Hello, Protector of Wiki! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 17:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thanks, Salvio! Protector of Wiki (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; please be careful to follow wikipedia policy in nominating articles for {{speedy}} deletion. The article Jim couper, which you nominated, contains a clear assertion of notability. Whether it is, in fact, notable is beside the point, the assertion alone is sufficient to prevent this deletion. Whether the article qualifies for deletion under WP:PROD or WP:AfD I make no comment on. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion (on the article Jim Couper) but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, sir, for not completing the process!! I also apologize for leaving you "as the ONLY PERSON ON THE WHOLE WIKI who can finish redlinked nominations"! :( Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The central section of the article is mostly false material that was obtained from Greek and Serbian nationalist sites. This is why I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.36.159 (talk • contribs)

I see that you restored a PROD template that the creator of Risoterapia creativa removed. Please do not do so in the future. PRODs templates can be removed by anyone, as is explained at Wikipedia:Prod#Objecting. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 23:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at GorillaWarfare's talk page.[reply]

As reviewing administrator, I thought the nature of the AfD discussion had so far degenerated that, invoking IAR, I thought it advisable to close, blank, and relist at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Édmée Schneerson (2nd nomination). I'm sorry that you'll have to give the argument over again, but see my note at the AfD 2. And please avoid mentioned other matters than the article in question. I find it helps to avoid the word "you". You mention above that you do not like to receive warnings about NPA. I do not like to give them, either, but please keep the rule in mind. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that and have already commented at the relisted discussion. It's not NPA warnings that I dislike but civility warnings. Thanks for letting me know. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having had Djsasso's talk watchlisted, I noted that conversation. It's in your best interests to stay away from Griff. In response to this, I admit I don't always agree with his blocks, but they have never been abusive in the least.

Can you not see that following him to two talk pages and leaving comments referencing the block on simple is provocation? If he hadn't already drawn the conclusion that you were stalking his edits, it is more than understandable that he would do so.

As you have stated you are someone who values honesty, here is a page you might find refreshingly accurate: observations of Wikipedia behaviour. As always my words are simply well-meaning advice, heed them as you will; you know how to reach me should you wish to. Cheers. sonia♫ 11:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sonia, for the advice. If I need anything, I will definitely contact you, as you appear to be part of the more competent of Simple users. However, I seek to respond to some points you made above.

• It's in your best interests to stay away from Griff Why? Am I to fear him because he abusively blocked me numerous times at Simple?
• Griffinofwales' blocks "have never been abusive in the least"? His blocking of me seriously breached WP:INVOLVED. He voted to delete my article, and blocked me to cripple my ability to respond to erroneous arguments and misrepresentations at the RfD. What's more, he accused me of making personal attacks, something I never did.
• referencing the block on simple I referenced it only because he was making egregious assumptions of bad faith, suggesting that I was stalking him.
• What's wrong with "following him to two talk pages"? When he makes incompetent, unconstructive, unhelpful, and biased comments, it must certainly be communicated. He is also known to stand by passively while others do the work, commanding "Please fix it". Why can't he fix it? Oh, right, because he's incompetent.
• A final point about mods: they avidly enforce the civility policy, but neglect to follow it themselves. This injustice is ridiculous, so my comments are wholly warranted. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, both of you! Sonia, you deliberately came here to provoke me, to elicit a response that would remotely be blockable. You did this to give Either way an excuse to abusively instigate a block to shut me down. Either way, after you had not edited for a week (before which you were sporadically active), it's blatant that you logged on with an agenda. After the block, you made a minor reversion and left — a classic textbook case of block-and-run. Let me remind you that you nominated my article for deletion, and you have a conflict of interest whenever you come in contact with me. Therefore, next time you have a whim to block me, ask an UNINVOLVED mod to block, but I highly doubt that they will comply, for they would not block abusively so. I commend both of you for your well played-out conspiracy. Protector of Wiki (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia, please do respond to both the above posts by me. I look forward to your replies. Thanks, Protector of Wiki (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied point-by-point below.

1. Was your interaction with him constructive? No. Griffinofwales needs to get off his high horse and understand that if one is incompetent, he needs to get his act together. I was also annoyed by his "Please fix it" comment. Someone else even agreed that it was "not constructive at all".
2. An XfD, as I've said, is not an offence against your personal sanity and you had taken it that way I never did take it that way. My problem with it was that most were distorting, misrepresenting, and misapplying policy. I needed to call them out for it. As I have said before, it's a great coincidence that the mod who nominated my article for deletion blocked me indefinitely shortly after closure.
3. I can see how it may seem that way, but I definitely didn't Yeah, sure. I will forevermore remember your aiding and abetting the abusive mods.
4. <placeholder>
5. Thank you for being passive-aggressive. It sure works to your advantage when you condemn incivility.
6. And you've constantly missed it. I fail to see any place where I have missed something. It's more like you, Djsasso (who had an incoherent, flawed close at the RfD), Griffinofwales, Either way, Clementina, and Kansan.
7. Trust me, if there was a conspiracy, it would be smooth enough that you wouldn't have reason to suspect one. That's comforting. I guess I will need to watch my back around you people.

• The reason why the admins all seem to be either "civility warriors" who make the actions, or stand around with their arms folded? This comment implies that I dislike mods that are civility warriors who block and those mods who stand by after the block. I do indeed dislike the latter, but I dislike even more the mods that stand by while another mod acts uncivil. Then these mods block for incivility.
• I'm disappointed in you, Sonia. I thought you were my friend. I thought you gave me advice in good faith. I thought you were different that the others, but you turned out to be just the same as them. In my eyes, you are worse since you colluded with other abusive mods. I'm sorry that you are choosing to engage in dishonest activities.
• If you feel that incivility is unhelpful and blockable, do me a favour and warn the following mods: Beeblebrox, Nev1, and Iridescent. Protector of Wiki (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you are answering on the help desk, you shouldn't use just no as an answer. In most cases, you should give a reason to why you said no. Also, do a little research before giving a one word answer. In this case, WP:FFU had just what the user was looking for.  A p3rson ‽ 23:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we must exercise caution when granting such user rights. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this and your overall attitude/tone here, I have blocked you for 72 hours. You cannot attack others and be uncivil towards them. I do not care how you feel about admins being "hypocritical" or anything like that. That in no way gives you the right to attack others and give an abrasive tone towards others. Please take a less aggressive and more collaborative tone, or you may be headed down a similar path here with the "Big Boys" as you did at the "Little Boys place" as you term it. either way (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I attack anyone? By the way, you have breached WP:INVOLVED, so you need to remedy this forthwith.
If you believe that no one can be uncivil, you need to discuss that with the following mods: Beeblebrox, Nev1, and Iridescent. You are hereby banned from my talk page. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot ban someone from your talk page. If they xe respects your desire that xe not post on this page, so be it. If xe chooses to post here again, then so be it also.

Just because you have seen some admins make uncivil comments does not mean that you should make uncivil comments, either. While your definition of uncivil or attack differs from that of others, and although I do not personally feel that the cited comment was overly uncivil, I must agree with Either way that your general tone has continuously been confrontational and a bit on the hostile side, including this comment. Accusing others does not advance your position, but I'm quite sure you knew that already. It is occasionally necessary to just ignore these things rather than countering with strong words and furthering an argument.

I hope I am uninvolved enough to make this comment for you (I'm not active on simplewiki), although I did support Wifione's RfA, while you opposed. —fetch·comms 01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Either way chooses to disregard my request, I will simply delete his post. Just because you have seen some admins make uncivil comments does not mean that you should make uncivil comments, either. I don't dispute that. My problem with this is that mods who are civility warriors stand by while their brethren make uncivil comments. As stated above, this injustice is ridiculous, atrocious, and despicable. Why aren't mods subject to the same rules that govern the "commoners"? I've already called people out for the inequality at Simple. Protector of Wiki (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that Either way is involved, and thus this block is invalid? Fetchcomms, please overturn this abusive block. Protector of Wiki (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an editor has edited on a wiki that you have also edited on does not make them involved. -DJSasso (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly missing the point. Either way blocked me indefinitely on Simple. Of course his agenda is to shut me down after banishing me from Simple. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether he is involved or not in this case, but I think a block by anyone was justified because your attitude has still been very aggressive and hostile for a while. If an admin is a hypocrite by your standards, then you can bring up the issue at AN or ANI next time. Making provocative comments in response to other such comments does not help. I will not overturn this block, but you must stop making accusations and just ignore the user after the block expires. —fetch·comms 01:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Then can you do me a favour and warn the following mods: Beeblebrox, Nev1, and Iridescent since you seem to worship civility? Protector of Wiki (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. You state that this block is abusive, but as far as I figure, every single editor and admin who've chimed in on the subject concur that you have been routinely uncivil and are routinely launching personal attacks. The only one who has expressed an opinion to the contrary is yourself. It is not that anyone is missing your point; you have made it often enough. What no one is doing is agreeing with your point.  Ravenswing  03:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many that would declare this block to be abusive, including some editors I mentioned here. Protector of Wiki (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if anyone other than yourself had - of which I've so far seen no evidence - then my statement would of course need revision. Until such time, I am considerably less sanguine in my ability to read the minds of other editors so as to know what they would or would not declare abusive than you.  Ravenswing  14:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Djsasso's profile

Please do not misrepresent my comments. The "five personal attacks" you cite are not personal attacks at all. 1) "incompetent" is a reflection of somebody's actions. 2/3) Characterizing warnings made by an admin in his official capacity as bullying and hounding are inappropriate personal attacks You say it yourself — I am commenting about the warnings, not the mod. Also, it's unfortunate that you feel mods have a higher status than "commoners". 4) "Whining" is a comment on someone's actions. 5) "Hypocrite" is a manifestation of someone's actions. I suggest you acquaint yourself with WP:NPA before making further sanctimonious comments. Protector of Wiki (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<redacted baiting from Either way, who seeks to extend my block to indefinite>

From the standpoint of 27,000+ edits and six years on Wikipedia, I'm comfortable with my command of its rules and regulations. Should I seek clarifications, no doubt you'd agree that doing so from someone with three weeks and 85 mainspace edits on the English Wikipedia (and from a month's time and 80 mainspace edits on Simple) would be recommended by few. Beyond that, I've no need to debate you on the situation. As I said elsewhere, your complete conviction that anything you say to others is right and justified is apparent, and no warning or discussion will change that. There will be another temporary block, which you will likewise claim is the result of animus, persecution or gross misinterpretation of the rules ... and another, and another. It is not a matter of whether an indefinite block will follow, but when. Any effort on my part to change that would be futile, and therefore any such debate would be fatuous.  Ravenswing  14:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit count of an editor is no indication of experience, as evidenced by the incompetent mods trolling me. What you have told me about personal attacks shows that you clearly need to read up on the appropriate policy page because you don't know what you are talking about. If you have nothing but sanctimonious nonsense, please do not post here again. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I hope this was a technical error. Please do not repeat such edits. Materialscientist (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My browser crashed when I was editing that page. I guess it replaced the entire page with the section I was editing. Protector of Wiki (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Protector of Wiki, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Why trent callis is a noob, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Courcelles 00:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that page quite clearly. At first, I wanted to tag it as an attack page, but as I read further into it, it seemed to be a page of random musings. Either way, clearly that page did not meet criteria inclusion, so the deletion rationale could have been nonsense or attack page. Protector of Wiki (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

Michael Hardy and Extcetc need to STOP BABBLING about the merits of the author and the validity of the theorem.

I know nothing about the author or his merits and never said anything about them. I'm almost at the point of suspecting that you read my comments about Wildberger and his merits and are mistaking Wildberger for the author. Please try not to be so confused. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Wildberger. You specifically did not babble about his merits, but Extcetc did: Wildberger's peer-reviewed publication record makes him an authority. However, you did babble about the validity of the theorem. Protector of Wiki (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be still confused. I did say something about Wildberger's merits. I did not say anything about the author's merits.

