User talk:Roux/Archives/2010/October

Huh?

What are you talking about "belittling your sexuality"? I don't know or care if you're male, female, transgendered or whatever. I don't know or care whether you're into guys or girls. Frankly, your personal life is irrelevant to me entirely. I called the sous-chef "cute" for rhetorical effect and because I would frankly dismiss anything they (male or female) had to say about food safety in the same way I would dismiss a telephone operator's knowledge of fibre optics: even though they use the equipment, their position does not a priori indicate that they have such knowledge.
What I do care about is your comments on the RefDesk. When you say something controversial, you have to be prepared to either provide a reference or qualify your claim when someone challenges it. To put it bluntly: put up or shut up. That's the rule for everyone there - me included. When someone challenges your statement, as more than one did in this recent thread, it's a great opportunity for you: to either show everyone how well you know your stuff by successfully proving your point or to learn that you've been labouring under a misconception. It's good either way, really - and I've had more than my share of the latter. Dismissing their concerns as you did just makes you look like you have something to hide.
It's not my intention to aggravate you - honestly! But I'm not going to stop challenging statements made by you or anyone else if I'm concerned that your (the generic you) facts aren't right. If/when you "put up" your reference, then I'll "shut up", but not before. Matt Deres (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that you lie about the content of references even when they are provided to you, why exactly should I bother providing them? → ROUX ₪ 18:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is a difference between asking for a reference, and being a fucking dick about it. → ROUX ₪ 18:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to take a step back. Calling people liars and dicks is not allowed. I know you're royally pissed off with me so I'm not going to go complaining to WQA or anything, but it's something you can get blocked for. Is insulting me really worth that much to you? Matt Deres (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually you did quite demonstrably lie, the last time you decided to have a go at me. So, in fact, I can indeed call you that with impunity; it is historical fact. As for dick, go read WP:DICK and filter it through your own actions.→ ROUX ₪ 21:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean this in good faith

I don't mean to harass or personally attack you, but I just wonder why you always remove content from other users' talk pages. It's not blatant vandalism. The user can chose to delete themselves. Just give them a chance to respond. 74.89.58.36 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes but I came in peace. I apologized if I was wrong, and said that I want it to stop. I also took credit for being in the wrong. I just wanted to know if it was him. Maybe he admit it was and he'll apologize, maybe it wasn't him and I would apologize. 74.89.58.36 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Request

• As you are an editor who had participated here, could you please state/explain your level of "involvement" (if any)? I'd appreciate it if you could provide a response (or a copy of it) here. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

PM800

Hey, sorry to bug you but I see you've dealt with this guy User:PM800. He has been following me around for a while undoing my edits for some reason. I think all of my edits are legitimate, once or twice I've messed up but not in any of the cases where he's undone my work. E.g. [1], [2], and the biggest offense I've noticed is [3], where he rolled back my edit which removed an uncited claim that someone was a racist. Is there any formal complaint against PM800? He seems to be an admin and this is annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.214.5 (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

PM800 is not an admin. Discuss problems with him on his talkpage. Interesting that you came straight to my tpage. I have a good idea who you are... so stop playing games. → ROUX ₪ 23:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Who do you think I am? I haven't edited under other IPs in months, and only then because my IP changes periodically. I did discuss this on his talk page but he didn't reply, he just kept digging through my edits to find stuff to undo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.214.5 (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If he refuses to discuss it on his tpage, take it WP:ANI. → ROUX ₪ 00:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I will if he keeps undoing my edits without a meaningful explanation, it's annoying. But who do you think I am? That felt a bit like an accusation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.214.5 (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI on "edit war"

My intention wasn't to defend the IP, merely to ensure I got all the bases covered. I disagree about leaks not being verifiable; it's certainly possible for reliable sources to cover any leaks (but really, that's a discussion for some other time). I was trying to make sure I understood both sides of the situation, and noted that there was some possibility (I think you disagree on this, fair enough) that the edits could be correct. Either way, I already agreed further down the discussion that the IP's edits on the whole were vandalism, considering the removal of the external links, and I stressed multiple times that I don't condone the IP's edits. You'll also notice I left no opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the page protection. Just wanted to clear this up. Regards, Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The protection was a good faith error, which alas provoked an unexpected upsettedness. Apologised for and reverted within the hour. Hopefully the issue is resolved. Euryalus (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

I will be taking your actions and accustations to ANI. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Fill your boots. It won't get you anywhere. → ROUX ₪ 22:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Both blocked for 24 hrs

Both Xanderliptak and Roux are blocked 24 hrs for making personal attacks on the Heraldry discussion and on ANI. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hrs for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Roux/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

WTF? Could someone please show me where I have harassed anyone? Could someone please show me where I have made a personal attack? Calling someone a liar when they are making statements that they know to be untrue because they have been told they are untrue is not a personal attack. This is beyond fucking stupid. I tried to get uninvolved people to look at Xander's repeated attacks of me... and the response I get is more attacks from Xander, more lies about me and what I have said. Perfectly factual descriptions of what he has done are personal attacks and harassment, somehow? What exactly should I have said? "He is misrepresenting the truth"? Yes, that is called a lie. Knowingly saying something that is untrue is a lie. Blocking me for pretending that is a personal attack when it is--check a dictionary--simply the most accurate word is unbelievably dumb. → ROUX ₪ 23:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information.
Calling someone a "liar", even if you think they are one, definitely fails the civility policy, I think you should re-read that policy before any more unblock requests.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Roux/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It's not that I 'think' he is a liar; he is demonstrably lying about me and about things I have said. How on earth is that acceptable behaviour? The block is absolutely not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, as no damage or disruption was occurring--unless you think that someone's desire to not be lied about is disruptive. (It's not, FYI.) I have been making useful contributions, and this block is preventing me from making more. I am quite familiar with the civility policy, and it is the height of willful blindness to say that accurate, factual statements which can be sourced to specific diffs of what the person in question has said may not be used. Knowingly saying something that is untrue is a lie. That is the dictionary definition. And that is the word I used; saying 'misrepresenting the truth,' I am quite sure, would not have gotten me blocked.. and yet the meaning is quite precisely the same. The word choice was deliberate and accurate. → ROUX ₪ 00:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree with the assessment by the several people commenting below, notably Georgewilliamherbert, Jayron32 and Beyond my Ken. Please consider taking their advice.  Sandstein  06:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As someone not involved - reading the ANI thread and referenced talk pages, both of you lost your tempers. And continued beating on each other after the ANI conversation started.

