User talk:Worldedixor: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 32:

[[User:Worldedixor|Worldedixor]] ([[User talk:Worldedixor#top|talk]]) 04:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Line 72 ⟶ 70:

:* As for question 5, I will just put this behind because I see recent comments by P123ct1 that may indicate a sincere awareness and change of heart helped by GregKaye's mediation. If P123ct1 is sincere and time will tell, and if I see no digs, remarks, notes tracking me, nothing underhanded, I will even go further and go back to our initial cooperation as it was back in July.

:* I admit that I cannot tolerate bias and injustice, and as I once stated: "My attitude is a reflection of the way I am treated. Treat me with respect for my knowledge and well sourced contributions, and don't gang up on me when I have not even communicated with you, and I will treat you better." I also admit that I need to improve my style and attitude as they always mirror the style and attitude of those who address me, and I invite you to do the same, Bishonen. As for Tecnophant and Dougweller, I will also just leave that behind, as I saw Dougweller showing evenhandedness today, and I would like to see this become a new beginning for all, including "BullRangifer" who also seem to have a change of heart, and a sincere change in his ways, and thanked me for my edit on my Talk Page today. [[User:Worldedixor|Worldedixor]] ([[User talk:Worldedixor#top|talk]]) 19:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

::: "Thanked"? Well yes, I thanked you because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Worldedixor&diff=633203806&oldid=633202778 you thanked someone else] for doing something good. That's not even the slightest "change of heart" or change of my opinion about your bad attitude and delusionally high opinion of yourself.

::: Your competence lies exclusively in narrowly limited aspects of your knowledge and language abilities (no one denies that), but you are totally incompetent when it comes to behavioral issues, and that's what's gotten you into trouble. No amount of good editing, special knowledge, or skills can atone for the other problems. Your list below of such things is a waste of time. Good edits one place cannot pay for bad behavior elsewhere. Both sides of the balance must be good.

::: I had hoped that you would begin to admit that others' opinion of your massive IDHT behavior is correct, but I don't see any recognition or admission on your part. You still condition any change or improvement of your behavior on a prior change in the behavior of others, IOW you still blame others for your problems. I suspect that you actually are incapable of understanding these matters and cannot see yourself as others see you, which indicates a serious "behavioral competency" problem.

::: You are standing in the middle of a circle, with many capable and experienced editors surrounding you, all pointing fingers at you, and yet you claim they are all wrong. That type of megalomania is rarely curable, and it's not our job to do it. Come back when you have learned the meaning of humility and incorporated it in your own life. Until then you will never be a team player. Here we must edit collegially with editors who hold opposing POV. Without such collaboration, our content is crap. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 06:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::::Megalomania?... Oh brother, did I misconstrue your intentions when you thanked me. That's OK, life has its way to create balance. [[User:Worldedixor|Worldedixor]] ([[User talk:Worldedixor#top|talk]]) 08:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|reason= As outlined above|decline= Worldedixor, I'm declining your unblock request, because your method of presentation is so chaotic, I have serious concerns that you are [[WP:CIR|competent]] enough to edit Wikipedia. I suggest you write a new unblock request which coherently explains why you should be unblocked. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 23:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC) }}

:: That's OK, [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]]... I accept your admin decision but I am far from not being competent. I have seen where I was wrong, with the help of GregKaye, even PC123ct1 and BullRangifer, who, in their own way, showed their true colors today, but it was ''not'' incompetence. If you wish to do the right thing and go through my article edits to judge correctly whether I am [[WP:CIR|competent]] enough to edit Wikipedia and change your decision and statement about my competence, then that would be great. If not, no big deal.

::For easy reference,I will iterate a few quick examples so you can get familiar with my edits.

:: 1.Made quick fix to syntax

:: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=630832212&oldid=630823714

:: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&oldid=630832212

:: 2. Corrected a common error often made by beginner, even advanced level Arab language learners

:: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=prev&oldid=625044809

:: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&oldid=625044809

:: 3. Fixed a common error made by the RS provided from The Jamestown Foundation)

:: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Management_of_Savagery&diff=prev&oldid=625009959

:: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Management_of_Savagery&oldid=625009959

:: 4. Added the real identity of Abu Bakr Naji, a very little known content with RS

:: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Management_of_Savagery&diff=624907296&oldid=624906056

:: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Management_of_Savagery&oldid=624907296

::I also saved the ISIL page from a disaster caused by a new editor when no one else could.

