User talk:RaptorHunter

Prepare for the Zombie apocalypse Download the (new) Wikipedia Torrent.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Raptor Hunter's: FunFacts

"RaptorHunter is rather fearless." [1] He "rides in atop a tall steed of Truth, Justice, and the Wikipedia Way™©®—its nostrils flaring in the morning mist." [2]

"Radiation effects from Fukushima I nuclear accidents" move

Your move of "Radiation effects from Fukushima I nuclear accidents" to "Radiation effects from Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster" during an ongoing discussion whether the parent article was correctly moved is highly questionable. You cannot be unaware of the discussion, since you've participated in it. Kolbasz (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main article was already moved by a moderator as a result of a previous discussion. The current discussion is just complaining about the result of the last discussion. My move was just to make the sub-articles match the main article. If and when, the main article moves, then the sub-articles will me moved as well.--RaptorHunter (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, including adding material to an article that there was a clear consensus to exclude on the basis of a talk page discussion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I only reverted twice and both times explained my reasoning with clear edit summaries and used reliable sources. I then took the issue to the talk page Talk:Anthony_Weiner_sexting_scandal#Heckler_at_resignation After discussing the issue on the talk page and with the help of another editor [7] I attempted a much reduced 3rd edit that I thought would be an effective compromise: [8]

How can this be considered edit warring when I brought the issue to the talk page, actively sought the input of other editors and attempted a compromise? When my contribution was rejected, I stopped. WP:3RR was not violated. Many hours after this is all over I am blocked? I was trying to follow the rules. --RaptorHunter (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:BRD does not stand for "try, try again", and I see 100% proof of the behaviour in the discussion below. Note, WP:EW shows that you do not need to formally breech WP:3RR to be edit-warring. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Raptor -- You are a smart editor, who can be a boon to the project if you respect consensus. But you added the precise same sentence 4 times. In a 3-hour period. The last time, in the face of overwhelming consensus (by 8 editors -- Epeefleche, Off2RioRob, DaveDial, BaseballBugs, Muboshgu, GregL, Liberal Classic, and ThreeAfterThree) on the talk page (as well as in edit summaries) that you should not do so. 3 different editors reverted you. You were warned more than once for edit-warring. And I had discussed your failure to respect consensus previously, on another article. And I now see that a sysop (John) wrote to you, separately and perceptively, just 2 months ago,
"Can you please read our policy document which pertains to the matter and consider amending your comment once you have read it? Consensus is the fundamental principle on which all of our decision making rests here and if you don't understand how it works you are in for untold misery until you do."

Your "much reduced 3rd edit" (actually, 4th edit) was precisely the same as the first sentence in your prior 3 edits. Additions that had been flatly rejected by consensus. You would have us believe that you thought that "would be an effective compromise"? That's absurd. If you write "Joe is ugly and fat", and you are told overwhelmingly that that is an inappropriate communication, it is not "an effective compromise" for you to say only "Joe is ugly" ... for the 4th time in a row, in a 3-hour period. You completely ignored the input on the talkpage, from many editors. Disruptive editing against consensus violates our edit-warring policy. Your 4 additions of the same sentence, the 4th being against near-unanimous community opinion, was not appropriate. As WP:EW states: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring... The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

The report on your edit warring was entered a mere 2 hours after your 4th insertion of the same sentence. It was not inappropriate (as you charge, again) for being: "Many hours after this is all over". In your last block for edit warring, 2 months ago, you also said that you were trying to follow the rules. But here (as there, where your unblock request was also denied) your actions belie your words. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My compromise edit was NOT the same.

Original: [3]

New Edit: [4]

In the new edit, I stripped away all of the inflammatory quotes and left the bare minimum: "His resignation was met with jeers from the crowd." ^[1]^[2] This was entirely factual and well sourced. How you see these as identical is beyond me.--RaptorHunter (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly re-read what I wrote. Which was "Your "much reduced 3rd edit" (actually, 4th edit) was precisely the same as the first sentence in your prior 3 edits."

And further that: "If you write "Joe is ugly and fat", and you are told overwhelmingly that that is an inappropriate communication, it is not "an effective compromise" for you to say only "Joe is ugly" ... for the 4th time in a row, in a 3-hour period."

And further "You completely ignored the input on the talkpage, from many editors." The editors clearly stated that your repeated additions of the fact that Weiner was heckled was an effort by you to add a non-notable fact to the article. You can't possibly have believed you had consensus support to then add it a 4th time, in the face of those 8 editor objections. While you at the same time stripped out what you initially averred was the basis for your addition, your claim that a "notable" person had performed the heckling! That of course would make the text even less notable than what the editors were considering.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to turn a simple content dispute into an edit war. The bottom line is I did my best to follow the rules and got blocked anyway. --RaptorHunter (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that yet again you are ignoring consensus. You've been warned for that on your talk page, more than once, by a number of editors, including by sysop John 2 months ago.

Your continued failure to realize what was wrong with your editing against consensus, as reflected in your above comment, is a concern, however. As sysop (John) wrote to you 2 months ago, "please read our policy document ... Consensus is the fundamental principle ... and if you don't understand how it works you are in for untold misery until you do." Your above post suggests that either you did not read the document, you did not understand it, or you simply refuse to follow it.

