User talk:Dr Zen/Raulthreat

Warning
This is your last warning - remove the picture from clitoris again and I'm going to block you for distruption. &rarr;Raul654 02:24, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * This seems to be an uncertain area of policy, so I would advise against blocks. As long as user behaves in accord with the three revert rule, it might be more prudent to comment/mediate/arbitrate. In the past, user only reverted once per a day, and I feel reasonably confident he'll be well behaved in the future.
 * I don't think this user is distrupting wikipedia to prove a point: he actually wants a different kind of presentation for clitoris. Cool Hand Luke  03:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Finally we have someone who will ban this idiot. I stayed out of the discussions but I am delurking to say it's about time. I support you 100% Raul. Tsui


 * An anonymous personal attack. Just the kind of thing admins should be dealing with instead of harassing good-faith editors. But hey, this one agrees with Raul, so no chance of action.Dr Zen 04:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * There's nothing uncertain about it - he has instigated a half dozen polls, and *every single one of them* came out favoring the status quo. He simply refuses to accept it. He has been warned repeatedly, by numerous admins, to cease (although he tends to blank this page so that such things get overlooked). He left for a month, and the whole controversy ended, which just goes to show that he, and he alone, is the source of the disruption. This is, for the record, the *EXACT SAME* behavior that got Cantus sanctioned by the commitee - twice - on that very same article! As such, my threat still stands - if he continues going against consensus, disrupting wikipedia and vandalizing that article, I will ban him. &rarr;Raul654 04:03, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, your interpreation of the three revert rule is totally, 100% wrong. The three revert rule is NOT meant to justify bad behavior 'so long as it remains less than 3 reverts in 24 hours'. It's meant to limit the damaged caused by really bad behavior (potentially neverending revert wars). &rarr;Raul654 04:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I have "instigated" polls? A lie. I think polls are evil and do not agree that they should be used to allow the majority to push their opinion. All polls favoured the status quo? Another lie. They have been on varying issues and each one has had several dissenters. Consensus means all walk away satisfied, even if they don't get what they wanted. It doesn't mean you can just fuck off if you don't agree with me. There is no "status quo" with Wikipedia. You cannot hope to get articles set in stone. I won't ever be part of the movement to do so. I refused to accept it? You're damned right I do. I will never agree that Wikipedia should exclude people who don't share Raul's opinion of what's acceptable. I believe it would be vastly improved if Raul kept his opinion to himself. I have been warned by numerous admins? Another lie. Dave Gerard threw in a threat but he withdrew it when challenged by another user. That just leaves you, Raul. Most admins work in good faith and do not have the belief that they have been set over other users as a quasi-police. You're a big bully, Raul. Nothing more, nothing less. You don't understand what consensus is. All you understand is your own way and trying to get it. I blank this page to hide warnings? Another lie. I place talk into the archive when the page grows too large. I have vandalised the article? This is yet another lie. I have not done anything that could be described as vandalism. I have removed a picture just as I would remove words that are inappropriate.

I will edit the article in good faith as I see fit. I am totally unafraid of rogue admins, even one as vindictive as Raul.

And Raul, there is nothing to empower you to punish me for what you see as my "bad behavior" (although, I have to say, I am astonished that you go so far as to consider editing in good faith that you don't agree with as bad behaviour). Stubborn users are even specifically mentioned as not vandals on the appropriate page.

So ban me, Raul. Do it. Show how you think Wikipedia should work. Ban a volunteer editor with hundreds, thousands probably, of good-faith edits, because you disagree with one of those edits. Abuse your power, Raul. Do it. I don't care. I will still edit the article as I see fit in good faith and in compliance with the policies of Wikipedia.Dr Zen 04:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)