User talk:Γνῶθι σεαυτόν/Archive 3

Last warning
I discussed your (post unblock) behavior with another admin, and we agree that it is not constructive. You made more than 100 edits, but only 5 to the main namespace, 3 of which are reverts. Basically, all that you are doing are endless discussions. In those discussions you are mostly right, but that is totally irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and users should be building it. One is not building encyclopedia by endless talking, but by writing and improving articles. When I unblocked you, I told you that you have to make less discussion. Other editors told you the same. Take this as the last warning. Stop endless discussions, stop using Wikipedia as a social web site. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Please, nobody wants to loose such a smart and dedicated editor like you. But, you have to turn your focus to something constructive. This way, you are just vesting everybody's time. Please.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think I know who this other editor is because he has warned me that I "will be indeffed in the near future" here . All this saddens me because, rightly or wrongly, I believe I was helping improve Wikipedia by discussing content with other editors. You will surely have noted that my tone is not confrontational and that I never criticise the editor, only the content. As for positive contributions to the main namespace, I have in fact made a certain number (mostly in scientific articles), while not logged in, before I had an account and continued to do so after opening one with the username "Againstdisinformation" (I deemed it was not proper for scientific editing). As Againstdisinformation, my purpose has been to address openly the issue of bias in current affairs articles. I realise now that it might not have been such a good idea. The only thing I achieved is attracting animosity from a certain group of very influential editors. In reducing what I perceive as being bias, "I failed miserably", as put by Ymblanter (not really a completely uninvolved editor). On the other hand, I have been called a Putin stooge three times (including by the last contributor, if only by innuendo) and treated with disrespect more times than I can remember. Contrary to what has been suggested I have made no money by contributing to Wikipedia, quite the opposite. Therefore, I won't hide to you that I am feeling disheartened. I have made the decision to take a very, very long wikibreak and not make any edit whatsoever (unless, perhaps, on my user page). I may come back, that is unless you indeff me, but it is not going to be any time soon. Thank you for your compliments Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not listening. That very editor you complain about gave you an excellent piece of advice: please check talk page archive prior to starting arguing about something you never edited before. And what did you do? Just the opposite . My very best wishes (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean with something he "never edited before"? He did several edits to that article back in September, and even asked to be part of the meditation. Ref. diff. From what I have seen he is a good editor, and his arguments are mostly addressing legitimate concerns. Erlbaeko (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This my very last edit on my talk page. It is meant to express my gratitude and my love to all those who have been my friends. They will recognise themselves. Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider. You've only recently begun editing. There's a lot of work to be done, and you are needed. Corinne (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Second Corinne here. Dorpater (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That was not me, for the record.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems very strange to me that having dialogues is called "endless talking" here and even though the editor in question is mostly right, it's still seen as a bad thing.

Sometimes it takes a lot of talking to really get at ideas to see what's behind things, and to root out ideological biases embedded in articles. That is not endless talking but sometimes it takes a lot of words, and often those words are forced to be so voluminous because of editors who are using WP:POV railroading tactics to try to maintain the biased content, or to force biased content into articles.

Therefore, to the use the volume of words against an editor who is actually working to elucidate what's in the articles and why it's sometimes a reflection of bias seems to be a form of shooting the messenger.

Let's allow dialogue. The bytes are nearly free. I think they cast about $0.01 per user per months, and that's covered by donations to the WMF, so let us have as many words as we need to really get the heart of matters.

Let's spend our energy warning those who are actually obstructionist and pushing biased points of view, instead of those who are working against disinformation.

We do want to build an encyclopedia, but that's not all growth. Sometimes it's a hard and deep look at the content already in the encyclopedia, in order to make it of higher quality. SageRad (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just one suggestion, if know yourself is not under a bloc/ban now, a WP:CLEANSTART might be a good idea. AlbinoFerret  16:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Still, shouldn't we be -- on a meta level -- asking why users such as Γνῶθι σεαυτόν (know thyself) are consistently brought to a point where a clean start seems like a good idea? Why isn't there some sort of justice, a way to prevent the railroading that is occurring here? Why does someone who makes good points in a fairly even tone manner brought to the point where people are calling for them to be banned, making chilling warnings on their talk pages, and ganging up in a mobbing bullying behavior against the editor in question? It seriously concerns me. I'd rather there be lack of authority on Wikipedia, than that the authority sides with the mobbing mentality far too often. SageRad (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I obviously do not share your vision, but WP:AN and WP:ANI are at your service.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really, as it totally depends on which admin responds. I think you miss my point that authority in Wikipedia has tended, in my observation, to too-often side with the ganging and mobbing behavior, and not to recognize some basic dynamics of railroading that happen here. There is a pattern of behavior in which the facts and reality don't matter as much as rhetoric and intimidation. It's not alright. I call this a problem. Oh, i wish it were as simple as appealing to the authority here, and them going in, with good faith, and getting to the root of issues, and calling out the bad behavior. But it's not so simple because the same sort of power bloc that plays the games at the content level on talk pages has also permeated the admin level at AN and ANI and ArbCom.

SageRad (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see ganging and mobbing behavior on this editor's talk page, I see a number of editors asking Γνῶθι_σεαυτόν to reconsider their decision to take a wiki-break. That is editor support in my book. Every editor receives criticism because no one is perfect and we all make mistakes and a certain amount of criticism is to be expected without it being interpreted as ganging up. Liz  Read! Talk! 17:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I said what i said based on some fairly in-depth observation on several talk pages where the editor had taken part, and also frmo observing the discussion about unblocking the editor, as well as observations of dialogues on the editor's talk page. So i say it from a position of considered observation, as well as from my own experience on Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I too would suggest for Γνῶθι σεαυτόν to make another try and possibly change their current user name, however creating a "clean start" account (as suggested by AlbinoFerret) would definitely be a very bad idea, given that they are now effectively under editing restrictions (the conditional unblock). My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Another aspect of "clean start" is that it recommends against editing in the same articles or pattern, and that would therefore be another push of the editor in question away from doing what they are doing, when what they are doing is not wrong at all, and in fact, is good in my reckoning. I think we need integrity in approach to justice within Wikipedia. We need to avoid the pitfalls of railroading people, avoid piling on with judgments based on superficial assessments or group behavior (i.e. mobbing), and really only tell editors to stop doing what they're doing, if they're actually being obstructive or bad editors. SageRad (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Just to note that this and this are clearly your edits (see ), which a blatant violation of conditions of your unblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Same edit by another named account. Looks like him. Should be probably blocked per WP:DUCK. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would take it to WP:SPI at this point. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)