:: Cheerio. [[User:Worldedixor|Worldedixor]] ([[User talk:Worldedixor#top|talk]]) 01:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:I won't decline the unblock but I believe the block was completely appropriate. Comments such as "recent comments by P123ct1 that may indicate a sincere awareness and change of heart" suggest that Worldedixor's attacks were justified rather than what I have always seen as hounding. The comment about Bishonen is patronising. And the suggestion that he will change is both unlikely given past behavior and heavily qualified (''if'' other people behave). [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 21:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

::I appreciate that you have shown evenhandedness and that goes far towards a new beginning for all. I believe you misunderstood what I wrote. What I referred to was a step beyond whereby "I will ''even'' go further". As for your reference to ''if'' other people behave, I believe that everyone should behave as policy does not allow some not to behave. In any case, if what I did, believing that I followed policy, is actually hounding, which is a policy violation, then I do not want to violate policy in the future. [[User:Worldedixor|Worldedixor]] ([[User talk:Worldedixor#top|talk]]) 21:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

:::[[User:Worldedixor|Worldedixor]] I am so happy, genuinely thrilled with your response re: q. 5. Obviously I can only comment on either you or [[User:P123ct1|P123ct1]] in the time that I have known you and regarding my by no means complete reading of previous materials and, in both cases, I don't know how much change I can honestly report. In the case of P123ct1 all I can claim is that I made an offer to facilitate mediation between the two of you. P123ct1 and I have also developed a good working relationship within which concerted attempts have been made to resolve differences between me and Technophant and, in this whole process, to an extent, various understandings of editing habits may have become apparent. While editors like P123ct1 and I have certainly gained experience I can't report any change in disposition not by my mediation or anyone elses. If there has been a change of heart for which I can take the credit, I'll take it :) However, my experience is, in violent contrast to other experiences, has been of an editor that has consistently been straightforward, direct and, in positive ways, regularly challenging. One of the valued insights shared with me is that Wikipedia can be a mixture of a bear pit and a snake pit. I think that the challenge for all of us is, no matter what else happens around us, don't join adopt the tactics of the snake. From my experience and also from evidence of the report of others I know that as an editor you have plenty to offer and yet, from what I have seen, you also have the potential to lash out in sharp as well as firm ways. That's just a perspective and something, in my mediation, I would advise you to try to take to heart.

:::I have nothing against pedantry and certainly, if it is directed in positive directions, it can be appropriate route to excellence. I don't know if this is an issue but pedantry, when directed to expectations of the standards of others, can be a recipe for trouble. Sometimes battles are lost. Sometimes there are manipulations. Sometimes there are small or great wrongs. Certainly there may, on occasion, be battles to fight but a potentially important principle to bear in mind is that [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning|Wikipedia is not about winning]]. I don't know how much, if any, of this applies but my worry is that the same issues that got you in trouble with previous editors may generate other troubles in future.

:::As I say, your experience may have been different, but my experience with the one mentioned editor has been good while experiences with some other editors have been less so. I find it a huge leap forward that you can perhaps recognise the possibility of good. Test everything and hold to the good.

:::I also deeply respect that you "cannot tolerate bias and injustice". Sometimes you have to. There are some wrongs which, depending on context, you can't fight (at least not always in ways where the rectification of the wrong would be worth the cost); other wrongs you can and some "wrongs" may not be wrong at all.

:::I don't think that there is any issue relating to the fact that you have positives to offer and your background in languages will be of great benefit in contexts such as the ISIL article but I think you may have hit the nail on the head with regard to the "tolerate" issue. Make sure you don't tolerate contra-guideline behaviour in yourself.

