User talk:WP Editor 2011

Welcome!

 * }

Please see the discussion at Talk:Aesop's Fables
I've opened a discussion at Talk:Aesop's Fables concerning the use of era style in the article, and you are respectfully invited to join the discussion so that an agreement might be reached. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Aoidh, I appreciate your attempts to stop this outrageous edit war. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC))

Previous blocks
Need I remind you that you've been blocked twice for editwarring over WP:ERA? You don't automatically get to make 3 reverts on the same issue. If you revert again I'll report you. Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, you were on the side of the original trouble-maker in the first edit war, so it's completely outrageous for you to come here and warn me like some kind of neutral authority figure.
 * For the benefit of anyone reading this page in isolation (which is apparently how Dougweller likes people to read about disputes), here is my explanation of the issue repeated from Talk:Aesop's Fables:
 * Dougweller, you lied in this edit summary and you had clearly seen the discussion here, with Aoidh insisting on the need for consensus before changing Aesop's Fables from the status quo to Mzilikazi's hijacked version. Therefore your edit was entirely inappropriate and for that reason I'm going to revert it. The block that you refer to was for using a 1-month-old consensus as the basis to protect an article from a gang of edit warriors. Whilst it's already fallacious due to the fact that it's entirely an ad hominem argument, it's even more dubious because you yourself are trying to use the discussion on this talk page as the basis to support Mzilikazi's illegal edits. If one reads the June 2012 discussion at Talk:Aesop, they'll see a 1.5-year-old unresolved issue. How is a 1.5-year-old unresolved issue justification for Mzilikazi's latest edit war when a 1-month-old consensus is apparently so worthless that I deserved to be blocked for implementing it?


 * Besides, Talk:Aesop certainly wasn't the entire discussion; you're cherry-picking and you know it full well. In reality, Mzilikazi conceded defeat in the first edit war here, hence both Aesop and Aesop's Fables returned to their BC/AD state after 1.5 years of Mzilikazi bullying anyone who tried to undo his illegal changes. The status quo was protected for many months until Mzilikazi used his sock puppet Afkun to start a 2nd edit war 7 months later. Mzilikazi was the original and main trouble-maker on your side of the first edit war, Dougweller, so by completely ignoring his concession of defeat and cherry-picking evidence in an attempt to claim you won is outrageous and shows just how little value one should place on your thoughts here. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC))

January 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring at Aesop and Aesop's Fables against consensus re WP:ERA, and personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said at the SPI this editor brought against Mzilikazi1939 was that what I'm seeing is a pattern of you telling people they shouldn't participate in a discussion about WP:ERA on the relevant talk pages because they've been canvassed, and bringing an SPI against someone else whose position you disagree with. I also seew an editor who uses edit summaries to mislead, eg at Europa Universalis IV your edit summary "improved wording" removed the C.E. era style. With a few minor exceptions, all of your edits relate to changing BCE/CE edits to BC/AD (yes, I know you deny that saying all of your edits relate to grammar and spelling). Sometimes your changes are in line with WP:ERA, sometimes not, but they are one way and in this case made with a misleading edit summary as given your other edits that was clearly your purpose.

As for canvassing, you are using the charge to tell the editors who participated in the discussion at Talk:Aesop that their comments are "tainted" and that they shouldn't take part in any further discussions on the issue - I can't see where our guidelines prohibit them from taking part. As I replied to you before, the only editors who took part in the relevant discussion at Talk:Aesop dates were either notified or knew about it already (you). The IPs and Nikopolis did not take part in the discussion - in fact they never seem to have posted to the talk page - I see you don't mention him this time but two other editors, but again they didn't take part in the discussion. Notifying editors who have taken part in that discussion about your actions seems appropriate to me. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On the point of spelling and grammar, I consider CE to be a spelling/grammar issue. That's why I said what I did about all my edits relating to spelling and grammar. As for Europa Universalis (not that it's relevant here but I'll indulge you anyway), I think I did a pretty good job of improving what was a poorly worded sentence. When I removed CE, it was for the year 1821 and as we both know from the now familiar WP:ERA, 1821 is not meant to have either CE or AD, especially in the context of the Europa Universalis IV article, since it's already obvious that it's the 1821 from 2 centuries ago. I was acting entirely within the rules in that case.(WP Editor 2011 (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC))


 * Dougweller, your latest edit to Aesop is inappropriate. Just because I'm temporarily blocked doesn't mean you have consensus for your proposed change, although this is what you seem to be suggesting in the edit summary. What about Aoidh, Davidiad, 209.250.187.21, 76.174.12.68 and 128.240.225.122 for a start? They don't agree with your proposed change either so, regardless of what happens here, you won't have a free pass to do whatever you want. Without establishing consensus first, your change has no legitimacy. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC))


 * Am I to believe you didn't actually read the blocking reason given at AN3, "one week for edit warring in both articles against consensus"? Those other editors didn't take part in the discussion at Talk:Aesop and so far as I can see none of them even ever edited that article except Davidiad and that wasn't about BCE - his edits on that issue were at Aesop's Fables, and my revert today was not at that article. Dougweller (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No one discussed anything at Talk:Aesop. The only mention of the issue there is the discussion from the first edit war. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC))


 * There wasn't a real 'first edit war' at Aesop (you reverted someone twice isn't much of an edit war), and the discussion there established consensus. Looks like your 2nd revert against consensus was ignored for some reason. But it was clearly discussed in 2012 even if not then permanently implemented. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I got my first block (i.e. not this one) for keeping an article in line with a consensus that was established one month beforehand but now you're using an unresolved discussion from 19 months ago as the entire basis for your changes to Aesop? That makes no sense. The reason Aesop used BC/AD for the last 19 months straight is not because nobody noticed my "revert against consensus", it was because Mzilikazi agreed on his talk page to stop changing the articles. All five of us had agreed (some of us implicitly rather than explicitly)to leave both articles alone and that is indeed what occurred for many months. By ignoring this commitment, you're the one breaching consensus, Dougweller. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC))

February 2014
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for your second resumption of reverting (edit warring) against consensus at Aesop after your most recent block, including a diatribe on the Aesop talk page. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There was no need for an official warning or report after the earlier warnings and blocks, and far from going to Bbb23 privately I publicly asked him on his talk page what he thought of your edit. That you see yourself as a peacemaker is fascinating. Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, talk pages are the most private venue on Wikipedia. They're certainly much more private than the various administrators' noticeboards. That's why I referred to it as private. Why did you choose to go directly to him rather than making it official and taking pot luck? Surely it's because you knew you'd have a sympathetic ear. I call myself a peacemaker because I never set out to change anything; all I was doing was preserving. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC))
 * No, talk pages are anything but private. If you have a talk page on your watchlist you can easily watch discussions, etc on other talk pages. Editors fairly frequently respond to posts to my talk page before I do. Vandalism gets caught by watching talk pages. They aren't private. Going to an editor who knows the situation and has blocked before is standard. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)