User talk:Eightball

Warning
Your conduct at Administrators' noticeboard and harassment of Marchjuly (e.g. 1) is extremely inappropriate. You've already been blocked for similar behavior in the past, so you know what happens next. Please drop the stick. Thanks,  F ASTILY   23:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When this is all done and dusted I will not forget to discuss your needlessly threatening behavior with other administrators. There is no reason to block me and yet this is the second time you have threatened to silence me with sanctions. You keep telling me to drop the stick; I would ask you to do the same. Eightball (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we've had enough of your nonsense. I've given you the opportunity to stop and reflect on your actions, but you've continued harassing @Explicit over a moot issue.  Additionally, your repeated misinterpretation/perversion/wikilawyering of the policies/guidelines that govern this site is troubling, and suggest that you may have a competence issue.  That said, you are blocked until you a) decide you are prepared to contribute in a constructive and collegial manner (without harassing others), and b) prove to us that you have read and understand WP:XFD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NFCC, and WP:CIVIL.  Thank you,   F ASTILY   02:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I think your actions are a complete overreaction. Eightball literally made one edit (how is that non-stop??) to any of the relevant talk pages since your warning and there was no threatening or uncivil language in it at all. All we are trying to do is explain and address our concerns with some people's actions in these situations.Tvx1 11:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Unblock
I was pinged, so I'll give my thoughts. All in all, I feel that blocking this user indefinitely is a massive overreaction. I agree that Eightball maybe used a bit of strong language in the WP:AN thread, but at the same time they didn't issue any insult or threat to any of the involved users there. There I could have understood a short (e.g. 12 or 24 hours) block but an indefinite one is just disproportionate and excessive. Even more so since this user made only one more edit with regards to this issue (a rather civil reply at Explicit's talk page which only intended to clarify their concerns). That to me is nowhere near the "Non-stop wikilawyering/harassment of other editors" referred to in the block rationale. Unfortunately it appears that this user has been railroaded for having the audacity to post another reply on the talk page of administrator Explicit. Note that I myself have received from the administrator who issued this block, even though I did not do anything uncivil, threatening or insulting to anyone anywhere. Therefore I hope an uninvolved administrator will take the time carefully review this block.Tvx1 15:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd like to request that the reviewing admin please not unblock this user yet, as I believe they intend to repeat the same battleground behavior that led me to block them in the first place. I'll gladly advocate for an unblock provided that Eightball has demonstrated that they understand the reasons for this block and agrees to the unblock conditions stated above: .  Best,   F ASTILY   00:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your continued attacks and condescending tone are completely unnecessary. Eightball (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to take this opportunity to remind you that casting aspersions are also not tolerated on Wikipedia, so it's in your best interests to refrain from a) continuing to misrepresent the situation and b) making more baseless accusations. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence after all. Regards,   F ASTILY   01:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am raising this dispute to the arbitration committee. Eightball (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Go for it. For the record, I'm literally trying to help you, but you're not even willing to help yourself.  That's a real shame.  Best,   F ASTILY   01:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