:::I look forward to you editing again but with no unnecessary troubles being raised. [[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<big>✍</big>♪]] 21:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

::::I appreciate your words of well-meaning constructive criticism and sincere appreciation, Gregkaye. What you advised helps me see where I may have been wrong. In particular, your much appreciated reference to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning|Wikipedia is not about winning]] is an eye-opener and is something that I will follow to avoid unpleasant conflicts in the future. [[User:Worldedixor|Worldedixor]] ([[User talk:Worldedixor#top|talk]]) 21:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

[[User:Worldedixor|Worldedixor]], you totally ignored my last paragraph! '''Brief''' means an absolute maximum of 300 words but aim for 200 or less. For example Bishonen blocking message was about 280 words and that included some stuff cut and pasted from elsewhere that has to be in a message informing a user of a block. I fully endorse what [[user:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] wrote (in 42 words) and reluctantly given your postings here and elsewhere draw the same conclusion as he does.

You do not seem to realise why you were blocked, and unless you can convince an administrator that you understand those reasons your requests to be unblocked will be declined. Read very carefully what [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]], [[user:Dougweller|Dougweller]], [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] have written, because their comments are designed to help you not hinder you be an effective and collegiate editor.

As you seem to be so far away from grasping the points they are making, I suggest you sped a few weeks looking at other unblock requests ([[:Category:Requests for unblock]]), consider if you would unblock a user given what (s)he has done and what (s)he say in their unblock requests, and see what administrators decide to do. Also re-read [[WP:guide to appealing blocks]], and construct your request based what you have learnt within its framework, when you make another appeal against your block. (this comment up to the bracket was 216 words long). -- [[User:PBS|PBS]] ([[User talk:PBS|talk]]) 10:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

===Taking stock===

::''(The following dialogue, with the exception to this bracketed content, is presented in the sequence in that it was written. It was written with the intention of helping Worldedixor face up to any relevant issues in editing behaviour as is verified by current time contributions on my talk page. It was also written in the context of my, as stated, consideration that I my previously expressed sympathies for Worldedixor's situation are likely to be affected by [[transference]] issues related to my own recent experiences. I would particularly like to bring this content to the attention of [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] and at this stage also think it appropriate to notify relevant parties: [[User:PBS|PBS]], [[User: Dougweller| Dougweller]], [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] and [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]]. As an appropriate course of action I have gone through issues raised in the RfC/U and, after wading through the content that I was able to find, have added comment in italics. Please feel free to check any of the entries of your choosing and feel free to add to comments preferably by noting the addition or comment or not in any other context. I hope that this bracketed content will not detract from Worldedixor's ability to respond relevantly to various aspects of the content below).''

[[User:Worldedixor|Worldedixor]] I think that you need to pull yourself together and face up to home truths which, by definition, are not truths away from home but truths that apply solely and particularly to your own situation. Forget other people's faults, existent or not, as these are not at issue in your current situation. I am glad that you say: "What you advised helps me see where I may have been wrong." There is one word in there that may indicate where things have not fully connected to the extent that they could.

You have previously been referred to [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks]]. Which most relevantly states:

'''You,''' as a blocked editor, are responsible for '''convincing administrators:'''

:* that the block is in fact '''not necessary''' to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our [[WP:BP|blocking policy]]); '''or:

:* that the block is '''no longer necessary''' because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead; '''or:...

To this point administrators have unanimously and, in the overall picture, I think fairly taken the view that the block was necessary for the purpose of preventing damage or disruption. I would suggest that, if you choose, you make the case as to why you think that the block is no longer necessary.

Be specific. As you know, there have been times when I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=631999104&oldid=631997019 made confessions] even when I haven't had to. Also, when I was taken to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#Disruptive_editing_on_ISIL_by_User:Gregkaye AN/I], even though [[WP:SOAPBOX]] hadn't even been mentioned this, being the thing that was playing on my mind. I freely confessed this at a time when I thought the politics were done and have endeavoured to follow this principle since.

