Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:31, 18 April 2017

Repeated addition of controversial material

Do not reintroduce controversial material once challenged and removed from an article as you have done at Battle of Brisbane without consensus. Repeatedly doing so is considered to be a form of disruptive editing. If you do so again, you may be blocked from editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The contents was removed after consensus from registered users, when an IP user, repeatedly deleted it, and refused to continue discussion of their intentions. Their claims were demonstrably false, and your intervention is unhelpful, your threats, and accusations ridiculous.Senor Freebie (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Once an addition to an article is challenged by reversion it must not be re-added to the article w/o talk page consensus which I am not seeing. At this point you appear to be edit warring. Also please do not respond to attempts at discussion with personal attacks or other uncivil commentary and or edit summaries. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you really calling the existence of segregation controversial? This is utterly ridiculous.--Senor Freebie (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

A read of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, not truth may be useful here. As rnddude put it, "what's written in the article is not what is written in ". Certainly your statements may well be true; if however the sources only support some of those statements, and not all of them, then the unsupported statements need to be removed. Nobody has called into question the existence of segregation, not even the IP, who has merely disputed whether the sources support the fact that segregation was a contributing factor to the Battle of Brisbane. Alcherin (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

The admin who has blocked me either has a clear ideological reason for blocking me, or has not bothered to read the contents of the discussion at Battle of Brisbane. A segment of that article was deleted without discussion, and I restored and improved it while discussing the reasons for this with a number of users. The IP user who deleted the segment initially engaged in that discussion, but when it became clear that they'd lost the argument, they ceased discussion, and made bad faith undos, and edits, with deliberately misleading edit summaries. I have tried to discuss this in a civil, but bold fashion with the admin who became involved, but they have refused to engage or explain their behaviour. Segregation in the US military during IS a fact. I cannot believe that I have to argue that in 2017, on Misplaced Pages. Senor Freebie (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is not the place to argue about your content dispute, and attacking the blocking admin will certainly not get you unblocked. You must not edit war, regardless of who is right, and that is what you must address if you want to be unblocked. Please do take note of what Ad Orientem says below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2017 (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.

@Boing! said Zebedee:Ad Orientem has said that I was warned repeatedly, but as is clear on this page, there is only 1 warning above. They have also said that I made personal attacks, without referring to them. Now you also say that I have attacked them, when I have simply described behaviour that is easily demonstrable. Please explain to me how this constitutes an attack, when I am simply trying to get them to reflect on what I view as incorrect statements. Surely this is not Misplaced Pages's definition of a personal attack. If this was the case, then you could never address incorrect decisions.--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You were edit warring at that article, "The admin who has blocked me either has a clear ideological reason for blocking me..." is a bad faith accusation that will not help you get unblocked, and this talk page is not the place to continue your content argument. And you've been here long enough to know those things. I want to see you unblocked as soon as possible and back to editing, but there's really no way any admin could have accepted that request. It's up to you whether you want to try a different approach or whether you prefer to sit out the 24 hours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. The other admin has refused to clarify what they meant by a personal attack, when asked repeatedly, and claims that I was warned multiple times, when it is clear above that I was not. My statement was not in bad faith, given this context, especially since this admin has levelled similar accusations against me, without even specifying why. I'm very disappointed to see that you are ignoring that. This is an egregious outcome.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

There are multiple personal attacks in that article talk page. You stop them or you face further blocks - it is as simple as that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

You have been warned repeatedly about edit warring and your uncivil attacks on other editors. Further edit warring and or personal attacks will result in a longer block. I have removed the section in dispute and it is NOT to be re-added until there is talk page consensus on its exact wording. For the record I have also blocked the IP for 1 week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There is only 1 warning above, and you have stated incorrectly that I've made personal attacks on other users. I would like to know your reason for that. The talk page IS in consensus about the segment remaining. There are issues about which content within that segment is adequately sourced, but there are other ways, such as a citation needed flag, for addressing that. The current behaviour of the IP user is demonstrably in bad faith, and I honestly have to question your behaviour too, for your false accusations of personal attacks.--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

