User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 2

edit count | edit summary usage

Archive 2 of SkagitRiverQueen's talk Page

< Archive 1    Archive 2    All Pages:  1 -  2 -  ... (up to 100)

---

FYI

Just so you know I welcome all editors to make comments to me on my talk page. Also, please check the editors contributions to see if they are new. Tuudder is a newbie and we shouldn't bite newbies. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(1) My reasons for answering him here are my own - don't assume anything in Wikipedia, Crohnie (and please don't lecture me about "following" others). You have been following me around for quite some time - in fact, you made edits to the Bouley article by following me, didn't you? (2) I never said he couldn't come to your talk page. (3) "Our history" has nothing to do with this. (4) In ref to your comments twice about biting the newbie - I didn't "bite" him. In fact, I'm the only one who's bothered to welcome him to WP and offer constructive comments to him on both his talk page and at the Bundy page. (5) Next time you decide to lecture someone about WP behavior, please look in your own backyard and check to see if your house is in order first. Thanks --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(the above was removed because it was allegedly "rude" - my response is the following)

My comments to you were not rude, nor were they an attack, Crohnie. Everything I said was true. You made assumptions, claimed I did things I did not, and I called you on it. Sorry you saw it all as something other than what it really was, but frankly, I think you see pretty much everything I say and do in WP as a rude attack because you refuse to exercise WP:AGF where I am concerned. You continue to see me as an evil ogre, but that isn't my fault; God knows I have tried and tried with you. You have decided, because of what you are being fed by others, that I am the enemy and deserve no good faith. Well...unlike others you defend who have been much more rude and attacking than I could even imagine being (plus other things), I deserve to receive good faith from you like every other WP editor. And why wouldn't I? Other than getting blocked a couple of times, exactly what are these Wiki-crimes that keep you from treating me consistently decent? I've never created sock-puppets; I've never harassed anyone by repeatedly vandalizing their userspace - making them the target of hate-speech based on sexual orientation; I've never sent anyone harassing, anonymous, private emails (unlike at least one of your friends); I've never been a Wiki-bully. It seems that my biggest crime in your eyes is speaking up against those in WP you hold dear. Last time I looked, this is still a free country and speaking out against bad behavior that harms others and the greater good (in this case, the WP project as a whole) is still considered a good thing. At the very least, it shows much better character than someone who lied about who they are to so many for so long. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

I got to the Bouley article via recent edits while on vandal patrol. The rest of what you say doesn't deserve a response since it's been answered to before. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You may fool others Crohnie, but you don't fool me. You are stalking my edits and were looking into my edit history (or someone you know was and you went there on behalf of them) - that's how you got to the Bouley page. There was no vandalism there, and your edits on that page had nothing to do with combating vandalism. You edited there because you knew I had heavily edited that article prior to it being locked. As soon as the block was up, you went there to edit in an attempt to bait me and get a negative reaction out of me - I knew it then, and I know it now. It's the same reason why you heavily edited the Jeffrey MacDonald article - you saw that I recently edited there, and you are trying to goad me into a fight. As far as why you aren't responding to what I said on your talk page, I know why you *really* aren't responding, and it has nothing to do with your "poor-me" claim that I was mean to you (which I wasn't - and you really should learn a new song, BTW). You're not responding because (1) I spoke the truth and you are in denial about that truth, (2) you simply don't like me because I have been openly vocal about the bad Wiki-behavior of an editor you see as your Wikipedia protector. Even in the midst of your cries of "why are you picking on me?" and "let's everybody just get along because I hate it when people don't get along!", you like to stir things up and keep things dysfunctional because that's what's become comfortable for you. It's not really peaceful editing you're interested in, it's status-quo you want - even if status-quo means breaking WP policy and treating those not in your comfort-zone-clique like crap. You're really not that hard to figure out, you know (and it seems as if RobinHood70 and Tekaphor now have your number as well). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

One week for harrassment/incivility. "grow up and try being honest" is another example, added to the above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm really gonna care about being blocked in Wikipedia while I'm sitting by my 80 year-old father's bedside this week following his quadruple bypass early tomorrow morning. But, you kinda know what I mean, dontcha? Isn't that what you wished for me not so long ago, Sarek? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I'm going to be at my mom's funeral early tomorrow morning. Best wishes for your father to pull through with flying colors, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I must say SRQ, this is not Sarek "wishing" anything bad to happen to you; it seems to me rather the opposite. To suggest otherwise is simply not supported by the evidence (and is sort of "unsettling", I think). To insinuate that Sarek is a "bad admin"[1] (with or without a "disclaimer"), is probably not the greatest idea either. I don't like seeing long-term editors blocked, but to essentially accuse Crohnie of general dishonesty is not good at all (and yes, to say "grow up and try being honest" is easily construed as an accusation of general dishonesty and immaturity, which is a personal attack: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.").
Obviously, you are under greater scrutiny than other editors because of your recent block history, so while other editors might possibly "get away" with such comments, it's still not right. I can't find any similar personal attack from Crohnie concerning this dispute; could you cite one if I missed it? Citing the specific diffs would certainly help any case against Crohnie. I'm not going to quote a whole bunch of policy/guidelines, and I'm not going to patronize or talk down to you - just the facts, ma'am. I know you are a good editor who has made many positive contributions long before I arrived on WP; but certain things obviously need to change with the civility issues, no?
There is no real conspiracy against you that I can see, and this is now your fourth block (fifth if you count the extension for personal attacks), increasing in length each time. Were each and every one of these blocks unjustified? I must remind you that both of your last two blocks were upheld after three unblock requests for each were denied by a total of six different administrators: Jpgordon, EdJohnston, Toddst1, Beeblebrox, 2/0, and UltraexactZZ.
My condolences again to Sarek on his mother, and SRQ, I certainly hope your father recovers from his surgery and is alright. I have no interest in seeing anyone suffering, and I do wish the best to both of you and your respective families. Most things are far more important than WP in the greater scheme of things, and family is priority #1. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

From AN/I

The following comments are being placed here because I cannot speak in my own defense at AN/I

