Jump to content

Talk:Riot shield

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

This link: https://www.selrackco.com/riotshield.jpg doesn't work for me. Might need to be removed if it doesn't fix itself. --Ecnassianer 01:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not work for me too. I think it should be removed as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ballistic shields

[edit]

Under Tactics the situations describes would involve a Ballastic Shield and not a polycarb "Riot Shield" as the article states.

I suggest a new article about Ballistic Shields be created, or added as a specific section in itself.

~~YEPPOON~~

Can someone find and discuss reasons why bullet proof sheilds are not used by most militaries? I am sure I could think of a few (bulkiness, high cost), but not much others. Thanks

~~Kyle Rex~~

The vast majority of "bulletproof" shields are actually only "proof against small-caliber bullets-" in other words, against most weapons a police officer would be expected to encounter, but not against the vast majority of military weapons.

Also, assault rifles, which require two hands to use, are the standard military weapon. Pistols are of limited tactical use in non-urban situations. -Toptomcat 14:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other reasons ive seen are, 1) the fact no 'bullet proof' shields are actually bullet proof, just resistant, multiple hits, or AP rounds will render the shield pointless.
2) Mobility is hampered by the shield not just due to wieght, but also due to size and awkwardness (IE it would be easy to get stuck in a door).
3) A man with a shield is easier to spot than a man without one.
4) The reduced mobility from shields would actually make the soldiers more at risk from rpg attacks and multi-directional gunfire as they would find it harder, and be slower in, taking cover.
5) It is impossible to create the volumes of fire neccasary to be effective in a fire fight with a pistol. And also it is difficult/impossible to perform basic actions such as reloading/jam clearing one handed.
There are many others but these are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. But in short, the only purpose to using a shield, increased survivability in fire, is achieved much more effectively by I/AFVs 92.3.184.241 (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RlCb30 and RlCbL13 plastic-shape-making machines

[edit]

Relevance of video games list

[edit]

Is a large list of games where shields appear relevant or informative?

I would suggest getting rid of this and replacing it with something like: "Riot shields are commonly found in video games, particularly of the first-person_shooter genre, generally to make the player's character more resistant to small-arms fire."

If nobody disagrees I will change this soon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cprobert88 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia's main page, regarding my objection to this page having appeared as a "Did You Know" entry there

[edit]

The following was on the talk page for Wikipedia's main page. I'd like to repost the discussion here in its entirety to remind people of how the information on this page could potentially be used. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Item is off the main page. Content dispute should be taken to the article's talk page. Isa (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Did you know ... that riot shields (example pictured) may actually encourage protesters to throw things at police?"

Yeah, I know, how dare people carry around things that only have a defensive purpose, don't they understand that's just begging to be attacked by someone?

That's pretty embarrassing, Wikipedia. Don't you dare tell me that "science" has proved it's legitimate to blame police officers for carrying shields to protect themselves. Don't you dare. Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask a similar question? Are you kidding us? Your progression from a perfectly reasonable DYK to silly inferences is drawing an extraordinarily long bow. The embarrassment lies with you. Moriori (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an interesting article/study. (Who said anything about blame, btw?) Drmies (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So that is interesting: "A chief superintendent in the UK stated that while protesters were generally reluctant to assault police, that reluctance seemed to disappear if officers had riot shields. It has been observed that protestors may not throw objects until the police bring in shields, and some people will deliberately throw objects at the shields themselves, indicating that they do not actually want to injure the police." In a book published by Cambridge UP, so that's pretty solid. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unintended consequences are often ironic. Abstinence-only education actually results in higher teenage pregnancy rates is another widely covered one. And yes, the source for the claim is absolutely solid.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, every attitude I was worried would surface pretty much did. I imagine we'll be seeing more "science" like this in the future gracing the front page. Here's another weird psychological inference, I may have enabled you to go ahead and post more spurious crap like this by complaining about it in the first place, just like police officers "get themselves attacked" by carrying things to defend themselves with. And in both cases, no one takes any personal responsibility whatsoever for their own actions, everything's been "caused" by the actions of others. (*sigh*) Things can be factual and still be stupid, folks. This is a good example of that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, if there had been a peer-reviewed article that said that women who carry mace are more likely to be attacked, would you have put that on Wikipedia's front page as a "neutral" science article? Or would you have recognised that as a way to explain away attacks on women? Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, what happened to the DYK in question? Did it get removed? L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They do change them routinely. I'd like to think people understood this DYK was pointlessly harassing, but more likely it was just time to change it for a new one. Zachary Klaas (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I can't stop laughing about this. I can't believe someone actually complained about this DYK. Special thanks to the three people who replied who clearly don't have an axe to grind with the world. I don't feel the need to reply directly as they covered all the points. For the record, the article was scheduled to appear at DYK for 12 hours, like all other DYKs. It was there for the whole period it was allocated. One person complaining did not influence its removal. I was going to reply to the bizarre comment about women carrying mace, but I'm worried that might just encourage this editor to keep commenting, and I don't want to talk to them. Thanks for posting this here though as I'm certain other editors will find this discussion as entertaining as I did. Freikorp (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the further record, that UK police superintendent is not the only police official to make that observation. Around Ferguson I recall reading some other police officer, from Seattle maybe, drawing his experience of the G7 summit protests there in '99, saying the same thing—when the cops come out with helmets, shields and other protective gear, they are practically asking to have stuff thrown at them.

