Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:15, 22 May 2013

April 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Robert B. Bell, you may be blocked from editing. Even if you disagree with the close, you can't remove others talk page comments and doing so will eventually lead to a block. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

:You're right, when I pressed "Undo" to reverse the close, I forgot that it would also delete the associated talk comment. My apologies. Actually, his edit summaries didn't indicate any text written. --68.50.128.91 (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no worries about that then. It happens to the best of us sometimes. However, I am going to close your request because it's not the proper use of the editsemiprotected template. The template is used when an anonymous editor such as yourself wants an edit made to an article that they can't make because anonymous editors have been stopped from editing the article itself. However, you have the capability to edit the article, hence why the template doesn't make sense (it'd be analagous to trying to file your taxes at the DMV. It's just not the proper use of it....). If you want to continue to discuss potential edits on the talk page that isn't a problem. Nor is editing the article IF you have appropriate sources to back up your edits. However, I tried to find sources on CWC (not even CWC+rob bell) and was unsuccessful, so I don't think that you're going to get the rest of us to agree with your edits. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, as I explained on the page, I am unable to make that edit because it triggers a false positive edit filter. I asked about this at the Administrator's Noticeboard, and I was told to make an edit request. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Any editor is welcome at any time to remove content from her or his own talk page, since the very act of removal is an admission that one has read the content being removed. You are misinterpreting the section you quoted. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

If you have their permission. " 68.50.128.91 (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No, removing stuff from your own talk page is allowed with or without the author's permission, excepting shared IP templates, active block notices, and declined unblock requests, the latter two provided the block is still active. Users do have wide latitude to adjust their talk pages as they see fit. —Jeremy v^_^v 20:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

And, I have sent the proper link to Sailsbystars as well. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

One more revert on Talk:Robert B. Bell will result in blocking your account from editing Misplaced Pages. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You and I have no understanding. You need to give a reason for your threat. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You have been warned multiple times above, on ANI, on the talk page, and continue edit warring. At some point (which is really close) blocks will start to be given out.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not been edit warring, but a few others have. I suggest you take a look at the complaint that editor Sailsbystars made at on Administrator's Noticeboard. You will see that there was no determination by the administrators that I was in the wrong. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am an administrator, and I came to the talk page as the result of that request.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing that. You should have made a judgement on the noticeboard and closed it, if that was the case. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no policy which says so. Anyway, now you know.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't accept your word for it. You need to follow proper Misplaced Pages procedure. Feel free to create a new incident on the discussion board if you want. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 06:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not want. My business was to warn you that next revert on the talk page will result in blocking your IP. I am at this point not really interested in the rest of the story. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you do not want to follow proper procedure, then refrain from edit warring. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You stated that the issue between us was closed. Then, after that, without re-opening dialogue, you erroneously blocked me from editing my talk page, even after contradicting Wiki policy was pointed out to you. Therefore, any further actions by you regarding me will be considered harassment. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Block May 1, 2013

I blocked your IP for 24 hours for edit warring, as discussed in details above. Please after the block expires, consider contributing constructively.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I was told by an administrator (feel free to check the archives) to use the edit request template because the edit filter is returning a false positive on my edit. This was explained to Ymblanter on the administrator's noticeboard and no action was taken there, but he started an edit war instead.

Decline reason:

The reason for your block appears to have been patiently explained to you. Since your expressed intent is to return to the problematic behavior, unblocking you would seem unwise. Kuru (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

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

Request reason:

Requesting more than a cursory response to my appeal 68.50.128.91 (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: your block has expired, so we can't unblock you. Favonian (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

WP:3O

I have again removed your request for a third opinion - third opinions are strictly for cases where two editors are involved in a dispute. In this case, the dispute is between you and (at the last count) five other editors; a third (and fourth, and fifth) opinion has therefore already been provided. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The third opinion request is about Ymblanter blocking me due to trying to keep the edit request open, not the edit request itself. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I am the editor who declined your 3O request. Beyond just the number of parties involved, the 3O forum is primarily for content issues and is informal. It is not a good forum for conduct disputes. Purely as an uninvolved editor, my opinion is that there is no point in continuing to raise this issue. VQuakr (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The third option is the first step listed under conduct disputes in the dispute resolution template. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. A more thorough explanation is available in the lede of WP:3O: Some disputes may involve both content issues as well as issues regarding the conduct of an editor. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue. For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the administrators noticeboard or a request for comment on user conduct. If in doubt, post your request here at third opinion and a neutral editor will help out. As such, the now struck-out sentence I wrote above would have been better phrased, "Due to the number of editors involved and the nature of the question, 3O is not the best forum for this conduct dispute." VQuakr (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification and your help! 68.50.128.91 (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Block Appeal

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

Request reason:

User above called me a troll, then threatened an edit war. I told him not start one, but he did it anyway.

