User talk:Throwaway85/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Throwaway85, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Falcon8765 (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Previous contributions

It's obvious from your contribution history (and your username perhaps as well) that you have been on Wikipedia before using this account. For transparency purposes, and to avoid the possibility of WP:SOCK issues, please clarify how you contributed previously. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 20:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

-Wikipedia is a rather poorly kept secret. I've been using it for years. Never felt the need to sign up until I saw the PIRA talk page.-Throwaway85 (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Your username made me wonder and your first contribution in the Mediation section didn't sound like someone's first contribution. However it's only a WP:SOCK problem if you're using more than one account, or contributing anonymously and with an account. If you've now switched from anon editing to this account, that's totally fine. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 07:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Never even anon editted (don't like broadcasting my IP). I'm just familiar with wikipedia and its clones. Also, I'd have to be an idiot to name my sockpuppet "throwaway". I just couldn't think of a name. -Throwaway85 (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Rd232 ^talk 08:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I am digging your contributions

Nice work on the PIRA lede rewriting. Lot 49a^talk 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. It's nice to be getting something done, now that the animosity has died down. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Troll-spray

You're approaching dangerous territory at Cromwellian Trollquest's page. I'd advise staying FAR away from his ethnicity, or anything he could use to put together a WP:OUTING complaint. Otherwise, whatever. Someone has to beat them back under the bridge, right? --King Öomie 02:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't really planned on taking it much further, just teasing him a bit. Trolls like him are so obvious that nobody really takes them seriously, and aside from some minor annoyance, can't really do much of consequence. From his previous comments, I would assume he is white, and a fairly classless sort, thus probably prone to racism. It was for that reason that I suggested he might be Pakistani, simply to rile him up. Anyways, appreciate the advice. Happy trails. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work chaps. btw I'm of mixed race (English / Jamaican) although I was born in England, and am 100% Loyal - but nice assumptions anyway. As for this bit "I would assume he is white, and a fairly classless sort, thus probably prone to racism" - you should be ashamed of yourself.

My sole intention of coming onto Wiki was to get a discussion going on deaths/injuries caused by the PIRA, which I've done with some success. The fact that i've managed to wind up a bunch of PIRA supporting scumbags, and a couple of middle class tossers like you two just makes the job a bit more enjoyable. Have fun Cromwellian Conquest (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not helpful. It's Cromwell's message, you shouldn't edit it. Rd232 ^talk 12:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Even his final message was an attempt to inflame. My edit was an attempt to mitigate that. Still, I concede the point. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the old "I was TRYING to get blocked". The final defense of a defeated troll trying to get the last word in. --King Öomie 20:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, maybe this wasn't all bad. I certainly learned an important lesson. Trying to maintain NPOV at an article on a violent group (or opposing an editor trying to POV-push it ANYWHERE on wiki) makes you pro-terrorist. In fact, if I'd placed a template warning on his page, PIRA probably would have tried to recruit me!

No, but seriously, I wish we could deal so concisely with ALL the trolls. Our policies tying into AGF makes them SO WEAK. "What's that? I can vandalize three times a month and not be blocked as long as I don't trip the Final Warning?" Ugh. --King Öomie 13:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiadminning is notoriously bad, present company excluded, of course. This has to be the only site where admins really can't do much of anything. Admins on other sites would have started swinging the b&hammer ages ago, long before it got out of hand. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BITE and WP:AGF are excellent; unfortunately, trolls who read up on them can abuse the CRAP out of them, and it can be hard to assert WP:GAME-ing in an AGF way. --King Öomie 20:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Kind of what I'm getting at. The admins are really hamstrung by policy, as opposed to being given the ability to make an executive decision. I can see why this is, and how the alternative probably wouldn't work, but it still makes trolling and wikilawyering much easier. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I had no good faith towards that sectarian bigot as it had spewed the same bile as an IP before creating a username. BigDunc 20:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, his welcome was worn down quickly. Let's stop discussing him, though. Who knows, he may still be watching these pages. Revert, Block, Ignore. WP:DFTT. --King Öomie 20:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by throwaway85 (talk • contribs)

You know, I saw your edit, with the "+15" bytecounter, and my first thought was "Hmm, he must have just said 'Agreed.'". --King Öomie 20:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You know you've been on Wikipedia too long when... Throwaway85 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

...you can correctly guess a comment based on its length, AND beat SineBot to the punch by adding {{unsigned}} to it. --King Öomie 21:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sensitivity

Hi,

I just thought I should mention that the phrase you used on the PIRA article discussion page -"to call a spade a spade" - is probably best avoided as these days it can be construed as an ethnic slur, especially when used in a discussion with a person of color. I accept you meant no ethnic or racial slur, I just think you need to be more sensitive. Irvine22 (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

