User talk:Pat8722

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks for your recent enquiry. I've e-mailed you the information you requested.--File Éireann 11:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You appear to be a Catholic and pro-life. So am I. Let me know if I can help you at any time.--File Éireann 11:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a full copy of the file available at User:Brendanconway/temporary. Let me know when you have finished viewing it so it can be re-deleted.--File Éireann 23:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Category:Traditionalist Catholics and Category:Catholic Traditionalism are not the same thing. See Talk:Traditionalist Catholics "move article proposal". Why try to obfuscate and confuse things by trying to merge two distinct categories? pat8722 17:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)"
 * See WP:FAITH and WP:ATTACK. --Samuel J. Howard 11:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Your votes on categories for deletion
I'm rather confused by where you have voted "keep, but move to a list." Are you trying to say that a list article should be maintained in lieu of a category? In that case, you should be voting "listify and delete," to create a list article based on the entries in the category, and then to delete the category after that list has been created. Please remember that delete decisions on CFD are only about whether a category of a certain title and organizing principle should be kept, not a decision as to whether any information should be documented on Wikipedia at all. This is one reason why your "censorship" claims are particularly out of place there. Postdlf 20:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is continued on Postdlf's talk page. pat8722 21:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Shhhhhhhhh

 * Delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A mere vote has absolutely no place/no relevance on this page. This page is for discussion/consensus building. If you feel the information should be deleted, tell us why... pat8722 22:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Shh.... admins know that and would have ignored his "vote". Some people think they can just vote and have it matter. You're just goading him to provide justification, which he'll do now that you've challenged him.Yeago 03:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversial television shows
You will need to ask the admin who closed it, not me, why he chose to do so. Also, if you disagree with the descision, and it certainly appears that you do, your next step would be to take the action to Deletion review, which is the location for such things. - TexasAndroid 18:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? Were articles actually deleted?  I see no sign of this.  If true, that would be a major violation.  However a spot check of several of the articles from the category shows they still exist.  So I'm not sure what you are now saying has happened. - TexasAndroid 19:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is continued on TexasAndroid's talk page. pat8722 01:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Bisexual actors
Hi, there is a bit of a debacle occuring in relation to bisexual allegations in Tyrone Power's article- I would appreciate your viewpoint at Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-03_Tyrone_Power. Thanks Arniep 16:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My talk page
Please stop re-adding material to my talk page, unless you have something new to say William M. Connolley 11:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Repeated, with a caution regarding WP:NPA which can get you blocked again William M. Connolley 14:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The impact of warnings, whether founded or not
As you have been spending so much time on the vandalism page lately, I am sure you saw that removing warnings such as No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA, above) constitutes a form of vandalism. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Blanking your talk page will not remove the warnings from the page history. If you continue to blank your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. JoshuaZ 19:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. JoshuaZ 19:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refer me to the policy that says unfounded warnings cannot be removed from talk pages. Unfounded warnings are vandalism are they not? The dispute with connelley began when he blocked me for removing vandalism from the Libertarianism page. See the discussion at Vandalism (April 2006) at paragraph "what does 'nonsense' mean?" and see the Talk:Libertarianism page at "the most accurate definition should be used" (March 2006), and see ‎User talk:William M. Connolley's talk page (he does lots of deletes, so you may have to really look hard for it). I did not lodge a personal attack against connelley in accusing him of abusing his admin powers, I merely stated fact, so his complaint on my talk page was itself nonsense, and subject to deletion under the vandalism policy. You have got to look at "what happened" to determine "who" is the vandal, and you are merely siding with "a friend", without performing "fact checking". Anyway, for those who come here, at present there is no reasonable way to prevent vandalism on the libertarian page. The definition of libertarianism is " Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long it allows others the same liberty. Another way to state this is, 'Libertarianism is a moral and political philosophy under which the individual is free to do whatever he wishes with his person or property, as long as whatever he wishes to do with his person or property allows others to do whatever they wish with their person or property, respectively.' This includes not initiating, or threatening to initiate, physical force against those who have not violated this doctrine, nor fraud against anyone. Libertarianism has as it's predicate that no one want to be physically forced, or threatened with physical force, or defrauded." Should any reader wish to join me in reverting from the CIRCULAR (i.e. NONSENSE) definitions of RJII, Serge Issakov, Rhobite, and DocGov, please post here. At present, it appears to be a matter of whose got the most reverting power, as to whether or not NONSENSE can be removed from wikipedia without 3rr blocking. pat8722 20:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk page vandalism in Vandalism. My interpretation of that paragraph is that it would be bad form, and grounds for assuming bad faith on your part, for you to remove any warnings from your talk page while a dispute is ongoing, and for some time afterwards. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  21:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

DBAD
Please read Don't be a dick (In this case we can mean dick to mean head louse rather than penis), so give it a break, please. It is boring. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 21:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If I delete the above profanity, I have no doubt JoshuaZ will block me from editing my own talk page; that's probably why it was put there. We can certainly see the character of my opposition. I am trying to find out how to stop JoshuaZ from blocking me, or how to revert his block if he does, and am relatively new to wikipedia. Any pointers would be appreciated. pat8722 21:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you've been here for four months, so I'd gather you'd've run across this issue before. Also, given that the DBAD link left by Dunc is a standard Wikipedia "advice" ref, calling it obscentity seems a bit silly.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not an admin. The simplest way of handling this is to not modify your talk page when people say things you don't like or when they come from people you don't like. JoshuaZ 21:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't have threatened me with blocking me from editing my own talk page unless you had an admin crony ready to do so. As I stated, I have no doubt you would have your crony block me if I reverted the above profanity. I still do not see the means for preventing the abuse of those who follow all wikipedia rules, by those who want to change wikipedia policy regarding vandalism,and to vandalize talk pages. pat8722 21:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you calmly and rationally attempt to discuss the changes you want on the relevant talk page of libertarionism. Try a bit more of that and it might lead somewhere. Typing in all caps and making complains about "cabals" and "admin cronies" doesn't accomplish anything. JoshuaZ 21:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You just repeatedly prove you have not investigated anything. As stated above, all you would have to do is review the discussion at Vandalism (April 2006) at paragraph "what does 'nonsense' mean?" and the Talk:Libertarianism page at "the most accurate definition should be used" (March 2006), and User talk:William M. Connolley's talk page, and you would know that everything has been discussed and everything I have alleged is true. You deal with generalities, not facts, so there is really no point to your further comments. It is unfortunate that we now require grammarians to tell us what "nonsense" means, but hopefully they will contribute at Vandalism as they have been asked to do. pat8722 22:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Notice please that I said "a bit more of that" which generally implies more of the same. And as I remarked earlier, what is nonsense has nothing to do with grammarians anyways. You may want to read among other things wikilawyering. JoshuaZ 22:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A brief stroll through WP:CIVIL mightn't be a bad idea either. And from a common-sense perspective, the "crony" comment probably wasn't the wisest thing you could have written   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk page vandalism
In general, users are encouraged not to remove warnings from their talk page or even to selectively remove critical comments. Restoring the warnings is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I do not intend to revert again; you may decide how you wish to respond to the apparently numerous complaints against your behavior. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[02]:The nastiness/vandalism on my talk page is caused by "piling on", such as you did, which is really evidence of the bad behavior wikipedia presently permits. Were you a "knowledge seeker", you would have read the talk pages at Talk: Wikipedia:Vandalism (April 2006) at paragraph "what does 'nonsense' mean?" and the Talk:Libertarianism page at "the most accurate definition should be used" (March 2006), and User talk:William M. Connolley's talk page, before involving yourself in the dispute, and would have contributed constructively on those pages.pat8722 15:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence of vandalism on your talk page. In addition, the "piling on" you describe seems to be caused be your poor interactions and lack of civility with other editors; as you encounter other editors, you draw them into your conflict. Certainly the hostility you seem to be displaying now will provoke, not assuage, conflict. But in any case, it is not my concern. Just because I seek knowledge doesn't mean I seek it indiscriminately. I am not involved in your libertarianism dispute; I don't believe I have ever read or edited the article, and I have no idea what the nature of your argument is with the other editors. Nor am I interested. While I might gain some marginal knowledge by reading those talk pages, there are other far more productive ways for me to seek knowledge and I doubt I would gain much by contributing. I find no value to involving myself in your dispute. If this is how you interact with other editors, you will find it difficult to get your point across. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[04]You make no sense. If you didn't read the related pages which triggered the "piling on" by "friends of friends" resulting in the profanity on my talk page, you are just doing more "mindless piling on" of your own. Since you say you didn't have the time to investigate the related pages, you had no business "piling on". pat8722 22:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I'm not being clear. I noticed the edits while doing recent changes patrol. I saw an editor removing warnings from several administrators, and so reverted the change. I feel the edit was mindless nor inappropriate. What precisely do you mean by "piling on"? That I should not have restored the warning since there were several others already restoring the warnings? I do think that your strong and sustained reaction to a single edit is unusual and a bit disturbing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[06]"Piling on" means doing reverts or issuing warnings without investigating the claims that the reverts were reverts of vandalism, which warnings made in bad faith and against wiki rules are.pat8722


 * I see. I was unfamiliar with this definition of "piling on". In that case, no I was not piling on; I did investigate your claim of vandalism but I see no evidence of vandalism on your talk page. I don't believe any of the warnings were made in bad faith, nor do I see that they were against Wikipedia rules. Even if so, I cannot see how they could qualify for any of the criteria at Vandalism. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[08]But at paragraph 3, you said you didn't, and I believe you at paragraph 3.pat8722 23:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I seem to be a bit confused. As far as I can tell, you are discussing two types of vandalism. I see that you've been discussing with other editors something about circular logic and nonsense being vandalism. That's the area I didn't look into, and that's why I said I was unaware of the details of your argument with the other editors when I mentioned it in my second reply. As I understand it, the vandalism you recently mentioned to me was vandalism on your talk page, in the form of warnings placed on your talk page. This of course I did investigate, and as I noted then and more recently, I see no evidence of vandalism on your talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * [10]You are not confused, Knowledge Seeker, not even a bit. --Serge 00:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[11]Like you just said, the area you didn't look into is the area I had alleged shows I was reverting vandalism, and warnings against reverting vandalism, are vandalism. You didn't investigate what was necessary to determine whether the warnings on my page were warranted, therefore you merely "piled on".pat8722 01:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "...warnings against reverting vandalism, are vandalism." I believe this statement to be inaccurate and inconsistent with Vandalism. Your claim that not "[investigating] what was necessary to determine whether the warnings on my page were warranted" is piling on is inconsistent with your earlier statement that "doing reverts...without investigating claims that the reverts were reverts of vandalism" is piling on. If the former, then yes, I was piling on, since I did not investigate whether the warnings were warranted. If the latter, then no, I was not piling on, since I reverted while investigating your claim that such your reverts were reverts of vandalism. In either case, I'm not certain I see how this is important. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[13]Warnings against reverting vandalism, are vandalism, and it is "piling on" to assist in keeping unwarranted warnings on a talk page. You have no interest in truth, and you are really wasting your time on my talk page.pat8722 02:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to use your own definition of vandalism if you like, but don't expect that I will use it in that sense or that Wikipedia policy will use it in that sense. You feel the warnings were unwarranted; the administrators who left them feel they were warranted. So perhaps I was piling on, according to your idiosyncratic definition. If by no interest in truth you mean that I am not interested in determining whether you are correct in the arguments you have been making regarding libertarianism then you are correct. You are probably correct that I am wasting my time, but I do feel obligated to reply to complaints that people bring me. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[15]I use the term "vandalism" as it is defined on the Vandalism page. And you agree that you "pile on", keeping badfaith warnings on talk pages without investigating whether the warning was badfaith.pat8722 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * [16]Just which type of vandalism, as defined on that page, do you think has been committed against your talk page? --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  14:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[17]As described above.pat8722 19:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * [18]As you are not answering my question, I guess that means you can't actually find what you call vandalism in the policy. Now, please stop calling things vandalism when you can't even cite what kind of vandalism they are. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  23:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[19]"The most common type of vandalism is the ... insertion ... nonsense". 3rr warnings for the reversion of vandalism is "nonsense", at best.pat8722 00:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wish to convince me of that, perhaps you could quote the appropriate section, since I'm not seeing it. Yes, I agreed that I did not investigate the merit of the warnings; we discussed this several days ago. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[21]Convince you of what? And yes, we are agreed you "piled on". As you said, we've discussed this already.pat8722 19:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That that the edits you claim as vandalism are consistent with the term vandalism as it is used in Wikipedia. I guess I was unclear why you were telling me that when I already told it to you; I couldn't understand your purpose. But if you don't have any new points to make, then I will consider this matter resolved. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[23]"The most common type of vandalism is the ... insertion ... nonsense". Read the relevant pages, as cited above.pat8722 00:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be ridiculous. The "warnings against reverting vandalism" may be unwarranted but they certainly are not nonsense. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[25]Reread paragraphs 6 through 19. "The most common type of vandalism is the ... insertion ... nonsense". 3rr warnings for the reversion of vandalism is "nonsense", at best. And do not remove numbers from my talk page. pat8722 00:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC).


