User talk:Macktheknifeau/Archive3
Sydney Derby
[edit]Hi Mack, Regarding the sources you are adding to this article, I have no doubt that the derby is genuine, a derby exists between any two teams that are geographically close, that doesn't mean there should be an article on it. The problem with this article is that sources do not discuss the derby itself. The one you added most recently, mentions the word derby in the headline, but the article is just a match report between the two sides. There is no discussion of any form of rivalry between the two sides. What is being done in this article and the other australian team ones, is editors are taking match reports and other sources and synthesising a rivalry out of this. For the derby / rivalry to pass GNG, there needs to be significant coverage of the rivalry itself. Sources like this, relating to the Old Firm are what is required, sources that actually discuss the rivalry. Fenix down (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I understand what your reasoning is Fenix down, I simply believe that it is notable albeit without massive years of history, as well as feeling that the short time an AFD is in place isn't enough time to improve the article to what your standards might be to make it 'acceptable'. However, if you must continue down the road of article deletions, you should take a look at Sydney Derby AFL, which is an identical situation for a different sport, but one that has even less notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is, whether you believe it to be notable or not, you must provide sources discussing the rivalry itself. The fact that the derby is so short-lived at the moment means that there isn't really going to be much out there on the rivalry itself. I would agree the AFL "derby" also is a GNG failur by definition. I am however, happy to withdraw my opinion (though with other editors initially seeming to agree I don't think I can withdraw the nom) if you are able to provide significant reliable coverage of this rivalry, as opposed to a synthesis of match reports, on bot hthis and any other current AfD. However, as at least one editor has commented, these "rivalries" are to me simply new local derbies that are being hyped by the league and there respective owners. If you strip aways the hype there is little left. However, I would have no issue with recreation in time. Fenix down (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Fenix down (I presume this should notify you): There has been some work done to the article that includes several new sources that should address your basic concerns, or at least prove that the article is viable and does document a 'notable' rivalry, in particular the seeseeeye interview with Sebastian Hassett. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- It suggests there is a nascent rivalry, though the article is really about a wider city rivalry of which the football element is at the moment only a small part, so I'm not really sure how much it helps - particularly as the gist of article is about how the rivalry is small but growing. Firstly, you will need more than one interview to meet GNG, and surmount the elephant in the room which is how a rivalry can really develop when they have only played three times.
- Also, I don't think the article has materially changed much, it is still heavily reliant on a synthesis from other sources. The "Origin" section really does little more than set the scene making the claim that the rivalry fits into a wider rivalry and doesn't actually say anything at all about a rivalry other than two small groups of supporters chanting at each other once, which happens at every game all around the world.
- The "A-League" section is also very weak, the first paragraph, the longest section in the article deals with comments made after the first game, some of which are talking about hopes for the future which do not establish there is a rivalry now. Only Culina's comments address the present, and as a player involved at one of the clubs, having an inherent interest to hype the match he is not a reliable source.
- The second paragraph in this section deals with one of the three games, but again doesn't mention anything, or any source to do with rivalry, it is merely 2 logical fallacies, firstly that because a game sold out there must be a rivalry (I have removed this as the source makes no reference to rivalry that I could see at all, so it is disengenuous. Secondly that because there was a bit of bad blood between the players there is therefore a rivalry (I have removed this as well for the same resons). Fenix down (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Fenix down (I presume this should notify you): There has been some work done to the article that includes several new sources that should address your basic concerns, or at least prove that the article is viable and does document a 'notable' rivalry, in particular the seeseeeye interview with Sebastian Hassett. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is, whether you believe it to be notable or not, you must provide sources discussing the rivalry itself. The fact that the derby is so short-lived at the moment means that there isn't really going to be much out there on the rivalry itself. I would agree the AFL "derby" also is a GNG failur by definition. I am however, happy to withdraw my opinion (though with other editors initially seeming to agree I don't think I can withdraw the nom) if you are able to provide significant reliable coverage of this rivalry, as opposed to a synthesis of match reports, on bot hthis and any other current AfD. However, as at least one editor has commented, these "rivalries" are to me simply new local derbies that are being hyped by the league and there respective owners. If you strip aways the hype there is little left. However, I would have no issue with recreation in time. Fenix down (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Barnstar
[edit]
|
The Half Barnstar | |
| Awarded by Vjmlhds for being part of the cumulative effort to rescue WWE Raw 1000 from deletion Vjmlhds (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
