-- 

Here's my edit count.

• user talk:Light current/Archive#1
• user talk:Light current/archive2
• user talk:Light current/archive3
• user talk:Light current/archive4
• user talk:Light current/archive5
• user talk:Light current/archive6
• user talk:Light current/archive7
• user talk:Light current/archive8
• user talk:Light current/archive9
• user talk:Light current/archive10
• user talk:Light current/archive11
• user talk:Light current/archive12
• user talk:Light current/archive13

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is a pure hatred and harrasment blocking by Friday. There is absolutely no justification for this block and it is against the WP blocking policy WP:BLOCK. If its in line show me how! --Light current 02:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your denigration of any editor on this project on the basis of their edit count, and your use of "Freshman" to describe another user on that basis, are breaches of civility. With another user I'd justify a warning, but when you are just back from a block for reasons which included namecalling, it amounts to self-destruction. Please be more civil when you return. Sorry. -- Guinnog 02:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Look man, you just had a 24 hour block for incivility, including namecalling. After coming off the block, you're at it again. This is not cool. I've blocked you for 24 hours. Friday (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name calling? Be serious! You are going to look a bit foolish for this block action. I might get the impression you are beginning to harras me if I didnt know better. 8-)

Ah I see you are also a most experienced editor with all of 1700 mainspace edits!--Light current 02:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's inappropriate of you to denigrate the nature of an editors contributions like that, especially on the basis of editcount. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of verification would you be looking for to establish that the subject of a photo was drunk when it was taken? A statement from the subject? A medical report? It seems to me that the picture is imperfect, but it is also clearly a picture of an apparently drunk person, uploaded by a Finnish user who believed the subject to be drunk. It isn't identifiable and it isn't a bad photo. I think it should go back onto the article until or unless a better one can be found. Best wishes, --Guinnog 02:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you know the rules on verifiability. I dont think the picture actually adds anything to the article, do you?--Light current 02:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is quite a good picture of a drunk man. It is certainly better than no picture at all. --Guinnog 02:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is tempting every now and then to use the word to refer to certain acts that, while they should not have been committed, do not actually disrupt anything

what word is being referred to?--Light current 02:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone acts now to lift the block, it will be down to 18hrs which really is more than enough punishment for such a small error isnt it? Lets keep a sense of proportion about these blocks please. People should not be blocked for calling someone by a nickname that they themselves do not object to. If they should be blocked, why dont you block everyone who calls me LC? or Light?

Actually the blocking policy does not recommend blocking for minor cases of incivility. I believe this is the pertinent section from the policy:

Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia, or pose a sufficiently severe threat to it. Examples include (but are not limited to):

• Vandalism
• Excessive reverts (3RR)
• Inappropriate usernames
• Abusive sockpuppet accounts
• "Public" accounts, where the password is publicly available or shared with a large group
• Anonymous and open proxies
• Bots must have prior approval on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and may be blocked if an admin thinks they are malfunctioning in a damaging way

Blocks for general incivility are controversial; "cool-down" blocks are very controversial. Consider whether a 1-hour block will result in 2 months' drama. See Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

bolding by me

I dont believe that my present 'crime' (or any of my others actually) are covered in the above. Esp whe I have APOLOGISED for my mistake in this instance. --Light current 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC) --Light current 20:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Ned Wilbury

