User talk:MrX/Archive/January-March 2014

The Next Step (2013 TV series)

If you remember, when I requested for you to adopt me, I mentioned that I work in the article mentioned in the headline. Can you please give me some incite so I can make the article the best it can be? Thank you! CanadianDude1 (talk) 05:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, please respond to this request. Thanks. CanadianDude1 (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue this on your talk page.- Mr X 13:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for adoption by Scribbleink

Wish you a wonderful 2014, MrX! I have been a frequent user and an infrequent contributor to Wikipedia (+ a recent donor). I'd like to take the next step and start editing regularly, for which I seek a mentor. You come highly recommended by User:Yunshui and I'd like to know:

if you're available and willing to adopt me to show me the ropes, and,
whether you have a program or prefer that I initiate with a draft of an article I want to contribute.

Thanks in advance! → scribble · ink _chat\^contrib 09:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scribbleink. Welcome to Wikipedia! Sure, I am available for adopting. I don't have a fixed program. I try to tailor something to the needs and goals of the adoptee. I will review your contributions to date to see if there are any obvious areas where I can provide guidance, meanwhile can you give me a thumbnail of your goals? Do you mostly want to create articles, review other editors' new articles, help with vandalism, or improve existing articles? Also, what topic areas are you most interested in?- Mr X 15:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Much appreciated. My current goals are to improve existing articles, e.g. Indian art, and to create ones on an on-need basis, e.g. Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Culture_and_fine_arts/Visual_arts. I'm reading up on paintings in my spare time and I thought that would be the best place to start contributing new content. scribble · ink _chat\^contrib 19:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Let's continue this at your Adoption School page. - Mr X 14:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haiku-Depot Article

The user who created the article in question is in Google programme for kids to learn about open source software (GCI2013). Could you help give further guidance to the student in what he did wrong? I have already told him/her that there is plagiarism in the article and that it is not to encyclopedic standards. Dlpkbr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sure.- Mr X 17:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions are in place at Political activities of the Koch brothers

In case you have not previously been warned, be advised that discretionary sanctions have been placed on Political activities of the Koch brothers, and there is a template to this effect in place on the article Talk page. Your username will be added to the list of notifications at the ArbCom case. Roccodrift (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the article is under discretionary sanctions. Is there some reason that you felt the need to tell me this?- Mr X 00:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and pray tell, when did you become an admin?- Mr X 00:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I elected to provide you with a notification because I observed that this edit [1] suggests you might not be aware. Any editor can notify another than an article is under DS; there is no requirement that notification can only be performed by an admin. Roccodrift (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you warned me for restoring an edit that is well-sourced, is supported by consensus from an RfC, and is supported by the majority of involved editors. On the other hand, you chose not to notify anyone else, such as the editor who drive-by blanked the content this morning with a scurrilous edit summary.

Item #4 of WP:AC/DS says "Warnings should be clear and unambiguous, link to the decision authorising the sanctions, identify misconduct and advise how the editor may mend their ways".

So exactly what misconduct are you claiming that I engaged in?- Mr X 01:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I neglected to give you the diff at first. Now you have it. I'm not here to argue about your edit. Please be mindful of the sanctions going forward. Roccodrift (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You too.- Mr X 02:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Phil Robertson". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 00:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapped for Christ edit

MrX, I removed a line from your Kidnapped for Christ page that read "Escuela Caribe, now called Caribbean Mountain Academy and owned by based Crosswinds, Inc..." because of its misleading nature. If you carefully read the source you cited ^[1], you will see that Crosswinds and Caribbean Mountain Academy are in no way affiliated with Escuela Caribe or New Horizons Youth Ministries, other than to have acquired their assets upon their closure. (See answer to question in cited source: "Did Crosswinds merge with New Horizons Youth Ministry and rename “Escuela Caribe,” “Caribbean Mountain Academy?” for a full explanation). The way it was phrased in the article suggested that the change was merely a name change, rather than a closure of the Escuela Caribe program and a reopening of a completely new one with different leadership, programming and policies. ET91 (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you're saying and I agree, having pored over the sources when I created the article. Let me see if I can edit the article to make that more clear.- Mr X 16:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your commitment to accuracy. ET91 (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI report

I thought you might find this interesting. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Pardon the pun but this is for your all-round Xtraordinary effort. Green Giant (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your recognition @Green Giant. I'm Xstatic!- Mr X 13:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xactly how you should start the new year =P