 * [26]Also, please read Patent nonsense, which is what Nonsense redirects to. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  01:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not add numbers or qualifiers to my comments. Three-revert rule warnings are not nonsense as defined on Wikipedia (see Nonsense). As I said before, you may use your own definitions of terms, but you should not expect that other Wikipedians share those definitions or that our policies will share them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You should not alter others' comments, even on your talk page. You may add numbers to your talk page but please do not add them in a manner that alters others' comments. I apologize for not being clear. You are free to define the terms as you wish, as long as you realize these aren't considered vandalism on Wikipedia. Do you have any other points or objections to make? — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, perhaps I do. If the paragraph numbering is that important to you, please feel free to restore it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please make yourself very clear. Have you come to understand that adding paragraph numbers is not "altering others' comments"?  I want to be certain, before I restore the paragraph numbers to your comments, that you will not be blocking me again.  I think I understand you, but I want to be certain.  pat8722

On April 13, while purporting to remove mere paragraph numbers, knowledge seeker REMOVED CONTENT, in the form of the following two paragraphs 29 and 30, which he removed entirely from this page.


 * [29]I have not "altered your comments". Adding numbers is just good formatting, and does not at all alter the substance of what you have said.  Do not remove them.  You really need some help in basic logic.pat8722 03:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * [30]Also, please read Patent nonsense, which is what Nonsense redirects to. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  01:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[31]Well, what we see at the Nonsense page is that the nonsense advocates have a substantial foothold in the wikipedia policy pages, as the vandalism page says nonsense is vandalism, and the Nonsense page says it isn't. So we see that the "nonsense" people have even turned the vandalism and nonsense pages into nonsense. So you've really got to use your brain. pat8722 02:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you've got yourself turned around. Vandalism says that nonsense is vandalism. You are correct on this point. However, Nonsense doesn't not say that nonsense is not vandalism as you assert. Rather, it says that vandalism is not nonsense. It's the other way around. You see? &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 00:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[33]The nonsense page states under "Not to be confused with", that "vandalism" is not "nonsense". And if A is not B, then B is not A, under the elementary rules of logic. You are just aserting more "nonsense" by stating otherwise.pat8722 20:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Pat, you have made a logical error. This is a version of Affirming the Consequent.  It is a logical fallacy to say -- If A then B.   B.   Therefore A.  It is ALSO a logical fallacy to say If A then not B.  B.  Therefore Not A. --Blue Tie 21:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * [33.2] Blue Tie, you're a dangerous fellow if you think that the fallacy of "If A then B. B. Therefore A" and "If A then not B.  B.Therefore Not A" imply a fallacy in "If A is not B, then B is not A".  Review your lessons in set theory, before attempting to edit any more wiki pages that require an understanding of basic logic.pat8722 00:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. Your statement is the logical equivalent of "If A then Not B.  B.  Therefore Not A". (And this is, in fact, the argument you made).  However, let's suppose that you are right, that I have mistated your case.  You claim that "If A is not B then B is not A".  That is a logical fallacy.  Even Set Theory, applied to logic, would not support your view, as the classical case of "If (A) a Car is not (B) a Ford then (B) a Ford is not (A) a Car" demonstrates.  (This is an example of your fallacy and an example of "Patent Nonsense". --Blue Tie 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that's not an example of patent nonsense as far as Wikipedia's concerned. "Patent nonsense" is, for example, "ahuiose!pr hjiaweo;rj rhino salivate gondolier". &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 03:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia's definition is broader than yours and includes the following:    "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no intelligent person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever."   Anyway, I was sort of trying to be funny by connecting the argument to the topic.  I guess it was not successful.  Perhaps if I had added a smilie.  :-)  --Blue Tie 15:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. Well, joke acknowledged after the fact then. :) I'm just wary of feeding Pat's deep misunderstanding of words like "nonsense". &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * [34]All the nonsense page says, in clarifying the scope of the policy page for patent nonsense, is that vandalism is not patent nonsense, and that one should refer to the vandalism page for policy on that issue.  In other words, there is patent nonsense, and there is vandalism, they are distinct, and each has its own policy page.   None of this precludes the fact that some nonsense is vandalism, and some vandalism is nonsense.  But not all vandalism is nonsense, and not all nonsense is necessarily vandalism.  Most importantly, patent nonsense is not vandalism.  Capiche?  --Serge 20:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, you're applying otherwise-good logic after getting the English reading wrong, which never ends well. The vandalism policy say, "all nonsense is vandalism": you are still correct. What the nonsense page is saying is, "not all vandalism is nonsense". Those are not contradictions. You can't use basic (propositional) logic when you're dealing with categories—you have to use first-order logic. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 21:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Where does the vandalism policy say that "all nonsense is vandalism"? If it does, it's wrong, for, if nothing else, there is most certainly such a thing as inadvertent nonsense, which by definition is not vandalism (vandalism implies malicious intent, which cannot be inadvertent).  Therefore, not all nonsense is necessarily vandalism.  --Serge 21:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I was referring to the quote provided by Pat8722 several times above, which upon closer reading is merely part of the introduction rather than the definition of vandalism. Well then, the point that this user's interpretation of the policy is due to significant misreading is even more supported. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 06:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

We've never been talking about "inadvertent" nonsense. Neither of you is making a bit of sense.pat8722 00:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The tangent about your misreading of policy pages is just a tangent. You're missing the original point. You said that adding "spurious" warnings to your page was nonsense. However, the fact is that it is not nonsense by Wikipedia's definition, and any other definition is irrelevant. Since it is not nonsense, your argument that "nonsense is vandalism" is also irrelevant. The warnings were placed here correctly. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 06:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Read paragraph 19 preceding. Adding baseless warnings to talk pages is nonsense. And putting nonsense on my talk page is vandalism. You have no foundation for your statement that the warnings "were place here correctly". Read all of the above. pat8722 14:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 3RR warnings are not nonsense ever, even when spurious, by any definition that is relevant to the running of Wikipedia. Your argument's premise is false, therefore the argument is invalid. If you want to argue that they were place spuriously, that's something entirely different and an argument you'll lose for different reasons. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 20:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

3rr warnings are nonsense when they are baseless. Look up the meaning of nonsense in your dictionary. I was deleting NONSENSE.pat8722 20:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As Knowledge Seeker has already said, you are welcome to use whatever definition of nonsense you like. However, your choice of definition does not effect how Wikipedia runs since it has its own definition for policy reasons. Per policy, 3RR notices are not nonsense even when baseless. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 20:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything I have said is consistent with wiki policy, and you have cited no policy to the contrary. Your choice of definition does not effect how Wikipedia runs, unless you are another strong-arm admin who doesn't follow policy.pat8722 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your understanding of the policy is faulty, so a claim that anything you've said is consistent with it is dubious at best. Am I the one who has several warnings that I may be imminently blocked? If it was actually easy to get one, everyone would have several. As it is, a quick application of critical thinking on your part might prove illuminating. However, my cluestick does not appear to be big enough for your particular case, so I will leave you be for now. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 05:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As this episode shows, warnings are issued for reasons of cronyism and political biases and "piling on", having nothing whatsoever to do with any violation of wiki policy.pat8722 16:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

pro-life activism/tactics
please see the Talk:Pro-life activism page.--Andrew c 21:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why Imacomp reverts
Mainly because he can. There is some old history going back on this page Catholicism and Freemasonry. He will try to trap you on the 3RR rule, so please watch reverts.

JASpencer 19:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, my ears are burning... Imacomp 20:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that another user's talk pages are the best place for this, but as you don't wish to respond to these questions anywhere else, I suppose this will have to be the place for a dialog.
 * So why do you revert? Well (1) you have said that you belong to the "Reformed" tradition of Christianity, popularly known as Calvinism and (2) you are an active (and seemingly senior) Freemason.  Now there is a conflict between a theologically exclusive reading of Christianity and the doctrinal indifference of Freemasonry.  I think that you are clever enough to realise it - although I doubt that you acknowledge this contradiction to yourself.  It is a black fear.
 * To get round this black fear that you have to choose between your God and your friends you act in denial. Thus you try to shout down suggestions that there may be a conflict between Christian faith and your fraternity.  You know inside yourself that this is false but as long as you shout it down you feel that you don't have to make the choice.
 * You also over-compensate. What do Freemasonry and Calvinism have in common?  They both are in conflict with the Catholic Church.  So let's be more bigoted than thou.
 * I do not dislike you Imacomp, I can see that you are a very troubled person who has to face either giving up your religion or an institution to which you have given a substantial part of your time. It's an identity crisis.  If disruptive editing makes you feel better, then fine - but I really don't think that it will make this central decision go away.
 * I hope you make the right decision and if you don't mind the presumption - I'll pray for you. JASpencer 14:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Er whatever... Imacomp 13:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
Pat8722's Reference Point [01] is here. pat8722 01:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeatedly altering others' comments. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * [02]I have not "altered your comments". Adding numbers to paragraphs is just good formatting, and does not at all alter the substance of what you have said.  Do not remove them.  You really need some help in basic logic.pat8722 03:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Pat8722's Reference Point [03] is here. pat8722 01:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, perhaps I do. If the paragraph numbering is that important to you, please feel free to restore it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * [04]Please make yourself very clear. Have you come to understand that adding paragraph numbers is not "altering others' comments"?  I want to be certain, before I restore the paragraph numbers to your comments, that you will not be blocking me again.  I think I understand you, but I want to be certain.  pat8722

