User talk:TenOfAllTrades/archive18

Hi Ten. May I ask you about your block of User:Mocteau? It has me somewhat confused.
Here's what I think happened:

• Mocteau asked the question "how do magnets work" at the Misc desk.
• Mocteau then proceeded to commit this act of mild vandalism to the Madame Atomos article.
• Roux reverted that, and then gave Mocteau a single final warning for that vandalism, despite Mocteau not having any lower-level vandalism warnings for this month (indeed, none since last July).
• Mocteau made no further edits after that time.
• Several hours later you seem for some reason to have come along and blocked Mocteau indefinitely for "disruptive editing."

Is there something to explain that that I do not see right now? Sock activity, for example? Or did you perhaps think that the edit to Madame Atomos came after Roux's "only warning"? I have just never seen anyone blocked for such a minor offense. Could you explain to me why? Thanks! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has Mocteau actually been blocked? There is nothing on his User talk page to advise him he has been blocked, nor on his User page because a User page doesn't exist.

It may just be that the indefinite block notice on Mocteau's Contributions page is a system error. The block notice on Mocteau's Contribs page says he was blocked by TOAT at 02:51 on 12 October, and yet TOAT's Contribs page says he hasn't yet made any edits on 12 October. Dolphin (t) 04:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of strange, isn't it? I see at User:Mocteau the pink box header saying:

This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

• 03:51, October 12, 2010 TenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs) blocked Mocteau (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing)

That's all I know about it. Could that be due to a system error somehow?! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin, it wouldn't show up in TOAT's contribs, it's in his logs. It is not a system error. Still, it's also strange, as you pointed out, that there is no block notification tag up at Mocteau's talk. I'd have thought that was done automatically, but of course I've never done it so don't know. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too would have thought it was automatic, particularly the explanation about how the blocked User can appeal against the block. Dolphin (t) 12:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no automatic process by which a block notice is generated on a user's talk page. A blocked user who tries to edit does see this standard message which provides instructions on how to appeal a block.

WikiDao, have you reviewed Mocteau's contribution history? The account is used for occasional trolling and vandalism — and that seems to be just about it. He hasn't received a warning since July as he's only made a half-dozen or so edits between then and now. He's been asked before to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but a scant twelve minutes after acknowledging a request to behave himself, he went straight back to silly trolling. The Mocteau account is someone's side project for occasionally being a nuisance on Wikipedia (note that he didn't respond to the July warning until his next edit in September); he probably has another account for regular contributions (or can create one, now that this one's been blocked). WP:RBI applies here, gents. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, and thanks for explaining, TOAT. I guess I've put in a lot of time as a low-level counter-vandalism grunt in the past -- I'm used to warning far more outrageous vandals than this guy according to the numbers: level 1 warning, level 2, level 3, level 4 (which is what Roux started with) before finally going to AN/V to ask for a block. Mostly, vandals are just bored kids and they get the picture pretty quick and go back to doing whatever it was they were supposed to be doing. Some of them actually get with it and start making useful contributions! Even "trolls" can be worked with. (I guess I'm just the "good cop" type by nature;). I just thought this was a bit harsh, considering what actually got asked at the RD -- the content of that was not a problem. But I bow to your experience, TOAT. Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I offered to advocate on this troll's behalf, here. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? He can create a new account without all the baggage of his past vandalism and trolling if he wants to do something constructive, and no one will ever know. The only thing your advocacy might do is make his future trolling more effective. You're free to waste your own time, but please don't waste anyone else's. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, TOAT, I don't think this vandal is going to take me up on the offer (and note, if you will, how that offer was phrased – do I sound real interested in wasting anyone's time here?). It's not about the vandal. Clearly, yes, a vandal. I have been vandal-patrolling off-and-on now for a couple of years, so I do now know one when I see one. But at WP:CVU, we have a collaborative method of dealing with this sort of thing that works quite well – ie., quickly and effectively, with as few "civilian casualties" as possible. An aspect of that method is embodied by the multiple-warning-templates available with Twinkle (my own vp tool of choice). Generally, those are applied in numerical order, and if after the fourth one the now bad-faith-assumed, known-to-be-disruptive editor still persists then they might get a block of a month or so. Never have I seen an indef block given for such an insignificantly disruptive set of edits as these. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will acknowledge, however, that most (the vast majority) of my VP experience has been with IPs. They're the ones I tend to keep an eye on. This case involves a user-account vandal – I realize that that distinction may have some bearing on this block, and its duration, and that it only seems so unusual to me due to the limits of my own experience. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion on this point, and it's not an uncommon misunderstanding — even among relatively experienced editors. The fact that there exist four warning templates does not actually mean that all four templates must – or even should – be issued before a block can be placed. I hadn't realized that the zombie corpse of WP:CVU had been reanimated, but I can see where their instructions are misleading you. In general, when you place four separate escalating warning templates on someone's talk page, you're usually wasting at least two of those edits (and a common-sense evaluation of the editor's contributions will often tell you that three or even all four of the warnings aren't likely to be effective, either). Granted, using Twinkle to issue three or four superfluous warning templates and revert the inter-warning vandalism is a fast and uncontroversial way to pad one's edit count for an eventual run at adminship, but it's not really a useful way to spend time.

