User talk:SW3 5DL

June 2010

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for per ANI discussion. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And what is the 'outcome' of this AN/I discussion that warrants a one month block? Is Jusdafax an administrator? Did he come up with diffs that show behavior so egregious that a one month block, or any block, is warranted?Malke2010 04:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

To User:Toddst1: What is the behavior I'm being accused of that justifies this block? Editors can't ask to be unblocked if they don't know the reason for the block.Malke2010 05:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Message for Moonriddengirl

Hello Moonriddengirl,

As you can see, Toddst1 has blocked me. I was trying to put this on your talk page when he swooped in and blocked me.

I wanted to explain what this AN/I is all about. Thanks for commenting over there.

Apparently, Toddst1 has been watching my every move since he blocked me not long ago. I'll tell you about that later. I made a comment on Daniel Cases' talk page asking an innocent question about an article I was interested in. [1]

I left it at that when I posted that I had emailed Senator Reid's office. This is where I got the information about the correct name for the Womens Air Service Pilots.

I then found old documents that show the original given name for the group was, "Womens Air Service Pilots." So I moved the page. Notice, there was no talk page discussion going on at the time, there was no discussion going on over on Daniel Cases' page either. It was just me asking about it. Here's the diff of when I moved the page.[2]. Notice the time when I moved the page.

I didn't think more of it, figuring I'd come back later and mention on the talk page with my sources and went off to attend to RL. I came back later and found I'd been templated by User:BilCat[3] Notice that he's not made any comments on any discussion pages. He just templates me.

I put it back on his page [4]. Which he then removed, note his edit summary [5]

Now comes Toddst1's comment on Daniel Cases' talk page: [6].

Next, Toddst1 takes it upon himself to move my questions on Daniel Cases' page to the article page, as if there has been a discussion, as if there is some kind of consensus. But I've already moved the page. He's doing all of this after the fact which gives the appearance of a discussion/consensus that I've violated. [7].

Then, he puts this on my page: [8].

Next thing I know, I'm getting hit on my talk page by User:Dave1185. He's never edited on the article page either. Then Toddst1 shows up. I got fed up, and started to collect diffs to post on AN/I. Toddst1 beat me to it. When I did post a complaint on AN/I, User:SarekOfVulcan deleted it. The AN/I thread is now just disparaging comments without any diffs to back up any assertions. I haven't made any personal attacks, I haven't done any bad editing, etc. I haven't done anything except defend myself against an admin who out to block me again. He wants to ban me from Wikipedia. This is why he's canvassing admins who have blocked me in the past. He went to Black Kite and Gamaliel, too. When they didn't respond, he went to User:Jusdafax and User:Chhe, who as you know are not admins, again, their comments/assertions are never backed by diffs. Here are some diffs of what went on this afternoon. They kept at me and would not stop. I've never made any personal attacks, inappropriate edits, disruptive behavior, not a single thing. But this kept up all day and continued with the AN/I threads. This edit will give you an idea of what's been going on: [9]. As will this edit: [10].

All I did was tell User:BilCat to not template me and I deleted their posts from my talk page which I'm allowed to do. I didn't revert the page move, I made no personal attacks, I was not disruptive, and I was not edit warring or damaging the project in any way. If people didn't like that I deleted their comments from my talk page, they were free to move on.

[11][12][13][14][15] [16][17][18][19][20][21] Thanks for your help. Malke2010 04:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Toddst1 went to every admin who has blocked me, including you, to get them to comment.[22].Malke2010 10:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I do not believe you should be blocked, and I have explained why at ANI. I do think you are continuing to find it difficult to navigate Wikipedia's collaborative environment. I did not offer to mentor you lightly; I don't like drama, and I prefer to focus on my copyright work. But from your multiple visits to my talk page, I believe you are motivated to participate here within community norms, and I'm willing to give you a hand if I can. Even if the community accepts the idea of mentorship, though, it's only going to work if you willingly sign on. My goals would be to help you learn to brush off what you regard as personal attacks and incivility (unless egregious, a definition of which we'd have to reach together), to stop worrying about what others may be thinking about you and attempting to do to you and to keep your focus on issues. Speaking of which, whether we go the mentorship or not, I'll wrap this and address the issues above in a moment. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl: Thank you for being you. Would you call this a personal attack? [23]?

What about this? [24]. I've got lots more if you want to see them all.Malke2010 13:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. The latter if it were out of the blue, probably. But it's not. It's a response to this, where you've basically accused him of corruption. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues

(edit conflict) Examining events above, you moved the article at 16:22, 22 June 2010. This was not an action I would have taken, given your discussion to that point at Daniel's talk page, since OrangeMike had expressed a different opinion. When you found the sources that supported your beliefs, you should have brought them to Daniel's talk page...or Mike's...or to the article's talk page, even. :) Your move may have been right, but it's generally better to convince others of that first. You did not, however, violate consensus. As User:R Jordan commented at ANI, it was a WP:BOLD move. But as Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle notes, bold moves are often followed by reactions.