Pat8722's Reference Point [05] is here. pat8722 01:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I still believe that that behavior is inappropriate; however, if you wish to do it to my comments, I do not intend to block you for it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[06]Let's make this clear, did you, or did you not, have a justifiable reason for blocking me for adding numbers to your paragraphs? And if you believe you did, then why are you now saying you won't do it again, if I do the exact same thing? You are making absolutely no sense at all. pat8722 23:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Pat8722's Reference Point [07] is here. pat8722 01:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, comment alteration is a justifiable reason for blocking. However, I later changed my mind and decided that if you really wanted the numbers, then it was acceptable to me. You were blocked for approximately one hour. What do you hope to gain from this prolonged conversation? I can restore the block, if consistency is that preferable to you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[08]Altering comments is a crime. But I did not alter comments, all I did was insert paragarph numbers, which is merely formatting, and which any professional editor will tell you is not "altering comments". What did you mean following "reference point"[03]''' above, where you state "Indeed, perhaps I do." ''' It makes it sound like you agreed you were wrong. User:Pat8722|pat8722]] 01:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[09]Do you also consider the addition of "indents" to be "altering other's comments". If you are going to classify mere format changes as "altering others comments" you will have to be RFC'd and reported on the admin incident board when I have the time for it, as you definitely need to be stopped.pat8722 01:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was referring to your statement "You really need some help in basic logic", by which I meant that I could see your side of the argument and was willing to grant you latitude in restructuring your talk page; I wished to be polite and not argue with you over something so trivial. No, adjusting indents for clarity is expressly allowed and encouraged. I don't see that there is anything to be gained from further discussion. Your continued argument despite my agreement to follow your suggested course suggests you are more interested in trying to stir up trouble than to improve Wikipedia. I have already agreed with you that you may number the comments as you see fit. You may certainly file a request for comment or a notice on the administrators' noticeboard if you feel that would be beneficial. If you are busy, would you like me to do it for you? — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[10]If you "agree that I may number the comments as I see fit", then you agree YOU SHOULDN"T HAVE BLOCKED ME. You owe me an apology.  You are being logically inconsistent, and that is indicative of a very serious problem. pat8722 02:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your numbering of comments is highly unusual, and I find it annoying. I can easily see how someone could view it as 'fiddling' with comments in a disruptive manner. Please drop this matter. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  12:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

'[12]Is there a policy that defines "fiddling" with comments? Is "indenting" "fiddling" with comments? Whatever are you talking about? And as I plan to pursue the block issue as to putting a paragraph number following the indent on a comment, would you please direct me to the policy page that you think presently permits blocking for "altering others comments", as I suspect that page, as it presently stands makes clear that adding paragraph numbers following an indent is definitely not defined as "altering comments", because it isn't.pat8722 13:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about policy, or guideline, or whatever. I'm talking about your apparant belligerent attitude. You're not going to win anything this way, and you're making it hard for anyone to see past your blustering to judge what you have contributed to Wikipedia. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  16:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[14]I am merely insisting on truth and adherence to real wiki guidelines. Please respond to my question as to "the policy page that you think presently permits blocking for "altering others comments", as I suspect that page, as it presently stands makes clear that adding paragraph numbers following an indent is definitely not defined as "altering comments", because it isn't.pat8722 16:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's say, hypothetically, that no such page exists and Knowledge Seeker was in the wrong. Hypothetically. What would you like to happen then? Because, if what you are hoping for is realistic, then this is a reasonable battle to fight, but if it's not realistic, this is a very silly effort you are making. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You make no sense whatsoever. If you have an answer to my question at 14, please provide it, othewise, please waste your time elsewhere.pat8722 20:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are making an argument. I am guessing that the final purpose of the argument is not to have the question stated in your ¶14 answered and you want something else from this pursuit. I am curious what that final goal is, and perhaps to offer advice on how you can get there since your current method, I can say from experience, will never work. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 20:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, you make no sense. If you have an answer to my question at 14, please provide it, othewise, please waste your time elsewhere. pat8722 21:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read Wikilawyering. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  22:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Libertarianism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for comment
A request for comment has been filed in response to your behavior on libertarianism. You are encouraged to respond at Requests for comment/Pat8722. Rhobite 14:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

requesting explanation for unfounded, unexplained block (made in violation of blocking policy)
[R01]I found the following message when I tried to edit today "Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by BorgHunter for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Pat8722". The reason given for Pat8722's block is: "Gaming of the three revert rule. It is not an entitlement; it is rather an electric fence" Your IP address is 72.131.49.76. I have never gamed the three revert rule, and am entitled to a statement as to the factual basis upon which it is alleged I did, considering that I was reverting unilateral reversions that were made without addressing the outstanding questions stated on the talk page.pat8722 14:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your block has expired now, but I will indeed give you an explanation. You made 6 reverts in 24 and a half hours. That's textbook gaming of the 3RR rule. As for quote-unquote "unilateral" reversions, check your Request for Comment page. No one has agreed with your summary, but a number of people have agreed with the view opposing yours. I think you might be the one being unilateral here. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[R03]Your "explanation" of the block requires some explanation. Do you know what a "unilateral" reversion is? I was myself reverting a unilateral reversion, so my reversion was permitted under the wiki 3rr rules governing unilateral reversions. So do you agree that blocked me for a non-3rr issue? A reversion is forbidden when the reversion doesn't address the unanswered questions and concerns outstanding on the talk page, particularly where the reversion being reverted by me has been frequently made in the past without addressing the outstanding questions and concerns. Reversions of such unilateral reversions are permitted, which is all I did. My second question to you is: Did you read the full Talk:Libertarianism page before you blocked me? My third question to you is, were you a past participant on any of the talk pages concerning these disputes? My fourth question is, are you an associate of any of those who have previously participated? Your block of me was entirely against wiki policy. pat8722 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not blocked anymore, man. Even if I were to somehow admit wrongdoing, what exactly do you expect I would do to rectify it? There is nothing more to be done. The matter is closed, and I have nothing more to add, except: Please don't revert war. Thanks. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * [R05] No, its not over. Unless you acquaint yourself with wiki policy and what I did for which you blocked me, you are likely to do the same.  Three reverts a day are permitted, when that is the only way to get those who are NOT seeking consensus (by their failing to answer the outstanding questions and concerns) to seek consensus (by answering the outstanding questions and concerns.)  If you follow wiki policy, eventually the others will engage in meaningful debate and we will resolve the dispute, or they will "give up" and go elsewhere where they will do less harm.  So please assure me that will not block me again for using my daily alottment of three reverts, until paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] are answered, as wiki policy required them to be.  Please also answer my other questions, as it appears to me we have yet to see an unbiased person participate on the RFC page.pat8722 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pat, I strongly urge you to stop this. You are not "allotted three reverts" during the course of the day, you are LIMITED to three reverts to prevent the exact same sort of revert-warring you are engaging in. Furthermore, you did violate the 3RR. BorgHunter legitimately blocked you for a short cool down period- after which you've chosen to violate Wikipedia's civility policy by calling him a "bully" and stating that "he is destroying wikipedia". You need to calm down and realize that you're not in the right here, and cool off a little. Daniel Davis 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others. The fact that users may be blocked for excessive reverting does not imply that they will be blocked. Equally, reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context.

If you find you have reverted a page even once in a day it may be a sign there is a problem and you should try dispute resolution, starting always with the article's talk page.

It is strongly reccomended that you revert any particular change once and only once (see Harmonious editing club).

Blocking is always preventative, not for punishment.

See WP:3RR for more details. Please do not revert war (at all), or you may be blocked again. Thanks. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * [R11] BorgHunter, when you added the minor "::" to my comments on your discussion page, you stated in the "edit summary" field the beligerent comment you should have stated in the discussion text, namely "Yes, the matter is closed. Mainly because I choose now to stop replying to it. Good day". That is not a rational response. You (and Daniel Davis above )are ignoring the KEY POINT, my reverts are ENTIREYLY CONSISTENT WITH ALL PRESENT WIKIPOLICY.  It is those who revert my reverts WHO ARE NOT FOLLOWING WIKIPOLICY.  Consistent with the approach of consensus building, I have posed questions to the reverters, which they are merely ignoring, choosing to make the forbidden unilateral reverts, instead.  Therefore they are the ones wiki policy requires you to warn and block, not me.  The only reason for the blocks of me have been political and the result of "piling on", where the admins doing the warning and blocking have not actually looked at the facts to determine whether has been going on, and who the policies should be enforced against.  Three reverts a day of those who are unilaterally reverting my reversions, by failing to respond to the questions at paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH PRESENT WIKI POLICY.  Do you agree that a response to relevant questions is a necessary part of consensus building, and that without it, "consensus" is just the forbidden "vote"  voting is evil.  I would like your assurance that you will NOT block me for three reverts a day on the Libertarianism page, until my questions at paragarphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] on its talk page are answered by those who do the reverts.


 * [R12] Without discussion on the points raised, do you agree that there is no consensus building, only bullyism?


 * [R13] Please also answer the questions at paragraph [03] above, as you are looking like a classic bully admin who abuses his powers and should be stripped of that role. Is there any review process in wikipedia, for proposing that you be stripped of your admin powers for bullyism?pat8722 17:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, if you think that BorgHunter is abusing his powers, even if somehow you managed to get him stripped of those powers, pretty much every single one of the 900 Wikipedia administrators will tell you exactly the same thing: you have no entitlement to any number of reversions, and if you edit war, you'll be blocked with 3 or 2 or even 1 reversions if you act unpleasantly enough. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[R15] Pin down where an editor should be blocked for a single reversion, and you'll know why the other editors should have been blocked, not me, i.e. for making unilateral reversions, rather than engaging in consensus building. Borghunter stopped the revert war on the talk: Libertarianismpage by blocking the INNOCENT PARTY, by enforcing a mere vote (see voting is evil), rather than blocking the real offenders - those who are making unilateral reverts without responding to the outstanding questions on the talk page. To suppress the innocent party in a revert war simply because they are "outnumbered" would totally destroy the foundation of wikipedia. Borghunter has got to be reported.pat8722 20:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So please do so. The proper place to do it is WP:RFC/USER. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[R17] No, that doesn't appear to be the proper place. I have been referred to the arbitration page for action, and when time permits (which, unfortunately may be awhile), I will pursue this matter through the action channels I find recommended there. pat8722 21:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Traditionalist Catholic
Would you like to comment on yet a new move proposal? Dominick (TALK) 15:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What a dif is
A "dif" is a difference between two edits, to pick a random recent example. You can get them by looking at the history of a page and comparing edits or by looking at a user's contribution list. JoshuaZ 17:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. How did you come up with the pointer to what you wanted to display? I don't recognize the syntax or numbers, so I presently still can't do, what you did.pat8722 17:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Two methods. First if one clicks on a user's contribution list (which one can access from their userpage and then clicking on "User contributions" on the lower left of the page which in the tool box (right below the search bar). Each edit they have will then be displayed with the edit summary and to what article the edit was to. You can click on the part labeled "dif" to get the difference. You can do a similar thing by looking at the history of an article. Click on the "history" button at the top of the page. This will display the history of the page, i.e. all the edits that have occured to the page. You can then pick out a dif by clicking on the open circles of two versions and click on "compare selected versions." In the case of the example dif I used, I took it from my watchlist. I hope that helps (I'm also guessing that not knowing about this is why you did the whole paragraph numbering thing). JoshuaZ 17:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

