User talk:Demiurge1000

GOCE drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors January 2012 backlog elimination drive GOCE January 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graph Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors January 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here is your end-of-drive wrap-up newsletter. Participation 45 people signed up for this drive this time; of these, 35 participated. This is similar to the number of editors who helped out in November. Thanks to all who participated! Barnstars will be distributed in the near future. Progress report Recent drives have been focusing on the oldest three months in the backlog. During this drive we were successful in eliminating our target months—July, August, and September 2010—from the queue, and there are less than 300 articles remaining from 2010. End-of-drive results and barnstar information can be found here. When working on the backlog, please keep in mind that there are options other than copy editing available; some articles may be candidates for deletion, or may not be suitable for copy editing at this time for other reasons. The {{GOCEreviewed}} tag can be placed on any article you find to be totally uneditable, and you can nominate for deletion any that you discover to be copyright violations or completely unintelligible. If you need help deciding what to do, please contact any of the coordinators. Thank you for participating in the January 2012 drive! All contributions are appreciated. Our next copy edit drive will be in March. Your drive coordinators – The Utahraptor talk, S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), Stfg (Talk), Sp33dyphil (talk), and Dank (talk)

GOCE March drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 backlog elimination drive update GOCE March 2012 Backlog Elimination progress graphs Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2012 Backlog elimination drive! Here's the mid-drive newsletter. Participation: We have had 58 people sign up for this drive so far, which compares favorably with our last drive, and 27 have copy-edited at least one article. If you have signed up but have not yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us! Progress report: Our target of completing the 2010 articles has almost been reached, with only 56 remaining of the 194 we had at the start of the drive. The last ones are always the most difficult, so thank you if you are able to help copy-edit any of the remaining articles. We have reduced the total backlog by 163 articles so far. Special thanks: Special thanks to Stfg, who has been going through the backlog and doing some preliminary vetting of the articles—removing copyright violations, doing initial clean-up, and nominating some for deletion. This work has helped make the drive a more pleasant experience for all our volunteers. Your drive coordinators – Dianna (talk), Stfg (talk), and Dank (talk) To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Dacians

Hi Demiurge1000. Wow, what a job that is! Would you like me to archive the GOCE request for it now, or is it still active? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha, yes, I discovered there was a reason other copyeditors had been avoiding it for months :) Yes, still active, aiming to finish by the end of this month. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

With much delay, thank you so much for the great job in copy editing Dacians! Not an easy article to (copy) edit at all. Best --Codrin.B (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

ANEW

I am confused by your statement "You've brought a great deal of disappointment" at ANEW. I was against semi protecting and for full protection, and even for giving a strong warning where the vast majority of admins would have simply blocked on site. I have no idea how I could have been more understanding, more patient, or could have assumed "more good faith" in this matter. If anything, Huge's reaction might have demonstrated I assumed too much, as he didn't seem to get that his actions were wrong, necessitating a very strongly worded final warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that was probably an over-reaction on my part. Rightly or wrongly, I felt that a block was the only appropriate response, given the editor's behaviour. Fully protecting the article only brings a halt to the editor's behaviour if that's the only article he edits. But in fact, he's very busy at other BLPs, in fact he appears to mainly edit BLPs. And he's using exactly the same style of edit summary on those other BLPs that he used when reverting the problematic material back into the Berrios BLP ("restore neutral content from verifiable, reliable cited source" crops up many, many times just in the most recent page of his contributions).

I also wonder what the solution would have been if I hadn't reported him at WP:ANEW. Maybe Orlady would have been expected to edit war with him just to get the problematic material out of the BLP.

Maybe your strongly worded warning will be all that it takes, and I'm just too cynical. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I completely respect the fact that you have concerns over my handling. Blocks are cheap, and like I told him, he has used up his "one free" for a while. I tend to think his faith was actually good, even if his execution was completely lousy. I didn't like the semi-protection, which favored him and not the IP, but someone else full protected before I could. All of us can get too emotionally and screw up every now and then. He has been here a long time without incident, enough to earn one "get out of jail free" card. He has now used it. Since this behavior was out of character, so unusual and perhaps fueled by an unreasonable IP, I would rather try to not block him this one time and just see if a strongly worded warning and a little cooling off time will fix it. No one with a clean block record wants a block. Sometimes, once they have been blocked, you no longer have that carrot to hold over them and they feel like there is nothing to lose, so blocking often has the opposite desired effect in edit warring. I try to use blocks sparingly where it is at least arguable that their intentions were honorable. And it is always fine to disagree with me, I'm not the law here, just the janitor, and no matter what I choose, someone will disagree. So I just have to follow my best judgement in each case. I might be completely wrong here, but at least I know (we know) that we tried to solve the problem without being heavy handed, and if it takes blocks next week, he will have no one but himself to blame. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the very late interjection, but looking at the state of the article now, it's basically a moderately well disguised hatchet job, that also seems to have large amounts of WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING. This is a mess that will take quite some time to sort out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding article " Om Prakash Chautala"

Respected Demiurge, Good day to you. Thanks for helping to improve the article "Om Prakash Chautala" but some material was improper like ref. JBT scam... I have removed it by editing the article. This ref is not fair... Chautala Ji is a very very kind, helpful, fair personality. He is clean from all kind of scams. He is most famous and coming CHIEF MINISTER of Haryana(INDIA) Plz help me add his image on article. I don't know how to add image on article. I have created image article "Ch. Om Prakash Chautala". There you can find Chautala ji image. Plz insert that image with article "OM Prakash Chautala" I'll be very thankful to you with great regards INDILEOS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indileos (talk • contribs) 03:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, if I may correct your mode of address; I am not respected, I am in fact sleaze boy. Hope that's clear :)

However, the article does not belong to you or your family. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its contents are freely licensed.

Please read my reply to "Man Mohan Deswal" further up this page, for more information.

I have also replied to an email from either you, or him, about adding a photograph of the person to the Wikipedia article. However, I received no reply to my email. Please email me again if you have an image of the person, and you also own the copyright to that image; or if the person who owns the copyright is willing to freely license that image. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, Ocaasi! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	... for the great work in copy-editing Dacians. Thank you! Codrin.B (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Codrin! It is fascinating stuff, I first read about the Dacians (or their precursor tribes) in Herodotus when I was very very young. Please do keep on with the efforts to fill out all the missing sections of the article! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding article " Om Prakash Chautala"

Hello Demiurge1000 this article belongs to me and to my family, thats why i am trying to make it 100% accurate. whatever i have added or edited in this article is completely genuine and accurate. Please help me to make the article more genuine. regards Manmohandeswal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manmohandeswal (talk • contribs) 09:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

See reply to you or your friend, further up this page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

September 2012 copy edit backlog elimination drive barnstar!

