User talk:Mindbunny

Edit warring

Indeed please stop edit warring. I looked through your history and initially I had blocked your account until I saw you weren't properly warned (initially it appeared to me you were warned, so I apologize). However, edits like this [1] which directly run opposite to a good-faith attempt to work with you show very very poorly on your behalf. Indeed, please slow down a bit and use the talk page. Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 1. I am reverting to the consensus version. The material DeCausa is adding had never been in the article prior to a week ago. 2) Two of my last three edits were to undo false positives by recent-change patrollers. Both patrollers admitted they are not actual editors of the article; rather they assumed it was vandalism because I hadn't copy/pasted my edit comment from the first time to the next, 3) Even counting those edits, I didn't make more than 3 edits in a 24 hour period. Mindbunny (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, you haven't actually unblocked me at all. Mindbunny (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mindbunny, I suspect you have been caught up in an autoblock which didn't clear when your account was unblocked. Please follow the instructions on this page to get the block cleared. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have found and removed your autoblock. You should be free to edit now. Please do not resume reverting or you will likely find yourself blocked again. --B (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I continue reverting, if the material continues to be added? The added material is not part of the long-standing consensus version, and multiple reasons have been given for why it doesn't improve the article. Do I misunderstand how the consensus process works? The burden is on those who want to alter the stable version. That's not me. Mindbunny (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't keep reverting because the policy says not to. Although I agree with you that the relationship between this section and the article subject seems at best tangential, that position seems to be in the minority and you should discuss it rather than simply revert to your preferred version. The policy is not concerned as much with proving "who is right" as it is to preventing disruption to the editing process. --B (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No proper reasons have been given for its deletion. All that's happened is I answered off-topic questions posed by Mindbunny. The 'long-standing' consensus point is a strange one, and implies that no new material can be added. I think there may be a genuine misunderstanding of 'consensus' and Wikipedia processes in general. Mindbunny could, for instance, review WP:BRD, but there are others that Mindbunny needs to review as well. I agree there are issues with the text (although I think there is a kernel worth having) - I was merely transfering it from another article, it's not mine. Mindbunny's reaction, however, is way over the top, and refusal to discuss in keeping with complaints from other editors. I think Mindbunny fundamentally misunderstands the whole editing process. DeCausa (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Asserting that my reasons are not "proper" reasons is not constructive . My opinion is that your reasons for adding the material are not "proper" reasons. Where does that leave us? It leaves us with the principles of consensus-building, number one of which is: don't revert the revert. The "long-standing consensus point" is not a strange one: it is a fundamental principle. It does not "imply that no new material can be added." It implies that you need to build consensus. At a most basic level, it implies that you don't revert the revert of your "bold edit". Yet, that is exactly what you've done. In fact, you are now continuing to add even more material to the contested material, knowing it is diisputed and lacks consensus. Mindbunny (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't lack consensus!! No one has commented on it!! The fact is you haven't explained your position. End of.DeCausa (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

