Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:20, 15 November 2014

This user has opted out of talkbacks

This is DangerousPanda's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 1 day

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. the panda ₯’

Good faith effort to resolve long term admin conduct issues

Hi DangerousPanda. As I mentioned on Jehochman's talk page here I have concerns about your fitness for adminship because of your demeanor when interacting with other editors and in some cases, your judgment when using your admin privileges. As you know, similar concerns about temperament and civility were raised in your RfAs.

I think you do a lot of good work here, but your interpersonal skills need a lot of improvement. Your judgment is sometimes questionable, and you sometimes act in haste.

I would like to discuss these concerns directly with you, without distracting comments from other users. My hope is that you will acknowledge that these conduct issue are problematic as a whole, and that you will undertake to change them.

There are areas where I believe your conduct fall shorts of what the WP:ADMIN policy requires of admins. If these were occasional lapses they could easily be overlooked, but they seem to form a pattern.

Examples of incivility, rudeness and disrespect

Context provided in the diffs. This is a short list of comments from the past year.

1. “I'm sure something could be worked out if The ed shuts the fuck up, or at least tones down the disgusting rhetoric”
2. “for the hard of hearing”
3. “You need to screw off with the suggestion that I'm trying to make him "knuckle under" and the "gosh darn it, you are going to make Barney behave" bullshit.”
4. “so seriously, screw off with that bullshit.”
5. “That's the most ridiculous paragraph ever written in the English language.”
6. “Who says I'm going to handle anything? Jumping off into bizarre conclusions, aren't you? You would have been better off discussing this like an adult with me before coming here, rather than attacking and making random, unfounded accusations. All the best to you - I have little time for people who choose this bizarre stance”
7. “WTF! Discussion belongs on article talkpage, not here - spamming links - especially to a primary source that is unacceptable doesn't belong ANYWHERE” (edit summary)
8. “Go ask the closing admin” (In response to a editor's request for an RfC close review)

Ratcheting up drama

Poor judgment and acting in haste

• Edit warring block of Flyer22 for two reverts
• Unilaterally unblocking Eric Corbett four hours after he was blocked, with an edit summary "Consensus appears to be that although an uncivil edit-summary, it was not clearly a violation of WP:NPA". Then refusing to consider comments that were logged in the discussion following the unblock, and dismissing the concerns of several editors as "emotional". See User talk:DangerousPanda/Archive 14#Unfortunate

Not responding well to criticism

• “That one's even more false. Hell, did you even read my extensive analysis? WTF is this, "fuck the Panda over day"? I didn't get a card for that in the mail. C'mon Ed, everything I typed today is in English”

I don't think a long list of diffs is necessary, but I'm happy to provide more if necessary. The reason I'm raising this and the reason that I endorsed NE Ent's RfC/U is because of the visceral reaction I have whenever I see your signature on a noticeboard or user talk page. I cringe at the thought that someone has just been talked down to, cussed out, taken to school, or otherwise subjected to rudeness or hostility.

I don't think I have personal issue with you. I'm torn to some degree because on one hand, your decisiveness and no-nonsense approach can be an asset to the project if tempered with restraint, self-reflection and patience. On the other hand, if, when I first started editing here, I had been treated the way I have seen you treat other editors, I would have quietly walked away and never looked back.

Again, my hope is that you will consider what I have said, change your approach, and put this kind of non-admin-like conduct behind you. The ball is in your court.- MrX 00:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@MrX:, I appreciate the calm, polite elements above. Some of the above is going to be difficult to address, based in part on it being "opinion" of one or many people when just as many people have the opposite opinion. Obviously, those kinds of things will always be difficult to "resolve". A great many are also pulled completely out-of-context, while others have indeed already been resolved. One of the apparently ironic things: when wrongly accused of being uncivil, it appears I often become uncivil :-) That's probably a cultural reaction more than anything, but yes, one to be curbed. More to come after I have had some time to review and reflect. the panda ₯’ 11:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Responses