It has been explained multiple times that this edit request was the method told to me on the administrator's noticeboard as the solution to the false positives being returned on the edit filter. Frankly, this is getting tiresome. How lazy can you be these days to be an administrator, not looking through user contribution histories? How ignorant of Misplaced Pages policies, such as Civility and Assume good faith can you be? The standards of minting admins has gone down pretty far from when I had an account here. I've followed the rules every step of the way on this one and am willing to accept the result of a debate, but not to keep having it shut down by lazy and ignorant admins like Barek. Look what I did for re-opening the Christian Weston Chandler page. I went through the procedure and accepted the result (I lost) without it being a problem. Please get these folks in gear. Don't just give a cursory response to this appeal like the last one, either. And don't dismiss my dispute resolution requests as "meaningless." Treat me with the respect you would your fellow editors.

Basically, just do your jobs if you want to be admins. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon 15:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

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

Request reason:

There were no personal attacks, just an indictment about how some admins are behaving. Note that Barek, the admin who blocked me, referred to me as a troll first here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ARobert_B._Bell&diff=555310454&oldid=555302194 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ARobert_B._Bell&diff=555287298&oldid=555286407. Please send this further up the food chain of admins, who will take more than a cursory look at the appeal. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

With more than a cursory glance at your contributions - I see that you improperly removed comments by the blocki0gn admin from this page, thus attempting to hide evidence and valid commentary required by patrolling admins. Someone else's incivility never excuses your own. It takes 2 to edit-war, and I cannot even say for sure that any of your edits have been all that beneficial to the project. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

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

Request reason:

There was no hiding; anyone who wants to civilly comment on my talk page may do so. Anyone who refers to me as a "troll" will have their comments removed. In any event, all that information is available in my talk page history. Regarding it taking "2 to edit-war," I noticed that Barek is not blocked. Please remedy this. :Next, as I requested, kick this issue further up the food chain so a higher-ranking admin can go through the whole thing and look at the instructions given to me by an admin regarding the edit filter's false positives. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I suspect that the aspects of your behaviour that have been described as "trolling" may be in fact due to an inability to understand, rather than bad faith or malice. However, that is about the only thing I can say in your defence. You have persistently edit-warred over a period of well over a month, you are uncivil and have repeatedly attacked other editors, you consistently show a battleground mentality, and you have a remarkable ability to completely fail to see what other editors are trying to tell you. One way and another, your editing is so thoroughly disruptive that a 1 week block is really minimal. I will make just one more attempt to make clear to you the following point. Whatever anyone may have said to you nearly two months ago about how to request an edit in the face of an edit filter, that is now completely irrelevant, because your proposed edit has been discussed, consensus is clearly against it, and the matter is closed. If you make one more unblock request that only brings up yet again points that have already been dealt with, or if you once more repeat your mantra about being advised to use a protected edit request, the it is likely that your talk page access will be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

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

Request reason:

The problem is that what you deem irrelevant because you claim my proposed edit has been discussed is actually not irrelevant because my proposed edit has not been discussed. Whenever I have tried to open the request it is shut down, sometimes mere minutes later. So no consensus can be arrived at, let alone discussion be had. That's the whole point of this. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were edit warring and you were blocked. Rather than address that issue, you attempt to shift the blame to others and to justify your conduct because of what you were trying to achieve. Neither is a valid reason for unblocking you. Bbb23 (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