TMD
I am not terribly offended, but I feel the need to express this to you. When it comes to facts about specialized fields, I understand that some knowledge taken for granted by the professionals may sound completely foreign to the general public. Since you are unaware of arthrocentesis, I am assuming you do not have close ties to the dental profession. If you have seen my user page, you would note that my main objective here is in the dental field, and I guess I take for granted that flushing out the TMJ as one avenue of treatment just makes sense. Nonetheless, I feel it would have been considerate to keep a "citation needed" tag to the sentence so that us dental-minded wikipedians would have noted that there was a request for a reference for the information. Otherwise, it would be more difficult to notice that the information was missing from the article, and thus more difficult to add a reference to that specific piece of information. Again, I realize you may not know much about the dental profession, but it may be easier next time there is info you want verified to leave a message on a talk page of someone who is a dentist. Thanks. - Dozenist talk  01:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Your assumptions are all wrong. Of course I am "aware of arthrocentesis".  Your mention of it in the article lacked context, and still does, and will have to be fixed.  I hope, since you added it, you will make the time to place your addition into context.  As to sources, you will see I was held to provide a source on something pretty basic by one who represents himself as being a dentist. [], and I promptly complied. It's really not a problem to add sources, and you shouldn't feel insulted when you are held to providing one, particularly on a topic with as many contradictions and contraindications as this one.  pat8722 02:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, I am saying that next time using the "citation needed" tag may be more beneficial for the article since the correct information can be included in the article while at the same time bring up the need for a citation. Otherwise, the information may be lost for a while until someone at a later date realizes the omission. This is even a more logical thing to do especially since you say that you ARE "aware of arthrocentesis"--- deleting something you know to be true only because there is no citation would be better handled by just adding a tag saying a citation is warranted. Further, I interpret Davidruben's talk page to say he is a physician, NOT a dentist. And for the record, I did not originally add the statement as you can see here. - Dozenist talk  03:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand. I deleted it because it was entered both without source and without context.  It survives only because you have added a source.  Without either source or context the material is misleading/confusing to the reader, at best.  It still is misleading, but the reader now has some protection in that they can view the source and assess its credibility.  Context is still necessary in the article, and since you are a proponent of leaving it in, I hope you will make the time to add the context, and including opposing treatment philosophies. pat8722 03:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am disappointed that it appears you are hostile to any effort I make to improve the article. I will not feel it necessary to defend my actions to you, even after you say arthrocentesis makes no sense and the treatment is "bizarre" yet later claim that you were actually "aware of arthrocentesis" and the real reason you deleted pertinent information you knew to be correct was that there was no citation and no context. Well, I have looked at that section of the article and it seems to have perfect context to me since it is one form of treatment. And we all know that different treatments are necessary since most disorders have different causes. Also, if you are an oral and maxillofacial surgeon that treats tmd, I am confused why you would dismiss a less obtrusive treatment than most surgical treatments for tmd, but as I said I will no longer attempt to defend my actions to you since you appear to dismiss them and belittle them. - Dozenist talk  03:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The solution, of course, is to reposition the mandible to its normal position using non-invasive technique (no surgery), and to correct the occlusal surfaces of the teeth, such that the mandible is guided back the correct position when the teeth occlude, as nature intended. Arthrocentesis is obviously no more a "solution" for tmjd, than it would be for a dislocated shoulder.pat8722 15:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Pro-life activism merge
I'm thinking of going ahead with the merge with Anti-abortion movement soon. If there are any outstanding issues let me know. - RoyBoy 800 13:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The outstanding issues were on the pro-life activism talk page, which is now gone. There was no consensus to merge to the name "anti-abortion movement", and you should have contributed on the appropriate talk page before "merging" to the "wrong" name.  Please epxlain why you did what you did, and undo it.pat8722 14:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It also appears to me that you did not do a merge, but an effective delete, in as far as I can tell you deleted all the content that was in the pro-life activism article as well as on it's talk page, without attempting any kind of merge to the article you redirected to. What is the procedure to bringing back the content you deleted, both what was in the pro-life activism article, and the content on the pro-life activism talk page?  Hopefully by next Sunday you will have the pages restored so they can be properly merged.) pat8722 17:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing has been deleted (see Talk:Pro-life_activism and if you check the history, here is the article before my merge); and the material was merged. The merge can be undone quite easily... but I don't see a compelling reason to do so. I'm really tired right now, but if this is just about merging/moving it to a more accurate/neutral article title; nothing is stopping you from pursuing that while the material remains in Anti-abortion movement... you can even use that talk page and/or move comments from Talk:Pro-life_activism. When I get the time I'll look at the issue myself, ask for a second opinion and implement your suggestions. I just want the material organized better and wanted something done; I have no opinion on the article title at this time. - RoyBoy 800 21:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Merges that involve a rename require consensus, and you did not have it. Please read the Talk:Pro-life_activism page regarding the outstanding merge issues, and then undo what you did until you have achieved consensus. As the arguments for merging to "pro-life activism" were quite strong, I suggest you start with a merge proposal on the anti-abortion movement page to merge to "pro-life activism", with reference to the arguments on the Talk:Pro-life_activism page, and see if anyone is able to counter those arguments. If not, you would be free to merge to the "pro-life activism" page. (Also, could you please tell me how you located the history on what you renamed, i.e. how you found the original text from the "pro-life activism" article?) pat8722 21:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Reverted. - RoyBoy 800 02:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Water fluoridation controversy
I've requested for you to comment here. This is generally a good way to avoid an edit war. I hope you take the opportunity. &middot; j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  talk &middot; 18:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments belong on an article's talk page, and in the edit summary section of the article, where I always make them, not here.pat8722 17:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

McVeigh Contributions
I just wanted to leave a little note to thank you. After a confrontational approach at the beginning, your edits on the Timothy McVeigh page made on July 9th were very constructive and provided some needed clarifications, especially with the creation of the "defense theories" section. The article reads much better now. (Lostkiwi 11:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC))

libertarianism
Hi, Pat8722. I am a libertarian who would like to see a correct and factual article concerning libertarianism. I see a lot of blending of ideologies and all sorts of unfacts that keep popping up in more and more articles. It's overwhelming the way history and language are being changed, isn't it? If you feel like checking this out and commenting on it, I would appreciate it greatly, questionableness of Removing personal attacks Thanks. I'm going to go to libertarianism now and check that out. Other articles of interest are anarchism and liberalism. In Wikipedia being an actual encyclopedia, Sha  nnon duck talk  02:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Temporomandibular joint disorder revert warring
Hi, we've seem recently to have been revert-warring which is to be regretted. I am not clear why you disliked all or part of my edit, to I have started a discussion thread Talk:Temporomandibular joint disorder.

To state as you did in an edit summary "Shame on you", was I believe, an ad hominem attack and failed to WP:Assume good faith. Of course neck/shoulder "are different parts of the anatomy" from upper or lower back. However, regional anatomy is not the only classification system one may use when listing symptoms & causes of disease. It seemed perfectly reasonable, to me, to classify pains in these areas together as non-localised musculoskeletal pain symptoms ('localised' referring to whether local to the TMJ itself, rather than whether pain is well circumscribed in any given area, and distinct from non-pain symptoms of limited opening or clicking sounds). As such they are intriguing - pain over a disordered joint seems obvious, but not pain some distance away. Such symptoms can not be intuitively guessed upon, but rather must be identified through clinical observation/research. These non-localised symptoms warrant explanation as to their mechanism, e.g. much as for earache being due to referred pain. Also this last point repeatedly deleted with your reverts to my overall edit.

I look forward to your comments on the article's talk page. David Ruben Talk 21:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * These arguments of yours belong on the talk page - where I have, and always do, make mine, if not entirely covered in the edit summary. I am copying these comments also to your talk page, so that you are sure to find them.  You have been repeatedly deleting and obscuring the back pain symptom from the tmjd page, WITHOUT A SINGLE SOURCE TO ASSIST YOU.  It is getting harder to assume good faith.  It is long since time you got some sources for your repeated edits.  You demanded I produce a source, and I immediately did, yet you continue to delete/obsure the fully sourced fact, while claiming to be an ignorant general practitioner (i.e."no dental training whatsoever" (talk at DavidRuben 23:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)) whose experience consists of little else than the six or so clients he sees a year seeking pain relief. (talk at DavidRuben 23:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)) pat8722 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Most importantly, lets keep the tmjd discussion on the tmjd talk page. We want all readers to have the full conversation available in one place for easy review and understanding.  pat8722 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

I now count 3 episodes of inciviity/personal attack towards myself - Talk:Temporomandibular_joint_disorder where you questioned anyone but a Dentist would treat TMJ and "anyone but a dentist would have deleted technical content on the basis of alleged personal experience", your edit summary comment and the subsequent posting to my talk page. So, official tag added above, I explain why I disagree with the allegations you posted and the continued personal attacks.
 * You need to study personal attack. I have said nothing "repeatedly, in bad faith, or with ... venom." I was asked to explain my reasoning, so I did. pat8722 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My previous posting was composed of two parts - a notice of content discussion on an article's talk page (to which I had posted for discussion to be held there). Secondly a complaint about the personal attack, which seemed best on your talk page - as this had attacked my credibility, I indicated my reasoning for grouping like conditions atypical musculoskeletal pains together - this was not done instead of holding content discussion on the article’s talk page.


 * You don't need to provide notice of discussion on talk pages! You just edit the talk page.  If you were to have edited it and I didn't see it, then you would have cause for notifying me of such on my talk page!pat8722 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You alleged on my talk page " You have been repeatedly deleting and obscuring the back pain symptom from the tmjd page". Yet as, this edit shows, "backache" was not deleted, just I just joined upper-backache and lower-backache into one sentence – that is not deleting.


 * You deleted it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temporomandibular_joint_disorder&diff=52064002&oldid=52045411 for the proof of it. You also obscurred it, placing it behind "stiffness in the neck and shoulders" and by combining three different symptoms into one! BUT THIS DISCUSSION BELONGS ON THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE, NOT HERE.


 * re "It is long since time you got some sources for your repeated edits" - does one really need a source to change "* Upper backache  * Lower backache" into a sentence as ".. upper or lower backache" ?


 * You hadn't been sourcing any of your edits. And yes, you need a source. See the discussion on the article's talk page. pat8722 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * re "You demanded I produce a source, and I immediately did, yet you continue to delete/obsure the fully sourced fact" - no information deleted, just collated together as a sentence.
 * You deleted it, per above. And you obscurred it, per above.pat8722 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * re "ignorant general practitioner (i.e."no dental training whatsoever" (talk at DavidRuben 23:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC))" - is a further personal attack. The wording I actually described myself was "a humble General Practitioner" and "Whilst we have no specialised knowledge and certainly do not have any dental equipment..." which is not that same as having no "training whatsoever". Similarly I have not been trained as an Endocrinologist specialist, yet majority of diabetics will be successfully managed exclusively by a Primary Care Multidisciplinary Team via General Practice in the UK and need never be seen by a hospital specialist. There is much I have not received training on - orthodontics, ophthalmic optician skills in precisely assessing vision and the writing out of a lens prescription, nor indeed of glass grinding to make a lens. Yet I can measure far-vision acuity, and recognise a child who only gets headaches sitting at the back of the class as needing to see their optician - so lack of training in a field to specialist level does not mean "ignorant".