In the RfC/U you were accused of:

"'''Article talk page abuses'''"

{{collapse top|title=This section contains an extensive (1650 word but I think relevant) text related both to the clarification of actual wrong doing by Worldedixor and references to the overstatement of various cases. The second part was not planned and, while I do not want to detract from relevant areas of cited wrongdoing, I also think it relevant to notify reviewers and interested parties of questionable content within. My conjecture is that this "RfC/U" was not so much written as a request for comment but as a non-neutral statement of condemnation coupled with request for agreement and that, in totality, many of the interventions presented within do not demonstrate best practice in relation to Wikipedia's policies regarding [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In addition to statements within that I think were misrepresentative I further question the selective use of [[WP:EXT|external]] type links that focus on individual edits while no direct reference to context is provided. Other links in the RfC/U, if followed through to get to the actual edits, I believe demonstrate provocative comment particularly by [[User:Technophant|Technophant]], the primary author of the RfC/U. I further propose that the related talk page discussion of the RfC/U [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Worldedixor#Questions_to_Certifying_users_from_Worldedixor|ended]] in a way which I consider indicative of the characteristic unaccountability and evasiveness of the primary author. I lastly propose that any later remarks by Worldedixor, while not being excused, should be rightly considered within the context here mentioned. [[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<big>✍</big>♪]] 10:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)}}

''I will add comment in italics but it is up to you to indicate why these may no longer apply or what you will do to counteract any tendency. (I would further encourage independent contributors to add further comment to my comments as relevant)''

:1 [[Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 4#Competence Matters]] Polite request, rude response, civility

''I honestly don't personally see major fault here on either side. You presented issue related to the acceptability of a sourced Arabic text whose [https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9+%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89+%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF+30+%D9%83%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%88%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7+%D9%85%D9%86+%D8%A5%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%84%22&oq=%22%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D8%A9+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9+%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89+%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%AF+30+%D9%83%D9%8A%D9%84%D9%88%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7+%D9%85%D9%86+%D8%A5%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%84%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.2095j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8 quoted content] currently gets 1,080 hits. You were given a dismissive response (but which may better be understood in context) and independent editor quoted: '[[WP:NOENG]]: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."' You declared willingness to follow [[WP:AGF]]. The final comment eventually got round to clarifying a problem that: This particular situation was one in which Google translation gave a bizarre result but without giving a direct request for your response. I presume that there was a failure for this situation to be resolved but I think this was may have been in the context of unnecessary antagonism from the start.''

:2 [[Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 6#Timeline: entry for 29 August]] harassment, demanding that personal information be revealed.

''Please consider your use of 'What you don't seem to understand ...'. However, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=623772168&oldid=623765686 diff] that was presented, in my view took content to a very different extreme, in a way that is, I think, unrepresentative of the general tone expressed in source materials.''

:3 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=prev&oldid=625132630] not accepting criticism, countering with accusations

''Here you very clearly deflected from the original content of the discussion. It is a tactic that other editors in the discussion have themselves adopted as I can very easily cite but this does not change the fact that the behaviour is less than ideal. This discussion could have been dealt with simply and unrelated matters could have been raised elsewhere.''

:4 [[Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 9#Use of bold text on talk pages]] User takes talk page use suggestion as personal attack

''Your point here, I think, has great validity and all the more so as I think about it in retrospect. I think that [[Talk:ISIL]] documents significant attempts to surreptitiously edit the article, close down editors and present manipulative spins... and there is more that can be said.''

:5 [[Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 4#WP:OWN to new editors]] warnings to other editors

''I can't see what in any of this is about. Even if there was something wrong in giving relevant warnings to other editors I do not see it."''

:6 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=prev&oldid=625036875] Response by WE expressing ownership of talk page (you're not invited) and wrongful accusation of personal attack. [[WP:NOEDIT]]

''I find this one particularly annoying. The edit must be viewed in the context, see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=625048532&oldid=625042570#Israel #Israel.] The discussion had continued and P123ct1 fairly resumed the discussion as: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=625127188&oldid=625125343 #Israel(2)] citing that "The discussion on this was side-tracked by the long digression above" but, to be fair, with the sidetracking being initiated by [[User:Technophant|Technophant]] and with inclusion of content that is inappropriate for an article talk page discussion]].''

