Hello, Daniel Tomé, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Martinevans123, thanks for the welcome message.
You are very welcome. Don't forget to put something on your User Page if you want other editors to know a bit about you and/or what you're interested in. Happy editing. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote
Thanks very much. I haven't worked at Wikiquote for a few years now, but I imagine some of the pages I made there must be obscure enough to have remained untouched. It's easy to imagine they're unread as well, so your words are very reassuring. --Antiquary (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, too. No, they are not unread (-: but I wouldn't worry, either way. Hopefully some day you can return to Wikiquote. I do think many of your contributions there are worthy of recognition, hence my message. Take care! ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledging comment
Hi, I just wanted to acknowledge a comment that you made yesterday on a talk page, which I don't think I can respond to in situ because of the risk of inflaming matters. I agree with you that apologizing to bullies seems quite wrong, but in this strange world where we know so little about what possibly horrible things may be happening in an editor's real world, it seems necessary to shrug off a lot more bad behaviour. Perhaps that will in this case even lead to an apology to the perpetrator (I'm glad I'm not directly in the line of fire and having to decide whether to do that!). Anyway, best wishes to you. I'm taking a longish break from editing to recover from witnessing that distressing business, but didn't want to leave you with no response from anyone. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
UNLESS you are "retiring" because of what some troll admin said. Then my suggestion would be to IGNORE him and MOVE ON. Know that your contributions are important and appreciated. Yours truly, DanielTom (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to meet you too. Well, I'm back, having decided that you were absolutely right, and that giving up editing would be allowing a bully to win. Hopefully, there's strength in numbers. With very best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent news. I am glad you decided to continue editing Wikipedia, as you are a very valuable contributor here. Please don't ever let other people stop you from doing what you enjoy. Take it easy, DanielTom (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Daniel. I'd also just like to say "thank you" for those comments you made back then, as they helped lighten the load for me, in what had become quite an unpleasant situation. Thanks! (I'm sorry that this thankyou is somewhat belated - my energies were directed elsewhere at the time! - but I did very much appreciate what you said.) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Checkusers have since looked into this and they have said this appears to be an unfounded concern. I am sorry you were bothered by this. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "evidence" you presented was laughable, in my opinion. Why did you disregard all the serious evidence that I had presented showing that I am Daniel Tomé, studying at the University of Porto, and a Go player? Does Kalki even know Go? Worse, your extremely poor "evidence" was all based on language. But that means you had to look at my contributions in an extremely biased way, ignoring my many, many edits and contributions written in Portuguese that you know full well that Kalki could never make. Yet, to further your Kalki-bashing agenda, you assumed that I had lied countless times about being who I am. Anyway. Now you did the proper thing, which is to apologize, and I do accept your apologies. Thanks and take care of yourself, Cirt.
This kind of inappropriate threat is what I would expect from a troll, not an admin. I am not afraid of being blocked unfairly — nor would I be surprised if that happened, as that seems to be the norm here. I sincerely forgive you, BWilkins, for being misguided. Very truly, yours, etc. DanielTom (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing display of abusiveness and vacant argument designed to intimidate, from Admin Bwilkins. Respect = 0. Those that possess block buttoms around here have gotten the idea that use of force earns respect, instead of their integrity. And that kind of degredation of community schizm and power corruption isn't plain for everyone to see? Jimbo said the solution is to make easier for Admins to get, and lose, the bit. (Why isn't the community acting on that suggested directive??) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, not everyone can pass the test. I do believe that most admins are GOOD people who were driven to seek the bit by a noble desire to serve the community, and not solely by love of power. They just need to be reminded of that. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you continued your personal attacks on AN--"At least some people here will be happy knowing that they've crippled the ability to edit of yet another user for no valid reason". That's a personal attack aimed at all those who did not provide a valid reason to oppose lifting this ban, in your opinion, except for Dennis Brown I suppose. These claims that "some" admins are motivated by a love of power are just silly. I don't care if you think I'm a good one or a bad one, but one more such sneer out of you in that thread and I will block you. You may want to ask yourself if your continued participation in that thread is motivated by altruism ("the noble desire to serve the community") or something else. You may also want to ask yourself if you're helping that user's cause: pissing off those who may help decide whether that ban should be lifted is not generally a smart idea. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've made it all too clear, Drmies (here and elsewhere), that you wield the power invested in you as Admin according to your mood, having been "pissed off" or not, and not by more objective reasons, that one would traditionally in good faith expect from professionals in any field. If you and other Admins meter power according to your moods and attitudes toward other users rather than by the facts and particulars of the cases, and in addition continue to "remind" us of your mood wearing thin (Dennis Brown has also done that in threatening tone to me), then there's no possible way any respect could come out of me for that. But I'm also well aware, you don't give donkey dung for what I think. (Oh BTW, just as an objective test for your claim of personal attack above, please ask someone that I see you do respect, Malleus, whether he agrees with that opinion of yours, that what you state is personal attack, is a personal attack according to his view. [I will buy you a new house of your choosing made of brick or stone, if he agrees with that assessment!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mood is fine, Ihardlythinkso. What applies to DanielTom in relation to the Crow editor also applies to you in relation to DanielTom. I'm not entirely sure why you'd want to join the fray here. If you wished to help the other editor, or this one, you'd advise them to calm down. You've been an asset to the project, and DanielTom has all the hallmarks of being one too--I don't understand the urge to start (or continue) the shouting on AN and elsewhere that will never get your friend unbanned. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"What applies to DanielTom in relation to the Crow editor also applies to you in relation to DanielTom." I have no idea what you are implying. (Are you threatening me with block?? On what basis?) You have repeatedly told editors (me and now DanielTom) how they won't get favorable responses from Admins in future, if they "piss off" you. That is what I mean by "your mood" (that you conduct your affairs, and even make threats, based on your mood). "I'm not entirely sure why you'd want to join the fray here." I'm not interested to join any "fray", Drimes. But as for entering my comments, if you "aren't entirely sure why" I made them, then let me clear that up for you, because it is really simple: I don't like seeing others abused. "If you wished to help the other editor, or this one, you'd advise them to calm down." Funny, you and many others are quick to charge people with being emotionally out of control, based on their text, when, you'd have an awful time (read that impossible) proving that, and for me, I don't see it, at all. (To assert, without basis, someone is emotionally out of control, is a manipulative argument technique, based on nothing except subjective interpretation. It's manipulative because it offers others to take the view someone is "emotionally out of control" when that flat-out is many times not the case, and you couldn't possibly know, only guess, that is true, because you don't know the people, and text is different from in-person or voice.) The subject user at the ANI is not "my friend", and you shouldn't refer to him in that way. If you read my comments carefully you will see they are specifically narrow, and you are arbitrarily adding stuff and expanding their meaning. Sorry, you can't do that without my complaint, and request that you stop it. Regarding your charge here that DanielTom made personal attack(s), I asked you to square that with Malleus, someone you respect, to see if he agrees or no. (If you had any confidence in your claim of personal attack, then you would do that, or you might say you don't value Malleus's opinion about it, either way. Yet, you ignored my challenge to the veracity of the charge, didn't you? Are you embarrassed to hear what Malleus might have to say about the charge of making personal attacks that you have made here? What?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't know I was being that complex. You are not helping DanielTom in the same way that DanielTom is not helping TheShadowCrow. Why on earth should I ask Malleus for advice? He doesn't tell me what to make for dinner either. I'm not adding anything to anything, nor did I ask you for your opinion. DanielTom was asked to stop disrupting an AN thread, they continued disrupting, I asked them again. That's all. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing it. Picking one editor's comments (DT's) out of a big pile of snark and claim they're "being disruptive" is like blaming the hydrogen for the flame while ignoring the oxygen. NE Ent01:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well. User:Drmies, I wonder where you are when real personal attacks are made. I've been the subject of a few myself, but the ones who "attacked" me didn't get a warning from you. That's a bit cherry picking, isn't it? I don't blame you, perhaps you are just trying to defend your own friends, or it may merely be a bad digestion. I sympathize with you. My response to your original comment:
If you must know, my motivation to participate in community discussions is not "altruism", but something much more mundane (a kind of self-interest, even) — it just bothers me to see other users being treated unfairly. It's kind of like an itch, really. So, I'm sorry, threatening to block me probably won't make me stop expressing my genuine opinions.
Now, could you please clarify two points for me? 1) "Continued your personal attacks" implies that I made more "personal attacks". I ask you: either cite them, or retract your personal attack. 2) My comment mentioning "love of power" was directed at User:Ihardlythinkso, not you. Why did you feel the urge to jump in and call it "silly"?
