User talk:Macktheknifeau/Archive4

Blocked again
Hi again Macktheknifeau. I have blocked your account indefinitely for the continuing violations of WP:POINT in the Australian sports matter. It disappoints me that you have apparently failed to learn from your previous blocks and the commentary around them, both centrally and here at your user talk page. As before, if you are able to understand what you are doing wrong and clearly state that you will not do it any more, I (or any admin) can unblock you. As you know very well by now, to post an unblock add but you should definitely read WP:GAB first. --John (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a good hard look at what you've done. Permanently banned a user who has been editing the site for 8 years because they changed a sports team's nickname to it's official Wikipedia article title in a handful of articles. Congratulations, you are the new poster child for bureaucracy gone mad. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your accusations of "guerilla warfare" are reprehensible. I am not 'making war', I am making legitimate edits to improve the clarity of articles. Did you even bother to read the discussion? No-one has actually managed to explain how using the official title of an article on the wiki is 'disruptive' or in any way breaches the existing consensus. I find your accusation of bad faith astounding coming from someone who is meant to be an admin. I request you withdraw those accusations immediately. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Another illegitimate block.
User has 3 previous blocks for disruptive behaviour in connection with Australian sports naming rules in March and April. All were reviewed at AN/I and found to be proper (diffs on request). Has recently returned to making edits which seem contentious, clumsy, and POINTy in relation to Australian sports naming rules and have been discussed as such here. Macktheknifeau was warned here that any recidivism in the area would not be tolerated, and so it has proved. I was worried this might play out this way and would still love to see Mack turn his behaviour around. I will be happy if any admin can suggest a better way out of this than an indef for someone who wishes to contribute, but I cannot see this myself at present. --John (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note for reviewing admin:
 * Sample edit
 * Repeats edit when reverted
 * Yeah, and I let that bullshit ban (changing the rules, then banning me on edits made before your changes) stand instead of challenging it further. I knew what I did that it would come back to haunt me. You've found another bullshit reason to ban me, and because I let your sloppy adminship go in that previous instance, I'm now banned permanently. What a joke. Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, how many times do you feel an admin has to block someone before WP:INVOLVED comes into play?  Calidum Talk To Me 17:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus breach. How can using the name of the official wikipedia article breach consensus?! It's the name of the topic! The "WP Common" guideline has obvious exceptions, we don't call people by their nicknames, so why would we call a sports team by their nickname, especially when that nickname doesn't give any indication as to what that sports team is. Did you even bother to read my request? Making "demands"... of course I'm 'making demands', because I've been banned, why the hell wouldn't I request an immediate unblock? Should I simply sit back, not request anything and see no-one do a thing to help me? I'm so sick of this bullshit, I'm not sure if I even give a fuck about appealing this further. Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You have not been banned, you have been blocked. There's a very important distinction. Banned users are not welcome here, full stop. Their status can only be changed by community consensus. Blocked users have merely been technically prevented from editing here to prevent disruption from the project. If, now or at any time in the future, you feel like accepting our community norms and coming back, you can absolutely do so. All you need to do is read and understand WP:POINT, and make an unblock request that addresses the reasons for your block, and explains why it will not be necessary to block you in the future. There is no hurry; if you need a week or a month to do this, then you take it. --John (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * call it what you like, a ban from editing the wiki is a ban. None of my last three unblock request have been met with anything other than contempt and a failure to actually look at the issues behind them. I don't want to make any more unblock requests, I want someone to actually look at the evidence from both this ban and the one prior to that, and not to just dismiss things out of hand because of the stupid grey & grey morality of the "pointy" doctrine (pointy is a disgraceful policy and one that encourages admins to simply block and forget because they can't be bothered to use the real rules of the site), one that you are abusing to ban me for edits that aren't against any rule, don't breach consensus, because I had the sheer nerve to replace a nickname with the topic article title here on wikipedia. I also want another admin, one who isn't hopeless at his job and now biased against me. You're way too involved, you are heaping abuses of your admin powers one on top of another to hide previous failures. You still haven't given me a reason why replacing a nickname with the official article is 'pointy', and you still haven't given me a reason why in your last ban, you decided you could change the rules and then retrospectively ban me for them. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Community norms"? You mean how I accepted your version of the rules governing the name for football, followed them, only to see you turn around and unilaterally change what those rules were, then ban me for them? That wasn't any kind of 'community norm', it was you abusing your admin powers. And how is replacing a nickname with the full title of an article on wikipedia an example of failing to follow community norms? One is a nickname, and the other is a formal link to an article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said to you on 8 April. --John (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Still unable to figure out how to explain using the official article title of a topic on wikipedia is "pointy"? Figures. Another example of bad adminship, blocking without reading the situation simply on the recommendation of Hilo, and then refusing to accept your mistakes. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well, I won't bother you again. You could always ask User:Jpgordon, User:Kww or User:Callanecc if you need more advice on how to proceed towards an unblock, or on how you should conduct yourself if you are successful in being unblocked, as they have all examined your previous unblocks and are familiar with your case. They may be able to advise you. Best of luck. --John (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just like I thought. Running away, completely unable to defend your actions, you couldn't even figure out one sentence as to why changing a non-title nickname to a wikipedia article title is 'pointy'. Doesn't surprise me. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sending the other team off
There is a tactic used in association football, where a slight contact between players is escalated into drama and a game-changing advantage. One player will fall to the ground clutching his body, demonstrating all the aspects of agony and incapacitation. The referee sends off the other player for causing the injury. The injured player then bravely struggles to his feet and continues playing on through the pain; he even smiles a little. Brave fellow!

