Content deleted Content added
Line 569: ::::::*Could you give me an idea as to what 'neutral' means before using it to support a claim? I don't know if you mean politically moderate or editing neutrally. However, the fact is Still has been incredibly disruptive and has been acknowledged as such by editors. The fact is he is indeed responsible for both short and long-term disruption on a wide variety of political articles, particularly American ones, and he has taken a [[WP:BATTLEFIELD|battlefield attitude]] towards anyone who he suspects has political views opposite of his. This is both uncollegial and disruptive, and does not improve this encyclopedia at all. Still is undeniably being disruptive. ::::::*As for your mystery user, please don't misrepresent my view - I am not going to support or decline a request to topic ban a user off of the hearsay of one user, and I hope as an admin you would act similarly if a similar request were to be posted on your talk page. The reason why I support a topic ban for Still is based off of personal experience and knowledge on Still and his editing history - particularly relating to his disruptive behavior and his lack of interest in acknowledging or changing it. I'm not asking for a topic ban, I'm supporting one - and while the community is clearly not ready to hand one out, I think that it will inevitably happen if Still continues his pattern of behavior. '''[[User:Toa Nidhiki05|''<font color="green" face="Mistral">Toa</font>'']] [[User talk:Toa Nidhiki05|''<font color="green" face="Mistral">Nidhiki05</font>'']]''' 22:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC) ::::::::As others have alluded to, there is no such thing as a one-sided edit war. Several editors dogpiled on many of those articles, and I cited two whose behavior was <b>much</b> worse, chock full of grossly inappropriate commentary. There are a bunch of editors in this area who commit gross and repeated violations of [[WP:PETTIFOG]], [[WP:AGF]], [[WP:TE]], [[WP:FORUMSHOP]], and [[WP:FILIBUSTERS]]. [[User:Kerfuffler|Kerfuffler]] ([[User talk:Kerfuffler|talk]]) 22:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC) *'''Support Option 4:''' We know he's making unconstructive edits there. But this will be irrelevant because, (a) the topic ban is destined to fail, (b) He'll probably be blocked, and (c) if my proposal below succeeds, the article will be gold-locked <span style="border:1px solid;background:#800080">[[User:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00">p</span>]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">b</span>]][[User:Purplebackpack89/C|<span style="color:#FFCC00;">p</span>]]</span> 17:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC) *'''Oppose'''. Focusing on one activist editor is not what will fix the larger problem. Wikipedia needs a way to rein in all activist-type editing. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 16:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC) | |||