Warning May 17, 2013

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Nothing to see here, move along. Toddst1 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the next attemp to hide the warnings you received before getting blocked will most likely result in the revokation of your talk page access. Thank you for understanding. Also please stop calling "trolling" what is not trolling.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be pretty clear: In particular, if you remove this warning I just gave you your talk access will be removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk page access removed as promised for the continuous removal of warnings. Since next time you are likely to be blocked for 6 months (given that your Misplaced Pages contribution in the last couple of months s net negative), you might finally want to study policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter, per WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED, edtiors are fully permitted to clear their own talk pages except for a few items such as declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockputterty notices, speedy deletion tages while the discussion is in progress, and a couple others. Therefore, the removal of this warning and this warning by IP 68 was permitted. However, s/he cannot remove the active block notice or the currently-undecided unblock request if it's declined. (The unblock request may be removed if it's accepted.) All previous block notices (for expried blocks) may also be removed. I don't mean any disrespect, but this is a very important guideline of which you should be aware. Thanks. :) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you are right. Though the IP removed the messages called them "trolling" (for which they could have their block extended), it is indeed better if I reinstate the talk access and let a admin who is going to review the third unblock request to take the access off to prevent a non-stop unblock request show.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ymblanter. Again, I apologize for stepping on your toes but I felt it was important for you to know. I realize that this talk page reveals an apparently ugly history. And I do understand your point about the "trolling" comment, but that of course is a separate issue. Btw, I just noticed that another admin, Orangemike, posted a comment on April 6 (above) about editors being allowed to clear their own talk pages. Thanks again for your understanding. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, 76.189.109.155, for reversing Ymblanter's error. It's a shame that some admins don't familiarize themselves with Wiki policy, even when it is pointed out to them. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no "admin food chain" - any unblock request that is not GAB-compliant will be declined; any that include any trashing of others will too, and these are useless as well. Any posts specifically related to the block, AND comments as per the requirements for admin accountability cannot be removed while the editor is still blocked. Nobody is ever going to be blocked for a single reference to being a troll, so calls for tit-for-tat justice are ridiculous. Don't want to be called a troll? Don't do behaviours that lead to it. Don't want to be called an edit-warrior? Don't edit war. Don't want to be called a vandal? Don't be one. Easy-peasy (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins,WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED are very clear on this. Therefore, based on everything I've read and heard, you are completely wrong when you say, "Any posts specifically related to the block, AND comments as per the requirements for admin accountability cannot be removed while the editor is still blocked." Please provide evidence to support that claim. You're the first admin I've ever heard deny the legitimacy of WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED. If an editor removes a warning, then it's considered acknowledgement of its receipt. And if an admin wants to see any prior content that was on the talk page, they can always look at the history log. But the editor has no obligation to keep anything on their talk page, aside from the limited exceptions listed in WP:REMOVED. So IP 68 is not allowed to remove the block notice for the current block, or any denied block notices for the current block, but they are allowed to remove the ones for the previous/expired block. The rest of your comment above has nothing to do with with an editor's right to clear their own talk page. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and Bwilkins, what I mean by "admin food chain" is higher-up admins who have been admins longer/have bothered to learn Wiki policy; i.e. the opposite of you, as pointed out by 76.189.109.155. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

IP 68, I want to clarify something. Please understand that my posts here and at AN/I are not intended as an effort to defend you, but rather to defend every editor's ability to remove content from their own talk pages, as long as they do not violate the exceptions articulated in WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED. I would suggest that you avoid making any more inappropriate comments, such as this one, which can easily be perceived as being uncivil or even personal attacks. And for the record, talk page access is not a right, nor is clearing one's own talk page, if any policies, guidelines, or widely-accepted standards of behavior are being violated. An administrator has the authority and right to revoke someone's talk page access if they feel a line has been crossed. And you have the right to appeal that decision (within limits). --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

And I appreciate you defending that right for everyone, which, naturally, would also include me, as I have said before above. And "as no policies, guidelines, nor widely-accepted standards of behavior are being violated here," I will continue to exercise my right to edit my talk page. I would say, having borne the brunt of being labeled a "troll" by more than one admin (mostly because I have an IP number and not an account, something I would hope you would empathize with), and because I am advocating for making edits they are personally in disagreement with, it would be a stretch to say that stating that someone doesn't have appropriate knowledge of Wiki policy, when that person has demonstrated on this very talk page to be in error (by you, actually), is "inappropriate." Any perception that stating so is uncivil or a personal attack would be an error on their part. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing more important for an editor than their reputation. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate by saying what you are specifically referring to? 68.50.128.91 (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

To put it simply, it doesn't matter if you are absolutely correct in every discussion in which you're involved if other editors don't like or respect you. Often times, it's not about what someone says, but rather how they say it. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about you specifically, but about any editor. I hope that helps. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying. But I will note that I have been treated with much incivility posting as an IP than when I posted with an account.