MrX, I'm going to take these 1 at a time as they take extensive research in some cases. In some ways, these answer may appear to be justification, but that's not the intent - I'm trying to explain because you're right, if people don't know what's going through my mind, they often make up their own stuff :-) the panda ₯’ 13:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• The "I'm sure something could be worked out" comment: Yeah, I lost it on my colleague admin - but you already know why, I believe, and my colleagues know better than to do what happened in he first place (that said, someone else's incivility never excuses my own...usually). In case you didn't read the details, as has already been expressed, I changed usernames for privacy reasons - some user of another website "distantly related" to Misplaced Pages actually phoned my house. In The ed's original post, he re-used that same username TWICE, which possibly put my family at risk again. He also had made tremendously inappropriate comments, included massive WP:ABF, and escalated what could have been an easily resolved situation - and that was detrimental to the other user's well-being. As you have seen, The ed later redacted and apologized for doing so, and recognized that his statements needlessly escalated the entire thing. Did I respond well? No - but I take possible threats to my family very seriously, and I'm certain you can understand. Will I endeavour to say "meh" when people do that in the future? I'll try - but if I perceive a threat, I will act to quash any threat.
• The "You need to screw off with the suggestion" comment:
• The "so seriously" comment:
• The "That's the most ridiculous paragraph" comment:
• The "Who says I'm going to handle anything" comment:
• The "WTF! Discussion belongs on article talkpage, not here" comment:
• The "Go ask the closing admin"comment:
• Ratcheting up drama 1:
• Ratcheting up drama 2:
• Ratcheting up drama 3:
• Ratcheting up drama 4:
• Flyer 22:
• Eric Corbett:
• The "That one's even more false" comment:

Hi DP. I really appreciate your willingness to dialog. I posted some examples of comments and conduct that I quickly gleaned from the past few months. My intention was not for you to have to defend or explain each one, but to recognize that these incidents are not rare, and in fact they are quite common. To put it another way: the overall admin fitness issue that I raised will not be resolved by you defending each of these examples. May I propose that instead we discuss your conduct at a high level, and introduce examples and explanations only as necessary?

My view, and the view of the community as expressed in policy, is that admins need to be cool headed almost all of the time, even when provoked. It's understandable that many people blow their tops occasionally. The concern is that these outbursts, taken in consideration with the sometimes sarcastic, condescending, and authoritarian tone that you frequently use, leaves one wondering if you're not operating in a near-constant stress mode. - MrX 14:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@MrX: You put some odd examples then ... sometimes in odd orders too! But they do, in some cases help establish something else. ArbComm has, for example, essentially stated that "baiting" is unacceptable behaviour. No editor - admin, IP, named account - can bait another party with impunity. For example, we CANNOT ever put ourselves into someone's head and ascribe meaning to their actions. So, if editor A says to editor B "you did this because you were thinking XYZ!", and editor B says "um, no...guaranteed, no", then it is wholly inappropriate for editor A to continue baiting editor B with that same or similar statements.

I'm aware that "perception" takes over, and the written word has its challenges. However, we as a community of interest has to take WP:AGF at face value, and thus value the statements of our editing colleagues. A further extension of this is treating people like adults. Hell, I'm in my mid-30's, there NO need to tell me to stay away from something if it's blatantly obvious that I should stay away from something. Respect is a 2-way street, as is civility. You cannot poke and poke and poke and then be shocked when you get an actual human response from anybody.

Am I saying that in most of the cases you provided above I was provoked? In these cases above, yes. Is it that way in all cases? Admittedly and absolutely, no. Can I say for certain that someone has got angry a number of times on Misplaced Pages because they either misread my comments, or ascribed their own meaning to it? Yes. In most cases, after a quick clarification between 2 editors, everything went well - I'm a pretty approachable guy as long as someone approaches me with a willingness to AGF.

Try as anyone might, we can never make our words so bulletproof that someone won't misread them. I make a living with the written word, and obviously I still don't always get my point across correctly. There is always going to be some form of interpretation/filtering, and it's not intentional by any of us. If we are, indeed, an AGF-community, then if someone misreads my comment, and I explain/correct it ... then we're all REQUIRED to AGF that that was indeed what was meant. I am human. We're all human. We have backgrounds, histories, differing levels of education, various levels of English grammar. Because of the variances of the human condition, we have no choice but to AGF if we're going to act as a community. I can only think of twice in all my years here where I ever intended to insult or condescend (there, I admitted it).

Twice.

Period.

Above all, the one thing that people know about me here is I don't bullshit about what I mean. Period. If I say "look, I never intended to insult you", then it means I never intended what I typed to come across as an insult, and I'm honestly sorry if it did. It means nothing else, and you can take my statement to the bank.

