User talk:CanuckAnthropologist

blocked for one month
You started edit warring and disruptively moving pages without consensus straight off after your block was up so I have re-blocked you for a month. The racist/racial pith of your edits has made them even more disruptive, hence the length of this new block. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.


 * Comments: (1) Other admins will of course see this via Category:Requests for unblock.  (2) The request for a third opinion did not establish consensus: CanuckAnthropologist, please read the Consensus policy. — Athaenara  ✉  20:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought a third opinion was consensus. But atleast I got a third opinion and was using the talk page to provide my reasoning. User:Ramdrake wasn't even using the talk page but just edit warring, yet I am the one that gets blocked. I honestly did think that a 3rd opinion was conensenss, but now I am not really sure what consensus is. How many people do I need to agree before I am an edit? How many people's opinoin do I need? I am new so I don't this stuff and I think it's unfair to expect me to know exactly what consensus is. The Admin Gwen Gale told me to get a 3rd opinion and that's I did thinking that was consensus.CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Consensus policy page which I linked in my post explains consensus fully. — Athaenara ✉  21:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * CanuckAnthropologist, yesterday you said Rewinn lied, now you say Ramdrake lied. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And both did. Rewinn convinced you that I am somehow racist and Euro-centric and you are beleiving it while there is not a single racist edit I've made. Then Ramdradke got you to believe that I did not establish consensus when I clearly did by getting a third opinion. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And you've already been told that a third opinion does not establish consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been told that just now. Atleast I had good intentions and believed that 3rd opinion was consensus. What did you do? You didn't even use the talk page. I atleast provided reasoning and got a 3rd opinion. You were the one edit warring without even tryin to discuss so you should be the one that gets blocked. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You should know by now that moving (renaming) a page is usually not done without consensus. Nevertheless, in just a couple of weeks, you moved about a dozen pages without consensus, and edit-warred over it the moment it was reversed. Rule of thumb is, if you get reverted, you start by asking why on the talk page, you don't re-revert over it.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I put perfect reasoning on the talk pages. Noone disputed the reasons on the talk page. If you objected to it you could have replied to my reasons on the talk page. You did not. Thus you made no attempt to discsuss and establish a consensus, you just edit warred senselessly. I am the one that started the discussions on the moves and when that didn't get responses I even went and requested a 3rd opinion. The rule of thumb is if you object, use the talk page to discuss why, and you did not do that. I put my reasons very clearly on the talk page to try to establish consensus and even went after people to come and dicuss it. You just edit warred without reasons, thus you are the one right now who should be blocked, not me. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Several people disputed your reasoning for the reverts, especially the removal of the image of the blonde Pacific Islander child at Blond. However, I would encourage you indeed to open an RfC when you get unblocked to get a wider audience on your proposed renamings before you start on any of them. Rushyo was in fact commenting on your proposal to move African-Germans to Black Africans in Germany, and suggested not to. I don't see that he was really endorsing specifically your move from Afro-Germans to African-Germans. If (as I suspect) the consensus is overwhelmingly that these are not good changes), I would then expect you to follow it and stop those page moves. If the consensus is that those page moves are indeed a good idea, I'll vouch for the fact that I won't try to revert them again. The key is this: establish consensus first, by getting as wide an audience as possible.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Moreover, as I've already told you, I've never had any exchanges at all with Rewinn (although I did block him once for edit warring with you). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your behaviour on Blond, repeatedly removing a picture you disagreed with, even when ten or so other editors expressly voiced their opinion on talk that the picture should stay proves your disregard for consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)