I know you're frustrated, and he's been provocative, but you're more experienced around here and should have known to disengage sooner. If it had stopped shortly after the ANI filing I'd have let it all go but you both continued the abuse. That's not OK, particularly not when it's on ANI and so visible...

Taking it to ANI was entirely the right thing to do. But if you break down and indulge in angry counterattacks on ANI after you start that, you just get yourself in trouble as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to explain in what way Xander's insistence on a) claiming I have no or little knowledge of heraldry, despite being told repeatedly it was not the case, b) stating that others have little or no knowledge of heraldry, despite being told repeatedly it was not the case, and c) stating that I said things which I did not say is somehow not lying? Perhaps you could explain in what universe a factual statement that someone is saying things which they know to be untrue is a personal attack? → ROUX ₪ 23:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to beat up on you - but you went over the line after you got angry with him, and you haven't calmed down yet. I warned him first, for the NPA for the thing you pointed out; he repeated it, defending it, and then you went off on him some more. If you'd stayed out of it or responded without counterattacking beyond NPA limits we wouldn't be here.

Him attacking you doesn't mean you can get away with attacking him back. He's blocked, and I was considering making it for longer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not attack him, however. I used an entirely accurate word to describe what he was saying about me and about others. He knows full well that I never said he was unfit to comment on Wikipedia. In what other way is one to describe such a knowingly false statement? I would also thank you to not comment on my state of mind... according to you, that would in fact be a personal attack, so perhaps you should stop. I note, also, that you did not answer my questions above. Less handwaving, more substantive response please. → ROUX ₪ 00:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I stand by what I said in the first unblock request, calling somebody a "liar" is a personal attack even if it is true, one should comment on the content, not the editor. I'll let someone else evaluate the second unblock request  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no semantic difference between 'what you have said is a lie' (which you seem to claim would be okay) and 'you are lying.' → ROUX ₪ 00:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference though, and its with the subject of the statement. You can say what you like, more or less, about the content an editor contributes. Thats a lie is not the nicest thing in the world, but it is directed squarely at the contributions. 'You're a liar' is directed at Xander as much as 'you fucking douchebag' would be. -- ۩ Mask 00:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I can offer a compromise? I agree with Roux that the claims Xander advanced are untrue, and he has refused to provide citations to back them up. I also agree calling someone a liar is typically a personal attack. Why not comment solely on the content? He can continue pointing out that these things just arent true, just like that. 'No, that's false.', 'That's untrue', even, if Xander continues trying to perpetuate OR, 'that's a lie', and at no point using expressions such as that would Roux be making a comment about the contributor, merely the incorrect claims they persist in advancing. Xander has stirred up quite a bit of drama by being the sole (or close to the sole) proponent of a rather bald attempt at OR that boils down to 'you have to believe me, im smarter about this then anyone else.' That creates frustration, and Roux didn't handle it well, at all. Roux isn't exactly wrong on this though, he just went about it in a rather prickish way. -- ۩ Mask 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't really give a flying whosit about the OR at this point; consensus has quite nicely dealt with it (though I will be amused when the same thing happens again, as I am quite certain it will (he was using the same embellishments at various permutations of Kennedy articles, which I have removed; I fully expect the exact same disagreements to crop up there), and I am in fact currently laughing; Xander's position before was "there's no reference that says no so the embellishments can stay," and his position now is "it doesn't matter what the reference says, we don't have to include another element" and seems to be dead set against allowing the supported element in). What I am, rightfully and deservedly, pissed off about is Xander's repeated--oh, fine, I'll play this game--inaccurate (as in, completely unrelated to the truth) statements about me and what I have said. My annoyance is entirely about Xander's behaviour towards me. Calling the behaviour exactly what it is--deliberate lying--is merely truth. I am frankly astonished that anyone thinks there is any functional difference bwteen 'what you have said is a lie' and 'you are a liar'. They are saying exactly the same thing. But fine, if what you want to see is groveling--let's be honest, that is what admins want to see in an unblock request... I am so sorry for using accurate words. In the future when untruths are stated about me, I will say "what you have said is a lie/fabrication/deliberate distortion of the facts" while maintaining the ridiculous fiction that saying so is somehow different than saying "You lie." Happy now? Good. One hopes you all understand that by doing so you are forcing me to lie, by forcing me to say something that is not entirely true or accurate. It's depressing that nobody sees this as a problem. → ROUX ₪ 02:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to unblock you, Roux, and I'm too tired to bother causing more drama (he's blocked too and it's only 24 hours), but I'm also not sure how "liar" is a blockable attack. Sure, it's not nice or civil, and the context it was used in wasn't pretty, but it just because it was directed at someone doesn't make an attack. Of course, you probably could have just ignored him and let him be blocked, but oh well. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think your role as an admin is to do what you think is ultimately best for the project; perhaps avoiding drama is better, perhaps unblocking me is better. Only you can decide that for yourself. At least you have the honesty and grace to point out that certain words are not automatically an attack. What bothers me about the interpretation put on such events by your fellow admins is that it forces users to be dishonest themselves. The way to combat dishonesty is not with more dishonesty, sugar-coating, or using silly euphemistic phrasing; the only way to get rid of dishonesty in this project (or indeed anywhere) is blinding sunlight, blunt speech that allows for no ambiguity. Unfortunately, your fellow admins would prefer that I be less than honest in order to combat people who are being deliberately dishonest about me. Not only does that go against my personal values--honesty, particularly online, is important; our reputations are the only thing we have when people do not know us in person--but it forces me into being a hypocrite. How can I possibly argue against someone else's dishonesty while being forced to bend the truth myself? I cannot. → ROUX ₪ 04:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you might want to consider that "honesty is the best policy" is not an absolute. It's hardly earth-shattering news that small dishonesties -- white lies -- are the social lubrication that allows civil society to run smoothly. The person who always "calls a spade a spade" may feel that they are only being truthful, but when it happens in social interactions, especially on a small scale and between people who are, essentially, strangers with no ties to each other, it can frequently be quite counter-productive. When the food I'm served is not to my liking, I don't say "This is awful, it tastes like swill," even if thaat's my honest opinion. I can opt for "I didn't care for it" or even "I'm not very hungry," just to avoid giving unnecessary offense.