A variant is to goad the opposing players into bad behaviour, to the same end.

When all the players in the opposing team have been thus removed from play, only one side remains effective.

This is not how Wikipedia should work. --Pete (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That isn't how I see it, Pete. It certainly isn't how I see it. If you (or he) can show there was provocation towards Macktheknifeau, I would be keen to see it. If there was bad behaviour from someone "on the other side", I would be keen to see it. If this, or any of my conduct in this area, is in any way slanted or (as you imply) gullible or naive, I would be keen to see that. I was and remain sincere when I say I am keen to avoid blocks. Mack has been blocked and final warned on making clumsy repetitive edits in the area of sports naming without consensus; he seemingly doesn't see that edits like these can be seen as provocative and disruptive. This is a shame as the specific block last time was for something very similar and was upheld. If there's any way he could rejoin the process (which sometimes means a consensus goes against you), I would be extremely keen to facilitate that. For what it's worth, I would also welcome if you were able to return to this topic, but I recognise that's dependent on your interaction ban with HiLo48. Maybe that's something you'll want to pursue in the future. --John (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hilo's 'opening gambit' on the most recent minor issue, was to try and draw attention to my previous so called 'negative' behaviour. He then directly accused me of being 'pointy', without in any way shape or form managing to say why it was 'pointy', except for the fact that he didn't agree with renaming a nickname to wikipedia's official title for the article. Having a difference of opinion in how to word articles on the wiki is very different from being 'pointy'. As far as I can see, the only difference between editing the wiki, and editing the wiki in a 'pointy' way, is having a biased admin ready to ban someone for making an edit you disagree with. Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see a wider picture. It's not just Macktheknifeau being "sent off". Nor is it a pattern of disruption in just one area. I see the same disruption and disputing and ANI drama in a series of diverse forums, and the common element is not Macktheknifeau.
 * You know I applaud your attitude, John, and you are quite justified in blocking after a series of warnings. However, I do wonder about the validity of a score of 9:2 when several editors were unable to participate. An earlier poll showed a markedly different outcome. I'm seeing a lot of dramatics, a lot of playing the man rather than the ball, a lot of opinions. And very little in the way of facts and reliable sources. That's not how the Wikipedia game is supposed to be played. Consensus isn't determined by counting noses in a shouting match. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hilo managed to rope in John to ban half the supporters of "Football". He will have unfettered access to change whatever he wants now, having got John to ban anyone with a remotely different opinion to his, now no-one else I know who supports football will speak up because they know the instant Hilo gets offended he'll run off to his buddy John for a ban. Project AFL wins. Congratulations John, you have given control of an entire set of articles to a group of people who hate the sport those articles are about. Not to mention the idea of Hilo crying foul about supposed bad behaviour. Coming from one of the least civil users I've ever seen, it's bitterly ironic. Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Another unblock request
Mack, can I suggest a way forward? You've got a bunch of admins lined up to keep you blocked. You are unlikely to get anywhere with this approach. Why not offer to self-revert your edits if unblocked, to discuss them - with regard to facts and wikipolicy rather than any comments on other editors - and only to make those edits if there is a clear consensus to do so. --Pete (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do I need 'consensus' to change a nickname to a proper wiki link? The 'consensus' so far was not against me (there is me and one other editor who supports the changes against one editor who vehemently disagrees with anything I post, an IP that has made abusive edits towards me, and a couple of editors more concerned with guidelines like 'overlinking' than the actual change). Needing 'consensus' to make basic edits leads the way to madness, if I need 'consensus' to make even basic edits, every time I make an edit that I don't spend hours arguing with Hilo about, on a football article, Hilo will run off to John to declare my edits 'pointy' and get me banned again, even if they completely follow the guidelines (and even then, John has shown he is willing to alter those guidelines to find a way to ban me, the last time I got blocked, it was because I made edits based on a guideline that John has declared "as per consensus" until he changed his mind after I made edits based on them, then blocked me). Even in the unblock request above, admins still don't get the situation, the admin above is referencing article titles that are nicknames. My issue is being told I'm 'pointy' because I replaced a nickname that is not an article title, with a proper wiki link to the correct article. Is that so hard for the admins to comprehend? I'd rather go back to TV Tropes than continue making efforts to improve articles here when the admins are so incompetent, and I have the threat of unjust 'blocks' hanging over my head. Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, how's that point of view working out for you? If your changes were good ones, they'd survive discussion on their own merits. If they are good ones and there's a cabal lined up to oppose them, then they aren't going to survive anyway, and all the rational argument in the world won't work with people whose minds are made up. Without naming names, there's an editor or two whose minds are so locked to one point of view that argument has no effect. You could be Socrates himself and you're still going to be handed a cup of hemlock.
 * And realistically, what's the point? Is this one little thing so important that you get bogged down in stress and conflict and unhappiness? Might as well accept that the playing field isn't level and find other ways to make your point within the unfair system. That worked for Gandhi and Mandela.
 * With these particular edits, I can see where you're coming from, but I thought they were pretty line-ball. The awkward wording for starters. And there's never going to be any media support - the headlines are always going to use the shorter, punchier nickname, so the common usage argument is going to be hard to make when Google pulls ups a flood of current references. Gotta choose your battles.
 * My assessment of the overall situation in Australia is that the "soccer" tide is flowing out as the "football" and "association football" tide flows in. The common usage argument for soccer is wearing very thin because those supporting the term can't do anything more than wave their hands about and declare their opinion. There's no polls, no numbers, no sources to support them, and almost every media and official source is on the "association football" side, and has been for years.
 * All you need do, all we need do, is to wait and the tide will lift our boat. On that point, may I quietly suggest that you go off and do something else for a few weeks before making another unblock request? --Pete (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Third unblock request