Accounts that are only used for trolling and vandalism don't need multiple warnings. If their entire history is unconstructive (especially over a period of months), then one warning is more than sufficient prior to indefinitely blocking a named account. (Unlike an IP address, there is a low risk of collateral damage in indeffing a registered username; as well, unlike an IP address, a username is guaranteed to be static.) This is also more important for trolling-only accounts because once they get an autoconfirmed flag they can engage in more advanced mischief. If there are any administrators at WP:AIV who decline well-formed requests for blocks of accounts who have received fewer than 4 warnings, please bring the issue up with them, and if that doesn't work then take it to AN. Administrators are expected to use common sense.

Finally, you can't have it both ways. Either you're interested in giving the guy a good-faith shake at a(nother) fresh start, or you're going to call him names; you can't do both. Making him a tough-love offer on his talk page while calling him a "troll" and a "vandal" here on my talk page is disrespectful and contemptuous of someone who you're putatively hoping to rehabilitate. Threatening to have his talk page access cut off is an unhelpful escalation, and relatively hollow, to boot. His talk page privileges are only likely to get nixed if he does something really egregious; if he responds to your profanity-laced offer (incidentally, it might be helpful for you to learn how to convey emphatic sincerity without dropping the f-bomb all over the place) with a "Fuck off, WikiDao", then I sorely doubt that anyone will intervene.

Please don't provide me with any further updates on this individual; I'm really not interested in wasting any more of my time on an already-blocked vandal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Ten. Thank you for your time with this; it has been instructive to me. I hope it is not too hard to see my motivation in this case, and perhaps to see it again in cases like this. I am certainly still learning. The bottom line for me, though, as indicated by my userboxes, is that I "fight in open conflict against the forces of the vandals" AND that "I believe in the peaceful correction of vandals". I rarely use foul language in those endeavors, but was perhaps rather trying to "speak the language" that this particular vandal might understand and that also conveyed my low tolerance for being taken for a ride by the vandal in this context.

• I still think this was a harsh block for the "offenses" committed. One *minor* instance of vandalism, on slightly jokey but perfectly acceptable question at the RD, a single level 4 warning from Roux, and then several hours after no further activity an indef block from you.

Had I taken it to AN/V asking for a block on the basis of what you blocked him for, I would have been chastised for it I'm sure. That is as it should be, of course, because I am not an administrator and should not be exercising such discretion.

Here's my issue right now: I am concerned about the summary judgment and harsh treatment many visitors to the RD seem to get at times. It would just never fly in the mainspace.

Assuming you disagree, that may be due to a difference in our temperaments and experiences, Ten. But please try to keep in mind that we are on the same side. We have the same aim: making WP a better place for everyone to provide and use better encyclopedic content. I am not interested in helping vandals and trolls run amok and cause chaos and confusion just because I'm a bleeding-heart social-liberal. But nor do I wish to see mostly just kids fooling around being overly harshly or uncivilly dealt with because some editors (not you) just go all to pieces if some kid makes a joke or gets confrontational.

I really do not want to be at odds with you, Ten. I'd much rather learn from you how best to deal with my concerns without getting in the way of what you need to do at times as an admin. We are ultimately on the same side. I hope it will not annoy you too much if I ask for clarification from you in situations such as this that may develop from here on out. I mean no disrespect by it. :) Have a nice day, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that you keep repeating the same incorrect reason for Mocteau's block. He was blocked for a completely unconstructive history of editing over a period of months, not for the single act of vandalism. He's been using the same account to return to Wikipedia for trolling and vandalism since July. I don't know why you're fixated on this mistaken notion that he only committed one act of vandalism; I asked you in my original response if you had reviewed his history, and I have repeatedly referred to it in my responses. I don't doubt your good faith, and I wish you well in the future, but I am concerned that you're not reading – or at least not responding to – what I'm writing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, Ten, I read Mocteau's contribs. You see that sort of thing a lot on vp. I have never seen anyone indef'd on the basis of an edit history like this one. Now I have. Live and learn, right?

I am far less concerned with this individual block in and of itself, though, but with the overall response at the RD I have seen at times to what is being labeled there "trolling" (but far from all of which is what seems meant by What is a troll? imho). I am concerned about it in the way that I explained it in my previous post. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDao, it is probably more an experience thing with different areas of Wikipedia. RCP using Twinkle is a great way to go and we really value those editors who do that thankless task. I work much more off my watchlist, which involves more detailed checking of article and editor history to figure out what's going on. I usually don't warn on reverts because the attention span of the average vandal is 15 minutes max. I think Twinkle makes those progressive watnings easy to make, but no, they're not the law. Look again at that editor's contribs, that pattern is typical of only one type of user, not much point in wasting time on it. As Ten says, you're free to do that yourself - but please don't use profanities or threats of page protection you can't deliver on your own. Especially when an admin has made a proper unblock offer just above your comment. IMO you're better off though to get in with welcomes right at the start and offers of adoption for truly new users. If they're still doing the same things after 3 months, they're not likely going to change. Also, the RD's are not exceptional in the way "trolling" accounts get dealt with on the wider wiki - but here too you may be seeing the view of the vandal patroller who typically works edit-by-edit, as opposed to the behaviour patroller who more often works editor-by-editor. Franamax (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. My point of entry into this particular case was via "How does a magnet work?" at the Misc desk. I was about to question what I felt to be an ineffective approach to what was being labeled "trolling" but was in actual content a perfectly acceptable RD question when I saw that the visitor had been blocked by Ten long after the user had been warned and desisted from further edits. I simply did not see a problem meriting an indefinite block. So, I asked. I accept the answer.