Wikipedia is intended to be a collegial community based on civility, but it's also supposed to present accurate referenced information in a manner that people can use, and those two requirements can, with some frequency, conflict with each other. If everyone decided to speak their minds forthrightly and say "You are just full of shit, and you're behaving like an asshole", there's not much work going to get done. We need a certain amount of polite dissembling in order to exist as a community and advance the work we're supposed to be doing.

The upshot of all that is that saying "his statements are innacurate" will serve almost the same semantic purpose as "he's lying", but the latter is socially unacceptable and might get you blocked, and therefore carries little or no advantage for you, or for the community. If the important thing is the result, I can't imagine you'd prefer the current outcome to the one where the other guy is blocked, and you are not. Don't think of it as "hypocrisy", think of it as helping to ensure the desired outcome. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, if this is a topic that interests you, I recommend Lying and Secrets by Sissela Bok. Very readable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that forcing someone to be less than honest in order to get their desired result is exactly a good precedent to be setting, do you? If it is unacceptable for him to be dishonest in service of his goals, it is equally unacceptable for me to be dishonest in the service of mine, don't you think? Particularly when my goal is to get him to stop being dishonest. I agree that a certain amount of politeness is required. But anything less than 100 percent honesty in the face of someone quite deliberately being dishonest about what I know, and even more importantly about what I have said, and I have then abdicated any right I have to complain about his dishonesty. And more to the point, specifically in terms of Wikipedia: people tend to fairly unquestioningly believe what other people say about what has happened. Not many will go combing through diffs. So when Xander says that I told him he is "unfit to comment on Wikipedia," most people are simply going to believe that. And such statements must be refuted in as unambiguous a manner as possible. Stating that it is 'inaccurate' simply allows other people to think it is somewhat accurate. I cannot post diffs proving a negative, so I must refute the statement in the strongest terms possible: that what he is saying is a baldfaced lie. Equivocation or ambiguity in the response merely gives the statement validity, it suggest that there may be some truth to it. He knows I never said any such thing. And yet he said I did. That is a lie. Period. There is no good reason to extend social niceties to people who are taking advantage of them. Or to put it another way... you have no right to bitch about hurting your hand when you punch me in the face. → ROUX ₪ 05:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're taking "honesty" as being an absolute requirement, and my argument is that this is not the case in many social situations. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Honesty is more important in (functionally) anonymous interactions, not less. In meatspace, it's easy to unmask when someone is being deceitful. Online, when all you have is your word, it is both less easy to discern and much more important that you tell the truth. → ROUX ₪ 05:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

We're going to have to agree to disagree, because your statement "Honesty is more important in (functionally) anonymous interactions, not less" does not accord with my experiences in 25 years online. In the real world, social intercourse has an extremely rich variety of signals (tone of voice, body language, tactile interaction, pheromones, etc.) which can help to carry an ameliorating message even when the words used are brutally honest, while in the online world, we only have the relatively meager medium of written language to do the job -- and most people, unfortunately, are just not very good at writing in a way that conveys complex meanings. The lack of other signals is the primary reason that "flaming" is a much more frequent online phenomena then it is in the real world. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Apologies for butting in. May I suggest simply saying, "That statement is false [diff]"? That would be neither intellectually dishonest nor a personal attack. An ongoing pattern of demonstrably false statements may be brought forth in dispute resolution as evidence that the editor is not engaging in good faith discussion. Just a thought. alanyst ^/talk/ 05:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Stating that someone is a liar when they are in fact lying is no more a personal attack than stating that they are wrong when they are wrong. And it would have been impossible for me to provide a diff of his lie about me saying he was unfit to comment on Wikipedia, as I never said any such thing. One cannot prove a negative. More specifically in this case, repeated requests for him to provide references to back up his statements merely resulted in evasion and circular arguments, followed by finally providing (some) references that did not actually support what he was saying. Calling him a liar--a simple and factual statement about what he was doing--was the shorter and more efficient way of making the truth known. He knew full well I had never said any such thing (and knew full well that I had never said any of the other things he had attributed to me, as he had been told by me that I had never said them). "That statement is false" implies some sort of error; there was no error in what he said. It was quite deliberate. → ROUX ₪ 05:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3. Roux, listen, I respect you as an editor and administrator here, so please hear me out here. The issue, as far as I can see, is the use of the name "liar" as applied to an individual. The problem seems subtle, but is actually quite stark. Look at it this way. I have biological children, so it is technically correct to say that I have fucked. However, if you call me a fucker, that is still a personal attack. Get it? At issue is the application of a label to a person "Person X is a <blank>er", which, as long as blank carries any potential for negative connotations, is always an unambiguous personal attack. To say "Statement X by John Doe is demonstratably untrue" is not equivalent to saying "John Doe is a liar". The first is not a personal attack, the second is. All of the rest of this stuff is smoke and mirrors, it distracts from the issue here. The issue is the attachment of a negative label to a person. That's all. Your refusal to see the distinction is of continuing concern. I know of no plainer way to explain why, after reviewing this block, it seems justified. --Jayron32 05:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with IDHT, Jayron, and I will thank you to not make such--get this, your irony meter will blow--personal attacks. The connotation was quite deliberate: Xander purposefully said things which he knew to be untrue. That makes him, in this situation, a liar. Any negative connotations are his fault for lying. Again, you don't get to complain that your hand hurts after punching me in the face. And calling you a fucker is only a personal attack if I meant it to denigrate you as a person. My roommate and I frequently call each other 'you stupid fucker' or 'you dumb fuck' and it is never a personal attack. I was providing a clear and factual description of what Xander was doing. He was deliberately saying things he knew to be untrue. That is lying. When one is lying, one is a liar. → ROUX ₪ 05:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You used a label in the context of a dispute. That doesn't make it a friendly jab. Say he told a lie then, if it is demonstrable that he told a lie. Say "John Doe told a lie when he said "yada yada yada"" That still wouldn't be a personal attack. Where it crosses the bright line is saying "John Doe is <blank>" rather than "John Doe did <blank>" Statements of action are not equivalent to statements of being. To say one did something is not synonymous to saying one is something. I am sorry that you cannot see the distinction between action and being. Trying not to get philosophical here, but when you make statements about someone's existance, "John is bad", it has a very different effect than making statements about someone's actions "John did X, which is bad". Statements of existence imply permanence of being, statements of action only imply singularity of event. That's why statements like "John is a liar" have a different effect on an interaction than "John said "yada yada", which is a lie". When you say "John is a liar", what you are saying is no different than saying "John is blonde haired", it implies a totality and completeness. Its is why such statements are taken as personal attacks where statements of action "John told a lie", are not. Look at it this other way: When you say "John is a liar", you make no room for not-lying as a condition of John's being. He just is a liar, much as he is English, or he is fair skinned, or he is the son of Mary. Just as John cannot both be "Son of Mary" and simultaneously "Not-son-of-Mary", John cannot both simultaneously be "liar" and "not-liar". Its why such labels are disconcerting and off-putting to many people. However, saying "John lied" is different. It leaves room for Johns other statements, which may be true. It addresses the behavior, but not the person. It's why the statement at WP:NPA makes the distinction " Comment on content, not on the contributor". In other words, you can say "John lied" (in this event, at this time), but not "John is a liar" (state of existance, permanence, being). You'll notice in my statement above, I clearly stated that your behavior (that you refuse to see the distinction between "told a lie" and "is a liar") is what I commented on. I have applied no label to you, have made no statement of your existence. Only on the action, which is a transient state that can be remedied. --Jayron32 05:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that very detailed clarification. I have been waiting for someone to be that detailed, because: In return, please find me pre-block diffs where I used the formulation 'you are a liar.' "Stop lying," I said, "stop telling lies," I said... but at no point, to the best of my recollection (and I am willing to be proven wrong), did I use the formulation "Xander is a liar" until after being blocked. The only one which comes close is here, in which I uncarefully responded to the actual words which Xander had used as opposed to taking the extra moment to be more clear. My use of the formulation here on this page has been more in the nature of making a philosophical point about the silly and dishonest lengths one must go to on Wikipedia to say one thing while pretending to say something else. To make your life easier, here are my contribs so you may look.