Well done MrX ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 17:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jenova20. I hope to have a whole galaXy of stars some day.- Mr X 18:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't quite count MrX. But it was an xtremely good attempt =P. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Giant Snowman 20:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sanction

generic question about sanctions. For Darkness Shines, is the sanction you placed considered a 0RR? Are any edits that remove content then prohibited, or only reverts of recent additions? Is there a page that outlines what list of sanctions are appropriate? (IE, did you just pick a sanction from a menu that may or may not have criteria for use, or are admins allowed to invent sanctions at will for topics that have discretionary sanctions applied? ) I am not attempting to criticize your action, just trying to make sure I understand the policies and process. (I am deeply involved in another topic that will likely have DS applied shortly by arbcom, so want to make sure I know what the new rules are going to look like) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You can read it here. I would assume that "revert" means reverting recently added content, but I suppose you may have to ask Sandstein, who imposed the sanction. - Mr X 21:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user talk pages

AC/DS sanctions get logged on the case page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_sanctions, not the user talk page. Please don't mess with other user's talk pages unless you know exactly what you are doing; if you have concern about an inappropriate removal the best thing to do is first discuss with the editor. If that doesn't resolve your concerns, contact the admin who posted the notice and let them sort it out. NE Ent 22:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I acted in good faith and according to guidelines. If you disagree that I followed guidelines, then please explain why. Otherwise, let's keep the discussion at ANI.- Mr X 22:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NE Ent and MrX, you may be interested in the thread started here on this issue : Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Sanctions.2FAEwarnings.2Ftopic_ban_log.2Fpage Gaijin42 (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this one. Some local news coverage, but notability really restricted to a world record. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I will research sources and make my thoughts known in the AfD.- Mr X 04:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certifying an RFC/U

Hi. I saw the Arzel RFC/U. Note per the RFC/U minimum requirements, it must be certified by two editors who have personally tried to solve this dispute in a friendly way on the user's talk page. The ANI requests and old RFC/U in that list are good 'evidence' or important supplemental information, but they do not help toward certifying the dispute. They should be removed from the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section.--v/r - T P 01:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. The minimum requirement for RFC/Us are:

"Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem." (emphasis added)

I think this RFC/U as submitted adequately meets this requirement, but you are correct, the previous RFC/U and ANI threads are supplemental. It's important to show that there has been a history of problems with this user that have not been not been fully addressed.- Mr X 01:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You missed this sentence, "The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it." and this one "The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise."--v/r - T P 01:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss it; it just doesn't make sense. This is a series of long-term, multi-faceted user conduct issues. There is no single dispute to be resolved. Certainly an ANI discussion in which multiple editors attempted in earnest to address the issues (for example, with proposed topic bans) qualifies as "an attempt to find a resolution". Somewhere in the tangled web of instructions and meta-tutorials for RFC/Us, it is advised not to worry about dotting all the Is and it advises that one should be focused on the product, not the process.

If it decided via some bureaucratic wikilawyering that the RFC/U failed certification, then the evidence can simply be taken to WP:RFAR, where it will likely end up anyway.- Mr X 01:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that doesn't make sense to require two users who have attempted (in good faith) to resolve the issue to have to certify it. And it's a requirement, it's not optional and it's not wikilawyering to enforce it. And Arbcom is not going to accept a case simply because you failed to follow straightforward directions. I strongly suggest you make a better effort to follow them. They serve a legitimate purpose and are not simply bureaucratic. ANIs don't count as resolution because they more often than not turn into a lynching. The purpose of the RFC/U requirements is that someone who isn't trying to beat the subject up with a bat made an attempt to find resolution that wouldn't cause a knee jerk defensive mode from the subject. ie, seeking "resolution or compromise". Trouts, warnings, ANI threads, and other RFC/Us are not the same as trying to discuss things on a personal and peaceful level with the purpose of ending a dispute through agreement.--v/r - T P 02:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that multiple ANI discussions qualify as "talk pages involved in the dispute". It's ridiculous to claim otherwise, especially for some such as yourself who has complained in ANI threads that user conduct issues should be taken to RFC/U.