I recognize that my comments to the blocked user after Looie had appropriately engaged that user could easily be taken to be inappropriate and "unprofessional". I was trying to make a point "through" the user that was meant to be made more with others than with that user – that sort of thing is always just wrong, and I will try to keep any tendency I might have to do that in check as much as possible.

I make no bones about having a very limited range of experience at WP at this point. I currently seem to be taking more of an interest in being involved than I have previously. And I am interested in this "behavior patrolling" you speak of. Any tips or pointers about that are welcome from either of you at any time. :)

Thank you for your comments, Franamax. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting[1] that using Twinkle to issue three or four superfluous warning templates and revert the inter-warning vandalism is a fast and uncontroversial way to pad one's edit count for an eventual run at adminship to WikiDau in connection with their use of Twinkle looks inconsistent with assuming WikiDau's motive to combat vandalism is stated in good faith. I see no reason to suppose otherwise. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TOAT, you did right to block that guy. A pattern of useless edits over a period of time, from a registered user, is a troll red flag, and extensive warnings are not needed, since the user knows exactly what he's up to. With IP's it's a different story, since a given IP can have many users over time. I've seen specific IP's with totally legitimate edits at certain points and totally vandalistic edits at other points - almost certainly not the same actual user. Which is also why IP's often get much shorter blocks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted the block, and acknowledged early on that its sudden severity seems strange to me perhaps because I am less experienced with problematic registered users than with problematic IPs. I'm cool, Bugs. I'm a n00b around here but I don't want to be a problem. Everyone assuming more good faith about me generally would probably make my own WP experience a little better, and would be factually accurate as well. Regards to all, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a look at this editor Mo ainm~Talk 19:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's a pretty obvious returning sock of Light current. Your rollback was absolutely correct, and you can feel free to ask any admin familiar with the Ref Desk to block such accounts on sight. (I've done it already.) Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refering to fellow editors as grizzled veterans is insulting. I don't expect to see this sort of nonsense. If you want to go and kick someone who is on the floor then maybe you should go and have a few drinks and start a fight with your mates. Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacuum cannot be proper vacuum. There must be a medium to hold the dark energy and there exists an isometric medium consisting of photons which are holding the dark energy as photons are the smallest elementary particle in term of energy as well as mass.

If we cannot create a perfect vacuum, then we cannot conclude that an electro magnetic radiation can propagate without a medium.

A photon cannot be mass less. Its rest mass is assumed to be zero as it is so small that it cannot be weighed. Its momentum can be observed as it is not so negligible.

A photon cannot travel from the source of an electro magnetic radiation to another to carry out the energy. Photons only transfer the energy from one point to another as per the basic rule of the transverse wave as an electro magnetic wave is a special kind of transverse wave.

Vibration is the only way to transfer energy from one point to another. Different mode of vibration produces different kind of energy. So if we try to construct the T.O.E. equation, then we have to find out the equation of different mode of vibrations.

A string is hypothetical as we cannot explain that by which matter it is made of. What there exists in any elementary particle to produce the mass, charge etc. is a medium of high dense photons. The photons absorb energy from different rays of different frequencies. As there exists a magnetic moment in every elementary particle, the photons cannot escape from the particles. The continuous energy state change (as it absorbs energy from a ray having a definite frequency or of its multiple integral) of the photons produces a definite mode of vibration. As a result the mass and charges (in some cases) of the particles are produced.

A black hole is continuously expanding and the proper vacuum only exists in the active gravitational field of it because the gravity of a black hole is so intense that it attracts even the particles of negligible masses, like photons.

The Big Bang is a cyclic process and it could occur from any black hole irrespective of its size or energy. The time period can be different but any black hole can end up with a Big Bang.