?? I have never heard that referred to as an ethnic slur. If anyone takes offense to it, then by all means I will apologize and redact. In the meantime, I think that the intended, and common, meaning is clear. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I take no offense and I fully accept you meant none. It's just one of those phrases that has become a bit dicey as the years pass. Have a look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_call_a_spade_a_spade Irvine22 (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article you linked to mentions "spade" being considered a slur 80 years ago in America. I'm not going to sift through the English language to find local slurs for every English-speaking country on Earth from the last century. This has nothing to do with me being "insensitive", as you call it. I really just couldn't care less about local anachronisms. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I will attest that in New England, at least, that phrase is still in use, and that article is the first I've heard of 'spade' being a racial epithet. --King Öomie 17:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I will attest that in California, the phrase is better avoided. Irvine22 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's just OVERsensitivity. If people are honestly getting offended by something that SOUNDS like a racial slur that's fallen out of use, they're LOOKING to find something wrong. --King Öomie 19:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I could honestly care less about what phrases are considered politically correct in California. Thankfully, I don't live there. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If people are honestly getting offended, shouldn't we honestly try not to cause them offense? Irvine22 (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WHAT PEOPLE? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The ones King Oomie mentioned, who may be honestly getting offended. Irvine22 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't care. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Irvine is quite obviously looking for problems. This is textbook manufactured concern for an excuse to get on your case. --King Öomie 19:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI report

Er, unfortunate timing - just after I temporarily blocked and topic banned him [1]. Rd232 ^talk 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, sorry. Let's shelve the ANI report for now. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Saved for posterity:

Is User:Irvine22 a disruptive editor?

There has been a long-standing issue with Irvine22, primarily on the PIRA page, but also on others. Irvine22 has been confirmed as a puppetmaster for the purposes of block evasion, refused to acknowledge or apologize for the incident, and then began to implement a series of disruptive, POV edits without discussing the matter on the talk page. His edits have been almost universally reverted, and yet he continues to make them, after being told many times by many editors as well as one admin to raise issues on the talk page first. He shows no sign of ceasing this behaviour, nor will he acknowledge, much less address, any criticism of it. The page's resident admin, User:Rd232, suggested that I raise the matter on the ANI page if it continued, so that is what I am doing now.

Following is a small sampling of Irvine22's more recent edits. Note that I have only selected edits for which there was no consensus, that were later reverted. These also all occurred after his block and subsequent sockpuppetry. They also occurred after he was repeatedly told not to edit the article without first seeking consensus, or at the very least providing an adequate source.

The edits:

[2] This edit was reverted, and a new section started on the talk page. Instead of trying to reach a consensus, he restored the edit with the explanation "per discussion". It was not.

[3]

[4] This POV edit was reverted. Irvine22 restored it. It was reverted again. So he restored it again. It was reverted again and he was told to bring the matter up on the talk page. So he restored it again. And again. And again. Actually a quick glance at the page's history will show you the behaviour he regularly partakes in. I really wish I could link to more, but I simply don't have the time. Rest assured, there are dozens.

Talk page disruption begins here

Irvine22 has also been dismissive of advice and instructions to change his editing habits, as can be seen here, and especially on the PIRA talk page, beginning here.

Note Irvine22's polite yet dismissive tone throughout all of this. He is almost pathologically incapable of acknowledging any wrongdoing on his part, or criticism of his actions. I am not sure if this is a deliberate attempt to game, or the result of some actual personality disorder for which he cannot be fully faulted.

I haven't the time to go digging through his edit history. I really wish I did. I will, however, link to this page on the PIRA talk page and invite further comments from the editors there.

Thank you for your time.

P.S. I apologize if this request is not in the correct category. It crosses several, and I didn't want to pigeonhole it as a 3rr issue, as the problem extends far beyond simple edit warring.

Since the two-stage topic ban is supposed to give Irvine a chance to become a respected member of the community, I'd appreciate it if you didn't refer to him as a "disruptive influence" unless or until further problems arise (particularly, problems suggesting bad faith, which "disruptive" may imply). In the spirit of moving forward, I'd ask you to amend your recent post. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 07:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My only objection to that goes back to calling a spade a spade. It's clear that he was a disruptive influence. Look at how many inappropriate edits he made to the article. Nevertheless, I think the opportunity should be taken now to move forward on substantive issues, rather than debate the past. Consider it changed. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course I dispute that my contributions to the article constitute disruption: you certainly seem to have taken on board my point about on-going PIRA activity, and I agree with your comment on the PIRA talk page to the effect that we need to move forward to address the issue ASAP. Also, see above about the problem with the phrase "to call a spade a spade", these days. Irvine22 (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Insert anachronistic, apparently racist comment here. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 08:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you indefinitely for this edit. Please feel free to submit an {{unblock}} request with an explanation of such. Black Kite 22:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Throwaway85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Seriously? I responded in a joking manner to an editor who had been blocked and was writing on my talk page. I highly doubt that there is any legitimate reason for an indefinite block. This seems pretty ridiculous to me. Especially seeing as it was a joke. On my own talk page. Seriously now, that's just silly. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In view of your comment below, "He makes retards look bad", I doubt that you understand the reason for this block. Continued disruption on this page may cause it to be protected from editing.  Sandstein  07:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

---

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

I have no idea what this unblock request form thing is. I'm going to take this to an admin I'm more familiar with. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The form is working fine - it attacts the attention of administrators that are neutral to your issue. Please do not edit around your block; that would be considered block evasion.