Now, if you'll excuse me for a bit, we have a bit of a serious incident in the heart of my city, and since I still carry Kevlar, a Camera, and a Notepad, I have a few things to do the panda ₯’ 15:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty. I take you at your word that you usually don't intend to insult other users, but the bare reality is that you frequently do. Being baited or provoked is not a license to respond in kind (see Jehochman's insightful suggestions below). This is especially true of admins, whose words carry significantly more authority and impact that the other users. In this exchange (full context here), Msnicki made a good faith attempt to intervene. Your intemperate reaction included an edit summary of "enough of the bullshit" and a suggestion for her to "screw off". Other options available to you were to disagree with her, debate her on the merits of her suggestion or simply ignore her. Unfortunately, you took to low road. Perhaps it made you feel vindicated for a brief few seconds, but I bet you wish you could take back those words. By the way, I say this having fully endorsed your block of Barney the barney barney.

You say that can't control how others interpret your words. Indeed you can, by not responding off-the-cuff and by phrasing things more diplomatically. Almost all of our other admins manage to do it because it's what the community (and society) expects. - MrX 18:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda, I hope you stay safe in Ottawa. This discussion can continue when you get back. Jehochman 23:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hi DangerousPanda. Please let me know if and when you are willing to resume our discussion.- MrX 16:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

MrX, as per my email, please be patient: we had in incident that my work life required me to throw on the Kevlar and get busy on. Yeah, I've poked around a some UAA and RFUB for a few minutes here and there, but not enough time on Misplaced Pages since last Wednesday to follow up. This quite obviously has nothing to do with "willingness", so if you don't mind me saying, I find that suggestion rather insulting the panda ₯’ 10:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I just wanted to make sure that I didn't leave you with the impression that I thought the discussion had concluded. I look forward to continuing it when you return.- MrX 17:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@MrX: I appreciate your patience. I set aside this conversation so that I could try and sincerely focus on Msnicki's concerns, and work together with her. Unfortunately, I've now seen that she does not have a desire to work together, and that saddens me that I spent so much emotional capital on that only to find that someone was insincere - that's disheartening. I will now be returning to this discussion - sorry for putting yours aside, but I can only handle one such emotional conversation at a time. I do hope you were not insulted the panda ₯’ 18:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@MrX: I see that this section was auto-archived while I was away, and I have undone that. Obviously, it's always been my intent to proceed with this discussion, but real life takes precedence. Now that I'm back from my trip, and mother-in-law is out of hospital, how do you wish to proceed? the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Admin judgement

In light of your recent very limited time on Misplaced Pages, I was surprised that you found time for this block of Rm w a vu, an editor who has contributed for a least the past eight years and who has never been blocked before. There are several aspects of this incident that elevate my concern about your judgement as an administrator.

• Rm w a vu has contributed to Misplaced Pages for at least eight years (ten, according to him)
• Rm w a vu has never been blocked before
• Rm w a vu has never previously been warned for edit warring
• You blocked Rm w a vu for 36 hours. Isn't the norm for a first block to be 24 hours? (See WP:EW#Administrator guidance)
• The other two editors (Adamstom.97 and TriiipleThreat) were also edit warring. Did you consider page protection as an option?
• TriiipleThreat warned Rm w a vu and 12 minutes later reported him to ANEW although Rm w a vu had made no further edits. You then blocked Rm w a vu 39 minutes later.
• Rm w a vu was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself in the the ANEW case, which he pointed out to you here and which your rather condescending response ignored.

Given the recent scrutiny of your admin conduct, I would think that you would err on the side of restraint when considering blocking someone, especially since similar blocks have been criticised in the past.- MrX 14:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What a pile of bollocks, that guy had 5 reverts. so 36 hours is appropriate, and he did not need warning on editwarring, he choose to file an editwar report after all, so knew what 3RR was all about. I am not a great fan of DP, but he is not the crappy admin a fair few here seem to be making him out to be. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your colourful comment, some of which is factually accurate, but I'm hoping to discuss this one-on-one with DP as mentioned upthread.- MrX 14:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I concur with MrX's concerns. Blocking is a last resort, not a first resort, and if the user has been warned, it is best to wait and see if the warning has an effect before elevating the response to a block. Under normal circumstances this would just be a sub-optimal handling; but while you have an arbitration case pending, to which you haven't yet responded (and which is causing a great deal of time investment by many other editors), you would be wise to cease further administrative actions. Will you agree to that condition? Jehochman 14:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Indeed, blocking is a last resort. Someone who edit-wars, and goes to AN/3RR to report that the other people are meatpuppets who are edit-warring with him is unfortunately a last-resort situation. I was very willing to unblock them, as I noted - but they first had to show understanding, as per wP:GAB the panda ₯’ 10:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions by Jehochman