Australian sport naming rules
[edit]Hi. I noticed this. Could you please not make any more edits like that? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Those rules are invalid, and forced on football articles via a false, meatpuppeted consensus. The sport this teams plays is football. It is the name of the club, the name of the sport, and the name of the official organisations that run the sport worldwide, in asia, in Australia & in New South Wales. The sport is football and will always be that. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for being clear and honest in your reply to me. I shall try to do the same. If you are unhappy with the consensus reached, I can advise you on ways that you can legitimately try to change it. In the meantime, if I see you making any more edits like that which go against the consensus I shall block you to prevent disruption to the project. I would very much hope not to have to do this. --John (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- John, threats like that aren't at all helpful. We currently have an uneasy truce on the more generic sport in Australia articles, what soccer fans do in their specific articles should not be as strictly policed. The-Pope (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Their is no consensus. I would suggest instead of threatening blocks on long-term editors, you should actually try and do something about the ingrained, meatpuppeted bias of a handful of editors who have created a false consensus in regards to the name of a sport they don't even like, shoving down their incorrect viewpoint so that three major sports in Australia can use their official names, while the fourth is forced to use a no longer relevant nickname, even on articles specifically and exclusively about players or teams or organisations dedicated to the sport of football, that use the official name for the sport yet are somehow forced to call that sport by a different name for no reason other than it offends a handful of editors from one state in Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- HiLo has asked me to remind you that this personalisation of the dispute is unhelpful. I have told him that if you continue like this you should have to face a sanction. I am extremely keen to avoid this course of events. Instead, please post your understanding of the consensus at my talk page so that we can move towards a solution. Thank you. --John (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Their is no consensus. I would suggest instead of threatening blocks on long-term editors, you should actually try and do something about the ingrained, meatpuppeted bias of a handful of editors who have created a false consensus in regards to the name of a sport they don't even like, shoving down their incorrect viewpoint so that three major sports in Australia can use their official names, while the fourth is forced to use a no longer relevant nickname, even on articles specifically and exclusively about players or teams or organisations dedicated to the sport of football, that use the official name for the sport yet are somehow forced to call that sport by a different name for no reason other than it offends a handful of editors from one state in Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- John, threats like that aren't at all helpful. We currently have an uneasy truce on the more generic sport in Australia articles, what soccer fans do in their specific articles should not be as strictly policed. The-Pope (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for being clear and honest in your reply to me. I shall try to do the same. If you are unhappy with the consensus reached, I can advise you on ways that you can legitimately try to change it. In the meantime, if I see you making any more edits like that which go against the consensus I shall block you to prevent disruption to the project. I would very much hope not to have to do this. --John (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Pop over when you get a chance
[edit]Hi. Could you look in at User talk:John#Next step; clarification when you have a chance? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]Hi Macktheknifeau. I have blocked your account for 24 hours for adding the following, after you were warned by me about personalizing this dispute:
Project AFL have hit upon a very effective tactic in silencing opposition to their pro-AFL anti-football agenda, which is anytime a discussion comes up that goes against what they want, they flood the discussion with irrelevant posts and incorrect interpretations of the guidelines and hope that the admins declare "no consensus" which stops whatever change from happening because the admin doesn't have the time to work through the situation properly.
The AFL Lobby want to have their cake (using Australian Rules Football, the sports official name) and eat it too (by keeping Football away from it's rightful official name).
I hope you can see how this is incompatible with finding a way forwards. I have redacted the unhelpful part of your comment. On your return, please do not comment on the motivations of other editors; you cannot read their minds and it is unhelpful to pretend that you can. Instead, restrict yourself to making suggestions about how the policy works or should work in your opinion. If you feel this block is unfair you can appeal it by posting {{unblock|Your reason here. --~~~~}} but you should read WP:GAB first. --John (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Macktheknifeau (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't care that you believe it is 'unhelpful'. There is an ongoing attack from users connected to Project AFL to destroy football on Australian based wikipedia articles and they are deeply involved in this issue. You cannot silence me and are merely showing yourself to be a pawn of their wiki-lawyering by letting their ludicrous attacks get the better of you. --Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:55, 1 March 2014 (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.