Point being, you are clearly and unambiguously saying that 'what you have said is a lie' is acceptable, and 'you are a liar' is not. Given that prior to the block I did not use those words, by your own logic I should not be blocked. → ROUX ₪ 06:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, here: [4] you state "I called you a liar...", words 9-13 of your post. Do you deny making that statement? Apparently, you did use that formulation prior to being blocked. --Jayron32 06:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This would probably be more effective if you read what I posted above: "The only one which comes close is here, in which I uncarefully responded to the actual words which Xander had used as opposed to taking the extra moment to be more clear." → ROUX ₪ 06:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, Roux, we could also follow the thread that the entire exchange between the two of you was becoming inappropriate for its level of animosity and acrimony. Like many blocks, especially those of established editors, this does not appear to be a "single diff" block, rather the result of a sustained period of action by the two of you. At some point, the horse died, and it appears the two of you just kept swinging that cudgel. Saying "He lied when he said I knew nothing about Heraldry" as a single statement would have been sufficient (we can debate about whether or not such a statement could be seen as a lie, which would imply that he actually believed that you knew something about heraldry, and then said that you didn't anyways. He could have geniunely believed that you didn't, and so confirming that statement would not have been a lie, which implies deliberate untruth. He could have been wrong without lying. You'd have to prove that he believed that you knew something about heraldy when he made that statement. But I digress, purely for the sake of arguement, and not because I know it so, but only to proceed with my original point, lets say it actually was a lie). The sixth or seventh time you said, essentially, the exact same thing, it begins to take on a tone of revenge, the sort of shrill "demand for satisfaction" that isn't helpful towards resolving the dispute. When you demand he retract his statement, it suddenly becomes a battle of wills, which isn't productive towards solving the dispute. At that point, it isn't a collaboration, its a competition, a game of one-ups-man-ship, where you each try to get the other to back down. Sadly, it seems, this block was the only way to stop that progression. --Jayron32 06:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with one-upsmanship and everything to do with not wanting to be fucking lied about. What part of that is unclear to you people? Over the years here several editors have delighted in telling lies about me. None of them are ever taken to task for their deliberate dishonesty. Not one. They may get taken to task for other things, but at no point does anyone ever step in and say "What you have just said about Roux is blatantly untrue, take it back." Not a single person is interested in defending me, and so I must defend myself. Should I have allowed that lie to stand? Fat chance. Nobody else was going to challenge it for what it was--a direct and deliberate lie. He knew full well that at no point have I ever said anywhere that he is unfit to comment on Wikipedia. There is no disputing this. I have not said it; stating that I have said it is a deliberate untruth. There has not been a single comment to his talkpage stating "you must not lie about other editors." There has, in fact, not been a single thing said to him apart from the block notice and a wishy-washy warning--immediately after which was when he proceeded to tell lies. When nobody else is willing to do a single thing in my defence, what, exactly what the hell am I supposed to do? Sit there smiling serenely while someone tells blatant lies about what I have said? Fuck that sideways. He very clearly and deliberately claimed that I had said he was unfit to comment on Wikipedia. And I got blocked for calling it what it was: a lie. I had walked away from the talkpage of the article, despite the further insulting comments he left there, and attempted to have someone deal with it at AN/I. For which I got in response more personal attacks, uninformed commentary and nonsense from at least one other user, and a block for making a factual statement about his lies. What the hell am I supposed to do? Nobody is ever interested in ever actually defending me. Not one. Not one person stepped in to say "Stop, that is untrue, and you are not permitted to lie about what other people have said." Not one. So what, seriously, the fuck am I supposed to do? Nothing? Oh hell no. I tried doing what I have been told to do. And it got me more personal attacks. Explain to me, please, precisely what I am supposed to do when nobody is interested in dealing with a problem, and I am not permitted to deal with it myself? All I want to see, just once, is ONE admin saying "hey, you know what? this guy is being a fucking dick to Roux and he needs to stop, and maybe just once we will understand that the only reason Roux is pissed off is because he is being goaded, and maybe if we would actually deal with the situation instead of just blocking the person who is squawking he might have some faith that anybody gives a damn." I demanded that he retract his statement because it was a lie, not because this is some game. I am frankly insulted that you think my motives are so petty.→ ROUX ₪ 07:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)

Please note - I warned him first, and blocked him as well. You're not wrong to be upset. But - even when you're upset, we have policies and a community standard for behavior.