I just blocked SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) for one week for what I saw as her continuing harassment of Crohnie (talk · contribs). However, I'm not sure this is long enough -- it's part of a editing pattern I've been seeing for a while. Can I have some more opinions on whether the block was a) appropriate and b) the correct duration? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And once again, Sarek blocks me for what he sees as an infraction, but doesn't block the other editor (Crohnie). The inequity is glaring. In fact, I'm starting to see a pattern here - the same thing happened with my last block where even editors who aren't usually "friends" noticed the inequity in my block then. Also again, Sarek seems to be using his administrative powers to punish - which is not only *not* supposed to be the way admins operate, but something only bad admins do (at least that's what a very wise admin I am acquainted with believes). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with the block qua block (it might be shorter for a first offense, since blocks are to be preventative rather than punitive), but I generally think we should do more to enforce WP:CIVIL. I do note that when an established editor did the same thing to me (right down to the insulting language), and I complained about it, I was blocked for complaining about it, so I'm a little frustrated with the double-standard. THF (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And I am also frustrated with the double-standards in WP - as well as the double-standards exhibited by Sarek. Add to that frustration that this block *is* punitive - which is not what blocks are supposed to be about. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I read through that talk page and didn't see anything that bad and certainly nothing worthy of a block. The diff you provided in the block comment may have been a little snarky, but to call it uncivil is a stretch. I don't think the real question is whether the block should be longer but whether the user should have been blocked to begin with. I vote no. PhoenixPhan (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't just read what's on the page, read the history, and see how many other pages she went to complaining -- including a rejected WP:AN3 report. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please *do* read through the history. Please read through the history of me trying and trying and trying and trying to work with Crohnie and then read through her history of continued incilivity toward me, her personal attacks aimed at me, her continuous false accusations lodged against me, and her repeated bad faith concerning me. And then, be sure to look at how no one does a thing about it. Oh, wait...yes, something was done. I was blocked for reacting out of frustration due to Crohnie's continued incivility, personal attacks, false accusations, and lack of good faith. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In isolation, I wouldn't have blocked the editor for that one edit. However given the history, it seems appropriate. Support block.Toddst1 (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the history, you might have a better understanding of why I never should have been blocked - or with my block, the other editor should have also been blocked. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC) (forgot to sign previously)

LPerhaps we should look into her conflicting claim that she is the one being harassed? If she was being harassed first then that should be seen as a mitigating circumstance for some "uncivil" words she may have SAID. This is all IF, as I dont know all the details but have seen in the past Skag actually get harassed in the past by other editors and the frustration she went through and not many listened or helped (and some were down right rude and should be ashamed of what they said). If someone is harassing someone through ACTIONS and then someone defends themselves and says some "uncivil" words because of frustration then no a block is not at all right. I also vote no on the block per PhoenixPhan. Having people ignore your complaints isnt a sign of incivility, its a sign that around here people are simply rude to those they dont like. Wikipedia is middle school when it comes to this stuff.Camelbinky (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A hearty amen, Camelbinky. You and I haven't always agreed on everything, but on this, you hit the nail smack-dab on the head (more than once). It *would* be nice if someone would look into the harassment I have had to endure from Crohnie and her pals - but I'm not going to hold my breath. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

More from AN/I 03/01/10

While sitting here at the hospital waiting for my elderly father to come out of quadruple bypass surgery, I read the following and thought it should be added...

Well all of this went on after I left. The problems for me started with this second posting to me. I deleted the one above it because it was rude and I said so. She insisted on adding that in and to be honest I wouldn't have seen it, at least not immediately because Sarek had removed it. [2] I then got this one followed by [3] which I deleted after the complaint was closed. I went to Sarek to say thank you and ask for help [4]. She followed me there. I went to Lar who is aware of all the problems with SRQ. [5] The problem is SkagitRiverQueen. She has disputes where ever she goes. This can be seen by the history of her talk page. After I removed her comment she should have stopped. On my talk page titled Ted Bundy a new editor came by to talk to me about it. SRQ jumped in which the editor was apparently surprised about. I didn't even have a chance to respond to that editor before SRQ did. That editor is gone now as far as I know. SRQ bit him and I reminded her not to and pointed to the policy WP:Bite. Personally I think a week is too short because she was recently blocked for edit warring and then another day was added for a personal attack. She is not a victim here, I am. The post I made to her talk page she changed the title of to make it an attack on me. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SkagitRiverQueen#Denial_is_not_just_a_river_in_Egypt This was called 'For the record'. She accused me of following her to this article which is not true and I told her how I got there. You can see her response. That response is what I have to endure everytime we end up at the same article. I have tried to avoid her, ignore her and nothing works. She says she was at the Jeffrey R. MacDonald article first and that I followed her which is not true because I got to that article in Nov. '08 and her June '09. She is now on most of my watchlist so how am I supposed to handle all of this? Everything I do is being watched. So please look at the history of the different talkpages and articles. If you check the different boards like this one, Wikialert, edit warring and so on and put in her name you will see she brings editors to them a lot and most if not all of the time they are dismissed with no action needed. It's time to put a stop to this because I am not the only one having serious problems with this editor. Thanks for reading, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add some difs of attacks that I've had to endure prior to all of todays activities. [6], [7], [8] (this one she accuses editors of having an agenda and other things which is why I said above that there is more to this problem), [9], [10] (here she is being rude and arguing with another editor), [11] (here are two editors that are uninvolved who tried to help and got attacked for it.), [12]. If more difs are needed please just ask me. I think these show a pattern. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad Crohnie provided the above - although it would be more honest for her to have added *all* the exchanges between she and I that would give a balanced view, rather than a biased view from her vantage-point - because the above only shows that she is bent on getting back at me and providing as much dirt on me as possible and kicking me while I am down. Ask yourself: what kind of person digs up dirt on others to use against them and why do they do it? And what kind of person does that when the accused can't defend themselves? Further, it certainly would have been better for her to admit upfront that she has declared war on me because I have been a vocal opponent of one of her Wiki-friends' continued bad behavior in WP (including socking and socking during her block due to socking) and that's the real reason why she seeks my block to be extended - out of retribution. Of course, intentionally leaving out the "good stuff" only shows the kind of Wiki-person she really is and what her agenda in all this has become. She preaches that I should talk about edits and not editors, yet, above, she digs up all she can find that will best villify me - that is talking about editors. If the above doesn't smack of retribution and a "middle-school" mindset (thanks, Camelbinky for that accurate description), I don't know what does. Again, I beg the interested or concerned reader to look into the numerous times I have tried to reason with her and try to reach out to her - yet, her nasty attitude, snarky edit summaries, and unfounded accusations (which I have asked her to retract without evidence, but she has refused to do so) and personal attacks have continued on. One can only try so many times (and then, in Wikipedia, they get blocked from editing). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