Courtesy notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --John (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I am not making "personal attacks", I am pointing out that a group of editors who hate football are involved with suppression of opinions they disagree with, and the way they are doing it is by creating false consensus and spamming discussions with irrelevant posts that cause admins to start declaring "no consensus" instead of judging the situation by merit. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- On your return, please do not comment on the motivations of other editors; you cannot read their minds and it is unhelpful to pretend that you can. Instead, restrict yourself to making suggestions about how the policy works or should work in your opinion. If you can demonstrate that you understand what you have done wrong, you can be unblocked. I don't see it yet though. --John (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm trying to tell you that the group of editors (lead by Hilo) are subverting policy and process with their actions. Why aren't you listening? The tactic of creating false 'no consensus' through spamming and irrelevant posts is causing a complete block of any attempt to improve football related articles. For example, the recent RFM for Sydney Derby which got shut down because of opposition spamming irrelevant comments, for example by a user who claimed the entire RFM was invalid because they didn't think the article should exist in the first place! You're merely playing into their hands by blocking people trying to improve wikipedia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- On your return, please do not comment on the motivations of other editors; you cannot read their minds and it is unhelpful to pretend that you can. Instead, restrict yourself to making suggestions about how the policy works or should work in your opinion. If you can demonstrate that you understand what you have done wrong, you can be unblocked. I don't see it yet though. --John (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please stop grouping all AFL fans/project members in one boat. We don't all think alike or agree. The-Pope (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to lead a cheer...
[edit]Cheering on John. Not because he blocked you - he did precisely what he said he'd do, you had fair warning, he's sought approval from the community at ANI - but because he has been brave enough to host a discussion on a subject with a very long history of dispute and he is scrupulously removing anything that addresses the conduct of other editors. He is doing exactly what needs to be done, and exactly what all participating editors should have been doing for themselves.
Forget about cabals of colluding editors. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't. Stick to the subject, attend to John's direction, participate with respect for the opinions of others, and above all, stick to the facts.
So far, John has been fair but firm, and I believe he will be true to his word and block others if they ignore his warnings. So it's not just you, it's not just one "side". It's a matter of cutting out all the tiresome personal remarks and finding the truth of the matter - as it applies to the encyclopaedia.
You've got a chance to play the ball and not the man here. Use it. --Pete (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's very nice of you Pete, thank you. Macktheknifeau, let me draw your attention to User talk:John#Personal attack where another user has complained about your comments in the section above. I decline to take any action against you for venting on your own talk, but you should have no doubts that if you come back off your block and continue to personalise this discussion of nomenclature, I will block you for longer and longer periods. It is essential that if you do intend to come back to this area you change your approach. As Pete says, play the ball and not the man. It's up to you, but I implore you to take my advice. --John (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- At what point does trying to draw attention to tactics like Fillibustering being used to attempt to derail discussion and flood discussions with irrelevant content becoming a personal attack? Do I have to avoid naming specific editors? Is merely pointing out the existence of these tactics and biases without naming editors enough to avoid future blocks? I do not want to sit idly by, when topics I am involved in are getting derailed, filibustered and fought to a standstill of 'no consensus' by certain editors whose only interest is in protecting their own favoured topics, not the actual improvement and following of guidelines in articles I have worked hard on. I hope that wasn't enough of a 'personal attack' for me to get blocked again. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think those tactics will work in this particular discussion. I think that expressing opinions, distractions, waving hands and presenting anecdotal evidence will be downplayed. Presenting significant checkable facts, such as official names of official bodies and the national media no longer referring to the sport as "soccer", must trump opinion, no matter how forcefully expressed with the waving of hands etc. It is one thing to declare that in an editor's personal experience, one name or another prevails over the whole continent, another to ask "who says?".
- At what point does trying to draw attention to tactics like Fillibustering being used to attempt to derail discussion and flood discussions with irrelevant content becoming a personal attack? Do I have to avoid naming specific editors? Is merely pointing out the existence of these tactics and biases without naming editors enough to avoid future blocks? I do not want to sit idly by, when topics I am involved in are getting derailed, filibustered and fought to a standstill of 'no consensus' by certain editors whose only interest is in protecting their own favoured topics, not the actual improvement and following of guidelines in articles I have worked hard on. I hope that wasn't enough of a 'personal attack' for me to get blocked again. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- It is one thing to talk of consensus - the article is the clearest example of "no consensus" I've ever seen; if there were consensus there would not be years of wrangling continuing to this day - it is another to show it. Where is it? The most recent poll of editor opinion on a specific question is here, reflecting the changing presentation of the sport in Australia.
