User talk:VSTAMPv

October 2020

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Wow. . . . I didn't realise wilipedia was run by fascists.

My points were valid,the page is misleading.

I thought you could only block after a 3rd warning and that you weren't allowed to block at all for simply disagreeing with me (and other contributors, and the experts, and facts). VSTAMPv (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you don't understand what fascism is. You might want to try reading the article we have about it.

Since you're obviously not a new editor, shall I extend the block to indefinite for abusing multiple accounts? Parsecboy (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are more definitions in the world than just those contained within Wikipedia, you might want to get out more. Fascist: (in general use) extreme authoritarian, oppressive, or intolerant views or practices. Oxford English

And how on earth have you concluded that I am OBVIOUSLY not a new editor? Now you're threatening to indefinitely block me for some 'obvious' activity, completely made up by you!?

And I should trust your editing and administration of historical articles? VSTAMPv (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to use a term as an insult, you should understand it first; that was my point. That I did something you didn't like doesn't mean I'm a fascist, it means you can't follow simple rules.

You seem to know (or at least think you do) the rules around this place, despite having edited only the Bismarck article. What other conclusion should I draw from that? Parsecboy (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the term, and used it correctly in this instance as recognised by the English language.

There are 3 questions in play 1) Was Bismarck sinking prior to the crews scuttling actions. 2) Did the crew successfully carry out their scuttling actions. 3) Did the British intended to capture Bismarck a prize.

For all 3 questions the body of evidence and the opinions of the experts supports the following conclusions: 1) Bismarck was sinking prior to the scuttling actions. 2) The crew did successfully then carry out their scuttling actions. 3) There was no intention by the British to take Bismarck a prize.

What I offered then was a compromise in the form of sunk/scuttled. It's inline with the evidence and should satisfy both sides.

When I was insulted first and called a troll for offering this compromise. I googled wikipedias rules, because I've seen people shut down and ignored despite providing evidence on this topic before. I thought it prudent therefore to check and make sure I wasn't going to get shut out unfairly myself.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but jumping to conclusions and treating them as fact is a dangerous business.

Truce? VSTAMPv (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You understand how the word is used as a cudgel in common discourse; that you can use a word just as poorly as the uneducated denizens of social media proves, like, literally, nothing, ok?

I don't really have an interest in discussing the merits of the edit you repeatedly attempted to force into the article here. But I do find it most interesting that you describe my "authoritarian" block of your account for edit-warring – a clear breach of Wikipedia policies – as fascist, but your "authoritarian" attempt to force your opinion on an article isn't. Why is that, exactly?

I offered a truce after explaining myself, and now you're just being plain offensive. VSTAMPv (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You find it offensive when I point out your hypocrisy? How quaint. Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you from exactly, you seem to be taking this all very personally? VSTAMPv (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I shouldn't have to point out to you, who is not at all being authoritarian, or unreasonable. . . .

That your code of conduct states the following:

Conflicts and involvement Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace

....

As you and I are engaged in a content dispute in your area - one you yourself have just stated you are not even interested in discussing with me. . . . . Then you should not have even blocked me in the first place. VSTAMPv (talk) 01:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was obviously not engaged in 'clear-cut' vandalism, given that I stated my reasons (and got abuse). You jave also ignored evidence in Talk to support my edit and refused to talk to me about it here.

I think you are operating outside of your remit, I didn't even get a 1st and 2nd warning. VSTAMPv (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were obviously engaged in an edit war. For the record, I came here to block you, but found that I'd been beaten to it. Suggest that when you are unblocked, you start a request for comment at the article's talk page allowing for full discussion of the issue and consensus to be established. You do your case no favours by throwing insults about. Play the ball, not the man. Mjroots (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I was insulted first, have tried to engage in conversation, and the other Administrator has still acted outside of your own rules. You do yourself no favours in the trust department. I'll definitely be re-thinking my donations. VSTAMPv (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Parsecboy has misused his administrative powers, then you are free to raise the issue at WP:ANI once your block expires. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly obvious your own processes have not been followed.

According to the guidelines I should have been informed of the rules I was breaking prior to blocking and a conversation should have been engaged with me to explain them as I was clearly acting in good faith per my notes in the edits.

I should have been properly warned before the block, with full information, potentially twice.

I should have been informed of the length of my block.

I shouldn't have been blocked by an Admin that has a vested interest in the page - there is clearly bias in this case as the Admin and I are in dispute over the point in question.

I'm sure if I carry on looking through your own rules I can find a bunch of other points as well.

My primary concern though is that wikipedia is used as a tool by thousands and despite the evidence to the contrary this page is providing incomplete erroneous historical information.

Most people will only read the fate and go off quoting that as historical fact. Worse that erroneous, misleading information is being protected by an Admin who appears to be biased. VSTAMPv (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that two admins are here, and still nobody has told me how long I'm blocked for? Only one of the many rules you've broken, not like I haven't asked either. . . . . Doing yourselves no favours. VSTAMPv (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Still waiting on my ban duration. VSTAMPv (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.... VSTAMPv (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

. . . . . VSTAMPv (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]