Nobody's saying "suck it up and take it". If you believe he's misstating things about you, that's not right, and you don't have to be silent about it.

But him doing that is not a green light for you to be that rude and abusive back to him. That doesn't win your case or solve your problem, it just makes you another bad guy.

As I said: he was warned, he was blocked when he continued. If he keeps it up more, he'll get blocked again. Let us handle it rather than you doing it yourself, if you're this upset about it. That's what we're here for.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice: Avoid the use of words like "lie", "lying", "liar" which are loaded, instead use "false", "untrue", or "misrepresentation of the facts". –xeno^talk 13:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There were editors who said they knew nothing or little about heraldry, how is it lying to reinstate their self-made claims? You jumped each time I referred to them and called me a liar, though Beyond My Ken repeatedly told you that he indeed did say that. Not every comment is about you, and just because you impose yourself into something does not mean that a statement applies to you. Also, I never quoted you as saying that I was unfit, but you did make the claim that I did not have the credentials of other editors to comment on heraldic practices (though you knew not my credentials nor the credentials of the other editor, who told you he was hardly an expert and merely had a couple of books), and that itself implies I was unfit compared to others. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly referred to me as one of those editors. Lie. You said, quote, "the multiple examples of ROUX calling me a liar and unfit to give an opinion on Wikipedia." Provide a diff where I said you were unfit to give an opinion on Wikipedia. → ROUX ₪ 01:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Userpage design

I am basically single-handidly maintaining Wikipedia:User page design center/Help and collaboration/Trading spaces with a once-in-a-few-months drop-off rate. You've done *some* design before; do you think you might do one or two? =) Thanks, ResMar 23:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've left messages for the four people whose pages haven't been done. → ROUX ₪ 23:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Great. I only wish that people would drop back by there once in a while more often =) ResMar 21:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. User:Mono is done, just waiting for him to give a thumbs up or down. → ROUX ₪ 21:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Very...abstract :P ResMar 22:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I warn you though, Mono changes his page every three weeks or so. ResMar 22:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|PrincessofLlyr}}

Quick Question

Would you happen to know how to fix my userpage, the greenspace above the first box is thicker than it is elsewhere. I asked User:Arbitrarily0 for help but my userpage has stumped him. So I thought I'd ask other people that know and seeing as you've had experience in userpage design. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:28pm • 09:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit nitpicky for me to figure out with my limited knowledge. Jack Merridew is the person you want to ask. Cheers. → ROUX ₪ 09:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Although the amount of absolute positioning used is ghastly and hurts non-Vector users. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks fixed to me, although the header stuff on the page is... all over the place. Might also want to fix the redirects going on; clicking on FD's sig takes me to a page with something redlinked and not transcluded. → ROUX ₪ 23:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the transclusion problem :) Thanks Fetchcomms! Thanks also Roux :) would you like to elaborate Roux, I could surely do with some advice! Should I use relative positioning instead? Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:17pm • 09:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Category edit

Can you explain your edit here, please? Did you even look at the page? The category is populated. I have reverted the edit pending an explanation of why exactly it needs this template. → ROUX ₪ 19:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Gladly! Please review the proposal guidelines for the stub sorting project. In order to avoid over-categorization, we encourage a minimum of 60 articles per category. (800 is considered overpopulated -- we try to subcategorize before categories get this large) No offense intended, I have been adding the {{popstub}} template to all stub categories with less than 60 articles. In this case, with 55 articles in the category, if all the stubs have been identified, feel free to remove the {{popstub}} tag. Dawynn (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Userpage Design Request

Hello, Roux. You have new messages at Theo10011's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for ANI calming influence

Thank you for working to calm down and settle the recent blowup with Xanderliptak and BMK. It's much appreciated when community members step up and help calm situations down. You did a good job of staying neutral despite the prior incident, and kept both sides positive.

Thanks!

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Unfortunately it had exactly the opposite effect of that which was intended. I had wanted to calm BMK down so that admins would actually pay attention to the source of the disruption. Instead, Prodego came along and--as usual--didn't bother looking into the actual problems. This is a recurring theme with admins; collectively you are resistant to addressing the actual problem--you did the same thing when you blocked me the other day--in favour of simply finding the most expedient way to shut up whoever's being louder.

And then admins wonder why there is so much hostility to them from regular editors. Perhaps if we saw less of, in this particular case, other editors being able to forumshop, canvass, and lie with complete impunity we would be less caustic when it comes to our interactions with admins. Perhaps if admins would actually do the job they signed up to do and would deal with root problems instead of slapping a fresh coat of paint over the hole in the wall, they might actually get some respect. → ROUX ₪ 23:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy (surname)