One more note that just occurred to me: How is it fair that Crohnie can provide all of these negative diffs about me at AN/I, but I can't defend myself there in regard to those diffs? Why is she (or anyone) allowed to supply a one-sided, completely unbalanced story where those who just read AN/I without knowing I am commenting here (and attempting to defend myself) will see only *her* side of things? Sounds like a Kangaroo Court situation to me. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And the beat(ing) goes on (and on) at AN/I 03/01/10)

I support the block. I'm not sure about an extension. A week seems like a good escalation from the couple of days of her last block, or at least that would be the case for most users. I can't say I'm optimistic about it helping in SRQ's particular case. Crohnie is correct about SRQ being the problem here. I've watched her jump from epic rivalry to epic rivalry. She's always battling someone, and even if she starts avoiding Crohnie for fear of being blocked, I can't see this not starting up again with a new contender. Watch her closely when this expires, I guess is all I can say. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:20, 2 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Equazcion. I've responded on her talk page, and I encourage others to look there for her further comments on this board (which she is not allowed to address here). My main concern is SRQ's continuing disparagement of Wildhartlivie when she was instructed not to comment on her, "...I have been a vocal opponent of one of her Wiki-friends' continued bad behavior in WP (including socking and socking during her block due to socking)..." WHL has observed her own admonition not to engage SRQ, and has not commented on any of these recent issues; yet there is obvious persistence here from SRQ against WHL and her "friends" like Crohnie. I unfortunately share Equazcion's pessimism and acknowledgment of the clear evidence of consistent battling. If SRQ could only concentrate on fighting vandals (which she does well) and avoiding endless arguments on (usually) small matters, there should be no need for an extension right now. I do wish she would "own up" to her errors and stop blaming others, but I can't have any effect on that. I would like to see SRQ remain as a positive contributor to WP, but certain glaring behaviors simply must change in order to avoid the seemingly constant conflicts centered around her. There are simply too many blocks and not enough admission of inappropriate behavior for this pattern to continue as it has been recently. I don't really dislike or have anything against this editor, and we have edited several of the same articles for some time. But something has obviously got to change for the future of SRQ's editing habits, because two weeks is next, and so on, and so on... Doc9871 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And now we have heard from someone who has been hounding me for months and another who is part of the crime and celebrity article bully-crew. How nice. As if they would say anything differently or in my defense. Of course, as far as they are concerned, I'm the only one here who is wrong - why would they say otherwise and lose their standing with those who love to make Wikipedia life miserable for editors who don't buckle to them? Even those in denial know it takes no courage to bow to bullies. It does take courage, however, to stand up for what you believe is right regardless of what the bullies do to you. You dust yourself off, and continue to speak out against what is wrong - even if the cowards keep their mouths shut and the squeakiest wheels continue to get the grease. I know which camp I reside in. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am neither a "bully" nor a hound; I'm not sure which one you meant was me (and I can't speak for Equazcion, either). I don't know why you think I am attacking you, SRQ: you're in quite a bit of trouble again here, you know, and it has nothing to do with me. If you want to stop getting blocked, you must look at the advice that is given to you. I've alerted the readers of the AN/I board that you are responding on your talk page, so they can come here to see your responses. I did not get you blocked, and I am trying to help you avoid future blocks; but you will not accept my good faith advice, and seem to think I am merely a "bully" who is "wrong". What more can I say? Good luck... Doc9871 (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said you were either, Doc. (1) I said you are one who hangs with the bullies. The truth as I see it is that you enable the bullies and take their side frequently - even when they are very, very wrong. You see, one doesn't have to actually do what people like the bullies do to be part of them - but silence and/or turning a blind-eye and backing up the bullies when they deserve no quarter most certainly makes one a participant in the bullying being done. (2) I never said anything about you attacking me - although you most certainly have in the past (you referring to me as a "whiner" on your talk page a while back when you didn't think I would see it comes immediately to mind). And in all honesty, it's hard to take seriously the advice of someone so easily and frequently tossed about by the changing wind. Does the word "ambivalence" ring any bells? (it should - I said something to you about it not so long ago) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Questioning my alleged "ambivalence" is also not going to help you get unblocked, SRQ. I am not blocked, and if you are interested in getting unblocked early, I would focus more on that than what you feel are my allegiances in WP; or whether you think my advice is worthy of "seriously" taking... Doc9871 (talk) 05:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not blocked. Fence-sitters rarely (if ever) get noticed enough to be blocked. If you think feeling safe on the fence is where you want to be, knock yourself out. And honestly, I really don't think when my block is lifted depends on my feelings about your ambivalence - I could be wrong, but I kinda don't think so. Oh, and your "allegiances" are most definitely not the "focus" of anything in my world, Doc. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: And yes, you did say I was either a "bully" or a hound; you did not say "you are one who hangs with the bullies". Anywhere, ever, until your "clarification". I commented directly below your comment above concerning Equazcion and myself. I'm sure you meant me when referring to "...part of the crime and celebrity article bully-crew." Where does that say "you are one who hangs with the bullies"? You never said that originally, did you? Doc9871 (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In the circles I am involved in, "crew" indicates one who hangs with and supports. I can see I wasn't plain enough, but when I said "crew", that's what I meant. You aren't the only one in the "crew" - I've never seen you as a bully - just one of the bully supporters. Hope that clears things up. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So... instead of being accused of being a "bully", I'm accused of being a "bully supporter". Thanks for clarifying "crew" for me - do you not realize you are still personally attacking me by saying this? Is this clear to you, that you are disparaging me? I am not casting judgement on you on these broad terms, and am trying to help you. Yet I am a "bully supporter". It's a negative label, which is not good; right? Doc9871 (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well...yes, I suppose it is a negative label, but I'm one of those who likes to call them as I see them - negative or otherwise. I suppose I could be wrong, but as of yet, I seen nothing that has shown me anything different. You know, I wondered how long it would take you to invoke NPA. I've started to notice that NPA, CIVIL, and AGF are often the prelude a number of Wikipedians invoke before filing some kind of complaint. Is it a way to establish that those situations exist even when they really don't? And...I'm not "disparaging" you, Doc, I'm just trying to give you some "good faith advice". Take it or leave it - your choice. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't filed any complaints against you, and I don't plan on doing so. You are the master of your own destiny here, and I like to "call them as I see them" as well. I have never been blocked for anything (and I can't see why I would in the future), but you don't have to listen to what I have to say. I recommend when your block expires that you understand that your every edit is under great scrutiny, from both regular editors and administrators alike. Your next block will be longer than the last: do you really want things to keep going this way? My house is in order, SRQ, and another block for you would be unfortunate indeed. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 06:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My house is in order just fine - it just looks different and is in a different neighborhood than yours (and your neighbors...not really my kind of people, thanks) Now...are we done here?... because I've been up since 3am PST, have had a very stressful day in the surgical ward of a local hospital, and will be doing more of the same starting again tomorrow. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We are done. I've never lied when I told you I wish you well, and I really do hope your father is okay. You'll be back soon enough, and less important things can wait. Best... Doc9871 (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally... (from AN/I 03/02/10)