Also, it's been from day one of others not respecting me without even knowing me, when I was perfectly polite. This is the tail end of a long process. I've been the bigger person for most of this, but there's only so much one can take before frustration sits in. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Each of us can only control our own actions. We have no control over the actions of others. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Addressing your point above: The policy you linked above states "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction" Bwilkins is utterly right that editors can't remove anything relating to the block while they are blocked. This has always included discussions about the behavior or the block. If he wants to talk about roses or his trip to Florida, then remove that later, that is fine, but anything block related is typically kept on the talk page to assist administrators by having a complete record. To say it only includes words inside the orange boxes is kind of silly. The policy page doesn't say that ONLY templates must kept, only that a number of important matters may not be removed, including the block templates. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 11:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I obviously know fully what the policies (plural) say, as you can see by my prior comments above. Repsectfully, though, I disagree with your interpretation. And so do the overwhelming majority of very experienced editors and other administrators, based on what I've read in prior AN/I discussions on this topic. Your comment, "anything block related is typically kept on the talk page to assist administrators by having a complete record" is, for lack of a better term, nonsense. "Anything"? The "complete record," as you call it, is always available in the revision history log. It is not an editor's responsiblity to assist or make things convenient for an administrator, or anyone else. If an admin wants to know any information regarding a block, then they should do their homework and check the log. Or, they can simply just contact the blocking admin to see if there's anything that should be known, which is what they should be doing anyway. For the record, the key word in "notice regarding an active sanction" is notice. A notice is not the same as a general comment. So Bwilkins in my humble opinion is not, as you claim, "utterly right" at all. I'm sorry, but just because you believe that does not make it a fact. And before the AN/I that I initiated was prematurely closed after only a few hours, admin Jayron32 posted this comment in which he agreed with me. And he also pointed out that saying admins need a "complete record" is invalid. Guy Macon also commented in the AN/I about Bwilkins' apparent "direct contradiction" of the policy. I'm confident that if that AN/I discussion had remained open, many others would have said the same thing, based on the previous AN/I discussions on this topic. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with 76.189.109.155. "Notice" =/= "additional commentary," no matter how germane. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"There are only four types of messages that a user should not remove: declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry notices, miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is still in progress) and shared IP header templates for unregistered editors." (WP:Don't Restore Removed Comments) Seems pretty clear to me. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, please show proof for your above claim, which says, "editors can't remove anything relating to the block while they are blocked. This has always included discussions about the behavior or the block" (emphasis added). I will be happy to review any relevant diffs or links that you provide. And if WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED were intended to mean that an editor cannot remove anything related to a block, why don't the policies simply say that? Obviously, it would make things very simple and unambiguous. Think about it. There's a reason it does not say that. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 13:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Debating you serves no purpose, you can start a discussion on it at an appropriate venue if you choose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

He already tried @ ANI and was thumped like a narc at a biker rally (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I suggest that you behave like an admin should and treat others with civility. Your comment is completely out of line. And, for the record, its implication is completely inaccurate. As you well know, the AN/I discussion was closed after only a few hours by one of your fellow admins (who happened to be involved in IP 68's block) even though the other participating editors, including admin Jayron32, agreed with me. In any case, your "thumped like a narc at a biker rally" comment is very telling. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, this isn't a debate, it's a discussion. And it's interesting that you - an admin, no less - believes that discussion "serves no purpose". I should remind you that it is you who re-started this discussion today, not me, so it's rather astounding that you now want to stop talking about it after I've replied to you with my points and asked you to provide proof of you claims. I can only assume now that you have no proof. I'll also remind you that I did in fact start a discussion at the appropriate venue and, as you know, it was prematurely shut down. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

IP 68, if you're going to quote or paraphrase a policy, please be sure to link to the policy so that other edtiors will know exactly where you got it from. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I will source it above. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually, though, this issue isn't about what the policies say, but rather what they mean. I asked the editor/admin (Dennis Brown) for proof of his claims, but unfortunately he appears to have chosen not to provide any, nor to even continue his participation in this discussion. As one editor pointed out in the AN/I discussion, what's being claimed appears to completely contradict the policy. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, I find it perplexing that you said to me (above), "Debating you serves no purpose, you can start a discussion on it at an appropriate venue if you choose", even though that's precisely what I did a few days ago by starting this AN/I discussion. And it should be noted that my disagreement on this issue with admin Bwilkins, who chose not to reply to me on the matter, is what prompted me to start that AN/I. And the admin who closed that discusssion, even though it had only been open for a few hours and other editors agreed with me, was Bbb23, who also declined one of IP 68's unblock requests. As you'll see in Bbb23's comment as he was closing the discussion, he attempted to speak on behalf of Bwilkins instead of just letting Bwilkins speak for himself. I feel that Bbb23's close of that AN/I discussion was not only unjustified, but also a clear conflict of interest based on the fact that both he and Bwilkins were two of the admins who declined the unblock requests of IP 68, on whose talk page this entire matter originated. So Bbb23 closed that discussion by giving his assumption of what Bwilkins thought or meant, and then ended with, "I'm going to close this discussion as I believe we are into diminishing returns here". So, we have you, Dennis, telling me to start a discussion at the appropriate venue, but when I did exactly that, the discussion got shut down very quickly. Besides Jayron in the AN/I discussion, two other admins on this talk page also agree with my view, Orange Mike and Ymblanter, who told me above in this thread, "Actually, you are right." Btw, it was only after Bbb23 closed the AN/I that Bwilkins replied to my inquiry on his talk page, where he made this comment. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

