Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737

I don't think you're getting the message; you're tossing around the word "evil" far too liberally. Evil, in my mind, is someone like Ne Win, Than Shwe, Thein Sein, or Pol Pot. It is not someone with whom I have a disagreement on a fucking website. If you're having a hard time coming up with phrasing to use, let me suggest "disruptive" (as seems to have been the case with TTN), "disagreeable", or "something I'm strongly opposed to". I know my wording is very strong, but I want to make sure you can't misunderstand my message. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the above, I think this block should actually be extended to indefinite until DF understands that calling people "evil" because he disagrees with them is not compatible with Wikipedia's editing policy. 86.174.213.12 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention "If you ever see someone say "just because it meets the requirements for WP:GNG doesn't mean we should have an article on it", then that's an evil deletionist." This ludicrous assertion actually means that DF is describing his buddy Colonel Warden as an evil deletionist, because even CW understands the concept of GNG ([23]). 86.174.213.12 (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(Copied from DF's talk page) An IP address with no other edits but in this ANI, mentions something said back in 29 October 2010 which they happen to have recalled, having surely been around at that time. Log in and use your proper Wikipedia user name please. And Warden nominated something he saw as violating the rules of being a guide, he didn't just nominate it because he didn't like it. Do those with a problem with the word evil live in countries other than America? Is it used differently there? The word "evil" is defined as [24] "arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct" and "disagreeable". So I think it fits well here. Dream Focus 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this complete lack of comprehension on DF's part justifies upgrading the block to indefinite. As I said, only

WP:INVOLVED prevents me from taking that step myself.—Kww(talk

) 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't speak for anyone else, but I can assure you that I'm from New England. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the use of the word "evil" is often quite controversial, even in the United States. A few years back there was a big controversy about politicians using the word, this article is an interesting read on the subject. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't the whole "cunt debate" all over again, we are all on the same poage about what the word "evil" means, DF included.

talk

) 02:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from JClemens

• I did not block Dream Focus for the use of the word 'deletionist'--or even the adjective 'evil'--but for the combination of the two, attributing a word entirely inconsistent with collegiality and good faith to a group of editors with whom he has ideological disagreements. I regularly use the terms 'inclusionist' and 'deletionist' myself, because they're useful labels to identify a spectrum of approaches to content. Tacking an 'evil' on the front is inappropriate.
• I do not buy Dream Focus' unblock request. As has been pointed out above, he has a history of polemical attacks, which may not have resulted in blocks but have indeed contributed to the poisonous atmosphere in the inclusionist/deletionist discussions. While I would also be tempted to cite
  WP:NPA as a reason, it was brought to my attention during the ongoing civility ArbCom case that "no personal attacks" can actually be read as "no individual attacks", in that attacks against groups are not specifically covered.

  To look at specific problems with the unblock request

  and its immediate followup:
  • "there is no such thing as a battlefield mentality." denies the fundamental rules of conduct of Wikipedia.
  • "What I put on my user page is acceptable since it is my page, and related to Wikipedia, as past deletion nominations of it have proven." This demonstrates a large degree of
    WP:IDHT
    , as a review of the above-linked MfDs will show.
• I do not buy his "it was only humor" argument, either. There are plenty of ways to indicate humor in text; he used none of them. He does, on the other hand, have a history of such complaints. I note that those most familiar with Dream Focus' conduct over the past few years are least likely to give him the benefit of the doubt here--that's because he has had plenty of time and opportunities to demonstrate humor, but has instead demonstrated repeated polemic, as we can see in his unblock request.