Finally, an administrator who totally gets how I feel and was able to put it completely and succinctly into words. Thank you, BWilkins.

You know, we have lots of editors who are slightly abrasive, and do good work. A lot of them have a lot of friends, and as such, it seems even civility warnings are like water off a duck's back. SRQ is occasionally abrasive, and does good work, but has fewer "friends". Every time she does anything that anyone perceives as even slightly "wrong", the sharks circle until she's pushed into a corner and blows up. Even those who she tries to not interact with will then drop over for a drive-by. All I have to do is read through her talkpage and I become frustrated, so I can only imagine how she feels. This sock accusation has to have just been a peachy end to the day, and the editor who placed it there refuses to explain their actions. Yeah, she's not a perfect interactor, but crikey, if half your day is defending your right to exist... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And from one of the above described, "sharks" who really is just a baby shark and seems to kinda get it now based on BWilkins' words:

I don't like it either that crap like this is put up, or that her talk page is constantly assaulted by childish vandals. Having edited with SRQ for many months, I can surely tell you that I don't want her to be further "punished", ostracized or banned. She does good work, and none of us are perfect by any means, but we have to abide by some pretty imperfect rules as well... Doc9871 (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And from another of the above-described "sharks" who, even after reading what BWilkins said, refuses to get it and never lets a moment pass when there is an oportunity to strike (not to mention seems fixated on only the negative and has completely forgotten about the good...<sigh>) As a result, there are out-and-out-lies contained in his biased monologue (that I can't/won't collaborate with anyone, that I have an "act" that I don't listen to anyone who doesn't "side" with me, yada-yada). Yes...let's make sure we say all the biased, negative untruths about SRQ we can while she is unable to defend herself where said comments are being made (and now cue frenetic "Jaws" the-shark-is-coming at full-speed soundtrack...)

Just as having friends shouldn't excuse incivility, a lack of friends should likewise not make us any more likely to excuse it. SRQ isn't just abrasive, though, and I'm not too crazy about the implication that complaints against her must be due to people not liking her for inconsequential reasons, like some mere lack of diplomacy. I've met users who were far more abrasive in their superficial treatment of others. This is not the problem. It's much more than that. SRQ is non-collaborative, not just in the way she talks to people but in her actions. She doesn't listen to anyone who doesn't side with her, including those who are neutral and seek to mediate one of her many disputes, and she is vindictive. As the offer has been extended to many individuals who were once neutral, uninvolved, fell for SRQ's often-convincing victim act, and doubted her being the cause of these disputes (this included myself up until roughly two months ago), I invite you to pay attention to the pages she edits and try collaborating with her in the future. If this person can be turned into an editor who collaborates well even through disagreements, I will be thankful to whoever facilitates this. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:31, 2 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "refusing to get" anything. Someone merely stating an opinion contrary to mine isn't going to suddenly change my opinion of you -- even if that person had a comparable amount of experience interacting with you as I have, which BWilkins doesn't. As for being biased, criticizing people for their biases only works as far as article writing is concerned. In a discussion about a conflict we've both been involved in, we're both rather biased, and all our comments are in that vein. Finally, the blocking administrator wanted discussion on the block, and I expressed my opinion on it. If my opinion is negative, then my comments at that discussion will be negative. There's no way around that, and nothing wrong with it.

This is a big part of the problem, SRQ. No one who's not on your side can ever possibly have a point, and anyone on your side is unquestionably correct. "Finally an administrator who understands the situation" -- no surprises there; he's on your side. I can always gauge how right or wrong I am in your eyes, SRQ, by the amount of criticism I've given you recently. There's a mathematical relationship of inverse proportion between the two. This is the essence of maintaining an adversarial stance, as opposed to an open-minded one. What would really be impressive is you telling someone who criticized you that they were right about something for once. I'd consider that progress. Actually sticking to the advice of a mediating administrator would similarly be gold. I've not seen this yet.

You can call me a villain all you want for saying negative things about you. Whether the negative things are "untrue" or not is of course a subjective matter. But when the situation calls for it, negative comments can be necessary. You want to state your disagreement, that's fine; but people who say negative things aren't inherently wrong for being big negative meanies. Get over it and perhaps even listen to what those people have to say. You might learn something that could help you avoid this occurrence in the future. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:10, 2 Mar 2010 (UTC)