- On examining the evidence, I've changed my opinion, and it seems reasonable to expect others to do the same, otherwise, how else can they respond to the question, "Your opinion is unsupported by the facts, why are you placing such a high importance in your original research?" but to say, "It is my opinion, dammit!" Which is hand-waving. --Pete (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
RfC
[edit]- Please see the RfC I have started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Thanks. --John (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding but I asked you to keep your responses to twenty words. Please edit your response to keep it within the limit. --John (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- I have edited the post. I didn't think it was going to be policed that strictly, so simply limited myself to what I thought was about 20. I went over by a few in each question. I have since fixed that. I really hope you don't pay heed to those who want people to get blocked simply for going over by a few words, that seems ridiculously over the top especially if the user was attempting to follow the spirit of the guideline with a limited response that went over by a few words. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind but I refactored your post per the discussion request text. User:HiLo48 requested this and I agree with him. We agree by taking part in that discussion not to comment on other editors. --John (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- Why did you edit my post, and leave Hilo's nearly identical post? If my comment isn't required and removed, which is fine by me if that is how you see things, I expect the comment (that he made before mine) to be removed as well, especially when he was the one who complained about my later post. Macktheknifeau (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- That's fair comment. I've removed part of that on the same basis. --John (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Dodgy source at Sydney Derby (A-League)
[edit]That source you just added for the latest derby isn't working. You might want to fix it.
I also wonder if Fox Sports is a good idea for claims of "best match ever" when it has a commercial arrangement with the FFA to televise and thus promote the sport. Not really an independent view.
Maybe try another source. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've fixed the article reference and added another for the racial abuse allegation. I'm comfortable with a Fox Sports writer talking about that derby being the best one. While they do have a commercial arrangement, I don't see reporting an event that has already taken place as 'promotion'. That said, I will remove the statement for now, as I do see merits in your point and there may be better sources available.Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 17
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kawasaki disease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kawasaki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Another RfC on naming
[edit]Please see the further RfC here. --John (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Blocked again
[edit]I have blocked you for violating WP:POINT in your edits such as this one. These clearly violate the consensus we established at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). On your return, please do not repeat this. --John (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --John (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wellington is not part of Australia. It is part of New Zealand which is a different country to Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- True enough, my mistake. How about Sydney; is that in Australia? --John (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Fenix Down's point is the one I take. The 'consensus' (which I believe is invalid anyway) is to prevent confusion with AFL on specific articles where the sports intermix in a major way. These articles have nothing to do with AFL, and as such I'm using the global consensus which is to use Association football as the name for football, for reasons that are explained in the FAQ at Talk:Association football. Having reviewed edits I have made a few mistakes with the code accidentally using simply 'football' instead of 'association football', as I was in a hurry before having to go offline this morning. I apologise for those inadvertent errors. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for your apology. Making those edits "in a hurry" right after this is the very definition of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Do you see that? If you are unhappy that the consensus went against you, maybe there is a way we can discuss that. But saying you did not accept the consensus and then making half a dozen edits "in a hurry" that broke the consensus, was extremely ill-advised. Do you accept that? --John (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I accidentally copy-pasted the wrong code on some of the pages. It was not intended to be 'disruptive'. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Are you going to do anything about Hilo's disruptive and anti-consensus edit at Wellington Phoenix. He is over-reaching with his attempts to shoehorn the consensus about not confusing AFL with football onto an article about a team in an entirely different country. By his logic (that because some Australian pages might use a different term to Association football he can call any related article with his preferred term even if it's not in the same country), he could go through and change every example of Association football or football for the clubs in the AFC Champions League to his own preferred term, simply because they are related to the A-League (as a direct example, his viewpoint that if a club in Australia is involved in a competition he has free reign to change terminology, it could mean by his view, he could change the Kawasaki Frontale article from Association football simply because they are playing matches against the Western Sydney Wanderers this current season). Wellington is in New Zealand, where the global consensus is followed (just like in Australia, on pages that don't involve multiple sports). He's also reverted completely legitimate edits, simply because he doesn't like the fact that the A-League is run by Football Federation Australia, now that is pointy and bad faith uncivil behaviour. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- I accidentally copy-pasted the wrong code on some of the pages. It was not intended to be 'disruptive'. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, thanks for your apology. Making those edits "in a hurry" right after this is the very definition of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Do you see that? If you are unhappy that the consensus went against you, maybe there is a way we can discuss that. But saying you did not accept the consensus and then making half a dozen edits "in a hurry" that broke the consensus, was extremely ill-advised. Do you accept that? --John (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Fenix Down's point is the one I take. The 'consensus' (which I believe is invalid anyway) is to prevent confusion with AFL on specific articles where the sports intermix in a major way. These articles have nothing to do with AFL, and as such I'm using the global consensus which is to use Association football as the name for football, for reasons that are explained in the FAQ at Talk:Association football. Having reviewed edits I have made a few mistakes with the code accidentally using simply 'football' instead of 'association football', as I was in a hurry before having to go offline this morning. I apologise for those inadvertent errors. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- True enough, my mistake. How about Sydney; is that in Australia? --John (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wellington is not part of Australia. It is part of New Zealand which is a different country to Australia. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear
