User talk:Roadcreature: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:59, 25 October 2008 editRoadcreature (talk \| contribs)4,347 edits →3RR violation ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:06, 25 October 2008 edit undoRoadcreature (talk \| contribs)4,347 edits →One month is excessive: minus more shouting by WLU. Please control yourselfNext edit →
Line 130:		Line 130:
	::::::Just read this talk page. ] (], ]) 13:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)		::::::Just read this talk page. ] (], ]) 13:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::Where on this talk page have I "not reacted to arguments, violated all kinds of policies, and responded with insults and abuse of admin power"? ] (]) 13:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)		:::::::Where on this talk page have I "not reacted to arguments, violated all kinds of policies, and responded with insults and abuse of admin power"? ] (]) 13:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
	Undent. The purpose of wikipedia is to create an ] that is reliable, comprehensive and informative. The purpose is not to ] a ] knowledge that ] is correct. Ergo, we must ] the information is ] and ] and gives DUE WEIGHT to the mainstream scholarly opinion. If you can't demonstrate your opinion is in fact that of the majority, and YOU HAVE NOT because no-one is convinced, you should not be edit warring to continue your promotion. Dispute resolution goes both ways - you must accept the opinions of others as well. I had no opinion on the ME/CFS naming, etiology and diagnostic criteria dispute. I reviewed ''all'' of the evidence you provided, I did my own research on scholarly websites and search engines, and based on what I found, came to agree with other editors that there is insufficient merit to your position to justify it. I do actively dislike you due to how you approach editing and your complete and utter disdain for anyone who does not agree with you, but I gave you and your evidence a fair hearing, and disagreed. You can see that ] and ]. The information added and adjusted on the CFS page by myself and Reto1Simone is sourced, to reliable sources, and from what I've seen very closely adheres to the text that is cited. Your complaints have not been that these sources are unreliable, inaccurately cited or given undue weight, it has been that they are simply WRONG. Your substantiation of this has been minimal, comes from old or unreliable sources, or simply your own ]. Agreeing with you would seem to lead to a page that does not agree with the scholarly consensus, and that is simply inappropriate. ] <small>] ]</small> <sup>] - ]</sup> 14:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
	:Please stop mispresenting the situation and my position. We have not come to a consensus, so dispute resolution is needed, not overshouting and removing the opposition. ] (], ]) 14:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:06, 25 October 2008

User

Archives

Prof. Anton Komaroff (2007): "None of the participants in creating the 1988 CFS case definition and name ever expressed any concern that it might TRIVIALISE the illness. We were insensitive to that possibility and WE WERE WRONG."

Prof. Malcolm Hooper (2007): "The simplest test for M.E. is just to say to the patient ‘stand over there for ten minutes’."

Template:HEC userbox 2

This user has moved to Wikisage

3RR violation

Please note that you have exceed WP:3RR at Chronic fatigue syndrome. Please discuss on the talk page and don't edit war. RetroS1mone talk 22:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The rule does not apply to restoring wrongly removed tags. Policy on tags comes first. Please stop removing dispute tags. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've pointed out to Guido a few times in the past, he has not used the tags correctly, and they should never have been put in in the first place. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, that's not for you to decide, which has been pointed out to you numerous times by various users. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reported you bc of your pattern of disruptive edits at 3RR. RetroS1mone talk 23:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please excuse me for disrupting your pov, original research and illegitimate tag removals. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for Progressive block for further edit warring (last was for 1 week). Misplaced Pages:3RR#Exceptions clearly states "Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt", you need to learn to work with other editors and along with incivility/breach of good faith just continues to be disruptive to development of material. So 3RR applies, however much you previously have felt this does not apply to you alone, and 3RR is edit warring, which is disruptive and does need to be stopped to prevent disruption to the project and tying other editors up from useful contributions. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. David Ruben 23:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Roadcreature (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Restoring dispute tags that were illegitimately removed is not editwarring. If it were, the rallying side could always avoid dispute resolution. Note further that there is consensus for the npov tag that I put back. By blocking me, User:Davidruben once again disrupts any chance of dispute resolution. Note that DavidRuben has been asked to withdraw from my case several times by a.o. User:Carcharoth. Davidruben is on the opposing side in this dispute.