I've already cited it: "At least some people here will be happy knowing that they've crippled the ability to edit of yet another user for no valid reason". You can cite Russell all you want to, and you can insinuate anything you like to about "my friends", and Ent, you could, if you like, compare the snark ratio of DanielTom's comments to those of others (and you'll find it overwhelming), but it doesn't change the facts. Those are all low blows. Your "love of power" comment, DanielTom, clearly referred to those admins who don't agree with you. Well, I'm sorry you didn't get your way; all the good admins must have been away for the week while that thread was going on. Now you all can have a lovefest full of cute wikiquotes (OMG I won't pass Galadriel's test!) and complain about conspiracies and cliques and all that; it's none of my concern. None of it is going to get TheShadowCrow unbanned, and if you want to get me all worked up you'll have to do much more than this. Now, if any of you really suffer from real personal attacks, point them out to me and I'll be glad to look into the matter. That I've been "cherry-picking" is a silly claim--I might as well accuse you of being unfair in defending this particular editor but leaving all the other cases be. Then again, given the tactics you've been using and the success you've had with them in this case, it's probably better for those editors that you didn't help them. Y'all have a great day, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you qualify that as a 'personal attack'. And DanTom was exchanging a philosphical view regarding power-lust in an abstract sense as part of the human condition, and for you to construe it as "clearly referr[ing] to those admins who don't agree with you", is a pretty wide & wild, agenda-filled misinterpretation, Mr. Drmies. I think you need to settle down and have some tea. I think you also need to "grow up" (like you told me to do, when you compared me to your toddlers). I was very impressed at your first comments (and conclusions) in the ANI in question here, Drmies, it exhibited fine professionalism IMO. (But now, here in this User Talk thread, it is a different story.) Oh!: When Dennis Brown attacked all the !voters that voted "Oppose" in User:History2007's failed RfA by saying that those voting oppose did so "because they are afraid of [History2007's level of] honesty, even if they won't admit it", and I objected, since my own "Oppose" !vote was not based on "fear of honesty", and I could find no trace whatever to think any other Oppose !votes were either, well, I suppose that was *not* a personal attack against those !voters, even though it was a similar kind of perhaps sour-grapes comment when something doesn't end up the way we wanted. (Dennis Brown "stood by his comments", until Malleus came by to express disapproval, then miraculously, Dennis did his best he could to redact.) What's the difference, Drmies? (The fact is, WP is filled with hypocrisy and double standard. And these are just little stories in the big city that is WP.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Drmies, let me make it easy for you to understand. Maybe caps will help? You said: "Yet you CONTINUED your personal attackS". That implies that I've made other "personal attacks" before. Either cite them, or retract your accusation. Please don't try to be evasive. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it is a pattern with Drmies, to make unfounded implied accusations. He once commanded me in bold, with threat of my "Wiki-death" (topic ban of my only article niche) to leave alone a disruptive troll, when it was obvious it was a troll to multiple project members except Admins, and when in no case did I pursue the troll, only querying the troll on its logic in comments at discussion pages including AfDs, Project Talk, and article Talks. Good luck with getting Drmies to backup his claims. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was pretty easy to draw that conclusion without you needing to point it out. Incidentally this is a user Talk page as you know, so it's a little puzzling how "move along" has context. (Does the prospect of an editor waiting for an answer somehow bother you, or disrupt WP? Did you mean to imply another threat, when there are already numerous baseless threats from Admins on this page? If so please specify the threat and the basis for it. You already have a bad reputation as Admin far as I'm concerned, Basalisk, did you mean to increase the intensity of that reputation for some reason? What?) p.s. "No one" is not hyphenated. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What bothers me the most about all this is having to put up with threats of being blocked by admins who apparently feel completely free to accuse me of whatever they like, but who, when asked to justify their baseless accusations, never answer back. Full discussion here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what makes the editing environment at WP so awful. (Not other editors, but Admins who abuse their power and think they have right to make unsubstantiated threats. I'm sure that has its basis in fundamental psychology, when power is metered out to individuals screened by a questionable process itself, and that power is "for life". By making Admin status for life, short of clear egregious and severe abuse, it is a bad structure and this is what you get. [Like setting a heavy rock down on the earth, coming by a year later and picking it up to see what's underneath, all kinds of yuckiness.] Jimbo has acknowledged the problem with Admins and has suggested a solution to make the bit "easier to get and easier to lose", and IMO that is a good solution. [Why has the community not acted on that directive? They will ... because the current environment is so bad, there is such a hostile divide between regular editors and cliques of Admins, IMO it is just too corrupt to last or survive.] I discovered WP about 2009-ish, and signed up 2010-ish. Wikipedia has only been around since the early 2000s. Had WP been born in the 90s, or had I discovered it in the 2020s, well, the environment would have already evolved beyond the hostile & abusive culture that rules today. Who is responsible? The stucture, as mentioned; human nature or ego; and each and every single Admin who partakes in and perpetuates the nonsense in individual instances across all WP pages.]) Radical restructure is needed. Until then, there will be more of this shit. And that may last for several more years until it explodes by virture of becoming too rotten. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding liberal use of "personal attack" accusations from Admins, I think one of the reasons Admins frequently go around and accusing regular editors of being guilty of making personal attacks where none exist, is because they aren't held accountable for making such threats in any venue, they are only held accountable (subject to review by other Admins) in block appeals for instance. (Seldom or never is an ANI or RfC/U opened on the basis of an Admin making intimidating innuendos and threats.) So since Admins know they aren't ever held accountable by either other Admins, Arbcom, ANIs, or RfC/Us for making innuendos and threats ... this is what we get. (A threats popping up like perennial bulbs in a spring garden.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a great Malleus quote:
"Personal attack" is simply a euphemism for anything that someone with more guns than you have takes exception to. Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair gift of Friendship! and her ever bright And faultless image! welcome now them art, In thy pure loveliness—thy robes of white, Speaking a moral to the feeling heart; Unscattered by heats—by wintry blasts unmoved— Thy strength thus tested—and thy charms improved.
Sure, but it's best not to leave it there, in case you want to appeal the topic ban later. You see, people here are very superficial: they don't care if the ban itself is unfair, they just want you to be "civil." Best, DanielTom (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite clearly tracking my edits and making snarky comments where they most certainly do not belong. If you have an issue with my edits/actions, raise them at ANI in a case of their own, or perhaps an RFC. When I am one of two editors who are actually trying to SAVE another editor who has gotten themself into trouble, your snark on their talkpage (which is clearly wrong, by the way) is merely lighting a match to a situation. I will also introduce you to WP:HARASS, which as you can see is exactly what I am not doing when it comes to User:Gregbard. I am and adult, and would expect you to act like one as well on this project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someday if I ever start harassing editors, I promise that I will stop. Until then, either file your report against me or stop hounding my edits. Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one making "snarky comments", User:Bwilkins. Even after Gregbard had told that you were "presuming about the facts" and that "you have made a lot of claims against [him] and about this situation which are not true", you sneeringly stated: ... and I'm sorry that I thought Gregbard would actually appreciate one or two people actually trying to help him in a fair manner. Who knew? It is very interesting that you yourself realize how childish your behavior is, as you felt compelled to state here "I am and adult" — a much needed clarification! Now let me repeat myself once again: Stop harassing other users. Thanks, and go away. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bull. Speaking up about what's wrong is always a good thing. (And in the current WP environment of irresponsibility, abusiveness, intimidation, hostility, false accusations, and total unrecognizd incivility, there's lots of speaking up to be done. By everyone who gives a shit to make editing more pleasant here.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are no saint yourself, Dennis. I agree that "a single outburst is hardly the solution", but then where were you when BWilkins threatened to block me for my reply to your post? No one dared to question the abusive admin then, and that took place at the very Administrators' noticeboard! So what's the point? Admins can get away with anything. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, see how your remark is characterized as an "outburst", rather than a comment from you based on deep conviction and not a little frustration with a process gone wrong. (Aren't "outbursts" something made by people out of emotional control, or by children?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need your lectures and patronizing, Dennis, you are not any kind of Wiki sage. "Speaking up" is better than nothing, especially in the current environment where fear & passivity rules as a result of hostile Admins and double standards. That was my point, so please stop putting a word in my mouth ("sufficient") then attempting to make me responsible for it. Who are you accusing of "outburst" (it isn't clear). Who are you accusing of increasing drama? (It isn't clear. But now that you mention it, I think your nagging is [increasing drama].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bwilkins, what's up with the sensational titles? Do you think you are writing for the Penny press? You completely defaced my Talk page. (Of course, just like in every good sensational newspaper, once you actually start reading the articles themselves, you immediately realize how bogus the titles are...) You first suggest that my comment, mentioned above by Dennis, "disrupted" the AN, which is just absolute nonsense. Now you cite the WP:Harassment policy, which you yourself desperately need to read. You may like to think — in your little self-centered world — that I am "hounding your edits", but that too is complete nonsense. Please cite just 5 or 6 diffs showing that I am "tracking your edits". Try. Can you do it? No. To be sure, I have no interest in your edits whatsoever, and you may rest assured that I am most definitely not following you. I have only ever commented on two (2) of your posts, so WP:HOUND doesn't even start to apply. I have never even clicked on your 'Contributions' page (it must be possible to confirm this). It just so happens that, in this case, Gregbard's name kept coming up at ANI, so I decided to pay a visit to his Talk page and found your unhelpful comments there — to a user who, keep in mind, was repeatedly asking that the harassment and bullying stop. So, do him (and me) a favor. Stop. I am not intimidated by troll admins like yourself, but I would also appreciate it if you could stop creating sections here with disruptive titles. That's gone on for far too long. And go take your bullying somewhere else. Thanks, DanielTom (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to apologize personally, not just on ANI. I should not have overreacted like that and I most certainly should not have made general judgments about you based on a single incident. I thought you made a mistake back then, but we all make mistakes and that is no reason for others to make comments about us as persons. My comment was completely out of line, and I appreciate your measured and level-headed response to it. Once again, my sincerest apologies.Jeppiz (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, though Jeppiz is responsible for his own statements on the Pedia, I don't totally blame him. (Why? His statements came in a thread on Bwilkins's Talk, and Bwilkins had already set a tone by making charges against your honesty and ethics per this statement: "if you want to point out somewhere that he's actually been honest (diffs would be nice) or even remotely ethical, I'd love to see it". It is easy mistake to make, following the civility standard set by an Admin, because they are the "authority" above regular editors. But it's a fallacy. Their conducts are often reverse of the advertised "higher standard", they get away with lower "because they are Admins" and the strong Admin corps credo to not challenge another Admin except in the most dire situations. A fallacy easy to slip and fall on. We tend to implicitly trust Admins. Then we start thinking and wake up. IMO, so did Jeppiz. Good for him.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I too was appalled at User:Bwilkins's behavior. Just in that short discussion, he managed to question my "ethics" a total of 3 (!) times. If you had told me just a year ago that administrators at Wikipedia could be as abusive as he is, I would have laughed in your face. Now I have come to expect it... ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The gates of hell are open night and day; Smooth the descent, and easy is the way: But to return, and view the cheerful skies, In this the task and mighty labor lies.