Please see Talk:Kennedy (surname), where I propose that all information about the coats of arms be removed from this page as not relevant. If you've any views, please articulate them there. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

i got the point, you think saying "greedy jew" is fine if you are making a point against stereotypes. i doubt you will find any jews who agreed with you there,

also, i was responding to sg, your advice seems a little out of place. tfd and you suggesting "mass killing" is a "stereotype" is ludicrous. the whole analogy was hurtful and ill-conceived. if you think the article on mass killing has as much importance as an article on greedy jews, you and i are too far apart to debate and i send you on your way without prejudice. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as I am Jewish by heritage, you're wrong on at least one count. And until you understand the definition and meaning of the word 'context,' debate with you would be less than pointless; I am reminded of a saying that ends "...they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." → ROUX ₪ 11:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Horning in here, and feel free to zap. Seems to me that Jesus (a Jewish kid Himself) indicated that the Ten Commandments apply to everyone - that murder is murder, regardless of who the victim is. Where it gets tricky is to say something like that the Holocaust is "no worse" than Stalin's bloodbath. The right way to say that would be that Stalin's bloodbath was every bit as bad as the Holocaust. What's special about the Holocaust, seems to me, is that a very specific group was not only targeted, but, given the northern European knack for analyzing and designing, they carried it out with almost machine-like precision. Of course, there was one little flaw in their plan - they lost the war and got exposed. But as General Turgidson might have said if he had worked for Hitler, "I don't think it's fair to condemn the entire program just because of a single slip." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar needs to drop this, he's becoming disruptive with this stick. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanity check, please

[5]. Thanks, Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 05:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My bad on that...It must have been way too late at night for me to try and remember the details involved. Sorry to bring you into it. =P Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 17:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

XL

If you notice XL doing something again, could you tell me and let me have a try dealing with it? I thought the approach at Roosevelt worked, briefly. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It only worked inasmuch as it stopped a single very specific problem. It then spawned other problems, namely Xanderliptak then going on to try and have BMK's edited version deleted (go check out the deletion debate on Commons; XL's disconnect with reality is stark), followed by this latest hissy fit. I am alternately amused and depressed that I was blocked for calling him a liar, yet his ongoing disruption (for what, three weeks now?) is largely entirely ignored. Pathetic. → ROUX ₪ 22:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I said briefly ;) I agree the civility blocking is pathetic. Apparently, calling another editor a liar tends to result in blocks, but saying another editor's statements are "patently untrue" and "completely ignores the facts" tends not to result in blocks. Anyway, if XL appears to be upset, the way many admins would deal with it would likely make it worse. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The distinction to be made is that calling someone a liar presupposes that we know what's in their head, hence it has the tone of a personal attack. Someone who appears to be "lying" might somehow think he's telling the truth. In contrast, asserting that a statement is untrue, and presenting evidence in support of that assertion, omits the appearance of a personal attack while nailing the user. There's a fine line between AGF and Hanlon's razor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that distinction, but it's still uncivil to insult an editor by calling their statements patently untrue, especially when they are true. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can prove they're untrue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that the overwhelming majority of Xanderliptak's statements are not even within shouting distance of the truth, not really sure what you two are getting at there, but perhaps you could continue this discussion in a venue which won't light up my new messages bar.→ ROUX ₪ 01:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey mate :)

Thanks for having my back, nice to know there's other sane people here ;) Fry1989 (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sane? How dare you spread such vile slander? → ROUX ₪ 00:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

HAHA, true, we're all a bit off, but some more then others :P Fry1989 (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving User:SoWhy/Not everyone is an artist

Hi there. Could you explain moving User:SoWhy/Not everyone is an artist to Wikipedia:Not everyone is an artist please? Since it's written in first person, I don't really think it works in Wikipedia-namespace and I don't understand why a shortcut-redirect to userspace should be avoided (I never heard of that before). Regards SoWhy 15:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding cross-namespace redirects is a speedy deletion reason, so I figured it was the sort of thing we tried to avoid. → ROUX ₪ 23:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for my "unjustified" move, however, SoWhy did write the essay in first-person and fixing the essay to be relevant to other 'pedians was nigh on impossible. I've also replied to your message on my talk page in relation to my userpage. Regards and sincerest apologies, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:48am • 23:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Written in first person or not is totally irrelevant. I'm not particularly interested in doing anything with your userpage after you insulted me like that. Ask me again in a few days. → ROUX ₪ 00:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It was not meant to be an insult, I assumed that given it was SoWhy's essay he should have been able to choose what to do with it, in any case Cross-namespace redirects are commonplace, many essays use these redirects. It's not the first nor will it be the last time. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:29am • 00:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, it was written from his perspective, it would not apply to Wikipedians in general as it was written specifically from his point of view, see the first paragraphs, it mentions his RfA and his thoughts on the experience. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:31am • 00:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And you do know what happens when you assume, don't you? → ROUX ₪ 00:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It was all meant in good faith Roux, I was being bold which would have been a better rationale for moving, actually I saw Mono's /u subpage do you mind if I use an altered version on my userpage and give you credit? Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 6:06pm • 07:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was the bold one moving it in the first place. You reverted, and instead of actually looking at why it was moved, you said it was unjustified. That's insulting. Be more careful in the future. Of course you can take whatever code you like, I don't own it. → ROUX ₪ 08:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Again I offer my sincerest apologies, it was SoWhy's essay and both of us were in the wrong, I was in the wrong for not discussing the reversion, you were in the wrong for not initiating a discussion, that said I will not butt in next time should this so happen again. I apologise again and hope that we can get along. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:12pm • 10:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so Roux is in the wrong for being bold? I don't think his intentions were wrong, and SoWhy discussed the move here first, instead of rushing to move it back. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

While I'm honored if someone thinks my essays are worthy of being in Wikipedia-space, I am still unsure as to why Roux moved it. He mentioned that cross-namespace redirects are a speedy deletion reason but R2 only applies to redirects from article space, not from Wikipedia-space and I'm not certain whether there is any consensus about what to do with other XNRs. Specifically, WP:XNR does not mention any consensus, just pros and cons to having them and WP:RFD#When should we delete a redirect? both supports and opposes such redirects, depending on their target, origin and usefulness. Hence I came here to ask about the move in the first place, since the reason in the move log wasn't clear. Regards SoWhy 21:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was Roux didn't leave a message when he moved it, it was pretty much spontaneous. I was an idiot :P I definitely should not have butted in but I've got over 3000 pages on my watchlist and when this appeared in bold text I took a look and undid the move. SoWhy has, however, read R2 and Roux appears to have made a mistake with the move. I apologise for being an idiot and hope I didn't destroy the last shreds of sanity you all still had >.< —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:25am • 23:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roux. You have new messages at WikiDao's talk page.
Message added 00:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You made a comment concerning another user on my talk page; I have requested a clarification about it from you there. Thanks. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ClueBots Archiving