It is a well-known phenomenon called risk homeostasis: the amount of risk people are likely to take is inversely proportional to the degree they are protected from what they are risking (for example, when ski boot bindings that released the boot at a certain level of torque in order to cut down on the broken bones that had previously plagued the sport came out in the early 1970s, ski resorts responded by cutting steeper and riskier trails). It doesn't surprise me at all that people would feel free throwing stuff at the police if they didn't think the police were likely to get hurt by it; they could still express their displeasure with the police but not get charged with assaulting an officer.

Similarly, I read somewhere that when the guy in the Negro Leagues who developed the first prototype of the batting helmet stepped up to the plate for the first time wearing it, the pitcher's response was to throw right at his face.

I would commend to Mr. Klaas's attention Edward Tenner's excellent book about this sort of thing and things like it (which he calls the "revenge effect"), Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences. I do not think here Wikipedia is telling any police officers anything they didn't already know. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Yeah, I've heard that most other NATO countries did that as well; however, U.S. forces, knowing that bad actors in the places they have been deployed will want to establish their street cred by attacking Americans, no matter what other countries' troops are present and present softer targets, take the force protection up to 11. Daniel Case (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laughing is, of course, very genteel and welcoming to other Wikipedians. Thanks so much for that. I notice you didn't respond about how you would handle a claim that women carrying mace tend to get attacked more. By what, saying "hey, this is just a neutral observation"? Or by saying maybe there at the very least needs to be some wording on the page so people don't take that as an invitation to attack women? _Obviously_ attacks on police are being provided with a mild legitimation by any article which does not make it clear that it's not the riot shield's fault they're getting attacked. Zachary Klaas (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in letting you drag this conversation off-topic with your comparison to women and mace since consensus has already been reached against you. It's five against one. Five people think it's an appropriate thing to add to the article, yet you remain in your ivory tower conducting whatever misguided social justice warrior crusade you are on. You lost. It's over. Go find another article to try and disrupt. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, and while you're at it, please read WP:AGENDA and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. In your edit summary here: [1] you make it explicitly clear that you are only adding this content out of spite. Don't do that. This alone could be grounds for removal, but I've removed it primarily as it's also both unsourced and obvious (and therefore unnecessary). You yourself obviously realise this by adding the words "Of course" to the beginning of the sentence. If you have a problem with my reversion, please read WP:BRD and discuss the reversion here so a consensus can be obtained on that as well. Freikorp (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also I notice you didn't reply to anything Daniel Case said. You might also want to look up the definition of the word 'hypocrite' before you accuse me not responding to one of your comments. Freikorp (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's necessary because people could straight up walk away from this article with the idea that the police "brought the attack on themselves" by carrying a defensive shield. I'm not going to let people use Wikipedia to blame the victim of an assault. Sometimes you _do_ need to remind people with an "of course" statement of something they should already know but possibly don't...particularly when some people seem to have it in their agenda to present things in a way that makes it seem like police officers, whom I assure you do not want to be hit in the head with a heavy object, are "asking for it" by carrying a shield. Also, I didn't reply to Mr. Case because I found his intervention unenlightening. Yes, it's a fair scientific point that people who believe they are protected against risk might behave differently than those who do not feel this way. That point isn't relevant to whether it's okay to lob things at the police. It would be a relevant point to try to make a case that the police behave less admirably in protest situations because they believe they are less vulnerable. But no one actually made that point, and it's not impossible someone making _that_ point might be right. The point on the table for discussion was whether shields cause protesters to lob projectiles at the police, and my position was that whether or not that is true, that is an illegal activity, and the legal fault rests with the person who lobbed the projectile, not with whoever bought or deployed the riot shields. It's irresponsible to pretend otherwise.
Mr. Case's point that the first thing a baseball pitcher wanted to do when presented with a batter wearing a batting helmet was to bean the guy does a lot to establish my point was an important one. Of course anyone who would throw a baseball hard in the direction of someone's head is kind of a moral monster. Anyone who remembers Tony Conigliaro would want to make that point clear, that's not okay. It's horrible enough to do it by accident, it's assault to do it on purpose. Far from proving that the batter was "asking for it", this anecdote, if it proves anything, proves that people might behave in a morally reprehensible way if they think a piece of protective equipment will save them from judgment on the matter.
Finally, I am not going to take any lessons on whether I'm behaving spitefully from someone who, in his first interaction with me, wanted to make it clear to me how everyone was laughing at me. That's the sort of thing a bully says. I would like to see this arbitrated by someone outside of the community of this small Wikipedia page, please. It seems to me that most of the folks hereabouts are committed to presenting a view of police officers as people who deserved to be illegally attacked. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zachary Klaas: Freikorp's admonition notwithstanding, I would like to respond to your mace analogy by saying it's logically flawed, because while everyone can see officers carrying riot shields, a mace or pepper stray container is meant to be concealed and thus could have no effect on an attackers' decision as to who to target.

