User talk:Avanu/Archive 9

Talkback
Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 23:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't build that article.
Hi Avanu, I left a note at the article talk page. I was wondering why you would edit the article to change what reliable sources and the Whitehouse transcript report? --68.9.119.69 (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll reply to you there, I guess. -- Avanu (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up that if you revert again, you will probably be blocked for 3rr. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
For your time and patience. Jim1138 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 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!

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) 12:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method at religion, and specifically Christianity-related, articles
Hi, Avanu. You might want to weigh in here and/or here. 94.76.201.77 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

My user page
The discussion has been had numerous times: my userpage is fine. dangerous panda  23:05, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where? You reference that it has been "approved"; who are you referencing? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just saw an instance where you were using your sig "dangerouspanda" and getting onto an editor and claiming Admin status as the reason. I don't see any reason being given as to why you have this alternate account with a misleading signature and your obfuscate your other username. The behavior I'm seeing reminds me of the stuff we deal with when we have a tenditious IP playing games. If you want to be an admin on EatsShootsAndLeaves, then ask for the bit to be moved over. Also, if you want to be an admin period, stop using a signature that is misleading people into thinking your username is "dangerouspanda". I've tried to come up with some rational reason that an admin would behave like this, and I'm not coming up with anything reasonable. I await your rationale. -- Avanu (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I never claimed admin status anywhere. Period.  Also, our sig/username policy explicitly permits sigs like this...not meant to obfuscate anything, it's simply easier than changing the name  dangerous  panda  09:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

dangerous panda  11:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You're too WP:INVOLVED to make that close an ANI. See my talkpage.   dangerous  panda  10:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not involved. I told you my concern, and as an adult, I expect you to do what you wish with it. My involvement was done at that point. If you exhibit behavior that is out of line for an editor in the future, that might be a new concern, but I've closed the book on your previous actions. I would have thought that was made perfectly clear by my posts on the matter. -- Avanu (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Avanu, seriously - you cannot see how you're the cause of his current behavour? You continue to make him believe I have done something wrong - which I haven't.  It was your mistaken comments on my talkpage weeks ago, and now your suggestion to him that I need to change it are continuing problems by setting incorrect expectations.  How much more involved can you be?  Hey, if you're able to get him to strikethough and retract his threat (which is a clear, unambiguous threat) and to get him to leave me the fuck alone, then I'll possibly regain some respect for you.  Until then, you're enabling his harassment.  dangerous  panda  10:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't close an ANI thread when you are involved in the discussions around it. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The involvement is only perceived by him. I was done with this a long time ago. He and Jason are fighting and my goal in closing that AN/I was to help them work it out, not beat each other up. But so be it. -- Avanu (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * NO Avanu, I am not fighting. I am the victim of harassment, and it needs to be stopped; period.   dangerous  panda  11:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand this correctly, you *both* feel like the other one has or is harrassing you. You *both* feel like the other one is doing something wrong. Can you both just shut up? Seriously. If it is related to this topic, I'm kind of done helping either of you. Figured you guys could see past the silliness a while ago, but it will probably take some threats before you both just shut up and stop whining. -- Avanu (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Chuckles) Sorry you got caught up in this whirlwind Avanu, but I do thank you for your good will and motive to resolve things between us.  &mdash;  Jason Sosa  11:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How is it that an admin gets harassed? lol. I think the concept is quite funny.  &mdash;  Jason Sosa  11:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As a general comment: some admins do get harassed, and it's not very funny. Over the years there has been some pretty serious stalking sparked by wiki-conflicts. (Not to say that's the case here, though). Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Understandable.  &mdash;  Jason Sosa  20:07, 23 September 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!