I never paid much attention to ratings, but I used to be around 4 dan on KGS before I almost stopped playing, about 10 months ago (when I started editing Wikiquote ^^). In any case, I would be happy to play Go with you online sometime. Cheers! ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Bwilkins indirectly called that user "dumb", twice, on that same thread. I hardly think calling him out on it was "offtopic". But hey, who cares, right? ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no possible way to parse the English language that makes it look like I called any editor "dumb"; period. I don't do that crap; period. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, that user you were trolling was just quoting your comment. Again, Bwilkins, you really need to drop your attitude. Here is my advice to you: please stop bullying contributors who edit here for free, and start praising them; they don't have to be here. Oh, and calling things "dumb" doesn't make you sound smart. (Really, it doesn't.) Take care ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, you wrote: "sometimes blunt is an effective way to deal with them." Exactly. That is why I am "blunt" with Bwilkins — he has a history. And I thought admins were supposed to be held to a higher standard. Apparently I was wrong. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a "history" except for the one you have made up :-) You'll find I'm an easy person to get along with when you're not making crap up about me, or ascribing things to my actions that do not exist in reality - really. I know EXACTLY what I have done on this project, and I hold myself to a higher standard that the policies require. If I have been wrong, I'll admit it freely - I have done it before, and will do it again. When I'm doing the right thing for the project, nobody says squat - but every action I have taken, every "save page" I have done have been with the project in mind (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the fact you're insulting DanielTom's intelligence by informing or reminding him of things he already knows and hasn't forgotten (Admins are human; humans makes mistakes somettimes; Admins are volunteers), and the fact you've stuck words in his mouth he never said which also oversimplified his thought (in search of "perfect Admin"), let me ask a simple question: What problem do you think Jimbo Wales was attempting to solve, when he suggested/recommended the solution of making the bit "easier to get and easier to lose"? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, Dennis. If I disagreed with everything you said or did, just to do it, then I would be a schmuck, and I am not a schmuck. My counter to your puffy response to DanielTom's concerns over the PAs by Bwilkins on Bwilkins's Talk, and listed on your Talk, were heartfelt, and my true conviction on something important going on here. (Excusing blatant personal attacks, from an Admin to a regular editor.) To dodge the issue because I am the one bringing it to your attention, is a cheap get-away tactic, Dennis. You never face the music, and you use me as an excuse. (What could be more ad-hominem?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And as long as you are going to insult me with your preferred mischaractizations and smears, Dennis Brown (e.g. "We know Ihardlythinkso believes all Admins are scum", etc.), then allow me one please, to send in your direction. Here it is: I do believe if the Devil himself were a WP Administrator, and someone asked you to evaluate, you would tell the complainer: "You got him wrong. User:Devil is one of the good guys." (I believe you would excuse anything from a fellow Admin, Dennis. Bwilkins's recent PAs against DanielTom is a clear example. You side-stepped the evaluations of those green quotations, and gave us a pretty pastel potification of puffery. You never face the music. I put the music on your music stand, and you ... attack my sincerity as an ad hominem way to avoid playing the notes. (Maybe you aren't musical?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on. You asked someone's opinion, they gave it. If you had any proof or support that it was a personal attack, then you would have already submitted an ANI. Saying it was one again and again when you know it wasn't will not eventually make it true. Let me channel George Bush (the first one): "read my lips: I have never performed a personal attack against DanielTom. If anything I have typed has come across that way, I certainly apologize, and I will attempt to ensure such errors do not recur" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. (I will never submit an ANI, ever, under any circumstance, about anything.) I know that your green-quoted statements against DanielTom were PAs, Bwilkins, so why do you tell me that I "know they aren't"? I don't know, but it seems you are attempting to give apology to DanielTom in some form above (are you?; if so, then you should just say it [to him directly, not to me], instead of what you are doing -- putting in quotes, and adding mock humor re George Bush). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BWilkins, you wrote: "your recent ani proves your level of ethics. Good luck integrating with humanity someday." Will you apologize for that offensive statement? ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my sole apologies, and I made them out of the kindness of my heart, regardless of the whack of apologies that needed to be reciprocated. The fact that you have modified my words to mean something that they don't - and thus to mean something that requires additional apologies - is not my error, and I cannot apologize for something that I did not personally do. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BWilkins, you are an administrator here. You should not be questioning anyone's "ethics" just because they went to ANI. Do you understand that? And I have not "modified" your words, that was a direct quote, as was your comment "Good luck integrating with humanity someday." Needless to say, that insult was completely uncalled for, and it was a deliberately offensive personal attack. No, you have not yet apologized to me. I am still waiting. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, you're an adult: you know that the apology you get after asking for one is no apology at all. I'm sorry you misconstrued wither my words, or the intent of my words - that is the apology. No more will be said (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing that earlier bizarre logic has been demonstrated as false, eh? Otherwise, by saying that "my apology sucked" would be a personal attack saying that I suck...and you sure wouldn't want to diminish your argument like that, would you? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I said you sucked, Bwilkins, it would mean I don't like you or respect you, wouldn't it? Which is saying more about my values and about me, than anything specific about you. Saying about DanielTom that you feared his next act might be to insult your family's ethnicity, is suggesting that DanielTom is a racist, or at least you suspect he is. And that is saying something specific about him, isn't it. (A slur.) I think your arguments are all full of shit, Bwilkins, and you, are an obfuscator. And Dennis has been your apologist. (Are you two proud? Because both your stances have been very bad IMO, for the reputation of the integrity of the Admin corps, especially those editors who are already convinced there is Admin corruption pervasive here [WP]. You guys have embarrassed yourselves, I can't believe you boast. Dennis states on his User page: "I am tolerant of a little "heat" in a discussion when everyone is acting in good faith, but not of personal attacks." I can't believe that either [it seems so hypocritical to me].) Good day, and thanks for being part of what has make me feel sick about the WP and lose motivation to edit or create articles. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will encourage you to re-read the message you've misquoted numerous times now. The word "or" was vital. Please stop embarrassing yourself by having misread so badly - you are smarter than that. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you, Bwilkins: Do you, like Basalisk, believe there's an important difference, regarding whether something is a personal attack or not, if you can identify in the grammar an "action word" (or not)? (Because that is what you seem to be suggesting, but I don't know for sure, other than you are trying to belittle me or insult me. So make yourself clear now, if you wanna talk logic with me.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I try to belittle or insult you? You're doing that well enough for all of us :-) I honestly wish I knew who pissed in your Cornflakes and got you so mad (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have no credibility in my book, Bwilkins. (What you *do* have, are a number of Admins unwilling to violate the "Admin corps credo" and call a spade a spade regarding your abuses.) And if WP were a forum for trading attempted humorous insults, as you seem to use it as, I could probably rip you a few new ones insult-wise if I had the mind to participate, which I don't. So go blow. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no integrity here. (Bwilkins is clearly uninterested, or incapable, of serious dialogue - preferring instead to insult and badger any which way to avoid any serious exchange. And Dennis Brown, who claims on his User page: "I am tolerant of a little 'heat' in a discussion when everyone is acting in good faith, but not of personal attacks." -- how hypocritical is that? When he sees no personal attack in any of Bwilkins's six green-listed remarks against you. [A logical question for Dennis is what would it take for him to concede a personal attack exists. But IMO Dennis has no credibility: he once hatted a dialogue with hatting summary claiming that I, ihardlythinkso, had made personal attacks, when it was complete BS. He only reluctantly removed it after I complained to him. It's clear Dennis plays favorites and uses "personal attack" against those he does not like, and shields those he does like, who make unmistakable personal attacks. And Dennis claims that I, ihardlythinkso, have no credibility! Go figure.) What a zoo here. What a sham. Utter shamelessness. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that serious dialogue is impossible here - I get accused of "abuse" again where none exists. This is a sham. As I am an honourable person of complete integrity, and as such my apology remains as heartfelt as when originally given - use it well (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know the system is corrupt. Dennis even admiteed justice doesn't exist here. But it's either AN or I can E-mail the community just to get a generic "no" two weeks later. I will probably give the appeal another try soon, maybe tomarrow. Just letting you know. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't do it if I were you. What part of "lynch mob justice" don't you understand? After your last conversation with Dennis, you probably now have the whole "admin gang" against you. You will be crucified. My advice to you, for what it's worth: please be patient and wait for your topic ban to expire. Peace, love, and vitamin C, DanielTom (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I can't rush this. How about this: I edit other articles like Dennis said, then appeal again in another two weeks. I'd love to wait for this to expire, but I've had to wait for to long through to many of these. It's to much of a waste of time. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you really should apologize to Dennis for being rude. Needless to say, if you want your topic ban to be lifted early, you will need his support. I will try and talk to him, but you have to do your part too. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In general...