I'd also say you're taking the wrong lesson from my batting helmet example. If throwing a horsehide ball that can go up to 100 miles per hour (160 km/h) at someone's unprotected cheekbone makes them a moral monster, then everyone's who pitched a few baseball games above a certain level is a moral monster. The pitcher clearly resented the new constraint on his ability to use the brushback pitch; he was sending a message to the batter that if he thought he could crowd the plate with impunity with that contraption on his head he was dead wrong (Certainly the pitcher threw the pitch knowing the batter would get out of the way; sending that message wasn't worth putting him on base). Daniel Case (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first response from someone when you complained about this at DYK was "Are you kidding us?". Everyone is laughing at you because your argument is nonsensical. If you don't want to get laughed at I suggest the best remedy would be to cease making mountains out of molehills with such nonsense. I am not the only one who thinks your judgement is clearly off, though you obviously don't value the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you about anything. The fact that is is five against one and you continue to ignore other people arguments yet still persist in your original complaint is a clear violation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I would also like to see this arbitrated by someone else as you clearly have no respect for consensus or the the opinions of others. I'd suggest taking this to WP:THIRDOPINION, but it's not eligible to be taken there. Why? Because we already have four other opinions, and they all think you're wrong. And just for your information, this particle Wikipedia page has no community. Everybody who commented on your original complaint was brought here by you from the main page.
Also, you cannot source your argument to another Wikipedia article as per WP:CIRCULAR. So no, you didn't source your argument. And you've also just violated WP:BRD by reinstating disputed content. There is an open discussion about this on the talk page but rather than try and reach a consensus, it seems you are more interested in starting an edit war.

@Moriori: @Drmies: @Crisco 1492: @Daniel Case: Pinging everyone back who has already weighed in on this discussion. Really sorry to drag you all back into this, but Zachary Klaas is clearly very unhappy with the fact consensus did not rule in his favour and has now resorted to adding unreferenced disclaimers to the article to support his agenda. By his own admission, his motivation for doing this is spite: [2]. He has also now violated WP:BRD by reinstating his edit without reaching consensus on the talk page.