I, Soumya Roy, to whom you've answered before, am definite to prove all those things stated above. But I cannot do it alone without your help because of insufficient equipments and proper laboratory. I'm definite if we prove all those things no one can stop us from winning the Nobel. These things cannot be proved yet because no one has ever think these in this point of view. Please try to help me. Contact me in this number :redacted Please contact me as early as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.162.85 (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photon mass hypothesis of Nthng is imp (talk · contribs) is discussed at User talk:Dbfirs#Thank_you_for_your_reply.   — Jeff G.  ツ 17:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to be insulting or condescending, but refactoring another's post is unacceptable, and I don't know why you would support that. Troll or not, people are not allowed to refactor the posts of other users, it is just plainly strictly forbidden. Also, on a related note to the last diff, I don't see why you would remove a post by a WMF rep; maybe at the time they had very little posts, but they have since found specific threads on ANI and well, shown behaviors that could only be explained by being an employee of the foundation, so please consider re-instating their post.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a crossover in edit scrutiny to me. I just removed the whole "dt rmrks" thread, if Calton really wants it there they can restore it when they start editing next and deal with the outcome then. Removing a post by a .*(WMF .* signed username is legitimate if it it done pending clarification. Franamax (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the "pending clarification" side, this and this seem pretty conclusive. Franamax (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the User:Christine (WMF) account who she says she is; I received independent confirmation off-wiki. Christine and the Oversighters both agreed with me that the matter was best handled off-wiki, and elected not to restore her remarks as a way to limit unnecessary drama and potential invasion of privacy. I'm not sure why this is coming up now, a month after the fact...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It came up again because I have nav-pops installed, and have a habit of hovering my mouse over everything. I saw that Christine had 5 edits, and looked at the their first. I then looked to see what the message said, and if there was a response by checking the history of the talk page, which led me to the aforementioned reverts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly word that I think that you're exchange with Lar is bordering on "beating a dead horse." However, one point you've raised in passing is very important and frankly is something I didn't know, which is that there is a panel of Ombudsmen out there to enforce the privacy policy, appointed by the Foundation and thus not accountable to the community. That's why you've been treated in such a high-handed fashion. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bothered by the matter on two levels, really. First is that the Ombuds just don't respond to messages — period. For an important committee of the Foundation, that's appalling. Second is Lar's remarkable about-face on the question on whether or not the Ombuds can or should formally close a case. Until this week, he's told me over and over again (a little on his talk page, but mostly via email — I'm hamstrung by privacy rules) that such a formal closure was forthcoming, and that he cannot officially speak for the entire Commission. Now he's implying that his unofficial word is good enough, but tiptoeing around the question of whether or not the Commission actually endorses what he's saying — "Several other folk seem to be saying you've been answered" is frustratingly, evasively, bordering-on-deceptively different from "I have given you the Commission's answer". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have a valid concern here on both questions. What's striking to me is the high-handed attitude and the lack of accountability. Sine this is taking place at the WMF level, however, I'm not certain what avenue of redress that you may have, if you feel that the Ombudsmen commission is not treating you fairly. There doesn't appear to be any. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your avenues to seek redress are with the volunteer coordinator(s) and the WMF board. ++Lar: t/c 05:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on only a (slightly-more-than) cursory reading of this issue Lar, although I wouldn't myself term anything as "high-handedness", I do think your proposed avenues set a pretty high bar for a simple question of FFS why can't I get a definitive response? I've really not seen any insistence on closure with specific wording, just a request for official closure. If you as a member of the body in question are not able to produce even that then, with respect, I would suggest that your statements to that effect should accompany your letter of resignation. If there is some extra little twist to it, then you should make clear that there is some undiscussable little twist. Otherwise, just close the damn thing. Franamax (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting the volunteer coordinator to ask about something is not at all a high bar, in my view. It's a pretty routine action. Or used to be. As for resigning, the thought has crossed my mind, yes. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Jimbo's talk page he received a definitive statement of closure from another member of the AC. Remarkable how much of a ruckus he had to create to get that. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, given the high bar for organization and accountability set by the WMF, we probably need recursive Ombuds Commissions. You can complain about the Ombuds Commission to another Ombuds Commission, and so on, until one finally gives you a definitive answer. The call stack would then start unwinding toward the original complaint.

In all seriousness, as a spectator here, I think it's probably not worth beating up on Lar since he's not uniquely at fault (if anything, he's the only one who's made any effort to be responsive). It is completely effed up that we have Commissions which are happy to open an investigation but lack any sense of obligation to formally close said investigations. It's not exactly unreasonable to expect that if one is "investigated", the least one can expect is a formal summary of the investigation's findings, rather than the run-around that you seem to be getting. But, as a wise man once said: forget it, Jake - it's Chinatown. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC "another day on the wiki" was the phrasing Jimbo used when this was first brought to him. ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to self:

There needs to be some extensive review and cleanup of our articles on prion diseases and the mammalian prion protein.

• Prion protein (PrP) (note - redirects to gene name, PRNP)
• Prion
• PrP structure (does this need to be separate from prion protein?)
• Fatal familial insomnia
• Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease
• more

Issues:

There are generally problems related to the accuracy and precision of content related to specific biochemistry and structural biology.

• unnecessary duplication of content across articles
• confusion about (and conflation of) 'prion' versus the 'prion protein'
• nomenclature PrP^C versus PrP^Sc vs. PrP
• identification of structures (some fail to identify source PDB entry, most/all captions fail to note that only a portion of the structure has been solved/is shown)
• nuances needed for the 'alpha helix good' / 'beta sheet bad' dichotomy (this doesn't apply to all proteins; see GFP, SOD1, etc.)
• FFI - is SFI caused by spontaneous mutation, or is it just a spontaneous misfolding of wt PrP? (What is its relationship with sCJD?)