To be completely clear, as it has been suggested that I was not, "being right" or "believing you are right" is not a justification for edit warring. There is no deadline for completion of Wikipedia and, since we have infinite time, you can discuss your proposed changes on the talk page while the article displays the m:wrong version. Repeatedly reverting is not an acceptable behavior, even if you believe your preferred version to be the correct one. --B (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The guideline on edit-warring apply applies primarily to those who initiate changes without getting consensus, and the guidelines on consensus say so. There is nothing in policy that applies more to me than DeCausa, and quite a bit of policy that constrains DeCausa more. The fact is, the changes s/he is making don't have consensus and the objections to those changes have been stated. Furthermore, DeCausa is continuing to make even more changes to the article in the same vein, knowing the editing is objected to and that the conditions of an edit-war are building. Bottom-line: Changing an article requires consensus and DeCause is attempting to change the article. Mindbunny (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You've completely misunderstood wiipedia. Have you read WP:BRD? Also, you don't need to get a consensus for every change. At the momenbt there's no way of knowing whether there is aconsensus one way or other because of your behavior. The normal process is that you respond in Talk and we debate it, and if there is a consensus against I will very happily remove it myself. You seem to assume this process is confrontational. Normally it's not. DeCausa (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I read it, which is how I know that you're violating it. The most basic principle is: don't revert the revert. You made a bold change. It was reverted. The next step is the D: discuss. Instead, you are continuing to shove the material into the article. Mindbunny (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the "confrontational" part, what I see is that you immediately (and repeatedly) have lectured me about how Wikipedia works, about how I don't understand anything, and that I only disagree with you because I'm more ignorant of Wikipedia than you. I see you reporting me for edit warring, and using a list of edits that spans 3 days and not mentioning that 2 of my edits were related to false positives by recent change patrollers who thought they were correcting vandalism and that I hadn't violated the rule even counting those edits. In other words, a truly frivolous 3RR report. I see you employing "gotcha" tactics to try to win an edit war. When I look at your activity on other articles, I see a similar pattern. Mindbunny (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What an earth do you mean? I've never reported anyone for edit-warring before. I've never reported anyone for anything before. So what's the pattern? The administrators saw all your posts - and they saw your posts claiming they were 'false positives'. They obviously didn't agree. The fact is you have violated two rules (as originally determined by the admin before he realised I hadn't formally warned you - check out the notice board). It wasn't just edit-warring (which isn't limited to the 24hr 3RR rule) but also disruptive behavior. On BRD: "Yeah I read it, which is how I know that you're violating it. The most basic principle is: don't revert the revert. You made a bold change. It was reverted. The next step is the D: discuss." Exactly, you didn't discuss. You just posted a series of off-topic questions. Everyone else who's looked at this doesn't see it the way you do. I can see from your talk history and from the article talk that you have a history of problems. So I suspect I'm talking to the wall, but I'm still willing to have a mature discussion about my edit. You can continue thinking you are the only person who is right or you can try to see what everyone else has said to you. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to jump in here. I'm another one of the RC patrollers you speak so highly of. I tried to initiate a discussion with you on this whole subject right here. On this talk page (see the first post under "RE: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia" yet you seemed to ignore it? I have to side with DeCausa on this one... Bped1985 (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. You reverted me 3 minutes after my edit, and you flagged my edit as vandalism. My edit wasn't vandalism. I explained it in the edit summary, and I was in the process of summarizing (again) on the Talk page when you reverted it. You can't possibly have carefully reviewed the article (which is very long) or article history or the Talk page in the 3 minutes between my edit and your reversion. The discussion you tried to initiate below came after you reverted me, and doesn't address any of the reasons I've given for opposing the change to the article. You just don't seem to have even looked at the Talk page. I'm feeling pretty darn irritable at the moment, so I am going to take a break. I really think RC patrollers need to put more care into their edits than a bot. Mindbunny (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It would be good form to revert your own revert, if you agree that there was no vandalism. Mindbunny (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Before I revert anything I'm going to ask a few other RCP members for opinions. So that will have to wait for now. Secondly? What? How many times did I revert you? Take a look at the article history. I reverted you once, and immediately thereafter posted that note. Bped1985 (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bped, I'm going to respectfully disagree with the method of your revert. Mindbunny actually used an edit summary this time. Content removal with reasonable explanation != obvious vandalism. Therefore the use of rollback (which is what GLOO uses) is not justified. When I do RC patrol with GLOO, I keep a separate window open on wikipedia so I can twinkle things which aren't obvious vandalism, but which are obviously disagreeable for other reason (e.g. the content dispute on this page). Mindbunny, please be aware that RC patrollers do not have time to read the talk page history of an article while patrolling, so please do not demand that we do so. And also please learn to Assume Good Faith, which you still seem to be having issues with. On the actual content in dispute, I think DeCausa has been making a good faith effort to tie it into the article and that inclusion seems like the best option. No comment with regards to the edit warring block. Sailsbystars (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course I have "issues" with Assume Good Faith. I was wrongly accused of vandalism not once or twice, but three times. You falsely accused me of vandalism (reverting, and aggravating an edit war), and now say you can't take the time to read Talk pages before you make such accusations. Of course I don't assume good faith in situations like that. Assuming good faith means assuming you'll take the time to avoid false accusations. Mindbunny (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sailsbystars: Yes, the way I went about reverting the edit wasn't great. And I fully admit that. I have just started using GLOO and am still a little shaky with it. Which I know is no excuse, but I'm learning. Thanks for the input! Mindbunny: I'm trying to decide what to do with this section the war is over. Please calmly list your concerns with having that section included in the article so that we can get this mess sorted out. Bped1985 (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny, please read my reply to your comment on the article Talk before reverting again 9once you are unblocked). Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. Bped1985 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

I'm pointing out what was done wrong and fixing it? Career progress has everything to do with rights. Bped1985 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

As you are sure to ask, I'm going to lay out the reasons immediately below why you were blocked and no one else was:

• You made more reverts than anyone else.
• You were reverting while discussing. That's not how it works. You discuss the edits and only revert after achieving consensus.
• You were edit warring against 4 different parties, which indicates your attempts at talk were not generating consensus, and as such the material should not have been reinserted.