I think this addition is unencyclopedic, and also treats the reader like an idiot. This is the equivalent of saying "Studies show women are more likely to get attacked if they walk alone at night.[Reference] It is, of course, still a crime to rape a women if she's walking alone at night." This shouldn't need to be pointed out to people. I guess I might not be opposed to alternate wording saying it is generally illegal to throw rocks, even though I think that is completely unnecessary to say, though Zachary Klaas has made it clear that he is doing things to spite me and is also interested in edit warring so I don't want to escalate the situation by modifying this again myself. If you could please comment on this issue I would greatly appreciate it. Freikorp (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked me specifically to respond, and that is the only reason I am doing so. If you can suggest alternate wording for the point, I will be satisfied with that. I'm loathe to offer a new formulation of the wording myself because I believe it will be rejected, but if you have a specific suggestion on wording you would accept, I would be happy to consider it. Also, for the record, I think if a Wikipedia article put down in print that "women are more likely to get attacked if they walk home at night" without making it clear that rape is a crime, numerous editors would be very unhappy with that and would immediately set about trying to correct that. So, with respect to the fact that you are trying to engage in dialogue here, I must still say that I don't find that to be the best counter example you could have chosen. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Responded below in new discussion. Freikorp (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on the above dispute

[edit]

Following the advice given to me on the Dispute Resolution Page with respect to the immediately preceding section of this Talk page, I am now submitting a Request for Comments about whether this page on riot shields should clarify that, even if it is true that riot shields somehow encourage people at some psychological level to throw projectiles at the police, it is illegal in pretty much all jurisdictions to do so, and in many jurisdictions it is seriously illegal (that is, a felony). I think the above exchange makes it clear what the matter of contention is, so I'm not going to rehash all that - but I do want to make clear that one editor offered the possibility of putting on the page something that does acknowledge this in presumably less tendentious language that people felt I was offering, and there is no reason that can't be done, whatever one thinks of my own approach to attempting those edits. Don't snatch disagreement out of the jaws of agreement. To my knowledge, no one is challenging the fact that jurisdictions generally do not allow the throwing of projectiles at the police, or indeed, at anyone else. The debate was about whether it is necessary to say this here. I don't understand why people are so dogmatically opposing one sentence that can clarify that Wikipedia is not treating illegal assaults on the police like they are not a big legal deal. The best argument I have heard is that the sentence strikes people as unnecessary because it is presumed people already know that, but I suspect outside the small ecosystem of this page, there are people who might prefer the language were in there because people might indeed not know what it is assumed they know. Zachary Klaas (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "no one is challenging the fact that jurisdictions generally do not allow the throwing of projectiles at the police"--I wonder if Zachary Klaas thinks we should add that dogs, which are not usually considered to be projectiles, are also not supposed to be thrown at police officers. And I don't know, I'm sure there's those that might consider throwing a porcupine. Guess what, my neighbor caught a possum today and I felt its cute little feet. BTW what is the legality of running into a wall of riot shields but doing it backwards, while pretending you didn't see there was a wall of riot shields? Also, Wikipedia is not treating illegal assaults on the police like they are not a big legal deal--in fact, I don't think Wikipedia has an opinion one way or another but it certainly doesn't promote illegal attacks (BTW we're also not saying that legal attacks would be a big deal) and this is slowly turning into a crazyfest. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe treating a difference of opinion as reflecting craziness on the part of an editor or anyone who may happen to agree is pretty clearly beyond the bounds of treating an editor's comments as good faith efforts at a contribution to Wikipedia. I will let others draw their own conclusions as to whether my contributions are being treated with respect or not. Zachary Klaas (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not believe you are acting in good faith, and this whole thing is just a bunch of crazy, timewasting bullshit. Note that I didn't say you are crazy: that's your own interpretation. You should go and play on some other website. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said "I guess I might not be opposed to alternate wording", though I also clarified I think that is completely unnecessary. I was saying that even if a consensus was reached that it was a good idea to add a disclaimer, the wording would definitely have to be different from your editorialised version. I'm not proposing alternate wording because my vote is strongly opposed to adding any kind of disclaimer. My reasons are consistent with those of Drmies.