Anyone with expertise in the area should have a look; I probably won't get into it in detail until after Christmas. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The question at the miscellaneous reference desk Wrists is not seaking metical advice. Read the question itself. "i am not seaking metical advice" means that they are not asking "tell me what to do about my wrists", they were mearly asking if an expression refers to the pain in their wrists. In the same way, if i asked the ref desk, "if someone's sick to their stommach, what could it mean? i am not trying to get metical advice." They are mearly refering to the expression, and an appropriate answer could mean "They are grosed out, depending on the situation." if you need clairification, go ahead and ask. No deleting with that citation. Your citation about the metical advice is bullshit (technical term) due to the fact that the questioner states that they are not asking for assistance in medecin or what to do about their wrists. regards, N.I.M. talk go behind the line. 17:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the instructions at WP:RD/G. Offering your interpretations of the original poster's symptoms and speculating as to the causes of his physical discomfort is a diagnosis and falls afoul of the Ref Desk guidelines. In the future, please also be aware that it is not appropriate to revert the removal of a question removed in good faith under our provisions on medical advice; the appropriate next step is to discuss the issue on the Ref Desk talk page if you are unclear on why or how the rule was applied, or if you would like the question to be restored. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite sickening to see you repeatedly quoting those guidelines as if carved in stone, when in fact they are all your own work and necessarily reflect your own peculair views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.76.7 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — 92.28.76.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I notice you blocked 92.25.99.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for block evasion. You might want to take a look at 78.150.235.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)... very similar troll-like question from the same ISP. If appropriate, I'll happily redact my potential feeding of troll. Astronaut (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TenOfAllTrades/temp4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BullRangifer (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what he's on about, or why he's posting to a temp subpage of my talk page. As far as I know, I've never interacted with him, and I've never removed his pet link from the article. Odd. Incidentally, BullRangifer, while the IP is an advocate for a fringe viewpoint, there's no reason to roll out the namecalling. In general, I would imagine that the remaining supporters of Wakefield are entirely sincere in their beliefs (however misguided and harmful they may be). I'd actually advise you to roll back the rhetoric a notch in your comments about ZuluPapa5, as well. It's not necessary to reply to everything that he says, and it doesn't help your case if you come across as needlessly bombastic or prone to hyperbole. Getting yourself drawn into an interaction ban isn't likely to improve Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take that to heart. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thrread moved from my Talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC) While your idea is very creative, the consensus developed on the Reference Desk talk page was that it was inappropriate at this time, and that you shouldn't go ahead an implement it anyway like you did here. I have added an {unsigned} template to your post, so that other editors will know who wrote it. Please respect the decision reached by your fellow editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPO 1st bullet. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CA3, that first bullet does not specify your invented RD signature, and the prior discussion (initiated by you and cited by TOAT above) specifically addressed this question - and the consensus was strongly against this approach. I do find your relocation of this discussion disruptive, btw. -- Scray (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I state at the head of my Talk page my policy about threads. It's old. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that you are going to do something distruptive does not automatically make it nondistruptive. Haven't you been banned for this behavior in the past? APL (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, a "ban" is not the same thing as a "block"; please use the term "block" if it is just a block. Banning someone means that the user is no longer permitted to edit Wikipedia at all — any edits made by that user since the ban may be reverted by any user without being blocked for 3RR or something like that. HeyMid (contribs) 13:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(after e/c) I think the point Scray is trying to make is that your seeming insistence that any discussion of your own behaviour is someone else's problem and simply must happen somewhere other than on your own user talk page (which actually is the place to do such) seriously hampers the ability of others to participate in such discussions. You label your "policy" as old, but in fact you modified it a few months ago, just after you got blocked for moving talk threads without adding a substantive response. Please don't state your "policy" as if it had any force or effect. Editors have diverse habits on where to respond to user talk posts, some leave it all in one place, some prefer to respond on the other user talk page (which I and others feel makes it very difficult for outside editors to piece together), but we do have wide tolerance. OTOH, you are the only editor I'm aware of who has adopted this rigid insistence that any discussion of your own behaviour must be conducted somewhere other than your own talk page. That certainly is not a "policy" and in truth weighs into the assessments that others make of your general editing style. Franamax (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you said in your Arb Case statement that The decision of the sitting Arbs to bring a case themselves is already highly irregular (and contrary to the guidance of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope: "The Committee will not hear disputes where they have not been requested to rule". As far as I know, this case (to determine what happens next after the temporary removal of administrative tools) was brought by two people. Rodhullandemu, ([2], specifically I hereby authorise and invite ArbCom to open a full case against me), and Hasteur, [3]. Neither of whom are arbs. So I'm confused where you are coming from here. SirFozzie (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TenOfAllTrades, following up on the above and your recent post at the requests / case page, the Level I and II temporary desysop procedures can be initiated by any single arbitrator. I know that it was only late in the WT:ACN discussion that Level II procedures were invoked as a justification, and I know they weren't actually followed, but that will be the excuse given. EdChem (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, that argument would only have merit if the ArbCom had been following (or even intended to follow) their own rules. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-read my response to you there, and it comes off a bit snappy - not my intention. Unlike the dysfunctional ANI thread, I feel discussion there's going well with both sides commenting responsibly and I don't want to be the one to spoil that. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Malachite green.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Leyo 07:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir:

Thank you for not blocking me. I would have blocked me myself. Part of the reason for the rant was that the person I was complaining about has been so disruptive, so egregiously out of line, for so long, in so many areas, yet nothing has been done about it. And that makes people mad. Especially me. Do me a personal favor? Just check out what I said, and look at his history a bit. That should speak for itself.

Thanks again, and best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's been TRIED with this guy for years, and hasn't had a scintilla of success. Check him out and you will see what I mean. Look, I apologize for the trouble I caused you. I'm just going to lay back and take it - nothing EVER gets done about him, and he's a one-man demolition crew! See you later.

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you said this. --Thepm (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how I wish I weren't. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TenOfAllTrades,

I'am mainly working on Italian wiki (with a slightly different nick).

I really can't see how you/we wikipedians can keep on en.wiki a page like "Energy Catalyzer". It is completely and evidentely self-promotional and unscientific. A procedure for deleting the (corresponding) page started on it.wiki; a lot of anonymous contributors fight for keeping it by referring to the english page... (Of course, the english page is not to be considered a source for the italian page, and in fact the discussion on the english page is full of references to the italian page, hence the whole thing is fully self-referential).