Please note, there is no cabal. I frankly don't even understand the merits of the edit war itself, and may be even sympathetic to your points. But I do see the pattern of edit warring, and it clearly is against our policies. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not edit warring against 4 different parties. Three of the parties to which you refer are merely RC patrollers who are reverting because their GLOO/HG script generated a false positive for vandalism. Do you see any comment from any of those other parties on the Talk page? No. Do you see a comment from any of them in edit summary pertaining to the *content* of the article? No. Did you look at their Talk pages and see that they agree they falsely identified my edits as vandalism, and that they have no interest or involvement in the article? Apparently not (they insist I should have repeated my edit summaries to avoid such false positives, but that's a different issue). You don't appear to have researched the history of the article at all. I am not reverting while discussing. DeCause is making the change to the consensus version.. DeCausa is making the Bold edit. DeCausa is reverting the revert. Your comment that "You discuss the edits and only revert after achieving consensus." misses the point that I am not trying to change the consensus. Mindbunny (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mindbunny (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

1. No violation of the 3RR rule in fact. 2. No violation of the rule in spirit: a) My edits are explained. They are explained in Talk. They are explained in the edit summary. b) I am not making changes to the article. The version I am reverting to is the consensus version.; the material being added is new. Most of the edits I have reverted have not represented opinions about the article: they have been false positives by recent change patrollers. There is only one other regular editor of this article involved in this dispute, and I think I've reverted him twice in 48 hours. But, even counting the undoing of the false positives by RC patrollers, I haven't violated 3RR. So, the block is inexplicable to me. Mindbunny (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm going to decline this not so much because I believe you're insincere in your belief that you haven't done anything wrong, but because I don't think you fully understand the reasons for it. I took a look at the history of the article in question, Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, and it's clear that you have been engaged in an edit war for the last few days. I honestly don't know what the dispute was over and, frankly, it's irrelevant, but this block appears to be for a pattern of behaviour rather than one particular breach. I counted 7 reverts in less than 72 hours and I don't think anybody could legitimately argue that wasn't edit warring. However, since this is effectively your first block, I'll make you an offer: if you agree to actively engage in discussion of the issue on the talk page and to make no further reverts at least until the issue is settled, I will unblock you. I would also recommend that you read and understand WP:EW. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:09, 8 February 2011 (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.

I decline the agreement. It is unfair. I don't agree to what I believe is unfair. Admins who don't take the time to understand the situation exacerbate frustration and general loss of trust in the process. It's a violation of Wikipedia policy to ask me to make no further changes until the matter is settled, because I am not the one trying to change the article. I am restoring the consensus version. It is unfair to count my reverts and fail to note that 3 of them are of false positives by recent change patrollers, and thus don't count as opinions about best content. False positives by recent change patrollers aren't part of the consensus process. It is unfair to say that I have 7 reverts in 72 hours, counting all 3 of the reverts of RC patrollers, and ignore that I barely had 2 reverts in the last 24 hours. And, one of those was of a RC patroller who agrees s/he incorrectly identified my edit as vandalism. In the 24 hours prior to my block, I had a single revert related to the content dispute. The changes being made are against consensus. They are being made in violation of the bod edit/revert/discuss guideline. I am not the one trying to change the article; Decausa is adding new material. To adminstratively get the material into the article by denying me the right to remove it is to advocate a violation of the guidelines for consensus-building. I will wait, and I wiil edit as I have edited, because how I have edited is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. It is just a bit complicated because of the three false positives by the RC patrollers, and that complication is apparently too difficult for admins to fathom. Mindbunny (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

To administrator reviewer: Mindbunny is correct, in that he has WP:BRD on his side. The other editor was acting inappropriately by breaking it.

