User talk:WP Editor 2011

This is an outrage and a disgrace. I have only been involved in the last few days of this 11-month dispute, so it makes no sense to blame the edit war on me. Mzilikazi openly admitted in numerous instances that he was changing the article, whereas I, along with Aoidh, Davidiad, 209.250.187.21, 76.174.12.68 and 128.240.225.122 were all seeking to protect the status quo from Mzilikazi's hijacking of the article. The status quo doesn't require consensus; it is the default state. Change requires consensus and Mzilikazi and his friends never even tried to discuss the matter, let alone establish consensus. The first discussion was started by Aoidh only two days ago and it has so far consisted only of an argument about how the first edit war ended. The so-called consensus referred to by Dougweller was in fact from the first edit war, not the second, and it was only a fraction of the discussion anyway. Furthermore, even if anyone did read that page in isolation like Dougweller insisted, they'd see that it was unresolved, with Dougweller and his friends making the laughably fallacious and tendentious claim that because there were more of them, they should automatically get their way without having to justify their case or convince anyone of it. Furthermore, Mzilikazi, Dougweller and Johnbod lost the first edit war and, as I've said before,

(1) Even if it were true that you had been involved only for a few days in a long-running edit war, that would not make edit warring somehow acceptable, or mean that it "makes no sense" to (as you put it) "blame" you for your part in the edit war. If you edit warred, then you edit warred, no matter what anyone else did. (2) It is not true that you have been involved only in the last few days. You have returned to an edit war which you had waged as far back as March 2012, as can be seen here: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. (3) Contrary to what you think, there is no basis in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, accepted practice, or anywhere else that "status quo doesn't require consensus", and that therefore someone edit warring to restore what they have chosen to regard as the "status quo" is somehow exempt from the policy on edit warring. (4) Contrary to what you seem to think, if you keep reverting in an article then you are edit warring, no matter how convinced you are that your edits are "right". Indeed, in almost all edit wars, everyone involved is convinced that their edits are "right", so if the edit warring policy were changed to include an exemption for anyone believing they were right, then everyone would be allowed to edit war. (5) The whole tenor of your unblock request confirms what is already abundantly clear from your editing history: that your entire approach to anyone you disagree with is a

This block is even more outrageous and illegitimate than the first. You didn't even allow me to say anything; that alone makes this charade illegitimate and unacceptable. The whole essence of Dougweller's argument over the last few weeks has been that article talk pages can and should be viewed in isolation when addressing a dispute. Bbb23 and JamesBWatson agreed with him in this regard and that was the main basis for punishing me for the recent conflict that was started by Mzilikazi1939. Therefore my actions of yesterday constitute complete compliance with the rules and the comments from these two administrators. As was made crystal clear on

It's not at all true that there was "a clear emergent consensus to move [Aesop] to Common Era dating." Mzilikazi lied in that regard by claiming a fraction of a discussion from 20 months earlier as this so-called consensus. That fraction, if read in isolation like Dougweller and subsequently Bbb23 and JamesBWatson said it should be, was merely an unresolved argument in which the proponents of change refused to justify their change with any legitimate reasons (the main reason given was essentially "this is what we want and there are more of us so go away") and therefore it didn't proceed; the status quo remained.

If it wasn't enough for the change to proceed in May 2012 then it certainly wasn't enough to justify the change 20 months later, when Mzilikazi pretended he had won that argument and made the same illegal edit that he had made the first time. Look at

Preserving the status quo from the unauthorised changes of edit warriors most certainly doesn't require their permission or consensus; that is clearly never going to happen and it is completely farcical for you, Yunshui, to claim that such an unlikely situation is required by Wikipedia policy, let alone realistic. Undoing unauthorised changes is expected by the rules and this is exactly what I've been doing for the last few weeks. I would have much preferred if other responsible editors had done their bit instead of leaving it all to me but I reverted the illegal changes, I reported the trouble-makers to the authorities and I even started a discussion on the talk page, which was in fact the responsibility of Mzilikazi and his supporters but I did it anyway because I was determined to stop the damage being done by these recalcitrant edit warriors. I deserve thanks, praise and now an apology.

Mzilikazi and Dougweller between them have used sock puppetry, canvassing, ad hominem arguments and red herrings repeatedly; they have consistently defied logic and Wikipedia policy to the extent that such behaviour is their modus operandi. My block of 2 days ago only happened because Dougweller went to fetch his friend Bbb23 in private; there was no official notification or report and I was never invited to respond to any charge(s). It was entirely a cloak and dagger affair. Mzilikazi has never denied using a sock puppet and yet the multiple biased administrators who have read about it have refused to act on it.

I, on the other hand, have been the only one doing the right thing by (at least until today) refraining from personal attacks (contrary to the lies of Bbb23) and ensuring Mzilikazi and his supporters, who have delusions of article ownership, can not hijack the article in defiance of Wikipedia policy. Aoidh briefly joined in trying to stop their policy breaches but he cowardly jumped on their bandwagon after Bbb23 made the outrageous and unjustifiable decision to block me, the peacemaker. I was never supposed to be blocked on 30 January and I most certainly wasn't meant to be blocked on 16 February; this is a total disgrace. Encyclopetey was demoted from administratorship for abusing his powers in an edit war against me (and acting simlilarly on other occasions), so why are all of you administrators so scared of the misbehaving administrator Dougweller that you take his side at the expense of common sense, legitimacy and a humble Wikignome who just wants to protect the encyclopaedia? The administrator involvement in this issue so far has been an illegitimate charade with mates protecting mates rather than the encyclopaedia, which is supposed to be the reason for their powers.

I've clearly and repeatedly explained the situation but Bbb23 has now blocked me twice with only a handful of words each time. How is anyone expected to understand the justification for his improper actions? They're not; they're just meant to go along with it blindly. JamesBWatson then used red herrings, straw men, argument ad absurdium and possibly even straight-out lies to defend his decision. I despise repeating myself so this is the final time I'm going to respond to the matter of being blocked; I hope that this disgraceful series of events will finally be noticed by an administrator who isn't in cahoots with Dougweller and has some integrity. I know I've done the right thing all along and, if Dougweller is more intelligent than he lets on, he knows it too. WP Editor 2011 (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to read