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Thanks for participating in the September 2012 backlog elimination drive! For copy edits totaling more than 8000 words (10,942 to be exact), I hereby present you with this Working Man's Barnstar on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors. We look forward to your help in November! —Torchiest talkedits 16:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Torchiest! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The barnstar :)

Dear Demiurge1000, I really appreciate your note. Thank you so much! heather walls (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem, you have put a lot of work into this, and a few too many times I have played the role of the angry cynical software engineer :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

GOCE September 2012 drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors September 2012 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Out of 41 people who signed up this drive, 28 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We achieved our primary goal of clearing July, August, September and October 2011 from the backlog. This means that, for the first time since the drives began, the backlog is less than a year. At least 677 tagged articles were copy edited, although 365 new ones were added during the month. The total backlog at the end of the month was 2341 articles, down from 8323 when we started out over two years ago. We completed all 54 requests outstanding before September 2012 as well as eight of those made in September. Copy Edit of the Month: Voting is now over for the August 2012 competition, and prizes will be issued soon. The September 2012 contest is closed for submissions and open for voting. The October 2012 contest is now open for submissions. Everyone is welcome to submit entries and to vote. – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of lying

Dear Sir,

To me it is a serious thing to be accused of lying repeatedly on multiple pages for a silly mistake I made because I am new, not good at formating when I'm upset, and didn't realize that the word "diva" was not allowed to be used. I didn't personally attack anyone, but was accused of attacking a whole "class" of people because I used the word "diva". Then I was accused of intentionally removing a link for "Puritanical" reasons when I was just trying to copy it. But it's hopeless. I understand that now. Respectfully, MathewTownsend (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Matthew, sadly here on Wikipedia there are some cliques who like to look after each other "come what may". Your best way of dealing with that? Find a topic area that they're not involved in, and work on articles there. If you stray into their topics they will not forgive you for that, so it's simpler just to steer clear. I hope you'll stay with us.

No, I don't understand the "diva" thing either. But I do know there are a lot of them around. See also WP:DIVA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The image you added at WT:RFA

Could you please consider reverting this? I don't think it's very helpful, truthful or otherwise. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've said to you off-wiki, I think it's very truthful. I've removed the patronising material posted here by someone who should know better, and he can perhaps refrain from commenting on my actions until he understands them. Should I go to great lengths explaining them, one thing at a time, by email or something? I'm sure my patience might one day extend to it, if my schedule allows enough time for it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind if there are straw man arguments or not, calling the thread out about it in such a manner is just apt to inflame things further, which is particularly unhelpful when so many folks do not know better. More constructive might be to either try directly to get folks back to reasonable arguments or just get them to back away and leave the entire thing, since it ain't going anywhere pretty, though at this point I'd suggest you do the latter as well. -— Isarra ༆ 07:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"Leave the entire thing"? This is my user talk page, and it's you guys - several of you! - who are coming here spouting bullshit. If you want to "leave the entire thing", it shouldn't be so very difficult for you to work out how to do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the image - it was clearly inappropriate and you should know better. Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice piece of censorship. Congratulations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Putting that picture up was not only a personal attack, but it was beyond immature and inappropriate. Not admitting to the fact and self-reverting was doubly so. And Dougweller is quite correct, you most certainly do know better. Trusilver 04:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

On whom was it a personal attack? Have you actually read the thread? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it looks like you haven't, so I suppose I will have to read it out to you. One little piece at a time.

Kudpung started a new section at WT:RFA, in which he said "Particularly interesting in the light of some suggestions that RfA voting should be restricted to admins only... a staggering 40% of the supporters are sysops... If this is a new trend, it's a very welcome one, and RfA might indeed be on the way to recovery". (He also mentioned that it was encouraging as a possible indication that fewer admins were inactive.) He did not suggest that he thought that RfA voting should be restricted to admins only, nor did he put that forward as a proposal.

Less than two hours later, Kudpung clarified what he meant, including quite clearly saying "What I do welcome is the apparent increase in admin participation in the system which may help counteract the unresearched and often unqualified votes of new and less experienced users, and/or those who vote with an agenda". This left absolutely no doubt that he was not suggesting that only admins should be allowed to vote.

Despite this, over the next 36 hours, three separate editors objected to Kudpung's non-existent proposal to limit RfA voting to admins only. (Two of them did so via sarcasm, one marking it as such, but both used the form of words that if the admins-only voting proposal were carried, other obviously ridiculous things might follow). Such comments were strawman arguments, and while they may or may not have been disruptive, they did nothing to promote constructive discussion of Kudpung's observations, and the entire thread rapidly foundered into accusations and recriminations of various sorts.

I was irritated at the unconstructive nature of this, and duly indicated my view of the comments by posting the picture and caption we're talking about. Including a link to strawman so that anyone who was even slightly unsure could understand what was meant.

I have absolutely no idea what cogitative processes occurred in the minds of no less than three different editors for them to see that picture and that caption, at the top of that thread, and come to the conclusion that it was a personal attack. You see a picture, and you see the name of an editor mentioned as part of the caption to that picture, so you think the picture is intended to depict the appearance of that editor? Come on, really? What on earth?

I'm so baffled by your weird responses that I've had to rack my brains to work out what else you might mean - I've no reason to imagine that any of you are really that limited in comprehension. The best I can come up with is that some of you may have thought that just saying that someone used a strawman argument is, in itself, a personal attack. I shouldn't even need to point this out, but no, observing that someone's comments are a strawman argument, or any other logical fallacy, is not a personal attack.

There may also be a side argument that you think images should not be used to make points in that way. (Again, I'm scrabbling to work out what, if anything, any of you are on about.) Sorry, but while it may not be the best possible form of communication, and I've sometimes found it irritating myself, it's still a valid form of expression. And did Dougweller's censorship of it put the discussion back "on track" in some way? No, what followed, was yet another response to the supposed proposal that only admins be allowed to vote in RfAs, complete with, ironically, a picture at the top of the new sub-section, helpfully likening the proposal Kudpung hadn't made, to the ancient Roman class system.