Let me introduce three resources that could help you in situations where somebody is making you, DP, upset:

1. If a remark is rude, unfair or very stupid, feel free not to respond, especially not to respond immediately. Silence is sometimes an appropriate response.
2. Before responding, take a look at How to Disagree. In your own response, try to maintain the highest standard: refuting the central point. If the other person is doing worse, identify what they are doing, such as "You're just calling me names. You aren't refuting my argument."
3. There's an excellent book called The Civility Solution: What to Do When People Are Rude.

Regardless of whether you have been meeting admin standards of behavior or not, it would be beneficial for you to work on your skills. Skills aren't innate; you have to develop them. Jehochman 15:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I liked that Paul Graham, "How to Disagree" article, especially as it gets to the heart of the dialogue I wish I could have with DP. In the Barney incident, the incivility I experienced was the level 1 stuff Graham is talking about. I've been online over 30 years going back to USENET. By now I've got a pretty thick skin and it's hard to make me care that someone I don't even know was rude to me on the internet. I find it tedious to argue about whether DP's initial response was uncivil in no small part because I've been mentally filtering this stuff for decades and I don't care that he was rude to me personally. I do care that admins simply should not do this, especially if they expect to block others for this same behavior, and that I can't get past that tedious level 1 discussion to talk about the level 6 issues, what Graham calls the Central Point. For me, that central point is the poor judgment and poor choices resulting in poor outcomes. Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Msnicki, I am glad you like the article. Yes, admins should set good examples of how to behave, but they are human too, and make mistakes. So, you've been around a long time. Do you remember UUCP mail routing? Coredumps? PDP-11's? Ah, the good old days. Jehochman 20:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure do. My first USENET post in mid-80s, something about oversampling that can still be found in the Google archives, shows my path as utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!(redacted). And I sure do remember core dumps, but I worked on S/360s and HP minis like the 2100, not the DEC stuff. Msnicki (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Msnicki: In my rare spare time over the last couple of days, I've been trying to put together a clear English explanation surrounding the paragraph that I took offense to, and then you took offense to my reply. Prior to that moment, we had a fair amount of only positive interactions - so I was indeed surprised by the response - especially knowing that I had no intent to insult or be uncivil in my reply. I felt at the time that I was merely breaking down the logic in your paragraph, not attacking the person delivering the message. However, based on the path you've gone down since that time, I need to know if you're actually open-minded about hearing my side (you've unfortunately not shown signs of that up until now), or if you're simply going to say "wrong" and continue the panda ₯’ 10:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I know you're busy, so I'm going to give you time to think about whether that's your best response before I reply. Feel free to delete this if you decide to make any changes. Msnicki (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand? Of course it's not a response...I asked you a question in order to find out if it was worth putting together my response, or if you were simply going to discount my feelings the panda ₯’ 19:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I wanted to be sure you weren't rushed. But if you have time to get back to blocking, I suppose you've had the time you need to think about your response to me. Please see below for my thoughts. Msnicki (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Msnicki, I asked you a question - I asked if it was even worth my time responding to your concerns, because I NEEDED to know whether or not you had made up your mind, or were actually PLANNING on working together. I waited 2 days for your reply. Instead of replying, and giving me the warm fuzzies that you actually intended to work together, you posted your stuff below. I believe that means your answer was that you refused to work together to ensure we were both working for the betterment of the community the panda ₯’ 17:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion from someone else