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) 15:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea
Hi, Avanu. You've been around long enough to know this is not acceptable. Please refrain from altering the talk page posts of other editors.  Tide  rolls  03:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please go lecture Tarc about not being incivil in his posts. If someone brings an honest attempt to AN to try and solve a problem, a response like "Oppose - I don't even really feel like making up a reason" is simply contentious and unhelpful. Until you actually enforce some standards at AN and AN/I, you'll keep having people there who act like the hind end of a donkey. There is certainly a lot of musculature and balance involved in keeping up a hind end, but it is the donkey's back that ends up doing most of the work. In any case, such posts aren't needed, and a strikethrough is a kind alternative to outright deletion for trash. -- Avanu (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And if you're coming here to lecture me about removing Beeblebrox's post about how "dumb" an idea I had, or how RfC's need to be formatted one way, and only one way, go ahead and drop the lecture off somewhere else. If you are sincerely interested in fixing problems and improving Wikipedia, then let me know what I can do to help you. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My first post wasn't a lecture; that you characterize it as such is disappointing. I think it's time that you offer some unambiguous statement that you understand that refactoring the talk page posts of other editors is both counterproductive and  disruptive.  Presently, I am of the opinion that you will continue to flout this convention to push a point.  Please disabuse me of that opinion.  Tide  rolls  20:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My response was intending to show you that, as Tarc later admitted, his response was flippant. If you're going to ever have serious debates on recurring problems at AN or AN/I, you've got to do something about the attitude of the participants. I make no apology for trying to deter poor behavior. The idea that we simply accept bad behavior, that we don't chastise those who repeatedly do it, makes your statement about me seem a bit hollow. If you keep accepting bad actors, in the name of some rule or anti-censorship ideal, you'll keep getting threads that are filled with drama and off-track. I don't push much. But I do push some. And I think more people need to be pushing for the same thing. Plain simple decency. As Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith said, "I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness and a - a little lookin' out for the other fella, too." We're supposed to be that ideal. -- Avanu (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, this ain't the movies. We can, at some point, discuss the fallacies of bureaucracies but in the here an now we are discussing your behavior.  You should not have refactored the posts, you did.  You still have not made it plain that you will not continue this disruptive practice.  Please do so.  Tide  rolls  20:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Make it plain that people will behave, and I won't have anything to complain about. I never touch legitimate commentary. It is very disruptive to have comments that steer a thread off track. If you can't see that as being the bigger problem, I don't know how to help you. -- Avanu (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll make plain what you already know; people will not behave. You have danced around this issue long enough.  If I can not receive the assurances I have requested I will block your account for disruption.  Here's how you can help me; find a way to both exercise your conscience and edit within the policies and guidelines of this project.  Tide  rolls  20:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In fairness, I'd like you to block those folks as well who carry threads off track, disruptively, by not acting in a professional way. Those who throw out invectives and spurious arguments, and back them up with nothing. You block me, because its easy. You see a nice clear line, but for those others, it isn't easy. And very few admins are willing to engage on that and demand civil and professional conduct. So hooray, you get to block me for my terrible crime of asking people to shape up. Maybe one day, it will just be expected behavior. -- Avanu (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your warning is in error. Please remove it. -- Avanu (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly correct, that is why we have it in the first place, so that self appointed censors cannot just erase anything they don't like from a discussion. You can remove it if you like but I would advise against ignoring it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would advise that you start actually looking at solutions here. You're being entirely focused on how your comment was removed, rather than actually considering what I said. How did your comment at AN help? You call me a "self-appointed censor" as if I'm here to remove ideas. If you had something positive to say I wouldn't have touched your comment. There's a few people in Wikipedia who think they can just say whatever shitty stuff they like and our policies seem to want to protect you. However, my friend, the pillar of Civility says you should have a better and higher standard. How do you propose we reach that? I don't want to remove commentary. I want to promote positive engagement and the exchange of good ideas. -- Avanu (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's time to take a break. Yes, parts of Wikipedia seriously suck but getting in stupid pissing contests