Now, I'm willing to accept that Kudpung may have been dealing with a lot else at the time, may have been annoyed that "his" thread was somehow being defaced, and may have jumped to the ridiculous conclusion "the caption has my username in it, so it must be an attack on me". What's the excuse for the rest of you?

That doesn't apply to Isarra, who apparently merely believes that it's inappropriate to deal with an outbreak of strawman arguments by pointing out that they are strawman arguments (she just happens to be wrong, but being wrong is not the same as being inexplicably rude, presumptuous, sanctimonious, and failing to assume good faith), nor wctaiwan, who just has some view on it whose reasoning remains utterly obscure to me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Constitutional Court of Moldova			Weekend Now
	Deepender Singh Hooda			Swiss mercenaries
	Uganda Broadcasting Corporation			Exploration Mission 1
	Ostrov, Piešťany District		Merge
	Bill Hodges			Never Put It in Writing
	Rusty Stevens			Distributed learning
	William Wilberforce Bird (governor)			Youth subculture
	International Magicians Society		Add sources
	Allan Hubley			International STAND UP to Bullying Day
	John Adam (administrator)			Good Behavior Game
	Balance of power (federalism)			Knowledge Navigator
	Gary Namie		Wikify
	Mike Deane			MG English International School Bagru
	Grace Community Church (California)			Haplogroup E1b1b1c (Y-DNA)
	Hong Kong people in the United States			St. Jude School
	Fran Fraschilla		Expand
	Hoddy Mahon			Abuse
	Jim in Bold			Bullying in medicine
	Nottingham Crown Court			Connected farm

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Formatting

I tried to fix it, but I'm not sure that's how you wanted it to look. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 21:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a distinct improvement on how it looked before. Thanks!

I think the perfect formatting might be to have a # mark at the start of each paragraph, but sadly I don't think we can do that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

New to this assignment

I am new to Wikipedia. I have to select an article for editing review. Any ideas how to pin point an article to review?

Thanks for your help!

Ellenizgellin (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Ellenizgellin 10/17/2012

Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been pre-occupied with various things. What sort of review do you mean? One project that is always in need of reviewers is DYK. So you could read through what's at WP:DYK and see if you can find a nomination to review. Feel free to ask again if you need more help! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

GOCE fall newsletter

Fall Events from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in its events: The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is currently in the submissions stage. Submit your best October copy edit there before the end of the month. Submissions end, and discussion and voting begin, on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC). Voting is in progress for the September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest. Everyone is welcome to vote, whether they have entered the contest or not. NEW!! In the week from Sunday 21 October to Saturday 27 October, we are holding a Project Blitz, in which we will copy edit articles tagged with {{copyedit}} belonging to selected project(s). For the first blitz, we'll start with WikiProject Olympics and WikiProject Albums and add more Projects to the blitz as we clear them. The blitz works much like our bimonthly drives, but a bit simpler. Everyone is welcome to take part, and barnstars will be awarded. November 2012 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in 2011 and to complete all requests placed before the end of October. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Stfg, Allens, and Torchiest. >>> Blitz sign-up <<<         >>> Drive sign-up <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

GibraltarPediA Options followup

You participated earlier in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options, in which a proposed moratorium on Gibraltar-related DYKs was rejected and a set of options was agreed. There is currently a suggestion from editors who did not participate in that discussion that a moratorium should be imposed, overturning the earlier agreement. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Time-sensitive DYK nomination. Prioryman (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I may be a little late now, but I'll try and have a look there this evening. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For cleaning up my talk page :) Mark Arsten (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Very welcome! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocks

I hope you don't mind, but rather than load up Stephan's page some more I'm replying here. Right, but, as Stephan has made clear, that's not why he blocked in this instance.; I don't follow entirely. Malleus' only uncivil comment (and indeed about his only edit) following Stephan's warning was to reply with an insult. I could get on board if he took the warning then followed it up by going after MONGO again, but that isn't what happened. As to notoriety; Admins should exercise caution then for their own sakes :) It would be nice to have a community where notorious editors, and admins :P, could be treated the same way as the other 99%. Sadly it doesn't work that way - as is evidenced. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, no problem with moving it here, my talk page is a haven of calm and tranquillity. Well, with the occasional exception :-)

I think the misleading assumption here is that Stephan's initial post to Malleus' talk page was, as you put it, a warning. With that assumption, then we have a sequence of events like this; Malleus insults Mongo, Stephan warns Malleus, Malleus insults Stephan, Stephan blocks Malleus. With that sequence of events, it does indeed follow that the block was a result of the second insult not the first.

However, Stephan's initial post to Malleus' talk page didn't specifically say "please don't insult other editors again" (a warning), but rather it suggested (requested) that Malleus retract his insult to Mongo. Malleus chose not to do so, and he chose not to do so emphatically. The only conclusion Stephan could draw from Malleus' response, was that Malleus would indeed insult Mongo again the next time he felt like doing so. (A conclusion that, unsurprisingly, turned out to be accurate, though that was later.) Therefore Stephan imposed a preventative block, based on the indication that the first insult (the one to Mongo) would be repeated.

If it helps to clarify, consider other possible responses Malleus could have made. If he'd replied with "No I certainly will not retract my comments, and I'll carry on making people aware of Mongo's nature every time I feel like it", then that would've made his intentions clear equally emphatically, and Stephan would still have been justified in blocking even in the absence of further edits that insulted Mongo or anyone else. In other words, the block was due to what the second insult made by Malleus indicated about the first insult made by Malleus, not due to the second insult itself (or its target).

Now of course there's lots of other things in question - whether Stephan's initial post was worded to make clear enough that it was a request for retraction not a warning about future edits, whether I'm interpreting Stephan's meaning correctly, whether the block was justified, whether admins should never make requests for retractions of insulting comments, and so on. But to me the post hoc ergo propter hoc assumptions about the block are clearly flawed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

More pie for T

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixG1995 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I was just thinking of contacting you, as I have important news. Sainsbury's are selling Jaffa Cakes for £4/yard! I bought a yard (60 cakes) yesterday. It's relatively rare that provisions get measured in yards; yard of ale is the only other example I can think of. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary was cut off

So what else did you mean to say here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The truncated word was "discussions". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

something about members of Indian National Lok Dal

Hello Demiurge very good day to you I am very thankful to you for stopping user - Sachkasamna1972 for editing article " Om Prakash Chautala " living person biography. Article is the National President Of Political Party name - Indian National Lok Dal, india based political party. user - Sachkasamna1972 is doing same for article - "Ajay Singh Chautala" User belongs to opposition party, thats why user is posting fake material in articles. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.71.146.6 (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've now watchlisted that article too. I do wish you people would email me so that we can talk about having properly freely licensed pictures of these various very respected politicians, that we can use on the Wikipedia article about them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thought you should know

Hmm... I wonder... This is the author of Manic Miner. He is a sensible fellow who doesn't say obviously untrue things in public, nor threaten to slit people's throats. Can you do as well as him?

