Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:27, 9 May 2012

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Misplaced Pages, Agent00f. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Misplaced Pages:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Misplaced Pages:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Hasteur (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I've contributed before to a few technical pages a different username and sometimes anonymously from work, but it's always nice to be invited by another and I will try to reciprocate.

Woah... you might want to explicitly declare the link between the accounts via Misplaced Pages:SOCK#NOTIFY for the different username as having multiple accounts for any reason except for a few very documented reasons is not allowed. Contributing via a IP is not explicitly prohibited, but make sure to stay away from the same discussions so as to not present the appearance of attempting to change the consensus with multiple accounts. Hasteur (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember what my prior account was named (apparently not the handle I commonly use) and have long lost use of email address it was listed under anyway. That's why I registered a new account in first place.

May 2012

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Misplaced Pages. Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're specifically referring to. I'm guessing it has something to do with claiming that either someone doesn't consider in the user experience, or someone only thinks in terms of bureaucratic rules. Both are provably true statements, and therefore not an assumption. Also, while both approach may have the side effect of ruining wiki, I've never said that was their intent. Agent00f (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

See your plethora of comments on WP:MMANOT talk page. Yes you have been calm and somewhat reasoned on some posts, but at this point, and for the majority of posts, you aren't doing anything but being disruptive and making accusations about people on personal missions, being bureaucrats, questioning their integrity and intelligence. You aren't helping anything. Why don't you spend some of this energy finding sources to prove why a single UFC event of your choosing is notable enough for a single article.Newmanoconnor (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Please be specific instead of using vague accusations. It's quite unfair if I'm not able to defend myself due to what I'm currently assuming is unintentional ambiguity. Everything I've said is well measured and backed by clear and indisputable evidence. For example, I have labeled this as a dispute between bureaucrats and user advocates: these are carefully chosen descriptive words derived from folks' descriptions of their own decision making process. If you have a problem with bureaucracy, please take it up with people who describe themselves as such, not the observer. As another example, it's trivial logic that the same set of information re-organized in a confusing format to get around the letter of the rules is not a "better" design in any conceivable way, therefore it's clearly insulting to tell users that it stands on its merits while trying to force them to take that blatant falsehood in good faith. Again, I see the problem as the action, not the observation.

As for the time I've spent forming numerous clear and rational arguments, that was only because I started out assuming that folks who claimed that "logical and rational" arguments would be taken into account were acting in good faith. Now we both know this was never going to be the case, so I'm not sure why you're puzzled how things turned out. Agent00f (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Final Warning regarding disruptive editing and lack of good faith assumptions

This is your final warning. Stop Filibustering, posting long diatribes regarding the unfairness, bureaucracy of wikipedia, entire arguments that the status quo for MMA articles "doesn't hurt anything", and deliberately attempting to derail the consensus process. The next posting you make on WT:MMANOT that strays into any of these realms, I will open a filing on the Administrator's Noticeboard asking for an outside Administrator to evaluate your posts in the context of "building a collaborative encyclopedia" to determine if sanctions (up to and including Topic banning you from all MMA related articles,blocking you from editing any wikipedia article,or banning you from the site entirely). This is not a threat, I am simply illuminating what the next step will be in the process. You've been warned my me, by other editors, and by an admin who is somewhat involved in the discussion. Please consider modifying your behavior as it is currently unacceptable. Hasteur (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So, is it the policy of wiki for editors to continuously make arbitrary accusations without evidence? I've asked for substantiation of any of these charges, but none has been forthcoming, so I'm puzzled as to why you believe them to be true. It's also notable that list of "banned by Hasteur" topics is currently what's under discussion at the MMA omnibus page, so the request is to essentially voluntarily ban myself from the conversation, or else. Look, I don't doubt that you have more pull with perhaps some other insiders that you've come to know in the past, but please consider how this kind of behavior reflects on your peers when one party to a "consensus" takes to threats to prevent the other side from participating. Agent00f (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. | pulmonological 17:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Regarding your edits to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. TreyGeek (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a bad habit of mine. I'm usually doing something else when I use the interwebs, but I'll try to keep this in mind. Agent00f (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your great work.