with other editors just shifts the focus from your legitimate concern to your actions. (I'm referring to you reverting Beeblebrox's talk page edit). Nobody Ent 19:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Kind of how it works here, isn't it Ent? Someone brings a concern, people come in and sidetrack it. I'd love to see us fix that. My committee idea was blown off like it was pointless, and now the new idea about coming up with a solid standard is being given the similar treatment. And yet, I still don't see any alternative ideas. I see a couple of commenters who really appear to be considering the problem, but then you have the crowd who just doesn't seem to have a care to give. Let's get out of Mos Eisley spaceport. It is far too wretched and scummy. Maybe we need more Ewoks as admins. -- Avanu (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Poking the bear
I ask that you don't poke the bear. By that, I mean that you shouldn't repost a message on someone's talk page when it's not welcome, no matter how valid the discussion may be.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot believe you just did that . Any user can remove anything they want from their own talk page. Instead of asking for you to be blocked, which you could easily be for such idiotic behavior, I will ask you to review this page which I developed specifically for situations like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

@Jasper, I generally leave my stubborness to one revert of something. By the way, did Beeblebrox just tell me to fuck off? If not, then I'll assume he can kindly follow his own advice at User:Beeblebrox/fuck off. When he has an idea for improving things instead of calling the ideas of others' "dumb", I'd be happy to do anything I can to help. Until then, the page link is just 1 sentence back. -- Avanu (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Even one revert is poking the bear.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors shouldn't act like bears. Kind of the point isn't it? -- Avanu (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Who likes getting prodded? The drama yesterday makes the answer to that clear. --Jasper Deng (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I don't like my idea being called "dumb", I don't like Tarc saying he dislikes an idea and says "do I even have to give a reason?" I don't like flippancy and foolishness. I don't like a lot of things. But I do like seeing things get better. And I take civility pretty seriously. I try very hard to be nice to those who act rudely, and I try to put up with those who act close minded.
 * One thing I really dislike is having to rehash the same stupid argument over and over. So I'm trying to fix it. If this were a real world situation, people telling others to fuck off and not helping would be gone. Administrators who behave unprofessionally would be given a chance to fix it or they would be gone. But we don't seem to work like that. Yesterday shouldn't have been "drama". There are ways to fix that. But it takes a willingness to do so. -- Avanu (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * seriously your selfrighteousness is sickening.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain that comment, Maunus? -- Avanu (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What I said in User_talk:Avanu/Archive_6 couldn't be more true now...  MBisanz  talk 20:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wish I knew why people think having ideals and standards is bad. I tend to have a lot of faith in people's ability to be better. Then you get people like Maunus or Beeblebrox today who are kicking and screaming against any attempt to improve things. "Things are fine the way they are!" But yet, somehow we keep running into the same problems, even though things are 'fine'. It turns into this ridiculous game of personalities. I'm being demonized because I have hope. I'm demonized because I haven't given up. I'm not some wild radical asking for Wikipedia to be upended and changed into utopia. I'm just wanting a simple bit of progress. I'll quote you here so other people have a context:
 * MBisanz: "people tired of their constant advocacy on behalf of users who common sense indicated were treated in an appropriate manner. The lucky ones are marginalized as gadflys and ignored. The unlucky ones pick up an enemy or two who doesn't like the hypertechnical critique and had them branded as tendentious and disruptive. This usually leads to a topic ban or a block. I say this only as advice to you that your wiki-life may be much more enjoyable if you focus on discussing users who were actually wronged through abuse and corruption and focus less on making SOP conform to POL in cases where the user still would have ended up sanctioned and no one really cares that policy wasn't followed"
 * As a person who wants to follow the rules, it is distasteful to me to have things be about the arbitrary will of a group. There are some standards, but generally they are not newbie friendly, and they are based on a caste system essentially, where the more edits you have, the more slack you get. While in general, this is OK, it becomes a bad thing when a person gets sniped for missing something, or when it is glaringly unequal, like a guy getting blocked for saying "arsehole" while complaining about being told "fuck you". Who among the admin corps is going to step up and lead? Who among them is going to say enough is enough? We don't cops out without training, at least not the good ones. And we shouldn't be assuming that a completely volunteer force is going to be its best without some oversight as well. Some people will demonize the person who wants to fix things, but I'm actually kind of used to that. I actually care about how people get treated. So in some people's eyes, that is "sickening". -- Avanu (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe a grossly over-simplified answer is that Wikipedia operates more towards the consequentialist and collectivist ends of the spectrum and not towards the deontological or individualist ends.  