User:Sagaciousphil/Archives template

...when she wrote this. She was agreeing with Eric that it was a terrible comment that CMDC made. And then you attacked her with this, this, and this. You are out of line and made a mistake. You need to apologize so that you withdraw the attacks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z8

Oh, really? No comment/blocks for me being harassed? SagaciousPhil - Chat 02:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see you being harassed there. Diffs?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life - you only see what you want to see - par for the course, I don't give a shit, so whatever. 49 hours for the first time I've ever been blocked/warned ... ... Wikipedia's loss, not mine. SagaciousPhil - Chat 02:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So no diffs then? If not then it was indeed one-sided. Content creators do not have some special status whereby they are entitled to abuse other editors. We work as a community and hearing that cancerous statement repeated around here IS a part of the problem. Don't do it again.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually 48 hours which is what is in the block log. The automated template system did that for some reason.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't even manage to get the number of hours right? 48 or 49? The efficiency of Wikipedia admins. I don't need to supply diffs - the abuse is there for all to see. As I already stated, it's Wikipedia's loss not mine. Have a nice day. SagaciousPhil - Chat 03:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said that the template system did that. Not my mistake, I entered 48 hours. Wiki is at no loss when someone is blocked to stop them from violating policies. The next time that you say that you were harassed or attacked then you need to supply diffs otherwise it is an unsubstantiated accusation.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• AusLondonder made accusations against me in an AfD that no admin chose to do anything about; Liz made spurious accusations against me on my talk page page - again everyone turned a blind eye. No surprise ... you only see what you want to see. SagaciousPhil - Chat 03:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't track down the AfD. I do see her asking you to cease with insults. You said to prove it with diffs - "to state I have thrown insults in your direction is a very serious allegation to make - supply diffs to back it up or withdraw this statement immediately. We did "cross paths", as you put it, before your RfA."...which does indeed make you look hypocritical in view of the fact that I asked you for diffs above but you think someone else needs to hunt them down for you. You didn't live up to the standard that you set for others. She supplied several and you blanked them without a proper response except to call those attacks. They weren't. I DO see that you have a problem with her but I'm going to fix that now. If I see you harass or make personal attacks towards her again I will block you indefinitely. The unhealthy fixation is yours so you need to drop the stick and move on. Do you understand?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: Where is this unjustified "harassment" by Sagaciousphil? You do not seems to have provided diffs, and I cannot find anything warranting draconian preventative action over the last 24 hours. As it stands this block looks like an unwarranted out-of-control power attack on one of the few remaining competent, if utterly frustrated content builders. Is that the case? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Try looking in the thread above to see diffs. This one also helps complete the set.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Liz made an ambiguous remark which Sagaciousphil read as having the same meaning that I assumed it had. In which case it could be viewed as an inflammatory statement. You gave Sagaciousphil no chance whatever to review her mistaken interpretation, but immediately blocked her. Where was the warning? You cannot claim the block is preventative, since you gave her no change to review the situation. Sagaciousphil has produced exemplary content for a period of years, and has never been blocked. Your comments above suggest you consider competent content building of little value, another view guaranteed to provoke content builders --Epipelagic (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Just want to point out but there is WP:YANI. At what point do personal attacks outweigh content creation? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) That's irrelevant. The issue here is whether a fair procedure was followed to prevent disruption, or whether a premature and probably unnecessary block was made as a punishment. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who brought it up, anyways I am going to make this my last comment. If Phil wants to appeal the block she can so an uninvolved admin can review it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you brought it up. I didn't say anything about personal attacks outweighing content creation. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see her owning up to her mistake here and apologizing to Liz? Did you miss the warning here or the page owner asked them to turn it down but she retorted again? The content builder is trying to flaunt that as if it were some form of entitlement to abuse others. Are you trying to suggest that her attacks are warranted or do you admit that she made a big mistake and has been recalcitrant about admitting it? The provocateur was unquestionably Phil. Are you trying to justify her position? She refused to produce diffs so I went and looked and see a longer term pattern of harassment.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter, I too, read (interpreted) Liz's "terrible comment" phrase the same as Sagaciousphil did, the same as Epipelagic did. Therefore it seems only you, considered it a "big mistake" that deserved a block. Also it is concerning to see an admin, after blocking and explaining their block rationale, to remain on the blocked user's page, further chastising them. (Not the first time I've seen it happen! It must be an admin psychological weakness. "Rubbing it in" sort of thing?!?) IHTS (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are evading the issue. Where did you warn Sagaciousphil that you would block her if she continued her harassment? You blocked her three minutes after pointing out the ambiguity of Liz's comment. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Per admin accountability, I responded to everyone here that asked me so you are very mistaken but since I see the IDHT groove happening and no one validating points then I'm finished here. She can file an appeal. Good night.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "IDHT groove" is coming from you. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter, no one asked you to get preachy, moralize, spank bottoms, as you did here: "Content creators do not have some special status whereby they are entitled to abuse other editors. We work as a community and hearing that cancerous statement repeated around here IS a part of the problem. Don't do it again." So you don't have a good perspective in evaluating your own responses. IHTS (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More unnecessary chastising from you post-block: "Wiki is at no loss when someone is blocked to stop them from violating policies." IHTS (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the comment you made at the AE2 arbitration case talk page as it does not meet the requirements for this case. That is, allegations against non-parties are not permitted and all allegations are required to be supported by evidence. If you wish to make a statement you may do so but if it does not meet these requirements you may be barred from further participation in the case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]