I rather get the impression that you have something against admins and admin candidates. Perhaps you should get more experience before throwing your weight around here, and commenting at RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, thanks for the vague comment. Yes, if you must know, I don't like admins such as yourself. You hurt Wikipedia. Here's a thought: why don't you familiarize yourself with my contributions first, before jumping to silly conclusions, or accusing me of lack of experience? More importantly, as an administrator you should know that everyone is welcome to participate in RfA discussions. Please stop embarrassing yourself. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect everyone to like me - especially those with little experience here who appear to dislike admins in general. And with your low participation here, that's what I can't really understand, and it does hurt Wikipedia. I'm not interested in users' participation on other projects. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. For people observing this page, the above comments powerfully inspire distrust of admins. For someone who keeps their head down in editing, the likelihood that admins will respond in thoughtful, appropriate ways generally remains a mystery. Now all of us who have Daniel's talk page on our watch lists can see that there is a bigotted, blinkered individual among the admin ranks. I had assumed there was probably a de facto behavioural test for becoming an admin. Such a test would hopefully have shown that a candidate for adminship could understand that experience on sister projects is experience, and would consider the possible consequences of their acts before carrying them out. Wow. Disappointing. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dislike admins in general. In fact, I respect and admire a great number of admins, but you sir are certainly not in that group. It's hard to "like" someone who tries to bully/intimidate regular editors, in a misguided attempt to stop them from expressing their opinions. Need I remind you once again that everyone is welcome to participate in RfA discussions? If you don't like that, too bad for you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For the record, I have never opposed any candidate in any RfA. I stood "neutral" two (2) times, !voted "support" four (4) times, and !voted "oppose" exactly zero (0) times. I hope that's comforting to you. Now please stop trolling and go do something productive with your time. Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Talk page stalker) Wow. Put someone in a box much, Kudpung? ("I rather get he impression that you have something against admins and admin candidates" and "[you] appear to dislike admins in general".) I think you'll be safe to keep your personal "observations" and prejudice-generating speculations to yourself, rather than pollute a user's Talk page with said insults that even a 3rd grade class could instantly identify as below-belt. (Isn't your education and wealth of life experience better than that? Mostly I blame the sick culture at WP that has allowed this kind of thing, but each and every editor is responsible for their own contributions to it [if editors would not continue contributing to the nasty environment, then it would surely not perpetuate].) By trying to draw up a division point between a regular editor and "all Admins", aren't you also fictionalizing a battleline and acting inconsistent w/ WP:BATTLEGROUND!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, having to answer these silly questions is very time consuming. I want to contribute more to WP articles, but my spare time has been taken up by all this drama recently, it's really ridiculous. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And spurious threads opened against editors at ANI, which suck up their time & energy in defense of self, when time & energy could have been given to improving articles ... this isn't viewed as WP:DISRUPTION?! (And in my experiences the editor opening the spurious & disruptive ANI has gotten no consequences, not even admonishment.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood my comment (completely). What I said was that it was a common tactic, not a 'shift' in your "attitude". The title 'shift' refers to the "changing of subject" (i.e., instead of addressing the actual criticisms, you offer some vague challenge, as in "either stop complaining, or request that I be desyoped", a very bogus tactic). Needless to say, no one suggested that you should be desyoped, you brought that up yourself. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understood DT's msg the first time, Dennis. (When challenged or questioned, the pontificating stops, and it's all "I'm not answering any more questions without my attorney present" [i.e., "you're being critical, I'm not gonna respond, if you don't approve of my adminship then go de-sysop me, goodbye"].) Transparent escapism. (As if engaging thoughtfully & sincerely on the issues will somehow cause you guys to suddenly vaporize in broad daylight!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NPA
By restoring the nonsense on Onorem's page, you are in effect making the personal attack. See WP:TPNO and WP:TPO.
For the record, here is the edit in question. Although the statement made by Onorem is uncivil, it is hard to disagree with it, and it is certainly not a "personal attack". The very guideline Toddst1 cited suggests that him deleting that post was "controversial" at best, and the fact that he, Toddst1, did so without any consensus that it constituted a "personal attack", twice, (not to mention his absurd accusation that I had made a personal attack just by restoring that comment,) leaves much to be desired. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Toddst1, I can only assume you have not been listening, and are just trolling now. Let me try to educate you. Per WP policy, "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." Shouldn't admins know this??? For my part, I might ask the user who made a certain comment I dislike, in extreme situations, to retract it (Onorem deleted his comment just now on his own), but at least I ask the opinion of others first on whether that comment really is a "personal attack". To just go to someone else's Talk page and delete comments you don't like is simply intrusive, bad-mannered and abusive. I have never done that, and never will, and I say this having been the target of actual personal attacks myself. Now please go troll somewhere else. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone with 300 edits in article space has no business taunting other editors and administrators with their knowledge of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Baiting and taunting is not appreciated, and combined with your persistently referring to Todd's remarks as trolling--well, that's a blockable offense. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Today I made this edit to the Bertrand Russell page. I would like to keep contributing to Wikipedia, but I need to be unblocked first. Could some nice admin please review Drmies's extremely abusive block? I do not even know how to reply to it, because the reason he gave ("harassment") is just ridiculously absurd. He claims that I "persistently referring to Todd's remarks as trolling", but I only did that in one comment. How does "persistently" apply? I really cannot understand it. Is asking that an editor stop trolling a "personal attack"? What about the other countless true personal attacks at this very talk page made against me, which were so much more serious? Further, it was Toddst1 who decided to come here, on my Talk page. How could I be "harassing" him if I have never had any previous interaction with him? Again, I do not understand it. Drmies, your abusive block was a very bad move here. I hope you are happy. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Now please go troll somewhere else." If you think my block was "abusive", you should have filed an unblock request instead of continuing to make personal insults and dire predictions (you're not god). Your tone, your comments, this constant hammering on admins not knowing their jobs, it's oppressing. And you were blocked for that, and if you continue to edit like that you will likely be blocked again, and someone else will have to fix up Mr. Russell. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight. You blocked me for 31 hours because of the comment "Now please go troll somewhere else." I take it that you think that comment was a false accusation. Now why don't you, in the interest of consistency, block yourself for 31 hours as well, or more, for making the comment "continued your personal attacks on AN" in this very Talk page, which was a demonstrably false accusation? Why do you get to make baseless accusations and not get blocked by your own standard? Of course that just by reading our previous discussion in this Talk page, anyone can see that you abused your tools to block me just to have your petty revenge, even though you were way too WP:Involved to be blocking me. Please, do me and the community a favor, and block yourself for a long period of time. You deserve it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel uncomfortable about what is going on here, and surprised by your own part in it Drmies. You cannot just dismiss "someone with 300 edits in article space" like that. For example, this article was created with essentially one edit. That one edit alone is a greater contribution to article space than some editors have made in their entire time here. It is unfortunate DanielTom became entangled the way he has with BWilkins and Toddst1 so early in his Wikipedia career. He needs some support to find his sea legs, and normally I would have taken it for granted you would move in that direction. Is there something I missed here? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If this editor was taunting other editors the way he's been taunting admins, he would have been blocked long ago. Poop Target isn't policy it's satire and folks have been more than patient here long enough. His actions immediately after blocking, attacking Drmies are completely consistent with the disruption that has been going on here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, you clearly do not care about Wikipedia. You do not care about my ability to edit articles. You just do not care. Do you know what really is "oppressing"? Your abusive block. You abused your tools, and you need to be desyopped. I am still waiting for a nice admin to review your absurd block. I would even welcome the input of Admin BWilkins — even to him the double standard at play here should be appalling. Yours ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Toddst1 blocked my Talk page access, claiming that I had made "Personal attacks or harassment", just because I said Drmies "needs to be desyopped". Could someone please inform Toddst1 of WP:INVOLVED? Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, for the record, Basalisk also revoked my talk page access, without providing any valid reason, thus making it impossible for me to defend myself, or to edit any page on Wikipedia, including my own talk page. This degree of abuse is completely intolerable. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, while I was blocked, I sent the following email to Writ Keeper, an uninvolved Admin:
Dear Writ Keeper,
I know it's hard for you to be impartial, but keeping in mind that I was blocked for asking that a user stop trolling, please see the comments that are being made against me by Admins, while I am blocked, behind my back. Kudpung just called me a "young noob". Your friend Drmies compared me to "a kid that can't wipe their own ass yet." Do you see the double standard here?