MBisanz  talk 21:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I love how the simple answer uses quite complex words. :) But you're right. Consequences matter and the collective will, without regard to the individual, seem to be very much at the forefront here. It is often like that in real life too, but at least in real life, you can seek redress from a body charged with enforcing a moral or legal standard (rather than a collective will). -- Avanu (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * User:MBisanz, that was helpful. (It explains to me how a malicious fabrication -- a lie -- smearing an editor here, is explained to me by an Admin as considered nothing special, just a "minor incivility".) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Tide  rolls  21:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I just read what Ent asked you on your Talk page. I'm not gloating. I'm simply not going to apologize for trying to help. If the need arises again, I will again remove disruptive commentary. Talk Page Guidelines is a guideline. Disruptive Editing is also a guideline. I realize the slippery slope here in saying that we each get to define what is 'offensive', and how some people would incessantly edit Talk Pages if we gave free reign to the idea that people could or should remove other's comments. But I think far too often people get a pass in derailing discussions because you Admins don't do more to keep them targeted. At AN/I especially and at AN less so, this stuff is important, yet it gets treated with disdain and contempt. Beeblebrox might like you to think it is me taking personal offense because it was my 2 proposals, but it isn't that, and I've modified comments before in other AN-based threads to help us stay on target. I've asked for others to help fix things, and no one is stepping up. A derailed thread is just as lost as one where one comment was removed. I attempted to discuss this with Beeblebrox, but he just removed my comments to him. Bbb23 removed my comment at AN as well. But I'm the bad guy here because I didn't do it your way, Tiderolls. I might change how I approach this, and in fact I was in the middle of doing that when you decided a block was an imperative need. Do not unblock me early. You felt this was a need, leave it be. -- Avanu (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've always understood that you struck the posts because you perceived them to be disruptive. I'm hoping that the commentary you have seen so far demonstrates that your actions were not correct.  That doesn't make you a "bad guy".   Tide  rolls  22:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you want for dinner?
 * Chicken soup
 * Beef stroganoff
 * Dinner is stupid
 * Not hungry
 * Which of those responses is relevant and which is disruptive? The first two are obviously on target and relevant. The third one is dismissive and off track. The fourth seems to be an honest attempt to answer the question, even though it is not really furthering the goal of the question. I think we've debated the heck out of this. Just understand, I'll honor your request for more personal oversight before I revert anything in a Talk page, but I won't say it will never happen. Even you acknowledge that some commentary is beyond the pale, and I'm going to promise something to you that I won't and wouldn't expect others to honor. We need to address the problems, and the community needs to get serious about it. I realize it is a tough issue and it can be interpreted in a lot of ways. But I'm not going to give up just because some of the people are ok with it. We're on the Internet, but we don't have to act like it. -- Avanu (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Block commentary

 * As stated, I am convinced you will not cease your disruptive editing. If you cannot offer a statement of your intent to observe WP:TPG, in particular the refactoring of posts, I will extend this block to indefinite.  Tide  rolls  21:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Was that really necessary? Is there evidence that Avanu violated WP:TPG or any other guideline/policy after your final warning, or that he was about to do so? ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Are you pleased with yourself, sir? If you cannot offer a statement that you, as an Admin, are willing to observe Civility as a Pillar and a front-line policy of Wikipedia, why even bother to force lesser guidelines like the Talk page guidelines? You're blocking me for violating a guideline, which last time I checked, doesn't overrule a policy. But who can say? -- Avanu (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You've misread your block log. You've been blocked to prevent disruption, not TPG vio. The TPG vio was the disruption and your resistance to offer an assurance that the problems were not to be repeated was the direct impetus for my action.  It's an easy fix.  Tide  rolls  21:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is all about the easy fix, yes? I can't count on admins, beyond the unusual Dennis Brown, to actually come to bear on things that are hard to fix. Easy fix means I get to be forcibly shut up, despite my 'disruptiveness' being minimal at best. I'm trying to create a sea change, a mindset that we expect the best from each other. I wonder if you have really read the totality of the Talk Page Guidelines? Did you apply this same standard to those whose comments I modified? No, of course not. That wouldn't be an easy fix.