It seems evident (at least in my opinion) that the (english version, too) of the page does not even remotely meet the standard criteria for notability. Is it really that difficult to put a notability template, or even starting a deletion procedure? I will do it myself (though I am not very familiar with en.wiki procedures), but maybe you would like to say something before I do. Thank you.--Popopp (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear administrator,

I am not really sure if you are in fact an administrator at AE or not, but I am posting this message anyway since I found your name among the decision-making administrators in AE cases. If it's not too much to ask, could you please review the AE case on MarshallBagramyan? The whole case is based on an imposed indefinite restriction for not labeling authors any names or dismissing them based on their nationality, place of birth or publication, ethnic group, religion or similar general characteristic (and the report clearly said “This restriction is to be enforced by blocks or other discretionary sanctions”) and violation of another topic ban earlier in 2010 when the user violated his ban twice and went unnoticed? The reported user MB has taken this report out of context by posting long blocks of replies which had already wrote last time he was reported and diverting the attention of the readers and administrator away from the subject which is an imposed ban and his violation of it. All I am asking is for administrators to take action on the violation of restriction for fair and just decision. Angel670 talk 17:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Ten

My name is Mitch Schneider and I am the global content manager of SodaStream. I noticed you are the last person to edit our Wiki page. Can I ask why? There are many statements/pics/names that need to be updated.

Please respond at your earliest convenience MitchellS@SodaStream.com

Regards,

Mitch — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitchellSchneider (talk • contribs) 11:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, I haven't got any particular or special interest in our article about Sodastream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I happened across the article about a week ago when it was mentioned (in passing) at the Reference Desk. I noticed that the largest part of the article was an unannotated, unsourced list of past and present product flavors. That type of content isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia article; we strive to avoid being a catalog or product directory. My sole edit to the article was, therefore, to remove the lengthy (and unnecessary) product list.

If there are factual details that need to be corrected or updated in the article, please feel free to jump in and fix them up. (Don't worry; you can't break anything.) As a company representative, you are no doubt aware that you have a bit of a conflict of interest. This doesn't bar you from editing, but you should be very careful to avoid adding material that might be seen promotional or advertorial, and try to be sensitive to the concerns or constructive criticism you might receive from other editors. (You might also wish to review Wikipedia's guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest.)

Wikipedia welcomes contributions of images that improve our articles and which meet the conditions of our Image use policy. Briefly, your company is free (and encouraged) to contribute images that are compatible with Wikipedia's free licensing terms. I'm a bit swamped for the next few weeks with my non-Wikipedia work (real life pays better, I'm afraid), so if I'm not around, don't be afraid to ask other Wikipedia editors questions on their talk pages, or drop by the Help Desk. Welcome aboard! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe you used your administrator rights improperly since you accused me of multiple things. I consider the content of the block message very offensive and untrue since the edit war technically didn't occur (one false accusation) then calling non-abusive ad hominem reactions as "offensive personal attacks"/"harassment" (second false accusation). I realistically admit that policies of Wikipedia sometimes can be bureaucratically absurd (like for example using specific descriptive words for a young person will result in prohibition from contributing to Wikipedia, since everything even AGF responses are considered as extreme personal attacks), therefore we won't discuss the latter issue.

• Multiple references, like this one, supports my Kylie Minogue's revert and the user Nickyp88 is notified now to not revert other people's edits over personal OR claims such as "Nu-disco. No. Disco, Nu-disco is different than disco". But you clearly didn't want to hear my opinion and probably just let the AN/I "plebs" decide my "destiny".

Thank you for listening. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. There's no need to split the conversation into two parts, or duplicate and paraphrase your insults across talk pages. Briefly, I believe my administrative actions were entirely correct and in compliance with the letter and spirit of Wikipedia policy. If you wish to seek a review of those actions, AN/I or WP:RFC are the proper venues. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, the edit war didn't occur and this is what I am reacting to. The damage is already done and I disbelieve more noticeboards would somewhat change the situation, i.e. removing untrue labels from the block message. Speaking of the ban, you believe your actions were in accordance with the official rules and I think that some of your actions were unjust (incorrect labeling) and just "too fast". ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in some detail on your talk page the problem with your edit—I don't understand why you keep posting to this talk page when the conversation is taking place somewhere else. In isolation your revert might have been suboptimal but not blockworthy, but in the context of your ongoing conflict with Matt and the extensive warnings you had received, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. You are welcome to continue to insist that my block was incorrect, but you remain the only one who agrees with you on that point. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean Nicholas? Anyways, I want to inform you that:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Again, please do not consider this as some kind of revenge, I have nothing against you - as a person - only with your actions. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self—as anticipated, ItsAlwaysLupus' complaint was dismissed as without merit: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive719#Inappropriate action by administrator User:TenOfAllTrades. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I have no issue with mussels, they are excellent fare. You are so right, that was one dumb response and not helpful to newbies. I had a rather cynical attitude about their motives. I apologize for my spontaneous stupidity. Sometimes my 'mouth' gets ahead of my brain. I have left an apology on the question. Thanks for getting back to me I appreciate your openness. Richard Avery (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you wrote here, but my memory tells me that ABD's restriction to existing disputes, which occurred before the CRU e-mail hacking incident, pretty much kept him out of the Climate Change area. Cardamon (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While he was generally uninvolved in editing climate change articles, prior to the imposition of the interaction and specific MYOB (mind-your-own-business) restrictions he didn't hesitate to jump into debates related to the same group of editors. While I don't have the time (or, honestly, the inclination) to deeply trawl his contribution history, a quick scan of his more recent edits turns up this example, where an indefinite block/ban of GoRight was being contemplated. Unsurprisingly, Abd weighs in in favor of GoRight (the enemy of his enemy is his friend, I suppose), along with familiar names like ZuluPapa5, ATren, and TheGoodLocust. (Actually, checking the archives, it appears that in the complete thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive207#GoRight, Abd's comment was removed as a violation of one of his editing restrictions. I note without particular surprise that Marknutley also managed to contribute to the same discussion. Cla68, meanwhile, takes the time to bemoan the removal of Abd's comment, suggesting that other editors should stay away from Abd: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive207#GoRight and Abd.)