1. Bringing the image to DRV or FFD is NOT required, and I challenge you to provide a policy that says otherwise. As User:Tvx1 has pointed out numerous times (fun fact: he's also been indefinitely banned by Fastily, solely for speaking up in my defense), consensus can be overturned simply by editing, especially when new evidence is provided. That was the case here, and I provided said evidence. The reason this disagreement grew into a dispute has nothing to do with me and everything to do with User:Marchjuly refusing to consider that evidence and instead repeatedly reverting my edits. Were it not for that editor we would not be having that discussion. Furthermore - I DID eventually bring the image to FFD, and the editors there uninamously agreed with me. Do you know who didn't show up in the FFD? Both Fastily and Marchjuly. Odd. 2. I would sincerely request that you explain what I did wrong in the ANI as I am completely baffled as to what was the problem there. 3. This is a clear and obvious abuse of power by User:Fastily and I will be escalating the issue to the arbitration committee. As I stated before, he has also blocked User:Tvx1 for absolutely no reason. Eightball (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm specifically looking for a response from yourself or another uninvolved admin, not Fastily. Eightball (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This will probably be my last reply here, because I'm very tired of repeating myself. For your sake, I hope you will take this feedback seriously, because you are actively digging yourself into a hole you soon won't be able to crawl out of.
 * It absolutely is; this has been explained to you on multiple occasions by different editors here, here, and here.
 * Nope, not the reason.
 * Please refer to WP:NOTTHEM
 * See above.
 * Please refer to WP:NOTTHEM, WP:ASPERSIONS
 * - F ASTILY   01:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It absolutely is; this has been explained to you on multiple occasions by different editors here, here, and here.
 * Link the relevant policy here, right now. Prove me wrong. Eightball (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be pretty silly to have a whole week long deletion process that determines the community consensus if just anyone was allowed to ignore that consensus simply if they disagree with it. But it's okay, I know you don't hear that, so I'll just wait for the arbcom case, I guess. ST47 (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sincerely trying to ask a question here, OK? Please ignore Fastily for a moment and just help me out. I promise you I am being sincere in this request: PLEASE show me the policy you're referencing. You say my block won't be lifted unless I prove I understand the rules, yet you refuse to tell me what rules I've broken. I don't understand that. Eightball (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For my part I will point out that the policies on consensus explicitly state that, "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing." Eightball (talk) 02:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to address your comment: "Do you know who didn't show up in the FFD? Both Fastily and Marchjuly. Odd." Evidence that you are completely missing the point. A consensus regarding the file's usage was established three years ago. You felt that the result of the discussion was a mistake, so decided to ignore it and re-add the file without seeking consensus to do so. You were reverted, which led to the situation escalating when you repeatedly retaliated. You cherry-picked a single line from WP:CCC to justify your actions, despite the policy stating to do the exact opposite in cases where consensus was previously established through discussion. The line directly after the one you cite reads: That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. This was the wikilawyering Fastily is talking about. You (and Tvx1) both continue to misrepresent policy. You two keep arguing your points about NFCC when the issue largely centers around your behavioral issues and how terribly executed both of your actions were. You went on with your uncivil behavior on Marchjuly's talk page and at the thread you initiated at WP:AN. On top all of this, you proceeded to leave a condescending comment on my page. You claimed that I misrepresented the situation and accused me of a personal attack, then you went around and violated WP:NPA in your own unblock request. You were blocked for this kind of behavior twice in the past, the first being nearly four years ago. You don't seem interested in hearing anyone but yourself, which will only lead you to face the consequences of your actions as you are doing now. If you don't see the problem, you will not be seeing a solution. Ə XPLICIT 06:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 *  That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion.
 * This clearly states "in most cases," thus illustrating that there are cases in which discussion is not outright required. I simply believe that this is one of those cases, as the logo previously in use at Arsenal W.F.C. (with the "Ladies" caption) is not now and never has been the logo of the club. Using that logo was a clear and obvious error, as shown by an overwhelming amount of evidence I have provided (per the FFD) that File:Arsenal FC.svg is the correct logo (and has been since that logo was introduced in...2003, I think).
 * I fully understand why you believe this argument to be "wikilawyering," as WP:CONSENSUS is pretty clear that achieving consensus via discussion is the ideal process, and that exceptions to that are rare. But I need you to understand this, which is the crux of my problem with this entire dispute: consensus is a decision-making process, but here there was no decision to made. The club has one logo and the club chooses that logo. Wikipedia editors cannot achieve consensus to decide that Arsenal has a different logo than the one they actually use.
 * There was gap between me adding the correct logo to the page and updating that logo with an additional NFCC template to cover said page. That was a mistake, and any editor would've been right to revert my edits for that reason. After I rectified that error, though, there was no further reason to revert my edit, any more so than you'd revert the correction of a typo. Eightball (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to address your comment: "Do you know who didn't show up in the FFD? Both Fastily and Marchjuly. Odd." Evidence that you are completely missing the point. A consensus regarding the file's usage was established three years ago. You felt that the result of the discussion was a mistake, so decided to ignore it and re-add the file without seeking consensus to do so. You were reverted, which led to the situation escalating when you repeatedly retaliated. You cherry-picked a single line from WP:CCC to justify your actions, despite the policy stating to do the exact opposite in cases where consensus was previously established through discussion. The line directly after the one you cite reads: That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. This was the wikilawyering Fastily is talking about. You (and Tvx1) both continue to misrepresent policy. You two keep arguing your points about NFCC when the issue largely centers around your behavioral issues and how terribly executed both of your actions were. You went on with your uncivil behavior on Marchjuly's talk page and at the thread you initiated at WP:AN. On top all of this, you proceeded to leave a condescending comment on my page. You claimed that I misrepresented the situation and accused me of a personal attack, then you went around and violated WP:NPA in your own unblock request. You were blocked for this kind of behavior twice in the past, the first being nearly four years ago. You don't seem interested in hearing anyone but yourself, which will only lead you to face the consequences of your actions as you are doing now. If you don't see the problem, you will not be seeing a solution. Ə XPLICIT 06:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 *  That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion.
 * This clearly states "in most cases," thus illustrating that there are cases in which discussion is not outright required. I simply believe that this is one of those cases, as the logo previously in use at Arsenal W.F.C. (with the "Ladies" caption) is not now and never has been the logo of the club. Using that logo was a clear and obvious error, as shown by an overwhelming amount of evidence I have provided (per the FFD) that File:Arsenal FC.svg is the correct logo (and has been since that logo was introduced in...2003, I think).
 * I fully understand why you believe this argument to be "wikilawyering," as WP:CONSENSUS is pretty clear that achieving consensus via discussion is the ideal process, and that exceptions to that are rare. But I need you to understand this, which is the crux of my problem with this entire dispute: consensus is a decision-making process, but here there was no decision to made. The club has one logo and the club chooses that logo. Wikipedia editors cannot achieve consensus to decide that Arsenal has a different logo than the one they actually use.
 * There was gap between me adding the correct logo to the page and updating that logo with an additional NFCC template to cover said page. That was a mistake, and any editor would've been right to revert my edits for that reason. After I rectified that error, though, there was no further reason to revert my edit, any more so than you'd revert the correction of a typo. Eightball (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi
Forgive the intrusion,, I just want to see if I can help as this seems to me like another bad block. I think if you were willing to make a declaration along these lines you might find an uninvolved admin willing to give you another chance. I know from my own experiences that if you have previous blocks, admins quite often lapse into confirmation bias ("There's Eightball up to his old tricks again") rather than weighing up the proper context. They won't trail through this whole dispute and - to be fair - who can blame them? I obviously agree with what you've said here but I think you (we) need to 'play the long game'. Very clearly, but if we succumb to provocation or allow ourselves to be pulled down to their level it gives them (or rather their go-to admins) a pretext to make these sort of tactical blocks. I apologise again as I know from my own experiences that well-intentioned do-gooders coming and pontificating on your talk page during a block can be annoying! If you do decide to go down the Arbcom route and need any assistance I will do anything I can. Cheers, Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Women's Football / Soccer Task Force News: July 2019
Subscribe or Unsubscribe here. Sent by: Hmlarson (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 03:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

Women's Football / Soccer Update > October 2020
Subscribe or Unsubscribe here. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)