 * I quoted you EXACTLY. Re-read your first paragraph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temporomandibular_joint_disorder in the section "comment by David Ruben" - you state "no dental training whatsoever".  It's really strange that you take  your own words about yourself as a personal attack.pat8722


 * re "whose experience consists of little else than the six or so clients he sees a year seeking pain relief" - is further personal attack as to my credibility. Yes this is significant experience, ("Facial pain is a relatively frequent cause of presentation to both general medical and dental practitioners" PMID 16113700) - but "relative" does not mean huge “frequency”, and certainly is not dissimilar to the number of patients who present with new onset of chest pain angina each year, certainly more than the number of cases of confirmed acute appendicitis. David Ruben Talk 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, what can we say if you take mere reference to the facts you state about yourself as insults? pat8722 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

But mostly, keep your comments on the tmjd issues on the tmjd talk page, so as not confuse the readers of that page. If you decide you want to try to personally attack me again, please first read personal attack and   vandalism, as I have in no way violated  personal attack. {Cite the line of the policy if you believe I violated it). Even though your allegation that I violated personal attack is a personal attack, even that personal attack on me does not qualify as a personal attack under the  personal attack policy, but it does qualify as vandalism under the   vandalism policy.  So stop vandalizing my talk page by pretending I have violated a policy I have not.pat8722 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 2
Pat, I feel that your approach to Wikipedia is needlessly incivil and disruptive, and I see no sign that you have improved since your RFC. Furthermore, your arguing over unrelated points and misinterpreting Wikipedia policy is counterproductive, at best. I don't believe your style of confrontation works well with the collaborative atmosphere here. I'm going to block you from further editing, and will seek feedback on WP:AN/I. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on the advice of fellow administrators, I have removed the block for now. Please remember to remain civil and to treat other editors with courtesy. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[01.03]I selected WP:AN/I and did a search on pat8722 and didn't get a hit. Where is this latest evidence of your abuse of your admin power? pat8722 13:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[01.04]I have discovered what happened to it. "Automated archival of 6 sections with User:Werdnabot" deleted it at the Revision as of 08:04, 28 July 2006 [], shortly after someone had vandalized it at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=66311389 (by putting the (unjustified) block about me under a nasty header about someone else (now who would have wanted to do that?))

Thatcher131 reverted the vandalism at Revision as of 06:19, 30 July 2006 (edit) at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=66646365, by restoring the complaint about me to its appropriate section (i.e. as totally unrelated to the complaint about someone else which preceeded it). Thatcher131 then later archives it in that corrected form at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=66647814, while simultaneously deleting it from the current WP:AN/I page, before I could respond there.

[01.06]While I haven't got time yet to file a formal complaint against you for your abuse of the admin power, make note that no one supported your block of me. I have now seen you blatantly abuse your admin power twice against me for political purposes. I look forward to the day when you are rightly stripped of your admin power for using it as a political weapon against those whom you recognize as political opponents, destroying the quality, accuracy, and credibility of wikipedia by blocking those who adhere to all wikipedia policy, and who have demonstrated that their opponents don't. pat8722 15:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You ignore demonstrations that you don't adhere to Wikipedia policy. I'll be glad to give my two cents when you file your complaint against Knowledge Seeker. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 22:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, Pat. I'm sorry you had to go through so much trouble to find the thread and that I wasn't around to help you find it; next time, instead of looking through the history, checking the recent archives would be helpful, especially if it has been some time since the initial comment. I'm not sure I see the vandalism, but it doesn't really matter. You're right that the two who initially responded did not feel the block was appropriate; that's why I removed it. I thought I explained that on your talk page, and I'm sorry if I confused you. I'm a bit mystified by your comments about plitical opponents or political purposes. Do you consider me a political opponent? I don't know if we even reside in the same country, nor do I know about your political preferences. I seem to recall you getting into a conflict over libertarianism, which implies that you are either quite supportive or opposed to it, though I must confess I don't really know what libertarianism is. Politics has never been a strong interest of mine. Any blocks I have issued are in response to your behavior, not your beliefs. — Knowledge Seeker দ 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[01.09] Let me say it again "I look forward to the day when you are rightly stripped of your admin power for using it as a political weapon against those whom you recognize as political opponents, destroying the quality, accuracy, and credibility of wikipedia by blocking those who adhere to all wikipedia policy, and who have demonstrated that their opponents don't." I've got an arbitration page open (Requests for arbitration/Pat8722), so give it your best. pat8722 01:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't want me to miss messages, please leave them on my talk page. You are certainly welcome to look forward to that, but I'm not particularly concerned with your hopes or dreams; please find someone else with whom to share them. I recognize neither you nor anyone else as a an opponent, political or otherwise, though you may see me as such. There doesn't seem to be much purpose for me to contribute to your arbitration page: it's already in the voting phase, and in any case, I think it will end up helpig more eyes to watch you from now on. Furthermore, if you could continue to use the polite tone you used in your request to table, I would find that outcome superior to revocation of editing rights. And to be honest, my time on Wikipedia is limited right now, and I have other areas which are more important to me.


 * [01.11] 1) That's what I did, left the above message on your talk page. 2) My arbitration case is NOT in the voting phase, it is in the EVIDENCE GATHERING STAGE - just perfect for you to contribute if you believe you can sustain your blocks of me. You will be one of the focal points of the arbitration case, so you should try to make your case there, as it is very relevant.  3)  There is plenty of time for you to state your case, as I also am very busy right now, such that we will not be getting the "response" phase for quite some time - how much time do you think you will need to try to state your case for blocking me?  pat8722 23:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that the terms under which your arbitration case are being considered appear to be contingent upon your current hiatus from Wikipedia. You should immediately notify the Arbitration Committee that you have resumed editing; if not, you may be subject to being blocked from editing, and it would likely adversely affect the outcome of your case. Finally, please do not leave duplicate copies of my comments on my talk page. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * [01.13] We really don't need your condescension. 1)  You should know that I volunteered not to edit articles until my state court cases are over - that is the only condition under which I am not editing.  I will be editing again once my time schedule frees me such that I have time to participate in my arbcom case, which I promised arbcom I would notify them of.  2)  I don't know what you mean about "duplicate copies of comments". When you don't respond here, I copy the relavant portions of conversation to your talk page, as being necessary to obtaining your response. pat8722 23:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * [01.14] Part of your very serious problem is that you try to "command" things that make "no sense" or are your "personal preferences" and then try to enforce your nonsense or personal preferences by using the blocking power. If you have a "problem" with anything I did, please produce the diffs, and you may then also wish to include them in the arbcom case as another "example" of what you block people for.pat8722 23:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry... he wont have any questions... just drivel, mindless attacks and wikilawyering bordering on hysteria. that is pat for you: Anything but constructivism! 216.254.142.195 14:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * [01.16] If you give it a literal analysis, you will see that you just described what you just did (drivil, mindless attack...) If you want to contribute constructively, please state the facts on my arbcom page. Make it productive, rather than "subjective insults". pat8722 23:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the Arbitration Committee disagrees with your assessment of the status of your case. In fact, by the time you left me your message, it had progressed to the "motion-to-close" phase, and has since been closed. It would appear that your finding time to make these comments despite professing a lack of time to contribute to your case (and despite notifying the committee) played a role in the decision. I wish you had followed my suggestion of informing the committee of your return. Since I place copies of my replies on my talk page, it is unncessary for you to later place another copy. You can see the original version of the post you copied directly above your statement now. If you do not need my condescension, you do not need to participate in further dialogue with me. I am uninterested in your assessment of me or my personality; please find another person with whom to share them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked again
For continued disruption, personal attacks, incivility, and so forth, I have blocked you for two weeks. The next block may be indefinite if you keep this up. Please take this break from editing to review your RfC, with open eyes and an open mind, and alter your behavior for the better. Continued disruption may result in an indefinite block...and this time I doubt it will be removed by the blocking admin. You have had numerous warnings about your behavior, please change it, for your sake and for Wikipedia's. Also, please read WP:FAITH—I believe it something you should consider in future discussions on Wikipedia. —BorgHunter (talk) 02:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * [01.09]Aren't you supposed to post on WP:AN/I, so that other admins have the opportunity to reverse your frivolous and malicious blocks? Also, isn't it against wiki policy for admins previously involved in dispute to  repeatedly block the same user?   I have emailed to "unblock-en-l@wikipedia.org" asking that you be instructed to post your block on WP:AN/I, for impartial admins to review. pat8722 15:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sad to read that you did not learn anything from my subtle hint related to the McVeigh article and realized that constructive edits and not confrontational behavior is the only valid way to participate in Wikipedia and instead lost your time on useless revert wars... especially about something as trivial as a jaw muscle trouble and your uncomprehensible insistence on listing an extremely long list of symptoms!

I hope this two week break will provide you some time to realize the foolishness of the whole argument and move on to more productive activities. (Lostkiwi 20:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC))


 * [01.12]What we need are some good wiki policy pages describing "commonly used political/police tactics by pov pushers" (such as you reveal yourself to be, in "piling on", and such as BorgHunter and other bully admins reveal themselves to be, who make blocks for political purposes, and such as those who claim it is a violation of personal attack, to decribe how other editors, do, in fact, violate  vandalism) and some good wiki policy pages describing "piling on" and "admin bullyism", and some good wiki procedure pages for placing such individuals "on trial", and then banishing them from wikipedia after a due process hearing, concluded with findings of fact and conclusions of "law", clearly stated and reasoned together, will full citations.  Unfounded accusations, no citations to actual policy, no citations to actual fact and no reasoned process showing actual policy is actually related to actual facts, is the type of behavior "crimnals" everywhere exhibit.  We don't want them in wikipedia, certainly not as admins.  pat8722
 * Sorry Pat, Wikipedia doesn't cater to you. We have some excellent policies called Assume Good Faith, No Personal Attacks, and NPOV that you might want to learn to follow instead, though. Also take a look at Piling-on... er, I mean Consensus, which is another excellent page that explains why so many people oppose your belligerence. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 16:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC) &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 16:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, you can ask an independent admin to review this block and consider an unblock by adding  to this page. Regarding ANI, no, only the minority of blocks are posted there for peer-review and there's no policy requiring it. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [01.15]I don't know what you are describing. Could you cite the policy page that describes what it is, and how to do it?  Thanks.pat8722 18:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No response? No response?  Well, I did find a confusing reference to adding    at the "user is blocked page", but I couldn't figure it out, as I don't see where discussion is generated by using the tag.