I would suggest that when you rejoin us you use your ample abilities in a way that does not include tendentious editing against consensus. You can be a great boon here, as you are quite bright and have very good skills.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RaptorHunter, adding a 'compromise edit' containing material that there was a clear consensus to exclude was highly inappropriate, especially given that the article (and material) in question concerns a living person and is so subject to WP:BLP. Your edit was also basically the same as what you had been trying to include earlier. Making semantic arguments about removing a sentence doesn't help your case at all, and in fact your conduct in relation to this article and your block raises serious concerns about whether you actually intend to edit cooperatively with other editors and in accordance with core policies when the block expires. Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it doesn't matter if I didn't break WP:3RR It doesn't matter if I brought the issue to the talk page. Somehow I managed to trip so hidden definition of "edit warring" while attempting to stay within the rules of the project. More likely I pushed for a position which was upsetting to the editors here so they retaliated against me. Apparently the rules are 100% arbitrary on wikipedia based on who happens to be enforcing them that day. This is the the most corrupt and despotic group of people possible in charge of this project. Wikipedia is probably the worst website that could have run a project like this, but because it came first it has crowded out all of the oxygen for any similar project. Good editors are constantly driven away by Admins like you with no respect for the rules. Admins that decide what the rules mean based on who they want to attack. One day Wikipedia will be forked and all of the corrupt admins will be left alone here on a dying website.--RaptorHunter (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my lack of clarity. You violated WP:EW. It states: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring... The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." I'm not sure how to convey this to you more clearly than to quote it to you, but even though I've done that, you seem not to "get it". When 8 editors in a row say on a talk page "Don't add x", and you add it -- for the 4th time in 3 hours -- you are disruptively editing against consensus. A number of editors and sysops have tried communicating this notion of collaborative editing to you, and I'm not sure where we all are failing.

A final point -- for you to accuse the above admin of driving away good editors, being part of a despotic group of people, and having no respect for the rules may not only be inaccurate, but in fact less than civil. I doubt that Nick-D singled you out for personal reasons, though I note that you have made charges like that in the past, when consensus was against you.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of your example [5] Greg and GFHandel were bringing me to ANI every single day for the most inane things. Like the fact that I put my comment before his on a talk page [6] Instant ANI! or for this ridiculous list of grievances [7] Obviously they did not know the meaning of the word "farcical" As Chris Cunningham said: "This is getting tedious. The same circle of editors appear to be dragging RaptorHunter back up here with a grab-bag full of behavioral disputes every few days." [8] I tried to explain this to you, but you had already made up your mind about me. I'm tired of your bullshit moralizing Epeefleche. Don't edit my talk page again. Any further edits will constitute vandalism.--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came here after looking at GH Handel's contribs page. Raptor, I agree with everything he said in that post, which you have reverted. And I don't buy the "compromise edit" argument, when something is clearly controversial. Tony (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some ANI discussion about me that I wasn't informed of? Why are you even following this page? Also, I've said everything I have to say about this issue. I won't allow myself to be drawn into protracted debates about how certain people on Wikipedia think I am such a horrible person. The only reason GFHandel posted here is because I opposed him on the Hard drive article, so he continues to stalk me to this day and takes every opportunity to bring me to WP:ANI or say bad things about me in whichever forum. That is why I reverted him. Futhermore, GFHandel and Epeefleche are banned from posting on this page from now on. I don't care to read their pretentious, hollier-than-thou lectures anymore.--RaptorHunter (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended

RaptorHunter, On the basis of your above comments I have no confidence at all that you'll edit productively when this block expires. Your actions were obviously edit warring, and a very serious example of this given that the article in question falls under WP:BLP and there was a very clear consensus to exclude the material you re-added. Despite this, you've continued to attack other editors while blocked and show no sign of understanding WP:EW (there is no entitlement to three reverts, particularly when the matter is under discussion). As such, I've changed this block to have an indefinite duration. Please note that this is not a permanent block, and you will be unblocked when you demonstrate to a reviewing admin that you will edit productively and cooperatively in the future. I'd suggest that you take a day or two off before lodging an unblock request, and when you do please explain how you will edit in accordance with WP:EW, WP:BLP and WP:NPA in the future. Please also note WP:NOTTHEM. Hopefully you won't be blocked for much longer, but it's really up to you. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I haven't attacked anyone. GFHandel has a long history of trying to bring me up at WP:ANI see [9][10]. These ANI went nowhere. I don't think it's unreasonable to tell him not to post on my user page anymore. This hardly constitutes a personal attack. Just a statement of the facts and and unwillingness to be drawn into further debates with this user.--RaptorHunter (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

If you look through my contribution history you will find that I do contribute to Wikipedia. When left alone, I am a good editor. I admit that I have a tendency to get drawn into arguments with other editors when they come to my talk page to tell me how horrible a person I am. All I am asking for is a little understanding. I do not respond well when others attack me.

Asking certain users not to post on my user page anymore isn't a personal attack, but a way to avoid future conflict. All I have done today is state the facts, and C with the opinions of others on this page. That is not a bannable offense. I have made no personal attacks.

Decline reason:

This unblock request does not address the reasons for the unblock. It does not even mention the issue of edit warring, which was the initial reason for the unblock, nor does it attempt to address the issue of your persistent failure to understand the policy on edit warring, despite repeated attempts to explain. As for those issues which you do try to address, far from giving reasons for unblocking, you give reasons for confirming the block. You say "When left alone, I am a good editor", but on Wikipedia you are not left on your own: there are other editors here, and most of us find there are times when others disagree with us. Someone who is a good editor only when "left alone" is not a good editor. I see no evidence that anyone has come here to tell you that you are a horrible person, nor to attack you. However, if, when you, rightly or wrongly, perceive things that way, you "do not respond well" and "vehemently disagree with the opinions of others" then it is unlikely that you will be able to edit collaboratively. Nick-D wrote "On the basis of your above comments I have no confidence at all that you'll edit productively when this block expires", and your further comments have only strengthened that impression. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/benjy-bronk-anthony-weiner_n_879002.html

[2] ttp://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/even-a-media-circus-needs-a-clown/?scp=1&sq=weiner%20heckler&st=cse

[1]

[2]