 * Please do not cast aspersions upon another editor or admin. I have not made any action "to support another admin"; I would appreciate it if you would strike this false accusation from your unblock request. Nor do I "fail to understand" the issue at hand or "seem to think" anything. I looked at your edits, I saw what they were, and I saw that there is WP:CONSENSUS against them - as this is not a new issue for you, but instead a subject you have chosen to make a WP:BATTLEGROUND. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I will call things how I see them. And I see yet another example of admins dismissing my block appeals out of hand without actually looking at the evidence, to support an admin who has made numerous bad calls. There was no 'consensus' against them. There was one editor, who always disagrees with everything I do. And yet again, you as an admin have failed to explain why I need 'consensus' to change a non-article titled nickname to the official Wikipedia article link. If you think me trying to get someone to explain how using the official article title in an article is 'pointy', then sure, you can think I'm making this a 'WP:BATTLEGROUND'. But wouldn't you, if you were blocked for a month when an admin declared guidelines as 'per consensus', then you edited them, and said admin turned around, edited those guidelines then blocked you for them? And then decided to turn around later and block you indefinitely for making a very basic, simply change to improve the clarity of a few articles? You propose I simply get down on my knees and accept my unjust fate, and not even bother to appeal anything, even though I completely disagree with the situation? All I see is yet another admin who wants me to give up and make a false confession to crimes I haven't committed just to let an admin decide I am 'rehabilitated' and can be safely allowed to edit the wiki again. Making a false confession is something I will never do. I'll appeal this as far as I can before I ever lie about how I perceive these events. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's make this perfectly and completely clear: There is no "supporting an admin" here. I don't even know who the blocking admin was in your case, so it is literally impossible for me to be supporting anybody. So I repeat: please strike your unsubstantiated attack. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are supporting another admin. You don't need to know who the admin was to support them. I would have thought that was obvious. Once again, I request for you to explain how changing a nickname to the official, correct, supported by consensus wikipedia article title can be 'pointy'. That is my biggest issue with this current block. Macktheknifeau (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ...your lack of logic in that first statment is astounding, your continued assumption of bad faith disturbing, and your retention, and redoubling, of the personal attacks in your statement dissapointing. As for your question, it's pointy because you have repeatedly had issues with regards to Australian sports nad you have repeatedly returned to that topic area despite your edits there being repeatedly found troublesome - it gives the impression, rightly or not, that you repeatedly return to that topic are and make controversial edits because they are controversial. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC).
 * So in effect, because a small group of editors disagree with Australia national association football team because it includes the word "football", it's 'pointy' for me use that official and supported by consensus article title. Screw consensus, we don't need that, we just have to avoid annoying Hilo. What a joke. Instead of using the consensus accepted Australia national association football team title, I have to use a non-consensus nickname because it offends a small group of users who hate the sport and don't contribute anything to the articles except for sooking, complaints and getting people banned by admins? That is what you're saying right? That I shouldn't use an actual article title because it offends someone? You should read WP:NOTPOINTY. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)