Hello DangerousPanda. I stumbled across this recent activity which, at the very least, indicates that some users want to interact with you directly, and specifically, to discuss perceptions of your conduct. I even see you address a concern here or there., but nothing sufficiently tangible so as to suggest that you value the feedback, or understand why some editors feel so compelled at this time to give theirs. I think it would be in keeping with your stronger attributes to voluntarily opened an administrative review in your name. What do you think of this suggestion?—John Cline (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Popped home to grab a change of clothes and was surprised to see this User:John Cline. What, in any of my above words (that are clearly trying to address the situation as a whole, the feelings of those who decided it was time to take some form of action, and even those who have been extremely supportive of me) are you finding that I am failing to "value the feedback" or "understand why some editors feel so compelled...to give theirs"?? I'm absolutely nothing but accepting, valuing, and supporting of the feedback I have seen, and am trying to engage the feelings, concerns and desires of everyone involved. Please do not question my sincerity and concern when the written proof is quite the opposite! the panda ₯’ 14:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for my poorly constructed comment. I was trying to convey something very different than what has come of it. Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is very encouraging! So, dp, what do you think of Jehochman's three suggestions above? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge1000: The first two are exceptionally doable, and I'll certainly begin doing so immediately (especially the first). The third might take a little longer, and without reading I cannot comment on its efficacy the panda ₯’ 23:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, Dangerous Panda. I respected your position in June during the contretemps between User:Winkelvi and myself, though I believe that other editor's behavior was let off lightly in our mutual blocking. And I think my belief was accurate since I've only just come back to Misplaced Pages after the frustration of that whole incident — and within days that editor was back on my talk page to bait me. When I responded on his talk page he first bragged about how he told me "fuck off" in June, and then began cursing me again freshly: .

I believed back in June that there was something alarmingly angry and antagonistic about this person, and from the looks of things, I was correct. I've asked User:Dennis Brown for help and advice, since he was involved in June as well and felt, wrongly, I believe, that I was baiting Winkelvi. I swear to you as a generally well-regarded editor for over nine years that I was not. So I have to ask now: Is he going to be allowed to curse me and harass me?

To reiterate what I wrote Dennis: I swear I was minding my own business, and he came to my page unsolicited, for no good reason and with incorrect information. I quoted to him the infobox template that shows he is incorrect, and yet he keeps ignoring it while asking me to give him documentation. If nothing else, can we agree he shouldn't be throwing around the f-word with other editors?--Tenebrae (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Diffs are important here: This edit prompted me to attempt to inform Tenebrae with a good faith effort that his reversion was questionable and why . The article he edited is on my watchlist, and I was about to deal with a pending reversion there, that's why I knew he had reverted the edit to begin with. After reading my post on his page, his response was to not WP:AGF and accuse me in an edit summary of harassing him earlier this year (which I did not) . He then proceeded to my own talk page and left the following and, after reading a communication between me and another editor, took it upon himself to disparage me at another editor's talkpage here . Ironically, he keeps returning to my talkpage to continue accusing me of bad faith actions and harassment . All I did was try to inform Tenabrae of something I thought he might be unaware of. That's it. The drama has come only from Tenabrae. With all of his follow up posts at my talkpage as well as the talkpages of others (including yours), the only harassment I see is coming from the drama created by Tenabrae. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda is a bit tied up, both in real life and with other duties here, so probably isn't going to have time to respond. I'm going to do my best to simply comment from the sidelines, without getting dragged into it. As for Chris Evans and "spouse", I see that one person and their IP sock has already been blocked for edit warring over it, and I see a distinct lack of discussion on the talk page. Like many other content issues, I'm betting this is part of the problem: too much action, not enough discussion. This is what BLPN and RFCs are made for. As for "F-bombs", there is a distinct difference between "I wasn't fucking baiting you" and "fuck off". To be fair, he wasn't cursing you, he was cursing in your presence. Is it crass? Perhaps, I probably use the word too much in the real world, so I understand how someone would here, but crass isn't the same as uncivil or personal attack. We really can't do anything about crass. Now Tenebrae, you question my judgement back a few months ago, and by all means, that is your right and I won't debate you. All I can do is offer my perspective. You are welcome to get another admin's perspective as well (although I don't recommend dragging this to ANI). I personally think you are sweating small stuff (cussing) and it isn't serving you well. That said, Winkelvi, the previous "fuck off" comment isn't something I recommend repeating, but I am guessing I told you that the first time, so I won't labor it here. Dennis - 2¢ 13:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Pardon me for butting in--Tenebrae, you know I'm a straight shooter: I think you're overexaggerating a bit. Take it easy. Winkelvi has a tendency to get hot-headed sometimes, but there's nothing here to get upset about.