It looks like you're under attack by Wikipediocracy now. There's a thread on you now. I just thought you should know. Silverseren^C 01:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Looks like that got deleted quickly. Interesting. Silverseren^C 05:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I saw this the other night. I was terribly excited, and was seriously considering staying up watching for responses :-) but actually just went to bed instead.

I'm not hugely surprised that it was "swiftly moderated", just as the original boxcutter comments were. Quite apart from the "amusing" attached video probably not being very amusing for people with real life psychiatric problems who need to have ECT treatment, there's presumably a more rational subset of the Wikipediocracy staff who don't see this sort of juvenile 4chan-style "you suck" behaviour as helping their cause, just as the boxcutter threats didn't help their cause.

They need to portray their forum to outsiders as containing rational discourse, and that's difficult enough when a significant proportion of contributors there use adjectives like "evil" to describe WP editors in all seriousness, or label people like WTT a "brain-washed cult member". I regularly attempt to recruit new members for Wikipediocracy, but it's not uncommon that I get the response (as I did the other day) "what on earth did you give me that link for? That's obviously just a crank site!" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw it too. It was made by lilburne. He linked yo your post about boxcutters and called you "manic". You should upload the screenshot you mentioned to Flickr, and publish the link to it on Wikipedia because otherwise it is really hard to believe that you are not manic and that somebody really threatened "to slit a few throats". 71.198.215.115 (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, unregistered editor number 115, and welcome to Wikipedia! Congratulations on making your way here to my talk page. This is where we discuss my editing on Wikipedia, and things that I might want to be informed of. It's not where we discuss things that were randomly claimed about me on random forum websites that then subsequently got "swiftly moderated" anyway.

However, I'm sure it's much easier to find evidence of my being "manic", than to try to pretend that the Wikipediocracy staff member with the username "EricBarbour" didn't say what we all know he said.

For the record, the exact wording of the sentence was "It just makes me want to fly to London, get a box-cutter, and start slitting nerdy little throats." In the screenshot I have, the immediately subsequent posts are from a certain "professional journalist" (I wonder if this is the so-called "Wikipediocracy trustee" that Kolbe recently mentioned on Jimbo's talk page) 26 minutes later, and Kolbe himself (the other Wikipediocracy "Global Moderator") sometime after that. Neither of them express any disapproval or concern about the boxcutter comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Kindly stop lying by omission, Demiurge1000. What happened was that I posted the following exchange from the uk.wikimedia watercooler site in the Gibraltarpedia discussion thread on Wikipediocracy:

There have been changes here - can we get Robain's report to the Board on September 8th up here, linked from the board meeting reports? From memory, the project will now be managed by a new Welsh non-profit company, who will get this and any future grants or WMUK money for this project. Originally we were going to manage it & now we won't. One reason is that a specifically Welsh body can help with getting grants. The project remains well within WMUK's mission, & I think the limited support given so far, plus some future support, is an appropriate use of funds. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying it is an appropriate use of Wikimedia supporters' donations to pay travel expenses for a Wikimedia UK director (and/or other Wikipedians connected with the project) so that he can get a £17,500 grant for himself? Andreas JN 20:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Then another user posted:

Sorry, can I just clarify if I am reading this right:

WMUK paid expenses for a WMUK trustee to work on getting a grant from elsewhere that will not go to WMUK, but in fact will go directly to the trustee?

O.o

Granted you could probably argue the expenses claim was a microgrant by WMUK in order to achieve a goal that they have an interest in seeing happening... But ethically that's dodgy as fuck...

In response to that Eric Barbour posted:

I gotta stop reading this thread. It just makes me want to fly to London, get a box-cutter, and start slitting nerdy little throats. These bastards simply aren't worth the effort.

That was followed by another post by someone else, saying:

They seem to be doing a fairly efficient job of slitting their own throats. Might as well stay home.

The last two of these comments were redacted. Cheers, Andreas JN466 05:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So the "someone else" at Wikipediocracy (I suspect they are in the screenshot I have, but haven't checked) managed a more sensible tone than Barbour, who is staff there. (Is he one of your "Wikipediocracy trustees" that got treated to a copy of Jimbo's private email to you, I wonder?)

And then, by the sound of it, someone at Wikipediocracy decided Barbour's comments were clearly beyond the pale. Which they clearly were.

Careful who you accuse of lying, you who spend your time plotting with your little band of "Wikipediocracy trustees". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Second Epistle of Clement			Laura Wright (singer)
	Acts of Peter and Paul			George Fisher (scientist)
	Chicken Run (video game)			Referendum
	SPNEGO		Merge
	Bill Foster (basketball, born 1936)			Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008
	Operation Bretagne			Ramil Safarov
	Pluggable authentication module			Amputation
	Frank Hübner		Add sources
	Portrait of Guidobaldo da Montefeltro			Injection fraction
	Tibesti-Jebel Uweinat montane xeric woodlands			Florida
	Giancarlo Parretti			UK Independence Party
	John Giannini		Wikify
	South Saharan steppe and woodlands			British University in Dubai
	French cruiser Algérie			Howrah station
	Wikidata			Historical population of Banja Luka
	Vibe Tribe		Expand
	Sir George Barlow, 1st Baronet			Beta Israel
	Sublime Text			The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care
	Charenton-le-Pont			Franz de Paula Adam von Waldstein

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry about that - indeed it was a misclick.--ukexpat (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all - thanks for the note. It might've been a moment to have a BLP-war, but perhaps best not :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Changed it

Polybius, fl. 2nd century B.C.

I changed the unnecessary change you did on thearticle of separation of powers and i just want to talk, why did you change my previous correct statement?--User:Slurpy121 (talk)

I reverted your first edit to the page because you did not provide a reference to verify the information that you were adding. In addition, you added your material into a paragraph already referenced to a source, and that source contradicted what you added. Finally, you didn't include an WP:EDITSUMMARY to explain what you were trying to do. I have opened a discussion on the talk page of the article, Talk:Separation of powers#Montesquieu is not Polybius, please contribute your thoughts there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Montesquieu, fl. 18th century A.D.

