| Revision as of 15:46, 23 November 2015 editRealskeptic (talk | contribs)253 edits →Andrew Wakefield: Deleting per WP:OWN#UP and WP:OWN#CMT; content contains spam comment, an unblock request decline with a veiled threat should I continue appealing, and previous declines that did not address the substance of my appeal.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:53, 26 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (39 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| ::When an edit you make is removed by another editor, the usual practice is to open a discussion on the talk page about your concerns. Repeatedly restoring the same content more than three times in a day is considered disruptive, and it's unproductive too, because, presently, most of the editors the article agree with the current wording. The way forward is to win others over to your point of view with patient, polite and sound reasoning. --] (]) 06:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC) | ::When an edit you make is removed by another editor, the usual practice is to open a discussion on the talk page about your concerns. Repeatedly restoring the same content more than three times in a day is considered disruptive, and it's unproductive too, because, presently, most of the editors the article agree with the current wording. The way forward is to win others over to your point of view with patient, polite and sound reasoning. --] (]) 06:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ] | |||
| As your edits about Andrew Wakefield, which you have insisted on repeatedly adding, are demonstrably incorrect, I would only agree with an unblock if you were to agree not to edit on the two subjects in question. Please let me warn you that further edit-warring on these subjects will almost certainly lead to a much longer block. I suspect, admittedly without evidence, that you hold definite personal views about the alleged effects of immunisations. If so, please try not to let these views distort the impartiality of your editing.--<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 17:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :That's not going to happen, especially with someone who tells me not to let my views distort the impartiality of my editing right after making it clear he would let his own views distort the impartiality of his unblock decision. I asked for my unblock request to be reviewed without prejudice. If you can't do that, then another admin should. ] (]) 04:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: All I'm asking is for my unblock request to be fully reviewed without condescension or prejudice and in accordance with ]. To call for retaliation against such a reasonable request with a ban as some editors have done is a battlefield attitude. ] (]) 05:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::as I am a medical practitioner you will note that, because I might be thought not to be impartial, I in fact did not review your request; my warning referred specifically to edit-warring, not article content.--<font color="Red">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup> 17:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That's good you did not involve yourself in the decision over whether to keep me unblocked. However, you shouldn't make ] accusations against another editor without evidence, especially if you know the editor has submitted an unblock request that you have not reviewed due to personal bias. Making accusations without evidence violates ]. The fact that this was repeatedly made multiple times often by the same editors and in breach of ] constitutes ]. Threats to disrupt an editor's activity such as through blocks and bans based on those accusations constitutes ]. ] (]) 19:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == November 2015 == | |||
| == Please Ban Repeat Harasser From Posting on My Talk Page == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
| After already from repeat harasser ] on my talk page for user space harassment, I see he has now returned to leave yet another calling for my permanent ban and deletion of my talk page. Ironically the call is motivated by my removal of comments from my user space in keeping with ] and ] that included his own. | |||
| Please be particularly aware that ] states: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''. | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> '''<span style="font-family:Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 01:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You may not move on to edit-warring at a different article, and you may not try to deflect disagreement by claiming persecution. If you continue in this manner, you may be faced with discretionary sanction enforcement. '''<span style="font-family:Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 01:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Though he claims I do not understand the policies I cite, he falsely accuses me of ] as well as ] (edits to ones own user page are exempt from what is considered edit-warring). He also has escalated ad hominem attacks and name-calling despite repeated requests for . | |||
| ⚫ | ::Reverts maintaining ] policy are exempt from ] behavior. ] (]) 01:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | ||
| His disruption of my talk page also constitutes a ] edit and violation of ] as he has admitted that he was baiting me to remove it. He has also admitted that his emotions and those of like-minded editors are the reason for their continuously failing to discuss my edits. | |||
| :::The inclusion or exclusion of Kennedy's opinion on the Salon incident is not a BLP matter. You have to have a credible reason to cite BLP: you've been inserting the Salon item in multiple articles. '''<span style="font-family:Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 01:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| His hostility towards my edits and comments is far out of proportion to anything I have written. For example, when I reiterated my as-yet unmet request for my to be reviewed without prejudice, : | |||