 * [01.17]I would appreciate it if anyone who can still edit would post to BorgHunter's talk page, encouraging him to be courageous in his blocks, by posting them on WP:AN/I, rather than cowardly blocking people with no knowing way of review, and encouraging him to issue a warning before he blocks, so a person can make their case about it's frivolousness and his malice before a block is implemented. pat8722 00:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a weekend and I have other things to mind than Wikipedia.
 * Anyway, you are aware, I hope, that blocks are often handed out as instrutional devices, not punitive? Frivolous blocks are few in my observation of Wikipedia, and they are almost always overturned by another admin shortly after they are made. There is no block-review process because we choose our admins carefully and respect their judgement. Admins that fail to serve the project well also get stripped of their powers pretty quick. Your suggestions amount to unnecessary red tape and the assumption that BorgHunter is out to get you. Good luck with that strategy, because you'll need it. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The block had been posted to ANI, as soon as I made it. —BorgHunter  (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How to use the unblock template
One writes it as. JoshuaZ 00:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC) Pat, just use the code in between the nowiki notices. The nowiki notices make what appears inside appear verbatim (for for example, if I put four tildes in them I get ~ and the four tildes don't resolve into a signature. JoshuaZ 00:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [01.22]I tried that, and was getting strange formatting errors. Also, I'm not seeing where using that technique generates discussion on the block, rather than a "vote" on the block.  Where an admin maliciously blocks someone, and has a pattern of doing so, it's reasonable to expect that when the admin is knowingly mis-using the blocking power and failing to first post on WP:AN/I, he's probably got  some "voters" waiting in the wings to vote, if that's all  . generates.  If no one fears discussion on this block, how about posting the block on WP:AN/I, which we know generates discussion, and we'll see what happens?  I can't post it there, because I'm blocked. pat8722 01:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The unblock template neither generates discussion nor a vote: it calls the attention of admins that a request has been made, and one of them will come along and see if your unblock reason has merit after reviewing your recent contribs.
 * If every block that no-one feared discussion on was posted to ANI, there would be so many messages there that it would be unusable. If you really want one, though, contact an admin of your choice (or a Members' Advocate) and send them an email requesting that they do so in your stead.
 * Also, mind that you don't start getting nutty and thinking there's a cabal organised against you: regular Wikipedians have a very low tolerance for editors who blame all their problems on cabals and are likely to form one ad-hoc to teach them manners. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [01.26]I keep seeing the same dirty tactics being used by the same admins who don't follow wikipedia policy. There is no question the blocks against me have been politically motivated.  Only one of the blocks was ever even preceeded by a warning, in clear violation of wikipedia policy, and the frivolousness of that one warning in that one instance was essentially admitted by the admin, who told me to go ahead and do again what he had blocked me for.  No decent person would form a cabal, to prove there are no cabals.


 * [01.27]As you are an interested party, and can still edit, how about placing this block of me on the WP:AN/I page, or asking BorgHunter to do so if that page is limited to edits by admins only? The previous block of me was overturned when reported on that page, and BorgHunter's block should not be accomplished "in the dark". If   is not a discussion page, it just encourages wheel warring, and we've got enough of "decisions without discussion". pat8722 01:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Use the unblock template, per standard procedure, and I'll consider asking someone at WP:ANI to look into it if you are unsatisfied with the result. It's easy to use: just copy the template as I wrote it and replace the "reason goes here..." stuff with your reason. Don't get all fancy with formatting or links, because the admin will make a decision based on their own, independent, appraisal of the worthiness of the block. Just write your reason in plain text.
 * Try to tune down your accusations of dirty tactics too, because we've heard it a million times before from users behaving badly and you're not doing anything to cast youself in a better light than all those long-banned users who went before. Argue on merit instead of making ad-hominem arguments (such as accusations of political motivation) and you'll likely get more sympathetic ears. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 02:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and the formation of ad-hoc cabals aren't to prove that there are no cabals, it just happens when a lot of people independently get tired of hearing about it and "pile-on" as you've called it. A crowd of people with independently-formed but overlapping opinions looks remarkably like an organised group, but it's a mistake to impune malicious motives and organisation to such a group. Mostly, they're just equally annoyed. In such cases, the wise user will hear their common message and heed it because they've been doing something wrong that they didn't know about. The unwise user calls them a cabal and doesn't listen. (After all, if one person says something disagreeable, and are dismissed as "only one person", does it not make sense that if many people start saying that disagreeable thing, that they should be heeded because they are more than "only one person"?) &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 02:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes!
This seems to have been building for quite a while and involves a maze of inter-related issues. I'll try to respond on each of those.
 * 1) Block for altering comments - You were correct, the policy on blocks for alterring comments is intended to cover situations where the alteration changes the meaning - not adding numbers. However, please note that reformatting pages this way is not standard (see Talk_page). Think about the implications of that... even if your formatting method is 'better' the fact that it is different is going to create confusion and disagreement. Another user once had the quirk of believing that spaces after commas and periods were 'wasteful' and systematically removed them - an argument could be made for the viewpoint, but it was not the normal standard and thus inherently confusing and disruptive. The benefits of familiarity from doing things the usual way generally outweigh any which a different approach can add. --CBD 11:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [03] Numbering does not generate confusion and disagreement (except where an automated numbering system is used), and is recognized throughout the publishing world as being a helpful technique, BUT IT IS NOT THE POINT HERE TO ARGUE THE MERITS OF NUMBERING OR NON-NUMBERING, only whether a block of someone for putting reference numbers on their talk page, with a warning not to number other's comments again, is justified, and you have concluded the block for putting numbering on my talk page was not a violation of Wikipedia policy, and the warning not warranted. (For the record, I think someday numbering on talk pages is going to be widespread in wikipedia.)  (Your use of "software generated numbering" here,however, is proving to be confusing, as my insertion of my response to your paragraph seems to confuse that system and result in strange "re-numbering")pat8722 15:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Removing warnings dispute - There is considerable disagreement in the Wikipedia community in general about this issue. On one side it is claimed that removing warnings hides the fact that the person has been told about the relevant policies and allows them to claim ignorance. On the other it is said that forcing people to keep these on their pages is a 'Wikipedia scarlet letter' policy and harassment. In this case, since you had previously been blocked for 3RR by William M. Connelly there could be no question of 'concealment' and thus I do not think there were any grounds to force warnings on that subject to remain on your talk page. I generally think the 'harassment' problems outweigh any 'concealment' issues anyway. However, as noted this is a widely disputed topic and many believe that policy should (or even does) support forcing display of these messages. --CBD 11:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [05]Again, you have shown I did not violate wikipedia policy by removing the (frivolous and malicious) non-admin warnings from my talk page, and, therefore, that the block of me for doing so violated wikipedia policy. So how do we stop the admins who block people for non-violations of wikipedia policy? pat8722 15:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Nonsense - The vandalism policy on 'nonsense edits' only applies to things which everyone can see to be nonsense. If some people legitimately believe that the text is reasonable then it isn't vandalism - even if they are wrong. Vandalism is the >deliberate intent< to damage the encyclopedia... not doing so mistakenly or out of ignorance.
 * 2) Edit warring - Your understanding that you were 'allowed three reverts per day' was mistaken. The WP:3RR policy is very clear about this... if you revert four times in a day you will be blocked, if you revert less than that you may be blocked. Even making the same revert once a day for a week is clearly 'edit warring' and may result in a block. The 'fourth revert' isn't viewed as a line between allowed and not allowed, but rather as edit warring so egregious that it must be blocked... repeated reversions below that limit are still bad and will eventually result in a block. The idea is that when people disagree about the content they should leave it in whatever state it currently is and discuss. If you can't get the people watching the page to agree with your version then try different compromises or put up a 'request for comments' to get more feedback. --CBD 11:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [08] You have fallen victim to the temptation of creating your own policy on what is, and is not, "vandalism", and what is, and is not, a violation of 3RR. My claims of article vandalism were that the grammatical errors I was reverting were NOT being made "out of innocent ignorance", but were, in fact "intentional vandalism", AS EVIDENCED BY THE REPEATED FAILURE OF THOSE MAKING THE REVERTS TO ANSWER THE ISSUES RAISED ON THE TALK PAGE, as the wikipedia rules require, before doing their reverts.  Instead, the violators were making UNILATERAL reversions of my correction, which is exactly the type of reverting that is prohibited by the spirit of the 3rr rule, not my good faith discussed reversions of their unilateral reversions. As I stated in a previous argument, there are only two ways to  discourage the forbidden repeated unilateral reversions by editors, and that is by blocking those who do it, or by reverting them, as being the only two means to force them to address the outstanding issues before reverting, or to go away where they will be of less harm.  There is nothing in the 3rr rule intended to discourage discussed  reversions of unilateratal reverters who won't engage in discussion on the outstanding issues, therefore there was nothing in my "less than four a day" reverts that violated any wikipedia policy, and quite the contrary was proved - my three-a-day reverts were beginning to work,  as rehpotsirhic finally proposed a non-circular definition, but which the other's then refused to comment on because they knew they had a strong-arm admin to impose the text they wanted on the basis of their vote-count.  See  voting is evil.  Your proposal of "If some people [allege they] legitimately believe that the text is reasonable then it isn't vandalism" has LONG BEEN REJECTED from inclusion in the wikipedia vandalism policy, after discussion, as ENCOURAGING VANDALISM.  There is NOTHING IN THE WIKIPEDIA RULES THAT SAYS TO LEAVE ANY UNSOURCED (OR EVEN SOURCED) MATERIAL IN AN ARTICLE WHERE THE OTHERS WON'T DISCUSS THE OBJECTION TO IT, quite the contrary. pat8722 15:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Pat, if you won't believe an independent admin when you're told what is and isn't vandalism and what is and isn't blockable under the 3RR policy, how will you ever believe anything that you don't alread agree with? Do you believe you are somehow unlike every other human being and are completely infallible? You might just be wrong about how 3RR and vandalism works, and why. The fact that every single person who's ever talked to you on the subject has said the same thing might indicate that you're wrong and everyone else is right. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Indefinite block - Blocks of indeterminate length are a special case and have to be placed on AN/I for review. They are generally only upheld if everyone agrees that a user does more damage than good - which is fairly rare. This one wasn't accepted, but note that it was quickly replaced with a lengthy block and the duration of future blocks will likely just increase.
 * [10] But what you fail to consider is that the recent block was just as malicous and frivolous as the earlier block which it "replaced". It is just "piling on" to support a subsequent block, just because a previous block (whose legitimacy was even disputed) was removed, and without investigating whether either of the blocks was actually founded on ACTUAL fact and supported by ACTUAL wikipedia policy. pat8722 15:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration and anger with some of the things which have happened, but... they will continue happening. You are driving against traffic and people are going to occasionally get angry and do something they shouldn't or just run into you. Please consider that while your way may be better or your definition of libertarian 'more correct' or whatever... you are never going to succeed in attempts to put them through by force. There is just too much current going the other way. You need to try to work within the system and standards. Identify the particular part of the libertarian intro which you consider circular and suggest alternatives for just that piece. Try to follow normal talk page formatting standards - possibly numbering just a few sections which you refer to later. Don't try to 'win' every argument. Et cetera. Even when you are right nobody is going to care if the disruption is greater than the benefit of whatever point is under discussion. --CBD 11:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [12]I followed all rules in my edits to Libertarianism page. Obviously, you did not read either the libertarianism talk page or my rfc page, or you would have known that.  It is everywhere evidenced on the libertarianism talk page and my rfc page that I pointed out the problems with the "defintion" of "libertarianism" that I was reverting, proposed an alternative, and that the others would not address the outstanding issues other than to say "they liked their proposal better and had a vote-count to keep it in" - which is not discussion (except for rhepotsirc - who did propose a compromise, but the others would not comment on that, either). As to talk page numbers, no one but KnowledgeSeeker has ever objected to my numbering his comments (and then said later he didn't really mind), nor are standard reference numbers prohibited or discouraged by any wikipedia policy (nor is there any reason to suppose anyone but a vandal would object to a format which makes referencing easy).--pat8722 11:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've objected to your page numbering. It's disruptive and needless (we have diffs for what you use your paragraph numbering for, and it works better than your numbering).
 * You didn't follow a very important rule: respecting consensus. If you can't respect the input of multiple editors when their input all agrees, then you are acting as a rogue editor with accountability to no-one. Wikipedia shows rogue editors the door eventually when they become disruptive enough.
 * See, what you don't understand about Wikipedia policy is that they are not legalistic documents: they are helpful explanations and crystallisations of what is already true at Wikipedia. A lone editor cannot edit successfully by only listening to the policy pages (as you seem to think you can do), because those are only the tip of the iceberg. A successful editor must listen to the community, the policy pages being only one way the community uses to express itself. The consensus of small and large groups of editors is the other way the community expresses itself and is as important as the policy pages. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [12.4]Please produce a diff to where you say you objected to my numbering you. The only numbering I ever did where there was objection to it was to KnowledgeSeekers comments on my talk page, after he removed them over my objections (he later told me to re-add them), and I never numbered anyone over their objections, again.  As to consensus building, read my rfc page and the talk pages - which show I was the one seeking consensus, i.e. discussion on the points I raised (required by wikipedia policy), and the other were refusing to seek consensus (voting, rather than discussing).  See  voting is evil.pat8722 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I objected on the RfC. I wasn't objecting to you numbering my comments, but to you numbering pages that I had to use. It's very irritating: it decreases the value of a history page by introducing many, many trivial edits that obscure the important diffs; your citing them puts the burden of figuring out what you're talking about on the reader and assumes we're going to scroll all over the place and re-read entire paragraphs to understand your point when you could quote the relevant sentence or (if the whole thing is important) cite the diff; it breaks the visual flow of Talk pages to which I'm used everywhere else on Wikipedia (this slows me down and makes it more work to interact with you, because my page-scanning habits are of no use anymore). Overall it just creates more work for other people for a dubious increase in your own convenience when there are more suitable and standard alternatives.