I don't understand why you're so dogmatically in favour of treating Wikipedia readers like they are stupid. I don't understand how you're interpreting this as encouraging an attack on the police even though five editors said they disagree with your very unusual patterns of thinking. But most of all, I really don't understand why you think this discussion has only attracted a small section of like-minded editors when everyone who commented here wasn't involved in the article until you made your complaint. This article had effectively been abandoned for years until I made it my pet project to rewrite it recently. There is no community of editors for this topic; the people who are opposing you are not friends. To the best of my knowledge, I've never interacted with Drmies before. Just to make it clear: You brought all your opponents with you via your complaint.
If new editors make comments I will respond to them, though I am not going to reply to you here anymore as we've both said our piece and I don't see the point of repeating ourselves. For the record, as per WP:CANVAS, it is completely acceptable to ping people back to a discussion if they have already participated (as I did in the above section). Deliberately contacting someone new who you think will agree with you is not, so why don't we all just sit back and see what anyone who wants to get involved in this has to say.
As a closing note I'd like to mention you opened this whole debacle by deliberately accusing me of encouraging people to attack the police. Do you have any idea how offensive that is? Please read WP:Assume good faith. Even if you actually find someone who agrees with you that the wording does encourage an attack, did it ever occur to you that such may not have been the writer's intention? If you had of started this debate with something like "I am assuming good faith, but has it occurred to you this wording might be interpreted as encouraging violence?", instead of the sarcastic and insulting rant you actually did open it with, nobody would have mocked you. Those questions are rhetorical, I just want you to think about that. Freikorp (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Freikorp, I'm not sure I've said this yet, but that's fine article writing: congratulations, and thank you for improving our beautiful project. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That means a lot to me. I actually have no interest in police or protests. I can't even remember exactly how I stumbled across this article, I just remember seeing how crap the article was [3], seeing it had been tagged since 2009 and realising that if I didn't rewrite the whole thing nobody else ever would. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The thought has certainly crossed my mind that I am going to lose on this. I am hoping the RfC will bring this to the attention of the wider Wikipedia community, as I do believe that this is not something I alone think, but it is possible that no one will agree and that your consensus position will prevail. I guess I will have to deal with that. Sometimes democracy isn't pretty. It certainly hasn't been here. Zachary Klaas (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly one of the more interesting RfC's I've come across in my 11 years on this site. Most of the ones I tend to get myself involved in revolve around a general theme of "You're undoing my edits, so I hate you", "I don't care; cite policy", "RfC!", and so on. It's refreshing to see editors disagree about content, and not personality. But I digress. As much as I sympathize with what you're saying Zachary Klaas—it isn't acceptable, or legal, to throw a projectile at anyone. Except maybe a flower, or a plush teddybear, or a $50 bill (feel free to do the latter to me, repeatedly)—but... isn't that WP:OBVIOUS? With regard to this specific article, there is a good quality source, with anecdotal evidence from a chief superintendent of the UK police force, to verify the claim in question, and the point you're making seems blatantly obvious [to me, at least]. People should already know it's illegal to throw a projectile at someone, anyone, and it's not as if the prose – as it is now – is insinuating that it's OK to do so, or that a policeman is in anyway to blame when someone does; just that there have been scientific analyses that demonstrate it's more acceptable – in a criminal's mind – to throw something at someone who is potentially equipped to deal with a thing being thrown at them. I'm not sure if I've helped or made things worse here, but those are my two cents, at least. Regards. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you can at least see this is about an issue. Most of those I have dealt with thus far have treated me as if this were a personality issue. That said, I don't appreciate the continuation of the "oh, but there are so many things one could throw at police, why not [increasingly ludicrous list of things]". I have several times given examples of how not putting in a disclaimer that an observed statistical relationship between carrying a defensive item and being attacked would be pretty obviously irresponsible - e.g., if you wrote that women who carry mace tend to get attacked, it would be unreasonable not to also put down that it is nevertheless illegal to attack women. Editors would have flipped out if a disclaimer were not included in that instance. The bit about "Isn't that obvious" also seems a laboured point because the first edit I had reverted was when I failed to source my "obvious" point. The Wikipedia write-up on original