If you read the whole thing carefully, then you would realize that the reference i stated is in fact supporting my satement, and wikipedia is a place to add information to articles that need it, and thats what i'm doing, thank you ;)--User:Slurpy121 (talk)

Sacha Baron Cohen, fl. 21st century A.D.

That is exactly what i'm going to do with you! you only reverse my statements because on the article says that the separations of powers of montesquieu was inspired by the british constitution but when in fact, Polybius had a great impact on Montesquieu but you refuse to accept that because you yourself are british! so i find it pretty childish and ingnorant of you to reverse my actions for such a petty purpose, thank you!--User:Slurpy121 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is it becos I is Bri-ish? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

RE:WP:AFC

Hello Demiurge. Sorry about my typos in the declination by the way. My first language is not English. I have revewed your article, and have accepted it. It has some big improvements. It is located at: Cesar Balsa.

Thank you for your time, Jr Mime (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The "typos" were not the problem, nor is it "my" article. Thanks though. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

notification

A misguided discussion has been opened on WP:ANI about the Separation of powers -- the newbie editor is being redirected to the article talk page where you've been attempting to start a dialog. NE Ent 03:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it seems so often these things boomerang to completion while I'm still asleep! I've added some illustrations above. Thanks for letting me know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment placement

Demiurge, is it possible you misplaced a comment of yours (the one starting "Sounds sensible ...") on Jimbo's talk page? I 'think* you were probably replying to Corporate's or my post about the COIN noticeboard; instead your comment ended up a couple of paras higher up. Cheers, Andreas JN466 19:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, yes. Moved it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If the template makes sense, should we use it? I'm game for BRDing the template until someone complains ;-) Corporate 16:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't the obvious immediate application of it be to put it on the talk page of every single BLP? That number of hundreds and thousands of changes might be a bit too bold. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The feedback so far has been not to use it for BLPs, just companies. Our prior discussions were to start with an experimental sample. For example, we could use it on a dozen closely-watched company articles and see what the reaction is. Corporate 17:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sounds sensible to me - try it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

What?

In case you were wondering, the level two header added was the name of the subject's most recent album. I would have done the same. Thanks. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 20:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

GOCE November 2012 copy edit drive update

Guild of Copy Editors November 2012 backlog elimination drive mid-drive newsletter Participation: Out of 31 people signed up for this drive so far, 22 have copy-edited at least one article. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, every bit helps; if you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Template:J Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive. We have reduced our target group of articles—November and December 2011—by over 50%, and 34 of the the 56 requests made in September and October this year have already been fulfilled. However, the rate of tagging for copy edit has increased, and this month we are just keeping the size of the backlog stable. So, all you copy editors, please do come along and help us! The September 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest was won by Baffle gab1978 for his copy edit of Expulsion of the Acadians. Runner up was Gareth Griffith-Jones for his edit of I Could Fall in Love. Congratulations to both. The October 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the discussion and voting stage until midnight November 30 (UTC). You don't have to make a submission to vote! November 2012 Copy Edit of the Month Contest is in the submissions stage until midnight November 30 (UTC), when discussion and voting begin. Seasonal oversight: We had a slight fall from grace in the title of our last newletter, which mentioned the season in the northern hemisphere and thus got it wrong for the southern. Fortunately an observant GOCE member was ready to spring into action to advise us. Thanks! In future we'll stay meteorologically neutral. >>> Sign up now <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Charles Jaco

Hello, Demiurge1000 I'm going to have to ask you to revert youre most recent edit to Charles Jaco, as you changed it after I had made a reference point. I thank you for notyfying me on my talk page of this but as you can see in the history there is a reference. Cole132132 (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Check the separation of powers talk page

I have replied to you in the talk page of the article.—Slurpy121 (talk)

Thanks, will reply there later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

D Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

ME NO ORBISTON

a wider body

You imply that I am Orbiston. I am not. Though I have read his entry (and the Stuart Murphy history) very thoroughly indeed and I agree with a lot, though not all, of what he says (I note that he is now barred from Wikipedia). There seems to be a bizarre wall of steel around mention of Stuart Murphy's sexuality, and I share Orbiston’s suspicions that his image is being protected by PR people probably in his or his company’s employ. It is well known that top TV people have PR accounts. If Mr Murphy is having the references to his sexuality removed, then I find this paradoxical. He came out to Broadcast Magazine and subsequently The Guardian, so why would he care? And where is the shame? And what do you mean by saying the entry is “not helpful”? Again I agree with Orbiston. It Is as if there is a deep level of homophobia going on here. Take Stephen Fry’s entry. That deals in some detail with his homosexuality. So why should Mr Murphy’s on-the-record statement be ignored? He is a highly influential man and for young men who are homosexual but who feel they cannot come out, the announcement Mr Murphy made about his sexuality could be vitally important to them. I am amazed by the ferocity of Orbiston’s censorship. Take a look at the history. True to say he is a little frantic, but he makes some good points. The more so in the light of recent published revelations where PR people have been caught in the act of editing Wikipedia pages for money (and apologised). This sort of thing does happen, and the revisions on this page point very much to that aort of activity. So, in the spirit of Stephen Fry’s page, I am changing the category to Personal Life and replacing the text. If you wish to censor this again, you should refer it to senior, fair-thinking editors who specialise in BLPs. I am new to Wikipedia, so will simply sit back and watch the process with interest. And I think if there is much more of this, the whole history should be examined by a wider body. And my single point on the user page was a slip and should not be interpreted as anything else. As I said I am new to Wikipedia PRDISTORTION (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

More paragraph breaks would be nice. I am not a "PR person" nor have ever worked as one or for one. Nor has anyone asked me to make any changes to the article about Murphy.

Your conspiracy theory doesn't make sense. If Murphy or his company were having the information removed, why would he be openly presenting that same information to newspapers and magazines?

I don't see the connection with homophobia.

I also don't see that "young men who are homosexual but who feel they cannot come out" would ever even have heard of Murphy (I hadn't, and I'm from the same country).