I'm sorry if you're confused or if you felt that your joke was funny. Can you understand that using a racial slur to insult someone you've recently been in a conflict with might possibly be interpreted as a personal attack? I can assure you that, at least in this part of the world, the term is still used, and still has meaning. This seems to have been pointed out to you adequately above, and in a civil manner. Your block is not permanent; merely without a time limit so we can assure your behavior will not be repeated. Do you understand the problem as it has been presented to you? Kuru ^talk 01:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I seriously thought that Irvine22 was simply being obtuse when he brought that up, as he has a storied history of being obtuse. If I had thought it was an actual racial epithet then I would never have used it. Chalk this one up to experience, and to different cultures--I have never heard of that saying or anything like it as being racially insensitive. As an aside, I would like to point out that whatever part of the world you're from, your particular local sayings should not form the basis of wikipedia policy. I can say with a great deal of certainty that the phrase "To call a spade a spade" has no racial overtones whatsoever in the vast majority of the english speaking world. I have heard many rude , offensive, and inventive words for black people, and "spade" has never been one of them. Also, whether you think my joke was funny or not, I should not be banned for making it. Regardless, I have removed the phrase in question. I'll take this incident into consideration when editting in the future. I'd appreciate an unblock now. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur that it is indeed impossible to know every possible insult; once they're pointed out to you, it may be wise to avoid them. As noted, the phase has no connection to the slur; your direct usage of it was the problem. I've contacted the blocking administrator to ask him to review his block. Kuru ^talk 02:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Even "spade" is at best obscure, but whatever. I'll refrain from using it in the future. Also, Irvine22 pointing something out generally doesn't carry much weight or significance. He's frustrating like that. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Kudos on your proper use of the semi-colon btw. It's a pet peeve of mine, and I love to see people use it properly. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Can I also take the opportunity to point out the blatant gaming that's going on here? Irvine22, in his complaint, stated that he had informed me that he was a person of colour. At no point did he do so. Please, people. This guy is an idiot and a detrimental influence upon Wikipedia. For crying out loud, stop listening to him. He makes retards look bad. Yes, I said retard. Sue me. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, now. I wrote: "Hi,I just thought I should mention that the phrase you used on the PIRA article discussion page -"to call a spade a spade" - is probably best avoided as these days it can be construed as an ethnic slur, especially when used in a discussion with a person of color." [5]Irvine22 (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The above does not say that you a "person of color" Irvine, it just makes a general and rather dubious point: "calling a spade a spade" with the occassional side reference to shovels is in common use without any racism involved or implied. Throwaway, the comment you made, however provoked, was unacceptable, I don't think it deserves a permanent ban. However your request for a block review should include a clear apology and an undertaking not to repeat. Oh, and to any reviewing admin, Irvine22 would try the patience of a saint with his disruptive editing. --Snowded ^TALK 05:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been in a content dispute with both you, Snowded, and Throwaway85. You'll notice I have remained calm and polite throughout, even when subjected to a racist personal attack which I have found really quite upsetting. Snowded, in fairness you have also been perfectly polite throughout. Meanwhile, Throwaway85's strategy to be unbanned seems to be to double down on the personal attacks, throwing around words like "idiot" and "retard". Even so, I don't personally favor a permanent ban for Throwaway85 - he has made significant contributions to the PIRA article and I think a lot of his attitude towards me can perhaps be explained by certain feelings of proprietorship over it - surely inappropriate for Wikipedia, but understandable. I would be happy to accept his apology and undertaking not to repeat, and to try to work constructively with him to improve the PIRA article, after however long a block may be decided upon by the admins.Irvine22 (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Irvine22: Shut up. No bones about it, you are continuing to act in the same manner that made everyone angry at you to begin with. You are not a person of colour. You were not personally offended by my remark. You are claiming both simply as an attempt to game the system. It's transparent, and you need to stop. I'm sorry that you managed to find some univolved admin who was not familiar with your behaviour to take your side. That really reflects poorly upon Wikipedia. I bare no ill will towards Black Kite. He simply did his job to the best of his abilities given the knowledge he had at his disposal. Regardless, I will not apologize for anything I've done to call out Irvine22 and his obvious gaming. I will, however, apologize for my use of the term "spade" in a derogatory fashion. It was not meant as a racial epithet, and I apologize to anyone who took offense to it in that regard. Similarly, I pledge to refrain from using it in the future. I will not, however, apologize for any supposed offense Irvine22 took from my comment. He's an idiot and the sooner he's driven away from Wikipedia, the better. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add that in no way does my problem with Irvine22 stem from a dispute over content. As anyone who has edited the PIRA page lately could tell you, I am more than willing to compromise with those who hold differing opinions. My dislike of Irvine22 stems from his disruptiveness and blatant, yet apparently successful, attempts to game the system. Do not be fooled by his claims to the contrary. Should my block not be lifted, let me leave Wikipedia with this one bit of advice: Ban Irvine22. Ban him now, and ban him forever. The community will be better off as a result. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Note from blocking admin

If any other reviewing admin would like to remove or reduce this block, then please feel free to do so without contacting me. I am not going to do this myself, though, as the editor is clearly not being straight here - he was informed of the racist nature of the word in a conversation over a week ago which you can read above (User_talk:Throwaway85#Sensitivity) where he clearly points out that he doesn't care if people are offended by his use of it. Black Kite 07:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You would have to know more of Irvine22's edit history to really judge that. He brought up that point as a way of being argumentative. My "don't care" was not directed at those who would be offended, but rather at Irvine22's pointless argument that I was being offensive. Ask anyone else who has recently dealt with Irvine22 for more clarification. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's make this clear:

I sincerely apologize to anyone who was upset by my use of the term 'spade'. Anyone, that is, except for Irvine22. I did not use it as a racial epithet; I used it as a general insult to get Irvine22 to go away. Once again, sorry to anyone who was offended. Won't do it again. More importantly, I will not acknowledge any supposed offense Irvine22 took to my statement. Put simply, he's lying. He is attempting, and so far succeeding, to game the system. That is all. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I realise that Irvine22 can be a disruptive editor, and since you appear sincere here, I agree with Rd232's unblock. Black Kite 10:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. When might that take effect? Throwaway85 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the unblock, it already has. Sorry, I guess I didn't actually tell you! Rd232 ^talk 16:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I see that the block doesn't expire until tomorrow. That's cool. I could probably use the break. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you getting confused with the dates? The unblock was done this morning [6]. A break may be a good idea though, to get a little distance from the episode. Rd232 ^talk 18:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I get this message whenever I try to edit:

A user of this IP address was blocked by Black Kite for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Throwaway85". The reason given for Throwaway85's block is: "Personal attacks or harassment: [http://en.wiki

This block has been set to expire: 09:31, 5 October 2009.

Also, the conversation over at ANI is starting to irritate me. No, I did not use it as a slur. Yes, I apologize for it. Yes, I will be more thoughtful about my comments in the future. Most importantly, however, NO, Irvine22 did not say he was black, nor was he offended by the term. I highly even doubt that he is black. For the people too lazy to scroll up, here:

If people are honestly getting offended, shouldn't we honestly try not to cause them offense? Irvine22 (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

   WHAT PEOPLE? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

       The ones King Oomie mentioned, who may be honestly getting offended. Irvine22 (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

           Don't care. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You would think that if he were black, or were himself offended, that he would have said "I, for one." He didn't though. He referred to some likely nonexistent people who would view the phrase "to call a spade a spade" to be a racial slur. I think it's equally obvious from that exchange that my "Don't care" comment was not a statement of not caring about people being offended, but rather about me not caring about imaginary people who would be offended by the phrase "to call a spade a spade". Seriously, this need not be anywhere near as big a deal as people are making it out to be. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Mentor?

Hey, dude. Snowded has suggested at the ANI discussion that I might benefit from having a Wikipedia mentor. I tend to agree, and I wondered if you might agree to be my mentor? You have the experience, you're knowledgable in the areas I wish to edit, and I think it would be a true Wikipedian move to put these late personal issues behind us and work together. Also, I really don't disagree at all with your latest comment on the PIRA talk page. How about a test run to see whether we can work together on the narrow issue of PIRA activity since 2005? Sincerely. I don't need an answer right away. Think about it. Maybe sleep on it. Irvine22 (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As a new editor myself, and one who is just starting to become familiar with Wikipedia, I don't think I would the best best choice. Perhaps a more senior editor would be better able to assist you. I will add though, that if you simply listen to--and follow--the advice you've already been given, then you'll be fine. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Block

I have reblocked you, but for two weeks. You were informed that "spade" is a racist term. Your response was that you did not care. This is unacceptable. You may not know every racist term in every part of the world. So what? That is not the issue here. The issue is that another user educated you about a specific term, and you didn't care, and used it anyway. Here is some time off to learn your lesson. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read the discussion before acting. I quite clearly stated, several times in fact, that my comment "Don't care" was directed, not to those who might be offended by calling someone a spade, but rather to the hypothetical people who would be offended by the phrase "To call a spade a spade". I think that that is pretty clear. As to calling Irvine22 a spade, it was said in an offhand manner, not with any racial overtones. It was clearly said to insinuate that Irvine22 is a troll. I have already apologized to anyone who was offended by the statement, which was made without intent to offend. I don't dislike Irvine22 because he skin is (supposedly) black. I dislike him because it's green. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I find the inability to defend myself on the ANI board to be prohibitive. Can you allow me access to that board while the block is reviewed? Throwaway85 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|I believe that the blocking administrator acted in haste and without due consideration. I have already apologized for the incident and pledged not to repeat it. I have also stated quite clearly that no offense was intended. Furthermore, the editor who brought the issue to ANI did so, likely out of revenge for an earlier ANI request I made. Of all of the people who have edited alongside both myself and Irvine22, only BritishWatcher, with whom I have ongoing content disputes, believes that the comment was meant in a derogatory fashion. Everyone else has seen and identified it for the offhand, obscure comment that it was, and has pointed out repeatedly the gaming tendencies of Irvine22. Please read fully my talk page before adjudicating. Rd232, the administrator who has been working alongside Irvine22 and I, already reviewed the case and found there to be no racist intent. He would also be a good person to talk to for more background on the conflict in general.}}

The user has requested an unblock. I find his rationale convincing. Accordingly I am unblocking him, per policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|Per discussion at ANI, no racist intent, matter already dealt with there.}}

--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked you. I think your comments were ill advise, but are not blockable for racist intent. Please watch out for civility. I should also note that I think this matter should have continued to be handled at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, much obliged. If anything, this matter has revealed what a can of worms can be opened by one flippant comment. I will certainly be more conscious of the potential ramifications of my edits in the future. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am temporarily reimposing the block to allow for further discussion at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. I'm a bit confused as to how being blocked facilitates discussion, but I would much prefer a firm decision to this constant cycle of blocking/unblocking. As per above, is it possible for me to edit ANI? I haven't been able to defend myself there, save for one edit after I thought a defense was no longer necessary. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled about it either, see my talk page. I can't think of a way to have you edit there. Edit here as part of a new section and I'll provide a link.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

AN/I Defense

I'm not sure what I can say that hasn't already been said elsewhere on my talk page, but I will summarize as follows:

1. I have already apologized for and redacted the comment that I made, and have pledged to show more consideration in the future.