research actually makes it clear you _don't_ have to cite obvious things - the specific example given is that we all know Paris is in France, so you don't have to cite France's gazetteer to back yourself up on that one. So I'm confused about which argument people want to go with there, is it original research or is it obvious? If it needed to be cited, it wasn't obvious; if it was obvious, it didn't need to be cited. Pick a complaint and stick with it. Also, I find it interesting that early on in this discussion I was informed that this Riot shield page was demonstrating an example of "risk homeostasis", and here is a user whose username is actually "Homeostasis" providing me with further criticism. Possibly a sign that we still haven't left the small group ecosystem committed to a certain in-group style of thinking and I'm still not getting comments from a wider Wikipedia community? Zachary Klaas (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a quick addition about other arguments I've seen floated here that I think are specious. First of all, the argument that if I had started this conversation off "nicely" by saying something along the lines of "golly, can I just bring to your attention that this might be seen as promoting violence" that somehow this would have ended differently - no, it wouldn't have. Respondents have made it clear they are committed to the viewpoint that adding my proposed disclaimer violates umpteen Wikipedia rules - are you all suggesting that you wouldn't be saying that if I had shown what you deem to be proper deportment in phrasing my concern? Nonsense. You would be saying the same things, because that is what you think. If you're claiming my alleged "behaviour" is the sole reason for your rejecting my proposed solution, what you are really saying is that you are responding irrationally now instead of presenting rational counter-arguments to my position. I don't think that's the case, though - I think you are rationally committed to keeping this disclaimer off the page, and hence, if I was as genteel as I possibly could have been about this, I would still be standing here with no deal. Secondly, I think the idea that there was ever a possible offer of finding neutral wording to express that it is illegal to throw projectiles at a police officer to put in this article is bogus. There never was, this was an attempt by a particular editor to make it seem like consensus-building is a real value editors on this page are seeking to uphold, when in fact, they are more than willing to allow democracy to dispense with my complaint altogether if that is at all possible to do. I would at least have appreciated the honesty of a phrasing of "If I have to concede anything to you at all, which I really don't want to do, I guess it's possible to do it." Even that phrasing, though, raises the question of why you don't _genuinely_ seek consensus instead of torching the heretic? Finally, an expression of anger is not an argument against an editor's "good faith". I _am_ angry that Wikipedia posted on its main page "Did you know ... that riot shields (example pictured) may actually encourage protesters to throw things at police?" with no clarification that this is not a defence against an illegal activity which puts police officers in harm's way. I don't have to apologise to any of you for being angry that Wikipedia saw fit to do that. It's insulting to public servants who put themselves at risk. When someone steps on your foot, one's initial reaction is not going to be "Excuse me, I don't know if you were aware, but you stepped on my foot." It's going to be "Ow! What the frig!" Sorry if you don't know how to deal with human anger. Anyway, it would make me happy if we could avoid merely restating one of these three arguments I find less than convincing if we're going to continue talking about this. Zachary Klaas (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Homeostasis07 has been my username since I joined Wikipedia in 2008. @Daniel Case: is a name I recognise, just generally from my editing Wikipedia, but I genuinely have no recollection of ever having had a direct conversation with him. I came across this discussion from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. The presence of "Risk homeostasis" on this page is pure serendipity. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Homeostasis07, it's now seven votes against one, and he still isn't convinced this isn't all a big conspiracy and personal vendetta against him. I note that the only uninvolved person who commented on the dispute resolution, other than the closer, was Robert McClenon, who read the arguments and concluded the solution was that Zachary should actually read "Wikipedia's policies on original research and disruptive editing (including its explanatory supplement on tendentious editing)". If it wasn't clear already, it should be now. Zachary does not recognise the opinions of anyone who disagrees with him about anything. The fact that not a single one of the seven people he has dragged into this from his three separate complaints agrees with him is all the evidence we need. I'm not allowing him to waste any more of my time, especially since his conspiracy theories are just getting more outrageous. I suggest you not feed the troll be replying to any more of his accusations; I won't be. Freikorp (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't give that advice with regard to this dispute. It is good advice, but I didn't give it with regard to this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to imply that you did. I clearly stated that comment was made