Topic on User talk:The Quixotic Potato/crap

You can express your opinion there freely, as others have for the past year and a half of discussions.

But you have now been reverted multiple times by multiple people for disrupting months-old, already-resolved sections, editing other people's strike-throughs (some that they have added themselves to their own responses, some who were late votes, which was clearly explained in each case as a matter of process), and you are now edit-warring to continue this.

Please cease doing so, or you will be blocked.

As far as I know I have struck through all comments that were struck by the author, and unstruck all those that were struck by someone other than the author. If I missed one then please let me know.

There are no already-resolved sections. None of the sections of that draft have consensus behind them. There are no votes, we call them !votes for a reason. You are not in a position to determine which !votes are late (if any). People are still free to !vote.

If you continue acting like this, or block me, then I might take some time out of my busy day to start an RfC or two, which most likely means that there will be no COC. I would actually prefer it if there was one, but of course we need one that is a hell of a lot better than the draft I discovered.

You arrive to a discussion that's been conducted for over a year and a half, making unilateral decisions about what you view as "the proper process". This wouldn't be acceptable in any wiki, not just here.

You are more than welcome to raise your concerns and argue your points in the discussion page - but do avoid editing text and adding so-called collapsible commentary and conducting edit-warring.

In reality WP:CONSENSUS has widespread support. I do not understand why the WMF keeps antagonizing the various communities by ensuring that they do not get a say. Maybe you have a tiny group of people (most of whom work for the WMF) who think that that draft is awesome. But I can introduce you to the enwiki community, which has many members that will disagree with the draft as I found it and will be displeased about the way the WMF treated members of the community.

A tiny group of people has been talking about this draft for a very long time. The result was very bad (I made many improvements and it is still quite bad). You should've asked the communities for input.

WMF staffers should stop reverting, and if you do not want those comments to be put in collapse templates then you can remove them or strike through them. Do you have a better suggestion?

You guys don't mind striking through someone else's posts, but when misleading and incorrect posts made by someone who works for the WMF get collapsed then it is a big problem?

Hi,

I'm not a WMF staffer, but I'm concerned with your behavior too, especially this kind of edit, which can't reasonnably be evaluated as constructive: as soon as you know an edit isn't consensual, you need to get a consensus before to further edit sections on a wiki.

Furthermore, the kind of edits you done can't be interpreted as good faith attempt to improve the CoC: in the diff linked, you suggest it's only from pure whim code will be interpreted and you support fat shaming. These elements can't really be interpreted as a nice and constructive behavior.

So, I've blocked your account, indefinitely as it's a wiki protection measure. If you wish to make constructive comments about the CoC, and have a more civilized discussion pattern, your talk page is currently still open.

This block doesn't infringe your right to express concerns about CoC, you can still do this on any personal space, site, blog you wish, but your pattern of modification isn't welcome here, as it prevents regular discussions.

@Dereckson ????

WTF???

You wrote: ": in the diff linked, you suggest it's only from pure whim code will be interpreted and you support fat shaming. "

You also wrote: "This account isn't genuinely interested to make edits on CoC, but only to disrupt the process."

Retract your false accusations (I count at least three) and apologize immediately. Why do you make those false claims?

Oh, and unblock me.

@MSchottlender-WMF look what happened ^^

The statements above are facts based on how this diff where you remove "body size" and where you introduce like/dislike ideas can be interpreted, and not accusations. Furthermore, the block is entirely justified not by the content, but by your edit pattern, the fact you edit war instead of seeking a consensus.

As I see you aren't considering your block as a request to have a decent and nice behavior, I'm adjusting the block settings to remove talk page right too.