2. The comment was not intended as a racial epithet, but rather as a way of calling Irvine22 a troll and a disruptive editor. See both cases of my prior usage of the phrase "to call a spade a spade", and note that "spade", in both cases, was referring to a troll and disruptive editor.

3. I did not take Irvine22's assertion that the phrase was offensive seriously, as very little that Irvine22 says deserves to be taken seriously. He has a history of gaming, which this sordid affair is merely the latest chapter of. I took his comments as simply one more instance of him being obtuse and needlessly argumentative. I was happy when he was finally blocked, and dismayed when he turned up on my talk page. That is all there was behind the incident.

4. I highly doubt Irvine22 is even black. He certainly never claimed to be so, and his response to my asking who would be offended by the phrase "to call a spade a spade" was not "me", but some hypothetical person who might read it and get offended at the inclusion of a word that, in totally different contexts, used to be a racial slur. Hence my response of "Don't care": I was not saying that I didn't care about offending anyone, I was saying that I didn't care about his assertion that some hypothetical person might find an ordinary and commonplace saying offensive. Once again, I'm reasonably certain that this entire thing is just an attempt by Irvine22 to game the system and retaliate for the AN/I thread that I made concerning him earlier. This is an analysis that is shared by other editors and admins.

5. My interpretation of WP:WHEEL is that, once my block was overturned, it should not have been reinstated. Hence it currently stands in violation of Wikipedia policy.

6. As for my previous "racist remarks", there was nothing racist whatsoever about my tongue-in-cheek portrayal of Cromwellian Conquest, another banned troll. At no time did I use a slur or insinuate that there was anything wrong with being black or Pakistani. I was simply trying to rile up Cromwellian Conquest, who deserved every bit of it given his vitriolic edits. I have taken the feedback I've received to heart, and will now attempt to ignore trolls and deal with them through the proper channels.

7. I think it's quite telling that of all of the editors I have worked beside lately, including one admin, only BritishWatcher thinks that my remark was intended to be racist. Everyone else, who are far more familiar with the situation than the admin who blocked me or any of the others commenting on the AN/I thread, saw the comment as the flippant remark that it was. BritishWatcher and I have been on opposing sides of an ongoing content debate for some time, a dispute which has at times been heated. I bare him no ill will, however, as I believe he does think his complaints to be legitimate.

8. Note Irvine22's blatant attempts to game the system, clearly identified by Rd232. It is clear that he lied about telling me he was black, and I have a strong suspicion that he lying about that as well.

So far, both times that I have been blocked have been by administrators working from an incomplete picture of what happened. I have still not been able to address the AN/I report, or many of the misrepresentations therein. I do, however, have faith that reason will prevail here as the involved admins gain a fuller understanding of the issue.

Thank you, Throwaway85 (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it very,very unfortunate that pretty much your entire defense against the accusation of levelling a racist personal attack should essentially be another personal attack levelled in racially-charged terms. Let me be clear: I am a proud person of mixed-race and I find it highly insulting that you presume to deny my identity. This, together with your previous racially charged comments, makes me reconsider my resolve to try to work with you in future. Irvine22 (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My "entire defense", as you call it, has nothing to do with a personal attack. You have demonstrated gaming behaviour, and I find your revelation that you are of mixed heritage to be rather convenient, especially seeing as you made no mention of it at a time when it would have made a great deal of sense to do so. Furthermore, you were not offended by the term or the phrase until after I made an AN/I report on you. I could care less about what your ethnicity is. I'm more concerned with your trolling and gaming. As for not working with me in the future, that's the best news I've heard all day. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope somebody's monitoring this. As I was about to point out on AN/I before I was reblocked, I want to take the opportunity to apologize to rd232 for dragging him into this mess. I was simply confused as to why I was indef-blocked, and asked him to look at it because he's the only admin I know, and I hadn't been in this position before. I hardly see how contacting an admin and asking him to review the case constitutes block evasion. Certainly not the kind of block evasion that Irvine22 himself partook in. I want to make this very clear: While everyone's fussing over me, Irvine22, a confirmed disruptive editor, sockpuppeteer, and gamer, is succeeding in making everyone think he's a poor little victim. You simply can't take anything he says at face value, as he continues to demonstrate. I just want to make sure that anyone who reads something he says actually looks into it before believing him. Otherwise, I'm more than happy to let you guys hash things out. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I will now quote in its entirety the ANI post by User:LessHeard vanU as I think it refutes Throwaway's defense, and Throwaway's characterization of my own editorial conduct during our content dispute:

"Hold on, I'm not sure that this matter is closed - I think the unblock was done under a misunderstanding of how the term spade was applied. I have been carefully reviewing the discussion at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army and have determined that Throwaway85 had been interacting only with Irvine22 and BritishWatcher regarding the disputed addition to the article lead, and exclusively with Irvine22 when he made the "spade is a spade" comment. So when Irvine22 came to Throwaway85's talkpage and noted how the terminology might be misconstrued, the obvious inference was that he was speaking about himself or BritishWatcher and most likely about himself. I would also comment that Throwaway85's interactions with Irvine22 in that discussion had been aggressive and confrontational, refusing to discuss the premis of the dispute but instead focussing on Irvine22's sockpuppetry, and purported trolling and POV warring. Other persons in that talkpage discussion did engage over the dispute and bring it to an understanding, but Throwaway85 contributions were only adversarial comments toward Irvine22; it is therefore clear the only party Irvine22 was referring to was himself. Under the circumstances for Throwaway85 to then use the term "spade" (preceded by the adjective "fracking") in an aggressively dismissive comment directed to Irvine22 was to use it in a manner to hurt the sensitivities of the recipient. It remains the gratitious use of a racist epithet to insult another editor. I am disappointed that Throwaway85 was unblocked, over a technical "misunderstanding" fostered by the blocked editor of how the term spade was applied. I do not believe that Throwaway85 used the term in the manner he subsequently claimed he did. I invite others to consider whether in fact that the indef block should be re-applied until such time Throwaway85 apologises to Irvine22 for using a term regarding after being told by that same editor that it is considered racist. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)" Irvine22 (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard's argument has already been refuted, but I will do so again anyways. 1) It was not obvious from Irvine22's post that he was claiming to be a person of colour. 2) There is no rational justification for me to go into the level of analysis that LessHeard did. I ignored the post, for the most part, because I felt is was just Irvine22 being obtuse. 3) Damned straight I focused on Irvine22's trolling, sockpuppetry, disruptive edits, and gaming, and will continue to do so. 4) This: "but Throwaway85 contributions were only adversarial comments toward Irvine22; it is therefore clear the only party Irvine22 was referring to was himself." makes so little sense that I thought I was reading the wrong line. The rest of his post is his opinion, which he is certainly entitled to. I would, however, draw attention to his post on Irvine22's talk page, here, which I do not consider to be appropriate language for an administrator to use in regards to an ongoing AN/I request. Look, LessHeard has his opinions, but many of them are just plain wrong. Everything else has already been addressed. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Irvine, your editorial conduct during our "content dispute" has been well-documented. Once again, stop trying to play the victim. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

People can review the relevant pages and come to their own conclusions about my conduct. But here's my final observation about your conduct, for this evening at least.It seems to me that central to your defense is the claim that that you didn't know I was mixed-race or a person of color, and I hadn't told you so. If that's true, why on earth did you call me a spade? Why not a "troll" or "retard" or any of the other epithets you have garlanded me with these past few days?Irvine22 (talk) 02:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Every other time I used the phrase "to call a spade a spade", it was in reference to your being a troll and a disruptive editor. I chose the term "spade", as opposed to troll, because you took the opportunity, after having already been blocked for being a disruptive editor, to come on my talk page and once again bring up what I thought to be a specious argument regarding "to call a spade a spade" being an insensitive statement. I was angry, and I overreacted. I have already apologized for that. Your ethnicity doesn't matter to me one bit. I honestly couldn't care less. It is your behaviour that I have a problem with. See my comment above: I don't dislike you because your skin is black, I dislike you because it is green. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to take the opportunity to respond, as best I can, to Slrubenstein's latest comments on the AN/I report. Numerous sins against the English language aside (Firefox has a built-in spellchecker. Seriously.), I still feel that his comments are based, not upon a full understanding of the issue and all discussions associated therewith, but rather upon a cursory examination of the AN/I page, which I was unable to contribute to. I simply cannot reconcile many of his statements with the discussion that has occurred on this page. Of course I recognize that using the word "spade" as a racial epithet is inexcusable. The same holds true for the term "bonobo". Is it a recognized slur? No. If it were used in that manner, would it be acceptable? Of course not. Anyone who had taken the time to come here, however, would realize that that was not how I used the term. Similarly, I both understand and have apologized for the offense that Irvine22 took to my comment. That too, is readily apparent from reading this page. I find it distressing that I was blocked by an administrator who apparently took no time to actually investigate the incident in question. My experiences with administrators regarding this issue have been varied, to say the least. Thankfully, there are those who prefer to take an even-handed, well thought-out approach. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

An apology, in the interests of moving forwards.