 * [12.6] I think the numbering idea is going to gain wide acceptance as it develops and is improved upon. People have been making good use of the numbers, and no regular editors to regular articles have complained. But let's not debate this here, as its not an issue for a mere two editors to decide what should be wikipedia policy on the matter of numbering. pat8722 03:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding consensus building, your insistence that people respond to your points is not consensus-building. Many of the points you made were made while ignoring or failing to grasp points made by others, and people will rightly ignore someone who's repeating themselves. It was decided by everyone but you that the issue was settled, so your insisting that it was not settled was contrary to consensus. Essentially what it comes down to is that you were ignoring the consensus that did build. Also note that "voting" is not contrary to consensus-building. Straw polls, when used sparingly and judiciously, are important tools for getting a clear picture of the existing state of a dispute. Often a straw poll will show that there is a clear consensus and the dispute is being carried by a single objector. This was the case with the "votes" you object to: they were simply demonstrating an existing consensus. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [12.8]'Many of the points you made were made while ignoring or failing to grasp points made by others" - you'll need to provide a diff.  Further, there was no consensus - see  voting is evil.   A vote that an issue is settled, does not settle it. There's nothing in Straw polls that excuses failing to answer the outstanding issues on the talk page.  See the rfc and the corresponding talk pages which prove my efforts in getting the others to address the outstanding issues (i.e. to engage in discussion/consensus building, rather than voting), and the others, excepting rehpotsirhc, wouldn't, because they had found an admin to enforce a vote count.  pat8722 03:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's tiring arguing with someone who doesn't listen. Fortunately for me, if you don't mend your ways I won't even have the opportunity to argue with you as you're likely to get yourself permanently blocked.
 * Here is what you're ignoring: that you thought there were outstanding issues doesn't mean it's true. The "issues" you thought were outstanding were considered by everyone else to be non-issues. (i.e., the definition of libertarianism was not thought by anyone else to be circular or nonsense, despite your insistence that it was.) The consensus was that there was no issue outstanding. If that's the consensus, you can't claim that there wasn't consensus because people weren't talking about it: they were done and finished deciding and you just ignored the decision. Lastly, a "vote" doesn't invalidate a consensus process, it tends to solidify it. Notice that Voting is evil is not policy, it's an essay. As such, it is a part of Wikipedia culture, not a part of its policy. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [12.10]'It's tiring arguing with someone who doesn't investigate. You conclusory statement that there were not outstanding issues because others voted there wasn't, does not make it true.  Consensus is not a matter of a vote count, it is a matter of looking to see whether unaddressed issues were raised. You know how one determines if there were issues raised which were not addressed?  One looks at the record to see what were the issues that were raised, and then cites where those issues are found, and then one looks through the record to see if one can find the response to each of those issues, and if one can, one cites them, and if one can't, one has one's proof there were still outstanding issues. Here, again, are the cites I have already much provided as to the outstanding issues which prove there was no consensus: paragraphs numbered  [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235]  at Archive 8 for the Libertarianism talk page at  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive8.  To support the claim that there was a consensus, you would need to cite the answer to each of the issues raised in the above paragraphs.  Because there weren't any answers to the issues raised in each of the above paragraphs, I have my proof there was no consensus, and the evidence that there was only a phony vote saying there was.  As I stated above in paragraph numbered "[08]" immediately preceding, my three-a-day reverts were beginnning to work as to encouraging discussion on the outstanding issues, when the others decided they were going to rely on a vote count as a means of not addressing the outstanding issues, in violation of wikipedia policy.pat8722 16:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The consensus was that your issues had no merit and did not need responses. You kept insisting that people answer when they considered there to not even be a question. It was settled before it even began by the non-existence of the issue as far as anyone but you was concerned.
 * Saying that there are "issues" does not make it true. I could say that there is an issue with Jesus because it doesn't (hypothetically) have a proper description of his walking among the tribes of modern Brazil a thousand years before his appearance in the Middle East. I could raise this issue on the talk page, and then when everyone (rightly) ignores me I could say that there is no consensus to leave it out and that I have every right to edit-war to keep it in the article. However, if I did those things I would be wrong, and ignoring consensus that my "issue" has no merit and should not even be discussed, let alone appear in the article. This is the position you were in regarding your "issues" and the Libertarianism article. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [12.12]There is nothing in wikipedia policy that lets any group vote to exclude anything from any article on the basis of "vote", and certainly not on the basis of voting to declare something a "non-issue"! The required response to someone wanting to include something patently false in an article, such as the Jesus Christ example you cite, is not to ignore them (because you must "assume good faith"), but to tell them they "need a source".  The decision not to include the patently absurd allegations about Jesus Christ is not, under present wikipedia policy, decided on the basis of a vote to ignore someone, but is decided on the basis of policy - i.e.  sources, imposed after informing the would-be-editor with the reason why his proposed edit cannot stand (i.e., non-compliance with  sources). Your comparison to the Jesus Christ article is also not apt for another reason, as well.   There was no issue I raised in paragraphs numbered  [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235]  at Archive 8 for the Libertarianism talk page at [] that could be deemed "patently absurd" - quite the contrary, any attempt by my opponents to answer the questions would reveal why my opponents can't answer them, because my opponents are in the wrong.  That's why discussion is important, and why we have policies that require consensus-building and policies like  voting is evil, to ensure that voting does not determine article content, but, rather, wikipedia policy/consensus-building (i.e. discussion of the points raised). Someday the definition of Libertarianism is going to be on the Libertarianism page.  All we need are wikipedia admins who don't block the innocent party in an edit war, but, rather, block those who won't engage in consensus building (i.e. blocking those who make unilateral reverts, refusing to answer the points raised), (and a way to speedily get rid of admins who use the blocking power for political purposes against those who have violated no wikipedia policy - i.e., blocking on the basis of vote-count and allegation, rather than investigating to determine who has actually violated actual wikipedia policy.pat8722 20:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have an unhealthy preoccupation with Voting is evil. Note that it is an essay while Consensus and Straw polls are guidelines. Guidelines have policy-enforced strength, essays do not. You cannot cite the opinion of some Wikipedians (the authors of "Voting is evil") when determining what is and isn't a consensus.
 * You need to familiarise yourself with the definition of MPOV. No, it's not policy, it's a piece of wisdom. Understand it and you'll have a better time at Wikipedia. So long as you are convinced that you are right and everyone else is wrong, you will get nowhere. Individual editors are liable to make mistakes about whether they are right or wrong, thus Wikipedia has consensus built in to every fibre of its policy so that good decisions about what is right and wrong can be created out of the opinions of fallible individual editors. Do you think you are infallible? Are you a god? Why do you insist you are right about Libertarianism against the opinion of every single other editor who has ever interacted with you? Do you think you, and you alone, are qualified to write the article? Wikipedia has no room for editors who believe these things. Wikipedia has no room for its editor's egos. (You might want to read Don't be a fanatic, which is an essay that treats on these topics.) If you must harbour such opinions, eventually you will be forced to do so away from Wikipedia permanently. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 00:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [12.14]It always comes down to "Is it going to be a discussion, or a vote?" And ALL of wikipedia policy says "discussion, not vote". Whether the particular articleVoting is evil is now an essay or a guideline may be up for debate when it shouldn't be, as it was ALWAYS a guideline until someone simply changed the article tag to say "essay", instead of what was always there "guideline" (having come from Meta-wiki.) (The editor who made that change should be reverted, as it's against wikipedia policy to change guidelines in that fashion. How about you revert him?)  But in any event, Voting is evil merely condenses what is the wikipolicy policy against voting that is stated all throughout every wikipedia guideline that touches the topic. pat8722 01:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a reason it's an essay: editors like you who don't understand it and take it literally. Let me clarify. Consider this: imagine a clear consensus exists on some question, with 99% of editors weighing in who are in favour of it and 1% opposed. Say there is no vote at first. It's obvious that consensus exists. Say then, that the 1% dissenting won't accept that it's been settled, and a straw poll or "vote" is held to see clearly if there's consensus. Obviously, the consensus doesn't suddenly not exist because a straw poll is held to see clearly what the balance is. Voting is evil exists not because all vote-like-structures are evil, it's because binding votes are evil. Straw polls are called straw polls specifically to differentiate them from binding votes: Straw polls even says they are never to be used as binding votes, only as an aide to determining the consensus that already exists.
 * So, what part of the consensus-clearly-demonstrated-by-straw-poll (not "vote") that went on at Libertarianism are you unhappy with? &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [12.16]Ten million don't form a consensus, if there's ONE outstanding issue that is raised and hasn't yet been addressed by any of the ten million. Voting does not reflect consensus, unless the vote is either "100%", or every outstanding objection, of every outstanding objector, has been addressed/answered.  That is how and why "discussion" leads to quality articles and why "consensus-building" (discussion) is required by wikipedia policy, and "voting" is condemned.   When the issues I raised on the Libertarianism talk page are addressed, as wikipedia policy requires (see  voting is evil and paragraph [12.14] above, and see paragraphs [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235]  at Archive 8 for the Libertarianism talk page at []), we will be on our way to getting the definition of libertarianism on the libertarianism page. The libertarian page is going to prove that wikipedia stated policy, in requiring consensus-building (discussion of the points raised), and condemning voting, is correct, for when we finally get admins to stop blocking the innocent party in a revert war (and revert wars will always happen when the integrity of the article is at stake), the definition of libertarianism, through discussion of the points raised, is going end up on the libertarianism page.pat8722 16:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You haven't heard a thing I've said. Your insistence on holding on to misconceptions about how consensus, straw polls, and Wikipedia in general works is unfortunate. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 17:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [14]The only blocks against me that you INVESTIGATED, were blocks you concluded were made in violation of wikipedia policy. It is the areas in wikipedia that are controversial and generate dispute that are most in need of attention, and because I am qualified to take on vandals, pov pushers and admins who violate wikipedia policy, I will be the one who takes admins who quash discussion and enforce vote counts on article content to the arbitration committee, to have them rightly stripped of their admin powers. I would appreciate it though, if you would encourage the admin abusers to follow the most basic of wikipedia admin policies, and PLACE A BLOCK WARNING ON MY TALK PAGE before blocking me, as they and I know I won't violate such a warning, but will merely use it to make my case against them before the arbitration committee.  pat8722 15:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [15]I also wish to note I did not post to {unblock} on August 6. I deleted my effort to, within a few seconds of experimenting with it, both because I couldn't figure out how to do it, and because I believe the best way to generate impartial review of BorgHunter's block is for someone to post BorgHunter's block on WP: AN/I, which is what I asked the folks at "unblock-en-l@wikipedia.org" to do, but which they don't, so I have no clue how this particular editor got involved.  pat8722 17:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You've had plenty of warning, Pat. I'm not going to waste time warning you three times before every block. You have a long history of being blocked; I would think that this would be warning enough to stop your behavior and reevaluate where you stand. You continually post links to WP:VIE, which is an essay, but you seemingly ignore my suggestions te read WP:FAITH, which is policy. Calling other users vandals is inflammatory, disruptive, and will not be tolerated. Edit warring also will not be tolerated. If you expect to gain any sympathy at all, you will agree to cease these behaviors. In fact, I'm perfectly willing to unblock you if you agree to those things. And I'm perfectly willing to reblock you if you continue to act in that fashion anyway. To add to the poor behavior that you exhibiting: You continually claim that there are a bunch of admins out to get you, for some reason. I'm really not. I'm trying to stop the discord and harassment that you are the root cause of. Ultimately, there are two options for you: Stop acting in that fashion, or end up being blocked for progressively longer periods of time, culminating in an indefinite block. Claiming that I'm some evil admin who hates you and gets some perverse pleasure out of seeing people unable to edit Wikipedia for a couple weeks is not going to win you anything except more accusations of harassment. Incidentally, you keep talking about taking people to the ArbCom and stripping them of admin privileges...try it sometime. You'll see very quickly that the ArbCom doesn't work that way.
 * So. Are you willing to agree to stop your harassment, edit warring, and disruptive behavior? —BorgHunter (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pat, there is no such policy at Wikipedia that requires a "warning" before any and every block. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Pat, you don't seem to have understood or agreed with the points I was trying to make. Unfortunately, that means I can't really help you. I can tell you that the various beliefs you have stated; that manual paragraph re-numbering will become common in Wikipedia discussions, that you can take these admins to ArbCom and get them de-sysoped, that my comments on vandalism & 3RR are 'new' or 'unique', et cetera... all strongly conflict with my experience on Wikipedia. I believe you are mistaken and will be sorely disappointed with the outcome if you continue to pursue the course you are on. As to your wondering about why I got involved - I saw your messages to the mailing list. I did read the RFC and the background of all your blocks and you are simply incorrect... there are blocks placed for edit-warring short of 3RR violation all the time. There are blocks placed for disruptive behaviour all the time. That fellow I mentioned who removed spaces after punctuation? The only reason he wasn't permanently banned by the ArbCom was that at the last minute they reversed their decision to do so because another user promised to follow him around and clean up that stuff every day. There is no policy requiring spaces after periods and commas, and that user otherwise made entirely positive contributions and had few arguments, but his insistence on doing things his way caused ongoing problems/disruption with numerous other users. That's a fatal problem in and of itself, and one you need to break away from. --CBD 19:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [21] Just to avoid confusion in the record, let me correct a few technical errors in your above paragraph - 1)  I never said manual paragraph re--numbering would become common in wikipedia, but that I think someday (manual) numbering on talk pages is going to become widespread in wikipedia, improved with time - you can see how useful it is on the talk: libertarianism page.  3)  If wikipedia is not disfunctional, there IS an effective way to get rid of admins who violate wikipedia policy, it's just a matter of determining what that process is, and I think it's probably arbcom, which I will do when the present extraordinary demands on my time abate.  4)  as to "the rfc and the background of all my blocks" you say you read, if you had ACTUALLY read them, you would have known that no admin ever posted a block warning before blocking me - except the one I identified in paragraph [01.26] preceding (and who then completely retracted his objection to what he blocked me for), and you would also know that I have certainly not had placed against me "blocks placed all the time", just some baseless politically-motivated ones, without notice and without basis for the reasons I have already documented on the talk pages and the rfc (documented at least when I "discovered" the block, and I didn't discover all of them until recently when I viewed my block list - what good's a secret block?) and only by the same couple of politically biased admins (almost exclusively BorgHunter and KnowledgeSeeker) 5) it is those who AREN'T following wikipedia policy who should be blocked in an edit war, not those who ARE following it, as I always do. It always takes two sides to edit-war, it's matter of determing which side is violating wikipedia policy by not engaging in discussion/consensus building.  See paragraphs [R11] through [R15] preceding and see  voting is evil.  My edits are not disruptive except to those who are seeking to vandalize articles, and their activities need to be "disrupted" - by reverting them with a warning about vandalism, and by then eventually disrupting their activities by blocking them if mere reverts prove insufficient.  If you want to be useful, provide cites/diffs to any point you wish to make, but, mostly, actually read the rfc and the talk pages before you comment.  pat8722 22:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Pat, you're not listening: those aren't technical errors he made, he's correcting your misapprehensions. He's an admin, he knows better than most how Wikipedia works. How you think it should work is not how it does, and your beliefs about what is vandalism are flat-out wrong. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 07:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested block review
Despite my critisisms above, as I said I would I have posted a request to WP:AN/I in your stead asking for a review of this block and the situation leading to it. You can see the request here: WP:AN/I (diff).