As seems to be typical for you, E, you know nothing of my interactions with BWilkins over time and are making assumptions based on your lack of knowledge. Why you seem to always think you know all is beyond me. The truth is that BWilkins and I have a WP "relationship" that goes back a while. Pre you and I, as a matter of fact. And seriously, who cares what you see and don't see? As evidenced by most of your long monologues directed at me, you think you see much but really see very little. Anyway, 'nuf said - the rest of the above is just more shark behavior from you and I've got much better things to do than try to converse with short-sighted know-it-all. I'm on my way back to visit my semi-conscious father who's hooked up to 15 IV bags, several tubes, and seemingly endless electrodes. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up your father, SRQ. Would you care to explain how that's relevant? Equazcion ^(talk) 18:46, 2 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Um, Equazcion, don't give someone a hard time about it when their nearest and dearest are in danger.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't seek to give her a hard time about her real-life situation, but I do question the intended use of mentioning it repeatedly here. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:11, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Which, is really quite intriguing, E. You have never had a problem before with telling me what my intentions are, why I say what I say, and what I really meant to say. Now, suddenly you're *asking me* what my intentions are? Considering this is so uncharacteristic of you and your usual dealings with me (for evidence thereof, one only need to look below to today's posts from you) now *I* have to wonder what *your* motives are in asking (and what you are trying to prove). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So in your mind, I usually engage in unfounded characterizations of your intentions, and the fact that I'm now displaying the appropriate behavior is cause for you to be suspicious. I don't see the logic. But feel free to answer the question if/when you're ready. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:06, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is still as follows. While I personally don't mind being called names and labelled (and I do not reciprocate them), other editors certainly might; and that's a problem, right? If it's not "middle school" to call someone a "short-sighted know-it-all", perhaps a "doody-head" is more appropriate, less offensive? Why names and labels have to be thrown around at all is beyond me, and it helps nothing. It causes discord, and if it doesn't stop, what happens? Do we know what happens? I don't want to see it, because it can't be good. And it's avoidable... Doc9871 (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: In case you haven't been watching the Ted Bundy article recently, SRQ, the "American Methodist" category has been attempted to be removed several times, and the article has been indefinitely blocked from IP's as a result; and this has all been remedied by none other than WHL. Why? Because she thinks it should be there? No. Because you raised an issue with its deletion before you were blocked, and it's only fair to wait until you can further participate in the discussion that has not been closed. What more can be asked to show good faith to the project? She (or I, as you know I don't want it there) could have deleted it, or let it be deleted the second you got blocked (like an editor shortly tried to do). Then, we would truly be "bullies" and "bully supporters"; and that would be unacceptable. Rather, the issue is preserved until the discussion can continue when you return. This is what's fair, and that's how it should be... Doc9871 (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There are all kinds of things that cause "discord" in Wikipedia. One of those things are comments like this from the Bundy talk page two days ago: "As much as I hate backing her up, this editor seemed..." Gee...isn't the person who made that comment the same person you are trying to convince me is now working *with* me harmoniously at that article? Isn't she the same person you claimed at AN/I "has observed her own admonition not to engage SRQ"? Give me a break. The degree to which those of you in the bully-crew will obfuscate the truth about bad behavior perpetuated and enabled by you all is amazing. I've often wondered if it's done on purpose or you are just in denial (or is it both?) Sure, "she could have deleted it", but if you think that I'm going to believe she didn't because she's suddenly working toward collegial editing between the two of us...nun-uh. I think she has her own reasons but none of them have anything to do with being fair and not causing discord for the good of the article and the project as a whole. Sorry, but considering her WP history apart from being a prolific editor, - I don't buy it. Especially since it was all coupled with the comment she made about me, "As much as I hate backing her up". Nothing's changed with her, Doc. Try to sell it to someone else. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if she's specifically trying to be collegial with you or not. She evidently has the article's best interests in mind and is willing to follow any suggestion that objectively aids that goal, no matter who made it. That's a good thing. We don't expect everyone to like each other here; just to maintain objectivity in editing, and not base editing decisions on personal opinions of other editors. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:03, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

It may not be the point you think is important, but that point obviously matters to Doc - since it was pretty much his whole point - and that was the point I was addressing. And it obviously matters to others (Lar and Beyond My Ken specifically); that I am now viewed as someone who can't edit collegially is a point that has been made before. Why is it that *I* am called out and seen as a non-collegial editor, but the other editor isn't? Further, sShe evidently *doesn't* have the article's best interests in mind - if she did, she wouldn't have made the snide comment she did about me. If she had the article's best interests in mind - rather than her own agenda - she would have left the back-handed comment out. You (and others) chastise me for making comments in defense of myself, but completely bypass the nasty comment the other editor made as if it is acceptable. You see...it's double-standards like these that ruin Wikipedia for many who come here - it's what makes people who would have been good editors go away and never return. In the end, if that double-standard isn't addressed and dealt with appropriately and in a timely manner, all that will be left here are the heavy-handed selfish bullies, their enablers, and those who were too afraid to speak up when it would have mattered. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The article's best interests don't lie in how nice she was to you in the talk page comment where she stated her opinion on what should happen to the article. It's in the end editing decision she made in that comment. She stated more or less that despite her opinion of your general behavior, she agrees with this particular suggestion. It may be necessary to state that caveat sometimes. If an editor is seen by many on a talk page to generally make bad decisions, perhaps even to the point of being untrusted, someone who agrees with him or her in a particular scenario might need to point out that they join everyone else in recognizing his or her bad behavior, but nevertheless thinks they have a point in this particular matter.

I've been on the receiving end of this before and sort of see it as a compliment. If someone who doesn't like me nevertheless must acknowledge that my point is a good one, I feel all the smarter. She could've perhaps stated this in a more tiptoey way, like, "I can't say I support most of this editor's decisions, but in this case I think she's made a good suggestion." To say instead that "I hate to back her up, but..." is slightly more ambiguous and prone to a bad-faith assumption, but not exactly uncivil. You take "I hate to back her up" as "I don't like her", but to assume good faith would mean assuming a different translation, such as the alternate wording I offered. You may have good reason to think she doesn't like you, but again, editors aren't required to like each other; they're just not supposed to say they don't like each other; and "I hate to back her up" isn't necessarily such a statement. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:39, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

FYI: my baloney meter just peaked. All she had to do was say, "this editor seemed to indicate she had no issues with the category and stated that there was no consensus to remove the category and I agree." She instead chose to lash out at me again. She didn't say, "while she and I don't usually agree..." or "this may seem unusual that she and I agree here...". No, she chose to say "I hate backing her up". That doesn't say, "I'm trying to make things better" and it wasn't "ambiguous" in the least. It was very, very clear (well, it's clear to those who refuse to enable and excuse bullies). She is the one who is choosing to continue this war (and don't try to tell me that because she hasn't been obviously fighting it, that she isn't still waging that war from behind the scenes). What's more, you and some others are enabling her to do it - what you wrote above only proves it. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