Decline reason:

Yes that is considered edit warring, and that is exactly what you were doing. Declined — Tiptoety 00:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Roadcreature (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please read the policy. Restoring illegitimately removed tags is not editwarring. Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. I have not done this, but opposing users have. My edits were made solely to enable dispute resolution, which opposing users attempt to avoid. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please reread WP:3RR which clearly does not include an exception for reverting the removal of tags. Edit warring over dispute tags is, actually, very disruptive. It's a strategy some use to hold an article hostage to obscure demands of a minority, and it is reasonable to remove them when they are misplaced. I would come down equally harshly on someone edit-warring to remove tags, but in this case it was multiple editors: at least WLU, Fram, RetroS1mone, and Jfdwolff, but only you were restoring the tag. You know about the 3RR, you have a long history of 3RR blocks, and yet you have consistently failed to grasp the central concept: discuss and do NOT go about constantly reverting. So this block is correctly placed and the duration is not at all unreasonable. Guido, please: I have experienced firsthand that you can be a valuable contributor. If you could just learn how not to be an edit warrior, it would really be better for everyone, especially Misplaced Pages. Mango juice 01:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Roadcreature (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please read the policy. It distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate tag removals. The tags are not misplaced, I am in fact not even in a minority position (the fact that the other side had more edtors at this point might make you think so, but look at the opinions on the various talk pages). Yes, editwarring over dispute tags is disruptive, but I have not been editwarring, nor have I in the past.

Decline reason:

Edit warring is edit warring, please don't compel me to protect this page for abuse of template. — MBisanz 01:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Guido, the only part of WP:3RR that mentions tags is when it says: "Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt." (emphasis mine). For someone who keeps screaming for everyone else to read the policy, you need to read the policy. Mango juice 03:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Where am I screaming, Mangojuice?

What I read is that 'legitimate' pertains to both 'content changes' and 'adding or removing tags', because that is the only interpretation that makes sense and is consistent with the definition of editwarring. WP:3RR is a rule on editwarring, and if there is no editwarring, the rule cannot apply. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, you weren't screaming, but you have repeatedly implied that the admins don't understand the policy and you do when it is most definitely the other way around. If you want to stay clear of blocks like this in the future (and I hope you do, because if you don't, indefinite blocks will come.. in fact this is probably your last chance) then either you have to modify your understanding of edit warring and the 3RR rule to fit Misplaced Pages's administration's understanding, or you have to adopt rules that will steer you clear of violations regardless. If you prefer the latter, I would suggest that you voluntarily confine yourself to 1 reverts or undos of any kind per page per day with absolutely no exceptions whatsoever. No exceptions, because you have misunderstood what exceptions are. 1 per day instead of 3, just in case you accidentally lose count or think an edit is not a revert when an admin does think so, and because you can never be accused of trying to skirt the rules if you stay well below the maximum. Mango juice 18:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am still waiting for arguments why my interpretation of the rules would be wrong. What edit by me was an attempt to win a content dispute by force? If I am wrong, there is no point trying to edit, because the opposing side will simply keep deleting all my contributions and keep avoiding dispute resolution.

I do not care much for this attitude of Misplaced Pages admins who assume that just because they are an admin, they are an authority on the interpretation of policy, and everybody else needs to shut up. You do not become a policy expert by becoming an admin, but by designing and tuning policies. In that, I have a vast experience (and for the record, while I am an ordinary user here, I have held numerous admin and bureaucrat positions elsewhere for a great many years).

If you are an expert on policy, you should be able to explain your interpretation. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, with regard to the issue at hand: this is not the first time that the vandalist nature of tag removal has come up. It is even discussed on the talk page of WP:3RR itself here, where my interpretation is fully supported. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't get to become an admin without understanding policy. Meanwhile, the exceptions from WP:3RR are very narrow. Simply being correct isn't one of them. This for example is clearly not an exception. Nor was it marked "rv" in the edit summary, as it should have been William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not claim that being correct is an exception. Otherwise, I would be reverting all over Misplaced Pages all day long, since obviously only I am ever right...

What I do claim is that:

Restoring illegitimately removed dispute tags is an exception. And, more generally:
WP:3RR does not apply if there is no editwarring. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of your point (2). If the text has been reverted back-and-forth 4 times in a day, then its hard to see how there can't have been edit warring. Regardless, you're wrong: read WP:3RR: the text is about reverts, not edit warring. Admins may, in exceptional circumstances, choose to make exceptions for lots-of-reverts-but-not-edit-warring, but you'd be very unwise to bet on it. As to (1), you're wrong. There is no exception for tags, nor is there really any concept of "illegitimate" in this sense. If someone has really been removing tags "illegitimately", then you should seek to have them blocked/whatever under whatever "law" they have broken. But you still can't revert for free. The only exceptions are blatant vandalism and icky BLP type stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read the policy. Nowhere does it say that these are the only exceptions. WP:3RR starts with: The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy used to prevent edit warring. I ask again: what edit by me was an attempt to win a content dispute by force? Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. I haven't done anything of the sort, ever. Therefore, WP:3RR does not apply to my edits. Now while the opposing side have broken numerous policies, I have no wish to see them blocked. Blocks do not resolve content disputes and should not be used to silence the opposition. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RetroS1mone's accusations

Guido den Broeder has a history of disruptive editing. Guido is an activist for CFS disease and has a very fringe idea that CFS and ME are separate diseases. When Guido does not agree with some article a tag is placed without discussion and Guido fights to keep the tag even after issues are discussed and consensus reached.