Wildberger is not the author. They're two different people. Why is that so hard for you to understand? If you're that confused, you should sober up before engaging in discussion of the matter. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be confused? You can't tell your head from your arse. Or maybe you need to pull your head out of your arse.
I did say something about Wildberger's merits So? Does that change the fact that no reliable sources are given? I did not say anything about the author's merits. I never said you did, and I know Wildberger isn't the author. Please stop patronising me. You clearly have nothing better to do than waste your time blathering about the reliability of a YouTube video. I have no time for such foolishness. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protector of Wiki, your comments about Hadley's theorem and the arguments for deleting it are spot on. The sad thing is that your tone has overshadowed that fact, deflected legitimate criticism against Michael Hardy for attacking you ("If you're that confused, you should sober up before engaging in discussion of the matter"), and now risks getting you blocked. Consider how totally different things would look right now if you had said "should stop going on" instead of "need to STOP BABBLING" and never posted sentences 2 and 3 in the comment above. The article would still be on its way out the door, you would be seen as not reacting to being bitten, and you would have a case against Michael Hardy if you wanted to pursue it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least someone here is somewhat rationale. You would make a good mentor. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, time for round two. Editors here come from all over the world and many very different cultures. Phrases that aren't considered an attack in your circle of friends may not be understood at all by someone half a world away, in which case they will fall back on picking out individual words from the phrase in ways you may have never intended. This includes reviewing admins and not just those that a comment is originally directed against! Instead of bemoaning this situation, it's best to just state clearly what you mean up front in a non-attacking manner. Making this translation will save you more grief than any possible advantage in taking shortcuts. Michael Hardy has clearly been out of line in his defense of the article and his comments to you. I'm not asking you to ignore this; you should be highlighting these points in such a way that no one can have the slightest doubt is not a personal attack. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I said is in no way a personal attack, no matter from what culture's stance you are looking. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two editors below who disagree with you. Are you confident enough that they are wrong that you're willing to ask for more opinions? And if so, are you willing to accept the result if it goes against you? —UncleDouggie (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have not explained how my comments were on the bloke's character instead of his actions. Clearly, I commented on his actions. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, round 3 is to stop responding to the block threat and to strikeout the portions of your comment to Michael Hardy that you would like to revise after reading round 2, if any. Save your breath for a real block, should it ever come. And even then, unless it's an indefinite block, consider not responding and instead just wait it out. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I strike my comments even when they are still true? Are you encouraging dishonesty? Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are things I believe to be true that I choose to not to mention for various reasons. A prime question to consider is: Will it do any good? Choosing to strike it doesn't mean you no longer believe it, just that you wish it had not been said. Since you have the good fortune of having made the comment on your own talk page, you also have the option to just delete it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not regret saying it. I don't hide the truth. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the welcome! Don't worry, no soy un vándalo. :D HeyJohnWhatsYourNameAgain (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Let us be very, very clear. This is NOT acceptable on enwiki. Commit another personal attack, and you will be blocked. Your style of communication with other editors, both established, new, and IP needs to change radically for you to have a long future on this project. Read, absorb, and deeply understand WP:BITE and why biting is worse for the future of this project than the worst of vandalism. I've read almost every single edit you've made on this project during the course of reviewing your requests for flags, and I'm deeply troubled by what I found. Courcelles 03:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made no personal attacks. Please refactor your misrepresentations and distortions of the facts. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't recognize "You can't tell your head from your arse. Or maybe you need to pull your head out of your arse." as highly problematic, I'm not sure we'd be able to agree on anything. This kind of behaviour is why you are indefed over on Simple, and it won't long be tolerated here. Your communication style almost seems to be designed to raise the tension in the room, instead of lowering it; which never helps a situation. Courcelles 04:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't recognize "You can't tell your head from your arse. Or maybe you need to pull your head out of your arse." as not a personal attack, I'm not sure you are qualified to be a mod. [1] Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I, if I were an admin, would be equally unqualified. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being honest, unlike many of the mods here. I respect you for that. :) Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not aware, you can delete anything you want to from this page, including this whole section. Deleting a message is considered acknowledgment that it has been read. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my userpage
Hi Protector of Wiki, Do you know why sometimes there isn't an "edit" button available to a section of an article? Does that mean that section will be there permanently? Thanks. AiyaAiya2010 (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:HD#Edit. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to have a userpage, you may find it useful to redirect it to your talk page to prevent others from accidentally creating it. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you like the red link, I can set it to create=autoconfirmed, which by and large would accomplish the same thing. Courcelles 07:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"create=autoconfirmed" sounds good. Thanks, Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS!! Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, yeah, I set it, and forgot to note it here. Sorry. Courcelles 20:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I noticed that. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked. From the above "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts...." which is exactly what you've done because of your problems on simple. Please, clearly you do want to help and have been doing some good stuff but you need to drop the attitude. Pedro :  Chat  08:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All that I've done regarding the users on Simple is edit constructively some of the same articles they edit. What's wrong with that? My attitude is fostered by the presence of those who misapply and misrepresent WP:NPA and other policies in AfDs. Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right with you on the misaplication of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. People need to get thicker skins. Nevertheless you are bringing your grudges over to en.wikipedia from simple. If you come here expecting to be treated poorly and your attiude is one of using all caps, asking for rights to get "half mod" status etc. etc. then - well you will get treated poorly. Pedro :  Chat  08:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect to be treated poorly at all. When I came here, I expected that people would have "thicker skins" than The Little Boys, but apparently that's not true. Regarding the grudge accusation, I do nothing but state the facts whenever I interact with Simple users. If I see something that needs to be called out, I will do so without hesitation. I don't entertain the practice of hiding my opinions. Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why are you using upper-case letters in all of your edit summaries? Are you doing this intentionally? I seriously think you should calm down, otherwise you may get blocked again. HeyMid (contributions) 14:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Heymid - you might want to look further up this page - this has been discussed quite a bit :) Pedro :  Chat  14:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I saw it now. Sorry! HeyMid (contributions) 14:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very sad if a mod blocks me for using CAPS in edit summaries. How ridiculous would s/he be! Protector of Wiki (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop using all uppercase it is considered shouting and is rather disruptive, kind of like the picture above. If your cap locks is stuck or broken go to Start --> Programs --> Accessories --> Accessibility --> On-Screen Keyboard. You can then turn off cap locks. I hope this helps --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not help. I desire to use ALL CAPS for emphasis. Please stop hounding me about my editing style. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How hard would it be for you to just not use all caps? That said, see my edit summary for this post :P sonia♫ 22:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is his/her edit summary for the post above. HeyMid (contributions) 22:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. Maybe I should adopt it. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, thanks, but if it wasn't already obvious enough from my username, I'm a she. sonia♫ 22:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good! As well as me. HeyMid (contributions) 22:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand that you wish to emphasize some edit summaries, but if you use this on new users it is considered biting newcomers. I have noted multiple times you have given new users Only Warnings. These are not to be used to inform newcomers of mistakes. This is not WP:assuming good faith, those newcomers that you gave severe warnings are no longer editing wikipedia. Please be careful when warning new users. Thank you, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not given only warnings since my block (not that the block made me change my ways). How do you know that those newcomers to whom I gave only warnings were good faith contributors? 74.89.115.247, Snowtheman88, and Animazing88 were obviously not. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't know that the new user is editing for good. However you should assume that they are and tell them that whatever they are doing should not be done. If they continue you still assume good faith with more serious warnings. After three warnings you give them a final warning. If behavior continues you should report them to a administrator and they will block the user for a short period. I believe this is what happened to you. As for you giving out warnings, I have noted that whenever you warn a user it is with the only warning. Example, User talk:Recktech. You gave the user a level 5 warning (only warning). The user only made one edit counting deleted edits. This was not a appropriate warning level. You should have used a level one warning with a welcoming message. Personally I use welcome-personal, the new user tends to respond better than if you give them a only warning. Would you feel welcome if you made one edit and received a hostile message. Only Warning messages are warning that say we (the community) have assumed good faith, given you countless warnings and you continue to perform a particular action. Stop now or you will be blocked. Similarly we are assuming good faith, as you are a new editor, that you did not know that only warnings should not be given as first warnings. However, if you continue to use all uppercase and only warnings you will likely receive a only warning. You may ignore my note, however please consider this, four editors are asking you to stop using uppercase and only warnings, there may be a reason for it. I hope this helps you understand why we are concerned. Best, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recktech created Why trent callis is a noob, which was deleted as an attack page. Anyone who creates an attack page receives an only warning from me.
Only Warning messages are warning that say we (the community) have assumed good faith, given you countless warnings and you continue to perform a particular action Don't misrepresent what an only warning is. An only warning isn't given after "countless warnings". An only warning is for a user making egregious edit(s), having not received any warning. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please note that PoW has already been indefinitely blocked from the Simple English Wikipedia. HeyMid (contributions) 22:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that has no bearing to the matter at hand. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It most certainly has bearing on the matter at hand. It's a little thing called "pattern recognition". I trust you know another language so that you can go to that Wiki after you have been blocked from this one? Trusilver 01:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have nominated for deletion an article you have contributed to: SOCEP Constanţa. Your input would be appreciated on the article's AFD page. Thanks! The Eskimo (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. Protector of Wiki (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. I really do root for the articles I nominate for AFD to pass, but I am concerned that a couple of the refs you provided were in Romanian, and the English ones just seem like general company descriptions and stock-exchange info. Since you seem to have an interest in this subject, could you please elaborate on the AFD thread exactly why you think its notable, because I am not sure it is so clear to other editors...at least not to me...yet. A good weekend to you!The Eskimo (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Protector of Wiki. Thank you. HeyMid (contributions) 08:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. THAT'S SAD. Protector of Wiki (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Protector of Wiki, I've said this twice on my talk page, and I am sorry I have to say it again: please don't scrutinize and follow my edits. After I cleaned up in Kŭmgangsan here, you edited it here and commented about it (civilly) on my talk page. However, then I commented on a talk page, which you commented on afterwards in reply to me. I also made several comments on Talk:Typewriter in the Sky, and you followed my comments up with some remarks of your own. Then I edited Elizabeth Bennet, and shortly after, you edited it and told me to "please refrain from introducing [my] own opinions into the article". After this, I asked you not to do so, but you refused, saying that if my edits are true improvements I should feel no discomfort in them being scrutinized. Then you followed my edits on A Rose for Emily and on Songpyeon as well, despite my requests. Today, you have edited Maria Brontë, a page I created yesterday. Once more: please stop. I do feel uncomfortable - quite strongly, actually. Barring my involvement in your activity at the Simple English Wikipedia, I really want you to have a happy time here, and I, too, want to enjoy editing constructively and peacefully here without my every edit being scrutinized and followed. Regards, Clementina ^☆ 05:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clementina, I'm sorry that you feel uncomfortable. Anywhere I am involved, Sonia shows up, but I don't give a horse's arse about it. I understand that you are getting frustrated, but why should you when my edits are constructive? Do you seek to hamper all my improvements to the areas of the encyclopedia in which you are involved? Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't: I understand if you are interested in the same areas as I am... but I do request that you not intentionally follow me on almost every manual edit I make. Sincerely, Clementina ^☆ 06:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to help! :( :( I didn't expect it to be such a big deal!! I don't know WHERE to edit on the Big Boy's wiki! :( Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Join a WikiProject! :) They're great places to find other editors interested in a topic, and to work together on something. You appear to be doing a good job of new page patrol, though, and helpdesking, but there's plenty of content to build, it's just mostly already written and needs improving. With your high standards, you'd be good at making some of the articles that have been languishing unnoticed really shine. Maybe pick a couple of "pet articles", and try for a GA or an FL or something. I'd be happy to collaborate on either with you, if you'd have me. And about stalking you: I had most of those pages on my watchlist already, but I do apologize for appearing a meddler. If you don't want me interacting with you, by all means remove this and I'll try to stay away from you from now on. sonia♫ 08:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OKAY! I'll find a WikiProject that interests me!
As I said above, I don't mind your stalking me. My edits are constructive, so I have no reason to fear scrutiny. Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:HOUND. Unless there is an overriding reason (e.g., removing vandalism or copyvio, etc.), it is not appropriate to follow a user's edits, especially when doing so causes distress to another user. You have now been warned that this is disruptive; continuing it may lead to a block. T. Canens (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protector of Wiki, just a question: Do you understand how ruthless it is to refactor someone else's comments or sections? HeyMid (contributions) 08:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heymid, providing he's not refactoring your comments themselves, he's entitled to change section headings on his own talk page: the talk page is for his own benefit, so he can rearrange it however is most helpful. (Basically if he wants to add childish comments to the headings on his talk page, that reflects poorly on him, not you). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean was the "ruthless" thing was the way he refactored the original section title; he changed it to "Misguided and pointy warning[...]", which is IMO ruthless and not nice at all. OK, maybe I was biting him too much with that warning, but at Wikipedia, "driving your own race" doesn't work; it finally leads to a block. But well, if he is to be blocked, then there have to be good reasons to justify such an action. HeyMid (contributions) 09:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you apparently did the same thing with Courcelles' warning, so I ignore this (at least for now). HeyMid (contributions) 11:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please immediately stop calling administrators "mods". Administrators are only administrators (or admins); users should only be called which type of user they are. HeyMid (contributions) 07:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mods are mods. Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PoW, mods don't exist on wikipedia; what you're saying is quite simply incorrect. You're not going to be blocked for using the wrong word, but continuing to use it just to annoy other editors is extremely WP:POINTy: and I suggest reading that, because what Heymid is doing is not pointy; it's not disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. Referring to admins by an incorrect word after being advised of the correct one, simply to annoy those around you, is very pointy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just struck part of my comment because it seemed that PoW had changed the section heading to refer to HeyMid's warning as "misguided and pointy". Oh; he did. Never mind then, I've unstruck. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's peeing of me too PoW - we don't have mods here. Please start using the term Admin/administrator/sysop. Mod refers to a moderator which has an entirely different meaning when used on a wiki devoted to content and openly editable. Ta. Pedro :  Chat  19:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Anyone can "moderate" a discussion, it doesn't require any user-right to do it. We call moderators editors. The folk POW is calling "mods" are administrators. Admins don't have any special moderation right or skill, compared to other editors. TFOWR 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of the above! OK, PoW, you may think it's a small thing - but it is inaccurate to call admins "mods" - Wikipedia doesn't have mods, they have admins. As I assume that you want to keep Wikipedia accurate, then it would be a good idea to use the correct terms when referring to people on Wikipedia! Incidentally, your title for this section is wildly inaccurate: the warning is not misguided, it is not WP:POINTY - and I see no evidence that Heymid wants to get you blocked. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you nor Wikipedia has the right to redefine the English language. Mods are mods. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phantomsteve, Heymid DOES want to get me blocked. See this and this. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! Three MODS and 2 COMMONERS are hounding me! Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When many people suggest that your attitude is inappropriate, there are two possible conclusions to draw; one is that your tone is inappropriate, and the other is that many people are conspiring against you. I would suggest the former (alternatively, you could add my name to your list of people "hounding" you). Some slight improvements in your tone, and trying not to see everything as a crucial battle, would help people get along better (I would hate to see you banned, because you make some good edits too). And sniping at other wikipedians via questions in third parties' RfAs does not reflect well on you. bobrayner (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't "sniping" at anyone by asking that question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Armbrust. Like you (hopefully), I am concerned about the candidates up for modship and desire to ensure that they understand policy before I support. My question demonstrated that Armbrust does not comprehend policy and will take abusive action based on false assumptions. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armbrust's RFA? I had Ron Ritzman's RFA in mind, but since you mention Armbrust's RFA, I'm concerned that you've decided Armbrust will take abusive action based on false assumptions simply because they - quite reasonably - identified that the samples you pointed out could be seen as personal attacks. By the way, the word is "administrator", not "mod"; a few people have pointed that out to you, and I do not understand why you continue to insist on using the word "mod" whilst knowing that it irritates people. bobrayner (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mods for me is not that much of a peeve, but commoner is. Please read WP:DEAL, there is no golden bar that makes you an admin (or as you call it, mod), so please stop reffering to non-admins as commoners. Just say users, and for sysops, admins. Ok? Buggie111 (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ron Ritzman, My use of "commoner" is not a reflection of what I think. It's what the community has shown throughout the couple months I've been here. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok then. I haven't really seen the use of it anywhere, but if that's how you want to be, than so be it. Buggie111 (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that people actually use "commoner" to refer to non-mods. The term "commoner" is a manifestation of how mods treats non-mods — as pieces of shit on the bottom of their shoe. Protector of Wiki (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here a lot longer than you and I don't feel like a commoner, so your argument is false. Besides, what happened to your think skin? —UncleDouggie (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is false just because you haven't been smeared and harassed by mods?
The fact that non-mods are treated like shit has no bearing on my thick skin. Protector of Wiki (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah,. I get it now... you have been told that some of the things which you have done are not the way things are done at wikipedia, so that means that you have been treated like shit? You mean that people point out that you are plain wrong, so that means that you have been treated like shit? Let me point out a few things: firstly (again) we don't have "mods" on Wikipedia, we have "admins" - the fact that you can't seem to understand that merely shows that you are deliberately trying to be obtuse; secondly, they aren't "commoners" - they are editors (which all of us, admin or no, are); thirdly, I'm going to have a look in a bit more detail at your contributions, because you remind me of a banned editor, and I want to investigate a bit more thoroughly before going to SPI. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lay off the threats, will you. Your being a SECURITY PROFILE INSPECTOR on my profile does not scare me at all. Your policing and investigation of my profile and my updates reflect upon only you as a mod and not me as a commoner. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No threat intended - as for my being a "security profile inspector" - what the hell is one of those? If you are not a banned editor, then my looking through your contributions will not be a problem - you just remind me of an editor I've come across before who was banned for their disruptive behaviour. However, looking at their contributions (I've not even looked at yours so far), you are not them - your behaviour may be immature, but the style of language you use is sufficiently different from theirs. When I read your comment, I wasn't sure that it was even addressed to me - I'm not a mod (we don't have them here, remember?) - I don't "moderate" posts. As for you being a commoner - if that's what you want to call yourself, then you are welcome to do so - but all editors are "commoners" - as an admin, I have no more authority than a non-admin; a 'crat has no more authority than an admin or a non-admin - we have access to tools which help to keep Wikipedia working efficiently, but no more than that. Adminship (and 'cratship) are not authority roles. Anyway, that's the end of what I want to say to you, as I'd hate you to think that I'm policing you or your updates (I assume you mean that you don't want me to respond to any messages from you? Is that what that meant?). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Protector of Wiki and use of ALL CAPS. Thank you. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN? Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It should be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#ALL CAPS. HeyMid (contributions) 17:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You recently tried to "undo" the closure of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. L. Langley discussion. However, that is not actually an allowed action. As a rule, all contributions of banned users are summarily reverted, as the whole point behind a ban is that the person is not welcome, not even for "good"/"useful" edits. However, you can restart a new AfD, if you wish, following standard nominating policies. The discussion and the closing admin should ignore the previous nomination, so you'll need to make the arguments entirely from scratch. Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article could be speedily deleted under the speedy deletion criteria A1 or A3; in addition, ένας (Greek for "one") already exists on Wiktionary. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying; however, I disagree that A1 or A3 would fit. A1 is only for articles "lacking sufficient context to identify the subject". This article clearly stated that it was about 1 in Greek. A3 is only for articles "consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title", etc. This article had content. I just seek to ensure that I understand policy, so that I won't make mistakes in the future. Thanks, Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could have been deleted under A5. I'd have to say that I agree with PoW here that A1/A3 would not have been suitable in this case. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't know A5 existed. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again PoW, I'd like to make a short statement regarding the ANI discussion I started. First of all, WP:ANI is a high-traffic forum with many users watching that page. I started the discussion not to get you blocked, but to hear what other users think about you; a simple way to receive feedback from others. I know, the "I honestly think[...]" part suggests that I wanted you blocked, but I want you to know that was not my case.

