User talk:Infiltratr

Welcome!
Hello, Infiltratr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

You *ARE* supposed to assume good faith
(In response to this).

See WP:Assume good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

And so are you

"Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others."

And if you believe that something is not done in good faith you are supposed to

Dealing with bad faith
Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return, attack others, or lose your cool over it. It is ultimately much easier for others to resolve a dispute and see who is breaching policies, if one side is clearly acting appropriately throughout.

Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help, and are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence.

Accusing others of bad faith
Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs along with the deformed, resultant edit. Making such claims often serves no purpose and could be seen as inflammatory and hence aggravate a dispute. Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack. The result could be accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle of unhelpful accusations and counter-accusations.

Back to non-copied material
You said "possibly," as if Amaury wasn't acting in good faith and that the assumption of good-faith was hypothetical. If you weren't implying that, then the post doesn't really make any sense. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I am saying "possibly" in that "possibly I will be blocked for personal attacks if I call another good-faith user a vandal", assuming that they really are a good-faith user as defined and they have made edits in line with consensus.

In this specific instance, I do not believe that consensus was reached or attempted to be reached before Howardpearce and General Ization started their war. There was no attempt to revert back to the original until a consensus was made and there was no attempt to even say that there was disagreement on the issue even though based on the revisions it is clear that there is not a consensus on this matter.

I do not see any assumption by Howardpearce that General Ization changes were made in good faith however I do not see any evidence that General Ization did the same with Howardpearce's reverts and no evidence that General Ization made any attempt to draw a consensus on this matter.

And I do not see any evidence that states that my modifications were considered in good faith by anyone including yourself either. If you did believe my changes were in good faith with a goal of taking the article back to what it was before January 2017 until a consensus was reached or wording can be inserted to acknowledge the differing perspectives then I have misunderstood your position.

Either way, the way the article is NOW is inaccurate and needs to be repaired however the inaccuracies are simply reapplied at every attempt to correct the article. To me, that would be vandalism.

"Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help, and are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence."

Clear and specific evidence

(cur | prev) 04:18, 21 May 2017‎ Amaury (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (33,840 bytes) (+8)‎. . (Reverted edits by Infiltratr (talk) to last version by Sro23) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 04:13, 21 May 2017‎ Infiltratr (talk | contribs)‎. . (33,832 bytes) (-8)‎. . (Undid revision 781420437 by Sro23 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:05, 21 May 2017‎ Sro23 (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (33,840 bytes) (+8)‎. . (Reverted edits by Infiltratr (talk) to last version by General Ization) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 03:58, 21 May 2017‎ Infiltratr (talk | contribs)‎. . (33,832 bytes) (-8)‎. . (Undid revision 781418874 by General Ization (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 03:49, 21 May 2017‎ General Ization (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (33,840 bytes) (+8)‎. . (Reverted edits by 2001:8003:4407:9900:25AF:3703:3EC2:498C (talk) to last version by Neptune's Trident) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 03:48, 21 May 2017‎ 2001:8003:4407:9900:25af:3703:3ec2:498c (talk)‎. . (33,832 bytes) (-8)‎. . (Undid revision 776279863 by Materialscientist (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 21:30, 7 May 2017‎ Neptune's Trident (talk | contribs)‎. . (33,840 bytes) (+1)‎. . (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 07:42, 27 April 2017‎ 2602:306:2585:9ad9:9cb4:84d4:decc:7751 (talk)‎. . (33,839 bytes) (+3)‎. . (→‎Actus reus) (undo)

(cur | prev) 01:11, 20 April 2017‎ Materialscientist (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (33,836 bytes) (+8)‎. . (Reverted edits by Howardpearce (talk) to last version by General Ization) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:59, 20 April 2017‎ Howardpearce (talk | contribs)‎. . (33,828 bytes) (-8)‎. . (removed "iilegal" as an invalid description for an immoral action) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:58, 20 April 2017‎ General Ization (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (33,836 bytes) (0)‎. . (Reverted 1 edit by Howardpearce (talk) to last revision by General Ization. (TW)) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:57, 20 April 2017‎ Howardpearce (talk | contribs)‎. . (33,836 bytes) (0)‎. . (replaced the word "illegal" with "immoral") (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:56, 20 April 2017‎ General Ization (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (33,836 bytes) (+8)‎. . (Reverted 1 edit by Howardpearce (talk) to last revision by General Ization. (TW)) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:55, 20 April 2017‎ Howardpearce (talk | contribs)‎. . (33,828 bytes) (-8)‎. . (removed the word "illegal" as a description for an immoral action) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:55, 20 April 2017‎ General Ization (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (33,836 bytes) (+7)‎. . (Reverted 1 edit by Howardpearce (talk) to last revision by General Ization. (TW)) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:54, 20 April 2017‎ Howardpearce (talk | contribs)‎. . (33,829 bytes) (-7)‎. . (removed the adjective "illegal" as a description for an immoral action) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:49, 20 April 2017‎ General Ization (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (33,836 bytes) (+8)‎. . (Reverted 1 edit by Howardpearce (talk) to last revision by LedRush. (TW)) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 00:45, 20 April 2017‎ Howardpearce (talk | contribs)‎. . (33,828 bytes) (-8)‎. . (theft and murder are moral concepts - not legal ones - the word "illegal" ws removed) (undo | thank)

(replaced the word "illegal" with "immoral") (cur | prev) 00:37, 20 April 2017‎ LedRush (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (33,836 bytes) (+8)‎. . (Reverted edits by Howardpearce (talk) to last version by Emphrase) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 21:47, 19 April 2017‎ Howardpearce (talk | contribs)‎. . (33,828 bytes) (-8)‎. . (removed "illegal" as it implies legalized theft is no longer theft) (undo | thank)

Actually, looking back on it, Howardpearce (who I don't know and have never spoken to) seems to have at least tried to fix the document until a consensus can be made

(cur | prev) 00:57, 20 April 2017‎ Howardpearce (talk | contribs)‎. . (33,836 bytes) (0)‎. . (replaced the word "illegal" with "immoral") (undo | thank)

And he was the one that attempted to make a talk page to discuss the item to have it resolved as well

Does a taking need to be illegal to be theft? The concept that theft must be illegal to be theft implies that legalizing it will make it not theft. Imagine if we defined murder as merely being the illegal killing. All legal "murders" would no longer be murder HPearce (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Infiltratr (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Further to that whenever I would respond to Amaury stating that my account was far from a fake or an account designed for vandalism, my comments were removed by him without a singe comment of why. Assuming good faith, the best I can see is that he simply did not understand what he was doing on a public administrators page.

"Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help, and are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence."

Clear and specific evidence

(cur | prev) 04:25, 21 May 2017‎ Amaury (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (4,501 bytes) (-231)‎. . (Reverted edits by Infiltratr (talk) to last version by Amaury) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 04:24, 21 May 2017‎ Infiltratr (talk | contribs)‎. . (4,732 bytes) (+231)‎. . (Undid revision 781422066 by Amaury (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:21, 21 May 2017‎ Amaury (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (4,501 bytes) (-144)‎. . (Reverted edits by Infiltratr (talk) to last version by Amaury) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 04:21, 21 May 2017‎ Infiltratr (talk | contribs)‎. . (4,645 bytes) (+144)‎. . (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:18, 21 May 2017‎ Amaury (talk | contribs)‎. . (4,501 bytes) (+240)‎. . (Reporting Infiltratr. (TW)) (undo | thank)