General, about the above discussion: You know, when this issue came up, 76.189.109.155 made a good faith effort to get everyone's input on this (well, I wasn't notified, but I couldn't talk there regardless due to my ban, but anyways,), starting a discussion at ANI and personally notifying every editor who was involved or even just mentioned (like Orange Mike) in it. He's also replied in good faith and very courteously to me, I should add. So: 1. Saying "debating you serves no purpose, you can start a discussion on it an appropriate venue if you choose" seems pretty insulting, especially considering that he pointed out where he did start a discussion on it somewhere else, and 2. That discussion shows three people in support of 76.189.109.155's position, one against, and one neutral. So saying " got thumped like a narc at biker rally," while unnecessary and immature, is also inaccurate.

As a personal reflection: as I see admins acting this way to a fellow admin, who has gone out of his way to be solicitous with other admins and patient and helpful with me, is there any wonder I'm frustrated with how they act toward me, a mere editor? 68.50.128.91 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice comments. It is indeed very disappointing to see any editors - especially admins - behaving in this manner, but fortunately most of the admins I have dealt with have been very friendly, supportive, helpful and patient. I have tried my best to handle this particular matter in a fair, courteous and proper manner, and I believe the record will verify this. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• That an editor can't remove discussion relating to the block is common knowledge. Other discussion can be removed, but not discussion relevant to the block. Other stuff can be removed, as I pointed out. Misplaced Pages doesn't write down every single rule and exception, and relies on consensus and common sense, so anything that might be considered by a reviewing admin should be left on the page. You are free to disagree, but discussing it after it has been explained is pointless if neither side is likely to be persuaded, which means it would be a debate and not a discussion. Acquiescence isn't requisite to compliance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

WP obviously doesn't "write down every single rule and exception". That's simply apples and oranges. Again, if the policy were intended to mean that an editor is not allowed to remove any comments relating to an active block, as you claim, then the policy would obviously say that directly because it would be totally unambiguous and therefore prevent any misunderstanding. But it doesn't say that because that's not the policy. It would say something to the effect of, "Editors are not allowed to remove any content from their talk page that relates to a currently-active block." Simple, clear and concise. You state that it is "common knowledge" that the policy means that, even though it doesn't say it, but admin Jayron32 and the majority of other editors and admins, per prior AN/I discussions, disagree with you. So again, if you can provide proof I'll be happy to look at it. Here's the policy; please provide any quotes from it that indicate no comments relating to an active block can be removed. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that it is common knowledge that 'an editor can't remove discussion relating to the block' and would also be interested in your proof. Your statement that "editors can't remove anything relating to the block while they are blocked. This has always included discussions about the behavior or the block" can easily be proven false since it won't be hard to find the long standing consensus version of BLANKING that clearly says otherwise. This scarlet letter bullshit of forcing any and all statements to remain on the page no matter what is just silly. Any good admin will look at the page history. --Onorem (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction" is pretty unambiguous. Toddst1 (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Declined unblock? Fine. Confirmed sockpuppet? Fine. Any notice regarding an active sanction? That I hope has some discretion attached...or I can insult anyone currently sanctioned as much I'd like to as long as I make a connection to the sanction and it can't be removed. In any case, it hasn't always been the case. (and shouldn't be now, but fuck it. Admins are going to do what they want. No use in fighting it.) --Onorem (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Todd, the word "notice" ≠ "comment". If the policy intended to refer to anything relating to a current block, the policy would obviously just say that. But it doesn't. It carefully and specifically uses the word notice. Also, please stop making inappropriate comments to me like this one on Bwilkins' talk page. As an admin, it is especially improper to make uncivil remarks like that to an editor. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Even though I've been accused of having a conflict of interest in closing the ANI discussion (I'm apparently one of the bad guys), I would really love to close this discussion. A real waste of everyone's time.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)