I'm also a bit puzzled that you are "new to Wikipedia" but still managed to find Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orbiston within less than an hour of its creation, despite not being notified of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

“More paragraph breaks would be nice”? Well, Fewer patronising remarks would be nice too. Criticising the poor layout from a Wikpedia neophyte is unworthy of an experienced editor. Imagine a paragraph break here. I am not accusing you of being a PR person. I am saying that the history of edits on the SM page come from various people many of them “one offs” and that Orbiston’s (more often than not) reasonable attempt to do no more than mention SM’s sexuality has been dealt with in a disproportionately aggressive way by some of those people. That said, I think Orbiston showed signs of a grudge. Accusing me of conspiracy is also unworthy in the light of recent revelations about paid PR companies editing Wikipedia pages. Imagine a paragraph break here. I notice that you choose not to tell me why my edit contravenes Wikipedia’s policy on Biogs of living persons, nor do you address the analogy I make about Stephen Fry’s page which is littered with references to that living person's sexuality. You are correct. It seems bizarre that Murphy might be behind this aggressive censorship (for that is what went on with Orbiston). But, let us imagine a scenario where, earlier this year, SM sniffed a tabloid exposé (disgusting but they still happen even post News of the World)about him leaving his wife and child for a gay lover. Could he have perhaps come up with a solution whereby he decided to come out and give a “spoiler” interview to a trade mag (Broadcast) in the hope that it would all go away? But now there it is in Wikipedia and he doesn't like it (or maybe his bosses don't). If so, he shouldn’t have given an interview in the first place. Imagine a paragraph break. By the way you still don’t define what you mean by “not helpful”. Finally, any young person, male or female wanting to get into the media would know Stuart Murphy well. He runs many Sky channels. To a gay person, young or old, his coming out would be significant. And finally finally, I didn’t find Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orbiston “within less than an hour of its creation”. I am a journalist (not the exposé type though I am getting very interested in how Wikipedia works) and was contacted by another journalist who is following this activity. If my entry is removed again, I trust you will be fair (you seem to be a reasonable person) and refer it to the biog of living persons community and I will follow that process closely. PRDISTORTION (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Fry is quite clear about his opinions

You have absolutely no evidence to suggest that I am a reasonable person, so I suggest you withdraw that insinuation.

Also, you have been blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orbiston.

Now, as for my not having replied to every single one of your points, well yes, when you present me with a wall of text of that nature, brimming with implications and assumptions and accusations and who knows what, I will indeed pick out the specific points that spring to mind. I'm not here to write essays explaining things to you. And in fact, much of this discussion should be happening on the talk page of the article, not here. But, since the template I used invited you here, I will entertain your questions here for a little while.

First, I don't see any "bizarre wall of steel" around Murphy's article. I see a single-purpose account (Orbiston) repeatedly and determinedly trying to insert negative material, and a small selection of other accounts and IP addresses (some of which were single purpose accounts, and some not) dealing with that. Orbiston was neither being "reasonable", nor trying "to do no more than mention SM's sexuality", nor was he willing to abide by Wikipedia's policies. That's why he got blocked - not "aggressive censorship".

I haven't used the word "conspiracy", so I have no idea where you got that from.

The Wikipedia page Stephen Fry mentions Fry's sexuality with due weight - I think one or two sentences out of a very lengthy article that has more than 150 references, as against 5 (currently) for the Murphy article. Also, Fry has publicly campaigned on gay rights and related issues - he deliberately makes it a part of his public persona and his internet fame. Murphy has not done so.

Now, imagining for a moment that your postulated scenario is correct, that the only reason that Murphy's sexuality was mentioned in published sources was that a "disgusting tabloid exposé" was planned, then I don't need to explain to you that such material is not the sort of thing we use to evidence commentary about a living person on Wikipedia.

I'm making this reply on an "I'm started so I'll finish" generosity basis, but really you have no right to make accusations of this nature, here or anywhere else. Don't do it, please.

As you are an investigative journalist, I recommend to you the website and forum http://wikipediocracy.com/ - that site has amongst its "trustees" a number of individuals who consider themselves "professional journalists" in the USA, and I am sure that many of them share similar concerns to yourself about places where young gay men can express their feelings.

Please don't make silly "might be behind this aggressive censorship" accusations here again, or I'll have to remove them without comment. I really am quite busy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

24 hour block for personal attacks

I have blocked your account for 24 hours for repeating your personal attacks. I have explained my reasoning here. Fram (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or submit a request for unblock to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

Since I specifically said I wasn't going to repeat the statement, you're out of line.

24 hours, though? That sounds like an ideal opportunity to spend time looking for the diff - and your statement at ANI suggests that you think I should post it right here on my talk page when I find it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You repeated it at the ANI discussion, which was more than sufficient. And any further accusations of sockpuppetry should be filed at a WP:SPI, not here. Fram (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not making any accusations of sockpuppetry. Are you seriously saying that you blocked me for not posting the diff, but are also now telling me I shouldn't post it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You are accusing another editor of having made an impersonator account. How are you then not making any accusations of sockpuppetry? And I didn't block you for not posting a diff, I blocked you for repeating unfounded personal attacks, while making it even worse by claiming that for one, you had a very good source which you just couldn't reveal, and for the other, you had a very good diff which you just couldn't be bothered to search for.

Now, if you want to search for that diff anyway, keep it off-wiki, and either you feel that it is solid evidence of sockpuppetry and you present it at SPI (althoug if it is old, there is very little they will be willing or able to do anyway), or it is insufficient as evidence and then you simply don't mention the accusation or the diff again. But posting it here will serve no purpose but getting yourself blocked for longer. Fram (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Fram, I disagree with the "let's brush this under the carpet" mentality - I know the history here, I'd rather see this in the open and sorted. Rather than alluding to stuff, I'll just post the diffs I know about. Discussions at Malleus talk page and at your talk page. In summary, you and Malleus had a disagreement in July and August 2011, culminating in this comment, an hour later Demiurge10 was created, made one edit (an Isreal-Palestine rant) and was blocked 4 minutes later for abusing multiple accounts. I do not know who it was a sockpuppet of, but I hope you have more evidence linking it to Malleus than his comment. If that's all youv'e got - you need to drop this. That Malleus mentioned Demiurge100 last week, a clear typo of Demiurge1000 and unlikely to have anything to do with Demiurge10 given context, does not prove anything and gives the impression of extreme paranoia.