  Now, can we talk content a bit? If Stan and Evans are indeed each others' spouses, legally in some states but not others or whatever, our infobox can reflect that. Nothing wrong with having a same-sex spouse. But here, ahem, I don't think these guys are gay, and I don't think they're married to each other, legally or spiritually or common-lawly. As for blocks and all that, you should see the blocks I threw around yesterday: Dustbinnostrils, 75.80.47.160, Fandom edits, Evanstansus. I was already thinking this was a 4chan thing. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion. I know admins have a tough job, dealing with personality and policy disputes on what seems a near-constant basis.

I'd like to make three points.

Tolerating editors who tell others to "stay the fuck off" a page is bad for Misplaced Pages. It engenders an atmosphere palatable only to angry, poorly socialized white guys in their 20s. It's disrespectful and a distinct turnoff to, among others, older editors, women, and many ethnic and religious groups — see how much a committed Christian or Muslim appreciates being told to "stay the fuck off"

If we want Misplaced Pages to be uninviting except to people like Winkelvi, then by all means let it slide. Yet I can't help feeling odd about this: If I start telling people to "fuck off" when I'm upset with them, that's OK, you're saying? Or are you saying it's OK for Winkelvi to use that kind of language but not me? I'd be interested in hearing the rationale if that's the case.

Second, as for use of the word "spouse" in this context: The Infobox Person template draws a distinction between "spouse" and "partner." I don't believe we can unilaterally decide to change the meaning of "spouse" in this context without community consensus. Speaking strictly personally, as someone with many gay friends, married and not, it demeans the fight for marriage equality if we use the term spouse so loosely. Be that as it may, Winkelvi's claim is 1) not the dictionary definition, 2) not the mainstream-public definition, 3) definitely not universal among gays, as my gay friends make very clear, and perhaps most significantly, 4) not the Misplaced Pages template's definition.

Finally, after everything Winkelvi did in June, including demanding I stay "the fuck off" his talk page, there is no reason whatsoever for his coming to my talk page except to deliberately stir up trouble. He could have made the very same point on the article talk page(s). I was minding my business, not even thinking about him, when he came to my page. That's what started things. Why?

Given Winkelvi's "crass" and "hotheaded" behavior, as the two posts above themselves describe it, I'm perplexed as to why he's allowed to get away such behavior. What gives him the right? I don't understand why it's considered OK. How is such behavior good for Misplaced Pages?--Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that many people will occasionally say "fuck off". I don't remember doing it here, but in the real world, yes, I've told someone to fuck off more than once in my life. Probably once every year or two. Granted, in the real world, when I get fed up, I can be crass, I won't deny it. I'm saying that if it is a habit, it becomes a problem. If it isn't a habit, then it is just a singular rude overreaction. I tend to not get involved with singular instances of someone having a bad day, and realistically, I have no idea how your day was, or Drmies, or Winkelvis. We are human, we all can be asses some times. We can forgive small amounts, be the better person, as long as it isn't a daily thing. If you can't forgive small transgressions, then the internet is a bad place for you. As for Muslims or Christians, I don't make any determinations based on my impression of anyones religion, nor do I use my own religious views as a measuring stick here. As admin, that would be inappropriate to do so. I would also note that I know plenty of very devout Christian who swear plenty, and I know atheists who never swear, so I'm not convinced someone's religion is a major factor in how offensive that is. It is to most everyone, lets just work with that. That is why is should be rare.