However, you need to listen and take care of others' advices given to you. "Driving your own race" doesn't work at Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a playhouse. I don't know, are you intentionally trying to annoy other users by writing ALL CAPS in your edit summaries? If you do, then it is a good idea to stop doing it immediately. We're doing all we can to help you not to get blocked, but if you don't listen to other users' advices and criticism, then you're pretty much left with no choice but taking the risk of being blocked. You have already been indefinitely blocked from the Simple English Wikipedia, but we don't want the same thing to happen for you at this Wikipedia, too. HeyMid (contributions) 09:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you try going to WP:MOD, you'll be redirected to Wikipedia:Motto of the day, so you have to write "administrators", "admins" or "sysops". WP:ADMIN redirects to Wikipedia:Administrators. HeyMid (contributions) 10:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I don't know if you wanted to get me blocked or not, but it's happened nevertheless. :( :( Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you indefinitely after reading this AN/I thread. I am not entirely sure why you are not taking heed of any warnings — perhaps you see it as a game? Furthermore from reading the related discussions, you seem to take some sort of pleasure in knowing that your actions are creating contention amongst your fellow editors. For me, that shows an inability to work effectively with the community, and a desire to treat it more as a battleground than a collaborative environment. This is unacceptable, as others have told you, and it cannot continue. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt, the merits of this block are questionable. PeterSymonds, a mod with whom I have had negative interactions admonished me before on Simple, swoops in to shut me down. It's interesting to note that no independent mods have blocked me here and that the unrest is all stirred up by Simple mods. I suspect that like Either way, PeterSymonds logged in with an agenda, or someone gave him an agenda, or else his attention would not have been brought to my updates. There must be an ulterior motive. I'm disappointed that mods on Simple carry vendettas such that they feel the need to shut me down here even after they've banished me from Simple. I can just imagine Either way's malicious smirk of successful collusion in this — taunting and baiting from a safe distance.
As for the block itself, I will explain how it lacks merit. The reason given in the block log reads, "Continues to use Wikipedia as a battleground despite many unheeded warnings. Failure to contribute constructively as a member of the community, which has become intolerant." The intolerant part is absolutely true. This community is intolerant of differing opinions and editing styles. Any nonconformist is trampled upon, and the community attempts to force-feed their particular modes of communication for any unconventionalists. I prefer to use ALL CAPS for my edits summaries, so I am harassed by multiple editors who do not share my method of communication and who claim that it implies shouting. I call those with the tools "mods" instead of the orthodox term "admin". This is pure preference — the terms are interchangeable. But I still get hounded about it. This segues me into the part about "unheeded warnings". These warnings were warnings solely about using CAPS and using the term "mod". The "battleground" part arose only on my profile. Nowhere else did I treat Wikipedia as a battleground. The purported "[f]ailure to contribute constructively" is completely nonexistent. I regularly made constructive and helpful edits. The block rationale provided by PeterSymonds alleges that I take "pleasure in knowing that [my] actions are creating contention amongst [my] fellow editors". That's absolutely untrue. I, like all others, seek to contribute with the least hindrances as possible. People constantly posting on my profile to complain about my editing style becomes annoying; I don't find any pleasure in having to repeatedly explain to them why I do what I do. Ultimately, the reason of the block was disruption resulting from my refusal to cease using caps and using the term "mod". This is not sufficient grounds for a block. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So...you do understand that if you simply switched to the community's consensus preferred style of communication (no shouting, use of proper terminology to not confuse people), you could possibly be unblocked and resume editing, right? It's really so worth it to you to be able to talk in ways that violate our community practices that you'd rather not be here? I'm not an admin, so obviously I'm not actually making an unblock offer, but that seems to be the way things usually go in a case like this--if you're willing to promise to abide by community standards, you can stay, if not you can choose to leave. Just wondering if being able to use all caps and the wrong/confusing words is so important to you.... Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using CAPS and using an alternate term for "admin" "violate our community practices"? Using ALL CAPS is important to me — it's a sign of emphasis. But, if people continue being intolerant of my editing style, I guess I have no other option but to submit — something I would hate doing especially when others are the one's ones complaining about my editing style. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're simply indicating that you're being intolerant of everyone you interact with, not the other way round. Our policies and guidelines are very clear, and shouting by typing in all-caps is considered rude and disruptive almost everywhere on the internet. And you hate doing it "especially when others are the one's complaining" [sic]? If you find it so difficult communicating and working with others, perhaps you should consider that wikipedia is not the place for you and think about some WP:Alternative outlets. Several people have taken issue with your behaviour, including your promise to stop writing all in caps, which you then completely ignored, and the fact that despite being told the correct terms by several people, you continue to be WP:POINTy by referring to admins by "mods" just to aggravate others. Given your response now, it doesn't appear this is likely to change anytime soon. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being intolerant? NO, YOU ARE. My editing style is to use CAPS to emphasise my words — the intent to be "rude and disruptive" is absent. Please assume good faith. I don't find it "difficult communicating and working with others"! Others just don't understand my reasons and badger me for what I do.
By the way, it's very good form for you to take the opportunity to smear me over at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Armbrust when I cannot defend myself. Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith only lasts a certain length of time before it becomes abundantly clear that you are not acting in good faith. You were blocked for continuing to WP:POINTily leave all-caps edit summaries, and you are continuing to do so even now, and still claiming to have done nothing wrong after the community has been more than patient with you. At this stage it seems unlikely that you will be unblocked. As for "smearing" you at Armbrust's RfA, I repeated what had been discussed at ANI, and gave my opinions on the matter. That's not a "smear". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining your unsolicited opinions on this block. Leave it up to the mods. Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I can just imagine Either way's malicious smirk of successful collusion" I know never you will, but you really should drop the conspiracy theories every time you get blocked. Eventually you need to come to realize that the common denominator in all your blocks is, in the end of the day, your actions and attitude. You get blocked because of the things you do and things you say, not because of the people who block you. Capitalizing every single word is not emphasis. It loses emphasis if EVERY word is capitalized. But, as I've said, you don't care about that, you're just playing this game to frustrate people. Now you're throwing out examples of "but I'm a good, constructive user," well that's great, but you are also a disruptive user who has exhausted the community's patience thus far. Wikipedia is a collaborative work environment, and it's clear you cannot function in that type of environment if you are going to just agitate people willingly and intentionally even when asked to stop by dozens of people. either way (talk) 10:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now revoked your ability to edit this talk page, as you are continuing to be disruptive. If you want to request unblocking, you will need to email the Unblock requests mailing list (unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember that because you still have e-mail access through this account, you can still use the "E-mail this user" feature to e-mail an administrator and request an unblock that way, instead of going directly to the unblock requests mailing list. HeyMid (contributions) 13:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm informing you now that Phantomsteve has decided to restore your talk page access, per this. You can now put up an unblock request here if you would like to. However, remember that you've previously been adviced to contact unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org directly. Also, if you continue your unsuitable behavior at this page, it will likely be revoked again. HeyMid (contributions) 10:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I also add that should your access be revoked again, if you wish to submit an unblock request, this must be via the mailing list (as far as I am aware, you haven't provided a reason why you won't do this) - do not ask other editors to place an unblock request here on your behalf. However, I am going to assume that you will treat this page correctly, and so revocation of talk page access will not be required. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (diff). Note that I did make some minor tweakings too (although not noticeable). HeyMid (contributions) 13:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phantomsteve has restored your talk page access. This is what he has now said according to the block reason:

"Return talk page access for unblock requests. If unsuitable behaviour continues, then it will be revoked again and the editor will need to contact the unblock mailing list (*not* ask other editors!)"