Regarding alternative accounts - I have a vague recollection of Malleus making some sort of comment like "I could have an alternate admin account, but you wouldn't know" in the past two years, but have no idea where or indeed if he said that. Even if he did say that, it doesn't mean he actually has one and based on other information, I would be surprised if he did.

The long comment on your page was not appropriate, it was a personal attack. You went on to repeat the allegations without evidence at ANI, even if you were stating that you would not repeat them further. I'd suggest you drop the accusations and stay away from Malleus. If you can't do this voluntarily, a formal interaction ban might be the best option, I doubt Malleus would object. Worm^TT(talk) 13:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)The comment I was thinking of was in reply to "Malleus has never had admin rights" where he stated - "Perhaps you assume too much. Certainly Malleus has never been an admin, and never will be, but I'm not Malleus. That's just the name of this account." Worm^TT(talk) 15:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I did some alternative research in the meantime, and Demiurge100 (instead of Demiurge1000) has also been used by jc37 here, SandyGeorgia here, Kiefer Wolfowitz here, and, coincidentally, Worm That Turned here. Using that as evidence for any sockpuppetry case is not really convincing. Fram (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly an interesting list of users.

As regards the threat diff, you don't need to try to prevent me posting it here, because Worm has already posted it. Yep, exactly sixty-one minutes between Malleus' threat, and the imposter account being created. I draw no conclusions from that coincidence at all, of course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

So the accusation is all based on that coincidence? Nothing further that links Demiurge10 to Malleus Fatuorum? Worm^TT(talk) 13:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You're aware of my views of that coincidence. But, as I've said (repeatedly), I'm not making any accusations. This seems a bit WP:DEADHORSE over a single edit that I made more than three days ago. As I already said at ANI, I am prepared to accept Dennis' reassurance that nothing untoward is (or was) going on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Demiurge10 (talk · contribs) account is a duck sockpuppet of JarlaxleArtemis, who is completely unrelated to Malleus. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. As to my other question, would you agree to a voluntary interaction ban with Malleus Fatuorum? Standard stuff, don't comment on him, discuss him or reply to him. As laid out here. I'll ask for the same from him. Worm^TT(talk) 13:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)There was only one diff to look at, and it was easy to see that the 100 account WAS a sock, but a sock that hated Palestinians (looking at the RevDel'ed edit), and the edit was a copy/paste of a hate article and they had an obvious goal. It was very clear that it wasn't Malleus. I take socking quite serious, which is why I have spent 6 months learning the craft of defeating socks. I promise I wasn't just dismissing your claim and used the same diligence and respect I would have used in any SPI case. As for the "hidden admin account", there is no way to prove a negative, my comment was only that the claim was bizarre, and it is. Hopefully we can just move forward from here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm aware of the content of the revdel'd edit, although I don't necessarily share your conclusions about it. But I don't (and didn't) doubt your diligence at all. The comment Worm remembers Malleus as making about admin account access was indeed a little bizarre, but it's a funny old world. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I will add, though, that it's a little less bizarre when you consider that there's at least one currently active administrator who has in the past given access to his account to someone else who was not an administrator, who then used the admin tools extensively on that "shared" admin account. There was also at least one other admin who did the same in a related incident, so it's not beyond the bounds of belief that there are other such incidents that we don't know about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• WHO? Never heard that before. If true, I would like to see the diffs so I can demand an emergency desysop.MONGO 14:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Dealt with a long time ago. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, before the drama unfolds any further, can we verify a couple of things: a) although accusing someone of being a sock (even repeatedly) is uncivil, but not usually a personal attack (admitted, YMMV), b) the real Demiurge has identified that the intent was not to WP:PA, c) the real Demiurge has identified that the behaviour (even if it was perception) will not recur, is there any actual value-added reason for this block to continue in terms of protecting the project or its members? Yes, a voluntary IB might be called for here, but I don't believe it's overly germane to what actually occurred (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • "the real Demiurge has identified that the intent was not to WP:PA"? Demiurge has made claims that he didn't intend to accuse anyone of socking, while actually doing nothing but. The original post here, amongst some other backhanded PAs, contained things like "One too many coincidences, I feel. The leopard shows its spots." when discussing Malleus, Demiurge 10, and the Demiurge100 typo Malleus made one year later. Here, after the block, he continued with statements like "I draw no conclusions from that coincidence at all, of course." You may be convinced that that is evidence that he didn't accuse anyone of socking, and that he didn't want to attack anyone, but to me this reads quite differently. I saw plenty of reasons to block, and see no reason to modify the block or its length here. Fram (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A fish

Why do you read "I draw no conclusions from that coincidence at all" as meaning the opposite of what it says?

Come to think of it, why do you justify your block at ANI by saying that I didn't post the diff (or, in fact, I said I'd find it later), but then here on my talk page you tell me I shouldn't post the diff here?

Something fishy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I have revealed myself now, I am in reality the secret admin account of Malleus. Apart from that fishy smell you so expertly found; for the last time, that is not the block reason, and not what I said here. I repeat: "I didn't block you for not posting a diff, I blocked you for repeating unfounded personal attacks, while making it even worse by claiming that for one, you had a very good source which you just couldn't reveal, and for the other, you had a very good diff which you just couldn't be bothered to search for." And I continued to state that if you want to repeat the accusations anyway (straightforward or hidden in rhetoric), do it at the appropriate noticeboards (in this case, at SPI), not on your talk page. If you still can't see the problem with what you did, nor the correct way to handle such a thing in the future, then there is even less reason to lift the block. Fram (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that Worm has posted the diff (above) where Malleus himself openly and specifically puts forward the idea of him possibly having access to admin rights on an account other than the Malleus Fatuorum account, it's clear my comments were not unfounded at all, so your rationale for the block no longer applies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Weaving