Hi

You have a message from me on User talk:ClueBot Commons --5 albert square (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xanderliptak

I have opened an RfC/U on Xanderliptak. Since you have attempted to deal with the concerns that I raise, I have mentioned you in the RfC. The RfC is not yet certified and may not be; currently I am the sole signatory, and any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". But I thought you should be made aware. Any feedback will, of course, be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As you are involved, if you agree with my summary and wish to co-certify, we can include your summary under the description. You would just need to move your signature up to "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". I need a co-certified anyway, or it will be deleted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

@Roux: Would you mind taking a look at this same thread on my talk page, and commenting? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring report

From the report at AN3, please avoid repeated reverts, even if you believe them to be justified. This applies to all parties involved. --slakr^\ talk / 08:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI and "Retract that immediately"

The issue on ANI was that you demanded a retraction rather bluntly. The way you said that you essentially got up in his face and pushed buttons back, escalating the situation. Pointing out that you had just been attacked, without escalating, would have gotten a warning at him only.

You didn't outright break NPA or Civil, no. I didn't say you did. I did say you were assuming bad faith (and i think you did). I did ask you to calm down and back off, from getting up in his face and escalating the confrontation, which you did.

Once a situation goes from "A personal attack" to "A two-sided fight" then it's much more complicated and harder to deal with. You had a reason to be offended, but you then escalated most of the way to a fight. Fortunately he then struck out the section and stepped back.

I am not trying to pick on you. And he did make a personal attack. He seems to have realized that. You got angry but didn't make a personal attack. I appreciate that. But angry and aggressive rarely stops there. It did this time, after my request to the two of you, and I appreciate that.

You didn't do anything wrong requiring action. I was stopping it from going further.

You may not have noticed, but Xanderliptak very nearly got himself blocked yesterday on my talk page. I know you think I've been following you around since that and was unfair in that situation. I understand what he's been doing, and it's on the record. You have been in a bad mood but you're not being disruptive. He is. I know you're editing in good faith.

Please don't take what I've been doing too seriously or too personally. You're one of the good guys. I don't want to treat you otherwise. Even if I frustrate you, please believe me that I AGF with you, and I'm not out to get you.

Happier editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Referring to my actions as 'petty vengeance'... perhaps you could explain, precisely, where in that statement there is any GF to be A'd? → ROUX ₪ 10:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

How interesting, and unsurprising; you show up, pontificate, and then don't bother addressing the basic error in your pontification. → ROUX ₪ 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot

Hey roux,

Remember me? I am user:Irunongames and I am soooooo sad you never told me you came back, you left wikipedia before you could let me graduate :P Peter.C • talk 20:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey kiddo. → ROUX ₪ 02:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

+1 revert

Thanks for that. -- from an anonymous admirer. 216.40.74.166 (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't particularly like getting messages from people who are logged out to avoid scrutiny. → ROUX ₪ 02:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just checking

Loved the user page and the clever list of all the things you aren't, but thought I would check whether you were also not a base for a sauce? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The page is supposed to display a definition of roux in the title bar. I guess they've disabled that code hack. → ROUX ₪ 02:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's another argument to join, have a look at Talk:Canada#northern_North_America as I see you might have an interest in Canadian topics. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Hello Roux, thanks for your comment under my "other view" statement. I thought the mentor thing would be a good idea as it would give him someone neutral looking over things, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally think the time for that is long, long past. Xanderliptak needs to shape up or ship out. That being said, I won't object strenuously if consensus arrives at an agreement with your suggestiong. I highly doubt, however, that Xanderliptak would agree to any such mentoring condition.

One also hopes, now that you have seen the depth and breadth of the problem, and the fairly wide-ranging (in terms of subject areas edited, etc) people who have agreed with the various summaries posted, that you have looked back on your comments at ANI and realized how entirely unhelpful they were. → ROUX ₪ 22:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Roux, I can see where you had enormous frustrations there. And I do apologize if any of my comments were upsetting to you. That was not my intent. My input there was more to the AN/I not being the appropriate venue at the moment, and because I do understand Xanderliptak's frustrations. But I was sympathetic to you, as well. I did see your block here. Your unblock request really made me feel your sense of frustration and I felt very bad for what you were going through. I thought the admin, GeorgeHerbertWilliam (hope I got that name combination right) said a very nice thing to you and tried to be helpful.

The whole issue is so complex for editors who aren't familiar with the issues that go along with images, etc., that I'm afraid I fell into the TL,DR bit. I read some at the time, but not all as I've done now. This is why I say I think a mentor will help. It can not only take some pressure off Xanderliptak, it can relieve stress for the community as well.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't hold it against someone for having more faith in an ornery user than seems warranted. If they are let down by such a user, it is the user in question who's failed, not the one showing extraordinary good faith. I also concur that the idea of mentoring Xanderlip (or, specifically, the idea that he would even consider being mentored) is hopelessly optimistic. It's hard to mentor someone who's convinced that he's right and everyone else is wrong. There's no way past that hurdle, short of a blinding light on the road to some biblical destination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, good analogy to the light. But as we know that can happen, and why not just leave the door open a bit for it. Hope springs eternal. Afterall, at the end of any conflict all we have left to show for ourselves is not what we've gained, but rather what we've done to the other fellow. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think of blocks as being analogous to the story about whacking a really intelligent mule over the head because you have to get his attention first. (And I should point out that quite a few of us regulars have required getting "whacked" by that shillelagh from time to time.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

note

Check this out, if you haven't already seen it:[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I did. It's a pretty clumsy way to avoid scrutiny, particularly since he has been insisting on removing any text from his userpages linking the two. → ROUX ₪ 05:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And I see here[7] that he continues to argue the licensing issue. He's eventually going to get sent to the phantom zone, but it might take awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