[edit]It really might be better just to avoid this area completely. Edits like this one are either flagrant violations of WP:POINT or signs of a competence problem. In any case, I have blocked you for a week to let you think about things. Let me warn you that if you come back after a week with more of the same, your next block will be an indefinite one. Is it worth it? --John (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? I followed your consensus to the letter "In an article that only relates to one of these codes, the above name should be used in the title and the first paragraph. The word "football" can be used throughout the rest of the article." Tell me how following your own instructions (which I now see you have redacted, you are effectively punishing me for not having a time machine). I want appeal this block and want to take it further immediately by having your actions examined by a higher level admin. I'm tired of being harassed, with every post I make examined by Hilo with the intent for you to find reasons to block me. What good is the 'consensus' when you simply decided to unilaterally adjust a massive aspect of it then retroactively punish me with another ban? Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Did you see the bit in the discussion where we agreed not to make any sweeping changes? --John (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do other people on the wiki have access to a time machine that I don't know about? I didn't make any sweeping changes. I didn't make any changes at all that weren't exactly what you said were approved when you created this with this note: "per talk page consensus". You can't punish me for not knowing you would suddenly change your mind at a later date and take out a section of a 'consensus' that you approved. You changed your mind, unilaterally removed sections to find an excuse to block me, and are now referring me to a post you made after I made my consensus based edits. If anyone should have their competency challenged here, it's you. So now instead of just thoughtcrime, we also have The Minority Report punishing people for actions in the present that aren't allowed in the future. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Mmm. No time machine is required though to access this from 28 March where we agreed not to "go crazy" and add "soccer" everywhere, even though that was the consensus that was reached. Did you take from that that it would be ok to add "football" to multiple articles? If you did, then either there is a problem of comprehension or you are deliberately disrupting the process. In either case, I don't think you are welcome to participate any more in Australian sports naming debates. We can either enforce this with a block (at the moment you are blocked for one week) or we can try a topic ban instead if you prefer. What would you rather? --John (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh look, you've changed your mind again. Instead of it being about me ignoring your redacted consensus and your newly inserted line made after I made my legitimate edits, you're scrambling to find another reason to justify your incorrect block. I followed your specific interpretation consensus: "per talk page consensus". Those were your words. You are blocking me for following what you approved the consensus to be. I would prefer a competent admin who isn't harassing me, and isn't playing god by inventing new rules that apply retroactively to me to justify his bans. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's fine, I'll wait until your unblock request finishes processing. --John (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh look, you've changed your mind again. Instead of it being about me ignoring your redacted consensus and your newly inserted line made after I made my legitimate edits, you're scrambling to find another reason to justify your incorrect block. I followed your specific interpretation consensus: "per talk page consensus". Those were your words. You are blocking me for following what you approved the consensus to be. I would prefer a competent admin who isn't harassing me, and isn't playing god by inventing new rules that apply retroactively to me to justify his bans. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Mmm. No time machine is required though to access this from 28 March where we agreed not to "go crazy" and add "soccer" everywhere, even though that was the consensus that was reached. Did you take from that that it would be ok to add "football" to multiple articles? If you did, then either there is a problem of comprehension or you are deliberately disrupting the process. In either case, I don't think you are welcome to participate any more in Australian sports naming debates. We can either enforce this with a block (at the moment you are blocked for one week) or we can try a topic ban instead if you prefer. What would you rather? --John (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do other people on the wiki have access to a time machine that I don't know about? I didn't make any sweeping changes. I didn't make any changes at all that weren't exactly what you said were approved when you created this with this note: "per talk page consensus". You can't punish me for not knowing you would suddenly change your mind at a later date and take out a section of a 'consensus' that you approved. You changed your mind, unilaterally removed sections to find an excuse to block me, and are now referring me to a post you made after I made my consensus based edits. If anyone should have their competency challenged here, it's you. So now instead of just thoughtcrime, we also have The Minority Report punishing people for actions in the present that aren't allowed in the future. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Did you see the bit in the discussion where we agreed not to make any sweeping changes? --John (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Unblock
[edit]Macktheknifeau (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
John is harassing me, and has now blocked me for a week because I can't read his mind and determine that he would change his mind in the future in a way that meant edits I made that were completely accurate and legitimate as per current consensus were now banned according to him. After being told by other users to 'drop the stick' and 'get on with building the encyclopaedia', I did exactly that, and followed John's consensus to the letter. To be specific, John approved a consensus where "football" could be used after one use of the word "soccer". I updated several pages I have been a long-term editor of to follow John's approved consensus. He then changed his mind "let's take this out", to find an excuse to block me.