Minimac (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of editors have already mentioned that ;-) I also let Protector of Wiki know via email, following a discussion with Phantomsteve. TFOWR 12:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I e-mailed him before you. HeyMid (contributions) 13:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who emailed me first. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Protector of Wiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Since it seems that my differences will never be reconciled with the community, there is no option but to comply with its requests to discontinue my use of caps in edit summaries, which can be misconstrued as incivility. My use of caps in edit summaries was the sole cause of the purported "disruption", which consequently transpired only on my profile, because that was where people were complaining. My mainspace edits were all made in good faith and were all constructive. I agree to comply with the requests of the community not to use caps so that I may continue improving the encyclopedia. I also believe that mentoring from Sonia and UncleDouggie will be beneficial and will aid me in my "meshing in". Regards, Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked because not because you used all caps and mod-speak, but because you refused to listen to the community and instead used Wikipedia as a battleground. It seems that you have not yet realized this, and thus, unblocking you would not be a good idea at this point in time. (X! · talk)  · @045  ·  00:04, 7 October 2010 (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.

• Just to note, the disruption was actually a result of you using caps and incorrectly referring to admins as "mods" despite being advised of the correct behaviour and term respectively. It's not so much the use of either which was the issue, as much as the WP:POINTy way in which you did so. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I just said. My use of caps in edit summaries was the sole cause of the purported "disruption". Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please re-read my comment, as that's not what I said. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may step in here, GW is correct. It's not specifically your use of all caps, nor your insistence on incorrectly referring to wikipedia editors as "mods" and "commoners." You were blocked because of your use of Wikipedia as a battleground and your reluctance to listen to other editors and to take friendly advice when offered, as illustrated by the two examples. If you're willing to address that behavior in your unblock request, I think it would help your case to let an admin know you understand it wasn't a specific instance that led to your block, but rather a pattern of behavior. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are legitimate ways to get policies and guidelines changed or broadened. I've been a key part of several successful efforts even on core policies. Right now, there is an effort that looks like it will succeed to replace the "meatpuppet" terminology that has been used for years. This is how things are done around here to prevent anarchy. I doubt you would be successful in getting admin changed to mod, but such things aren't impossible. Admins were originally called sysops. Many of us are concerned that you will be equally disruptive whenever you come across another policy or guideline that you disagree with. You need to show us that you're willing to work within the system and accept the fact that you won't always win. This is hard to do, so I recommend some soul searching before just agreeing to whatever it takes to get you unblocked. I've been in difficult situations siding with many editors, including admins, were we ultimately lost. Thankfully, the more experienced editors had seen it all before and offered the rest of us some kind words to put the experience behind us. —UncleDouggie (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Using "mod" in place of "admin" doesn't mean I disagree with a policy (I'm hoping there's no policy mandating the use of "admin"!). I know I don't always win because as always, the majority rules, and I'm unfortunate enough not to be part of it since I don't compromise my principles for the sake of personal gain. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) The policy, which is stronger than a guideline, says: "Administrators, commonly known as admins or sysops (system operators), are Wikipedia editors..." I don't see where it says they are moderators and this essay makes it clear that they are not intended to be. It would be legitimate to state that an admin in a particular case is acting like a mod in violation of the policy, but it's not appropriate to accuse them all of such behavior. I don't see where personal gain has anything to do with this. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My use of "mod" is not intended to attack or accuse anyone! It's just a form of address with which I'm familiar online. My comment about personal gain was not directly related to "admins"/mods. That was just a side note about how majority rules, and how those in the minority tend to convert for personal gain. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you intend to continue using mod/commoner methods of address in routine interactions with other editors? —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I will use "admin" and "non-admin", despite my belief that "mod" and "commoner" are more accurate. Nevertheless, I will cease. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we going to see battles of comparable length on future issues? We all run afoul of things sometimes; what I'm really asking is if you can accept it when everyone tells you that your behavior is not appropriate? —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Using "mod" is not a behaviour. It's my preferred form of address!! I hope that there won't be any future issues with my editing style. If the community is reasonable with its requests, I will comply. If something as absurd as this transpires, I'll be quite dejected. I just want to get back to editing!!! Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked because not because you used all caps and mod-speak, but because you refused to listen to the community and instead used Wikipedia as a battleground. It seems that you have not yet realized this, and thus, unblocking you would not be a good idea at this point in time. (X! · talk)  · @045  ·  00:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My refusal to listen to the community was induced by unreasonableness. Time after time, I explained why I do as I do, but I get pounced on for everything I say. Now I'm willing to listen to the community, and I'm still exiled from this community? Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read WP:GAB and believe that my unblock request meets all the criteria. By the way, All caps states that "All caps is usually used for emphasis". The failure of the community to assume good faith strikes me as odd when its own article states that caps are for emphasis. But this can be ignored. I ultimately seek to be unblocked; I bear the community no ill will. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC) (updated 05:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

(edit conflict) The applicable guideline states: "Initial capitals or all capitals should not be used for emphasis." —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay!!! I don't want to debate about caps anymore. I've already promised not to use them in edit summaries! Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A friendlier response would be something like: "Oh, I didn't realize that the guideline was different from the article. Thanks – I won't be doing it anymore." Note: This comment is provided in a mentor role, no need to apologize to me so far into this issue. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you UncleDouggie for your kind suggestion; however, the sentiments expressed in the "friendlier response" conflict with my thoughts. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that you must agree with the guideline. No one is trying to force you to change your opinions. We only ask that you understand it represents the community consensus and you will comply with it even if you don't agree with it. No one agrees with every policy, guideline and essay around this place. We follow them the best we can to keep some sense of order. If I blatantly violated the one guideline I disagree with, I would have no recourse when real troublemakers start flouting the dozen guidelines that I do agree with. It's not clear to me that you get this, despite your capitulation on all caps. I cite as an example your continued use of "(there, are you happy?)" below. I know there are many policies and guidelines you hold dear, as your content work and AfD inputs clearly show, so you're not a Wikipedia anarchist. If that were the case, we wouldn't still be talking. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that the guideline stated that caps "should not be used for emphasis". Otherwise, I would have ceased long before. My mindset is that if it's not in policy, it's not valid. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you had said that in place of your "Okay!!!..." comment, I would have dropped the issue long ago. —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Protector of Wiki, when I e-mailed you I clearly stated that your (upper-case) capitalized edit summaries and referring to administrators as "mods" were not the only reasons for the block. However, your comments here so far shows that you apparently still don't understand why you currently are indefinitely blocked. You've been attacking and stalking other editors, written inappropriate edit summaries, including "I AM TAKING OVER THIS NOMINATION!" and "YOU ARE THE ONE BEING RUDE!" (which were both reverts), reverted AFD closures, made inappropriate comments at RFAs, etc. All in all, you've been using Wikipedia as a battleground. Before returning again, please read through WP:BATTLE. If you decide to make another unblock request, it needs to adress all issues which led to the block. If you still don't understand why you are currently blocked, you may want to consider WP:OFFER, which means that you have to be away from this wiki for at least 6 months, which includes no sock puppetry. Further comments like those you've made so far on this page will unlikely convince anyone to unblock you, and you will probably rather take the risk of your talk page access being revoked again. HeyMid (contributions) 07:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't lecture me! As an editor, I have the right to revert non-"admin" (there, are you happy?) AfD closures. My comments at RfA are made out of concern about the candidates up for "admin"ship (there, are you happy?) and out of a desire to ensure that they understand policy before I support. With UncleDouggie and Sonia as my mentors, I will do fine. You don't need to help me; just watch out for yourself. I'm sure you don't want to get blocked again — it's not fun! Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, you don't have the right to revert non-admin AfD closures: "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." However, as stated by Qwyrxian on their revert, "You can't undo a closure, nor can you take over a deletion discussion. You may, however renominate if you wish." Since you wanted the article gone, renominating would have been the best way to get support as others would presumably be persuaded by your fresh rationale. Reverting a closure on an old AfD in which you were the lone delete !vote was highly unlikely to work, so it would seem like a poorly chosen application of WP:IAR. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding your RfA comments, you certainly had the right to ask questions and comment on the topics you did. However, I found it inappropriate to select examples in which you were personally involved. You could have raised the same issues using unrelated examples. I also question your judgment a bit in expecting a meaningful answer from such direct and pointed questions. If a candidate is willing to apply policies equally to admins and non-admins alike, do you really expect them to flat out say they would have issued a block for a single harsh comment while in the RfA fishbowl? And if so, the next question would be "how long of a block?", followed by a fracas over that being too short or too long. There are better ways to ferret out a candidate's likely behavior that don't turn RfA into a policy battleground. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• At Ron Ritzman's RfA, I used unrelated examples, but Ron understandably pointed out that he would be uncomfortable with commenting on the comments of users currently in the discussion. That's why I changed my question for the next RfA. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lastly, Heymid was trying to help you here in good faith despite the rehashing of your history. It's fine to say you don't need or appreciate the help, but there's no need for the you're worse than I am game. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not saying that Heymid is "worse than I am"! I made that comment out of concern so that he would recognise what was going on with himself. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• After looking at Heymid's talk page, do you honestly think that a warning from you will suddenly change his behavior? I will accept it on good faith if you say yes, however, sending him an email would still have been a better way to express your concerns than interjecting it in the middle of your own troubles. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My comments were not intended as a warning to Heymid. I was just afraid that he may expend too much time on my profile, and lose sight of the conditions he promised in his unblock request. I just wanted to ensure that he would not need to suffer another block, as being blocked is bloody depressing. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You make a good point given Heymid's specific issue regarding talk pages. I was concerned because it was combined in the same comment with "Don't lecture me!" and it seemed that perhaps you two were trying to annihilate each other. :) —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That said (and UncleDouggie's points are all good) I think it would be a good idea if everyone except for Protector of Wiki and U:ncleDouggie (and Sonia, if she's about) left this conversation alone. I'm not convinced it's helpful, everyone pitching in. TFOWR 08:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• [2]You're making it seem as if UncleDouggie and I are a couple in desperate need of private time to mend our relationship! I'm an honest individual, so I am not worried about anyone else joining in this discussion, save for Either way, who has been told repeatedly and has repeatedly ignored my requests to bugger off. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Agreed, and I would appreciate that. (Although TFOWR and the involved admins are of course most welcome.)
• Protector, you're doing yourself no favours by making a pointed statement that you are only acquiescing to the superficial details that led to your block because you see no other way of contributing. The more important thing is that you understand that- and admit- that you were not an innocent victim, and rectify what you can on your own initiative. As X! says, the problem is your deliberate choice to proceed in doing things that are not favoured, and more your unwillingness to concede your point at any stage (for now you are appealing for an unblock with a promise to tone down your behaviour, but no acknowledgement that the root motivation for the behaviour was what was unacceptable). Since you have proven capable of generating content without drama (and that's what we're about after all), I find it a pity that the rest of your interactions should be so tendentious. The original emails you sent to Clementina and I were on the right track. I think that your honesty, when directed to the right things, would be a benefit to the project. But it's your prerogative to prove me right. I certainly hope you can do so. sonia♫ 08:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean that I must brownnose the "admins" (there, are you happy?) before I may be unblocked? That sounds absolutely unscrupulous! Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy that you're referring to administrators as admins, and I'll go out on a limb here to say that sonia is as well. Now can we drop the "(there, are you happy?)" phrases? Sorry for the interruption, I'll leave the rest of this thread to sonia. —UncleDouggie (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you find it necessary to come after me no matter what I say?? Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Come after you? I answered your question! Why do you insist on continuing to ask it now that it has been answered? I find this annoying and pointless. I'm forced to agree with Sonia that you are using "admin" as if a gun is being pointed to your head. Why do you find it so difficult to use the correct term? I suggest you read the AN/I discussion again. Malleus Fatuorum has no problem using "admin" all by itself. He just focuses on those that are abusing their position, and you need to learn to do the same or you will not last anywhere near as long. Using "mod" is equivalent to giving admins permission to coerce you because you are saying that's their proper role. Using "admin" makes it clear that you expect them to abide by the policies and guidelines related to adminship. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, you answered my question, but I make the switch from "mod" to "admin" (there, are you happy?), and you still come after me with complaints! As I said before, I switched for the sake of editing again. I do not consider it to be the more accurate term. Please don't use Malleus as an example to entice me into using plain old "admin" (there, are you happy?). However, you make a good point about giving "admins" (there, are you happy?) the permission to be a mod. Anyroad, I'm no longer using mod so that won't be a problem. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean that you're part of the problem too. You haven't had a smooth editing experience partly because of a lot of questionable handling by a lot of different parties, but to a certain extent they were within their means so long as you displayed an intent to disrupt, or something that could be construed as such. Stating that you have been mistreated is fine. Pointing out the differences between policy and practice is great- we need more people who are willing to do that. But what isn't so great is playing the "lone ranger" by that I mean "I'll do things my way, never mind the townsfolk don't like it- it ain't in the rulebook so it don't count." in a community when there are appropriate channels for a dissident to be heard and get changes in place without being adamantly uncooperative (or cooperating like you're being held at gunpoint...) And that, not caps or "mod-speak" specifically, are why you are now blocked. No need to brownnose, but people will be more receptive if you are working toward the same goal we are- building an encyclopedia. For the way you are going I get the impression that your focus is more to avenge yourself. sonia♫ 09:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My being a "lone ranger" is testimony to my honesty. I form my own opinions and ways and do not feed off others. Nonconformity is clearly needed in this world.
  You state that my "focus is more to avenge [myself]". How?? I'm not pursuing past vendettas (if you ever believed I had some). My conversing with you without raising our past issues attests to that. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you misunderstand what wikipedia's user-rights are. There is no rank system. Wikipedia has user flags. Flags give trusted users abilities to perform certain actions, such as deleting a page. There is not a class system of IP addresses --> Users --> Auto-confirmed Users --> Administrator --> Bureaucrat. A Bureaucrat is not more important than a good standing IP address. The Bureaucrat's comments will have more weight because they have more experience, but the other comments are not ignored. Administrators are not moderators, they don't get to block anyone they choose. The user has to be disobeying the guidelines. Administrators are not in charge, they don't order non-administrators around. There are actually about two dozen user flags. Some of these are part of the Administrator or Bureaucrat groups.