An apology is good. But wouldn't it be better to avoid the behavior that leads to the blocks to begin with? All editors must be able to collaborate with each other- this is a group project. I have known you to be reasonable in the past, so please try to put disagreements behind you in this case. Remember to work toward an acceptable consensus, not disagree for disagreement's sake. Ned Wilbury 02:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am reasonable. I was blocked before I was told what the problem word was. I didnt mean it to be offensive. As for the nicknames, well thats just an excuse as there are no guidelines saying they cant be used, and I had no compliants. I really think Admins should try to follow the agreed policy on blocking people and not make it up as they go along. The policy is on this page for anynoe who has difficulty finding it. 8-)--Light current 02:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being reasonable is good. Make sure, though, that you do not lapse into the same kind of behavior that lead to your recent block. How would it look to others if you came off a block and started doing the same things again? A general attitude of incivility is what's not accepted here- it's not about using one particular word or another. If you get a 24-hour block and don't use the opportunity to cool down a bit, you're only giving people reason to try a longer block. Ned Wilbury 16:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It was one word that got me blocked. That word was schitzoid in describing friday. If you know differnt, pls advise. THe only interpretation of incivilty was in my using the word schizoid to describe friday. What other examples of incivilty did you notice? 8-(--Light current 16:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One word may indicate you've gone overboard, but damn. Do you not understand that the editors here expect people to work together in a civil way? You were just tweaking those you see as adversaries- how else do you explain it? I also see you removed the block notice, then put big letters on your page complaining that you were "unfairly" blocked for "some unknown" reason. This is not mature behavior - frankly, it's something I'd expect from a child. As for incivility, a quick glance at your contributions after the block shows this example of a combative, straw man argument, and here where you're suggesting the problem is not your behavior, but rather that other people are "anal retentive". Wasn't it brought to your attention just recently that you should refrain from offering mental diagnoses of other editors? You've been blocked a dozen times, yet every time you insist it's anyone's fault but your own? Again, this is not adult behavior. If you're trying to push the boundaries, I suppose you've succeeded, but do you expect people to extend such patience to you indefinitely? Ned Wilbury 16:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see reply to Ten below. This should address all your points--Light current 21:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't- the way I read it, your reply below is just nitpicking about the trees, and failing to see the forest. For what it's worth, accusing editors of duplicity isn't very civil either. If you really cannot see for yourself when you're being uncivil, why not just take other people's word for it, and cut it out when they ask you to? You even misrepresented your block here- as Ten apparently took the time to explain to you in email, it wasn't for "one word". Seriously, do you understand how this is going to look to other editors? If you keep doing what you're doing without changing your approach, do you honestly expect different results? Ned Wilbury 23:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an argument, you are going to be disappointed EOC!--Light current 23:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I don't want an argument- I was more aiming for understanding. By the way, I don't know what many of the abbreviations you use mean, including "EOC". Ned Wilbury 23:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Use your vivid imagination. Definitely EOC! Bye for now--Light current 23:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He means "end of conversation" (which, incidently, is another example of a lack of politeness when dealing with other editors). Rockpocket 00:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that impolite? You surely have a thin skin if you think so!! EOT (work that one out)

It is impolite because a conversation is a two (or more) way dialogue. By declaring EOC you are imposing a decision on your correspondent. If you do not wish to discuss a matter further, you could always try and write "I do not wish to discuss the matter further". This informs us that you do not wish to communicate without demanding the same of us. Making demands of others is lacking in politeness. Your posts of the last few days have left me wondering if you are either entirely lacking in empathy or being purposefully antagonistic. As I have yet to meet an editor on WP who manages to misjudge the basic tenets of polite communication quite so regularly. Rockpocket 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am entirely lacking in empathy. 8-) I had it removed as a child. WTD between EOC and "I do not wish to discuss a matter further".?--Light current 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also how many editors have you actually dealt with to have gained such great experience i wonder? [1]--Light current 00:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? Rockpocket 01:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point is rather obvious, dont you, Freshman? 8-)--Light current 01:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Ten of All trades

Incidentally, it wasn't just one word, as Light current knows. I'll quote below a portion of an email that I sent to him when he asked (by email) to explain why he had been blocked after the warnings he received.

Between the initial warnings and advice from several editors and your most recent block, you chose to repeat the namecalling ('Hippo') and accusations of mental illness ('schizoid').

Use of the term Hippo was not namecalling as I have explained about 5 times now. That was a nickname for him to which he did not object. The term 'schitoid' was used in error by me. When I determined the proper sense of the word I immediately replaced it. I think you yourself commented on AN/I that i was 'busy' changing it'

For bonus incivility points, you also accused Friday of 'duplicity' for the heinous crime of softening his position so that it more closely aligned with your own. You're using a mocking diminutive of Chairboy ('chairy').

Fridays position I dont think does closely align with mine. And Im extremely suspicious of his motives here for coming out with 2 mutually contradictary statements within 3 hours of each other. That is why I used the term duplicity. Perhaps there is a better one- I cant thikn of one ATM/.

For Chairboy see reply to Hipocrite accusation.

Finally, since your block you erased the explanatory message that I left on your talk page, and placed a banner message suggesting that you were blocked unfairly and without reason.