Ultimately, it is the community's decision, not mine, but given his history of not understanding the impact of his statements, I still recommend against it. If he is willing to admit that there is such a thing as battlefield conduct, and that he has engaged in it, and he commits to improving Wikipedia content without such comments in the future, I'd welcome the unblock. The week's length of the initial block was in no small part because I don't believe a short block will engender the sort of introspection necessary for Dream Focus to understand and change. Jclemens (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how anyone who has taken the time to read Dream Focus's user page can object to this block. It's practically a novel, so I understand why some haven't. However, a user page where one calls people with a differing philosophy anything from evil to unreasonable, vicious, elitist, and snotty is clearly a violation of

WP:BATTLEGROUND. The length of the block is appropriate because he has been pulling this kind of crap for years. If he wrote the things he wrote about any other group of people he would have been indeffed long ago, but somehow his fellow Wikipedians who he has to work with do not get the same protections that other outside groups enjoy. Excellent block and frankly someone needs to take a machete to that user page and cut out some of the polemic statements. AniMate

17:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What about we change the block from a week to indefinite and just add to every AFD - keep DreamFocus thereby removing the need for him to edit? (this is in the spirit of lightheartedness) Youreallycan 17:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Not humourous, treats an editor like an object.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Very droll Im sure. A look at Dreams contribs shows that in addition to his quality contributions to AfD he often gives very helpful advice to newbies, makes substantive improvements to articles about games and general interest, and even makes sensitive and well judged contributions to high impact articles such as those about abuse. He's also almost talismatic, acting to inspire others just by being about. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, excuse me, I was only joking. He also created Titanomyrma, an article that was eventually featured on the main page. Although often in opposite positions with DFocus I vote commented here to unblock and see a week as a bit excessive. Youreallycan 18:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that if there was one sure-fire method of intensifying the battleground mentality it would be to hand out a contentious block to one of the most prominent participants. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree.  I'd say this ANI discussion should be closed.  IMO, this is an internal matter for the ARS.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Except not blocking when it's needed because someone is a "prominent participant" sends a very wrong message as well. FWIW, I would be, most likely, an inclusionist - and I say, good block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair point. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "This is an internal matter for the ARS"...absolutely not. When someone from the ARS ABFs people who aren't ARS members, then it should be settled by an intermediary, not by the ARS. I support the block, and also support deletion of his user page. It's a battleground that overly opines, and that's not the only user page policies it violates
    89
    ≈≈≈≈ 20:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • This isn't the venue for debating whether to delete his userpage. Open yet another MfD on it if you want to do that. 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• One week is surely excessive, considering 1) as far as I can see we're talking of just a couple of sentences in DF talk page, 2) if he says "it was only humor" a presumption of good faith would not be bad, 3) a long block without at least one warning per BATTLEGROUND seems, as said above, one sure-fire method of intensifying the battleground. Cavarrone (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Um, it's not just for any one incident. He's done this a number of times...
    89
    ≈≈≈≈ 20:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Personally, I think the block is an unfortunate necessity. Also, I'm very disappointed in the polarisation between "deletionists" and "exclusionists". Can't we all just get along? bobrayner (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Awestruck "this is an internal matter for the ARS" Wait what? Since when does the ARS get to dictate to the community what we can and cannot discuss?--v/r - TP 21:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the first time I have come across user Dream Focus. I have just finished skip reading his user-page. On the basis of confrontational invective such asthis, I should support this clearly punitive block, especially if such zealously polarised views by Dream Focus permeate his more recent comments.

I cannot support this contentious block however because

• the block has been made by a sitting memberof the arbitration committee whilst a high profile case is still in progress
• no recent warning appears to have been given. Assuming good faith and thus appear equitable, if someone has over-stepped a mark anumber of times they should still be given a warning such as 'Stop it or else!'
• the blocking admin openly asks for consensus yetboldly continues to comment, thus unfairly biasing any developing consensus
• I just don't like it becauseI come to bury editors, not to praise them ...