:7 [[Talk:James Foley (journalist)/Archive 1#Execution or Murder.3F]] warned about shouting on another page (and the Levant page)

''Please actually take a look. The accusation seems ludicrous to me and an independent editor even finished the thread with the comment: ".. Worldedixor has been nothing if not civil in an attempt to build consensus among all of those with an interest in this issue. In fact, everything has been done to ensure an inclusive venue and opportunity for talk. Proper adherence to, and reiteration of the rules should not be mistaken for 'shouting'"''

:8 [[Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 5#Using YouTube for citations]] Serious WP:PA where user called in an admin to resolve perceived rule infraction by editor, constituting abuse of Talk page

''Please recognise that editors may have genuine concerns regarding the relevance of citations and perhaps imagine how you might cope if citations were similarly presented in [[Amharic]] or a language with which you were not proficient. Please consider that the language thing there is a legitimate preference for English and that you may need to calmly present a fair rationale for use of Arabic. What does the writing of four replies in a row while requesting admin assistance say to you? My view is that Unique Arabic contents have a place but they are best presented in ways that will make them replaceable with relevant English substitutes when possible. Non-Arabic editors, who have genuine desire to build an unbiased encyclopedia, may be well positioned to comment on the usefulness of Arabic citations. (Before I was helped find the above link, I found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=627717676&oldid=627716950#US_State_Department_-_Anti_ISIS_Twitter.2C_Videos_etc. this] indication of good interaction.''

:9 [[Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 8#Israel]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIslamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=624879677&oldid=624870018 diff]) Hostile attack, with boldface "shouting", against another editor for reverting an item that was not supported by the reference, on the basis that a clause in Israeli law, not mentioned in the reference or on the page, bridged the gap between the reference's text and the item. Claimed to base the attack on [[WP:Revert only when necessary]], while invoking own ability to read non-English sources. See also exchange with [[User:P123ct1|P123ct1]] at end of section ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIslamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=625009207&oldid=624994515 diff]). [[WP:CIVIL]]

''What? The only boldfacing came as: '"The Israeli Ministry of Defence approves the designation of Daa3esh as a '''terrorist''' movment". Hope this helps.' How is this a hostile attack. The text also demonstrates a willingness to strike text. This leaves honest representation of mistakes which displays better form than other editors involved in this affair. I personally wish more be people here could invoke their "own ability to read non-English sources".''

:10 Removal of other user's talk page comments on [[Talk:James Foley (journalist)]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Foley_(journalist)&diff=622715424&oldid=622714527 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Foley_(journalist)&diff=622200419&oldid=622199115 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Foley_(journalist)&diff=622215919&oldid=622215409 here] that were discussed at AN/I [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#Talk:James_Foley_.28photojournalist.29 here].

''Note: the three completed edit commentaries read: "Removed good faith POV -- 'Wikipedia is not a forum", "remove per NOTAFORUM and BLP - there is no evidence of this and this is not a talk page to discuss it)" and "(Rm as per NOTAFORUM, BLP and NPOV. It is OK to have reasonable doubts about the video but no need to slander the US Government)". Collapsing content, as warranted, may have been more advisable.''

:11 [[Talk:List_of_Lebanese_people#Joyce_Gemayel_is_not_that_notable_to_be_listed.3B_She_is_even_hardly_a_Politician_:]] Old (Feb 2007) discussion leading to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Lebanese_people&diff=110182129&oldid=110181654 this] uncivil remark ("WHAT DID I DO, JERK? Just go edit... and LEAVE ME ALONE... Stop talking to me and about me...").

''To be fair, after the other editor presented: "We both know what you did ;-)" and the question was unacceptably raised as: "WHAT DID I DO, JERK?", no answer was given. While the capitalisation and use of JERK are clearly unacceptable I think it can also be noted that it is possible to interpret that the context was not necessarily one of helping an editor towards better behaviour.''

:12 Example of [[WP:HOUND]] behavior directed at second certifier [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_6#Discussion_on_cn_requests here], although second certifier not present on talk page at the time (Working link found with help: [[Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 5#Discussion on cn requests]]

''Please take time here and try to see the various objectionable parts of your, unsurprisingly, unanswered content. Unless you have a valid reason for concluding that an editor is, for instance, edit waring by undermining the credibility of content, then the unparalleled drama of this fruitless mail. P123ct1 and I have differences in view on content, not to the extent that you have but, honestly, in the case where the other person happens to be reasonable, then there are other ways to clarify understandings. Read [[WP:CONSENSUS]] as a way to reach Wikipedia's goals. This was not a discussion. It didn't have a chance. Even if you happened to have been very right in what you said then your presentation would still have most likely attracted conflict but, as things were, there was only one contributor.''