In other words, while Abd's involvement in climate change articles was peripheral at best, he was a central figure in the stalking and harassment of WMC. In the context of discussion WMC's 'enemies' on Wikipedia, I'd say that Abd is relevant. Supporting editors who shared his dislike of WMC was important enough to him that he was willing to violate editing restrictions to do so. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new there, then William M. Connolley (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until the troll-enablers agree to stop disputing deletions, I have no intention of doing any such deletions. If someone else wants to delete, as the IP did, I'm fine with that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead and deleted one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having your input on an arbitration page or an ANI thread is always useful, whether or not I agree with your opinion on the specific issue—but almost always it seems that I do.

Have I mentioned recently how much we could use you on the Committee? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that a great deal. For my part, I've always greatly respected your efforts with the committee. On the rare occasions where I might disagree with your votes or conclusions, you've never failed to clearly, thoroughly, and insightfully explain your reasoning and respond to constructive criticism. Yours is an example that the entire ArbCom would do well to follow. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have e-mail.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure if you're aware but Baseball Bugs said basically the same thing on the WT:RD [4]. I had planned to come to their talk page to ask they remove it but considering they were blocked for saying the same thing on their talk page, I removed their comment myself [5]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Bugs' comment added nothing but fuel to the fire, and it was a direct continuation of the conduct he had been specifically warned against. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as personal attacks go, this is a stretch. You should unblock. Toddst1 (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the edit that caused the block (though it was the straw that broke the camel's back and led to the warning). Bugs was blocked because he responded to the warning with an offensive followup: "I don't actually believe Medeis is female, because women don't act like that...." on his talk page, duplicated in essence on WT:RD. Bugs' conduct at the Reference Desk has recently been rather erratic; a couple of days ago he was taunting banned users in his posts, something he had been previously advised against doing: [6].

Since he's blanked his talk page, and since some of these issues stretch over more than just the last twenty-four hours, I can understand that the full context in which Bugs was blocked may not be immediately obvious. I'm a bit disappointed, however, that there is an experienced admin who was willing to offer an unsolicited unblock without talking to me or going through AN/I. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason I'm here talking to you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I didn't intend to suggest that you were that admin; I was referring to Floquenbeam's offer on Bugs' talk page. If you have any further questions or would like any other clarifications regarding my action here, please drop me a line. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Am I understanding this correctly? You gave a "warning" about a comment an entire week after the comment, and then blocked because of this response? 1.) the warning was silly, 2.) blocking based on a response to the silly warning was also silly, and 3.) blocking for that post at all was silly. You really should do the responsible thing and unblock now, esp. since you were the one that re-started the fire long after it had gone out. Wknight94 ^talk 19:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TenOfAllTrades, I have asked for a review of this block at ANI. Please feel free to join in the discussion there. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a moot point now, but I have to say that I'm disappointed in the report that you posted to AN/I. There's obviously no requirement in policy – nor any expectation on my part – that you must consult me before seeking a review of any of my actions. However, when you do choose to do so, I feel that it behooves you to be thorough in your investigation as possible, and strive to provide a reasonable level of contextual information in your report. (Let's be honest, AN/I isn't known for carrying out thorough, patient review of circumstances that aren't spoonfed to it. A number of posters in that thread even seem to have made the mistake of believing Bugs was blocked for the comment he made a week ago, instead of his edits today.)

It looks like you didn't bother to review the history of Bugs' talk page, as you say you're "not sure that [you] see where he was warned". If you had read my response above to Toddst1 above, you should also have recognized that there were other issues with Bugs' conduct, and that the single inappropriate comment wasn't the sole basis for his block. Either you didn't do your due diligence before posting to AN/I, or you were deliberately leaving out context which would explain my actions. I hope and assume that it was the former, and that you'll be more careful in the future not to neglect such review. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I fully agree with your comment at AN/I that it would have been good for you to have had the chance to make your case. I was hoping that you could fill in the blanks of things that I didn't see. I was intentionally brief because I thought you would be able to present your side without me casting it in a particular light. I did review Bugs' talk page as well as the threads at the Ref Desk including the history of those pages to see removed comments. I didn't see that his remarks were attacks at all and even if they had been, pursuant to the policy, I didn't see this as egregious enough to warrant blocking. The two sections of the policy, "Consequences of personal attacks" & "Blocking for personal attacks" both pertain here particularly where I say that he may not have been warned properly as that stipulates that he may be asked to refactor his comments for lesser personal attacks and he wasn't, right? "Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow, typically starting with 24 hours."

In fairness, I didn't see your comments here until I posted the ANI notice....so I did miss that part before posting.