I have no such history, nor would that in any way be relevant.

I am not an activist for CFS.

I do not claim that CFS and ME are separate diseases.

As anyone can see on the talk page, I have always actively engaged in discussion.

No consensus has been reached, hence the tags. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You do have such a "history of disruptive editing" as per your past upheld blocks for edit warring. Further this very much "would that in any way be relevant" as WP:EDITWAR policy observes "Blocks occur when there is evidence that users cannot or will not moderate their behavior, often demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, incivility, or past instances of edit warring and unchanged behavior. Repeat offenders commonly face escalating blocks, and decreasing latitude for uncooperative behavior" David Ruben 00:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

These blocks were, however, also imposed by you. In reality, I have never been editwarring.

Past behaviour is not relevant to the question whether editwarring has occurred. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"I have never been editwarring", 2 past blocks upheld by other admins, so you are on your own with that view. Past behaviour indeed not relevant as to whether edit warring occuring this time (i.e. true that 4 edits prior to a prior block don't get added to 2 edits now), but is relevant as to whether one should know what edit warring is (you clearly do not as you fail to accept multiple endorsements of previous blocks for this), and whether to block or not (the "blocks occur when... demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, ... or past instances of edit warring and unchanged behavior") and finally re issue of "face escalating blocks" David Ruben 00:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that no-one except Guido believes there are OR, citation or other problems. Fundamentally his edits have been rejected as undue emphasis on a single interpretation that is not supported by the majority of sources in the mainstream. At no point has anyone been convinced by the citations and evidence he has presented. Every effort has been made to ensure that the minority opinion and controversy regarding the naming of CFS has been adequately represented. Rather than suggesting further improvements or adjustments, Guido has insisted upon an all-or-nothing separation of the two that appears unwarranted. WLU (t) (c) 01:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

@Davidruben: I have on each of these occasions patiently provided explanation, to which so far no upholding admin has ever replied. Several other users have repeatedly declared not to see any editwarring on my part. So until you provide any evidence to support your view, I'll keep mine.

@WLU: Quite a few users are supporting me (the majority, in fact).

The issue has absolutely nothing to do with the naming of CFS.

I have both suggested and made many improvements. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Guido's position would be easier to defend without adding policy claims that are uncitable, since policy doesn't actually say that. For instance he states above that Restoring dispute tags that were illegitimately removed is not editwarring. If it were, the rallying side could always avoid dispute resolution. Please find a citation, if you can. It is generally believed that edit warring over tags is still edit warring. The explicit language of WP:3RR#Exceptions appears to say the opposite: Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If illegitimacy were irrelevant, it would not be included in the policy text. I have already provided a citation that explains why this is so: Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. Restoration of legitimate tags is intended to resolve a content dispute, not to win it by force. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

May be this is not where to talk about this, but Guido starts this part by saying my accusations are not true. First like has been shown, Guido has a history of disruption and blocks, although I agree with Mangojuice Guido has alot of knowledge about this sugject and can make good contribution. 2, I am not an activist for CFS. that is not quite right see ME/CVS Vereniging Netherlands, where Guido says writes for the newsletter of this activist group. And Guido is the medeoprichter (trustee) and past voorzitter (chairman) of the group. We all know people with COI can still be good contributor but not the way Guido has been doing. And 3, I do not claim that CFS and ME are separate diseases, Guido says CFS and ME are as different as CFS and cancer on this diff.

I am sorry about some things I said to Guido in past like welcoming back from when Guido left Misplaced Pages a few times but it is difficult working together with people when they are calling you ignorant and saying your edits are thrashing and insulting people not discussing. Think we can do better. RetroS1mone talk 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted. You are nonetheless still wrong on all counts and are misjudging my intentions. Please try and put yourself in my shoes. I have worked hard, with other users, to make an article of some quality, reading and discussing the sources instead of just looking at where they were published, and trying to present the actual scientific results rather than the propaganda. Then someone who does not appear to know the first thing about the topic comes along and in no time the article is reduced to a pile of falsehoods, with all kinds of essential info removed.

Misplaced Pages is not a game, nor an exercise in writing or in searching medline. Patients, caretakers, medical students and doctors do look for info on the www and the first thing they find about CFS is this article. Therefore, as an encyclopedic editor, you have a great responsibility.