For the record, I don't have an ace in this game. I've blocked users on all sides of US politics on several occasions. I'm giving you advice as an administrator who frequently closes RFC/Us and deals in dispute resolution a lot. I'm forwarning you that you're going to run into trouble if you don't follow the directions. If you do it your way, do not be surprised and do not complain of wikilawyering when it doesn't succeed. You were advised, strongly, to follow the letter of the guide.--v/r - T P 02:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than pontificate, why don't you go on over to Arzel's talk page and try to resolve the conduct issues yourself? Why don't you actually help the process instead of telling me all of the ways that it will fail? I've done my best to facilitate a resolution. There is nothing more I can do to meet the minimum requirements. If this process fails, at least I can look at myself in the mirror and know that I did something to try to fix the problems. I don't invest in outcomes here, so I will not lose any sleep over this, regardless of how it turns out.- Mr X 03:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am helping the process. I'm helping by advising you how to ensure the RFC/U you are developing gets a change to succeed. That's help. Had I said nothing, it would fall apart, cause more drama, end back up at ANI, or be denied at Arbcom and more drama stirs. I'm trying to make sure the process is followed linearly so we don't have to back up or have re-dos. I try to stay outside of the intra-personal conflicts themselves because I think it's better for someone to stay objective and disconnected. I don't plan to close the RFC/U myself, but as an administrator who closes these often that would be one of the quick-fails. We have very specific guidance that if it's not properly certified, then it can be deleted after 48 hours. If I were doing this after you opened it, that'd be obstruction. I'm doing this before it goes live so you can square it away. If you don't think that's helpful, I'm happy to back off and let you proceed like you want. I'm just giving you a heads up. That's helpful.--v/r - T P 03:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you would expect me to do. If the evidence that I have already provided under 'Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute' is deemed insufficient, and it gets CSDed, and an admin deletes it because they narrowly interpret the minimum requirements, then it can go to arbitration or it can go back to ANI. Without socking or canvassing, there is no way for me to fulfill such a absurdly narrow interpretation of the certification requirements. - Mr X 03:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel seems to be friendly with administrators Mark Arsten and SlimVirgin. Perhaps you can talk to these guys, present your concerns, and ask them to speak to him and see if they can resolve this without an RFC/U or ANI. If not successful, perhaps they'd be willing to co-certify an RFC/U.--v/r - T P 04:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see it mentioned, but Arzel was briefly topic banned from US Elections. That seems relevant though it is a little over a year old.--v/r - T P 01:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the previous topic ban. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.- Mr X 01:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened across the RfCU myself and was heading over to say pretty much the same thing TP said, that is, I'm pretty sure you need to get somebody else to sign in the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm well aware of the need for a second person to certify the RFC/U. I'm not going to canvass or recruit people to do it, as that would be improper. I would expect someone who was involved in the ANI discussion to certify the RFC/U, otherwise it probably will not happen.- Mr X 04:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I figured you were aware of it, but was having a bit of trouble picking that out of the above discussion. Good luck. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you pointed out. Please excuse slow reply もきゅもきゅー (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you もきゅもきゅー and welcome to Wikipedia!- Mr X 03:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Christians

Funny I never looked at those external links.. Anyways you should check now. Is it okay? Bladesmulti (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a definite improvement. This is not a subject I know much about, but I think the ryanspencerreed.com link should be removed as it covers a broader subject area that just persecution of Christians. I'm also not sure about the fourthcentury.com link. It only covers the fourth century, and there's no indication that it is authoritative. I think the ELs should be limited to (published) scholarly sources and web sites that are widely-regarded as authoritative on the subject.- Mr X 13:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some personal websites, fansites, etc are also added to external links. As long as they don't seem to be disordered or WP:Fringe. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FIREWALK and RAGEMASTER

Hi. Should these articles be redirected to NSA ANT catalog rather than deleted? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, yes. Feel free to do that yourself, or I will do it later.- Mr X 13:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would be better, and IIRC it's standard, for the article history to remain, for copyright reasons; we MUST give attribution. To the deleting admin, @RHaworth: please restore the history and merge properly in future. WP:Merge: "Merging pages does not require intervention from an administrator", but this improper merge does. WP:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Attribution_is_required_for_copyright guideline too. (update: re-ping:@RHaworth:.)--Elvey (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihounding

Hello, I'm Holdek. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. I see that you've reverted my edits at both Affinity marketing‎ and List of most-listened-to radio programs in less than an hour. Read Wikipedia: HOUND. Holdek (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note, however, that is not hounding. It is perfectly acceptable to review an editor's contributions to correct problematic edits. From the guidline that you cited: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles."