Like I said before, be consistent, but don't selectively enforce stuff. If you decide that policy trumps guidelines, I guess we can talk, but if you say guidelines (like Disruptive editing and [[WP:TPG|TPG) are the policy and therefore blockworthy, even when trying to enforce policy, I guess we're stuck. -- Avanu (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to say anything you wish. I have not blocked you for what you said, but for your continued impediment to what others have said.  Tide  rolls  21:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What did they say, Tiderolls? What did I take away that was substantive and informative? How did I impede Wikipedia's editors? Seriously, I am asking you to give an earnest review of the stuff I touched when I changed things. Were the comments they made unhelpful, uncivil and disruptive to the page? -- Avanu (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, simply type these words: "I will not edit other editor's talk page comments." Seriously, that (editing other's comments) in itself is quite incivil and seriously undermines what you're trying to accomplish. Nobody Ent 21:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ent: Then propose a way to fix this that will actually matter. If I remove a comment because someone called another guy a "fucker", is that uncivil? Enforce the civility standard or just throw it out the door, Tide. -- Avanu (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not about to apologize for trying to fix the broken system. Tiderolls is focusing on 2 guidelines, which were broken by all parties involved here, and yet as is often the wont of Wikipedia, only one party gets a block. I'm not about to say that I'll permit people to bash one another over the head, just because it suits some of our admins. If it were the only occurence of this, I'd be happy to let it go, but it happens again and again and again. When are the admin corps going to actually take more responsibility for this? -- Avanu (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your apology is not required.  Tide  rolls  21:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is criticizing you for trying, just the manner in which you've good about it. A plausible but very weak case could be made that your removing Beeblebrox's comment from AN feel into RPA. But there's no way your restoration of the comments on his talk page that he removed in perfect compliance with standing WP policies falls into that categories; it was just plain peevish. You can't fix a broken system by yourself, today. You can choose to walk away today and rest up and try different strategies tomorrow, or dig in and become another casuality of the WP insanity. Nobody Ent 21:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I know you probably don't want to hear from me and I will completely understand if you just remove this post, but in the interest of helping you understand why this happened I offer the following: You believe my comments were unhelpful and disruptive. I believe your entire proposal was unhelpful and disruptive. I reacted by stating my opinions, you reacted by removing my comments. One of those reactions is ok and one of them is not. As others have mentioned, when you remove other people's comments it pretty much guarantees a negative reaction such as the one you saw today. Even those who argue for you to be unblocked are not defending your refactoring as they know and accept that is not ok. I sincerely hope this clarifies matters for you. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Beeblebrox, I think it is great to hear from you, and this last post of yours gives me some measure of hope. I wouldn't have touched your comment if you said "I believe your entire proposal is unhelpful and disruptive." I might have debated you, but I wouldn't have considered redacting it at all. I'd just like to see the community actually take this issue seriously. Civility is a policy, supposedly. But it never seems to matter. I'd be better off just saying "fuck off, Beeblebrox" in response to your comment, than actually asking for you to explain your comment via redacting it. It is a screwed up system. If you simply try and discuss with people, too many of them start attacking you. Where are the civility cops? They're on a break, I guess. If people were really concerning themselves with how their words and actions played out, and if there were real consequences of bad behavior, it would work out a lot better for all of us. Until someone steps up and demands better, it won't get better. -- Avanu (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am going to make a generalized statement that may be relevant to this block (and Avanu's comments post-block) only in my eyes. Avanu has 6,366 total edits, of which 818 are to article space. I don't know whether Avanu sees himself (I actually don't know your gender) as a Don Quixote out to reform Wikipedia or as a quasi-administrator or both, but, frankly, Wikipedia would be far better off if Avanu spent more time improving articles than proposing, opining, and arguing. I agree with maunus; there is a self-righteousness in Avanu's attitude that is generally off-putting and almost always unhelpful. Indeed, he is his own worst enemy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 is one of the ones that is part of the problem. Let us judge people by a number. The bigger the number, the better they are. So he and Maunus get to say I am being self-righteous for asking us all to do better. Can you find another boot, I'm not sure if you can kick me harder while I'm down. Thanks. And by the way, I don't see myself as Don