Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Revision as of 08:33, 28 October 2018 edit Ymblanter (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 258,329 edits →‎Hundreds of garbage articles created by blocked user ← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:37, 28 October 2018 edit undo Swarm (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 32,749 edits →‎Fireflyfanboy: cmt Next edit →
Line 346: ::::::{{u\|Fireflyfanboy}}, when you call another editor a "jerk!!!", an "obstructionist", and a "WikiZealot", all in one single comment, you are not editing collaboratively and you are motivating scrutiny of your editing patterns. Excessive use of exclamation marks is an obvious problem, but bullying other editors is much worse. Work toward genuine consensus instead. [[User:Cullen328\|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328\|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 04:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC) :::::::Well, as the editor he called a jerk, obstructionist, and WikiZealot, I was willing to NAC no action close this myself if I saw a better understanding of consensus and civility. I suggest a brief, but escalated block. [[User:Objective3000\|O3000]] ([[User talk:Objective3000\|talk]]) 00:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC) *{{yo\|Fireflyfanboy}} This is not just because you got frustrated and lost your cool. Your conduct on that talk page, and article, through and through, is [[WP:DE\|disruptive]], [[WP:TE\|tendentious]], [[WP:POINTY\|POINTY]], [[WP:BATTLE\|combative]] [[WP:UNCIVIL\|uncivil]], and unreasonable. Frankly, you come across as impossible to reason with. This started because you re-added Trump's reaction, which was reverted because "[Trump] has no connection with [Bourdain].[https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Anthony_Bourdain&diff=862070292&oldid=862069755] You then made the false claim that "Protocol states that [sitting presidents' reactions are] included".[https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Anthony_Bourdain&diff=next&oldid=862070292] On the talk page, you relied on a [[WP:OTHERCRAP]] argument, and while it was pointed out to you that that rationale was not valid, the opposition extended ''beyond'' that. Calton ''immediately'' responded, pointing out that Obama's relation to the subject was different from that of Trump's, and that your desire to equivocate both pieces of content in an "all or nothing" approach "makes no sense", and called that approach "mindless whataboutism". Rather than showing ''any'' sort of indication that you were making any effort to [[WP:IDHT\|listen to]] and [[WP:CIR\|understand]] the points that were being made, you simply made the bizarre, detached statement "thanks for citing something unrelated and using an ad hominum attack against me instead of arriving at a consensus". It was then pointed out that you could make a proposal via an RfC, but rather than doing so, you proceeded to ''edit war'' over the removal of Obama based on your personal preference "all or nothing" approach, in spite of specific objections to that approach that were provided multiple times both in edit summaries and on the talk page. You were told by an (apparently) uninvolved party that you were being disruptive, and you were told to present a compelling, logical argument for including Trump for editors to decide whether to agree or disagree with. You then claimed that you already did, and your points were simply being ignored (while in reality, you were the one refusing to acknowledge a differing opinion). You apologized for making personal attacks, and then proceeded immediately to make another one ("he started it"). O3000 made a fairly neutral comment, but laid out plenty of procedural reasons he objected to your edits, and said that he didn't even have an opinion, and that he wanted to see a more convincing argument than the 'other articles' approach which you had been relying heavily on, to which your "new argument" essentially boiled down to "it's just significant". Nothing to back it up, just your opinion, which was already implied all along. No new information or compelling rationale. You just think it's significant. And, when this user, who didn't even have a strong opinion, and literally just wanted to see a good argument, was unconvinced by this incredibly shallow counterargument, and referred you back to the reasons you were already opposed, you became belligerent and personally attacked them again, claiming that they're a "zealot". A user who was neutral on the content dispute. I note that your talk page declares a general aversion to the "zealots" on this site, which is interesting. If that user is an example of what your userpage refers to, then that tells me that you have a tendency to invalidate your opponents in minor, good faith content disputes, even in situations where they're being perfectly reasonable, and when called out on it, you will blame your opponents by falsely accusing them of disruptive conduct. I think you're easily in the territory of the proposed one-week block, but based on the overall conduct I'm seeing here, I'm unconvinced that you will respond reasonably to it. So, I'm blocking indefinitely. This is not meant to be a draconian, harsh, or long block. It can be as short as you want it to be. However, you're going to have to actually address the problems with your behavior, show us that you understand what the problems are, and what you need to do to resolve them. When you submit a suitable unblock request, you can be unblocked without delay, but this is a collaborative project, and you're not displaying the [[WP:CIR\|competence]] required to collaborate and go about resolving disputes in good faith. [[User:Swarm\|<span style="background:white;color:black;font-family:serif;"> Swarm </span>]][[User talk:Swarm\|<span style="background:black;color:white;font-family:serif;"> talk </span>]] 08:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC) ==User forcing their edits through==