User talk:143.58.205.157

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).

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

Request reason:

I am being treated extremely unfairly.

i am trying to insert an edit into this article here.

Hillsborough disaster

My edit is (or should be) completely uncontroversial. No-one has, to date, produced a coherent reason against it.

One person - IanMacM - initially argued that the edit was factually wrong. However, he was the one who was wrong and I swiftly refuted his argument (by demonstrating how the source supports it). IanMacM then changed the argument: he then said (very rudely and discourteously) that there was no need for the edit because "Anyone with an attention span long enough to read the entire lead" would see the same point mentioned subsequently. You might think this a rather strange point to be making. After all, using his own words, he himself clearly didn't have "an attention span long enough to read the entire lead" because he himself had demonstrated his 'lack of awareness' of the very point I had been trying to make.

Put another way, I was arguing that the text, as it stands, is clearly not sufficient, if editors like IanMacM are reading it and missing the point that I consider should be emphasised further.

Now I did characterise IanMacM's 'lack of awareness' of the relevant point as 'ignorance'. I considered that a factually accurate fair comment in the circumstances (and in substance no worse than his implied suggestion that my edit would only be useful to editors with short attention spans). If I am wrong, then I will note that and learn from that. However, I do feel that the underlying substance of the point I was making was perfectly valid and reasonable. 143.58.205.157 (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You made personal attacks and are trying to turn this around and make it about other people. Even if that's true(and I do not think it is) we don't fight fire with fire here. Take ownership of your conduct. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2024 (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.

I warned several times, yet you insisted on readding your personal attack. We've through this several times now, see your edit history and the history of the article. There are several people who disagree with you and the article was edit protected for a year, because you seem to be WP:NOTGETTINGIT. So again, WP:DROPTHESTICK, please. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soetermans. You like throwing around links to pages (without making an actual argument). So I've done some reading, and I have a page to throw back at you. This one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling

That page perfectly describes you (and IanMacM). The following passages are particularly pertinent.

"Status quo stonewalling is opposition to a proposed change without (a) stating a substantive rationale based in policy, guidelines and conventions or (b) participating in good faith discussion.

Such stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change – or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo) – and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues related to the change while engaging in behavior that is typical of disputes. Such behavior creates the appearance of a real substantive dispute about the change when none (or little) exists.

...

In multiple stalled discussions, proponents of the change are likely to make patient and good faith repeated attempts to discuss the substantive points at issue. Trying different approaches, some posts might get long and repetitive. So another diverting/delaying tactic used at such a point is for the stonewallers to accuse the frustrated proponents of change of too much editing, either in the form of tendentious editing, or battleground mentality, or making TLDR or WP:DE/WP:IDHT posts."

As I said, that is you and IanMacM in a nutshell. Neither of you have ever produced any substantive rationale as to why my proposed edit should not be allowed. The best you could do was assert that my edit was factually inaccurate. And when I debunked that, you had nothing.

We've been over this. Repeatedly. At no point did anyone say your edit was "factually inaccurate". It is just unnecessary to mention "gross negligence" right off the bat in the lead. That's all there is to it, it really is as simple as that. Again, maybe check the history tab of the article: you were reverted by Ruslik0, REDACTED403, Ianmacm and myself. Four people who looked at your edit and thought it wasn't appropriate. Afterwards, EdJohnston edit protected the article for a year, because you keep insisting on it. Then you tried the talk page, with people again disagreeing with you and your started attacking other people. I can't keep saying the same thing over and over again to you. It's just best to move on, really. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"At no point did anyone say your edit was "factually inaccurate""

Yes they did. IanMacM said, of my edit, on 15 January 2024 at 16:24 that "the sourcing does not say this, nor did the coroner's inquests". But thank you for implicitly acknowledging that he was wrong.

"Four people who looked at your edit and thought it wasn't appropriate."

So what. You and IanMacM are stonewalling, and thus can be ignored. Redacted made the nonsensical point that the edit was non-neutral. As I pointed out, that makes no sense when everyone now accepts that it is factually accurate. Ruslik said nothing at all: and that which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

So, I guess you have two weeks to think of better arguments. Because we will resume this then. And continued stonewalling will not help you.

See WP:CONSENSUS. People disagree with you. It's part of life. It's annoying, it sucks. You'll get over it, I believe in you. I am unfollowing your talk page. Stop making personal attacks. Bye. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. You clearly didn't read the stonewalling page at all did you. It is no answer at all to say that no consensus exists when you refuse to engage in any rational discussion or otherwise provide any substantive rationale for your position. See you in two weeks time.

Declined requests must remain until the block us removed/expires, per WP:BLANKING. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.