When I challenged him as to the fact that he was retroactively punishing me for following his own approved consensus, he then changed his mind again in an attempt to find another reason to ban me. This new reason was a minor point in a massive discussion thread from several days ago, and one that has no weight in comparison to the deliberate approval of his version of consensus, with the specific note from John saying "per talk page consensus". If I can't follow what an Admin says the consensus is, what's the point of having a consensus (or an admin deciding what that consensus is) in the first place?
John suddenly decided he wanted to punish me so he removed elements of the previously agreed to consensus and then initiated a block based on his new laws. I don't have a time machine, I shouldn't be punished because John wants to find reasons to block me. I'm tired of being harassed and having every post I make challenged by other users and referred to John so he can find an excuse to ban me, simply because I disagree with their opinions. To anyone reading this, how would you like it if the country you live in suddenly made editing Wikipedia illegal, subject to prison terms then retroactively applied it to you? John is doing exactly that to me here.
The reasons for John's block are completely invalid. You can't punish someone who followed the rules as they existed at the point in time their edits were made especially when the existing rules were approved by the person who changed their mind later to create a reason to ban someone. I expect better than this from administrators.
Decline reason:
Your stated intent to defy consensus so long as you disagree with it. I would have indefed you myself, and I certainly won't cut your week short.—Kww(talk) 04:14, 3 April 2014 (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.
Note to reviewing admin: Third block for closely related issues around Australian naming conventions. First block was raised and endorsed here, second is still open here. --John (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Second and third block review now archived here. --John (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Kww, you're taking that quote out of context. I was talking about my long term belief in my viewpoint being correct and one that I believe will eventually become 'consensus' through legitimate process. It is not a crime to hold a belief in opposition to whatever a current consensus is. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Unblock request. Again.
[edit]Macktheknifeau (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
John is harassing me, and has now blocked me for a week because I can't read his mind and determine that he would change his mind in the future in a way that meant edits I made that were completely accurate and legitimate as per current consensus were now banned according to him. After being told by other users to 'drop the stick' and 'get on with building the encyclopaedia', I did exactly that, and followed John's consensus to the letter. To be specific, John approved a consensus where "football" could be used after one use of the word "soccer". I updated several pages I have been a long-term editor of to follow John's approved consensus. He then changed his mind "let's take this out", to find an excuse to block me. When I challenged him as to the fact that he was retroactively punishing me for following his own approved consensus, he then changed his mind again in an attempt to find another reason to ban me. This new reason was a minor point in a massive discussion thread from several days ago, and one that has no weight in comparison to the deliberate approval of his version of consensus, with the specific note from John saying "per talk page consensus". If I can't follow what an Admin says the consensus is, what's the point of having a consensus (or an admin deciding what that consensus is) in the first place? John suddenly decided he wanted to punish me so he removed elements of the previously agreed to consensus and then initiated a block based on his new laws. I don't have a time machine, I shouldn't be punished because John wants to find reasons to block me. I'm tired of being harassed and having every post I make challenged by other users and referred to John so he can find an excuse to ban me, simply because I disagree with their opinions. To anyone reading this, how would you like it if the country you live in suddenly made editing Wikipedia illegal, subject to prison terms then retroactively applied it to you? John is doing exactly that to me here. The reasons for John's block are completely invalid. You can't punish someone who followed the rules as they existed at the point in time their edits were made especially when the existing rules were approved by the person who changed their mind later to create a reason to ban someone. I expect better than this from administrators. My previous request was denied summarily by KWW, because the admin didn't take the time to actually read through my issue. He has taken a quote of mine out of context as a reason to completely ignore the retroactive punishment by John. I have a viewpoint that the current consensus is incorrect, and where I can, I will work to change that consensus within the current constraints of wikipedia policy. This does not mean that I am being deliberately disruptive, or that I deserve to continue to have my unblock requests summarily denied because I am 'defying' consensus. The fact is I was following consensus. I was not 'defying' consensus. I was following the exact consensus that was approved by John. All I see now is administrators working to protect each other from having their incorrect actions investigated and overturned. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Is anyone going to actually read this? Macktheknifeau (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am closing this request, as the block has expired. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2014 (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.