:13 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bbb23/Archive_26#1RR_in_24_hours_restriction_and_P123ct1] [[WP:HOUND]] and [[WP:PA]] directed at second certifier on an admin's talk page (several examples of this on same talk page re certifier and re other editors from the [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]] page). Unwillingness to accept criticism.

''I see a difference of opinion here between mainly between to editors on another editors talk page. Worldedixor exited discussion at 23:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC) and the other two editors continued with five more entries into a discussion that ended at, 01:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC).''

Well there goes. I certainly think that there are things you still need to take on board here and I hope that you take points as relevant to heart. Please take special reference to what I said about "may". If I thought the situation had been more severe then at this point there is more advice that I would give but will leave any content for another time. Please also consider any relevant issues from other of your inter editor interactions. Various editors have presented a variety of perspectives about you and, while I hope that they are primarily reacting to first hand reference, there is a general set of themes presented. Have another look at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Worldedixor]]. Forget about Technophant's absence of accountability at the end of the page. Focus on the earlier points mentioned. There are legitimate issues here and people here need to know about your accountability.

I also hope that other editors can take an unbiased look at the information presented in their development of views related to the content. I think that much of it speaks for itself.

[[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<big>✍</big>♪]] 16:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::In relation to the above content, if editors have any points, or areas of guidance for me that may not be helpful to raise on this page, my talk page is also available. [[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<big>✍</big>♪]] 16:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::The collapse of above content, as originally proposed by [[User:PBS|PBS]], obviously widens options for comment.

::Editors should make direct contact with [[User:Technophant|Technophant]] who is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Technophant&oldid=633413003#Blocked_again blocked.] [[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<big>✍</big>♪]] 10:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

==SPI==

You have been reported to [[WP:SPI]] on suspicion of sock-puppeting. The link to the SPI case is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Worldedixor here]. Please note that you have the right to defend yourself in the section at the end, "Comments by other users". ~ [[User:P-123|P-123]] ([[User talk:P-123|talk]]) 01:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

:Please note that it is only a suspicion, and that the evidence is entirely circumstantial. None of the diffs in the SPI provide solid proof of the alleged sock-puppeting, but the pattern of behaviour is very familiar. ~ [[User:P-123|P-123]] ([[User talk:P-123|talk]]) 10:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

::Result of SPI: inconclusive. ~ [[User:P-123|P-123]] ([[User talk:P-123|talk]]) 21:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

==Blocked==

Interesting that three out of four editors here no longer edit in Wikipedia, after various debacles involving them. (1) Worldedixor - indeff blocked; (2) Technophant - indeff blocked; (3) P-123 - three-month IBAN and TBAN, now expired. Only GregKaye - three-month IBAN now expired - still edits. WP has its ways of driving productive editors away to the extent that they no longer wish to return. ~ [[User:P-123|P-123]] ([[User talk:P-123|talk]]) 21:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

== Standard Offer unblock request for [[user:Technophant|Technophant]] ==

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to [[User talk:Technophant]] you may have an interest in this request. Sent by [[user:PBS]] via -- [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

==[[Wikipedia:BLPPROD|Proposed deletion]] of [[Bernard Sauvat]]==

The article [[Bernard Sauvat]] has been [[WP:BLPPROD|proposed for deletion]] because it appears to have no references. Under [[Wikipedia:BLPPROD#Objecting|Wikipedia policy]], this '''[[WP:BLP|biography of a living person]]''' will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a [[WP:V#Sources|reliable source]] that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see [[Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners|Referencing for beginners]], or ask at the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|help desk]]. Once you have provided at least one [[WP:V#Sources|reliable source]], you may remove the {{tl|prod blp/dated}} tag. '''Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced.''' If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can {{#ifexist:Bernard Sauvat|request that it be undeleted|[[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion|request that it be undeleted]]}} when you are ready to add one. [[User:TheImaCow|TheImaCow]] ([[User talk:TheImaCow|talk]]) 14:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)