To Mindbunny: I did give you a warning above about this, so I wouldn't think it to be entirely unexpected to you. WP:3RR is quite clear that it's not a license to revert up to three times per day; other edit warring is unacceptable. Also, I recommend taking a look at WP:GAB#Agree to behave, which I can almost guarantee will impress other admins more than not including it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I simply can't fathom what you're looking at. I barely have two edits to the article in the last 24 hours:

• 03:48, 8 February 2011 Mindbunny (talk | contribs) (102,810 bytes) (Remove list that is barekly related to the topic, doesn't advance understanding of topic, doesn't fit with narrative of article, and needlessly lengthens a long article) (undo)
• 04:23, 7 February 2011 Mindbunny (talk | contribs) (102,810 bytes) (undo changes without consensus) (undo) Mindbunny (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

To administrator reviewer: On the comment that I was in breach of BRD by Magog the Ogre, the problem is that Mindbunny point blank refused to discuss the issue. I raised it civilly on the Talk page, but the only response I got was a series of off-topic questions (which I answered anyway) no explanation. I'm more than happy to edit/reduce/compromise etc the edit I made but I just couldn't get him/her to engage. If you look at his/her talk page history (templates quickly gets deleted) and the diffs from my original report, you'll see that he/she has a history of refusing to cooperate with other editors, POV problems and making inappropriate accusations of vandalism. Fundamentally, he/she doesn't seem to get the collaborative nature of editing and gives the appearance of assuming it's a fight to get one's POV across. DeCausa (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's BS. I gave the following reasons: you added a list with no commentary. The list is indirectly related to the topic. Since the list was unaccompanied by analysis or discussion, it added little to overall narrative. The list is long and in a recent GA review--not even archived yet--the reviewer raised substantial concerns that the article is too long. I made these objections in my initial edit summary, and in response to you in Talk. I summarized them yet again, all in one place, just before Magog so thoughtfully blocked me. Mindbunny (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Untrue. Produce the diffs. I answered in full your only comment of 'trivia' and 'not relevant' from your first deletion edit summary in a post in Talk. You posted one irrelevant reply (posing questions to me like have I read it! and how could I have edited so quickly!) and then edit-warred. You have only now responded to my post in talk with a relevant response. If you had done that in the first place none of this would have happened. 15:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If you answered my objections that the list is trivia and indirectly related to the article, then I must have told you my objections. So stop saying I didn't. In addition, I pointed out the article already dramatically exceeds maximum length guidelines. In short, I gave three explanations of why I reverted your bold edit, so quit claiming that I gave none. It is also true that one of the main reasons you gave for your change was that you didn't like the list in Saudi Arabia, where you found it, and needed another place to stick it. That doesn't justify anything. Mindbunny (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You can always post a second request if you disagree with our logic. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've lost faith in the process. The block is irrelevant in any case. The problem is that there is no path forward. Wikipedia policy makes it clear that DeCausa shouldn't be adding material without consensus. The attitudes of you, apparently other admins, and DeCausa are violating that policy. The block, combined with the confusion caused by hasty accusations of vandalism by RC patrollers has created an atmosphere where I am guilty until proven innocent. Even though I am actually being guided by policy on consensus building. I am going to act according to policy, not according to the threats of admins. Mindbunny (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright; based on my in-depth analysis of the situation, it appears that the people who reverted you were, in fact, doing so because they believed it to be vandalism. While this was a completely legitimate block IMHO (edit warring is never OK), the reason I threw one down on you and not the other editor is because I saw that you were being reverted by other users who were in fact communicating with you and which you were wholly ignoring in a disruptive way [2]. However, based on the fact that none of the actual reverts of your edits were actually vandalism reverts (i.e., they were mistakes or misreadings of the situation by the reverters), and the fact that you thus committed just as many true reversion (so to speak) as your opponent, I am going to unblock you. However, please use the talk page and slow down with the edit warring. I cannot promise I'll block either of you for the first revert you make, but I can't promise that another admin won't. In other words, don't play the system. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Random accusations of 'vandalism'

You might improve your understanding by reading this: Wikipedia:Vandalism DeCausa (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You blanked half my Talk page. WTF. Mindbunny (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

So I did! My apologies - entirely accidental. DeCausa (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternate accounts

Do you operate multiple accounts on Wikipedia, or did you operate another account on Wikipedia before starting to use this account?  Cs32en Talk to me  05:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm part of a vast anti-exploitation-of-sexual-assault-stories conspiracy. Mindbunny (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you intend to indicate the acconts that you are currently operating or that you have operated in the past on your user page?  Cs32en Talk to me  05:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Advice

Please read Wikipedia:Clean start and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. You may want to decide to discontinue this account.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop being a dork. If you have something to say, say it. Mindbunny (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Cs32en, if you have evidence that Mindbunny is socking then file at WP:SPI otherwise this looks like harassment. Can you back up your accusation?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)