But of course there's a difference between saying someone is inexperienced, which is what Kudpung and Drmies (colorful language aside) said about you, and saying someone is acting maliciously to irritate others, which is what you said about Toddst1. I've looked a little more into this per your request: there's probably still more looking to be done, but my tentative impression is that this block was over-hasty but not totally meritless. Certainly, that along with the fact that multiple other uninvolved admins (Kudpung, Dennis, Basalisk) have weighed in to support the block (in one case, at your own request) means that it would be inappropriate for me to unilaterally overturn them all, if I were inclined to do so. I certainly think that the removals of talk page access were inappropriate; I don't think we should ever consider "x needs to be desysopped" a personal attack, as if we do so, then we as admins have dropped even the pretense of accountability. Even the second removal was unjustified in my opinion, as I still don't see anything rising to the level of personal attacks; even strident criticism should not be suppressed (though I very much doubt that Basalisk had ill intent in doing so). I'm glad to see that Drmies restored talk page access while I was offwiki; I did not have the time or the opportunity to act on your emails when I received them. Writ Keeper⚇♔15:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to extend compliment too, Writ Keeper (didn't want to step ahead of Daniel doing so). One can literally feel the objectivity/impartiality in your thought process; I think you are exemplary and s/ be model for other Admins too. (Need more like you!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. I do not agree with you, however, regarding "uninvolved" statuses of admins Kudpung, Dennis, and Basalisk concerning DanielTom. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Use of talk page while blocked
You may use this talk page to appeal this block but not to attack other editors. Continued misuse of this talk page will result in your inability to edit it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Toddst has warned you, and now I'm warning you - if you want to use your talk page to request and unblock then let's discuss it constructively. If you continue to attack editors whilst blocked your talk page access will be revoked. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate22:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extreme move Basalisk, which can make it more difficult to resolve things. As PaleCloudedWhite says below, it is "sometimes healthy for individuals who lack power in a relationship to be able to vent and express dissatisfactions". The notion that a user merely venting on their own talk page is disrupting Wikipedia is absurd. It may be appropriate for an outright disruptive vandal, but that is certainly not the case here. It's hard to see how revoking talk page access for an upset editor in a situation like this can be anything other than a move to further demean and punish an already powerless individual. I presume humiliation is not your goal, so how do you see this move as benefiting Wikipedia? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some venting should be tolerated
I have Daniel's talk page on my watchlist as a result of working with him on the Emily Brontë article. The impression I gained was of a very polite and extremely collaborative editor. That has continued to be the case in all my subsequent interactions with him. Watching recent postings here has been somewhat discomfiting. It is sometimes healthy for individuals who lack power in a relationship to be able to vent and express dissatisfactions, which Daniel seems to have been doing on his talk page. I have kept wondering why this is seen as so egregious. Having a deaf ear, a forgiving nature and a kindly word could, I think, be a more productive approach here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you've only been following these kind of exchanges on DT's talk page, you may have missed the fact that a deaf ear has been failing to deal with this kind of conduct for quite some time. It's a good idea that DT has a little time to think about what exactly he's trying to achieve here and how he's going about it. Good block. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate22:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse my intrusion onto your Talk Page, Daniel. I'm sorry to see a battle apparently raging. But I was wondering what, if anything, was to be gained by blocking without a warning? Who made the warning? Who assessed the response? Who weighed the assessment? Or are we simply to learn here that a certain number of mainspace edits confers some kind of immunity from blocking? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was no warning. Basically, Drmies knows he can get away with anything, so he decided to abuse his tools. He needs to be desyopped, but no one cares. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But not quite sure how you're expected to engage in an open dialogue if you can't even edit your own Talk Page. Perhaps you've been engaging in pernicious hidden admin abuse that the rest of us are not even allowed to see. Perhaps you now have to make special begging gestures? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC) - but please excuse me, Daniel, if I don't comment any further until you are in a position to openly reply.[reply]
Amazing
I've read the entire thread. It amazes me. First, Toddst1 naming DT's restoration of text on User:Onorem's Talk as "effectively making [a] personal attack [yourself]". IMO that is patently absurd.
Second, Drmies blocking, based on "Attempting to harass others". (Harassment is a serious and WP-defined thing. Are you sure about your definition and that DT's comments qualify, Drmies?!)
Third, DT gave opinion that Toddst1 was trolling, and Drmies asserted that such a statement was "blockable". (Really, Drmies?! Do you want me to give you a diff [or more] where Toddst1 describes other Admins as trolling, based on their disagreement with some of his past action[s]? [Please let me know and I'll research it. But let me know first about your consistency on the point.])
Fourth, Toddst1 removed DT's comment that Drmies "needs to be de-sysop'd" on the basis of it being a PA. (Really, Toddst1?! DT is not allowed to express that opinion?! DT is not allowed to have or express that opinion?!)
Fifth, Drmies, when asked to justify his block, gave these as rationale: "[DT's] tone, and comments". (OMG. We're blocking on interpreted tone, and someone making "comments" now?! How much totalitarian oppression of expression are we pursuing in the current WP culture, anyway!?)
Sixth, looking at the seconds (tick, tock, tick, tock) elapsed between measures taken against DT, ... it pauses one to think what is the rush, hurry, emergency. (None, of course. Which does suggest, hello, there is emotion raging here, and punatively directed at DT. There was no need to protect the Wiki from disruption, and even if I would grant there was some small disruption, which I don't grant, there certainly was no reason to pile-on with all the actions so quickly. That leaves one wondering what is at the basis of the quick and successive pile-on actions. And I don't even want to pick up that rock and look under it.)
Seventh, what are Toddst1, Basalisk, Drmies, zero'd in on this Talk page for? (Why aren't you guys doing something more useful for the WP? There is no threat or harm going on here. What explains your hard hands here? What justifies the quick sanction actions here?) This should make people think what is really going on. (And what is really going on, is IMO, the ugly face of WP, and it needs to change. IMO, the greatest incivilities on WP come from ... Admins, not regular editors. The greates disruptions come from ... Admins, not regular editors. IMO you Admins need to take long looks in the mirror. [And if you don't, the passive WP community of reg. editors, needs to somehow do something to opponse this kind of thing, for now and for future.])
I'm not condoning any comments made by Daniel Tom towards other editors, be they admins or not. But your step-by-step analysis of this rather hasty incident is rather unsettling. When was it clearly pointed out to this user that if he continued with the current "tone" of his comments, he might be blocked? In fact, when was he asked anything? For an apology, for a re-consideration of his position, or to take some time away? Anything? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right back at you IHTS - how come you zeroed in on this page? Why don't you go and do something useful? I came here because I have ANI on my watchlist, and I also have a script installed that strikes out usernames that are blocked. DT's username came up on my watchlist as the last editor of ANI and was struck through, so I came here to see what had happened. I came here and did something useful - revoked talk page access for a blocked user attacking others on their talk page. You came here, yet again, to muddy the waters with your own sacred "opinions" which you seem to think are more important to the project than any real contributions others may make. Your analysis above is totally flawed simply because this is not just about this incident - this is an ongoing pattern of abusive behaviour towards a particular group of editors by DT. Kudpung puts it well below; the only person drawing an arbitrary line between admins and non-admins here is you. Admins are normal editors too, as well as real people, and they deserve just as much respect as anyone else using this site. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate10:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Basalisk, I am doing something useful by being here, because I honestly feel DanielTom is innocent, and the sanctions against him are excessive and unfair as well. (I like to see the Wiki more hospitable, and less prejudicial and abusive. But I'm giving up on that ... my latest thought is the WP is too rotten to be salvaged.) You offered technical reason for your being here, as though your actions here are in-the-line-of-duty and impartial/professional. But I'm not buying that, and let me tell you why, it's simple: 1) You warned DanielTom about loss of Talk page access at 22:48 May 23, and 2) you removed DanielTom's Talk page access at 23:00 (12 minutes later), on basis he had "attacked others", but all he did was express opinion at 22:58 that he felt Admin Drmies deserved de-sysop. (How is that "attacking others", expressing opinion about one Admin's qualifications to retain the mop?!) Your sanction to remove Talk access isn't justfied by policy, IMO, and comes off as prejudicial in my view. (And what was the emergency?? A mere 2 minutes after DanielTom's expression of opinion re Drmies, you removed Talk access. I don't see how Daniel's statement was personal attack, and I don't see any urgency in doing anything, let alone remove Talk access.) That is why I don't buy your "technical" answer.