By my observations of your work on WP as both an editor and an admin, I think you do a great job. Nothing about that has changed so please don't take my review request personally. I assumed that if I had missed something that the review process would bear it out with explanation.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In your post to AN/I, you said that you didn't see where Bugs had been warned; either that was a (rather unfortunate) misstatement on your part, or a deceptive statement. I assume the former, but I fear that it unfairly framed the discussion. In the future, I hope as well that you'll take the time to check an admin's talk page (even if you don't try to contact them) before you go to AN/I. Discussions about blocks often take place among editors on an admin's page (rather than on the blocked editor's page); I was deliberately trying to avoid arguments on Bugs' talk page, because I didn't think it would do him any good. (Given the email that he sent me and his tendency towards overreaction to criticism, he could probably have been readily goaded into making statements that would have ensured the block stuck, but I didn't feel that that would be fair to him.)

I know that you have the best interests of the project at heart and I usually have no quarrel with your work, but I can't help but feel you dropped the ball here. I imagine you probably feel the same way about me, so—water under the bridge. I wish you good editing, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents on this - and here, not the ANI pile-on - is that while Bugs pushes buttons a lot, he very rarely has actually crossed lines, and has generally rapidly retreated if warned or hinted on that...

Perusing - not studying in depth, but perusing - the board this started on didn't show a pattern rising to the level I would warn over, personally. Ask someone politely to calm it down a bit, yes, but not warn in the warn-then-block sense. The comment was insensitive, but there's a large gap between insensitive and blockable.

I am not following events there reliably, so I don't know the whole history by any means. But it didn't seem to rise to that level to me.

I hate to ask for a shrubbery, but this is the type of incident where admins doing the "paperwork" beforehand - lots of warnings with diffs that are well documented - stands up, and a hip shot fails. Bugs is well known, known to have a little attitude but also to be a contributor people know and assume good faith about. Longtime contributors with no lack of AGF slack can and do still transgress the rules badly and do blockable things. But it needs to be explained and documented a bit more.

I know you've been around for a long time, and you know all this stuff. I've been there, on stuff I thought was just obviously bad and others didn't agree on it, one Giano block in particular. You're not doing anything wrong-wrong. But this wasn't right. It may have been correct, but it wasn't documented or supported well enough to convince others, and they're defaulting to AGF on Bugs.

One of the advantages of doing the lead-up warnings is that, if your calibration is off on what's wrong-wrong versus others' reviews or interpretation of the situation, the warnings wil be discussed and you'll get that feedback early. If it needs better documentation or explanation it can be done before it's gotten to the level of a block, or ANI thread, etc.

Anyways... I appreciate you being engaged and caring. Have a better day... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(re to Ten) Misstatement...I should have worded it as warned properly rather than just warned. I apologize for that. The first response (from Wknight94) pointed out your warning to Bugs...however, the block wasn't overturned for inadequate warning but for lack of foundation. I will try to take heed of your advice and consider my wording more carefully as well as making sure to stop by the blocking admin's talk page. In this case, I'm not sure that I could have added to Toddst1's and Wknight94's comments...what could I have asked/said that would make things different?

I was interested in having the block looked at but not in the gathering of torches and pitchforks. At least no one has said the "R" word. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , please consider the community position that such blocks as you made in this case have no community support and please avoid making similar in future, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the community position. Pay Off2riorob no mind. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry; I give Off2riorob's opinions exactly the weight that they deserve. Editing a discussion hours after it was closed, just to post a snarky and misleading attack on my level of participation in the project ([7]) and get the 'last word' in shows a distinct personal animosity that I'm at a loss to explain. I don't know where it is that I've so upset O2RR, unless it's because he happens to disagree with my comments regarding sanctions in the climate change arbitration case, and is importing some of the grief from that dispute. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can add anything more than what I say here, other than, perhaps: good block. Franamax (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re [8]: me neither. But thanks for trying; I'll watch the exchange (if it turns into an exchange) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And trying again, thanks. It looks like Jc really doesn't want to justify himself, which is unsurprising William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Ah well, clearly some arbs are far too grand to talk to mere plebs William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... for your frank comments at AN. Don't feel the need to pull any punches, I would rather I heard all view points. I know many people will look at what I'm doing and just say "Good on you" because they're impressed. Well, that's not much use to me. Honest, plain feedback such as yours is much more helpful. Please do continue. Worm^TT · (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have already seen my reply but I realised I never left a

What this deletion is about:

(Deletion log); 21:40 . . TenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs)‎ changed revision visibility of "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous": removed content, edit summary, username for 2 revisions (RD6: Non-contentious housekeeping, RevDel corrections, notes, conversion)

Is it a case of vandalism which you excised ? StuRat (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was to remove personal information about an editor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which another editor had posted ? StuRat (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interested in further discussion with you. I've already let you waste my time once today; that's more than filled my quota. Have a pleasant evening. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, as rude as usual. OK, then. If you find responding to me at the Help Desk to be a waste of your time, then please don't. I for one find your rudeness there as unpleasant as it is here. StuRat (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... here.[9] Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to know I'm not crazy. I wish you the best of luck, though I don't expect anything but evasion from Jclemens at this point. I'll mention that he seems to have neglected to note that my follow-up post to him raised additional, broader questions about how he would be approaching similar motions in the future (as the ArbCom was, in fact, facing a near-identical request at the time, and there is the likelihood of additional such requests in the near future).

For the record, I was actually unaware when I posted to his talk page that a) his term as Arbitrator was expiring this December, and b) that he intended to run again. In hindsight, he seems to be an excellent example of why the 50% threshold to seat Arbitrators is a poor idea. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]