It is my personal belief that sitting arbitrators should recluse themselves from unilateral administrative actions, especial in contentious areas, to avoid being accussed of soap-boxing at best or redacted something else at worse

--Senra (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

While in theory, a sitting arb is no more authoritative than any other admin in a blocking matter unrelated to an arbitration committee matter (which this is clearly not), the status ascribed to the position is precisely the reason I immediately brought the block here for community review. If this matter were to come before the arbitration committee while I was serving, I would be recused--unable to participate as an arbitrator, including unable to provide off-wiki input to the arbs participating in the case. The reason I took it upon myself to block Dream Focus for the behavior I observed (I have WT:ARS watchlisted) is that I am as much of an inclusionist as any other sitting arbitrator, and I firmly believe the only solution to factionalism is for administrators on each "side" to police their own. If you look back through my contribution history, you can see that if I comment in an AfD, it's usually to point out sources and/or urge the article be repaired or merged. My voice in this discussion is thus not of one of the appeals court judges, but just another inclusionist/mergeist admin who says it's time to take a firm stand against this battlefield rhetoric, and get about the business of actually improving encyclopedic content that needs it. My block is as open for community review and uninvolved admin overturning as any other block. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The interesting thing here is that there is some fairly typical "inclusionist/deletionist" rhetoric going on. Humor or not, DF's statements are extremist in tone - "no telling what were valid articles" is an assertion that all material added to Wikipedia is valid, when in fact, Wikipedia has never claimed to be an all-inclusive info dump. OTOH, material that clearly meets WP policy is never deleted out of hand. So, extremist polarization is neither reflective of community reality, nor is it helpful to said community. Nobody in the WP community should really be here at all if he or she is unilaterally in favor of either keeping everything or deleting everything, and as long as this "in/out" argument continues to be expressed as it has, it's going to lead to giant wastes of time and nonsensical critiques. MSJapan (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "is an assertion that all material added to Wikipedia is valid". I have not said that, ever. You are taking my words out of context. What I said was No matter how many articles we saved, another hundred or so are destroyed each day.[49] No telling how many of them were valid articles, and just needed someone with an open mind, and the will to actually look for sources instead of just mindlessly spouting their deletionist rhetoric and seeking to destroy what others had labored to create. I am of course commenting on the fact that many articles the Article Rescue Squadron saved were originally going to be deleted, before someone showed up and took the time to search for references in Google news and other sources. Since I have voted delete on things in the past, and even nominated a few at times, I'm not against all deletions. Just the ones made for the wrong reasons, or by people who don't follow
    WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 23:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Copied from Dream Focus' talk by Goodvac (talk
    ) 23:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to debate a phrase, nor am I going to debate via proxy; the assumptions in the overall position are inappropriate. Your "mindless deletionist rhetoric" claim is inappropriate as is "a hundred articles a day destroyed", you are seeking to state that those who wish to see articles deleted are not at all applying policy, and turning around and qualifying those statements after the fact doesn't change that. Frankly, I also don't buy your moderated stance, considering how vehement your claims are against the "deletionists." I would also note that, by your logic, the other side of the argument is: "keep per nom" is "mindless inclusionist rhetoric", and "a hundred policy-violating articles are kept a day" by those "who don't find sources before posting," and one in your position "would only be against additions made for the wrong reasons, or don't follow policy". Isn't that interesting.... MSJapan (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • MSJapan, you state that "a hundred articles a day destroyed" is inappropriate. But when I click on AFD [25] I see 124 results for one day, and the other recent days over 90. So yes, we do end up with about hundred articles a day destroyed/deleted. That is what happens. And I honestly doubt all of them deserve to be deleted. For years now this has continued. Does anyone have any stats as to exactly how many hundreds of thousands or millions of articles have been deleted? The Article Rescue Squadron did a fairly good job of identifying decent articles that should be saved, and helping bring them to the attention of those willing to search for references and help save them. I have the right to state my opinions on that on my user page. And I'm not putting everyone into two groups of course. Evil/bad deletionists are the ones I'm up against, not everyone who says delete in AFDs. Dream Focus 08:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's enough to convince me the block is good. He gives links to a page which shows a list of AfDs, some in process still, some deleted, and some kept, and tells us they've all been deleted. He then extrapolates from that false figure to an impossible hone - 'millions of articles' deleted. If for the last 10 years 100 articles a day had been deleted, that would be 365000 articles. Now clearly that didn't happen, and even he wouldn't argue I hope they should all have been saved. This is not the sort of mentality we want dealing with AfDs.