Kudpung is the one stating "you seem to dislike admins in general", drawing lines in the sand re BATTLEGROUND. DanielTom and I have nothing negative to say about any admin, unless we witness and object to their action or accusation or incivility. You have no right to mischaracterize that by saying Kudpung is not drawing arbitrary divides between admins and regular editors, whereas Ihardlythinkso has. (No statements support that view, yet you assert it robustly.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DT was warned prior to that by another administrator. The short time between the warning and block has no relevance whatsoever; there was no significant delay because DT carried on attacking others soon after the warnings he received. Frivolously accusing others of abuse and calling for sanctions against them when they have done absolutely nothing wrong is not an appropriate way to use one's talk page when blocked. For future reference, any sentence you direct towards me which you might append with "IMO" or "in my view" or anything similar you can consider superfluous and may as well omit, because I literally couldn't care less what you think. I don't consider your opinion devalued because I think you're unintelligent or malicious, but simply because you never have anything positive to say on these issues. Your input is never directed at solving the problem at hand and is always directed at criticising admins and creating more ill feeling, whatever the weather, and so I'm not minded to take into account anything you have to say. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate13:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Basalisk, but I think your responses are distorted, and I invest lack of credibility in your answers, as you do mine. (I think your actions speak louder than words. There was no emergency. There were no personal attacks. He expressed opinion re Drmies deserving de-sysop. So what? That is not anywhere equal to "calling sanctions against", as you accuse. It is simple expression of opinion is all. And that was the only admin he made comment on, that I count, though you acccuse him of attacking multiple editors. [Why are you exaggerating and misinterpreting!?]) "You never have anything positive to say on these issues". Objecting to what are excessive and unfair sanctions is a positive thing, Basalisk, and implementing them a negative thing IMO, re Editior Retention concepts for potentially new, great contributing editor. "Your input is never directed at solving the problem at hand". I do not believe there is any problem at hand, only an imagined one, Basalisk. (And as you can see I'm not alone in that opinion.) I never initiated any dialogue with you in my Wiki history, Basalisk. Our history is that you butted in on Dennis's Talk page and attempted to argue with me, and later started poking me and leaving threatening messages on my User Talk. I have asked you to never post there again, but you ignored that and did several times. (In your last instance there, you apparently encouraged me to "out" an editor, which would have resulted in my block. You should know as much.) So your credibility is zero in my book as well, Basalisk. On top of that IMO you seem vindictive and hostile. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another word from me
Let me educate you. You are a relative newcomer here (as far as I'm concerned, your experience on other Wiki projects is irrelevant). A friendly (but perhaps blunt - because I'm known for occasional bluntness where appropriate) comment from me above was met with the expected disdain, and further suggestions that admins are trolling is ad hominem. You were warned that such comments may lead to getting you into trouble and seems as if you have now driven it thus far. Admins are entitled to as much respect as any other user but your continued remarks constitute IMHO, a general antipathy for sysops. I have often maintained that there is an anti-admin faction on Wikipedia, and it often comes from those who have rubbed people up the wrong way. If admins are now agreeing about your commenting, don't even think that they are conspiring against you, there is no such thing as admin cabals, but you are going to reap what you sow if you continue to throw your weight around and suggest that mature, experienced admins and editors need educating. Choose your prose wisely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree largely with what you say Kudpung, with the proviso that admins should be sufficiently secure in themselves that they don't see a personal attack and blockable offence every time some editor makes a robust comment about them or tries to stand up for themselves. When Daniel said Drmies should be desyopped, instead of blocking him for making a personal attack, it could have been explained to him that he didn't understand how the culture works here. As we well know, admins on Wikipedia are not desyopped for attacking non admins, but Daniel coming here for the first time probably assumed that Wikipedia wouldn't allow that. When I asked each of the two blocking admins a reasonable question above, about why they blocked the way they did, both declined the courtesy of a response. It was of course merely a stupid non admin butting in where he had no business, not worth bothering with. That itself speaks volumes. Skillful admining here could have resolved this situation without resorting to an ugly block and denial of talk page access. But again, I'm trying to swim against the current, aren't I. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Admins never troll, it's always automatically ad hominem if someone would assert that. Admins never have Admin "friends" whom they backup, as group reinforcement/protection of their common mop-for-life powers. Admins never seek sanctions against users who have "talked back sassy" to them or to their Admin friends. All the Admins who might zero in on a user's Talk page to support one another in making sanctions are independent, and those decisions always come out of complete neutrality and objectivity. It is always the user's fault for "driving" the sanctions when Admins make sanctions (Admins were just doing their jobs, and always do so responsibly and professionally). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict). Ep, you may be partly right, and in fact you don't always swim against the current in discussions with me ;) I have never warned or even blocked anyone who has said some very disgusting things about me - I'm old enough and ugly enough to ignore it, I just feel sorry for them and occasionally offer some advice to the younger and/or less experienced ones when I see them overstepping the bounds of common respect in a collaborative environment, or as appearing as potential admin haters for no particular reason other than having been the target of justified warnings. Some admins are even (a lot) blunter and quicker on the trigger than I am, but calling for desysoping is usually OTT and just fuels the wrong kind of fire. Anyone who really wants to know what life is like on the admin side of the fence is welcome to try their luck RfA, and they'll never know until they get the bit and use it. That said, with all the hue and cry about changing the RfA system , I will join with anyone who agvees that lowering the bar is certainly perhaps not the best way to go. I know a lot of older admins (and some much younger ones) personally, including some named here, and I would vote for them at RfA time and time again, and in spite of some ridiculous repeated, and unprovoked trolling suggestions that I seek to abolish the 'Oppose' section at RfA, I'm actually darned careful whom I vote for, as my RfA stats will confirm - and I've voted on nearly every RfA over the last 3 years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you requested I come here by virtue of linking me
I was ping/linked here by Daniel in a link above. Most of the time when I'm linked here, the content is degrading me so I blew off coming here until it was too late as I was in good spirits and didn't want to see more insults. The last thing I was expecting was a sincere request for assistence. The resemblance to The Boy Who Cried Wolf is so obvious it bears mentioning, and like in the story, the outcome might have been different. I hesitated before commenting even now, and I'm sure I will regret it, as I always do.
Once a person begins believing that all admin are ganging together to abuse random editors, and this becomes the central theme in their thinking, there is little hope. Obviously, several of us are seen together "backing each other up" because we are friends that have similar viewpoints. Kudpung and I share many ideas on adminship, but differ on many more. Drmies and I share similar viewpoints but have reverted each other as well. I can't think any admin that I haven't publicly disagreed with on one point or another. I'm just not rude about it when I do. Daniel, you were opining on my talk page earlier, which I reverted out as it was just snide comments and it kept causing edit conflicts while I was busy trying to disagree with Toddst1 and Bbb23 about archiving. You only notice when admin agree with each other, and are mute when we disagree.
Admin disagree all the time. I've bumped heads just recently with a few. The reason you never see it is because you seem blinded by a false belief that there is a conspiracy. When I disagree with another admin, it doesn't require a fight or a long discussion. We make a statement, then we don't beat each other over the head with it. When we strongly disagree, we often use email, where we are not bound by the rules on civility and are free to be as blunt as we care to be. This way it doesn't become disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole. You and others willingly put blinders on, looking only at what fits your preconceived ideas on admin here. Anything that contradicts your fixed notion is dismissed and anything that might support it is held up as The Truth®. It is unhealthy for both you and Wikipedia, and doesn't serve to improve the encyclopedia in any way.
I love a good skeptic. I became an admin because I was skeptical about admin in general, didn't like many things that I saw but knew that real change had to come from within. I know this is what drove Kudpung to the bit as well, and likely many others. This is probably why my threshold is a lot higher than most when it comes to an editor trashing admin, or just incivility as a whole. But when an editor isn't seeking change and simply wants to sit on their perch and demean, attack and degrade someone just because they are an admin, that is purely disruptive and does fit WP:DE. Instead of working to be part of the solution, you have made yourself part of the problem. And when it gets to the point (as it has) that you are compelled to interfere in other random discussion and attempt to undermine honest discourse by injecting your unrelated opinion about how the admin must be wrong because they are an abusive admin, then it is disruption. It acts like a cancer on the project, slowly eating away good faith, turning short conversations into long drawn out drama fests, and is a time parasite. No single editor is so important that they should be allowed to waste so much of the community's time in this way.
For example, Fram gave an appropriate message today addressing Prioryman's vegetable-maternity comments, etc. Don't despair. There is good and bad in everyone. Ebony and Ivory. Kiefer.Wolfowitz17:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A snake lurks in the grass. I'm not going to leave your venomous comment unanswered, Dennis, as you completely mischaracterized my position. I have never, ever, suggested that "all admin are ganging together to abuse random editors". In fact, I genuinely love and respect many admins, who are not abusive. Many. I am glad, though, to see you — one of the leaders of the so-called "admin gang" — admit that you and your admin "friends" "[back] each other up". Nothing new there!