Quixote, who was fighting an imaginary enemy, nor as a quasi-Admin. I am a Wikipedia editor. And that should be enough of a reason to want what is right. I don't have shit to gain from doing any of this. I don't invest my entire life in Wikipedia, I have a real life, thanks, and I don't fight for things that are of direct benefit to me. I am an idealist and I always have been. I don't think it is enough to be second-best, and I don't agree with abusing editors because we don't care to fix things. So unless you have your own solution, get off my Talk page, Bbb23. -- Avanu (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So how long did you think you were going to be able to refactor and remove comments before somebody noticed? JOJ Hutton  22:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Avanu, I do have a solution, but at this juncture it's not administratively justifiable. I'll depart for the moment and let you continue to argue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not Bbb23, you just need to provoke me into being uncivil. After all, I *only* have 6,366 edits, and unlike so many of those you daily defend, I would be blocked forever. I'm not worth saving. That's the point, right? It isn't about developing our fellow editors into powerhouse editors. It's about a smug, "I'm better". You want to destroy this through making it into a clique. I want to stop that. I want every editor to be able to flourish and be given the tools and opportunity to succeed in the mission here. Yeah, this is a dumb argument to be having, but I get tired of the abusive nature of some of the people and some of the forums here. Either get on board with the mission or get busy being better. -- Avanu (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Avanu, I have seen this coming for some time and have gently tried to nudge you away from it. Refactoring or removing the comments of other editors is something you do at your own peril. It's not a good idea to dodge bullets in this manner. Rome wasn't built in a day, as the saying goes. For your own sake, please stop going down this path. I wish you no ill will whatsoever, as I have told you, and I am concerned that you are painting yourself into a corner. Doc   talk  22:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're being earnest, Doc, but I have gotten tired of the lack of action on this issue. I want change and I think it is very possible. I just don't see why people who have nothing good to say need to drop in and throw things off. Dennis is right in saying that asking someone to "refactor or strike their comment" is an approach that would avoid the consequence that Tiderolls imposed, but it doesn't fix the problem. And generally, you get people like Bbb23 up there who would just as soon tell you to get lost as listen. Which is why the Admin corps needs to honestly be the ones to fix this. I've said it repeatedly. Demand better. We should never have a situation where an admin gets to tell a guy to fuck off and the guy getting called the name ends up being blocked. It gets old, because I see it cross by far too often. -- Avanu (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is paramount that you understand that refactoring/removing comments comes with potentially grave consequences if you don't do it just exactly right. A major gamble. Here's an example: I recently removed a "trolling" comment from another user's talk page. The talk page owner objected. So I restored it, since it was "their" talk page, after all. They then went and removed it anyway. So was I right to remove it in the first place? Perhaps, but I was taking somewhat of a gamble when doing it. It's best to let the comment stand and let whatever consequences be dealt with more prudently - by others, at least until the heat is off... Doc   talk  23:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Avanu, I've looked into this a bit, and perhaps don't know about any back story with you and Beeblebrox, but on the surface, it looks like a matter of reverting a mildly rude comment, more than once. I get along just fine with both of you, so I don't have a dog in this hunt, but as a friend I can only say that reverting like that isn't appropriate, particularly twice.  I know you well enough to know you have good intentions, but WP:DE doesn't differentiate motives, only actions.  I'm not thrilled about the block coming after Elen chose to warn you and you didn't revert again, but you deleted that so it is likely he didn't see that, so we should assume the best of faith, and my experience with Tide rolls has never been negative, so assuming good faith is easy to do.


 * We are all grown ups, and sometimes we will be blunt. As an admin or editor, had I seen that comment left by any editor, I wouldn't have blinked an eye or taken any action, and likely wouldn't have commented about it.  We all have to be a bit more tolerant of others, not draw these arbitrary lines in the sand of what we consider civil or incivil, and just take people at face value and look passed the occasional comment that you might think is more rude than was required.  I think you overreacted, and looking objectively I see his edit as less than optimal but certainly not something I would have reverted.  I think you need to go have a cup of tea, look at it objectively, and I think you will understand why I see it this way.  And in the future, don't revert people like that.  If you want to go to their talk page, politely and ask them to refactor or strike their comment, great, but reverting anyone multiple times on a public board for such a minor thing is unacceptable, and if you look at it objectively, I think you will agree.


