thought Mr.NR might be an honest sort of fellow interested in finding a compromise. Instead, he comes off patronizing and dismissive. Thus I made my second mistake in engaging his petty side. I've never claimed to be a saint.

Now, I know some people are gonna say this is just semantics, but I dont think so. And I'm not alone, no matter how hard Mr.NR tries to ignore others.

So I reverted his edit back to "direct action" which is consistent with other activists' pages on wikipedia -- see the list on the direct action page. Then the revert war started and I took the issue to Editor assistance for some third-party feedback. Yet there, I think, he distorts and personalizes the dispute. "bad faith" ad nauseum. He also seems to dominate the discussion instead of allowing others to weigh in first.

And get this: he accuses me of bias yet he's the one who says things like "Balance is not the goal" when clearly it is a major tenet of wikipedia's policies . He also talks about getting kicked off of other forums and he repeatedly claims that the Sea Shepherds are "terrorists." &

So there we have it.
I hope this clarifies some things, though it may come off more harsh than it should -- so I may just whiddle it down tomorrow. If you have any questions please feel free to reply here.
Thanks.

ANI Discussion

There is an discussion specifically regarding you at ANI Excirial 12:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for the notice. From what I've seen, it's more about him than me. Apparently he missed the ANI intro, "Please do not clutter this page with accusations"

And thanks for replying there. I would respond but I have no interest in feeding his skewed sense of persecution. Some might even say he's a Wiki:Bully -- I stood up to him, now he's crying foul any way and anywhere he can. Since you got a good sense of the back&forth from his W.Aa, you might like to check out his earlier appeals at my E.a.r . Cheers. Fhue (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for fuck’s sake.… — NRen2k5, 23:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)