User talk:CanuckAnthropologist
|
blocked for one month
[edit]You started edit warring and disruptively moving pages without consensus straight off after your block was up so I have re-blocked you for a month. The racist/racial pith of your edits has made them even more disruptive, hence the length of this new block. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
CanuckAnthropologist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have established consensus on the talk page. Check the talk page of here. user: Rushyo agreed with my move so I did establish consensus before the move. So why exactly are blocking me? And what racist slant? Please point out my "racist slant". How am I racist for moving Afro-Germans to African-Germans? I haven't even edit warred and as you can see from the talk page I established consensus on my side before I made the move. Please take a look more carefully before thinking I did not establish consensus. If you don't want to then can I get another admin to take a look at this because this is just unfair. And why are you blocking me but not blocking User:Ramdrake, he is the one edit warring without consensus, I established consensus by requesting a third opion. I just don't get why you are blocking me, maybe it's because I talked back to you on your talk page on my last block? I see that Ramdrake left a complaint (and lied) on your talk page and you blocked me without even investigating. If you actually bothered to look at the article you would have soon that I did establish consensus by requesting (on WP:Third opinion) and getting a third opinion. This is not fair, I'd like another admin to take a look at this. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm not seeing any evidence that you understand why you were blocked and that the offending behaviour would stop if you were unblocked. — Spartaz Humbug! 07:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Comments: (1) Other admins will of course see this via Category:Requests for unblock. (2) The request for a third opinion did not establish consensus: CanuckAnthropologist, please read the Wikipedia:Consensus policy. — Athaenara ✉ 20:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I thought a third opinion was consensus. But atleast I got a third opinion and was using the talk page to provide my reasoning. User:Ramdrake wasn't even using the talk page but just edit warring, yet I am the one that gets blocked. I honestly did think that a 3rd opinion was conensenss, but now I am not really sure what consensus is. How many people do I need to agree before I am an edit? How many people's opinoin do I need? I am new so I don't this stuff and I think it's unfair to expect me to know exactly what consensus is. The Admin Gwen Gale told me to get a 3rd opinion and that's I did thinking that was consensus.CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia:Consensus policy page which I linked in my post explains consensus fully. — Athaenara ✉ 21:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- CanuckAnthropologist, yesterday you said Rewinn lied, now you say Ramdrake lied. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- And both did. Rewinn convinced you that I am somehow racist and Euro-centric and you are beleiving it while there is not a single racist edit I've made. Then Ramdradke got you to believe that I did not establish consensus when I clearly did by getting a third opinion. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- And you've already been told that a third opinion does not establish consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've been told that just now. Atleast I had good intentions and believed that 3rd opinion was consensus. What did you do? You didn't even use the talk page. I atleast provided reasoning and got a 3rd opinion. You were the one edit warring without even tryin to discuss so you should be the one that gets blocked. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- You should know by now that moving (renaming) a page is usually not done without consensus. Nevertheless, in just a couple of weeks, you moved about a dozen pages without consensus, and edit-warred over it the moment it was reversed. Rule of thumb is, if you get reverted, you start by asking why on the talk page, you don't re-revert over it.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I put perfect reasoning on the talk pages. Noone disputed the reasons on the talk page. If you objected to it you could have replied to my reasons on the talk page. You did not. Thus you made no attempt to discsuss and establish a consensus, you just edit warred senselessly. I am the one that started the discussions on the moves and when that didn't get responses I even went and requested a 3rd opinion. The rule of thumb is if you object, use the talk page to discuss why, and you did not do that. I put my reasons very clearly on the talk page to try to establish consensus and even went after people to come and dicuss it. You just edit warred without reasons, thus you are the one right now who should be blocked, not me. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Several people disputed your reasoning for the reverts, especially the removal of the image of the blonde Pacific Islander child at Blond. However, I would encourage you indeed to open an RfC when you get unblocked to get a wider audience on your proposed renamings before you start on any of them. Rushyo was in fact commenting on your proposal to move African-Germans to Black Africans in Germany, and suggested not to. I don't see that he was really endorsing specifically your move from Afro-Germans to African-Germans. If (as I suspect) the consensus is overwhelmingly that these are not good changes), I would then expect you to follow it and stop those page moves. If the consensus is that those page moves are indeed a good idea, I'll vouch for the fact that I won't try to revert them again. The key is this: establish consensus first, by getting as wide an audience as possible.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Moreover, as I've already told you, I've never had any exchanges at all with Rewinn (although I did block him once for edit warring with you). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
CanuckAnthropologist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did not understand why I was blocked before since I thought a 3rd opinoin was consensu. However, now that an admin has explained to me what consensus really is, I now understand why I am blocked and in the future I understand that I should get more than just a 3rd opinion. Also, I have not offended anyone, I only told Ramdrake that when I am back I will make sure I start an RfC on those articles that he has disputes with me. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Looking at your block log, this isn't the first time you have been disruptive. I think you should use the 1 month block to think about how you approach Wikipedia. If you continue in this manner you are going to blocked indefinitely. You need to calm down, be less confrontational, and work with other editors to build consensus. Opening several request for comments, because you can't accept when consensus disagrees with you, is itself disruptive. — PhilKnight (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
CanuckAnthropologist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
On your last comment, "Opening several request for comments, because you can't accept when consensus disagrees with you, is itself disruptive." Please check the talk pages on those articles, there never was any consensus established. I was the first one who even started using the talk page to try to start a consensus on this. Please see the talk page of African-Germans and Afro-Polish. You can clearly see there was no discussions before I started them and thus there was no consensus for me to break. Therefore I did not break any consensus, rather I was trying to start one. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The response to your actions should suggest that there was some sort of consensus, even if it had not been discussed. The diffs below are further evidence in that direction, and I would add that the RFCs you've opened sound like forum shopping. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.