If you do not understand that your attacks on other editors, accusing them of bad faith editing, being trolls and or favoring racial segregation is unacceptable, then you are forcing me to question whether you are capable of contributing to the project without causing serious disruption. As for edit warring that is even more beyond doubt. You and the IP have both repeatedly violated 3RR despite numerous warnings. I have appealed to both of you without success. So we are where we are. Stop edit warring and moderate your tone in talk page discussions or this is not going to end well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I can demonstrate the things that I claim, something I've asked you to do repeatedly. And in doing so, I would be demonstrating that you have not adequately investigated this issue before intervening. You keep on referring to numerous warnings, yet you've only made one above, and you refused to clarify the circumstances in which you made the others, on another user's talk page. How can I possibly think that you're acting in good faith given this context? And are you really making an implied threat, to ban me from editing altogether? Because if so, you ought to make that boldly, and using the appropriate template, rather than through subtle, mistakable statements.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

There have been multiple warnings, here and on the article talk page, that the aggressive edit warring has to stop. I'm giving you one final one now - no more edit warring and no more snarky personal attacks on those who disagree with you (such as calling them trolls, vandals, etc, and all the other insults you have leveled at them), or you will face further action. This has gone on for months, and it will stop! I'm certainly not blaming you alone for the dispute, and neither is Ad Orientem - both edit warring parties were blocked, and the same future sanctions are hanging over everyone. But you stop the aggressive and attacking approach now, or you will be stopped. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

And if you want specific examples of your attacks/insults/accusations, here are several from the article talk page:

1. "At this point, your behaviour is more troll-like than even ideological and biased".
2. "I'm not sure where you came from, or why you think you can take ownership of this article".
3. "IP user, who has shown bad faith in editing"
4. "the new user, who was uninvolved, is ignoring the previous discussion"
5. "the IP user is attempting to build a false consensus"

And in edit summaries:

1. "IP user is lying"
2. "Vandal keeps re-adding section that has been disproved in the Talk page" (My error, apologies)
3. "Undoing bad faith editing"
4. "Not disputed by registered users" (implying that IPs are inferior users)

It did not take me long to find those examples, and in the material I examined I did not see a single snark/insult/accusation made by anyone else - while the edit warring is certainly two-sided, the snark is all one-sided and is all coming from you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

In response to your above comment:

1. "At this point, your behaviour is more troll-like than even ideological and biased". - This was in response to the IP user deliberately mis-representing another user's argument, in a plain, and clear to see fashion, after they had engaged in edit-warring, despite the repeated warnings.
2. "I'm not sure where you came from, or why you think you can take ownership of this article". - I was mistaken here. I had not realised that I was simultaneously responding to the same user in 2 separate places. Without that context. There is no insult in the above comment.
3. "IP user, who has shown bad faith in editing". - Edit warring, particularly after being warned is bad faith. Removing content without discussion, and in contradiction of discussion is bad faith. Do I need to provide diffs for this?
4. "the new user, who was uninvolved, is ignoring the previous discussion" - Stated fact. Check the diffs.
5. "the IP user is attempting to build a false consensus" - Again, related to the above comment about trolling.

And as for edit summaries:

1. "IP user is lying ... Section was discussed, and new content was added, per discussion, to more accurately reflect the source material." - followed immediately after this blatant lie and personal attack against me: "Vandal keeps re-adding section that has been disproved in the Talk page."
2. "Vandal keeps re-adding section that has been disproved in the Talk page" ... you're kidding me right? Seriously? I demand an apology for this.

   My mistake, I misread that one, so I have struck it and I do apologize for the error. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

3. "Undoing bad faith editing." ... did you read the remainder of that edit summary? Or the diff?
4. "Not disputed by registered users" ... This was not the implication. This comes almost immediately after this comment from another user; "Revert anon. He has been given sources for the content." which is functionally identical.

I'm not going to debate this with you. Your above responses strongly suggest that you just don't get it. Two admins have told you repeatedly to moderate your manner of communicating with other editors. If you choose to ignore this you are heading for another block. And no, this is not a threat. It is however a Final Warning in my capacity as an administrator. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I need to strongly reiterate that I do not believe that you have adequately explained yourself. The other admin attempted to help you by listing personal attacks that I allegedly made, including this one: "Vandal keeps re-adding section that has been disproved in the Talk page", which was by far the worst of that admin's accusations. I challenge you to read it, and consider what it says for a moment, to determine whether or not I am being treated fairly...

Threatened with blocks for having personal attacks levelled against me. Worst still. Having those very same personal attacks used as evidence that I am in the wrong.

I have acted fairly, and with appropriate candour, within my understanding of the Misplaced Pages rules, including the requirement to be bold.