MMA Space

I'm certainly willing to contribute regularly and heavily to any of the following: Individual pages, omnibuses, pre-existing indexes and proposed indexes. What I'm more reluctant to contribute to is the notability guidelines. If you continue putting together intelligent proposals, I will continue to support them. The real issue with contributing right now, is the deletionist horde operating in that space, who are intent on getting us to put work in, which they will then nominate for deletion. I really don't want to edit articles with people standing behind me just waiting for me to finish, so they can blank the work. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't promising anything, but I think you'll like the ideas that are coming.... Hope you at least retain interest until Monday. :) Agent00f (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Agent00f. Thank you. Mtking 04:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
The purpose of talk pages is for discussion on how to improve articles, not for "revolutionary" announcements. If you wish to make such comments, your user talk page is an appropriate place. If you wish to directly discuss MMA notability guidelines, recent proposals, and/or your own MMA notability guidelines, that is welcome at WT:MMANOT. TreyGeek (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mtking 04:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Mtking 07:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the self revert, I will withdraw the 3RR if you undertake at WP:3RR/N not to redo edit later. Mtking 07:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The obvious subterfuge of this offer demonstrates that the message of the text was perceived to be a grave threat. Make no mistake, it was designed to be. Your 3RR threat is meaningless and I couldn't care less. Agent00f (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Call for sanctions. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop any more MMA deletions =

I have made a formal request at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to ban Newmanoconnor, Mtking and TreyGeek banned from deleteing more MMA pages, any help would be good

ScottMMA — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA (talk • contribs) 03:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

--Policy Reformer(c) 09:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Please take a few days off. Your participation in those MMA debates has long become nonconstructive, and your recent incessant, aggressive filibustering, mixed with personal attacks (most recent edit: , plus previous similar ones) is really no longer acceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This sanction only validates the observation that wiki rules are trivially gamed by the likes of Mtking, while earnest users who try to point out systemic shortcomings are punished. The MMA Notability debate has been nonconstructive for months and will continue to be unless something is changed, yet an attempt at restarting it sans the common denominator of past failures is being blocked. This AN has been like a parody of what's been going on there: substantive contributors driven off while the petty bureaucrats reign. Agent00f (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

PS, did someone forget to edit the policies page? I just checked and FORUMSHOP and ADMINSHOP are still listed as violations rather than encouraged for efficacy. Agent00f (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Agent00f (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The blocking admin only refers broadly to "filibustering", and "personal attacks" while failing to provide any actual reasoning to relate these accusations to my comments other than they're "unacceptable". The substantive content I've added only state directly observable facts of the case (which can admittedly shine a poor light on some users, as is rather the point of an AN), since admin decisions need to be based on a complete understanding of facts. Note this AN was only the latest by the same party (3 users) against me, so it was only appropriate to be detailed and verbose to avoid yet more frivolous AN's in the future. As far as I can tell, the Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise is only citing WP:TLDR, which doesn't exist, and blocking someone who isn't just tossing about 1-liner as seems to be the norm and therefore expected. Agent00f (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Substantiation according to WP:GAB,

1. Admit to it.. It would help if I knew specifically what I need to admit to. Contributing substantive and complete arguments is in the spirit of both wiki and debate in general. Contributing directly observable facts, even if the list is long, is also not against the rules. For example, in a DUI case, iterating prior DUI's and other factual events that relate to personal responsibility are entirely relevant, even if they reflect badly.
2. Make people trust you again. I can't imagine why there was any distrust in the first place, unless there's an inherently distrust of those who substantially back up their assertion.
3. Don't do it again. . I suppose I can stop doing this, and fit in by only dropping one-lines packed with WP:RULES to be contradict by someone with their WP:OTHERRULES, but IMO this doesn't really help given it's what led to the string of past failures on this whole affair.
4. Tell us why you are here. This whole MMA/wiki affair is a classic case where the aggregate level of intelligence displayed has been insufficient to solve it. The topic is a cesspool of circular reasoning and terrible logic. Compounding the problem by piling more warm bodies onto the "consensus" process won't help, and I'm trying to propose a smarter process which still involves all parties and bypasses the former obstacles. The AN which I suppose circumstantially led to this block was from a wholesale deletion of this proposal by a party who is a common denominator in all the past failures.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise made this block without closure or even a note to the AN that was initially created as yet another frivolous harassment against me. Others are now allowed to make accusations unopposed; this seems wrong. Agent00f (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I guess you missed the part of GAB called NOTTHEM. Read that, then try again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:41, 9 May 2012 (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.

Agent00f (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The block only refers broadly to "filibustering", and "personal attacks" while failing to provide any actual reasoning to relate these accusations to my comments other than they're "unacceptable". The substantive content in question only state directly observable facts of the case, since admin decisions need to be based on a complete understanding of facts. It was entirely appropriate to be detailed and verbose to avoid yet more frivolous AN's in the future given this one was only the latest in a string against me. The blocking reason seems functionally equivalent to WP:TLDR, which AFAICT doesn't exist. Substantiation according to WP:GAB,