What you put in an article has consequences in real life. If you write that Fukuda is a clinical definition, more people will not get properly diagnosed. If you leave out that patients need to be examined, e.g. Lyme, MS and heart conditions will be missed more often. If you write that no diagnostic methods exist, more people will not receive benefits or care. If you disallow an article on ME, and the literature that goes with it, more patients will not be examined for inflammation and metabolic problems, and will receive the wrong treatment. If you portray Simon Wessely as a hero, more patients will get institutionalized. Etc., etc. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

List of users currently on my side of the dispute

And if you go back in history a bit, you will find a good dozen more. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

User:62.69.36.100 is an ip address not a user, twelve edits
User:79.74.230.62 is an ip address not a user, five edits on CFS, answers at diff like they are User:Tishtosh20
User:MEspringal is a single purpose account like name indicates, not in this debate no edits from July
User:Tekaphor single purpose account but respects people and does not always agree with Guido
User:Tishtosh20 single purpose account with ten edits on CFS, may be User:79.72.230.62

RetroS1mone talk 02:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have just insulted five more users. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Guido I am not trying on insulting you or other people. You are saying you have consensus on your side, I am just saying, three of these came to Misplaced Pages in last weeks, two or three might be same person, IPs and Tishtosh, Tekaphor did not get in the latest debate until today and MEspringal did not edit since july. You are alone on the 3RR thing and admitting it, trying to do better is in your interest and every ones'. RetroS1mone talk 12:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that consensus is on my side. I am saying that there is a dispute, which needs to be resolved. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

List of users currently opposing

If you go back a bit, you will find blocking admin. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC) And also:

And the administrators that have discussed on this page. RetroS1mone talk 02:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

One month is excessive

Last time Guido violated the 3RR was back in May. Progressive blocking is a very poor way to handle a situation like this, and not at all appropriate. Knock some sense into him and move on, but don't use blocks to punish editors. Also, what need was there to block his ability to e-mail? Guido, if you wish to communicate outside this talk page and outside the normal unblocking lists, feel free to e-mail me directly at ned -at- nedscott.com. -- Ned Scott 05:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the unblock requests above, it appears to me that G still fails to understand 3RR and what reverts are prohibited. Which suggests he will go straight back to breaking 3RR as soon as unblocked. If he can be brought to understand his error I would be happy to support an earlier unblock William M. Connolley (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ned Scott, how do you propose to "knock some sense into him"? Whether we block him for one day, one week, or one month, he still does not recognize that he has done something wrong wrt our policies. If repeated blocking for 3RR (and other problems) doesn't knock some sense into him, why would you reduce the block and not just change it to indefinite? There comes a moment that a user becomes more of a burden than a net positive for the encyclopedia. There is a long history of problems with Guido, and no indication of improvement. What would reducing this block achieve? Fram (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this block, then? You cannot expect me to admit to something that I did not do. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages. In this case, it's disruption. The block gives the dedicated contributors to the CFS page a chance to edit in peace without wasting huge amounts of time on nonsensical debates that seem to go in circles with no resolution except a re-iteration that Guido disagrees with everyone else and can't support his position convincingly with references. Guido doesn't respond to anything that I've seen, blocks don't seem to help but perhaps escalation past a month will help. Though I despair at even that because a permanent block on multiple wikis doesn't seem to have helped at all. Perhaps this'll give Guido time to realize when that many other people say he did something, perhaps he did indeed do it, even if he disagrees. Reality on wiki is consensual for the purpose of mores. WLU (t) (c) 11:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Guido, why would we allow you to continue to edit, if many of use consider the way you are editing as often disruptive, and you don't give any indication of accepting the judgment or change of behaviour. All I see is (heavily paraphrased) "I'm blocked for no good reason, I want to be unblocked now, and I want to continue what I was doing". Since we obviously don't want you to continue in the same way, what reason would we have to unblock you now or in the future? Fram (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

@WLU: the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to 'let people edit in peace'. The purpose is to spread knowledge. If the editors-in-peace, that is you and Reto1Simone, spread falsehoods, and refuse to listen to people that actually know something about a topic, it is they who cause the disruption, not the users that refuse to go along with these falsehoods. It is very easy to stop this disruption without blocking me: agree to dispute resolution, as policy requires.

@Fram: the reason to unblock me (not for you, you are not neutral, but for neutral admins) would be that they realize that I am not the one who is disruptive, but that I am instead following policy and seeking dispute resolution as required, where the opposing side, including you, does not react to arguments, violates all kinds of policies, and responds with insults and abuse of admin power. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If you make accusations, please provide diffs. Otherwise, retract them. Fram (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just read this talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Where on this talk page have I "not reacted to arguments, violated all kinds of policies, and responded with insults and abuse of admin power"? Fram (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther King: "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see."

User:Guido den Broeder/Navigation Footer