The time frame is not really relevant. If you believe I have broached any our behavioral norms, I invite you to bring it up at in the thread already started at ANI.- Mr X 17:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delingpole

The contributions re the "identity politics" by that other editor are par for the course -- simply repeat and repeat without actually engaging the point. I hope you don't let it drive you away -- that's exactly what is intended. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hopefully we can arrive at a compromise through discussion. There's not much chance that I'm going to be driven away.- Mr X 18:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, specifically: making multiple reverts in a multi-party edit war on Duck Dynasty. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch

Here's a bit of a supportive gesture on the occasion of your first block. I hope your battle scars mend soon and you find a more collegial center of gravity. Best wishes... Binksternet (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but actually, I think this a good opportunity for me to depart the project. The atmosphere here is far too toxic, and the policies are enforced erratically. When some editors are blocked for two reverts, and others are allowed to edit war without consequence, then that is an unpredictable environment that I no longer wish to be a part off.

I wish you well. Goodbye.- Mr X 20:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find that generally it's not a good idea to try to push people into editing at Wikipedia when they're pissed. Usually, they just need time to cool off a bit, not to mention the very weird magnet Wikipedia has for long-time users. Others below have offered many words of encouragement. In light of your comments, I'll analogize Wikipedia to a government. Just because there are flaws - even many of them - in the way a place is governed doesn't mean you leave. It's highly unlikely that you were singled out here. It's simply one of those confluences of events where you got caught in the crossfire. Frankly, I think you should come back as you're a good fellow and a good editor (and we need as many of them as we can get), but I don't necessarily think you should come back too quickly. Breaks, even completely voluntary ones, are healthy. Gives you a fresh perspective. Enjoy your personal life. We all have them (so I'm told). Take good care of yourself. The flaws in our system will still be here if you decide to return, but, hopefully, they won't bother you as much.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#blocks_of_MrX_and_Sportfan5000_on_Duck_Dynasty. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider

I urge you not to roll over and retire just because one of Wikipedias least nuanced admins did a nasty number on you. That's just giving more power to the worst elements on Wikipedia. In a just world it would be Toddst1 that is retiring. Some blocks should be borne as badges of honour, the price content builders must pay if they want to do a good job on Wikipedia. The hard reality is that Wikipedia lacks an admin system worthy of its content builders, and we need a special award to recognise and honour content builders who have been savaged like you just have. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)May I nominate this as post of the year. Excellent analysis. An epitaph; WP's requiescat in pace... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just read Kidnapped for Christ. That is a fine piece of work. Drmies (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's some good pointers there. Admins still have a way to go. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epipelagic, for the hell of it, try to get a complete list of Toddst1's article creations. I couldn't--the server timed out, so I only saw the first one hundred. Don't be so hasty. Most admins started by writing articles, lots of them. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, it's not about whether admins are also content builders. It's about whether there is a decent and transparent system for assigning privileges to and disciplining content builders. Whenever editors like me try to articulate the problems and discuss solutions, the attempts are either ignored or the core issues get swept aside by admins complaining loudly about "false dichotomies" between admins and content builders. It's a key way admins divert and avoid the issues. It makes no difference how often I point out that the "dichotomy" is made up by admins and not by me. Here is a typical example. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my talk page, so I'll be brief (MrX, I apologize for filling up your screen): I agree with PBS. You go to great lengths defining "content builders", a term that needs no definition--the problem lies with your use of "admins"--as in "admins still have a way to go", which lacks the "some" part. So this dichotomy is not my invention, or any other admin's invention: I see it right here, in your comments here. Besides, there are also non-admins who are also not content builders. But that's enough out of me. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I have unblocked you following the consensus at WP:ANI#Blocks of MrX and Sportfan5000 on Duck Dynasty. Please don't let one unwarranted block discourage you from contributing here. Fram (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xtra time

Wiki-Holiday

I've just read the whole story and for what its worth I don't blame you for leaving, especially given some of the other hassles you've had recently. However, I don't think I am alone in believing the project will be better with you contributing. Take a few days off, enjoy life and come back with more X-citing editing. I highly recommend this serene island, as a reflection of your calm behaviour when some editors would have been foaming at the mouth. Green Giant (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

We'll call it a freedom pie after your recent incarceration =P. Hopefully you can put the past behind you. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 10:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

I was always hoping to give you this, waited until I would complete a year editing. I just watched this whole mess now and I'm happy that majority of the community supported you. Please do not leave us MrX, the more veteran good-hearted editors like you leave, the more toxic this place gets...imagine how empty our morale would be after you go. Maybe you do need a break, but please come back soon with a fresh start! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Breaks are good, but Wikipedia needs you. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For your enduring brilliance and contribution on Wikipedia Teammm ^talk _email 17:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you everyone for your very kind words of support, here and at ANI. I am especially grateful to Black Kite for bringing the issue of my block to ANI, and to Fram for unblocking me. Thank you also to everyone who offered wisdom and insight, as well as the (undeserved) barnstars and pie.