1. Admit to it.. It would help if what specifically I need to admit to. Contributing substantive and complete arguments is in the spirit of both wiki and debate in general. Contributing directly observable facts, even if the list is long, is also not against the rules. For example, in a DUI case, iterating prior DUI's and other factual events that relate to personal responsibility are entirely relevant, even if they reflect badly.
2. Make people trust you again. It's not obvious why there's distrust in the first place, unless there's an inherently distrust of substantial assertions.
3. Tell us why you are here. There's a given affair on wiki that's persisted for many months despite multiple attempts at resolution. I'm trying to propose a smarter process which still involves all parties and bypasses the former obstacles. The block was a circumstantial side-effect (not the closure) of an AN involving this affair. Agent00f (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC) I guess you missed the part of GAB called NOTTHEM. Read that, then try again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC) :Again. Agent00f (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Looking at your editing history, I see a solid battleground mentality, with multiple extensive posts which at their best are designed to explain why everyone you don't agree with doesn't know what they are talking about, and at their worst are full of accusations of evil conspiracies. I also see numerous unmistakable declarations that you regard yourself as on a sort of crusade to force through what you regard as the RIGHT view, against the forces of evil in the form of those who have different views from yourself. I see substantial disruption caused by huge numbers of unreasonably long diatribes. And so on and so on ... there are so many ways in which your editing is just not constructive, whatever your intentions may be. There is nothing to suggest that you would edit in any other way if you were unblocked: on the contrary, you deny that there is any problem with your editing, and make it perfectly clear that you have no intention of changing. The one thing about the block which, it seems to me, may be considered open to question, is that it is for so short a time. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this addresses nothing written in the unblock request, and seems to be its own battle rant on how terrible I am without any attempt to understand the context and therefore basis of its conclusion. It's hard to imagine this meets any kind of institutional standard for addressing a specific problem much less wiki admin. Agent00f (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2012 (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.

Um, did you put subst: in front of this? It makes your unblock request unusable. Of course, so does your request ... please see WP:GAB, WP:TE and WP:DISRUPT, then maybe delete the unblock and try again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but it's best if uninvolved editors take this request. Substantiation of claims is also welcome as always. Also please do not assume unfamiliarity with formal academic standards of logic. Agent00f (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note; I already declined the above unblock request, but I don't have the time to fix everything now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Your decline was noted and appropriately fixed. Agent00f (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, per WP:BLANKING, you aren't supposed to remove declined templates while the block is current. Ishdarian 03:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Noted. In return also note I didn't delete The Blade of the Northern Lights's comments. I would also appreciate it if someone can address the contents of the request instead of just deferring to technicalities. Agent00f (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw that. It's just that the template was gone. I'll talk to you about the contents, just give me a minute... Ishdarian 04:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Agent00f for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to validate the claims of WP:HARASSMENT terrorism by the MMA AfD clique targeting any dissent. No doubt 86.149.148.121 is hesitant to sign up since we all know that happens to people who speak out. I'll add this to the mountain of supporting evidence against the clique in only the latest of frivolous AN's SPI's against me. Agent00f (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not harassment, it's genuine concern that you were evading a block. It's nothing to freak out over. FYI Hasteur came to your defense. I don't have any way to check a named accounts IP's, but apparently the suspicious one is from the UK, and Hasteur believes you are from the US...Or knows it. Not sure which.Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's just more of the tactic that this same group has been using against anyone who dares dissent against their historic string of failures (over many months) to reach any kind of lasting resolution on this topic. I've only joined for about a week or two and the trash above from them on my talk page is but a small sample of their general strategy and pattern of harassment, intimidation, and subterfuge. No assumptions are necessary here when the evidence is so clear. Agent00f (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So because the accusation was made for any reason you're going to strike out at anybody? Ok, my good faith extensions (Defending you on the SPI, asking that discussions be held up until you're unblocked) are over with. I tried to extend a olive branch after being counseled privately that I was coming across as a bit of a dick. I look forward to our mutually beneficial collaboration once you're unblocked. Hasteur (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

We're talking about the pattern of harassment exhibited by the exact same predicable parties against anyone who do not accept that they're the authoritative voice of the disccusion. Simply look at the massive influx of junk above by the same few people, look at their history of action (including torrents of AfD's while discussions are ongoing) against MMA contributors/users, and lack of any substantiation once they're called out. If someone else has better words to describe this, the floor is open to them. Agent00f (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f, I'm sorry this made you feel that way,it certainly was not my intention,which is why i struck the above and in the SPI said i would defer to the other guys on this matter,who both said it wasnt you.Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about how I "feel", but rather the fact of the case. "We'll stop harassing you if you stop dissenting" is not evidence that harassment did not occur. This systematic pattern of harassment has the effect of discouraging participation from other voices, regardless of intent. The only way to demonstrate otherwise is to cease this category of actions altogether, including MtKing who is the presiding pinnacle of such behavior. Agent00f (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Teatime

Agent, I know you want to help out with the MMA fiasco, but you're going about it the wrong way. Right now, here's what your block says:

• 15:06, 6 May 2012 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) blocked Agent00f (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (disruptive editing: aggressive filibustering, walls of text and personal attacks on WP:ANI and elsewhere)

• This edit is a prime example of disruptive behaviour.
• This edit is an example of the soapboxing, and the edit summary is lacking in the assuption of good faith to boot.
• Soapboxing again, and the 'no one trusts them as human beings' bit is a personal attack.