- What makes you think no one read it? No one unblocked you, but I'm positive that people read it.—Kww(talk) 15:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is you aren't going to respond, and simply let justice go by the wayside. Thanks, I now know certain administrators aren't interested in doing the right thing. You took a quote out of context as a reason to ignore an obvious mistake from a fellow admin, and are now saying that admins are deliberately ignoring my request despite the previous unblock specifically stating that another appeal can be lodged, and I don't believe this is in any case a frivolous re-appeal. Where can I appeal this failure of justice to a place where people will actually read the situation and go "well, maybe the admin shouldn't have banned this user despite the user following the admins exact instructions." Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- You've had your unblock reviewed by User:Kww, and it's also been thoroughly discussed at WP:AN/I where the outcome was that both blocks were endorsed by the community. In two days your block expires. If I see you making any even slightly dubious edits even slightly related to Australian sports naming conventions, your next block will be indefinite. This would include WP:POINT violations like the last time, or unhelpful contributions to the debate itself which comment on others. If I were you I would stay well away from this area for a while. --John (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- He did no such thing. He did not 'review' my ban. He took a quote out of context as a reason not to review the ban. The ban that you gave me for following your instructions. How can I violate WP:POINT with the edits you banned me for by following what you explicitly declared was as 'per consensus'? It doesn't surprise me you're trying to silence me, considering it's your fault in the first place for approving a version of consensus that you flip-flopped and changed your mind on days later as a reason to ban me. Previous blocks aren't my concern here. My concern is this third ban is a setup to threaten me with an indefinite ban for any minor violation of the rules, which as you've demonstrated, can changed after the fact so you can then ban me forever. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're not banned, you're blocked and your block is about to expire. Your next block, if your behaviour makes one necessary, will be indefinite but even then you won't be banned. Only the community or Arbcom can ban someone. It would be great if you could learn from what has happened (have you even read the AN/I archives I linked above?) because I can tell you what will happen if you do not change your behaviour; you will be blocked indefinitely, and that will make me sad. I was totally sincere when I said right at the start that I didn't want anybody to get blocked over this. Each time you mess around and get yourself blocked that disappoints me. Please, for me, change your behaviour. --John (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- A ban or block means the same to me. No editing the wiki. Your 'summary' in that ANI is bogus, you nail me to the wall saying my edits were 'disruptive', while completely ignoring the fact that those edits were approved by your version of consensus. You still haven't managed to explain how it is fair to ban someone for edits made that directly matched your own rules for editing the wiki. That is my problem here. I especially do not like being patronised and told my 'block is expiring', when I believe the block is invalid in the first place, and that any further 'violations' (which could be another example of your changing the rules) would result in a permanent ban, and thus told to shut up and accept my punishment simply because it happens to end tomorrow. My behaviour was what you approved. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- You see, this is what worries me. I and several other admins have told you that your editing has been disruptive, and rather than undertake to change your behaviour you are still arguing about your previous blocks which have been reviewed. Oh well, you must do as you see fit. --John (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about other blocks, those are in the past. I'm talking about this block. The block where you changed the rules after the fact to ban me. The block where you think one line from another admin who simply got your own version of events, where I wasn't allowed to put my view forward, is a 'review'. I know all that will happen is that the other admins will do exactly what admins always do, which is stick up for one of their own. It's already happened once on this block. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, so in your opinion, making this edit, followed by this, this and this was all right, even right after coming back from a block for a WP:POINT violation over Australian sports naming? Once again you are not banned but blocked, but for the last time, this block was not related to the exact wording of the guideline (which is still under discussion; you should know because you took part in the discussion!) but for your behaviour in making multiple edits which again violated POINT in an area which you knew was under active discussion and in which you also knew that part of the current consensus is not to make sweeping changes pending an agreement on how to go forwards. I strongly and for the final time warn you to edit very carefully in this area; it would be fine for example to politely contribute to the discussion about how to implement the new consensus. It would absolutely not be fine to make any edits which change any sports terminology on Australian articles. We have not come all this way only to have things fall at the last hurdle. If you feel this editing pattern will be beyond you, it would honestly be better for you to stay away from the area. --John (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- And once again you fail to see the reason and my point. It's like you can't even recognise my issue here. It's not about what I think is or isn't the right 'consensus', it's about you approving a version of consensus, I edit based on that, you change your mind, then block me, with a threat that any further violations, which could just be more examples of you changing your mind to ban me for already made edits, would see me get banned indefinitely. You can't say "as per talk page consensus" on a page designed to tell everyone what the consensus is, and then when someone follows through on using that consensus, ban them after you unilaterally changed what you approved the consensus to be. Those edits are not "point" violations, the only 'point' in those edits was following the consensus that you told everyone was approved. You are pointing out edits and taking them out of context as some kind of justification for your retroactive punishment after I've already explained repeatedly what my messages meant. I'll do it again: I disagree with 'consensus' (which isn't a thoughtcrime), and believe that in the long-term that consensus will legitimately change to my view of what the common sense solution is (which happens to be what the global consensus is). That does not give you the right to change the rules so you can ban someone for their actions prior to the rules changing. You keep telling me I am making 'sweeping changes'. There were NO SWEEPING CHANGES. You approved your version consensus, I followed it. That's not a 'sweeping change'. You talk about how this isn't about the 'exact wording', yet you didn't just remove a slight issue with wording, you took out an entire paragraph of your approved consensus then banned me because I made a handful of edits based on that approved consensus. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, so in your opinion, making this edit, followed by this, this and this was all right, even right after coming back from a block for a WP:POINT violation over Australian sports naming? Once again you are not banned but blocked, but for the last time, this block was not related to the exact wording of the guideline (which is still under discussion; you should know because you took part in the discussion!) but for your behaviour in making multiple edits which again violated POINT in an area which you knew was under active discussion and in which you also knew that part of the current consensus is not to make sweeping changes pending an agreement on how to go forwards. I strongly and for the final time warn you to edit very carefully in this area; it would be fine for example to politely contribute to the discussion about how to implement the new consensus. It would absolutely not be fine to make any edits which change any sports terminology on Australian articles. We have not come all this way only to have things fall at the last hurdle. If you feel this editing pattern will be beyond you, it would honestly be better for you to stay away from the area. --John (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about other blocks, those are in the past. I'm talking about this block. The block where you changed the rules after the fact to ban me. The block where you think one line from another admin who simply got your own version of events, where I wasn't allowed to put my view forward, is a 'review'. I know all that will happen is that the other admins will do exactly what admins always do, which is stick up for one of their own. It's already happened once on this block. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- You see, this is what worries me. I and several other admins have told you that your editing has been disruptive, and rather than undertake to change your behaviour you are still arguing about your previous blocks which have been reviewed. Oh well, you must do as you see fit. --John (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- A ban or block means the same to me. No editing the wiki. Your 'summary' in that ANI is bogus, you nail me to the wall saying my edits were 'disruptive', while completely ignoring the fact that those edits were approved by your version of consensus. You still haven't managed to explain how it is fair to ban someone for edits made that directly matched your own rules for editing the wiki. That is my problem here. I especially do not like being patronised and told my 'block is expiring', when I believe the block is invalid in the first place, and that any further 'violations' (which could be another example of your changing the rules) would result in a permanent ban, and thus told to shut up and accept my punishment simply because it happens to end tomorrow. My behaviour was what you approved. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- You're not banned, you're blocked and your block is about to expire. Your next block, if your behaviour makes one necessary, will be indefinite but even then you won't be banned. Only the community or Arbcom can ban someone. It would be great if you could learn from what has happened (have you even read the AN/I archives I linked above?) because I can tell you what will happen if you do not change your behaviour; you will be blocked indefinitely, and that will make me sad. I was totally sincere when I said right at the start that I didn't want anybody to get blocked over this. Each time you mess around and get yourself blocked that disappoints me. Please, for me, change your behaviour. --John (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- He did no such thing. He did not 'review' my ban. He took a quote out of context as a reason not to review the ban. The ban that you gave me for following your instructions. How can I violate WP:POINT with the edits you banned me for by following what you explicitly declared was as 'per consensus'? It doesn't surprise me you're trying to silence me, considering it's your fault in the first place for approving a version of consensus that you flip-flopped and changed your mind on days later as a reason to ban me. Previous blocks aren't my concern here. My concern is this third ban is a setup to threaten me with an indefinite ban for any minor violation of the rules, which as you've demonstrated, can changed after the fact so you can then ban me forever. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- You've had your unblock reviewed by User:Kww, and it's also been thoroughly discussed at WP:AN/I where the outcome was that both blocks were endorsed by the community. In two days your block expires. If I see you making any even slightly dubious edits even slightly related to Australian sports naming conventions, your next block will be indefinite. This would include WP:POINT violations like the last time, or unhelpful contributions to the debate itself which comment on others. If I were you I would stay well away from this area for a while. --John (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is you aren't going to respond, and simply let justice go by the wayside. Thanks, I now know certain administrators aren't interested in doing the right thing. You took a quote out of context as a reason to ignore an obvious mistake from a fellow admin, and are now saying that admins are deliberately ignoring my request despite the previous unblock specifically stating that another appeal can be lodged, and I don't believe this is in any case a frivolous re-appeal. Where can I appeal this failure of justice to a place where people will actually read the situation and go "well, maybe the admin shouldn't have banned this user despite the user following the admins exact instructions." Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)