Given that I had already told you before, on your own Talk page, that I know admins often disagree with each other, I can only assume that you, in your above comment, were being deliberately dishonest (either that, or you have a very short memory). Oh, do you know what really, really bothers me about you, Dennis? You are only "civil" when it suits you. You think you are the master of civility, but you are not. You only use "civility" as a cover, to get your way. Now, if an editor even dares to question you, or anything you do, you always have the whole "admin gang" ready to support you. (Screw the editor, Dennis is our king! How dare someone criticize him? He even nominated me for adminship!) But I gotta tell you the truth, Dennis. Your double standard is just too obvious. Do you remember when I asked your opinion on the clear personal attacks made by Bwilkins? (I have nothing against him, at this point, since he apologized.) Remember that? You never addressed them. One would think that you are forgiving to everyone who makes personal attacks. But no. You warned a regular editor for making "personal attacks" just a few days later! How can that be? How do you explain that double standard? Let's see. Here is what that editor you warned had said: You know you are all a bunch of narcissistic editors who want to be administrators. Then you told him not to make more personal attacks. Now compare that with what Bwilkins had said (among other personal attacks): your recent ani proves your level of ethics. Good luck integrating with humanity someday. Wow! But that doesn't deserve a warning?? What's up with the double standard? Hmmm. Let's see. Oh, right. Bwilkins is an admin! And we both know that you only warn others when it's convenient for you! When it's your friend making the personal attacks, you just ignore it. You know, Dennis, that's called hypocrisy. And you should be better than that. You can be better than that. But until you drop your double standards, you and your gang should go somewhere else, and just leave me alone. You are not the angel people think you are, Dennis. I really am too tired of your double standards. Leave now, and never come back. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis keeps making shocking accusations against me: "[I am] desperately seeking attention and apparently, martyrdom". "[I] don't want to be here and hate this place". "Everything [I] do seems to focus on spreading this misery so [I] don't have to hate alone." "Wikipedia is better without [me]". "[I am] disrupting purely for the sake of disrupting". "[My] purpose is solely to disrupt the normal and necessary functions here". "[I] hate everything about Wikipedia". "[I am] obviously trying to undermine Wikipedia". Enough is enough! ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just that Dennis is spreading lies by saying that "[I] hate everything about Wikipedia"; he also made the lowest attack one can ever possibly make against any editor, when he stated that "Wikipedia is better without [me]" and that "[I am] obviously trying to undermine Wikipedia". Dennis needs to either apologize, or be blocked. His abuse has gone way too far this time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that must be horrible for you reading that stuff, and very provocative. Forces have gathered, and they seem to want site bans for any editors who persist in expressing views critical of the system. Still, just as you should be allowed to vent on your own talk page, so should they be allowed to vent on their talk pages. Admins should aim at being secure enough in their own skins to set standards by not overreacting when subjected to provocation. Content builders should aim at the same. You too are overreacting, and providing them with more ammunition which they will use against you. Leave them to it Daniel. Return to what you do extremely well, and what I assume you really want to do here, which is writing excellent articles. Wikipedia is much more than it's admin system. These dramas are rapidly buried in obscure edit histories nobody ever bothers to mine. Well written articles can be read around the word for decades, maybe by escalating numbers, leaving a real legacy on how the world sees itself. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Epipelagic, I wish you to know how much I appreciate your kindness to me always. Needless to say, I shall not be editing Wikipedia anymore. After Drmies' extremely abusive block, I could never keep contributing to Wikipedia with a good conscience, and so tomorrow I shall be gone. Don't try to persuade me against it, for my mind is made up. Accept, however, my best wishes. Yours, DanielTom (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you must do as you see fit. But don't confuse the admin system with Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia progresses despite it's admin system, not because of it. And when able users like yourself leave, it is Wikipedia that is hurt while the dysfunctional parts of the admin system are further empowered. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)--Epipelagic (talk) 02:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TPA
DanielTom, I've restored your talk page access on your request. Please check to see if I clicked the right button; I haven't finished my coffee yet. I have restored it because you asked, and I do so in the faith that you will use it properly. You may have gathered by now that I'm not the only one who found the general tone and the content of some of your posts in appropriate. No personal attacks please, no taunting: on the internet, no one knows you're a dog (goes for me too), but a certain level of decorum is necessary to create a working atmosphere, which is what we're supposed to be here for. In other words, turn down the snark level, if I may put it colloquially. I don't mind unblocking you either if you can say you will do that. You may call for my head, if you like, that's fine, but you'll have to do so with good reason and in an appropriate manner (I almost said "politely", betraying my age, perhaps).
If there are any misunderstandings among your defenders about my block: I didn't block you because a certain number of edits need to be made before you can speak your mind--but there is a difference between speaking one's mind and lecturing admins on what they can and cannot do, on what is acceptable for an admin to do, etc. If someone like Malleus claims admin abuse, I can take that because he's been on the butt end of it (that's been established), and if he wants to say that the system as a whole is rotten, I can accept that as well because he's been around long enough to speak with some experience. You cite Beowulf; I can cite the opening lines of the Wife of Bath's prologue and point out that experience and/or authority give one a right to state certain claims--but even an experienced editor knows (will have learned) what's within bounds and what's outside of them. It is entirely possible that other admins disagree with where I draw the line (I don't like "civility blocks"), and an unblock request could have pointed that out. (Perhaps you made one; I haven't read your whole talk page since yesterday.) In my opinion, you were taunting in a very uncivilized manner--I hate repeating that, since it makes it sound like I'm rubbing it in, but I'm just saying this for clarity's sake. Place your unblock request, see how it goes. I wish you the best, and I hope you will be back soon to fix up Mr. Russell, and then Mr. Moore--who had two hands, we know that, and a Wikipedia article full of unreferenced claims that seem to plug one particular author a bit too much. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, please stop making personal attacks. I do not appreciate it when you compare me with "a kid that can't wipe their own ass yet." (How come I am blocked for asking that a user stop trolling, but you are not blocked for making clear personal attacks???) You decided to abuse your admin tools, and now you need to be desyopped. It's that simple. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I wasted my breath. Simile, DanielTom. Your email message struck a very different tone; you'll pardon me if I choose not to read further emails from you or messages pertaining to me here. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, Drmies. Even a 4 year-old can see what's wrong with that. I guess if I compared you with someone like Hitler, that would just be a "simile" too, right? Not a personal attack? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just try to focus on something positive. Why not find Glazman and Lyubich's "Finite Dimensional Linear Analysis: A Systematic Presentation in Problem Form" or Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming or David A. Freedman's Statistics and see whether something catches your fancy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gardening is also good too, if you have access to a bit of land. I find taking an axe to unwanted tree stumps and roots is a good way of burning off emotional perturbances (if the stumps are resistant to being removed, the air can become black with thick torrents of unmentionable profanities, and other matters are quite forgotten....). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Travaillons sans raisonner, dit Martin; c’est le seul moyen de rendre la vie supportable." I'd never trust that Voltaire - his herbacious borders were pretty grim and full of weedy ferns. Yours, in the potting-shed, Alan "Status Anxiety" Titchmarsh
Very best wishes to you, Daniel
I'm very sorry to hear that you are resolved to leave wikipedia. I've made similar resolutions in the past myself and have broken them, but am sure that it's just a matter of time before I too give up completely. I believe that's true of all the people that I've come to respect here. It has been a pleasure to see your intellect at work. There are some fine individual members of the human species, but as whole, it's worthless: the group intolerance that has been demonstrated is totally representative of the species as a whole, as a quick glance at the daily news will usually demonstrate. I hope that in whatever other pursuits you take up you manage to insulate yourself well from the many and varied cliques, and instead have lots of rewarding interactions with individuals. Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my last post, and I ask that no one edit my talk page after it.
I enjoyed my short time at Wikipedia, but the bitter strifes, the oppressive atmosphere, and the storm of abuse I encountered, all lead to the same conclusion. It is time for me to leave this place.
As I am not a native English speaker, it was difficult for me to make significant contributions to articles. (So the way in which my "300" article edits were slighted, above, was indeed disrespectful to me, as I put considerable time and energy into them.) In the beginning, I limited myself to adding references: the Emily Brontë article, for example, had eleven (11) references before I started editing it, a few months ago; now it has seventy-three (73). (Needless to say, that article still needs much improvement, but it is in good hands.) Eventually, I ventured to write a few sentences of my own (as in the Bertrand Russell article, [5], [6], [7]), whenever key information had been left out. It was a funny experience.
It is a pity that abusive admins — those who are blinded by power and driven by revenge — always end up driving away editors. For my part, what kept me motivated to continue editing articles was the benevolence and sympathy of other regular editors, who always treated me with respect and kindness. Kudos to them. I bear no ill-will nor prejudice to anybody, and I hope no one will bear any ill-will to me.