You cannot simply keep on saying that I should 'get it', when you have not once explained yourself.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I think you've had all the explanation you are going to get (and I think the explanations are more than adequate). You have had your final warnings from two of us - whether you think your snark is justified or not, you simply need to stop it now and adjust your style of interaction with others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I have not had an explanation from the original admin. He has levelled multiple, severe attacks and accusations against me, without providing a single bit of evidence or explanation, and in his defence the worst you could find was a very severe, and deliberately dishonest personal attack made against me. If you can't stop for a second and understand why I might be this frustrated by the process I have gone through, after I made the initial attempt to get the page protected, then I don't know what else to say. I will be seeking outside opinions as broadly as I can unless you see fit to review the actions taken here, in detail.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

See my reply to you on Boing's talk page. Beyond that ANI is this way but I STRONGLY urge you to read WP:BOOMERANG before going there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I retract my comment above about being mistaken regarding rnddude; "rnddude ... I'm not sure where you came from, or why you think you can take ownership of this article, including stating that clearly cited information is 'ficticious', but you need to at least acknowledge the lengthy discussion above, rather than simply chatting to an IP user, who has shown bad faith in editing." - the full context of this is a reply to his edit summary, which was as follows: "The stuff about Australian troops treating Aborigines more kindly, is a complete fabrication not mentioned in either of the cited sources."

At the time, there was an ongoing discussion, that had determined that this information was in the source material. The bold claim that the information was a fabrication was clearly incorrect. Notably, that user has not returned after having this pointed out via additional sources.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I do not like blocking people. PLEASE stop your endless snark and drama. If you persist, and I'm very afraid that you will, this is going to end with a long term block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I have been asking, consistently, for the blocking admin to explain his previous warnings, , and that user has consistently refused to explain themselves. I just found the admin , to reinforce their attacks without, I believe, appropriate scrutiny, and I have demonstrated that not only were many of the allegations made by the second admin against me false, but that this situation began when I was attacked by another user. Senor Freebie (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Declining, per the comment from Boing below. I agree with the revoking of talk page access, and also agree that you MUST drop the stick at this point, or face an indefinite block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2017 (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.

Colluding? Seriously? Your gross and flagrant attacks on other editors, yes including myself and Boing! said Zebedee, have reached the point where I am just not going to put up with it anymore. Your editing history speaks for itself as do the comments and warnings running across four talk pages now. If you engage in another such attack I will extend your block and revoke your editing privileges on your talk page. Enough is enough. This disruption is coming to an end one way or another. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the comment on collusion. I made that immediately after finding out that the review for my previous block was conducted by someone that Ad Orientem specifically called for said review, while making what I view to be a personal attack against me. Said personal attack may have led to mistakes in the judgement of the other admin, which they have since apologised for. This is without a doubt a non-independent process, and having only just discovered this at the time, I used the first word that came to mind to describe it.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin: My above comment is without prejudice to your own review of the unblock request. If you think I am wrong, let me know. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It is my firm belief that you are the source of this disruption, not me. You appear, at least to me, to be continuing to engage in this in an nonconstructive manner despite my repeated requests for constructive criticism, over personal attacks. If my editing history speaks for itself, point out what's wrong with it. Please.

That you're not doing so is denying me even the remotest chance of the right of reply. I do not know what I am accused of, because you have only referred to it in the most general, and often (again in my view) contradictory terms.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• As you using this talk page to continue making personal attacks (and escalating them) and to continue the drama, while totally refusing to consider that anything you have done or said could possibly have been in the slightest bit wrong (despite a clear agreement between two admins here and a third party at the article talk page), I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page for the duration of the block. And I think that is for your own good - had you been allowed to continue like this, I think the block would have been extended. If the admin who reviews this request disagrees with me, they are welcome to reinstate that privilege - but either way, please do listen to whatever the reviewer says, as you are very close to your last chance for stick-dropping now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

"As you using this talk page to continue making personal attacks (and escalating them) and to continue the drama, while totally refusing to consider that anything you have done or said could possibly have been in the slightest bit wrong". This completely contradicts my statement above. Can I ask if you read it before writing the above?--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your ban