This stuff isn't really acceptable per community norms. I appreciate the fact that you're bringing a different perspective to the issue, but you need to do it in a calm, collected fashion. Use policy and diffs to re-enforce your points, not massive walls-of-text. I can assume good faith with all editors involved, because everyone is trying to better the 'pedia. There are holes in the policy right now, and that's what you, me, Anna, Trey, Connor, MtKing, et. all, are trying to plug up. It takes consensus, and consensus takes time. If you see a point you don't agree with, refute the point. Don't bash the editor. Don't refer to like-minded groups as cliques; it puts a barrier between you and them. We should all be working together, not against each other. Ishdarian 04:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

We're on the same page that not everyone who disagrees with any particular POV is in a "clique", and even if they somehow are, there might be good reason. However, it's difficult to deny the categorization altogether when you see two users who worked closely to the exclusion of others (a fact directly confirmed by admin Dennis) both participate in a revert war yet write me up for 3RR by circumventing the brightline rule between themselves (breaking the internal logic/spirit of the rule via collusion as mathematically defined). I tried to be accurate and objective, not simply throwing around epithets. In the same vein, I can't see what's fundamentally disruptive with producing a list of clear violations by two users in question in an AN.

In general, while some the wording of the content from me above was perhaps a bit SOAPish to convey a point, the message is true and intended to highlight a substantive argument. If it's wiki policy to always formulate the message in a given format as a rule, then I can certainly comply and accept the sanction as a lesson learned about prose, but it doesn't change meaning.

On the point of "assuming" good faith, I've observed on the subject before that those familiar with the course of events often no longer have to assume. The material/links on this talk page is illustration enough of "what happens" to people who are not in a small fold on acceptable opinions. We both know the same doesn't happen if I were on the other side of the issue. It's disappointing when this kind of admin/rule-shopping finally conveniently finds the right one.

In general, we're in agreement and I have no reason to complain about wiki policy except when it's in violation of the 5th pillar. Processes are guidelines (ie. generalizations) in place to resolve a majority of problems, and this affair is simply not within that 95% it's designed to conveniently resolve. To avoid re-writing what's already been said, the last reply here to Policy Reformer who makes the same argument reflects my view on why continuing to make the same assumptions when there is a history of failure seems wrong. I apologize it's not directly related to the block at hand but there's no reason to violate the block in spirit again by ranting, so please just ignore the THEM and SOAP parts since rest apply.

I appreciate the reply, though I suppose none of us appreciates the fact the process thus far has consumed a lot of time with questionable results. Agent00f (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The 3RR issue never should have gotten to where it did. If you had known about the rule, I guarentee you wouldn't have wandered into that territory. It wasn't really forum shopping to report you at WP:AN3. That board is there specificly to deal with edit-warring and 3RR violations. Those who lurk AN/I know that posting 3RR vios at AN/I is generally bad juju.

This issue is slowly crawling forward. I know it seems like a lot of the same, but at WT:MMANOT, there is actually progress towards setting up an RfC. And they're waiting for you to come off your block to give your input. This is the furthest this ordeal has gotten in months. A lot of the badgering socks have gone away. What we have left are valuable contributors.

You come off your block in a few hours. I suggest waiting it out till then. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I think you need to lay off the ditribes while participating in the current MMA discussion. If you feel anyone is doing anything against policy or trying to bait you into getting into trouble, come talk to me; I'm more than happy to help. Ishdarian 06:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention: Assuming good faith goes very far. Stating On the point of "assuming" good faith, I've observed on the subject before that those familiar with the course of events often no longer have to assume is not the kind of attitude to have when requesting an unblock. Even if you don't agree with how someone is going about things, never assume bad faith; it only leads to trouble, and a very painful 'rang. Ishdarian 06:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. On "diatribes", I often find that describing a complex idea simply (esp when using external logic), it can create unnecessary confusion and even more work afterward. The consequence is a balance between oversimplification and "obfuscation". The reality is that when someone uses incorrect reasoning, they're often wrong for nontrivial reasons not easily codified. If you look carefully, most of IRL and wiki-law in particular is specifically designed to avoid actual reasoning for other social processes (ie compromise, etc). Agent00f (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)