BilCat's undoing of your move was fine; his templated message to you does seem snarky. A template that suggests that an experienced Wikipedian might want to "experiment" in the sandbox is generally going to come off that way. But, as WP:DTTR advises, "those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. The editor using the template may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not themselves consider the template use rude." That said, there was nothing really wrong with your note to him here, though I would have offered details on the source you used, but I would not have done this, particularly with that edit summary. I would have left an explanation beneath the notice, again including the link to your source. That would be focusing on the issue. It also would not have escalated what you felt was rude (a templated message) to what others might find problematic (an apparent rejection of criticism).

There is nothing wrong with Todd's comment at Daniel's talk page, here. His note was not at all uncivil, and his advice was good. Your reaction here was inappropriate. This is where it would have been helpful to you not to focus on what others are doing or why. In fact, I'd generally recommend behaving as if each new encounter with somebody is your first. Really, the proper response there would have been "Okay." And the proper response here would have been to either (a) discuss the issue of the name and support your feeling that it should be moved or (b) ignore it. No uninvolved bystander could view relocating that discussion about an article to the article's talk page as harassment. If you pretend this to be your first encounter with Todd, would you? It was perhaps premature for him to mention blocking in his note to you, but it does not really seem otherwise inappropriate.

I believe that the note that Dave left you here is understandable and not inappropriate, per se, but reflects a misunderstanding of your action. His note was also not inappropriate. A better response to him would probably have been to explain that you did not template Bil in retaliation for his templating you. You simply copied over his warning, complete with his own signature, to discuss it. I've had plenty of people reply to my messages by first copying my message to my talk page. Dave's message to you seems to have been left in good faith.

And there was nothing inappropriate about this. Even if you disagreed with him.

You are right that you did nothing in this sequence of events to warrant a block, but you have not been blocked for a single incident. What's being alleged here is an overall pattern of disruptive editing: specifically, concerns seem to center around a battlefield mentality. While a number of the contributors to the ANI thread have prior involvement with you that may predispose them to support a block (I am not implying anything about anyone in particular; some of them have acknowledged prior history), there have also been comments by some who seem to be completely involved who find your behavior problematic.

You do seem to feel embattled. Your note above certainly expresses those concerns, but I wonder: what makes you think that User:Toddst1 sought input from User:Jusdafax and User:Chhe? It's true that he solicited input from all the admins who had blocked you before, but I don't see that he contacted them. (Though I do see he's left me a note since I started typing. I'll wait to read it until after I've finished this.) Contacting administrators who had interacted with you before is not necessarily indicative of a desire to see you blocked. That's how I found out about the thread, after all. Such administrators may have insight into past issues.

Frankly, I think your concerns about Toddst1 or any other user are beside the point. For the sake of argument, let's say that he does have it in for you...or that some other admin, any admin, does. You would not be doing yourself any favors with your own approach. Whether this block is truncated early or it stands for the full month, you should reconsider your approach. If you think you are being reasonable, aim to be doubly so. Bend over backwards to communicate cordially with others. Don't remove things from your talk page as inappropriate; unless it's obscene vandalism, let it stand. If there's even a germ of a chance that it might be legitimate, respond to it as though it is. Don't focus on accumulating evidence that others are misbehaving; instead, make sure that your own contributions are valuable and above-board. Even if somebody were out to get you, making your own behavior unimpeachable is the best method of avoiding being impeached. If you're unimpeachable, anybody who actually does have it in for you will either give up and go away...or draw scrutiny to themselves by their fruitless efforts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My concerns are right on the point. Why such a violent reaction to anything I've done? Toddst1 is determined to get me off Wikipedia for good. I won't do that. I'm a good editor and I've made good contributions to this project. This is admin abuse. Nothing more.Malke2010 14:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I spent probably an hour analyzing the situation and pointed out where I thought your behavior was wrong and where I did not. Your response is, "This is admin abuse. Nothing more." If you think about this, it may help you see why others think you turn a deaf ear to criticism. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not a perfect person and I won't try to be. I shouldn't have been blocked. I was not being disruptive. He blocked me a month ago. Show me a months worth of bad behavior and I'll agree I should have been blocked. I'm not going to write an unblock request that gets Toddst1 off the hook. He's a bad administrator. He's got an agenda. He'll do this again and again. It will always be the same. He doesn't want you to mentor me becaue he won't be able to get to me as easily, but he'll do it anyway. I'll have to leave Wikipedia and come back with an entirely new identity that he can't find out about.Malke2010 14:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I'm not "threatening to sock" as Gwen Gale is claiming.Malke2010 14:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems rather as though you don't want me to mentor you. Which is fine. You are by no means required to accept my worldview or my mentorship. You've only been blocked for a month at this point. But - and I say this because your departure is not part of my agenda - if it is not yet clear to you, your way of doing things is not working on Wikipedia. No single admin can drum you off even if for some reason he wanted to unless he is able to convince others that you are a detriment to the project. The only way to avoid that is by being demonstrably not a detriment to the project. (I, too, read that at first as a threat to sock; I presume you mean instead a WP:CLEANSTART once your block has expired.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I do want you to mentor me, I'm just pointing out that Toddst1 will not stop. If you're willing to put up with that, I'm willing to try.Malke2010 14:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You can do that, if MrG is willing and if you sit out the block for a month: A clean start is permitted only if there are no bans, blocks or active sanctions in place against your old account. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)