1. Rollback - Allows the flagged user to revert a page in under 1 second. Primarily used to fight vandalism.
2. Reviewer - Allows the flagged user to make edits to a page with Pending Changes protection and review pending edits by non-reviewers.
3. Autopatrolled - Marks articles the trusted user creates as patrolled
4. Account Creator - Allows the flagged user to create accounts for IP addresses. Users with the flag also have the ability to create and edit Article editnotices.

Here is a complete list of flags. I hope it helps you understand. Best, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User access levels

Special:ListGroupRights is an automatically generated list of granted user group rights. The below table is manually updated, and also includes global groups with local access. Permission   Allows user(s) to… All users[a] Registered accounts[b] Autoconfirmed and Confirmed Bots Administrators Bureaucrats other groups[c] abusefilter-hidden-log View hidden abuse log entries OS abusefilter-hide-log Hide entries in the abuse log abusefilter-log View the abuse log Y abusefilter-log-detail View detailed abuse log entries Y Y Y GR abusefilter-log-private View edit filters marked as private Y abusefilter-modify Modify abuse filters EFM abusefilter-modify-restricted Modify edit filters with restricted actions Y abusefilter-privatedetails View private data (IP addresses) in the abuse log CU abusefilter-privatedetails-log View the AbuseFilter private details access log abusefilter-revert Revert all changes by a given abuse filter Y abusefilter-view View non-private abuse filters Y abusefilter-view-private View edit filters marked as private CU, EFH, EFM, OS apihighlimits Request API queries in batches of 5,000, rather than 500 Y Y Researchers applychangetags Apply tags along with one's changes Y autoconfirmed Not be affected by IP-based rate limits Y Y Y PCR, GR, IE autopatrol Automatically mark all edits made by the user as patrolled Y AP, GR autoreview Automatically mark all revisions made by the user as "accepted" Y Y Y PCR bigdelete Delete pages with over 5,000 revisions Stewards block Block an IP address, user account, or range of IP addresses, from editing Y blockemail Block a user from sending email Y bot Edit without their edits showing up in recent changes Y browsearchive Search deleted pages Y CU, OS, Researchers centralauth-merge Merge their account Y changetags Add and remove arbitrary tags on individual revisions and log entries Y Y EFM checkuser View all IP addresses used by a user account or show all edits from a given IP address CU, Ombuds checkuser-log View the checkuser log collectionsaveasuserpage Save books as user subpage Y Y createaccount Create a new user account for themselves or another user Y Y createpage Create a new page Y createpagemainns Create a new mainspace page (users without this right are redirected to the Article Creation Workflow landing page) Y createtalk Create a new talk page Y Y delete Delete a page with ≤ 5,000 revisions Y deletechangetags Delete tags from the database Y deletedhistory View the history of a deleted page or a user's deleted contributions, provided it is not CSS or JS Y CU, OS, Researchers delete-redirect Delete single revision redirects during page moves PMR deletedtext View the text of deleted revisions, provided the page is not CSS or JS Y CU, Ombuds, OS, Researchers deletelogentry Access the RevisionDelete tool and change the public visibility of log entries Y OS deleterevision Access the RevisionDelete tool and change the public visibility of edit revisions Y Permission   Allows user(s) to… All users[a] Registered accounts[b] Autoconfirmed and Confirmed Bots Administrators Bureaucrats other groups[c] edit Edit any page which is not protected Y Y IE editcontentmodel Edit the content model of a page Y TE, IE editinterface Edit the MediaWiki namespace to affect the interface Y IA, IE editmyoptions Edit your own preferences Y editmyprivateinfo Edit your own private data (e.g. email address, real name) Y editmyusercss Edit your own user .css files Y editmyuserjs Edit your own user .js files Y editmyuserjson Edit your own user .json files Y editmywatchlist Edit your own watchlist Y editprotected Edit fully-protected pages Y IE editsemiprotected Edit semi-protected pages Y Y Y PCR, GR, IE editsitecss Edit sitewide .css files IA, IE editsitejs Edit sitewide .js files editsitejson Edit sitewide .json files Y editusercss Edit other users' .css files IA, IE edituserjs Edit other users' .js files edituserjson Edit other users' .json files Y IA extendedconfirmed Edit 30/500 protected pages Y Y XC, IE globalblock-whitelist Disable global blocks locally Y hideuser Block a username, hiding it from the public OS import Import pages from other wikis Y IMP, TWI importupload Import pages from a locally stored XML file IMP ipblock-exempt Be unaffected by blocks applied to the user's IP address or a range (CIDR) containing it Y Y IPBE managechangetags Create and (de)activate tags Y EFM markbotedits Mark rollback as bot edits, to keep them out of recent changes Y GR[d] massmessage Send a message to multiple users at once Y MMS mergehistory Merge the history of pages Y minoredit Make an edit marked as 'minor' Y move Change the title of a page by moving it Y Y PMR, GR move-categorypages Change the title of a category by moving it Y Y PMR movefile Change the title of a file by moving it Y FMV move-rootuserpages Move root user pages Y Y move-subpages Move pages with their subpages Y Y PMR movestable Move pages under pending changes Y Y GR mwoauthmanagemygrants Manage OAuth grants Y nominornewtalk Minor edits by this user to user talk pages do not trigger the "you have new messages" banner Y noratelimit Not be affected by rate limits Y Y Y ACCP, EVC, GR[d], Stewards Permission   Allows user(s) to… All users[a] Registered accounts[b] Autoconfirmed and Confirmed Bots Administrators Bureaucrats other groups[c] nuke Mass delete pages Y oathauth-enable Enable two-factor authentication Y Y CU, EFM, Founder, IMP, IA, OS, TE, TWI override-antispoof Allows the creation of accounts with mixed-script, confusing and similar usernames Y Y ACCP pagetriage-copyvio Tag pages in the Special:NewPagesFeed as likely copyright violations, through the pagetriage-tagcopyvio API Copyright violation bots patrol State that they have checked a page that appeared in Special:Newpages Y New page reviewers protect Change protection levels, edit and move protected pages, and edit cascade-protected pages Y IE purge Purge a page by adding &action=purge to the URL Y read Read pages Y Y renameuser Change the name of an existing account Global renamers, Stewards reupload Overwrite an existing unprotected file Y Y reupload-own Overwrite existing files uploaded by oneself Y reupload-shared Override files on the shared media repository locally Y review Mark revisions as being "accepted" Y PCR rollback Use a special link to more easily revert a bad edit Y RBK, GR[d] sendemail E-mail a user (using Special:EmailUser/username) who have associated an email address with themselves Y skipcaptcha Perform CAPTCHA-triggering actions without having to go through the CAPTCHA Y Y Y GR spamblacklistlog View the spam blacklist log Y EFH stablesettings Configure how the latest accepted revision is selected and displayed Y suppressionlog View private logs OS suppressredirect Not create a redirect from the old name when moving a page Y Y Y GR[d], PMR, IE suppressrevision Access the RevisionDelete tool and change the public and administrator visibility of edit revisions and logs OS tboverride Override the title blacklist Y Y TE, PMR, IE tboverride-account Override the username blacklist ACCP templateeditor Edit pages under template protection Y TE, IE titleblacklistlog View title blacklist log (note: the log is empty, as it has not been enabled) Y torunblocked Bypass automatic blocks of Tor exit nodes IPBE transcode-reset Reset failed or transcoded videos so they are inserted into the job queue again Y Y transcode-status View information about the current transcode activity Y undelete Undelete a previously deleted page or specific revisions from it, view deleted revisions Y unwatchedpages View a list of pages which are not on anyone's watchlist Y upload Upload a media file Y Y urlshortener-create-url Create short URLs Y Y userrights Edit all user rights Stewards viewmyprivateinfo View your own private data (e.g. email address, real name) Y viewmywatchlist View your own watchlist Y viewsuppressed View revisions hidden from any user OS vipsscaler-test Use the VIPS scaling test interface Y writeapi Use of the write API Y Y Y Permission   Allows user(s) to… All users[a] Registered accounts[b] Autoconfirmed and Confirmed Bots Administrators Bureaucrats other groups[c] ^ a b c d Includes IP users. Any permission granted to all users will be inherited by the other user groups. ^ a b c d Any permission granted to registered accounts will be inherited by the other (registered) user groups. ^ a b c d Any user listed in this column has the relevant permission. Italics indicate a global permission. ^ a b c d Per Wikipedia:Global rights policy, Global rollbackers are only allowed to use this right in the context of counter-vandalism efforts

Actually, there are some guidelines that make a class distinction. These are community decisions that are not enforced by the software, which is where Protector of Wiki got into trouble. Protector of Wiki has shown an understanding of our user flags in several cases already. —UncleDouggie (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alpha Quadrant, but I'm perfectly comfortable with my command of user rights. Administrators are not in charge, they don't order non-administrators around. In a way, they are in charge, because they may exercise the use of threats to coerce a non-"admin" (there, are you happy?) into doing whatever it is they want. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators can not threaten users who have done nothing wrong with blocks. That results in a arbitration committee hearing and, if the administrator is found abusing tools results in desysoping. Meaning the tools are removed. Userrights is not a rank. I was looking at the Requests for Permission and you requested rollback because you "wanted half-mod status". This concerns me that you don't fully understand userrights. Rollback is not a rank either, it is a tool. I hope this helps you. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Quadrant: The situation isn't quite as clear-cut as your face-palm would indicate, although I'm not saying that what Protector of Wiki has done is correct. All admins have the reviewer user-right. I don't have a problem if Protector of Wiki wants to say that a reviewer has 1/10^th of the user-rights of an admin. I don't see the point in it, but it's not worth a battle. Where I do have a problem is Protector of Wiki requesting reviewer rights so he can be more like an admin, implying perhaps that if he collects enough bits he could qualify as an admin in the Wikipedia:NACD guideline or make a future RfA a done deal. Perhaps such guidelines shouldn't make any distinction between admins and non-admins, expect for tasks that can technically only be performed by an admin like a close to delete. This would help eliminate the perception among some that admins are in a different class. I'm fine if Protector of Wiki requests reviewer rights because he has a need and desire to perform reviewing actions. However, that isn't how his request was stated. If he were to be unblocked, I would of course recommend that he hold off for awhile before requesting reviewer rights again to build up some trust. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protector of Wiki: We might as well break open the "admins coercing non-admins" egg because you won't get unblocked or stay unblocked for long until we deal with it. I presume you agree that it is the job of an admin to warn users that they may be blocked if they continue outrageous conduct, like truly personal attacks. I know that non-admins frequently provide such warnings as well, but let's not get caught up in that because it is the admins who are charged with actually performing the blocks in such cases. You have experienced three types of problems in this regard during your time here:

1. The definition of a personal attack. You have stated that you consider "You can't tell your head from your arse. Or maybe you need to pull your head out of your arse." to be merely an idiom and not a personal attack. I suggested you take the matter to Wikiquette, but you turned me down. You can't do that now because you are blocked, but if you would like to open a section on this page for the matter I will post the link to Wikiquette. We need to resolve this somehow. I would prefer to remain neutral so I can offer you constructive advice. It might help if you would give an example of what you consider to be a personal attack. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   My opinion of Wikiquette is similar to that of Malleus Fatuorum's. Wikiquette is a playground to which editors go to cry about nonexistent incivility. Frankly, I fail to see the purpose of that sham.
   An example of something I consider to be a personal attack: "Your POV-pushing at paedophilia makes you come off as a complete paedophile. You disgust me." Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I accept your position on Wikiquette. Your style is very similar to that of Malleus Fatuorum. While this means you should expect some bumps in the road, hopefully your content contributions will also speak for themselves. He has managed to never get an indefinite block, but he did have the advantage of starting in the days of yore. I think you might appreciate this AN/I dustup, as I'm sure you will have similar encounters. Notice how he comes out of it unscathed while never compromising his principles. He even had several admins on his side against the same admin you used in your first example at RfA. And despite being completely ticked off at the end, he stays within the policies and doesn't give anyone an excuse to block him, while at the same time documenting his position to use in any future defense of the incident. Can you relate to his situation (ignoring being blocked at the moment)? If so, will you be able to come out of something like this unblocked as well, assuming that you had adhered to policy prior to the AN/I report? —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you for not trying to force me to believe otherwise about Wikiquette. I can definitely relate to Malleus. His comments are always misrepresented as incivility and personal attacks.
   will you be able to come out of something like this unblocked as well? I'm not quite sure because if the abusive "admins" (there, are you happy?) have many others siding with them, then an unblock is unlikely. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Please stop worrying about the worst case scenario of a group of admins descending on you and all the good ones being on vacation for a month. I'm asking if you can keep your composure as well as Malleus did in this example, confident in the knowledge that any bad decision could be turned over tomorrow? —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, I can keep my composure. It's just that everywhere I go, "admins" (there, are you happy?) seem follow me. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. You have been treated poorly by some editors who happen to be admins. I state it this way because the matters involved content disputes as opposed to issues raised to AN/I. For example, the comment by an admin immediately before your arse comment: "If you're that confused, you should sober up before engaging in discussion of the matter." For the record, please state if you consider this to be a personal attack and why or why not. As I have said before, I believe that you were clearly in the right regarding the underlying content issue in this example. I don't recall a block threat issued by this admin, please correct me if I missed it or if there was any other case of him threatening you with admin tools. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I do not consider Michael Hardy's comment about sobering up to be a personal attack. If I did indeed indulge in alcoholic pleasures resulting in inebriation, Michael Hardy would be right on, and I would commend him if that were the case. However, I did not drink (though I wanted to), so I interpreted his comment in a different manner. I considered "sober up" to mean that I should "get real" or "get rational", both of which I do not consider to be personal attacks.
   Michael Hardy never threatened me with a block; I didn't even know he was an "admin" (there, are you happy?). Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Did you whip up some javascript to automatically substitute mod with "admin" (there, are you happy?)? I agree with your interpretation of the incident with Michael Hardy. Can you see why things like this don't agree with your seeming world-view that all admins coerce non-admins? Are you willing to back-off of your hard over position and stay there even if some admin does try to coerce you one day? —UncleDouggie (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   No, I did not use javascript, though would you be so kind to write some for me? It's bloody hard to remember to use "admin" (there, are you happy?) in place of mod. As I told Heymid in an email, Imagine you were forced to use the gibberish term "babushka" in place of "mum". That would be fucking hard, and you'd keep forgetting. Please remember that going forward."
   I didn't say all "admins" (there, are you happy?) abuse their tools. Some actually have integrity and honesty. If an "admin" (there, are you happy?) tries to coerce me, I won't budge. Abuse must not be rewarded. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   

   How is calling an admin an admin rewarding abuse? You wouldn't use such incorrect terminology in an article. Why do it on the project pages? Can't you see that doing it on the project pages is upsetting to the many good admins? Furthermore, it makes everyone question your judgment in editing articles. Might you go off and refer to Abraham Lincoln as a purple monkey just because you feel like it? The example set by Malleus Fatuorum is clear – don't give anyone a reason to take action against you while at the same time expressing yourself clearly and accurately. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Perhaps I stated my point rather ambiguously. I'm saying that budging is rewarding the abuse.
   I say "mod" instead of "admin" (there, are you happy?) because I feel that "mod" is more accurate. I'm not arbitrarily choosing terms like you imply. Anyhow, I don't know why we're still discussing this. I've already switched to "admin" (there, are you happy?)! Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   You told me above that you would use "admin" and "non-admin". Now you're playing games. I will not recommend you be unblocked if you're going to continue this, especially considering the massive confusion you will cause to new users. Do you think that Malleus Fatuorum would support your stance on this? —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I do use "admin" and non-"admin". I'm not playing any games. I would never argue with newbies about using "mods" or "admins"; I seek to always help them acclimate to this environment.
   Can I be unblocked now? Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   You know what I mean and not answering my question fully is just delaying things.

   I apologise, UncleDouggie, if you are getting irked. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   1. Are you going to continue using "admin" (there, are you happy?), or anything other than just admin?

      Look, I switch from "mod" to "admin", now you're asking me to switch from "admin" (there, are you happy?) to "admin"? You're one of my mentors (don't know where Sonia went), so I wanted to discuss fully the matter before finalising anything. I will use "admin". Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   2. Are you going to continue using "non-admin" (there, are you happy?), or anything other than just non-admin?

      See above. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   3. Exactly what you would say to a new user who asks you what an admin is?

      I would say, "An 'admin' is a user who has been granted privileges that assist in maintaining the wiki, including blocking, protecting pages, deleting pages, and granting user rights. You may see more at WP:ADMIN." Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. The lengthy tale of your interactions with Either way (talk · contribs). I have no desire to rehash it all. It would better if you just go your separate ways. Since you have plenty of other admins taking notice of you, I would ask any admin who unblocks you to request that Either way just steer clear. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I have no desire to rehash the interactions either, as their unpleasantness oftentimes comes back to haunt me. I would also advise Either way that it would be a good idea to feck off. Hope he gets the message. Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to return to editing!! Why do we have to go through all these formalities? I've promised to use "admin" (there, are you happy?) instead of mod and lowercase edit summaries instead of edit summaries in caps. I've imparted practically all my thoughts about Wikipedia and editing here. At the end of the day, editing Wikipedia, doing content work, helping with GA reviews, and discussing at AfD is a pleasurable (for the most part) experience. Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you need to file another unblock request. Although enough administrators are watching this page already that I think that would be but a formality should one of them be convinced they should unblock you. sonia♫ 10:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protector of Wiki, we're making progress here by virtue of the fact that we haven't heard from any admins in awhile and you still have talk page rights. I suggest that you focus on wrapping up the open issues with Sonia and myself for now. TFOWR endorsed this approach, albeit in a somewhat awkward manner. I can't say for sure what comes next, but it could only help your case if Sonia and I both feel that you're ready. —UncleDouggie (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll file another unblock request when all is said and done. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protector of Wiki, I have been referring to you for a long time now as "he" without having been corrected. I can't recall where I picked up the clue that you are male. However, I have noticed several other editors still using gender neutral pronouns, which makes me question if perhaps I got it wrong. Please clarify your preferred form of address be it male, female, or non-specific. Thanks. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to keep my gender unspecified. I fear revealing my gender will subject me to further abuse. Whichever pronoun you choose to use, I do not mind. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll go neutral so I don't mislead others, formal English be damned for not being forward thinking enough to accommodate the Internet. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we speed this up? I've been blocked for almost two weeks now!! I really want to get back to editing! Protector of Wiki (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again PoW. Just a friendly advice: If you want to be unblocked, you need to show us that you really understand why you are currently blocked and that you will not continue to use Wikipedia as a battleground. As I've said to you earlier, claiming to stop calling admins "mods", users "commoners", and stop using ALL CAPS is not nearly enough for convincing anyone to unblock you. Your disruption has been across this whole Wikipedia. It's not just one single instance – there have been many issues, and you need to adress them all, before being unblocked. Also, showing how you are going to adress all issues is also a good idea in getting more hope that you can be unblocked, then you can make another unblock request. A mentorship is not nearly enough; you also need to listen to others' advices. If you don't understand why you are blocked, consider going with WP:OFFER, which means you have to be away from this Wikipedia for at least 6 months (half a year). Also, contributing at a sister project (such as Wikinews and Wiktionary) to show that you actually understand, is also a good idea. Best regards, HeyMid (contributions) 09:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heymid, there's no need to repeat yourself here; Protector of Wiki is no dummy. The unblock decline reason provided by X! was very clear: "...[you] used Wikipedia as a battleground. It seems that you have not yet realized this..." It's not our role to add more conditions. I have been going through some of the various issues with Protector of Wiki to get to such a point of understanding and more importantly to avoid a quick re-block. I don't see that WP:OFFER would be helpful here, even if were more than an essay. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:OFFER is an essay which many users believe in. HeyMid (contributions) 10:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heymid, kindly stay away from this. I believe you have made your point multiple times, on-wiki and off. sonia♫ 10:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heymid, I would really appreciate it if you backed off. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this could be wrapped up. The reasons Protector of Wiki was blocked was because:

1. You were Wikipedia:Forum shopping on multiple public areas including two RFAs

   Forum shopping does not apply even remotely to my comments at RfA. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. You were using ALL CAPS and refused to stop when asked

   I have already established that nonconformity is sanctioned. It's ridiculous that people find it necessary to force editing styles on others. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. You were reopening closed AFDs instead of starting a new one
4. You were calling administrators "mods" and users "commoners".

   That's not disruptive at all. You need to get with the programme. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. You believe administrators are unjust and use their tools to control non-admins. Administrators really don't have much additional power. They really only have four extra admin only buttons. Those being blocking/unblocking, page protecting/unprotecting, deleting/undeleting, and userrights management. The rest of the tools can be granted to non-admins. UncleDouggie is correct, administrators have 10 tools. 6 of which can be granted to non-admins.

   I got blocked for saying "administrators are unjust and use their tools to control non-admins"?? Bullocks! The rights granted to an "admin" (there, are you happy?) can destroy the entire wiki. They may block users, protect pages, delete pages, and revoke user rights — all of these actions serve to control. The tools granted to a non-"admin" (there, are you happy?) are incomparable at best. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree to listen to others advice and not repeat the above mistakes I support you unblock. I see no reason why you should need to wait six months. Overall you were a good contributer. Best, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your support, Alpha Quadrant. Hope to see you throughout the wiki in the future. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that no individual reason above caused the block. All of the actions together caused the block. Intentionally using incorrect style and terms made it look like you were using Wikipedia as a battleground. I know you have had arguments with several administrators, but not all of them are bad. The administrator who blocked you wasn't doing it to control you, but to stop you from causing disruption, i.e. using all caps. Administrators are held accountable when they make mistakes. Usually other admins talk to them, if they don't listen it is often taken to the arbitration committee. Best, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 16:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is a daunting place, as I saw in the example UncleDouggie pointed out below. I still stand by my comments about how it was not PeterSymonds' place to block me, regardless of my behaviour. He was clearly involved with me before, and we had no positive interactions. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how far you've come by working on what you want to put into your second unblock request. For reference, the first decline reason was:

You were blocked because not because you used all caps and mod-speak, but because you refused to listen to the community and instead used Wikipedia as a battleground. It seems that you have not yet realized this, and thus, unblocking you would not be a good idea at this point in time.

—UncleDouggie (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your guidance.

• I've switched from "mod" to "admin" and from "commoner" to "non-admin".
• I've qualified my stance about the battleground matter.
• I've pledged to abide by policies, whether or not I agree with them.

So much discussion has occurred that I don't remember over what obstacles I've stepped! Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm most interested in exactly what you want say about the battleground issue in your unblock request. Reviewing admins will certainly look at this whole page, but it's best to be very clear in the request itself due to of the evolution of your raw comments. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the battleground issue, I will hold myself to the standard of Malleus Fatuorum, maintaining my composure when discussion gets heated. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for many editors, that's not a good standard to hold to. (X! · talk)  · @144  ·  02:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Why not? Protector of Wiki (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because Malleus gets blocked occasionally for doing just that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I see that six of eight blocks were overturned. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Because your reluctance to simply state that you understand your battleground mentality is quite off-putting. Only saying you would hold yourself to the standard of another editor (who has been blocked for the same issues) isn't helpful. Begrudgingly changing "mod" with "admin (there are you happy?)" multiple times doesn't make other editors think you're taking this seriously. Watching this talk page get more and more bloated with discussion as you dance around the rather serious issue that led to your indef block doesn't exactly dull the suspicion that you're only here to disrupt things to make a point. I would advise you when you make your unblock request, to only address your own behavior in concrete terms. Dayewalker (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I have no intention to disrupt. I am working towards the end of being unblocked. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I echo Daye's point on "there, are you happy?". You shouldn't start continously writing it. I sincerely hope you change your ways and get unblocked. You have shown a knack for article improvement. Buggie111 (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As said below, I've stopped! Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protector of Wiki: Please consider striking your uses of (there are you happy?) on this page to make it clear to others that you won't be doing this anymore.