| :::(ec) The mere utterance of "''WP:BLP!''" in one's edit summaries is not a magical invocation that renders one immune to Misplaced Pages's prohibition on edit warring. Your reverts at ] and at ] do not seek to repair egregiously unbalanced or libelous material; not every dispute about NPOV, WEIGHT, and appropriate selection of sources automatically engages the BLP-edit-war "loophole" even when some of the material touches on living people. | |||
| "That is such a clear example of a battlefield attitude as to justify an immediate indefinite ban from Misplaced Pages. There is no point in further discussion. The only alternative would be extensive topic bans." | |||
| :::In any case, the actual rule – clearly spelled out in both ] and ] – is that genuine and credible BLP issues provide a defense for edit warring when the edits in question are made to ''remove'' libelous or contentious material relating to a living person. Neither policy shelters edit warring to ''add'' contentious material in support of a fringe viewpoint. | |||
| :::Oh, and ''please'' don't play silly buggers by making ]y mass deletions of the bits of the articles you don't like; that's not cool, and admins have very little patience for that sort of game-playing. ](]) 02:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Aside from your that that viewpoint is fringe, the edits on both pages did repair egregiously unbalanced if not potentially libelous material. It does not matter that they concerned a person who held that viewpoint or that the viewpoint of the person was loosely relevant to the edits about him. | |||
| ::::] applies to all living persons equally and to all Misplaced Pages articles. Re ], it states that they must have balance - for instance, it must balance out Salon's retraction of Kennedy's article with his response and Talbot and Rolling Stone's opposition. It must be neutral in tone - both articles are clearly written in the prose of his critics. It should not misrepresent Kennedy as not addressing his critics when he has, and it must not misrepresent others as addressing Kennedy's concerns when they haven't. | |||
| Although I deleted that comment, | |||
| ::::] should not be overridden by POV pushing, even if it is a POV you claim to be consensus. POV pushing also does not justify ], ], ], ] and ]. ] (]) 04:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| "All I'm asking is for my unblock request to be fully reviewed without condescension or prejudice and in accordance with ]. To call for retaliation against such a reasonable request with a topic ban is a battlefield attitude." | |||
| ] This is your '''only warning'''; if you make ] on other people again, as you did at ], you may be '''] without further notice'''. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.<!-- Template:uw-npa4im --> '''<span style="font-family:Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 17:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Yet in his latest attack, : | |||
| == Warning == | |||
| "They have not provided a shred of evidence that they are willing to learn how things work here. We see nothing but rebellion." | |||
| You have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions that apply to fringe topics, of which anti-vaccine advocacy is one. You have continued to advocate fringe views, including making controversial edits to article space, which have consistently been reverted as failing our content policies. If you continue in this vein, I will initiate the process of getting you banned from the topic of vaccines, broadly construed. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Which one of us is unwilling to learn here? | |||
| :No, I should be able to discuss my opinion about how best to edit articles in talk pages without facing such an unprecedented level of hostility. The autism-vaccine link is not "fringe" or "anti-vaccine"; the consensus against it is not a scientific consensus, it is merely the ]'s consensus. The IOM's position on it is for reasons other than scientific ones. ] (]) 00:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Hi Realskeptic - this is one of the toughest concepts for new Wikipedian's to understand. You want to write the Truth (with a capitol T), whereas the rules here say that you have to write what is Verifiable. Have a look at ], and pay particular attention to the section "But I ''know'' the truth!", because I think that describes how you feel right now. --] (]) 02:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is , that's my point. ] (]) 06:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm guessing that you've not yet read the ]. You just linked me to a response from an author after his article had been withdrawn by the publisher. That's not a suitable source for verification. For well-researched medical topics we really need clinical studies, published by scientific or medical journals which have not been withdrawn by their publisher! --] (]) 15:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The source itself does not concern a medical topic, but rather the conduct of individuals in their formulation of a review about a medical topic. The article was not withdrawn after the author's response, it was withdrawn over five years later even though no new flaws were found with the piece. The other publication that ran the piece . Salon.com's retraction was also condemned by Salon's founding editor-in-chief in a letter to Kennedy. This is all discussed in the book ''Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak'' by Kennedy, which would meet ]. ] (]) 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As another editor has kindly explained, your topic ban also extends to talk pages. Regretfully I must ask you to end this discussion. --] (]) 05:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Discretionary sanction request == | |||
| While BullRangifer insists I demonstrated "no collaborative spirit," he has demonstrated contempt for doing so. To provide one example - I editors reverting my edits discuss on the talk page. BullRangifer rejected my plea, saying . What he also does not disclose is that that was the first request that led to my current block, which is perhaps part of why he is so angry and wants my talk page deleted along with my edits not being in line with his POV pushing. | |||