I've been using my involuntary staycation to do a little reading, and have been perusing the wikipedia policy pages. I recognize some undesirable behaviours listed there that I have been guilty of, and for that I am sorry. I recognize that my calling out of Irvine22 may not have been the most productive way of dealing with his behaviour, and will endeavor to be more civil in the future. Nonetheless, I find myself unsure as to what a better way of dealing with Irvine22 would have been. His behaviour was/is clearly unacceptable, and yet I don't know of a way in which I might have pointed that out without labeling him a disruptive editor. Troll might be a bit too strong, although he has displayed behaviours indicative of a master troll--this current saga being but the latest. Furthermore, he has proven incredibly intransigent in his editing behaviour. I honestly don't know of a better way to have dealt with him, and I'm open to other opinions. In the meantime, Irvine22, I do apologize for my incivility. Recognize, however, that this does not constitute acceptance of your behaviour or acquiescence to this current tribunal, which I still feel to be far more about trying to get revenge than about any supposed offense taken to my comment. I simply want to clear my own conscience and endeavor to improve myself as an editor. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The apology for your incivility is appreciated and accepted. On the question of my supposed intransigence, I would invite any masochist out there who may still be interested in this sorry saga to review the discussion here[[7]] and see who has been intransigent, and who has been trying to compromise and find solutions. Irvine22 (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not with the issue you raised, or your talk page contributions. Rather it is your continued edits to the PIRA page itself that are the problem. This has been pointed out to you many times, but I am willing to let it all go and start fresh if we can both make a commitment to edit in good faith and listen to the feedback we're receiving from our fellow editors. In the meantime, I think that the best thing to do is to try and find a source on recent IRA activity. If we can succeed in that, then there is a good chance that the rest of this debate will be moot. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Irvine22 (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had no luck with academic journals. I think we might be better off trying to find a couple of primary sources, and find some sort of compromise between them. I'll email Sinn Fein, if you want to query the IMC or some other organization. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Pursuant to this, I have emailed Sinn Fein. I am unaware of how any correspondance might be sourced, but at the very least I hope to gain some insight and guidance as to where we might look for further information. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Private correspondence couldn't be sourced, unless Sinn Fein chose to publish it. However they might suggest relevant public sources. Rd232 ^talk 07:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That is my hope also, although both Google searches, as well as queries of academic journals, have so far disappointed. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thinking outside the box here, but if I were to publish it online, would it be admissible? Or would that not be deemed noteworthy enough? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It would depend on the reputation of the source publishing the correspondence (assuming that they'd give permission). The issue would be reliability. Rd232 ^talk 09:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If I were to publish it as an op-ed piece through my university's newspaper, would that be acceptable? I'm presuming proper sourcing, of course. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I'm inclined to doubt it. You could ask at WP:RSN. Rd232 ^talk 09:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Perhaps Sinn Fein will provide me a link to some reliable source that has achieved google invisibility. I'm less than optimistic, however. How would you propose to resolve this matter in the absence of new sources? Should we leave the article as is? Throwaway85 (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what can be done without sources. Remember not every source is online! But it may just be that there are no sources that exist at present to settle the issue. Rd232 ^talk 10:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean there's a world outside the internet? I don't know quite how to respond. Perhaps I will pick up one of those "books" I keep hearing the old-timers talk about. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You emailed Sinn Fein to ask what the IRA is up to these days? I'll be interested in their reply, although I would expect it would be something along the lines that "Sinn Fein doesn't speak for the IRA, you'd have to ask the IRA." Maybe they can give you P O'Neill's email addy?Irvine22 (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt they'll give any sort of official statement. I'm really just hoping for more guidance on where to look. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, as an aside, I'm operating based upon the assumption that the block will soon be lifted. If it isn't, then at what point would it be considered appropriate to write a new unblock template? This particular block has not been appealed, but it is a reinstatement of a prior block, and so I'm somewhat confused. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an unusual situation. If it doesn't become clear today, I suggest you ask the re-blocking admin directly rather than do another unblock template request. Rd232 ^talk 10:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming email is the only avenue available to me in that regard? Throwaway85 (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I've just noticed that the user in question hasn't enabled "email this user", which would be a problem in this situation. However it's moot now. Rd232 ^talk 11:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A request for Rd232

I greatly appreciate your contributions in this matter. However, I feel that I must request that you refrain from further comment. There have been some veiled insinuations of favouritism, and I would hate to see them gain traction. I know how these accusations can follow an administrator, and you don't deserve that drama. You put in a lot of hard work on the PIRA page, and gained a well-deserved reputation for rationality and impartiality. I would hate to see that jeopardized on my account. Some progress has been made in regards to the AN/I report, and I feel capable of handling it from here. Furthermore, if some issue were to arise in the future, I would be dismayed to find that any prior dealings we had would jeopardize its fair and rational resolution. So, for these reasons, I humbly ask that you refrain from further comment on this case. You are too good an administrator to have your impartiality prejudiced by these goings-on. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK. If I keep repeating myself it's because people keep ignoring or misinterpreting what I say. Rd232 ^talk 09:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Part of the reason I've made the efforts I have in this incident is that racism is a terrible thing, either to do or to be accused of, and I really think this was not the case here. Rd232 ^talk 09:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A terrible thing to do and a terrible thing to be accused of. It's also a terrible thing to be the recipient of.Irvine22 (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I simply feel that the discussion is at the point where I no longer need defense from another administrator, and that any continued involvement on your part could be wrongly construed as favouritism. Needless to say, I'm generally in agreement with what you've said. I just don't want the issue to become larger than it already has. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've spent far more time on this than I would like anyway. Rd232 ^talk 09:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