• Demiurge1000, the key here is that your claims are unreasonable when compared to the evidence. Your post wasn't just saying "I wonder if MF has a second account", the entire post was a rant, assassinating the character of another person. I think you have to reflect a bit and admit that your personal opinion of Malleus got in the way of your better judgement and that the entire rant, not just the one claim, was uncalled for. You are taking minor unrelated statements and weaving them into something bigger than life. I think your emotions have gotten the best of you here, friend, and your good judgement has taken a back seat. The purpose of the block is to prevent further disruption, and this is accomplished by having the block for a period of time long enough for the actor to reflect and understand why the block took place, to reevaluate their actions, and figure out how they can conform to community norms. I think you need to pause here and reflect, to understand why you were blocked, so the same mistake isn't repeated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not weaving anything into anything, but Fram is certainly weaving a rather imaginative tapestry of things that I haven't actually said. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should being a bit clearer instead of relying on innuendo and "coincidences". Fram (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Gotta say I disagree with this block, at least for the reason given. Yes, Demiurge was intemperate and attacked Malleus on thin/no evidence. The thing is, it looks to me like 1) he was told his assumptions were incorrect and that he was jumping the gun madly, followed by 2) he said "ok, well, I heard that accusation from someone else, but since it seems to have been baseless, I won't bring it up again", followed by 3) he was blocked for a personal attack. Let's review that again: he said that he wouldn't bring up the attack-ish theory again...and he was blocked for an attack. Prior to that comment by him, you could certainly have defended an NPA block. But blocking after he said he was no longer going to beat the horse seems like a very bad call unless there's something huge here that I and the ANI thread are missing. Dropping the stick and not pursuing the dispute are good things, not things to block over. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If that was what he had done, obviously it would have been a bad block. What he did say was that he read the statement by Dennis, but that he had a better authority for his claim, and that he stood by his sock claim, but that he couldn't be bothered to present the evidence and might perhaps put it on his talk page later. I don't see any "oh, apparently I was wrong", neither explicitly nor implicitly, only repetition of his earlier attacks. Fram (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I see acknowledgement (albeit with a rather sharp edge of sarcasm) that the admin account accusation has been rebutted and that he wouldn't pursue it any further. As for the impersonation accusation, I see a comment along the lines of "Fine, ok, not pursuing this right now either. If I find the evidence for it later, I'll present it." Could he have recanted that more strongly? Sure. Did he nevertheless say that he's not pursuing this matter any further? I think that was his intention. At any rate, presumably this can be cleared up fairly easily by asking Demiurge to make a definitive statement about his intentions: Demiurge, do you intend to continue pursuing these accusations about Malleus, on ANI or elsewhere? That would include anything from starting ANI threads to making insinuations elsewhere, without presenting valid evidence for the reality of such claims. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

ETA, on re-reading this talk: I managed to miss a little ways up on here where Demiurge asserts that based on what Worm said, he was clearly right to accuse Malleus. Demiurge, we're definitely going to need you to pick one or the other at this point: either you get that your accusations were flimsy and you're not going to keep pushing them, or you continue to believe you're right and you intend to pursue them. If the former, the block isn't necessary. If the latter, your choices are basically either to stay blocked, or to tamp down your temper and request an unblock on the grounds that you will file a very neutral SPI, wait quietly for the results, accept the results, and end things that way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I do find it necessary to state clearly here, it was Malleus himself that openly and specifically put forward the idea of him possibly having access to admin rights on an account other than the Malleus Fatuorum account (diff above). Having made that statement, no, I will not now raise, mention, bring up, or refer to (even obliquely) either that comment of Malleus', nor the interpretation of that comment previously provided to me by a third party, nor the conclusions I based on that, nor the Demiurge10 or Demiurge100 accounts, nor any assumptions I may have made about those accounts, anywhere on-wiki. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"but that he had a better authority" is twisting my words somewhat. I was quite specific that I accepted Dennis' assessment of the situation; my statement that I had heard it from another source was an explanation (inadequate or otherwise) of where I heard about it from, not an assertion that my source was correct and Dennis was wrong. You are, again, putting words in my mouth, and it's getting increasingly difficult to AGF on your reasons for doing so.

"he stood by his sock claim" is twisting my words a lot. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not he was blocked or is unblocked, he needs to understand why this is disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole, as it creates a hostile environment. Not as a condition to be unblocked, but simply because that kind of conduct is detrimental to the project regardless. For that matter, had he said "Yeah, I was mad, I shouldn't have said that publicly" then he would have been unblocked by any number of admin. The whole of the statement, not just the sock claim. I didn't want him blocked to begin with, which is why I tried to handle the situation with a firm but respectful admonishment on his talk page. Had he paused and reflected a bit instead of going to ANI with a statement that was reinforcing his previous attack more than admitting that it was improper, then we wouldn't be here. Once you notice you are in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Understanding is absolutely the ideal, but in most cases we're willing to settle for "May not agree that they were wrong, but nevertheless won't do it again". We can't really control - or try to control - what people think, we can only make it clear that no matter what they think, they have to act according to our policies and guidelines. In this case, that would mean we want to see Demiurge (even if he still privately thinks Malleus is doing something wrong) acknowledge that given that there's no evidence that Malleus is doing anything wrong, he can't go on acting and talking like Malleus is doing something wrong. He can think that if he likes, but he can't bring it onwiki. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That is consistent with my comments. I wasn't asking Demiurge to admit his conclusions were wrong, but to recognize that his methods were, posting the entire section that was attacking another editor. He is free to conclude whatever he wishes, but he isn't free to publish an attack. Like I said, if he had said "Yeah, I shouldn't have said that publicly", this would be over. This doesn't dictate what he thinks or says in private, only what he publishes onwiki. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Fram doesn't seem to be around, I've unblocked as he has stated he understands and I'm inclined to believe him and I don't think anything is gained from laboring it further. Again, I'm not telling anyone what to think, nor discouraging anyone from emailing a CU or filing a report, nor from simply having an opinion. The key is avoid "crossing the line" into attacks, and not digging in, and instead being open minded when an objective party tells you that you have crossed the line. You're a smart guy and good contributor, and I hope we can all just put this unfortunate situation behind us, and get back to writing articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all for constructive and thoughtful input on this. As an additional mildly entertaining coincidence, it was actually as I was trying to add a comment to BWilkins' talkpage (unrelated to this) that I first ever saw the "you can't edit Wikipedia right now" (or whatever the exact wording is) message. An interesting moment!

It seems the discussion continues elsewhere, but I think I'll leave them to it on this occasion :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's talk turkey

Yes, I have been making edits to the Video Game Critic page, and you are probably wondering my reasons. Honestly, my main reasons are because I see more bias in his reviews than most do, especially in Mario Platformers and games staring non-humanoid characters. I have compared many games he has reviewed to each other, and I've found a lot of the games he has given high reviews to, B+ or higher, are generally mediocre games, where as a lot of his C+ or lower games are generally really good games. In my latest edit, I cited a few bits from his reviews explaining a few questionable remarks he made in some of his reviews.

And the reason I have never signed in to the Wiki is because I prefer to remain anonymous.