talk

) 12:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Excuse me. I should've said "are nominated each day". Most of them do get deleted I believe. It changes from day to day, so can't really be certain. I have no idea how many articles have been eliminated by deletion or replaced by a redirect. Perhaps not millions. I didn't bother to do the math. Bad math skills is not a reason to block someone. And I didn't say they should have all been saved, I said there is no telling how many should've been. Its far too easy to nominate mass numbers of articles for deletion, and far too easy for someone to go around and do what the nominator should've done if they had followed
  WP:BEFORE. Dream Focus 12:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC) - ( copied from Dream's talk on request. FeydHuxtable (talk
  ) 13:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC) )

• Redirecting != deletion. Nothing is lost when an edit replaces the article contents with a redirect markers; the text still there in the history. DF does not seem to understand this point and makings even suggesting redirect w/ merge a bad thing (see
  Talk:Ocean County Sheriff's Department for example). DF's been around long enough to know better. --MASEM (t
  ) 14:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Everyone please look at that talk page discussion to see an example of a problem. No information is likely to be copied over from a "redirect". Masem states "But even if zero content was added to the County article, and this remained a redirect, no information is lost. It's within the open revision history any editor can get to." In cases where absolutely no information is copied over then the article is replaced by a redirect, it the same as deletion since most won't be likely to view it in that format. Wasn't thinking about that case when I complained about eliminating articles by delete or redirect. I was thinking of years ago when a certain editor went around replacing a rather large number of manga related articles with redirects and insisting things were "merged" when not one single thing was included in the other article. Anyway, do I have the right to complain as I did on that talk page, or is that a battleground mentality? Dream Focus 14:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)copied from user talk pablo 14:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• The attitude that I'm seeing from DF is both partially right and wrong. I agree with the concern that is this: when we admin-delete an article, all information from that article is effectively lost, all contributions to it nullified, etc. Thus to delete information in this manner is something to be extremely cautious against and a fight worth fighting to make sure that we're only deleting clearly unencyclopedic content. I strongly disagree when DF takes the battleground mentality that is shown above, that a redirect is of the same critical problem as a admin-deletion, and thus fighting as much tooth-and-nail against redirect/merges as with deletion. In the linked convo, I've tried to explain how the material that was once a page replaced by a redirect is far from being lost forever, but again, DF does not accept this fact that is otherwise accepted by consensus. That immediately sets a battlefield starting point, to take a singular position against consensus. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• There was no consensus on the talk page. Different people stated opposite opinions. So, its consider a battleground mentality if anyone disagrees with you. Dream Focus 15:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)copied from user talk pablo 15:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• That's not the consensus I'm talking about (though it is up to the consensus on that page whether to merge/redirect or not. The consensus that I refer to is "redirect != deletion" that is well-established across WP that DF is fighting against. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• I support the block, and as usual I recommend the block stay in place until such a time that the community can be reasonably assured the disruptive behaviour won't continue. Given the current level of IDHT engaged here, I couldn't possibly guess when that would be.--
  Crossmr (talk
  ) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• I support the block. The blocking admin acted in full accord with policy and deserves support for doing the job they've been entrusted to do. I think an indefinite block would have been excessive but a week is reasonable. I assume the blocking admin would remove the block if DF made a reasonable request and expressed understanding of the negative effects of BFM with a stated intent to avoid recidivism, and believe If DF made such an assertion, he should. To unblock without an inkling of remediation would send an entirely wrong message. So really, the call is DF's to make. Align with reason and the block is removed, maintain the hardline and we'll see you in a week. My76Strat (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I wonder how often you say that to or about User:Δ. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You are out of line with that comment. My76Strat (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• This rhetoric isn't anything new from Dream Focus, as a look at his/her user page would indicate, and I think many editors (myself included) have learned to ignore his diatribes. The block rationale for
  WP:BATTLE
  was sound. This us-versus-them rhetoric causes more strife than good and we should take action against it. My concerns: 1) the block length was a little long for having no warning or previous blocks for this offense. 2) Blocking for opinions vs blocking for disruption:

• One may say that Dream Focus was just voicing his opinion. There is nothing wrong with holding and voicing out-of-consensus opinions (I do this quite often myself), but you must do this carefully and with good taste, not by attacking editors with a strawman caricature. I'm a little worried that this block will lead to other blocks for comments that don't synch up as much with
  WP:BATTLE violations should always be done with caustion. Blocking admins must be sure that a user's comments are derogatory and inflammatory before using this policy to issue a block. ThemFromSpace
  04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Not commenting on the block, but it has occurred to me for the first time, although I should have realised it later, that the use of 'squadron' in the ARS title implies a battle. I've seen the template debate and commented on the template but really maybe we should be asking the ARS to change a what I view as an overly confrontational title.
  talk
  ) 07:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow. What about the [DR] army from
    User:Steven Zhang's signature [26]? ASCIIn2Bme (talk
    ) 07:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That too, maybe. I have long thought that this sort of militaristic posturing serves only to increase the amount of factionalisation and role-playing on this site. pablo 09:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• The blocking administrator said I'm being blocked because on the talk page of the recently destroyed Article Rescue Squadron[27], I said "Anyway, it doesn't matter now since the evil hordes of deletionists seemed to have finally done us in." in a rather jokingly manner. There was no warning whatsoever. The blocking administrator then opens up a discussion on ANI immediately after blocking me, having a discussion about me in which I can not properly participate in. While many see the humor, others don't get it, and I'm trying to work out the reason for that, and if it really matters if the word "evil" is replaced by something that means the exact same thing. Refer to them as "bad" deletionists perhaps. It does not create a battleground mentality, since nothing I post on my user page is going to change how people act in AFDs. I have kept my over the top humorous bits on my user page only, with the exception of my last minor bit on the ARS talk page, and off of AFDs and any discussion pages. So I don't really see a problem here. If I had used the word "bad" instead of "evil" would Jclemens have impulsively banned me? Dream Focus 08:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Block and Support unblock as per My76Strat, If Dream accepts that his comments were "misguided" and agreed to avoid such language in the future.
  Mtking ^(edits)
  11:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Block and some sort of ban given his recent statement that perhaps millions of articles have been deleted. See my comments above on this.
  talk
  ) 12:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• I've been having trouble finding a way to express my opinion on the matter and Mtking has figured it out for me. I support the block because I feel that calling anyone "evil" is a bit (a lot) out of line. I also support unblock because I think Dream Focus may have intended it to be funny, as in he might be purposefully portraying it as a battle for laughs and not seriously, and because I think Dream Focus is smart enough to get the point by now without extending the block.--v/r - TP 14:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• The current block was a good block - DF's rhetoric has passed the point of acceptability. Given that even after being blocked, he is apparently either unwilling or unable to dial back on the personal attacks (calling people "evil") and the battlefield behavior, I don't feel X number of days is magically going to fix the issues here, and I would also support converting the block to indef. In recommending an indef, I do mean that in the traditional sense of the word: a block with no fixed end point, but not a block intended to last forever. As soon as DF is able to show that he understands that his current style of engagement is not acceptable and that he intends to fix it, I would support an unblock - despite his problematic engagement style, he has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and it would be a shame to lose him permanently. Note: I put DF's unblock request on hold yesterday with a note that the block should be decided by this ANI, not by a single reviewing admin. I hadn't intended to comment here then, but now that I have, if it's felt that my putting the unblock request on hold is a problem, I have no objection to the hold being adjusted/taken over by someone else/removed/whatever. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock: Dream's comments being cited are no different than how he has been for many years, with nary a block I can recall. Some sort of discussion first would have been appropriate. Otherwise, we would have been seeing massing number of blocks in the past for comments such as "inclusionist Taliban" and other things the ARS has been called. Two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make internet drama.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • That "Taliban" comment was struck by another admin and the editor warned. But it's a single incident - DF and other ARS editors have been doing this for years, whilst squealing loudly if anyone dares to criticise them. It's clear from the above that DF still doesn't understand collegial editing even after being blocked (from above - "if it really matters if the word "evil" is replaced by something that means the exact same thing. Refer to them as "bad" deletionists perhaps") and he's not really being helped by other ARS editors like FeydHuxtable (who even yesterday was using exactly the same language that got DF blocked). The sensible members of the ARS must be sitting there with their heads in their hands. 86.174.213.12 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• The "Taliban" incident is but one illustration, claiming its a single incident is wrong wrong wrong. The "sensible members of the ARS"? Who are these straw men Obama-like people who allow outrages to occur and simply shake their heads "oh well, we lost another new editor today and some worthwhile content, but that's what Wall Street wanted." No, when I see a horrible AfD nomination, I call it out as such. 90% of AfD nominations are fine, its the bad EVIL ones that concern me.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support block, though not (on the grounds that surely, surely DF will see the problem) a conversion to indef. Disagree with Milowent that just because DF has continued acting as "he has been for many years" that makes it all right; he's been advised, strongly, to remove the battleground mentality, but has declined to. Maybe a week will help him to take the advice seriously. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Its capricious to block someone for doing what they always do without warning, that's my point there.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"been advised, strongly, to remove the battleground mentality, but has declined to." Uh no, most people said it was fine. The few people I see complaining are the ones I see insulting the ARS constantly and arguing with me in AFDs. I broke no rules, and received no official warning for anything. Some people consider anyone posting their opinions about Wikipedia related matters "a battleground mentality" if they simply disagree with them on something. Dream Focus 20:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)_{posted from user talk. AniMate 21:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)}