| I have requested that discretionary sanctions be applied to your editing. Please see ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 03:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Though BullRangifer contends that no one will protest my banning, another editor continues to that I left before I was blocked. BullRangifer also implicitly insults any admin unwilling to call for his retaliatory ban by saying they don't "have the balls" to do so. Additionally, he makes ] attacks on me such as "the ultimate pseudoskeptic POV edit warrior" and calls me "cowardly." This is the behavior of a bully. | |||
| :The request linked above has been closed against you. You are indefinitely banned on Misplaced Pages from the topics of autism and vaccination. ] ''(])'' 18:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you are against POV pushing, you should not let your against a subject impact your judgement. ] (]) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Appeals instructions can be found at the following link: ]. Let's just say we have already gone passed the first step where you asked me to rethink my decision. ] ''(])'' 18:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I saw. I never asked you, I knew it would be a waste of my time. ] (]) 18:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi Realskeptic, the sanctions do seem to be warranted given your recent behavior. Did it occur to you that something may be wrong with you behavior if you have managed to attract such a lot of attention in such a short time? Take a vacation from Misplaced Pages, and when you are ready to return to this site please review which of your behaviors lead to this ban. --] (]) 18:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've spent the last week purely trying to discuss civilly with other editors and met an absurd level of hostility. ] (]) 18:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::But it's not actually true that you were "purely" involved with discussions. You also made a few quite radical changes to articles that generated a lot of attention. Your use of the word "purely" is somewhat questionable! I can see the changes you made - you did much more than use the talk pages! And in any case, would you care to speculate why it is that your actions have resulted in what you perceive to be 'hostility'? --] (]) 19:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I said over the past week; I made changes but was discussed them in talk pages - now I've been banned from even being able to do that. It's obviously the work of a POV-pushing faction. ] (]) 23:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Salimfadhley}} While I appreciate that you may be trying to help Realskeptic understand why so many other editors found his approach to editing Misplaced Pages to be...problematic, I strongly urge you to be very cautious here. Both you and Realskeptic should be aware that ] apply ''everywhere'' and on ''every'' page on Misplaced Pages – including on user talk pages – and that this discussion looks like it's headed for territory covered by the ban. ](]) 00:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| To follow through on BullRangifer's demands is to empower a bully, as I feel was the case with my current block. Not only will banning me violate Misplaced Pages policies, but the abhorrent behavior of BullRangifer will reflect on any admin that does. I would also contest the ban and will be able to prove that I was in keeping with Misplaced Pages policies in spite of BullRangifer's repeat attacks. I have been subject to repeated ] by him both here and elsewhere. It has to stop. | |||
| * Formal notification your appeal has been dismissed. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Though I don't see how such a person could be reasonably allowed to edit Misplaced Pages, I recognize that a decision to ban BullRangifer should be left to the admins. What I am asking is for BullRangifer to be banned from commenting on my talk page indefinitely. | |||
| ⚫ | ] (]) |
||
| :I would like to just re-emphasize my request for a talk page ban of ], who has now moved to attack me on his own talk page. Among the attacks include , and saying that I should be thankful to (dashes mine). I should also note that he resorts to by now accusing me of bullying. | |||
| :BullRangifer also expresses overall contempt for admins (, ), suggesting I am far from the first user he has had issues with - ] support from like-minded editors notwithstanding. He also repeats his "cowardly" accusation towards me for exercising the right to remove comments from my talk page per ] and ] and for calling for him to be banned from my talk page, which is extremely ironic for someone who is calling for my banning from Misplaced Pages and the deletion of my talk page. | |||
| :By , he wants me banned and my talk page deleted without discussion: | |||
| :"It's not pleasant, but it must be done. That's what needs to be done here. Just get it over with, without asking." | |||
| :I hope this makes it all the more clear why this user's call for a ban should not be taken seriously and why he should never be allowed to post on my talk page. As stated previously, I would contest the block as I will be able to prove I am not guilty of the things BullRangifer accuses me of. Additionally, BullRangifer's "conduct" would not reflect well on any admin who follows through with his request. | |||
| :Again, I don't see how such an abusive and bullying POV pusher should be allowed to edit an encyclopedia, though that is for the admins to decide. However, I hope they recognize the need to permanently deny BullRangifer the technical ability to engage in any further abuse towards me on my own talk page. ] (]) 21:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:53, 26 March 2022
Welcome...
Hello, Realskeptic, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
I've already modified your contribution at Andrew Wakefield, hopefully for the better.
Again, welcome! Novangelis (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Andrew Wakefield
Hi. I have undone your edit at the above article. As you can imagine, this wording has been discussed at length, and has not been arrived at frivolously. Please feel free to initiate another discussion on the article's "talk" (discussion) page. The earlier discussions are archived here. (You can also access the archive via a link at the top of the current "talk" page.)