I'd recommend you to stop now. I've been in a similar situation not with edit warring but with disruptive editing. I thought I did nothing wrong and complained about being blocked at first. When I finally acknowledged i was in the wrong, it was helpful. People called for an indef block against me and I got off with only two weeks. I feel that acknowledging my mistakes was partially why (there are other larger reasons I won't get into) I got off so luckily. I'd recommend you take a wikibreak for the duration of the ban and come back fresher. Then we can generate a calm and collected discussion that actually produces some results without getting you blocked again. I'd be more willing to take your side if you didn't lose your temper so quickly, and it would help your case to have a better relationship with the involved parties. Also, even though I'm kinda doing this now, don't go out of your way to comment on other people's talk pages. These administrators are just doing their jobs and they have no bad feelings against you yourself. Going out of your way to comment on their talk pages, demanding an apology just because they were involved, won't help your case. If you need assistance or have a question about dealing with conflicts relating to editing, please don't refrain from dropping a message on my talk page and I'll try to assist you as much as I can. Trust another editor who's been in this situation before, you should take a break rather than hold a grudge. You can definitely recover from this and continue to have a discussion if you stop having 'personal attacks' as your go-to rebuttal. Just take a break for a week, and drop me a message when you come back to enwiki. If you see this please respond once you run the clock on your ban. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

1. You state; "Going out of your way to comment on their talk pages, demanding an apology just because they were involved", but you seem to ignore the fact that an apology was given, and a retraction was made.
2. You also state; "I'd be more willing to take your side if you didn't lose your temper so quickly," Can you give me an example of somewhere that you believe that I lost my temper?
3. Most importantely, you state; "When I finally acknowledged i was in the wrong, it was helpful." - I'll do that when the original admin who has levelled so many accusations against me actually tells me what I've done. So far, nobody has done that. I have been asking ... if not begging, for that to happen, and instead, that admin has blocked me with inadequate warning, brought presumed allies in to handle my requests for reviews of their actions, and when I've asked again for an explanation, they've blocked my ability to even ask. Please, if they won't, could you at least tell me what I've done that is so wrong?--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll give you a simple example; brought presumed allies in and I just found the admin colluding with another. You're suggesting that there is factioning occuring on the part of both admins. This is, in my opinion, absolutely not what has happened, but, more importantly you're accusing them of what is tantamount to battlegrounding behaviour. Something that not only doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but, could be perceived as the casting of aspersions. Ad Orientem turned to request assistance from a long standing and well respected administrator. This is a common practice for a less experienced one, or, one who feels too involved to take an action that could be perceived as being motivated by negative feelings. I have interacted with both of the concerned admins on many occassions and like and respect both of them. Now, conveying my own personal opion, I don't think the handling of "this" was great, but, that responsibility lies with more than any single person involved. What I will say, is the block did not come out of nowhere and for no reason. It was motivated by the very real concerns of edit-warring and personal attacks that Ad Orientem had and which Boing himself, to my eye, confirmed with his own examination and not conspiratorial collaboration. I fail to see what ideological motive either admin involved could have held in this case either. I hope this goes someway in helping to understand where some of this is coming from. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I should point out that my first interaction here was when I declined an unblock request, here, and that was not at the behest of anyone - I saw it while reviewing unblock requests, which is something I do regularly. All communication between Ad Orientem and me was subsequent to that, and on the basis that both of us had already independently involved ourselves here in an administrative capacity. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Boing! Thank you for pointing that out. Due to the order I discovered these conversations, I was under the mistaken belief that you had been called in, specifically. And I'm sorry for drawing that incorrect link. rnddude; thank you for your explanation. The reason I initially believed that there was ideological motivation, was also due to a misunderstanding. I had personal attacks levelled against me, but I was warned by an admin for saying that these were false accusations, when I thought that I'd responded fairly. I'd taken your comment about a portion of the controversial segment being fictitious to be about the whole segment, and the admin, from what I recall had defended that comment. Since then, I've been trying to request an explicit explanation of what it was that I did, and I've had the conversation shut down, rather than responded to.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Brisbane

I suggest it is not productive to respond to or engage with IP 36. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been explicitly warned for treating them as any different to other contributors, so I'm doing my best to respond to their actions in that vein, as I'm concerned that I will be banned if I do not.--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that responding serves no good purpose except to escalate the matter. What is done, is done for all to see. IMO Cinderella157 (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You're probably right. I feel as if they've been trying to bait me into an over-reaction the entire time, especially with the accusations of vandalism, and it's this behaviour that provoked the moderators into rash decisions.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)