Four editors disagree with you removal of material from Ex-gay movement and not a single one supports your reasoning. You need to stop editing against consensus. If you have new sources to support your POV, present them on the talk page. Otherwise, please respect consensus.- Mr X 02:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- The burden of proof is on the contributer to prove there is a scientific consensus and you/they have not done that other than simply saying there is one. Cutterx2202 ( talk) 02:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cutterx2202 reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. -
Mr
X 03:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.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. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- The block is as much for personal attacks in edit summaries as it was for the clear-cut edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Cutterx2202 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Acroterion, you have accuse me of personal attacks yet provide not a single instance. As per an earlier request, I stopped trying to remove an unsourced claim and instead appropriately marked it as unsourced, which it is. I tried to resolve in talk, yet MrX and Rec.... kept trying to revert changes. Requesting unblock on the basis of being accused of personal attacks without explanation or example, and also taking action against the wrong party. Please completely review the facts of this situation before making hastey judgement. Cutterx2202 ( talk) 03:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Edit warring and personal attacks in edit summaries are clear to anyone who looks. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:04, 1 July 2016 (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 know you already got one this month, but it appears you didn't read it and deleted it. This is important and you should understand what it means because you are heading into a mine field. Jorm ( talk) 17:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I read it, but the links were referring to a different user, so it appeared someone had too many tabs open and pasted on my page by mistake out of the blue. I've not made any changes in years. My only activity recently is trying to start a discussion on a talk page over some missing context. It appears you have as well restored the bad links to another user's issue. Cutterx2202 ( talk) 21:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, those are the links, and they do absolutely apply to you. It's not about your editing; it's about your interest, and your comments on that page absolutely cause these sanctions to apply to you.
- You have been notified that the topic area that you are discussing is _under sanctions_. That's what it means. You should read it. It absolutely applies to you; it was not an accidental copy and paste. Jorm ( talk) 22:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Could you please explain how it applies to me, specifically? The link is to a completely different user's issue, and I am not mentioned at all in any discussion, nor listed in the users involved.
- If instead you are saying I've been put under sanctions for posing a question on a talk page, then this whole website is truly a lost cause as it's claimed. Please help me understand and thank you for your concern. Cutterx2202 ( talk) 03:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you believe, despite being told it isn't the case, that you cannot be sanctioned for disruptive behaviour, then you are welcome to continue with your current behaviour. I will, of course, be filing a request for sanctions to be applied should you do that. FDW777 ( talk) 16:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't take kindly to threats, FDW777. You willfully read the words differently than are actually present. I did not say I can not be sanctioned. I said I have not been accurately notified as such for any recent activity. Prior links refer to an entirely different issue that does not involve me at all. I will continue to remove incorrect links intended to harass/intimidate me. Your harassment will remain as a log of your activity prior to any action you take.
- If you have an explanation for how the linked page could have possibly applied to me, I'm interested in hearing an explanation.
Cutterx2202 (
talk) 16:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- You've had your answer, several times. See WP:IDHT. FDW777 ( talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I said I have not been accurately notified as such for any recent activity
. Here was your first notification. And although it shouldn't have been given strictly speaking as you'd already been notified, here was your second notification. You are welcome to claim you haven't been accurately notified, but that is not a strategy that will be in any way successful. FDW777 ( talk) 17:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)- Yes, I know you are "not getting the point," which is why I warned you not to harass me with threats you know don't apply to me. At every point, I've indicated that link does not involve me. It is another user's issue. I am not involved in that issue, nor am I mentioned or listed as involved on the page. Any further mention of this link by you will be elevated as harassment. Cutterx2202 ( talk) 17:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Cutterx2202, the arbitration case linked in the notice didn't involve you, that's true. That case established that articles about American politics are covered by discretionary sanctions. Your participation in those articles is covered by the discretionary sanctions, and you are subject to enforcement, provided you are formally aware. You have been formally aware since FDW777 posted the notice here. It's not worth it to use any part of your 500 word AE limit trying to claim you aren't covered.This DS stuff is not self-explanatory and I'm happy to answer any questions you have.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk) 18:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for that explanation. So the case establishes precedent much like a court case, which makes sense. I don't know where I'd make this suggestion, but that part is definitely not clear in any of the documentation. I'll consider myself notified NOW and take a closer look.
Cutterx2202 (
talk) 19:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Yes, legal precedent is a good analogy here. FYI, There's an ongoing process of reforming DS and how we communicate about it. You can read about it here and there's a link to add yourself to an update list if you want to be notified when the next round of community feedback begins. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 19:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for that explanation. So the case establishes precedent much like a court case, which makes sense. I don't know where I'd make this suggestion, but that part is definitely not clear in any of the documentation. I'll consider myself notified NOW and take a closer look.