While her opening comment might not have been the most "diplomatic", I firmly believe if she had offered you a virtual bouquet of roses you wouldn't look at it without suspicion. What in your mind will make her beyond reproach? Nothing, right? You seem to want to have been the judge, jury, and (hopeful) executioner of this editor, with wholly incomplete and half-baked evidence. Blaming your WP problems and repeated blocks on this editor (or any others) is hardly serving you well, and it's ridiculous already. "Behind the scenes?" Based on what? Come on now... Doc9871 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"While her opening comment might not have been the most "diplomatic"," Wow - talk about understatement (and more blatant denial and enabling). Her "opening comment" wasn't an aside, it completely defined and demonstrated her attitude ("hate" is a very strong word, you know). "I firmly believe if she had offered you a virtual bouquet of roses you wouldn't look at it without suspicion." Thanks for finally proving definitively that all of your words of kindness and caring in my direction really have been just pretense. Oh, and in response to your comment here - obviously you don't know me at all. "What in your mind will make her beyond reproach?" Well...let's see - she lied for a couple of years while socking as someone else (there's still no decision on the "evidence" she provided that she wasn't LVL, right?), she then created more socks after being blocked for socking, she sent me anonymous, harassing, and disturbing emails to my personal email address after admitting she had searched for my email address on the web, she harassed me with a sock at my talk page, and she then lied some more about all of the above. So, in answer to your question - I don't have any respect for liars and harassers. Now, that doesn't mean I don't think she couldn't redeem herself - I believe she can. But what will it take for her to redeem herself with me? Confession and honesty about what she has done (and still continues to do), and an obvious change of heart. " You seem to want to have been the judge, jury, and (hopeful) executioner of this editor" Nope, nope, and nope. Wrong again. "with wholly incomplete and half-baked evidence" LOL. Sure - whatever you say. Denial is *still* not just a river in Egypt, ya know. "Blaming your WP problems and repeated blocks on this editor (or any others) is hardly serving you well" Wow. Talk about "half-baked"...when have I ever said that? "and it's ridiculous already" The only thing I see here as "ridiculous" is those (such as yourself) who continue to defend her in light of some very hearty evidence that shows she's not defendable. ""Behind the scenes?" Based on what?" Observation. Oh, and my gut instincts. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

WHL's possible past violations against you have nothing to do with this. When I said at ANI that you play the victim well, this is what I was referring to. No one bullied you into doing what you were just blocked for. You can bring up the past whenever you're blamed for something as much as you want, but it doesn't change anything. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:52, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Cue to Equazcion missing the gist once again...Doc asked me questions, and I answered them. Point by point. I never once said or implied that WHL's infractions have anything to do with "this". Either start reading what's being written and/or stop spinning what I say and inserting your own interpretation of why I say it. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I did read Doc's question, and it had nothing to do with reiterating the past. He asked you (and perhaps rhetorically) if there was anything WHL could possibly do that would be beyond reproach in your mind. You regurgitated the irrelevant blow-by-blow of the past, as he puts it, of your own volition. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:17, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Now you're telling me how I should have read and answered questions directed to *me* (and not you)? Wow. Just...wow. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Again you weren't bullied into the behavior that got you blocked. There's no reason to keep regurgitating the sequence of events this way. It wasn't relevant to Doc's question, so you seem to be implying that WHL's possible past infractions somehow are relevant and perhaps even excuse your own bad behavior afterwards. "Wow, just wow", indeed. And yes, I'm criticizing your mode of communicating, and suggesting that it's not constructive. You can "wow" that all you want. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:31, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I think the "blow-by-blow" argument regurgitation and comment style isn't working, yes? If one simple statement I made makes you think "all of your words of kindness and caring in my direction really have been just pretense"... Yikes. I'm "ridiculous"? Assume good faith, SRQ. It's a guideline that I try my best to abide by. If you think I'm going to insult you back in return, you're going to be disappointedly waiting for nothing... Doc9871 (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"All things being equal" (more from AN/I 03/02/10)

From Beyond My Ken in response to BWilkins:

All things being equal, an uncollegial editor is bound to have fewer "friends" than a collegial one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Last time I looked, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a online social networking website. I didn't come here to make friends, I came here to help edit an encyclopedia. Camelbinky is right - Wikipedia has become a haven for the emotionally immature who operate at about the level of a middle-schooler. IMO, it is the middle-school mindset too many editors (and even some administrators) have that is ruining the project from the inside-out - *not* good editors who speak plainly, aren't interested in acting like a 7th-grader, and are starting to realize that when targeted by the bullies and their "friends", editing peacefully in Wikipedia may never be possible ever again. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's somewhat true. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I've even talked it over with fellow and former Wikipedians. I've come to the conclusion that perhaps we should be making friends, in the sense that we treat each other with far too much disrespect on account of what you are saying. In other words, we should be more friendly and accommodating. We're never going to get rid of cliques or bullies and the power-mongers. That's basic human nature. We wouldn't be human if those things didn't exist. But, I think there is room for more cooperation and alternative means of resolving disputes. We're always going to have disputes, but if both parties will simply acknowledge their strengths and weaknesses towards each other, we can meet on middle ground. Since you appear interested in improving emotional and social intelligence skills on Wikipedia, how about trying your hands at an essay/guideline focused on the problem? Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I will give it some thought. Right now, my personal life is somewhat topsy-turvy and I'm busy going to school full-time as well as working - maybe during spring-break. We;'ll see. It's a good idea, though, and one I hadn't previously considered. Thanks, Viriditas. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure everything will work out for you. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

More from AN/I (03/03/10)

"This block seems reasonable, While I have never interacted with SRQ, I have observed her interactions with others, and she strikes me as a drama queen. That wouldn't be a problem if she could get along with others, but that does not seem to be the case. RadManCF (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)"

"A drama queen"? Nice. Real nice. And guess what, RadManCF, you strike *me* as a...

...oh, wait. If I express myself in the same fashion that RMCF did and call *him* names, I will get an extension on my block, won't I...? Yeah - *that's* fair.

But, the more I think about it, I *am* a professional actor, so I guess the classification fits (just not in the same way RMCF intended it) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

All things being equal (continued)

Hi! You must be new here. There are several uncollegiate editors who have survived multiple ArbComs and ANI reports precisely because they have enough friends to clog up the system. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep. And some of those kind of "friends"(and the forementioned uncollegiate editors) are reading this right now (and the sudden email onslaught is threatening to clog up their ISPs... ;-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I said "All things being equal", meaning that given two editors who are otherwise the same, except one being collegial and the other uncollegial, the former is likely to have more "friends" than the latter. The point being that bringing up SRQ's relative lack of "friends" as an argument for mitigation of her behavior doesn't really make much sense, since to some extent it's a natural result of her behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but things are never equal, so that argument doesn't hold. Lack of friends isn't a "mitigation," but it's a reason why she's getting called out while others get by with disruptive behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct again Hand. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No argument from me that things are never "equal", or that some very uncollegial editors consistently get away with a lot of stuff, despite the furor they create. Regarding Bwilkins' comment above, if it was meant as merely an explanation of SRQ's behavior, I can accept the analysis as valid, however it appeared to me to be an argument meant to mitigate that behavior, and that I do not agree with -- to explain is not, after all, to excuse.