Can Dennis Brown please tell us about "Echo notifications" and how these are used? What is this Admin tool and how is it used? Where is this explained on Wikipedia? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.2.54 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an admin tool, see WP:Notifications. Essentially, any time someone mentions a username using the entire User:Bwilkins string, that person gets a notification that they have been mentioned, and where to find. It is used so far as a way of calling someone to your page (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So no proves anything about email sendings. Email cannot be proved by anyway. And now Dennis and Drmies chat over there conspiring to indef block Daniel and block from own page. Is just revenge and ultimate insult, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.212.205 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinitely blocked
Now that you've declared that you don't intend to contribute to Wikipedia, your continuing harassing emails to Drmies are cast in a different light. Following those by calling Dennis Brown a snake is compounding the problem. You have a long history of antipathy towards admins and acrimony and disruptive drama that has resulted from that. I have indefinitely blocked you from editing for this continued disruption and if further personal attacks or harassing emails continue, you will lose privileges to edit this page and/or email. Toddst1 (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm not so confident as Toddst1, and so I've removed your talk page access and the ability to send emails from this account. You had your talk page access restored in the past but chose to insult other editor in your edit summaries. And sending harassing emails is so over the top that you will to have to convince me or other administrators to restore that privilege. Any appeals should be sent to the Unblock Ticket Request System. De728631 (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are accusations of harassment via Email above, and sanctions made based majorly on them, I'm not sure harassment has been established to be a fact after an investigation (has it? where to see?), or a claim by Drmies that has been accepted face-value by sanctioning admins, but what I'm reading suggests accusation of harassment is a very serious matter and not to be made casually (especially I would think, when the accused editor has username reflecting his real-life name, on this very public website). I'd like to quote some policy here, this is from WP:Harassment:
Blocking for harassment
In extreme cases, such as legal threats, threats of violence, or outing, protective blocks may be employed without prior warnings.
Incidents of wikihounding generally receive a warning. If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours.
I'm not seeing a good fit here for the sanctions imposed, but I'm just a regular editor and don't claim to have authoritative understading re policy. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'To die! and unrevenged!' she said, 'Yet let me die.'
~ Aeneid, Book IV, lines 659-660 ~ (translation by John Conington)
The email I sent to Drmies was a private (at least until Drmies himself decided to quote it) and personal one, which was not sent via Wikipedia, and thus constituted no "abuse". For the record, here is the email in full:
"Editor retention is a huge problem on the English wiki..." Indeed!
Good luck for the election.»
That's it. No death threat, as someone asked me by email. The admins who called it "harassment" (and blocked me for it) had not read it, nor had they read any of my emails, so how would they know?
I will still be working on other projects (wikiquote, commons, meta), but I state once again that I have no desire to be on Wikipedia, other than to defend my name and talk page from attacks by admins, so please just let me, and it, die in peace. I leave you with Dido's words (Aen., IV., l. 653; Conington). Vale. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vixi, et, quem dederat cursum Fortuna, peregi.
"My life is lived, and I have played The part that fortune gave."
I've kept out of this for a while now, but I feel I ought to mention that I also received an email from DanielTom which I chose to ignore. Although not offensive, it clearly carried a hint of sarcasm, and as such reinforces my opinion that the user has a general antipathy towards admins in spite of his very short tenure here. There may or there may not be occasional grounds for criticising admins, but they are not all bad, and joining the anti-admin band waggon just for the sake of it is just not cool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user contacted the functionaries-en mailing list to profess his innocence regarding the block of User:Diogotome. He claims that account is owned by his brother. Aside from the curiosity of him emailing to appeal a block on behalf of his brother, we explained that considering that both accounts could be indefinitely blocked for their behaviour even if considered independently of each other, his argument was falling on deaf ears. In fact, this account was already blocked anyway. So, even if we are to believe his explanation, the fact remains that it actually changes nothing.
We also explained that he has already exhausted his avenues of appeal for his existing block, and that emailing functionaries-en is not an extra avenue of appeal.
Deskana, both User:DanielTom and User:Diogotome were blocked and unable to either defend themselves at the SPI investigation page, or provide data there. Via Email to me Daniel states he asked functionaries-en to add to the SPI that his brother Diogo sent Arbcom proof of his identity. Daniel further states that he never made request to be unblocked. Also that he never asked for the unblock of Diogo, nor did he make any appeal on Diogo's behalf. Also that he never made any case to "profess [his] innocence". Also that it is no surprise Daniel and brother Diogo share IPs since they live in same house.
Deskana, at User:Diogotome it states the username is a sockpuppet of User:DanielTom, and it seems to me both brothers have been upfront about all concerned and there has been no attempt to conceal anything. Given that sockpuppetry necessarily conveys the intention to deceive or "cheating", and the fact the brothers have used their real names integral to their WP usernames, it seems that WP should correct the reasons for block at least, and not leave "sockpuppetry" dangling there. (Even for example, User:Daniel Tomé is currently labeled as sockpuppet of User:DanielTom, after Daniel made clear and public his request to change usernames, and again, showed no intention to hide or conceal anything.) Thank you for considering these additional facts. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maggie Dennis asked me about this issue, and, upon re-reading his email, I can see that he never did ask for an unblock. When the functionaries-en list receives long emails where people profess their innocence, our standard response is to assume that it is an unblock request. That said, Daniel appears to not have understood that accounts can be blocked as sockpuppets even if they are not operated by the same person. The policy on meatpuppetry confirms this. We did attempt to explain to him that, even if his explanation is true, the accounts would remain blocked anyway as their individual behaviour was disruptive enough to warrant a block. Perhaps we didn't manage to make it quite clear enough to him. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp17:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@ ɐuɐʞsǝp, it is unlikely to matter. His goal is to get the sockpuppet page deleted as a way of maintaining his reputation. He was blocked on en.wikinews for his en.wikipedia behavior (as socking is not allowed as it is viewed as particularly bad), with the sock notification put up. Upon claiming it was a misrepresentation, false and defamed him, he was offered through a third party to have the sock puppet notice replaced with a "You are blocked for local equivalent of WP:BATTLEGROUND and harassment." with the rename then redirecting there. Nominally got his best deal, but this was not enough because local admins should not have the right to change a user page. He does not like the notice he was blocked because he violated local behavior expectations. This is reputation management on his part, not an attempt at an unblock. You cannot make it clearer to him as he only understands he cannot manage his reputation according to his own wishes. --LauraHale (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Laura, don't worry, nothing is going to be deleted or changed. He's barking up the wrong tree if he wants on-wiki things changed. The thing is, what was described on the SPI was completely factual; I "confirmed the accounts were related", which is a true representation of the available technical data. I make no claims as to whether the other account was his brother or not, and I don't need to, because as I pointed out the block is quite firmly grounded in policy irrespective of that. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp17:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deskana, Daniel feels that meat puppetry policy does not apply, that Diogo has never ever commented on the same discussions as Daniel, nor has ever voted like Daniel, nor has given Daniel illusion of support, etc. Daniel feels they were always very careful about that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel's feelings are irrelevant. The SPI is not subject to review. The so-called brother's first edit being to ANI shows clear block evasion and we're done with that. Toddst1 (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors seem keen to keep making comments on this page about Daniel having been a really "bad" editor here. For the sake of balance, I simply wish to say that I always found him to be the most polite and collaborative editor, willing to listen and learn in order to create a better encyclopedia. As illustration of what I mean, I invite people to look at this archived thread. There are many ways in which people may relate to one another. Some are more productive than others. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it may. The thread immediately preceding this one, for example, is quite confusing and misleading. The poster obviously did not know he's been blocked. I'm also not sure what's to be gained by allowing whoever wants to come by and add to the "he was rotten" book of remembrance. I cannot defend any of Daniel Tom's disruptive behaviour. Not would he expect that. But, just like PCW above, I can record only that every single interaction I had with him, showed him to be polite and courteous. It's very wrong to wholly blacken the name of a former editor, who can no longer reply, with the trite labels of "sockpuppet", "troublemaker" etc, etc. He had good qualities too. He added some good content. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC) (He was also obviously very well-read and intelligent, but I'm not sure that either of those qualities are always an advantage here).[reply]
User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users.
Blocked users' user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. It also prevents others from being able to use the talk page to communicate with the blocked editor.
In extreme cases of abuse by the blocked user, such as abuse of the {{unblock}} template, re-blocking the user without talk page access should be preferred over protection.
When required, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block.
Confirmed socks of registered users should be dealt with in accordance with Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry; their pages are not normally protected.
I thought this user could no longer contest his block here? In which case policy seems to rather favour the grave spitters. Can he actually still communicate here? If an editor wishes to communicate with a blocked user, perhaps that should be simply be via their email link, if they want that maintained? In the meantime, here, can we look forward to "severe cases of vandalism from IP users"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DanielTom lost the privilege to edit his talk pages for all his accounts. Any communication with DT is one-way on this page. I believe the move to protect the page is more to prevent further drama about the block and the resulting statements that "DT was good" and "DT was bad" comments as above, which are neither grave spitting nor going to affect the outcome of the block. Such discussions and comments don't contribute to building an encyclopedia, only building acrimony. Toddst1 (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were posted in an attempt to redress what I saw as an imbalance. Not to try and affect any outcome. Nor to "build acrimony". DanielTom "contributed to building the encyclopedia" and I'm sure that no one is suggesting that, because he's now blocked, all his additions should be undone. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, per m:Global bans, I have to inform you of the global ban requests for comment I have started about you. Since you are currently blocked, you are able to post responses to queries posted on the page at your talk page or request to be temporarily unblocked to participate in that RfC only. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