I dearly hope you will listen to the administrators who deign to review this block instead of arguing with them. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing like a povvy, biased way of stating your an/i post, is there? How about editing it to a neutral format, so as not to put-off the neutral admins, who might otherwise have thought someone was actually looking for an unbiased opinion?  As your post to AN/I presently stands, it is worse than nothing, as wholely biased in inviting only those who want to condemn, to contribute. pat8722 21:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would not post it myself, this is truth. I think the block is deserved. To keep appropriate distance, I need to state that I am acting on your behalf and the request is not mine. However, as I seem to be in the position of an advocate in this, I am willing to modify it to make it more neutral. What do you suggest? &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 21:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just that there is a block that you have been asked to post for review because the blocker won't do so himself. No other explanation is needed, since you weren't the blocker.pat8722 23:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If I wrote that then it would appear as if I believed that blocks must always be posted. I don't wish to appear ignorant of how Wikipedia runs. It would also be misrepresenting the situation: the request is being placed there not because it ought to be, but as a special request. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 23:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how you say it, just so its neutral. How about "As a special request, I am posting the request of pat8722 that a block placed against him by BorgHunter be reviewed."  That way you aren't saying you believe you have to post it, and you aren't saying I should be condemned or unblocked, you are just doing what someone asked you to do.pat8722 00:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That would not make it clear that I do not endorse your request or the reason for your request, and wouldn't make it clear why I'm posting it even while I don't endorse it. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, why did you agree to post it? I thought it was so as to grant my request for some impartial hearing on that page.  The mere fact that you posted a hearing request at someone's request would not make it look you support their request to be unblocked, just that you are doing what they asked you to do because they asked you to do it.  You're the only one who can resolve what you're going to do, but you've agreed you need to modify it.pat8722 01:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I said I'm willing, but your suggestions so far do me harm in my view. I have a better understanding of how Wikipedia works than you do. Much of it is about reputation, and I'm not really interested in having admins think I am a supporter of yours. Thus the pains to make it clear I'm taking an exceptional and unusual step.
 * As for the reason I posted it, I hope that you'll perhaps listen to the responses or lack thereof. I would be surprised if there was a single admin who would contest your current block, let alone enough to overturn it, even if my request portrayed your actions glowingly.
 * As I can't find your post to an/i anymore (not in the archives), should I assume you deleted it when you realized no one was going to support the block of me as you hoped they would with your negative post?pat8722 16:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I never touched it again. You're continuing to fail to assume good faith. I want you to become a quality editor because you have passion and the ability to dig up interesting references. You're currently not because you insist that everyone is out to get you and refuse to understand how consensus works. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 19:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it's moot now because higher authorities than administrators are going to be considering this. Maybe the ArbCom will finally convince you of what mere editors could not. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 07:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * All it takes is for someone to actually look at the record, to see if the issues raised in paragraphs numbered [113], [118], [224], [229], [231], and [235] at Archive 8 for the Libertarianism talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive8 were addressed, and if you can't find the answers to the issues raised therein, you have proof that there was no consensus, and that the vote count should not have been enforced as being "consensus".pat8722 16:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I endorse the block. The reason for the block is spot on, in my opinion.  I think your biggest problem is your attitude.  You don't seem to be able to work civilly with others, either on an editorial or administrative level.  You really might want to examine where you are, and decide if Wikipedia is right for you.    --Kbdank71 19:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case
Please note that a request for arbitration has been made at Requests_for_arbitration. Please let me know below if you wish to be unblocked to make a statement; I will be more than happy to do so. Bear in mind, however, that such an unblock would mean that you can only edit the arbitration page and your talk page; any other edits would result in another block. Thanks. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First you'll have to tell me what is being arbited. I don't see a request in your paragraph on that page. pat8722 00:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your behavior and what Wikipedia should do about it, primarily. —BorgHunter (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to trust that the arbitration committee is competent. If they accept it for review, I'll be unblocked by then anyway, and able to contribute.  pat8722 00:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a hint: it should not be going out of your way to trust that the highest body of authority at Wikipedia short of the benevolent dictator is competent. If it is, then you're doing something wrong in how you approach Wikipedia. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No one on WP:AN/I ever supported a block of me. In fact, they opposed the recent block against me that was posted for review. It's quite a leap for Borghunter to think arbcom is going to support him, when nobody on WP:AN/I did.pat8722 01:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have supported the indef block either, had I known about it. As for my block, it's been noted on ANI twice. It didn't generate any interest either time, either for or against. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Know what does have a lot of "support," though? Your Rfc.  Consider for a moment that just because other users didn't support an indefinite ban on you that you should not, therefore, change your behavior, as there are plenty of users who desire for it to change. &middot;  j&middot;e&middot;r&middot;s&middot;y&middot;k&middot;o  talk &middot; 13:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Pat8722
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Pat8722. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Pat8722/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Pat8722/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tony,

Thank you for the information about Arbcom. Please see my comment at Requests for arbitration/Pat8722.pat8722 02:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI
Pat, I noticed you were arguing with KnowledgeSeeker again over at their Talk page. I just wanted to apprise you of something that you seem to be unaware of. The arbitration case regarding you is actually in the voting-to-close stage, with a proposed remedy of placing you on probation for a year having enough votes to pass once the close votes are tallied. It seems they were uninterested in whatever you might have said and have rendered a decision based on the evidence they have. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I notified him of this as well; it seems that once he resumed editing without notifying them, the case progressed rather quickly. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Pat8722
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Upon returning to active editing, Pat8722 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned for an appropriate period of time from any page or set of pages for disruptive editing. Should Pat8722 violate any ban imposed under probation, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 such blocks the maximum block period increases to one year. All bans are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Pat8722.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 22:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Re your diff, purely unofficially as I'm not on ArbCom. The case has already been closed, and the ArbCom took your exchange with Knowledge Seeker a while ago to be "active editing", and thus denied your request to have it put on hold. The case was closed on October 23. See Requests for arbitration/Pat8722 for the full story. Regards, —BorgHunter (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

problems
click alt F5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.215.69 (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)