In any case, it seems to me that SRQ doesn't really have "friends" as such, instead she creates allies and enemies, a result of her continuing battlefield mentality, and she shifts people from one category to the other depending on how she perceives their willingness to support her without reservation. This kind of behavior is antithetical to what is supposed to be a collegial enterprise, and I'm afraid it appears to be basic to her character as expressed here, and not apt to change without some intervention more convincing than a short block. Certainly there is no indication in her current talk page comments that she realizes there is a need to try to change her behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"...she shifts people from one category to the other depending on how she perceives their willingness to support her without reservation". Not. I'm a very consistent person and have never been someone to shift my relationships depending on the weather. "Basic to [my] character"? What in the world could you possibly know about my character? A person's character isn't defined by 1-dimensional words written on a computer screen. Character is defined by the whole person - you know nothing of my character because you know nothing about me. You seem to be spouting a lot here about someone you don't even know and have never had so much as one interaction with. My hope is that you would retract such an erroneous statement. "Certainly there is no indication in her current talk page comments that she realizes there is a need to try to change her behavior." And what, exactly, are you expecting me to do here? Admit I was wrong when I know I wasn't? Sorry - but telling someone who continually acts very immaturely and cries "uncivil!" at every turn to grow up is not wrong, IMO. Telling that same person they need to be honest when they have on numerous occasions been completely dishonest in disparaging comments and have then *refused* to either retract or apologize for those statements is not wrong, either, IMO. Enabling that behavior and giving them the unspoken message that their behavior is okay by not saying anything to them is what would be wrong. Being honest (even if it might hurt at the time) is a kindness - lying and allowing someone to think they're A-OK is not. So, exactly what would you like me to do, BMK? Lie and say, "I was wrong" when I know I wasn't? Grovel in order to make all of you calling for my scalp more comfortable? Not gonna happen. Furthermore, if I decide anything in my behavior needs to change, I won't be announcing it to the world - I will take care of it myself and make my own resolve in private. This isn't prison and you aren't part of a parole board, after all - it's just Wikipedia. And in the global and eternal scheme of things on the scale of importance...that's nothing at all. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Duration

Sarek of Vulcan's purpose in bringing this block here was to determine if it was appropriate, and if the duration was correct. Clearly, from the comments made here, the collective opinion is that it was an appropriate block, but there's been less discussion of whether it was the right duration. Blocks are meant to be preventitive, not punitive, so it would be reasonable to look in the present demeanor of SkagitRiverQueen for some indication that once the block runs out she will not return to the same pattern of editing that Sarek spoke of – it's been several days now, enough time for SRQ to have calmed down from the immediate reaction to being blocked, and to have reflected on what brought about the block in the first place.

Unfortunately, the available evidence seems to indicate that SRQ has little insight into what she did to be blocked, and has no intention of changing her ways. In this latest comment on her talk page, for instance, she forcefully states that she did nothing wrong, that her comments were justified and fitting, and shows that she clearly intends to continue doing exactly what she's done before. "Being honest," she says, "(even if it might hurt at the time) is a kindness" which apparently, in her mind, justifies not following basic policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

Honesty is, of course, a laudable trait, but if it's wielded without the judgment to know when to be honest and to who, when to dissemble a bit to smooth things over, and when to just say nothing at all, it's counterproductive to the smooth running of a civil community. It doesn't seem to me that SRQ has that kind of judgment, and I think it would be a mistake to allow her to ride out her block and simply start up again. Perhaps a longer block would giver her more time to reflect and come to an understanding of how saying nothing, some "white lies", and a sense for when to stop can be the lubrication that makes collegiality possible, or, if folks are uneasy about extending the block, at the very least some sort of civility parole should be imposed, to help her reign in her (apparently) uncontrollable honesty. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• "the collective opinion is that it was an appropriate block" Is it? *Is* that the "collective opinion"?

• "Blocks are meant to be preventitive, not punitive, so it would be reasonable to look in the present demeanor of SkagitRiverQueen for some indication that once the block runs out she will not return to the same pattern of editing that Sarek spoke of" If blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive, then why do your comments say "more punishment until gives us what wee want"?

• "it's been several days now, enough time for SRQ to have calmed down from the immediate reaction to being blocked" Sorry to disappoint you, but I was never *not* calm about this block.

• "and to have reflected on what brought about the block in the first place. Unfortunately, the available evidence seems to indicate that SRQ has little insight into what she did to be blocked" Oh, I have plenty of insight about all of this, just because my insight may not be the same as your insight (or anyone else's, for that matter) doesn't mean I have none, ya know.

• "and has no intention of changing her ways." Let me state once again (as I did above earlier this evening), my resolve to change my "ways" is between me and whomever *I* choose. I am not going to make that public. There's no reason I have to. If you have a problem with that and if that causes you and others to support a longer block, so be it.

• "and shows that she clearly intends to continue doing exactly what she's done before." You might want to clean that crystal ball you have with Windex. The info it seems to be giving you is fuzzy.

• "she forcefully states that she did nothing wrong" That's correct, I did say that. I stand behind that statement. Moreover, in comparison with what has been said to me and what I have had to endure in the past from editors and administrator editors alike, what I stated to Crohnie was the equivalent of saying, "have a nice day". The double-standard in Wikipedia is glaring - and that double-standard needs to go away. I will continue to say this and stand behind that fact until it changes. If that means I have to stay blocked from now to eternity because I believe I did nothing to warrant this block or will continue to be blocked *due to* the glaring double-standard that exists in WP, so be it. Everytime I am blocked for doing nothing more than what others do, have done, and will continue to do but never get blocked, WP and its administrators who allow this inequity to continue are only weakening the project's standards further.