I felt the block was unfair becasue of the reasons I ve stated above,

In other words, he was blocked for a pattern of incivility toward Friday and other editors, and was informed of that fact. To continue to insist that he was blocked for 'one word' is incorrect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NC --Light current 21:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC) EOS--Light current 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Rockpocket

Light Current. I detected no conflict or acrimony in our dialogue in response to you original post and, since you asked a number of questions of administrators, felt that you would welcome a response. Yet you archived our discussion just 28 minutes after your posted a response. I take it you consider our dialogue over, yet oddly you chose not to archive your original post. Is that because you are hoping to canvas admin opinions that are favourable to you, while removing those that are not saying what you want to hear? Since archives are meant to remain an unedited record, I'm not going to reply in your archive. But I wonder if you have considered how such rapid archiving may be interpreted by other editors who attempt to converse with you in good faith? Its the accumulative burden of such small, antagonistic gestures that results in blocks that, to you, appear unwarranted. I would advise a reappraisal of your overall stance towards other editors - start treating them as colleagues rather than opponents and you will find a lot more good will in return. If you manage to antagonise an administrator even when pleading to be unblocked, I don't hold out much hope for your long term future here. Rockpocket 03:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing decks for next round. No offence. I ve put it back below now. BTW which Admin did I antagonise whilst pleading?--Light current 03:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also as with any talk page, one is allowed to copy the relevant bit from the archive to the active talk page for further discussion. But Im sure you knew that!--Light current 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. If you regularly refactor your talkpage that quickly then I'm sorry for assuming your archiving of our discussion has specific significance. I didn't want to move it back myself and risk further conflict. I was referring to the archiving as being potentially antagonistic (to me). As it is, I accept you meant no harm and I'm sorry for making a big deal about it. But - for future reference - it might be worth noting that a lot of people do find the rapid deletion/archiving of (what they consider to be) an ongoing conversation antagonistic. It might be worth giving dialogue a little longer before you archive to avoid that impression.

I don't want to sound patronising here, but I had been quite impressed with the moderate position you had taken in your editing over the last few weeks. Which made it all the more perplexing to me when I noted your, rather out of immediate character, criticism of Friday. I think a lot of people responded to that because it seems pretty illogical - and, for you faults, that isn't something I would consider you to be. If you want to stand by that, well thats up to you, but I can't help but wonder if there was something else that precipitated it. As it feels more like a reaction of frustration to me, than a considered position based on logic. Just a thought. Anyhow, I've had my say now so feel free to archive this (and our discussion) at your convenience and I hope to see you back editing again soon. Rockpocket 07:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Lightning' archive explanation

Whilst blocked, my talk page got upto 47k. You cant archive when you are blocked. So, as soon as I became unblocked I took the chance to archive and start on a fresh sheet so to speak. Im sorry if I gave you the impression that I did not want you to comment further. I just thought you probably had no more to say so I archived having read your post. I did not arch my original post because I wanted to keep the blocking policy material there for futher discussion. Your post was more to do with recent issues rather than the general one of blocking policy that I want to keep alive on this page.

That was an oversight on my part. I should have archived the whole thing or left the whole thing.

Now, if you are a frequent vistor to my talk page, youll see that I only delete posts if they are in the wrong place and they are disagreeable/not worth keeping. Almost all of the critical posts are kept visible on the page until archiving time. Normally I archive at more obvious and convenient (for others) times when the page gets above about 32 k.

I shall reply more fully on my interpretation of Fridays stance in due course.

Actually I dont think Ill bother. Its all here and there fir you to find and I dont think any further exposition of the incident is going to do me or anyone any good. Plus I dont want to spend all my time answering critics. Thats why I stopped answering Q s on the RDs. It seems some people will not be happy until I have been driven off WP compeletely 8-(

Reinstating prematurely archived post by req.

From Rockpocket

The problem, Light current, is that concern was expressed about your comments before you were blocked, yet you didn't take that opportunity to express regret or withdraw the comment. That only happened after you were blocked. Prior to the block, your attitude was defient and you invented - for the first time - nicknames for each and every individual editor that expressed concern. I interpreted that as an attempt at belittlement. I'm sure you will argue that wasn't your intention - and perhaps so - but in future you may wish to choose a more opportune time to adopt mass terms of endearment.