One sympathizes. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

concerning my block

I see that you are involved in a conflict with another user that has you very frustrated. This happens to al of us and I wish I could give you effective advice about ho to deal with that situation, but I can't, really. I want to make it clear that my blocking you had nothing to do with that conflict per se. I can even be sympathetic about mild personl attacks when things get frustrated (a voluntary cool-down period is usually a good idea at that point, but like i said, I do not mean to invlove myself in the specifics of anhy conflict you have with another user). The only reason I blocked you was (1) you directed a racist term to someone and (2) I read a lot of excuses, none in my book acceptable, to try to justify or rationalize using the term. Not knowing that the word is racist is a valid explanation (except, it is a little hard for me to understand why someone would call another person a spade if they did not know that it isa racist term ... if would be like my calling someone a marmoset, it sounds uttely arbitrary). My reading of the discusion is that you did not know, were then informed, and then nevertheless directed the word against someone. The only objective of my block is to give you time to reflect on this. My issue is not with the personal attack. It is with the use of a racist term. You may end up in other edit conflicts or conflicts with editors you consider obstinate or even disruptive, and you may then loose your cool, and make a personal attack. Okay, that is wrong, but most people do it sooner or later, and it may happen to you again. I just do not ant you (or anyone) to use racist terms. No matter how much we loose our cool, there is no excuse for racism. If you understand that, then I do not object to an unblock.

This is why: a racist term is not just an attack against one user, it is an attack against all members of that race as well as a disgusting display to anyone - regardless of race - who opposes racism. I really am asking you to separate this issue from your conflict with the other editor. I am asking you to consider this isue apart from the simple matter of personal attacks (i.e. an attack against one person). When one uses a racial epithet, one may believe one is hurting one specific individual, but the injury is actually against all other people of that race. I appreciate a lot of the above discussion. I need to read through it again more closely. I know you are sincerely trying to move beyond your dispute with one single editor, but I am alking about racism, not a dispute with one person. And I am not looking for a lengthy mea culpa. If you undefrstand that, upon being informed that a tem is racist, you won't use it at Wikipedia, that is enough for me. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice in regards to future conflicts. I feel I must reiterate, however, that the rest of your advice seems to be predicated upon a woefully inadequate understanding of the issue at hand. I once claimed that I did not know it was a racial slur (edit: in modern usage), and that was when I was still under the impression that Irvine22 was bringing that point up for the sole sake of being argumentative. I believe that I have adequately explained what other factors led to my using that term. I would simply request that you review all of the relevant conversation before offering advice, however well-intentioned, that does not appear to be relevant. I understand that racism is a touchy issue for you, and that my prior flippant treatment of Irvine22's claim could cause distress amongst those similarly disposed. That does not, however, negate the last two days of discussion that have taken place here. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking comments

I've unblocked you, for the following reasons:

1. Blocks are not to be punitive. 2. I strongly feel that the reblocking admin should not have blocked you without seeking consultation from the community and consensus, per WP:WW. It was precisely to avoid being accused of violating that policy that I undid my initial unblock and went to pains to seek community input, which unfortunately led to little fresh perspectives. 3. I see no likelihood that the situation will recur with this editor, regardless of the connotations of what he said. Thus, there is no harm to the community by allowing the unblock, and the editor is an established and valued contributor.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost afraid to say thanks. Last time, my block hadn't even expired before it was reinstated. I do appreciate it, however. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm curious here. When I try to edit it says that I have been blocked by black kite, and that my block will expire some time tomorrow. Is this normal? Throwaway85 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything I have shows you as unblocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found two autoblocks against your IPs by BlackKite and undid them. You should be OK to edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I was wondering why the previous unblocks didn't work. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked you because of this, which came after you were informed that "spade" (just spade, not the phrase, "calling a spade a spade) is (emphasis on is) a racial slur. I found your response to Kuru defensive. "Spade" as a racial epithet is neither anachronistic nor obscure. I grant that anyone might not know that it is a racial slur which is why it is appropriate to inform one that it is before taking offense, and that is exactly what happened in your case - you used it after being informed. You can call ita joke, but it is not a joking matter. You can say it is on "your" talk page, but it is still wikispace. I have no intention of re-blocking you, but I am still disturbed by your defensive responde to Kuru which to me signlas a lack of either seriousness or understanding. An appropriate response was "I was attempting to make a joke but realize now that was wrong. I regret it, and appreciate your (Kuru) explanation." Had it ended there, with no defensive excuses, I would not have reblocked you. The fact is, for many, many people, including many wikipedians, readers of Wikipedia, and people we would wish to recruit as editors, "spade" (calling someone a spade, not using the phrase a spade is a spade) is an offence against an entire race. Ignorance is a valid excuse once. Now you know. I jus hope you do not use it again, and while your motives are your business, I hope it is because you sincerely do not wish to slur an entire race. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly beginning to get annoyed here. Nothing you have said demonstrates that you have read the discussion that has occurred on this talk page. I'm not arguing with you, I'm just asking you to realize that a lot has taken place in the past three days, and every comment you've made so far has demonstrated knowledge of only the first day's goings on and the AN/I report. I was unable to contribute to that discussion, and so all discussion has taken place here. Please read it before contending that I used the phrase with racist intent. As Rd232 pointed out, being accused of being racist is almost as bad as being racist, and I feel your recent contributions simply do not take into account the recent discussion on this page. This is not even taking into account the disappointment I felt at the obvious violation of WP:WHEEL.Throwaway85 (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)