Cutterx2202 (
talk) 19:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. FDW777 ( talk) 18:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Doug Weller
talk 17:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Four editors disagree with you removal of material from Ex-gay movement and not a single one supports your reasoning. You need to stop editing against consensus. If you have new sources to support your POV, present them on the talk page. Otherwise, please respect consensus.- Mr X 02:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- The burden of proof is on the contributer to prove there is a scientific consensus and you/they have not done that other than simply saying there is one. Cutterx2202 ( talk) 02:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cutterx2202 reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. -
Mr
X 03:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.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. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
- The block is as much for personal attacks in edit summaries as it was for the clear-cut edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Cutterx2202 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Acroterion, you have accuse me of personal attacks yet provide not a single instance. As per an earlier request, I stopped trying to remove an unsourced claim and instead appropriately marked it as unsourced, which it is. I tried to resolve in talk, yet MrX and Rec.... kept trying to revert changes. Requesting unblock on the basis of being accused of personal attacks without explanation or example, and also taking action against the wrong party. Please completely review the facts of this situation before making hastey judgement. Cutterx2202 ( talk) 03:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Edit warring and personal attacks in edit summaries are clear to anyone who looks. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 10:04, 1 July 2016 (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 know you already got one this month, but it appears you didn't read it and deleted it. This is important and you should understand what it means because you are heading into a mine field. Jorm ( talk) 17:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I read it, but the links were referring to a different user, so it appeared someone had too many tabs open and pasted on my page by mistake out of the blue. I've not made any changes in years. My only activity recently is trying to start a discussion on a talk page over some missing context. It appears you have as well restored the bad links to another user's issue. Cutterx2202 ( talk) 21:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- No, those are the links, and they do absolutely apply to you. It's not about your editing; it's about your interest, and your comments on that page absolutely cause these sanctions to apply to you.
- You have been notified that the topic area that you are discussing is _under sanctions_. That's what it means. You should read it. It absolutely applies to you; it was not an accidental copy and paste. Jorm ( talk) 22:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Could you please explain how it applies to me, specifically? The link is to a completely different user's issue, and I am not mentioned at all in any discussion, nor listed in the users involved.
- If instead you are saying I've been put under sanctions for posing a question on a talk page, then this whole website is truly a lost cause as it's claimed. Please help me understand and thank you for your concern. Cutterx2202 ( talk) 03:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you believe, despite being told it isn't the case, that you cannot be sanctioned for disruptive behaviour, then you are welcome to continue with your current behaviour. I will, of course, be filing a request for sanctions to be applied should you do that. FDW777 ( talk) 16:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I don't take kindly to threats, FDW777. You willfully read the words differently than are actually present. I did not say I can not be sanctioned. I said I have not been accurately notified as such for any recent activity. Prior links refer to an entirely different issue that does not involve me at all. I will continue to remove incorrect links intended to harass/intimidate me. Your harassment will remain as a log of your activity prior to any action you take.
- If you have an explanation for how the linked page could have possibly applied to me, I'm interested in hearing an explanation.
Cutterx2202 (
talk) 16:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- You've had your answer, several times. See WP:IDHT. FDW777 ( talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I said I have not been accurately notified as such for any recent activity
. Here was your first notification. And although it shouldn't have been given strictly speaking as you'd already been notified, here was your second notification. You are welcome to claim you haven't been accurately notified, but that is not a strategy that will be in any way successful. FDW777 ( talk) 17:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)- Yes, I know you are "not getting the point," which is why I warned you not to harass me with threats you know don't apply to me. At every point, I've indicated that link does not involve me. It is another user's issue. I am not involved in that issue, nor am I mentioned or listed as involved on the page. Any further mention of this link by you will be elevated as harassment. Cutterx2202 ( talk) 17:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Cutterx2202, the arbitration case linked in the notice didn't involve you, that's true. That case established that articles about American politics are covered by discretionary sanctions. Your participation in those articles is covered by the discretionary sanctions, and you are subject to enforcement, provided you are formally aware. You have been formally aware since FDW777 posted the notice here. It's not worth it to use any part of your 500 word AE limit trying to claim you aren't covered.This DS stuff is not self-explanatory and I'm happy to answer any questions you have.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk) 18:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for that explanation. So the case establishes precedent much like a court case, which makes sense. I don't know where I'd make this suggestion, but that part is definitely not clear in any of the documentation. I'll consider myself notified NOW and take a closer look.
Cutterx2202 (
talk) 19:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Yes, legal precedent is a good analogy here. FYI, There's an ongoing process of reforming DS and how we communicate about it. You can read about it here and there's a link to add yourself to an update list if you want to be notified when the next round of community feedback begins. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 19:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for that explanation. So the case establishes precedent much like a court case, which makes sense. I don't know where I'd make this suggestion, but that part is definitely not clear in any of the documentation. I'll consider myself notified NOW and take a closer look.
Cutterx2202 (
talk) 19:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. FDW777 ( talk) 18:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Doug Weller
talk 17:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)