As for "spouse", I'm going to stay out of it. It isn't my specialty, and that is a landmine of a discussion that I don't want to enter simply because I'm too ignorant of the nomenclature to be of any use to anyone. I know what my gay friends say about it, but that isn't a universal view, nor a policy view, so I just won't say. Besides, those are issues for editors to resolve. Me acting as an admin, I have exactly zero authority to decide. Dennis - 2¢ 23:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit I am truly perplexed by Tenebrae's accusation that my only purpose for going to his talk page was to harass him and "stir up trouble". I could understand him feeling that way if I had been brash, "crass", or rude in the comments I left. But none of that happened. I already explained what my purpose in going there was what I stated on his talk page. That's all there was to it. I had even forgotten about our conflict a few months ago and didn't remember what had occurred until he came to my talk page, brought it up, and made baseless accusations there as well as in the edit summary he left when deleting my comments. The proverbial straw was when he then headed straight for an uninvolved editor's talk page to post disparaging and disrespectful and totally unnecessary comments about me there. Like I stated above, the only drama here is coming from Tenabrae. Even after this episode, I'm willing to bury the hatchet and let bygones be bygones - to edit in the future with him collegially and peacefully. I have serious doubts -- based on him flying off the handle and making this whole thing into something it's not -- that he will be willing to do the same. But it would be a nice surprise if he proves me wrong. As far as the content discussed re: "spouse". Tenabrae's take on how the gay community addresses the issue is incorrect. "Spouse" has been used and continues to be used by gay and lesbian couples for decades to describe a significant other in a long-term, committed same-sex relationship. The reason being that commitment ceremonies of many types have been occurring long before same-sex marriage was legalized. "Spouse" is most certainly a term used in legal AND non-legal same-sex relationships. Whether that fits Misplaced Pages policy or not, I don't know for certain. Regardless, that wasn't the point of my post on his page anyway, my point was that the content added was unreferenced and that was why it needed to go. Sadly, what was meant to be just a friendly FYI from me to Tenabrae has turned into a dramatic over-reaction that just didn't need to happen. I hope he can see his way to turning the clock back on all this and forgetting his grudge against me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't edit-war with an other editor, telling him "fuck this" and "fuck that" and create an environment where I was so frustrated to deal with inappropriate behavior by someone who's put a book on his User's page that can have no other reason to be there except to say, "Oh, look! I can behave as badly as I want to and tell people to fuck off ...but I can't help it, it's the mental illness!" That's not a get-out-of-jail-free card ... you're still responsible for basic actions, such as not telling people "fuck this" and "fuck that" and for not poking a stick at someone. You were under no requirement to comment anywhere but on the article talk page. Instead, you deliberately chose to come to my talk page and poke at me. Having the audacity, after everything you did, to come poke me is harassment.

And Dennis, I'm sorry you feel it's OK for Winkelvi to tell me "fuck this" and "fuck that." Like most people, I curse in real life as well. But you missed the point in quibbling with my examples: Misplaced Pages is supposed to be a respectful and collegial environment, and having foulmouthed editors who create a a hostile environment is antithetical to that. I guess I do have to take this to the Civility noticeboard to start. I asked for help, and you side with the angry, poorly socialized man who screams curses and obscenities at other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And Winkelvi is a liar as well. RE: "accuse me in an edit summary of harassing him earlier this year (which I did not)." He most certainly did.

• How about this excerpt: "(as if it's any of your fucking business). And if you keep this bullshit up on my talk page, I'll remove your comments as well. Simply because you're starting to really piss me off..."
• Or this edit summary: "now stay away from my talk page and fuck off" Which I hope Dennis Brown will note is a personal attack: It's not the adjective form "stay off my fucking page" but the verb form "fuck you." Why is an admin letting that personal attack slide?
• When an editor starts an ANI, he is required to let the other editor know. I had no choice but to post the ANI notice on his talk page. Despite this requirement, this is how he responds: "(→‎ANI: stay the fuck off my damn talk page)"
• We're also required to post 3RR notices. So he falsely accuses me of harassment though according to Misplaced Pages 3RR reporting policy I had no choice put to post a 3RR warning: "(→‎3RR: already told you to stay the hell off my talk page, this is now harassment)' . Shortly after that, Dangerous Panda blocked him. --Tenebrae (talk) 09:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Evading block/falsifying articles

Hello. This IP is falsifying Afghans in Iran. I'm reporting it to you because I noticed that you wrote this and checked this IP and then I checked both IPs' location which is the same city, both IPs from that city are editing the same articles and writing exactly as this person who lives in that same city.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Blacklane Rejection 18 June 2014

Hi DangerousPanda, Thank you for reviewing my article on the company Blacklane on 18 June. You said that it didn't sound objective enough, so I have made a whole bunch of changes now and have resubmitted it. I was hoping you might take a look at it, as you are one of the people who has already read through it and therefore know a bit about it already. Also, if you still don't consider it ready for exposure, could you possibly give me some suggestions as to how I can change it? I decided to take it on as a response to a request in the "Requested articles" section https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics/Companies and am determined not to give up! It'd be great if you could help me out! Thank you! All the best, -- Reconnamon (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have also worked my butt off to get the apology from another admin that you're dying to have ... the panda ₯’ 17:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC) It's perpetual dishonesty from you, Panda. (If what you say were true, then reasonably, you would have gone to/followed up at the admin-in-question's Talk. You didn't. Bullshit posturing. Your norm.) I suggest that you learn to close your mouth Panda -- whatever you say is usually not in your best interest. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)