Taken with your previous history, the interpretation I (and i'm sure others) make is that you do not regret attacking Friday at all, you simply don't wish to be blocked anymore. In addition, claims of admin abuse will rarely help your cause. Admins are entrusted with using their judgement to deal with situations. Because a specific incident in isolation doesn't, in your opinion, warrant a block does not mean the blocking admin is abusing his position. Instead the accumulative weight of disruptive editing and personal attacks may be taken into account. Its unfortunate that your past record counts against you, but if you will repeat a personal attack on the same person as you did before, and ignore a warning from the editor that unblocked you previously, is it surprising that form will be considered? My advice to you is to sit this one out, then comeback and prove to us all you regret attacking Friday by not doing so again. Rockpocket 01:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment calling Friday a schitoid was a mistake. I misinterpreted the meaning of the word. Apparently it means severly mentally ill or someone who has no touch with reality or something.. I wasnt suggesting that. I was suggesting that Friday seemed to hold (and was pushing) two diametrically opposite views at the same time and that that position deserves no respect and is untanable. When I realised the problem word I immediately removed it and I apologised. THe problem was that Ten, not having heard from me (as I had been out) probably thought I was ignoring things.--Light current 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see what everybody thinks its means! Please add your defns here:

Noitpursid backwards. Re: your block. I like your banter on the Science reference desk (only place I've come across you). Parts of this current campaign do remind me a bit of "The Crucible" and some people shouldn't be given a little bit of power because they won't be able to stop themselves from using it. But (there's always a but!) some of your comments (the photography one spring to mind) are offkey. Does it really matter? (When people are vandalising the place with "This is shit!" etc.) I don't know (I'm not an administrator.) Anyway, look forward to seeing you back.Mmoneypenny 01:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a person's actions, by themselves, make it difficult to edit or enjoy the project, that's disruption. If you simply get distracted by them, or if people are choosing to respond to the individual, then it isn't disruption. I think the key sentence is, "Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is disruption." It's the difference between a bully and a troublemaker. A troublemaker may stand there and be objectionable, but you have the choice to walk away, ignore him, and enjoy your life. If you get upset and feel "disrupted" by him, that's YOUR fault. But a bully won't let you walk away. And that is the difference. If people are choosing to be disrupted, then you can't call the instigator "disruptive." Disruptive: Erasing large amounts of text, adding large amounts of nonsense text, messing with system functions, etc Not disruptive: Expressing anger or frustration, disagreeing with an admin, expressing an unpopular opinion, questioning an admin's judgment, etc.
Tragic romance 17:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP 'Blocking policy' defn of disruption

Disruption:

A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project — their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia.

Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia.

Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia, or pose a sufficiently severe threat to it. Examples include (but are not limited to):

• Vandalism
• Excessive reverts (3RR)
• Inappropriate usernames
• Abusive sockpuppet accounts
• "Public" accounts, where the password is publicly available or shared with a large group
• Anonymous and open proxies
• Bots must have prior approval on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and may be blocked if an admin thinks they are malfunctioning in a damaging way

my italics.--Light current 00:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extract form WP:DIS

Disrupting Wikipedia is a serious offense, blockable under Wikipedia's blocking policy. Wikipedians want to produce a comprehensive, correct encyclopedia, and disrupting the mechanisms we have in place to ensure that we are working towards that goal makes us very very mad.

Because of the extremely negative connotation the word "disruption" has on Wikipedia, it is tempting every now and then to use the word to refer to certain acts that, while they should not have been committed, do not actually disrupt anything, either. Please try to avoid this.

For instance, one user gratuitously insulting another user, while inappropriate, is not disruptive. Neither is simple small-scale vandalism.

Furthermore, don't cause actual disruption in an effort to fix a perceived disruption. An excellent example of this is the Great Userbox War of 2006; several users who claimed userboxes were disruptive, set about deleting and trying to stop further creation of such userboxes. The ensuing fight was orders of magnitude more disruptive than any supposed disruption for which the userbox opponents were able to provide evidence. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it is disruption. Disruption is a large-scale hindrance of Wikipedia's ability to function, whether technically, administratively, or socially. An insult, or even a string of insults targeted at several users, does not do this.

Certainly, acts which, taken by themselves, are not disruptive may be part of of a larger disruptive act.

• 8-| neutral

• 8-? quizzical

• 8-o surprised (or wearing goggles and respirator)

• 8-) satisfied/happy

• 8-)) very happy/laughing

• 8-( unhappy

• 8-(( very unhappy

• 9-) joking (one eye winking)

• 9-| sarcasm?

• $:-( angry/frowning

• %-) only half awake/drunk/tipsy/

• |-) blind drunk

• |-| asleep

Be sure and spellcheck all section headings. ;-> Edison 00:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well the above is a deliberate mistake! 'Smiley' is too obvious. I like anagrams But full marks for spotting it.--Light current 01:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the second word! Edison 18:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If You mean its missing an 'e', your just talking shit!8-)--Light current 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posts placed here may not recieve replies and may be deleted.