• "Honesty is, of course, a laudable trait," Unless, of couse, someone who is not one of the golden Wikipedia editors who can seemingly do what they want, when they want is the one being honest. Then, the one being laudably honest gets blocked (and frequently ridiculed and abused).

• "but if it's wielded without the judgment to know when to be honest and to who, when to dissemble a bit to smooth things over, and when to just say nothing at all, it's counterproductive to the smooth running of a civil community." Somehow, this just seems to be saying to me, "don't be honest if you think you will get in trouble for it" I hope that isn't what Beyond My Ken meant, but it seems like it to me.

• "I think it would be a mistake to allow her to ride out her block and simply start up again." Then I guess you will have to keep me blocked indefinitely, because how can you possibly control when I'm going to say something you (or anyone else) isn't going to like? How can you do that with anyone? How can you possibly know what anyone is going to do or say at any given time? Where's the good faith and community trust that's supposed to be in full-force in Wikipedia? (and that's kind of a rhetorical question, because honestly, other than from two editors who come immediately to mind, I don't think I've ever really seen either exercised in WP in the last 3+ years I've been here)

"Being honest," she says, "(even if it might hurt at the time) is a kindness" which apparently, in her mind, justifies not following basic policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA" Well, now...that depends on what yardstick you are using to measure civility and personal attacks, doesn't it? (and here we go with more of the double-standard - because apparently, what is clearly uncivil and attacking behavior for one person, isn't for another). Oh, and BTW - I'm not trying to "justify" anything - justification indicates I am making excuses for intentionally do something wrong.

"Perhaps a longer block would giver her more time to reflect and come to an understanding of how saying nothing, some "white lies", and a sense for when to stop can be the lubrication that makes collegiality possible, or, if folks are uneasy about extending the block, at the very least some sort of civility parole should be imposed, to help her reign in her (apparently) uncontrollable honesty." Or maybe y'all could just take some of that good faith many of you like to dole out discriminatorially and actually use it like it was intended to be used - with *all* Wikipedians.

--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

":SRQ confirms her sense of self-righteousness and victimization previously expressed views in her deconstruction of the above comment, and continues to give no indication that she plans on changing the way she edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)"

"Taking my own advice and striking words which may have been poorly chosen or too blunt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)"

Personal attack! Incivility! Let's just string Beyond My Ken up and then get an admin to impose a block because of these perceived infractions, shall we? Then after blocking, we'll start a discussion about him at AN/I where he won't be allowed to actually defend himself. We'll give him all kinds of "advice" that's laced with insults and personal attacks because that's what non-admins who float by AN/I like to do (I think it kinda makes their day and helps them to feel somewhat superior, in fact). It doesn't matter that he struck out the personal attack laden with incivility because as a veteran editor, he should have "known better"...

...oh, wait...Beyond My Ken *isn't* a veteran editor. No, in fact, while BMK talks and behaves like a veteran editor, according to his talk page history he has only been in WP since early December 2009. Can that be correct...? Hmmm...interesting (and somewhat suspicious, IMO) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Her statement that she "was never not calm about this block" strikes me as particularly worrisome.RadManCF (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)"

Really? And why would it be worrisome? Are you a mind-reader, RadMan? Someone who is able to channel my very thoughts and emotions? You have a special ability to know exactly what someone is thinking and feeling regardless of what they tell you they are actually thinking and feeling? Or possibly you believe words on a computer screen *really do* convey thoughts, feelings, emotions and are an actual "calm/not calm" meter. Can you please explain in detail exactly how you came to this conclusion that I was *not* calm? Provide some diffs to back up your claim, perhaps? Frankly, *I* find it "worrisome" RadMan believes he can measure people's emotions by what he reads on a computer screen and then pronounce his judgement on a person based on what he read. Or would saying someone is not calm when that someone maintains they *were* calm be a personal attack? Hmmm... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"To answer the question presented by this thread, I would argue that the block was not long enough. Two weeks (at least) would have been better. RadManCF (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)"

More Wiki-wisdom from the mind-reading/judgemental/burn-em-at-the-stake RadMan. Yes, let's be certain that WP admins start imposing two-week blocks for alleged civility violations (I say "alleged", because there was more than one editor - including an admin - who questioned whether or not I should have been blocked to begin with). Let's be sure civility violation blocks last longer than, say...the blocks some editors get when they are caught being sockmasters (more than once, I might add) - those blocks only last a week. Indeed, using a long-term sock for over two years and then creating more socks during the block period is certainly *less* of an offense than telling someone to "grow up and be honest", dontcha think? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Mind reading

You accuse people on a fairly regular basis of reading your mind, and I just wanted to address that quickly. One of the things people need to do when dealing with editor behavior is assess their intent. You can call it mind reading, and in a sense I suppose a case could be made that that's what it is. It's nevertheless a necessary step, and pretty standard in such situations. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:40, 4 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I understand you need to tell yourself all that, E. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

IP Autoblock

Huh, don't know why the autoblock decided to work that way. In any case, it should be lifted, and you should be able to edit now. It wasn't anything I decided to impose...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Hi. I like the work you do around here, but returning from your block (whether valid or not) and getting right back into the thick of things is not good. I recommend taking loads of articles and user pages off your watchlist and working on other things. There's a lot to do around here, so I'm sure you can find something to occupy your time. I'm offering this advice because I really don't want to see you blocked again, and you're heading down that dark path. Please consider what I'm saying. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would be specific. Exactly what have I done so far that is "heading down that dark path"? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling people liars without evidence, perhaps? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The evidence says otherwise. Besides, she has called me a liar on several occations *without any* evidence, Sarek. She was never called on it. Why am I being called on it when I *have* evidence? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't have evidence. You're claiming that two obviously-different photos are the same, and you have no evidence that the other one is a promotional glossy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

She claims she took the photo - I don't believe her. And frankly, there's nothing that says I have to believe her - or say I believe her - when I don't. Moreover, the "evidence" *you* see may say one thing, the "evidence" I see says otherwise. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Diff for reviewing admin. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|Are you talking about the comment I made to Crohnie? If saying "do you realize you might be libeling me" is considered a legal threat in WP, I wasn't aware of it. That certainly was not my intent. If that's what you are referring to, I have no problem striking that from my comment. I had no intention of making a legal threat, nor did I realize at the time I said it that it was considered a legal threat. My apologies. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)}}

Can't

Can't strikeout - my IP is still blocked. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not anymore. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)