 * As for everyone else making all these comparisons, it really isn't helpful as it is a very simple situation, and complicating it or editorializing about it isn't helpful. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As is often the case, you're a model of what we all need to be more like, Dennis. -- Avanu (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Greetings Avanu. I want you to know that I mentioned you at Arbitration/Requests/Case because I believe you are involved in this case and if it is accepted, your input is required. Thank you. 76 Strat String da Broke da (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked
Thanks for your commitment to exercise more caution in your talk page interaction, Avanu. I will understand any reluctance on your part to believe this, but my motivation in this situation was in no way personal. I believe that our perception of civility may be quite different, but I acknowledge that much work is needed in this area. Feel free to post any parting shots or critique on my user talk. Regards  Tide  rolls  23:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC) I checked, but if you experience any autoblock problems, let me know.


 * I do not believe your block was personal, but I do believe that if I am deserving of a block for my actions, then many other parties should merit a block as well. It is easy to see reverts of Talk page comments as a bright line, unfortunately, for so many people the line between being considerate and inconsiderate is a difficult line to see. The last thing we need is a peanut gallery of players who aren't serious about fixing problems. Yet our policies practically encourage and embolden such behavior because there is no mechanism to stop it unless it is absolutely egregious. As the group that has authority vested within it, I believe this will never change until the Admin corps takes a serious look at its responsibility for maintaining a healthy atmosphere. It must come from courage of conviction and a desire to move beyond simply 'assuming good faith' to an assumption that people can be better. -- Avanu (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Avanu, if you find yourself in a bind, ping me early. I will always give you an honest opinion of a situation.  It might not always be what you hope to here, but it will always be sincere.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The vitriol
Shows more about those giving it, than anything Still* wrote regarding anyone, at any time. Amazing. (The irresponsible comments!) Lynchings aren't dead; they're just below the surface. (Read a few years ago how bigotry/racism are just under the surface in society, just requiring the right little event to set off an effusive, blistering ugliness. If this is an example what they talk about when referring to the "community", I want no part of it. Does that make me anti-social? I think not.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI
You and likely disagree on the ANI with Still. I didn't see it as gravedancing at all. It was a public notification because the previous issues had spilled into ANI several times, and there was a reasonable chance there could be contention. In this case, bringing it to ANI is exactly what you would want, so it is done in broad daylight. That so many people supported the block wasn't a function of piling on, it was that so many admin had been involved. I have worked a great deal with him, over and over, trying to help him. Several others had as well. I had talked a few into not blocking him. Anyone that was familiar with the whole situation should voice an opinion, pro or con, and it just so happens that in this case, an extraordinary amount of rope had been given him. If anything, that may be my fault as I was so active in trying to keep him from getting blocked, but he went so far over the line, that I no longer could see any purpose and had to admit that it was no longer doing any good, and was in fact probably making him bolder. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what your first sentence was supposed to be. But I don't disagree with the AN/I that was posted. I was simply commenting on the pile-on that seemed to be happening at the end there. I think it is fine for him to get a block, because believe it or not, I take a pretty hard line on rule breaking, especially with regard to civility. But I am also very willing to give chances and give mercy. I just think the point was made, he was blocked, and so many people chiming in with more badmouthing of Still247 isn't professional conduct, especially given the sometimes typical attitude at AN/I of "hang 'em high". I don't typically have sympathy for the "victim" per se as much as wanting the system itself to reform a bit. I think there is no fault in you for trying to help an editor grow and learn. It is probably as noble a goal as any here. -- Avanu (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In disagreeing, I was referring only to that event being "piling on". Most of the admin expressing opinions had previous interactions.  If it seems like a lot of people, it was because there were a lot of previous interactions in a very short period of time.  In most things, you and I probably agree even if we have different ideas on how to achieve the goals, I was only referring to that one point, which was the central theme to your concern.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 11:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Still247 certainly made a name for himself in a brief time. I'll assume it wasn't piling on. But I'm sure you have seen it happen plenty of times at AN/I, and I think that AN/I thread had certainly run its course by that point. -- Avanu (talk) 15:05, 6 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!

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) 14:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)