Debate at Misplaced Pages can be robust; patience, politeness and persistence are often required. Our editing is also tightly constrained by policies and guidelines. If you want to pursue this, I'll be arguing against removing "fraudulent" from the article, but I have been persuaded to change my mind in the past.
Your point that we shouldn't be basing assertions of fact on opinion is plausible and may be worth expanding on. Another possible avenue is our policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). Once you have familiarised yourself with that policy, if you think the article breaches it, you may consider asking the opinion of other editors at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. If you can elicit enough support there, the present wording may be overturned.
Modesty and politeness, even in the face of rudeness (don't be a wimp, but don't be snarky or hysterical either) is the shortest route to wherever you want to go here. Good luck. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- The discussion relies on weasel words and is outdated. I added a new section with reliable sources that dispute at least some of the allegations of fraud made against Wakefield, but you removed those citing what appears to be your own opinion. That is a violation of WP: NPOV. While I appreciate the suggestions, those developments still need to be added.
- Realskeptic (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
- When an edit you make is removed by another editor, the usual practice is to open a discussion on the talk page about your concerns. Repeatedly restoring the same content more than three times in a day is considered disruptive, and it's unproductive too, because, presently, most of the editors watching the article agree with the current wording. The way forward is to win others over to your point of view with patient, polite and sound reasoning. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
November 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- You may not move on to edit-warring at a different article, and you may not try to deflect disagreement by claiming persecution. If you continue in this manner, you may be faced with discretionary sanction enforcement. Acroterion (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Reverts maintaining WP:BLP policy are exempt from edit-warring behavior. Realskeptic (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- The inclusion or exclusion of Kennedy's opinion on the Salon incident is not a BLP matter. You have to have a credible reason to cite BLP: you've been inserting the Salon item in multiple articles. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- (ec) The mere utterance of "WP:BLP!" in one's edit summaries is not a magical invocation that renders one immune to Misplaced Pages's prohibition on edit warring. Your reverts at Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and at 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference do not seek to repair egregiously unbalanced or libelous material; not every dispute about NPOV, WEIGHT, and appropriate selection of sources automatically engages the BLP-edit-war "loophole" even when some of the material touches on living people.
- In any case, the actual rule – clearly spelled out in both WP:BLP and WP:EW – is that genuine and credible BLP issues provide a defense for edit warring when the edits in question are made to remove libelous or contentious material relating to a living person. Neither policy shelters edit warring to add contentious material in support of a fringe viewpoint.
- Oh, and please don't play silly buggers by making WP:POINTy mass deletions of the bits of the articles you don't like; that's not cool, and admins have very little patience for that sort of game-playing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Aside from your very unconvincing case that that viewpoint is fringe, the edits on both pages did repair egregiously unbalanced if not potentially libelous material. It does not matter that they concerned a person who held that viewpoint or that the viewpoint of the person was loosely relevant to the edits about him.
- WP:BLP applies to all living persons equally and to all Misplaced Pages articles. Re WP:BLPSTYLE, it states that they must have balance - for instance, it must balance out Salon's retraction of Kennedy's article with his response and Talbot and Rolling Stone's opposition. It must be neutral in tone - both articles are clearly written in the prose of his critics. It should not misrepresent Kennedy as not addressing his critics when he has, and it must not misrepresent others as addressing Kennedy's concerns when they haven't.