at the dispute resolution. Freikorp (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, I think I get you. Your'e saying it shouldn't be counted directly as a vote against this dispute then? Yeah that's fair. Let me rephrase what I was trying to say then: By seven against one I meant seven people have responded to Zachary's various concerns regarding disputes on this page, and none of them have agreed with his concerns. Freikorp (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Zachary I will say one more thing to you. Do you realise at this point even if your complaint does attract one person who agrees with you, or even three, that wouldn't change anything? At that point the vote would just be amended to seven against two, three or four, so still not in your favour. There still wouldn't be consensus to implement your proposed change. I look at how long you last post was above and it saddens me to think how much effort you're putting into a futile cause. You're clearly a very passionate person, if nothing else. Have you considered focusing your efforts on something that is actually attainable? Again, these questions are rhetorical. I won't be replying to you here again, only to other editors. Freikorp (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I do realise that I'm outvoted. It sucks. You still haven't convinced me of pretty much any of your points. But you don't care that you haven't, you're just happy you won. Well, enjoy. You hammered your position home. The great "consensus" has been protected against the barbarians. Zachary Klaas (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've decided I'm going to drop my complaint. Actually, I had decided a while back I was going to cease defending myself further because it was obvious I'm losing and will not get what I initially wanted. I actually thought maybe there wasn't any point in my saying anything further, but I've decided I'm going to say something because somewhere along the way I did get convinced of a couple things I didn't initially think as a result of this discussion, and I thought I should admit as much. First, I've decided that the "assume good faith" rule means I should take the constant protests by other editors that they do indeed concede that it is illegal to throw things at police officers more seriously than I had been doing. If you are all saying here on the talk page that you do recognise this is true, why shouldn't that be good enough for me? The more I think about it, the more I think it _is_ good enough for me. I was having trouble understanding why, if you really do think this, that you were so insistent on keeping this acknowledgment off the encyclopedia page. But I think I am willing to credit this more than I did as well, as Wikipedia operates under a general disclaimer that it is not a source of legal advice - so users who came away from this encyclopedia page with the impression that the use of riot shields by police causes individuals to break the law would not be protected in that judgment due to Wikipedia's general disclaimer. Certainly, if we acknowledge that general disclaimer, I don't have to continue to battle for a specific one here. So basically, I'm going to do more than say that I give up in the face of overwhelming opposition, I'm even going to concede to the opposition. It's not so much that I found the general tenor of discussion here helpful - indeed, most of it wasn't, and a lot of it was baiting and insulting. It's that I've decided this is not a hill I need to take, and there are a couple points where, despite yourselves, you managed to convince me I should have taken a different course. Zachary Klaas (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not “encourage”, and yes mention the legality. The wording “encourage” as invite or make brave seems incorrect ... this is more reduction of inhibition. And legality affect of shields is a natural part of topic. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit late Markbassett, the complainant has already said they were dropping the request, but OK, we'll modify the official tally to two people in favour of the change and eight people voicing their opposition to it. The irony isn't wasted on my though that the first person to support this proposed change is someone with a history of being blocked from editing due to causing intentional controversy; just look at Markbassett's talk page. At least we can say we definitely have received broad coverage from the Wikipedia community now, since we now have heard the opinion of an editor who has previously been temporarily blocked for causing disruption. I don't have time for this discussion anymore. I won't be replying to any further comments from anyone. Zachary Klaas, if you are indeed going to drop your complaint, can you remove the RFC tag from the article? Instructions on how to close the request can be found here. If this one vote of support has changed your mind about closing it after all, be advised I'm still not going to reply to any discussions until you get at least another seven votes of support, as arguing about an issue that has had ten people comment on it and has 80% opposition is a waste of time for both of us. Have a nice day, I really mean that. Freikorp (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thoughts just doing it myself, which appears to be allowed under the rules as the as the nominator has publicly stated his intention to drop the complaint, the major participant (myself) agrees with this, and there have been no objections. Freikorp (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Riot_shield&oldid=1204405290"