He appears to be incapable of understanding that anyone else can possibly be correct. Or, indeed, that everybody else can possibly be correct. Ho hum. I'm looking forward to pasting a great big I TOLD YOU SO on several admin tpages when he does finally get blocked, permanently. → ROUX ₪ 05:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Or, just post this link:[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, he seems to have gone on hiatus, as he hasn't edited either site in almost 3 days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed. Wild guess: he thinks if he vanishes for a few days it'll all disappear. → ROUX ₪ 04:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I had been tempted to say that. It would take more than a few days for that strategy to work, though. Maybe a year or two or three. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Aside from a couple of IP edits 3 days ago, he has been inactive under his known handles for 5 days now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

'Known' is probably the relevant term here. Sigh. → ROUX ₪ 22:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Block

Fair questions. For the record, I was not involved in a content dispute or edit warring with the editor in question. As an administrator I was attempting to restore some order and preserve a talk page from having recent content archived and placed "out of sight". I am happy to enlighten those who are curious as to exactly what happened and why this editor has been blocked for a short period of cooling off time. I happened upon the Juan Williams article last night and noticed that there was some edit warring going on. And in particular there were some attempts to archive current material from the talk page which is not appropriate conduct. One of the threads being put out of sight had responses from this month - indeed this past few days (though the section itself had been started a year back.) It discusses some sensitive matters. But the discussion was not of a tabloid nature, it quoted from and linked to the Washington Post - the employer of Williams at the time of the incidents discussed. And referred to matters for which Williams was investigated, disciplined and apologized. Matters that were very widely reported at the time. The sole area of contention was the exact nature of the incidents. And that is precisely why we have talk pages - for forthright, civil discussion between editors. There was other recent content that the editor was seeking to archive. Wearing my Administrator hat I stepped in civilly and restored the content. Not as an editor warring with an editor. But as an Administrator restoring a long-held protocol. And I requested that this recent material not be deleted or archived. The editor immediately reversed the restoration. It was then that I spent a little time looking through the recent histories of the editor's interactions with other editors and discovered that there were several complaints of bullying by this editor. I investigated and I regret to say that I did find numerous examples in just the preceding 24 hours of a very aggressive tone and threatening text towards other editors in both his messages and in his edit summaries. They are all there to be seen. By way of example he wrote to Veriss1 "I've set you right. Don't do it again". And "Anyone who continues to use Wikipedia to fight these battles will be taken to task". He wrote to Davidpatrick: "You either go with the sources or you don't edit." And "You either need to learn how to write biography articles on Wikipedia, or you need to stop writing. It's very simple." Those types of comments are not conducive to healthy discourse.

Being charitable and assuming that the editor is generally of good faith but perhaps being a hot head in the heat of edit warring, I decided to give him a clear warning that he could be blocked for his actions in removing article talk page material and uncivil interactions and inviting him to respond. By referring to the specific Wikipedia guidelines that he would be encouraged to review during such a suspension I truly hoped he would take a deep breath and realize that if several people (at least two editors and an Administrator) were all unhappy with his tone of discourse that perhaps he needed to cool down. But his immediate response was belligerent and to declare that I was "a meat puppet for Davidpatrick and Veriss1". Apart from the fact that this is patently false, it unfortunately confirmed the identical issue that the other editors have complained of. Namely a bullying aggressive tone that is counter-productive to civil discourse on Wikipedia. That is the reason for the block. I truly hope that the time off will help the editor to read Wikipedia:WikiBullying, Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, and WP:CIVIL and reflect on the merits of a calmer more friendly approach to fellow editors, even in the heat of disagreements. (PS. I'm sending this same reply to the other two individuals who responded, plus I'm posting this on my own talk page in case anyone else posts a similar query). 23skidoo (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• - This block looks very poor imo, can we please post in on ANI for review. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool posts...

.. on User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

"shut the hell up"

Well put. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

YOU ARE INVITED ON IRC

Dear User:Roux, you are forced to appear on IRC on the channel #wikipedia-en. WE FUCKING MISS YOU! --Zalgo (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes you do. It's Cream, derp or whatever nick i used before. I'M the guy from Montréal :) --Zalgo (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh. hey homoslice. → ROUX ₪ 02:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't ****ing a bit bad word? Ian (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Zalgo and I are grownups, and friends after a fashion. We can use whatever language we like. Please go edit some articles. That means using sources. → ROUX ₪ 01:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I miss talking to you honestly... --Zalgo (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh. As you can see on my talk, I am just a kid who is addicted to the Warriors series. I.P. (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mirrors

You did too so what's the diff? And DTTR. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I referred only to article quality. You made it personal. Flinging DTTR at me is childish in the extreme. I used to respect you. Oh well. → ROUX ₪ 01:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

To make it stereo, WP:DTTR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of childish... → ROUX ₪ 01:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are, very. Glad you see that now. And I never respected you and I'm quite glad of that now. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What the actual fuck? You decided to make personal attacks. Not me; I spoke solely about content. And somehow I'm the asshole? Uh huh. → ROUX ₪ 01:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Roux, you can lose the attitude anytime. It isn't impressing anyone and isn't doing you any favors. If anything it is getting you back to an indef block at that more quicker. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And you can leave my talkpage anytime, forcefully if need be. → ROUX ₪ 01:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Roux here. While I don't agree with Roux's comment, it was directed at DYK itself, not any particular person. And now the three of you are in a positive feedback loop. All of you, cut it out. Shubinator (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ellen question

Yes I know.. I was hoping if they could be persuaded to communicate (on the talk page) that might help solve the problem, and would at least stop the disruption to the main page. Call it an olive branch.

Obviously I can't explain or condone their actions in the last 24+hrs, I see that they were informed here User talk:88.166.161.41 , but maybe they didn't see it.? Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

They've been informed a couple of times, they have ignored the information. And um, yes actually it is block evasion as most of the socks have to my knowledge been blocked. → ROUX ₪ 14:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know. They're just going to keep sockpuppeting until their computer breaks I suppose. Would putting the question back in collapsed and discussion closed form be ok? That's a method which has been used before. At least then they don't have to re-post it?Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am categorically opposed to anything that enables trolls. → ROUX ₪ 14:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Archive_question - I think (amateur psychology) if they can see the question, then they don't get all 'het-up' about it. see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Sarah_Palin - equally stupid questions. Ignoring/bending WP:DENY it does seem to me that if they can get closure, they've a chance of stopping: which is what everyone wants.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)