Buggie111: Feel free to move your comment above mine if this is where it should be. I suspect we had an edit conflict. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UncleDouggie, I've already stopped using (there, are you happy?). Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC) (This comment was originally regular-sized. UncleDouggie pointed out below that I should do something to make sure people know I've ceased my use of (there, are you happy?). Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It's not for me. If you strike it, you won't have to explain it to anyone else. Just a suggestion. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made my comment BIG so that everyone will see it. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't modify your comment that I've already responded to because it takes my comment out of context. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I've written a note at the end of my comment. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this. Focus on the general discussion rather than the specific incident that started the thread. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I elicited from that discussion was:

• Malleus called people out for misrepresentations, and no one denied them.
• Malleus maintained his composure and commented calmly, while "admins" like Beeblebrox write lengthy rants. Malleus came out of this discussion unscathed.
• He pointed out the inequality of "admins" and non-"admins", how "admins" are not subjected to the same rules as non-"admins".
• The discussion degenerated into shit-slinging and unproductivity.
• No RFC/U was ever initiated despite the several endorsements for one.
• Malleus values honesty and integrity like I. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  My comment was originally indented under your "I don't understand. Why not?" comment. My intent was to show you why, right or wrong, some editors disagree with the rudeness that Malleus Fatuorum sometimes exhibits. Be careful about drawing conclusions from his comments about admins; it's very easy to see what you want to see in these complex cases. He has a long running animosity with Beeblebrox, who more frequently escalates the disputes. There are plenty of admins who have chastised Beeblebrox in these various discussions and support Malleus. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So who was in the wrong in that incident? Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I just remembered that you did not emphasise the specific incident, just the general matter of Malleus' perceived rudeness. What's your point about people disagreeing over the rudeness? Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I wanted you to see the thought patterns that rudeness triggers in others and how rudeness can blind people to the substantive issues. I'm not saying that you should politely take anything and everything thrown in your face; just don't be surprised if your own rudeness becomes the primary focus of the discussion. I think it's easier to see this transpire in discussions in which you haven't had a personal involvement. A good strategy when you feel that you must write a rude comment is to write it, wait 5 minutes and then ask yourself if there is a way to tone it down without compromising your principles. If so, rewrite it and repeat. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the great advice! Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me your thoughts on this case, including the findings of fact. —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the six principles especially enlightening, and they will be a useful reference in the future. As for the Findings of fact, it is stated that ChildofMidnight has been sanctioned formally numerous times and that his belligerence has been a hindrance to collegial collaboration. I'm not sure what else you want me to see. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A most encouraging response. The one remaining item I wanted you to see in the findings of fact is how the 10 arbitrators interpreted the many diffs provided. You should expect that any similar comment you might make in the future will be interpreted the same way. I sincerely hope this will not be a problem. One of my goals is to minimize any chance of you being blocked again and understanding the pitfalls of others is a good preventative measure. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly empathise with ChildofMidnight. S/he's been here since late 2008, and I am overcome with sadness looking at the good work of people who have left Wikipedia, like H. Looking at ChildofMidnight's response, I feel as if s/he was very adamant about abiding by WP:CIVIL and content policies.
Thanks for your help, UncleDouggie! Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see now why there have been so many misunderstandings around the battleground issue. I don't believe that you are here to cause deliberate disruption, which is why you have been reluctant to admit to battleground behavior even if doing so would hasten getting unblocked. However, many of your actions can be seen by others as promoting a battle. Understanding how your actions have affected others, regardless of your intent, is the key to getting past this issue. It's not a matter of one side being right and the other wrong. In many cases, editors have told you to cease a behavior without adequately explaining why the behavior is a problem. They assume that because it's an obvious problem to them, it must be obvious to you as well, but this isn't always the case.

The best example I have is the all caps issue. Your original editing pattern had no caps in edit summaries. You gradually began capitalizing individual words for emphasis when you felt that people weren't understanding you properly or were behaving egregiously. You migrated to all caps for 100% of your edit summaries for reasons I don't know and are unimportant. Other editors, including myself, accused you of shouting, to which you replied that only emphasis was intended and not shouting. The dispute raged on with you not understanding why no one would accept that you didn't intend to shout. It was resolved only when I told you about the actual consensus guideline to not use caps for emphasis.

The important point for you here is to understand that editors have been sensitized to the many users who are truly here to disrupt and they may not accept your claims to the contrary. Take a look at the sad cases of sockpuppetry denials for examples. The important point for other editors is that Protector of Wiki can be very cooperative when something is explained calmly with references to policies and/or guidelines on how the behavior violates community consensus. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you said. As I said before, anything not in policy is invalid. If it's in policy, I will do my best to abide by it. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would focus only on the positive side of your statement to make sure that others don't get the idea that you intend to go looking for holes in policy with which to cause disruption. Stating that you will follow the policies and guidelines is all that's needed. Please draft a new unblock request for us to look at. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've switched from "mod" to "admin" and from "commoner" to "non-admin" after understanding that although "mod" and "commoner" are perfectly clear to me, they may confuse others, especially newbies.
• I will abide by policies, whether or not I agree with them. I understand that they represent community consensus and ought to be followed where possible, but it's not to say I won't exercise common sense.
• I will conduct myself in the discipline of Malleus Fatuorum, specifically not giving "anyone a reason to take action against [me] while at the same time expressing [myself] clearly and accurately".
• Whenever I have a doubt about any policy, I will seek clarification from a knowledgeable member of the community, perhaps my two mentors, UncleDouggie (talk · contribs) and Sonia (talk · contribs). I also find that these principles will be useful in determining if my actions are in line with the ultimate purpose of Wikipedia. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I would add an apology for the past battles that have ensued, regardless of who was right. Go ahead and try a real unbock request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UncleDouggie (talk • contribs) 07:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my unblock request below with an apology. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take this advice for what it's worth, but I really wouldn't invoke WP:IAR in an unblock request, especially since ignoring rules, policies, and advice from other editors was what led to your indef block in the first place. Dayewalker (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will change the link to WP:SENSE. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I came here while reviewing open unblock requests, only to discover a lengthy conversation about Malleus and myself. Without getting too far into the idea that unblock requests are about you and WP:NOTTHEM, it is common courtesy to inform users when they are being discussed. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The conversation wasn't about you; it had more to do with the reactions of others to incidents that you and Malleus were involved in. Your input would have derailed my mentoring efforts. Would you really like me to inform all 10 ArbCom members that we discussed their findings on a case? —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of not derailing your conversation any further I will hold my tongue regarding the relative merits of your mentoring technique. I only came here to review the unblock request, but thanks to my past history being dragged into something that has nothing to do with me I can't do that now. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Protector of Wiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

• I've switched from "mod" to "admin" and from "commoner" to "non-admin" after understanding that although "mod" and "commoner" are perfectly clear to me, they may confuse others, especially newbies. :*I will abide by policies, whether or not I agree with them. I understand that they represent community consensus and ought to be followed where possible, but it's not to say I won't exercise common sense. :*I will conduct myself in the discipline of Malleus Fatuorum, specifically not giving "anyone a reason to take action against [me while at the same time expressing [myself] clearly and accurately"]. :*Whenever I have a doubt about any policy, I will seek clarification from a knowledgeable member of the community, perhaps my two mentors, [[::User:UncleDouggie|UncleDouggie]] ([[::User talk:UncleDouggie|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/UncleDouggie|contribs]]) and [[::User:Sonia|Sonia]] ([[::User talk:Sonia|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Sonia|contribs]]). I also find that these principles will be useful in determining if my actions are in line with the ultimate purpose of Wikipedia. :Additionally, I apologise for the disputes that have raged on for long periods of time. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no consensus to unblock you per the WP:AN discussion here: [3]. Jayron32 04:58, 15 October 2010 (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.

Moved to

 – WP:AN#Protector of Wiki unblock request

• Support --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Buggie111 (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support —UncleDouggie (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What? Uh, we're voting on someone's talk page about whether they should be blocked? I don't recall ever seeing that before. Normally if there is going to be an open community discussion of a block or an unblock request it is done in an open community forum such as WP:AN. I suggest you guys either open such a conversation or allow the unblock to be reviewed in the normal fashion. Obviously I won't be the one doing the reviewing here as I have been somehow singled out as "Mr. Bad Example." Equally obviously I would feel compelled to oppose unblocking someone who adopted Malleus as their role model and me as the paragon of bad behavior. We only have room for one Malleus at a time, and the position has already been filled. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There were past battles with several editors that led to the block. It's appropriate for those editors to be able to express their satisfaction with the unblock request. This is not a vote or community discussion. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could've fooled me, it sure looks likes one. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly being treated as a "vote"; there haven't even been any rationales given. This should be discussed at WP:AN, as looking through the history makes it clear that the above users have been heavily involved with the user, so this venue is inappropriate for a discussion of whether or not the user should be unblocked. Discussions like this should be taken to WP:AN. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. Unblock discussions aren't votes. I appreciate the good faith discussion above, but an uninvolved admin will be by to make their own judgement as to whether or not PoW's unblock request will be approved. Dayewalker (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment wasn't meant to be a vote or discussion. It's been a very long road and I wanted to express my satisfaction with the request given some of my earlier negative comments that a reviewing admin will see. However, I realize it could devolve into an inappropriate discussion if others feel that the battles they were involved in might continue after an unblock, so I've stricken my comment. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off to WP:AN... HeyMid (contributions) 09:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...the above (and the AN discussion) is an example of what goes horribly wrong when someone unrelated to an issue tries to get involved. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UncleDouggie?! Sonia?! It's been a while since I last logged in! I was totally distressed and disturbed when I discovered that my unblock request had been declined!! :( I took leave till now. Recently, in January, Heymid, who I am sorry to see is inactive, emailed me with the exhortation that I not lose hope. :) I contemplated the prospect of returning and was overwhelmingly eager (!) to return and be a productive, collegial member of this intelligent community. So here I am! :) :) UncleDouggie or Sonia (or both), since you are my de facto mentors, please advise me as to what I should do now to get back to editing! :) Protector of Wiki (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I haven't seen this page on my watchlist in awhile. Have you been active on any other WMF projects? The best course of action would be to convince User:PeterSymonds to give you another chance. However, I must admit that I'm hesitant because your leash would likely be so short that you could easily fall back into another block. You would need to have a detailed plan to edit in some new non-controversial area for a couple of months to rebuild good faith. I suggest proposing to join a project and help work off it's backlog. WP:GEO is just one of many examples of something that could work and would be a real benefit. Only propose this if you can really commit to not editing anything else for a good period of time. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with UncleDougie, you should talk to PeterSymonds. If he unblocks you, then you should do non-controversial maintenance tasks, or WP:Articles for Creation for two months or so. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming here to guide me!!! :) Shortly after being blocked, I started working on WikiSource, but that was too boring/monotonous! (no offence intended!).
I'm not sure I could convince any Simple English "admin" to unblock me — it's troubling that they are the unpleasant ones who hunted me down cross-wiki. :( There's no one else in my block log, save for Phantomsteve, who kindly returned to me profile access. I can definitely find a WikiProject of interest. Could I join a content project? I want to collaborate with Sonia and Clementina! :) :) :) And yes, I can live without the other stuff with which I've been involved in the past. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The advice I gave you in my last reply (the Oct 16, 2010 email) still stands. If you can't find it, in summary: Email the unblock mailing list, with a very clear idea what went wrong and a specific plan to rectify it. The block comment of your most recent block here says that you "will need to contact the unblock mailing list (*not* ask other editors!)"; this goes for simplewiki as well. Emailing individual editors who you feel will be most favourable (and who incidentally have no ability to unblock) is not the way to go about this. (Might I add that Clem and I aren't likely to take kindly to being called "unpleasant ones who hunted [you] down". The onus is on you to state your case rationally and objectively, and emotional rhetoric like that isn't going to help any.) sonia♫ 00:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I highly doubt that Protector of Wiki was referring to you or Clem. Nevertheless, this is a perfect example of how emotional rhetoric lands Protector of Wiki in hot water repeatedly. The statement also puts the chances of an unblock by PeterSymonds firmly in WP:SNOW territory. I don't see a block comment about requiring the use of the unblock mailing list over an unblock request on this page. I believe that only applied so long as Protector of Wiki was blocked from editing this page. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're misrepresenting Phantomsteve's comment in the block log! He meant that should profile access be revoked again, then I'll have to contact the mailing list for unblock requests instead of asking others to restore profile access.
As for Simple, I've emailed people who are most likely to respond because I remember, quite vividly, that I emailed the Simple mailing list and was ignored! No one responded to me!
The onus is on you to state your case rationally and objectively, and emotional rhetoric like that isn't going to help any. As much as I trust in the guidance and care God has given me thus far, there's no way in His world that anyone, when subjugated with a questionable block, can state his case objectively! As for the "rational" part, how am I being irrational? I'm merely articulating my genuine feelings! Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I'm overjoyed that you are willing to help me. My umbrage above overshadowed the fact that you are taking the time to reach out in assistance. I forgot to be thankful for what I have, for you always have very meaningful, useful proverbs to offer, but this time must be an exception. At any rate, thank you!!! You are very valued!! :) :) Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote my reply above before yours was posted. There was no need to jump on Sonia over the unblock mailing list issue; you could have just calmly explained the situation as I did. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edit conflicted with you because I was about to post the above thanking Sonia for her kindness. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I just got carried away in frustration! Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this before. If you write something that has bold, shouting, exclamation points or any negative words about anyone (regardless of what they may have done to you), set it aside in another window for 5 minutes and review it when calmer before posting. Is it really so impossible for you to compose the following? "I don't see a block comment about requiring the use of the unblock mailing list over an unblock request on this page. I believe that only applied so long as I was blocked from editing this page." —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for forgetting what you told me months ago! I will strive to apply this method the next time I get frustrated! Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also haven't apologized to Sonia and Clem for inferring that they are unpleasant and hunted you down. No matter your intent, Sonia explicitly said this is how she interpreted your comment. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose an apology is warranted, for I did not intend to hurt their feelings nor did I mean that they were unpleasant. I meant some other blokes who were lurking around and probably still are. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia and Clementina, I deeply and sincerely apologise for implying unpleasantness on your part and for implying that you hunted me down. You both have not done that — I recall only pleasant interactions with you, despite the onset of frustration at times. I really want to get unblocked and start writing content. Would you be willing to collaborate with me on a GA when I get unblocked? I think that by focusing on content, I'll be more disposed to avoiding contentious areas of the wiki since I'll be absorbed in writing. Sound like a plan? Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UncleDouggie, I see that you as well have a desire to write content. Can I collaborate with you on one of those or another topic? Protector of Wiki (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now isn't a good time for that, either on or off wiki. I seem to have somehow taken on a massive rewrite of Twinkle before the developers kneecap it again. I think your only chance right now is with a project that you enjoy and that doesn't offer much opportunity for conflict. By the way, sorry for using your account in my Twinkle testing. I needed a real user other than myself and I happened to have your talk page open at the time. Everything went to test pages that have since been wiped. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's brilliant!! Having read some of the threads on the Twinkle debacle, I feel as if you've expended a colossal amount of time and labor on the rewrite, even staying up late into the night by virtue of your dedication to Wikipedia?! That takes a big man!
I think your only chance right now is with a project that you enjoy and that doesn't offer much opportunity for conflict. I didn't quite understand this! Are you saying I should work on a sister project or did you mean a WikiProject?
sorry for using your account in my Twinkle testing I didn't even notice it, but I'm always willing to serve the wiki!! Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for misreading. Re UncleDouggie, my point about offense was hypothetical; I meant that he should refrain from such negative generalizations. Looks like I'm not doing very well at communication at all. PoW, the way I see it, two things can happen here:

1. You post another public unblock request.
2. You email the list and/or PeterSymonds directly.

The first is unlikely to result in anything less messy than it did last time, to be honest; it'd have to be taken to ANI again. The second may not be much better but will at least keep any possible drama out of community noticeboards (and thus make your return easier should you be unblocked). Emailing Peter directly, as you have noted, restricts the possible action taken to Peter alone; emailing the list will get it to a fairly large number of non-simplewiki admins, since that seems to be a problem for you. To the best of my knowledge there aren't any other options-- take your pick. UncleDouggie's advice is sound. (Be warned, however, that this is bordering on WP:SNOW territory.) sonia♫ 00:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will think about it! You haven't answered my question. Can we collaborate on a GA when I get unblocked? As I wrote above, it would serve as a good distraction from controversial areas of the wiki. Protector of Wiki (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided that I will go with number 2!! A question: if I email PeterSymonds (the prospect is daunting and he's really intimidating; he's also partial) and he declines my request, can I still email the mailing list?? Protector of Wiki (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, yes. sonia♫ 08:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have been meaning to expand the Battle of Remagen, if you are interested in that you can help me. The Article could potentially reach GA. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 00:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well...I don't like military topics because it depresses me to see humans taking the lives of one another for mundane reasons, contrary to God's sacred commandment "Thou shalt not kill"!! :( :( I couldn't find any sources for you, though I tried really hard! :( :(
But I do enjoy working at articles for creation, like you suggested above. I was looking at your updates and was really inspired by your capacity as an editor and publisher. I would also like to manage submissions and choose whether or not to publish them! Ones that are not newsworthy or palatable will not be published!! Protector of Wiki (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation is designed to help anonymous editors (IP's) to create articles. Before reviewing you might like to read the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Best, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia, so this is the real life stuff? I truly regret my outright insensitivity — lashing out at you during such a distressing time. I'm sorry. Really sorry. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Quadrant, I was looking at Category:Pending AfC submissions and saw that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ravikant is spam. Perhaps you could tag it? I'm getting a hang of this!! :) Protector of Wiki (talk) 07:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declined and tagged for deletion; it was also a copyright violation. Good spotting. sonia♫ 08:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! :) I will email PeterSymonds soon. Protector of Wiki (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Armbrust performed this action because using [[Category:Pending AfC submissions]] adds the page to the pending AfC submissions category. I have fixed it. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot that! Sorry, Armbrust!! :( :( Thanks, Alpha Quadrant!! :) :) Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was perusing the unpublished submissions at Articles for Creation and discovered that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Okan Ersan is a copyvio of http://www.okanersan.com/?page_id=7! Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for deletion. Thanks! —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, UncleDouggie!! :) :)
PeterSymonds hasn't responded to my unblock request. Is this his way of spiting me—by ignoring me?? But I suppose I must await his reply. What should I do in the interim? Protector of Wiki (talk) 09:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone inform PeterSymonds that I've sent him an unblock request? I fear that my email may have landed in the spam folder and get buried!! :( :( If he didn't get it, he can always just view my unblock request here! :) Protector of Wiki (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PeterSymonds is currently running for Stewardship. He is probably rather busy at the moment, but I will leave him a note on his talk. PeterSymonds is a good administrator, he would have replied if he had seen the email and had time to reply. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Quadrant, thank you so much for notifying PeterSymonds! :) Since my email did indeed land in the junk folder, I would have sat here forever in anticipation of his reply. Thanks to you, I forewent that potentially frustrating occurrence.
Can you please do me another favour by slapping a talkback message on PeterSymonds' profile? I don't want to sit here forever! ;) Protector of Wiki (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PeterSymonds:

As you probably already know, you blocked me with the rationale "Continues to use Wikipedia as a battleground despite many unheeded warnings. Failure to contribute constructively as a member of the community, which has become intolerant." On 23 February, I logged in again to seek the advice of my de facto mentors, Sonia and UncleDouggie. After chatting with them about the best way to go about getting unblocked, I've decided that I must venture to the root of this. Sonia said that I must "state [my] case rationally and objectively", so I will strive to maintain a dispassionate tone, though I am very much passionate about the subject of my unblock.

I've reread the discussions I had with UncleDouggie and Sonia inter alios in the past and have learned the following very meaningful, illuminating statements/principles:

1. "Silence shows the greatest strength of character in some circumstances" — Sonia. Even if I am provoked like I have been before (Michael Hardy, that misguided bloke), I will refrain from lashing back. Instead, I will calmly try to work it out with the provoking user.
2. "Because we are different people, different actions and judgement calls will be made in the process but all are well-intentioned." — Sonia. I will strive to assume good faith no matter what my prejudgements are.
3. "It's not undignified or weak to stay away from conflict, even if that means conceding at times." — Sonia.
4. "It's a universal Internet convention that all caps is shouting." — UncleDouggie. I think that everyone knows I've stopped using caps for emphasis and have adopted italics and bold, though I sometimes falter since it is a habit hard to break.
5. "I'm right with you on the misaplication of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. People need to get thicker skins." — Pedro
6. "Join a WikiProject! :) They're great places to find other editors interested in a topic, and to work together on something." — Sonia. I plan to join the Articles for Creation WikiProject as well as collaborate with Sonia on a GA.
7. "If you write something that has bold, shouting, exclamation points or any negative words about anyone (regardless of what they may have done to you), set it aside in another window for 5 minutes and review it when calmer before posting" — UncleDouggie. As I replied to UncleDouggie, "I will strive to apply this method the next time I get frustrated!"

These principles are not only for the purposes of this unblock request but also for a condensed list I can readily access for reference in the future.

Mainly, I plan to work at Articles for Creation, help at the help desk, and write content with Sonia or UncleDouggie (but he's busy rewriting Twinkle now). When I receive warnings from members of the community, I will reply, reevaluate my editing priorities, and heed the warning. I hope this addresses all of your concerns. Please email me if you have any queries.

Protector of Wiki (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have now found your e-mail somewhere in my junk folder (thanks Alpha Quadrant for alerting me). In this case, I'm simply not convinced, and at the risk of assuming bad faith, I don't think you're ready to return yet. Personally I don't see enough evidence that problems won't simply continue after an unblock occurs. I have been shown the e-mails sent to administrators on other wikis (mainly the Simple English Wikipedia) which don't fill me with any confidence. You don't seem to get why this all happened in the first place, which concerns me greatly. However, with that in mind, I won't have a lot to do with this unblock request, because I would not like my decision to be seen as a definitive stance. If others are happy, I will accept that. I, however, am not happy at the present time. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not okay to state an opinion without properly substantiating it with pertinent evidence. Since I took the time to write a comprehensive examination of my feelings, I firmly believe I deserve a full explanation. Your verdict tells me only that

1. you decline my unblock request.
2. you are not happy.
3. your opinion is not definitive.

Since I am not privy to the cause of your displeasure, I am in no position to respond thoughtfully. Vague, noncommittal, and circuitous, the verdict requires elucidation — please articulate your grievances and I will address them. I accentuate that my commentary on the pregnant quotations above testifies that I strive for and will continue hereafter striving for the cultivation of a pleasant environment both here on my profile and in other areas of collaboration, despite the difficulties posed by the fact that Wikipedians are of a motley nature. While your verdict may be immutable, I strongly urge you to reconsider. Protector of Wiki (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes. But since I don't wish to be involved, it is rather meaningless. I won't be unblocking you myself, but if the conclusion is to unblock, I won't get in the way.
2. Correct, at this time.
3. That's right, for reasons expressed in #1.

My grievances are simple: I still think you're treating this like a big game. One e-mail that was forwarded to me, to Clementina (I think), began: "May God bless you and invite you to ever-lasting life with Him in Heaven where you will thrive. He has endowed you with sense, reason, and complete intellect." This was seen at the time as mockery.) After your first unblock request was declined here, you moved to be unblocked at Simple, which was then declined. So now you've tried again here. Generally I like to assume good faith as much as possible, but I simply don't trust your desire to contribute is anything more than a big game to you. In the past, you've made users uncomfortable, and this is continuing in e-mail correspondence. That is a wider explanation of my position. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you choose to quote an email not even marginally germane to this unblock request (in addition to misrepresenting its recipient and potentially transgressing WP:EMAILABUSE, which states that one "should not post the e-mail itself on the wiki without permission", though I am unperturbed because I do not fear transparency) shows that you are groping for reasons to justify your verdict, which is entirely feeble at best. The email in question was delivered on February 13 to Belle, Clementina's sister, requesting that she ask a Simple "admin" to restore profile access so I may negotiate my unblock terms. The line you quoted was pulled from the exposition, where I intended to start the letter on a positive note. It is human nature to be very sentimental in reestablishing connection with a close friend from whom one has been distant. This is not a game nor am I intentionally making anyone feel uncomfortable — Belle and I have frequently discussed God's forgiving, benign nature, and this email was no exception (see my Simple profile and an October 5 email Belle sent to me). I will not hesitate to aver that Belle was the most pleasant editor on Simple. The heart of the matter is that the email is simply irrelevant to this discussion because not only did it pertain to the status of my block on Simple, where I was blocked for something indubitably unrelated to the block here, it was also not an unblock request — it was a request for the restoration of profile access.
I genuinely intend to be a constructive, collaborative, collegial editor, just as most everyone here. I do not see this as a game, since I seriously have a desire to have a part in building the largest encyclopedia ever fathomed. After completing the article about the Transatlantic Climate Bridge that I have begun below, I plan to continue work at Articles for Creation, helping neophytes mesh in; as someone who has been beset by the difficulties of adapting to this remarkable open-editing model, I am easily sympathetic to their frustrations. I will also maintain sangfroid when editing gets heated. Although I'm not a paragon, I pledge my all, PeterSymonds; you will not being going out on a limb by unblocking me, nor will you be doing Wikipedia a disservice. I once again exhort you to reconsider. Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosing the email on-wiki seemed inappropriate to me. This would perhaps be a better discussion to have via private email. Protector of Wiki: You have the right to demand deletion or oversight of PeterSymonds reply. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but as I said, I do not fear transparency. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you asked for evidence of my grievances about your private correspondence. I provided it. I'm done playing these silly games with you; you won't receive another reply from me. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for no such thing. I did not specifically say "private correspondence", so that's no excuse for slapping violating content on my profile. I'm not playing the silly games — you are, with your tenuous justification of your opinions. I have contacted the mailing list. Whatever the outcome, I thank you for engaging in this illuminating discussion with me. Protector of Wiki (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did actually imply that you wanted him to show it by stating that he did not provide it. He was not in the wrong here, it does appear as though you are playing silly games. -DJSasso (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. My original statement requesting evidence was [You ought to] "properly substantiat[e] [your opinion, which was 'I don't think you're ready to return yet'] with pertinent evidence... I am not privy to the cause of your displeasure... [P]lease articulate your grievances. I made no mention of private correspondence in my entire reply; as such, I did not imply the evidence must be of the private correspondence.
Even if I did ask for evidence of problematic private correspondence, PeterSymonds is still culpable for committing an egregious, irresponsible error. I shudder at the thought of his handling of sensitive information in his capacity as a steward. Perhaps an analogy would be most apt in explaining this. Say there are two fellas, Peter Symonds and Protector of Wiki, chatting in a café, and Symonds purports that he discovered the credit card number of Protector of Wiki by rummaging in Protector of Wiki's wallet. Protector of Wiki expresses doubt at the veracity of this declaration, and Symonds, in the desire to prove himself, belches out the number. Lounging nearby is a shady bloke, Sasso, who slyly grins, nodding his head reciting the numbers. Who is responsible for this flagrant mistake? Incontrovertibly, Symonds. His total lack of judgement led him to publicly recite a credit card number, without consideration for Protector of Wiki's financial security. Furthermore, Symonds obtained the credit card number through questionable means.
PeterSymonds, the steward, improperly posted a portion of my private email that he obtained through questionable means. Whether or not I asked for "evidence of problematic private correspondence" — which I did not — is absolutely immaterial to the fact of the matter, which is that PeterSymonds had no permission to post the email.
I suggest you, PeterSymonds, make amends by suppressing your urges to post other users' private correspondence, especially that obtained through very questionable means. Protector of Wiki (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for being so loquacious. Here's a more concise version of the above: I did not imply I wanted evidence of problematic private correspondence. I merely requested evidence of his general grievances, not specifically the private correspondence. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]