- WP:BLP should not be overridden by POV pushing, even if it is a POV you claim to be consensus. POV pushing also does not justify edit-warring, wikihounding, threats to disrupt another editor's work, factionalism and admin abuse. Realskeptic (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Warning
You have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions that apply to fringe topics, of which anti-vaccine advocacy is one. You have continued to advocate fringe views, including making controversial edits to article space, which have consistently been reverted as failing our content policies. If you continue in this vein, I will initiate the process of getting you banned from the topic of vaccines, broadly construed. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, I should be able to discuss my opinion about how best to edit articles in talk pages without facing such an unprecedented level of hostility. The autism-vaccine link is not "fringe" or "anti-vaccine"; the consensus against it is not a scientific consensus, it is merely the Institute of Medicine's consensus. The IOM's position on it is for reasons other than scientific ones. Realskeptic (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Realskeptic - this is one of the toughest concepts for new Wikipedian's to understand. You want to write the Truth (with a capitol T), whereas the rules here say that you have to write what is Verifiable. Have a look at WP:TRUTH, and pay particular attention to the section "But I know the truth!", because I think that describes how you feel right now. --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- It is verifiable, that's my point. Realskeptic (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that you've not yet read the WP:MEDRS. You just linked me to a response from an author after his article had been withdrawn by the publisher. That's not a suitable source for verification. For well-researched medical topics we really need clinical studies, published by scientific or medical journals which have not been withdrawn by their publisher! --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- The source itself does not concern a medical topic, but rather the conduct of individuals in their formulation of a review about a medical topic. The article was not withdrawn after the author's response, it was withdrawn over five years later even though no new flaws were found with the piece. The other publication that ran the piece never considered retracting it. Salon.com's retraction was also condemned by Salon's founding editor-in-chief in a letter to Kennedy. This is all discussed in the book Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak by Kennedy, which would meet WP:MEDRS#Books. Realskeptic (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- As another editor has kindly explained, your topic ban also extends to talk pages. Regretfully I must ask you to end this discussion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- The source itself does not concern a medical topic, but rather the conduct of individuals in their formulation of a review about a medical topic. The article was not withdrawn after the author's response, it was withdrawn over five years later even though no new flaws were found with the piece. The other publication that ran the piece never considered retracting it. Salon.com's retraction was also condemned by Salon's founding editor-in-chief in a letter to Kennedy. This is all discussed in the book Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak by Kennedy, which would meet WP:MEDRS#Books. Realskeptic (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm guessing that you've not yet read the WP:MEDRS. You just linked me to a response from an author after his article had been withdrawn by the publisher. That's not a suitable source for verification. For well-researched medical topics we really need clinical studies, published by scientific or medical journals which have not been withdrawn by their publisher! --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- It is verifiable, that's my point. Realskeptic (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Realskeptic - this is one of the toughest concepts for new Wikipedian's to understand. You want to write the Truth (with a capitol T), whereas the rules here say that you have to write what is Verifiable. Have a look at WP:TRUTH, and pay particular attention to the section "But I know the truth!", because I think that describes how you feel right now. --Salimfadhley (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Discretionary sanction request
I have requested that discretionary sanctions be applied to your editing. Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Realskeptic. --NeilN 03:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- The request linked above has been closed against you. You are indefinitely banned on Misplaced Pages from the topics of autism and vaccination. NW (Talk) 18:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you are against POV pushing, you should not let your obvious bias against a subject impact your judgement. Realskeptic (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Appeals instructions can be found at the following link: WP:AC/DS. Let's just say we have already gone passed the first step where you asked me to rethink my decision. NW (Talk) 18:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I saw. I never asked you, I knew it would be a waste of my time. Realskeptic (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Realskeptic, the sanctions do seem to be warranted given your recent behavior. Did it occur to you that something may be wrong with you behavior if you have managed to attract such a lot of attention in such a short time? Take a vacation from Misplaced Pages, and when you are ready to return to this site please review which of your behaviors lead to this ban. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've spent the last week purely trying to discuss civilly with other editors and met an absurd level of hostility. Realskeptic (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- But it's not actually true that you were "purely" involved with discussions. You also made a few quite radical changes to articles that generated a lot of attention. Your use of the word "purely" is somewhat questionable! I can see the changes you made - you did much more than use the talk pages! And in any case, would you care to speculate why it is that your actions have resulted in what you perceive to be 'hostility'? --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I said over the past week; I made changes but was discussed them in talk pages - now I've been banned from even being able to do that. It's obviously the work of a POV-pushing faction. Realskeptic (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- But it's not actually true that you were "purely" involved with discussions. You also made a few quite radical changes to articles that generated a lot of attention. Your use of the word "purely" is somewhat questionable! I can see the changes you made - you did much more than use the talk pages! And in any case, would you care to speculate why it is that your actions have resulted in what you perceive to be 'hostility'? --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've spent the last week purely trying to discuss civilly with other editors and met an absurd level of hostility. Realskeptic (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Appeals instructions can be found at the following link: WP:AC/DS. Let's just say we have already gone passed the first step where you asked me to rethink my decision. NW (Talk) 18:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- If you are against POV pushing, you should not let your obvious bias against a subject impact your judgement. Realskeptic (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Salimfadhley: While I appreciate that you may be trying to help Realskeptic understand why so many other editors found his approach to editing Misplaced Pages to be...problematic, I strongly urge you to be very cautious here. Both you and Realskeptic should be aware that topic bans on Misplaced Pages apply everywhere and on every page on Misplaced Pages – including on user talk pages – and that this discussion looks like it's headed for territory covered by the ban. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Formal notification your appeal has been dismissed. Spartaz 20:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)