When I learned that I was blocked a couple of days ago, I was not at all angry; I was shocked and deeply hurt. In the few years that I have contributed at Wikipedia, I have made it my highest priority not to violate the community's rules about edit warring and incivility. I had no idea that I had been placed under a de facto 1RR restriction. I didn't deliberately tag team edit war, a charge which implies collusion, and is not even really defined in our policies. I can only speculate as to why I was blocked for two reverts when the norm is to provide warnings, and usually only block for four reverts or more. I can only assume that it is because I had previously disputed the reasoning of the blocking admin after I made one single revert of what I thought was non-constructive editing by a disruptive user. My desire to assert the consensus of the community via it's written policies was, I guess, viewed as gaming the system, disruption or refusal to obey.

Being blocked was a line that I promised myself I would never cross, yet here I am. I'm struggling to put this ~~shame~~ behind me. I have also lost a fair measure of faith in the project for reasons too numerous to mention. I truthfully don't know if I will contribute here any longer. I do know that I need to distance myself from the project for at least a couple of weeks so that I can get a fresh perspective.

Thanks again, from the core of my soul, for your kindness and humanity. - Mr X 19:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You did nothing wrong, except you talked back to an administrator. Know your place. You have the freedom on Wikipedia to explore depths of humility and humbleness you didn't even know existed. The admin system cannot be challenged, and our job is to endure. The shame belongs to Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Apologies for poking my nose in: but, shame? SHAME??? Outrageous. Wash your ~~mouth out~~ your keyboard down for even writing that. You were blocked because some think buttons owes more to themselves than to others. 'Luck. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good break. You aren't the first productive Wikipedia editor to suffer from a hasty, ill-thought out and undeserved block and I'm sure you won't be the last. Don't let that drive you away from the project - but do have a break. Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, and take as long as you need but please don't use the word ~~shame~~ about your actions. I have struck that word out and I defy anyone to restore it. Before someone mumbles about it, yes I am fully aware of WP:Talk and yes I have an alibi → by striking it out I am fulfilling the statement that "all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia" (WP:OWNTALK), which will be achieved by enticing MrX back to contributing. :) Green Giant (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Black Kite says--the first part. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back MrX! Have a good break and I hope you return as productive as ever. Good to hear from you again and strongly support what Green Giant says. See you again soon, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What Black Kite says--the first part, the middle part, the last part. NE Ent 00:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss Administrators or other editors

Please respect MrX's talk page. It's fine to tell MrX that you hope he comes back - and I certainly hope he does, but arguing about Administrators, the block, etc on his talk page is both inappropriate and the sort of thing that could easily convince him it would not be a good idea to return. I've boldly deleted the section where this was taking place and ask editors not to restore it or continue the argument here. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's rude to mess with another editor's talk page, even under the guise of good intentions, and condescending to speculate how MrX might interpret a conversation. NE Ent 11:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Please see WP:ANI#Review of block and admin authority. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Johnuniq. I'm sorry I wasn't able to participate.- Mr X 17:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arzel.2 closure

According to RFC/U closing instructions, the most uncontroversial way to close an RFC/U is by agreement of the certifiers and the subject. "WP:RfC/Us which are closed by agreement require a motion to close; this motion should be visible on the talk page of the RfC/U. Here, other participants can either express their support or opposition to closing at this time. Closure by agreement may or may not include a summary of the dispute or agreement." I have set up a space for you three to discuss the summary and closure of this RFC/U. Please see here. Thanks.--v/r - T P 00:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification TP. There does not seem to be a meeting of the minds that would support a closure by agreement, so I'm going to decline to comment further. Of course, I don't object to a closure for other reasons.- Mr X 17:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

adopter page

I've set your entry to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters to "no" given your statement above. NE Ent 23:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of that, NE Ent. I did notify my current adoptee when I went offline, but I forgot to change my status at the Adopters page.- Mr X 17:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Toddst1 RFAR Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, Ihardlythinkso. I'm not sure if I will participate, but I do hope that the RFAR is accepted. There does seem to be a pattern of problematic admin actions by Toddst1 and an unwillingness to account for them.- Mr X 17:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1 blocked himself indefinitely. This is probably the most closure he will allow with regard to his guilt in the unfair block of MrX. Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that ends that. - Mr X 23:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

I know this is late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://crosswindsyouth.org/crosswinds-response/

[1] ttp://crosswindsyouth.org/crosswinds-response/

[1]