• Comment – it seems that whilst everyone is looking to criticise Dream Focus and his attitude, and ARS, no one has offered a "safety line" that might be considered, here. Given that DF is reading and often responding to comments here, perhaps he might do himself a favour by considering this. Let's assume ARS is a means to an end, and ask him to justify it. The {{rescue}} template was offered to editors as a means of giving editors concerned that an article at AfD was indeed notable. I am interested in DF/ARSs "success rate". i.e. a sportsman who competes in 100 events but never scores high is not really that good, compared with one who has 10 titles under his wing. In a similar way, nobody is going to really thankful if DF/ARS saved 100 stubs from AfD that never developed beyond stub/start level. What I want to know, is can DF name all those AfDs he, as part of ARS, rescued that have actually developed into GA or even FA status, shortly after rescue, and therefore were worthy of keeping. Perhaps, by justifying ARS, DF can justify his role, rather than solely defend his attitude towards deletion. If there is good from retention/inclusion, there surely mush be just-rewards to boast? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Good block Of a regularly tendentious editor who likes disrupting processes. Also, noting that when groups begin to take via that they are outside the normal processes of the encyclopedia and exempt, that usually isn't a good sign, see WP:Esperanza. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • What processes am I disrupting? Can you link to one example of this? Dream Focus 00:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • COI editing, Deletion process, Deletion process, Deletion process (WP:V/BLP), Deletion review. MBisanz ^talk 06:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
      • • You link to a place where I made a simple mistake, got reverted, and didn't pursue the matter farther. Have you never made a mistake before? Is that a reason to block someone? The second link shows me responding to someone who is accusing a certain editor of messing with the Rescue Squadron by tagging something the editor complained doesn't believe should be tagged, and I mention a previous article the person in question had tagged to mess with us about zoophillia vegetarianism or something. I don't remember its exact name. I then make the joke I already explained, which most people commented on say was clearly humor, "Anyway, it doesn't matter now since the evil hordes of deletionists seemed to have finally done us in." since the ARS had been deleted anyway. Your third link makes no sense at all. What are you complaining about here? [28] You then link to an AFD where I, among others, thought all rumors covered in reliable news sources about Sesame Street should be in a separate article, while some felt they should be included in the existing character articles themselves, or not be featured at all.[29] Are you trying to have me blocked because you disagree with my stance on things? The next link is something I already said I regretted saying, "mindlessly deletionist drones", I was just stunned at the time that someone whose well reviewed music is heard by millions and who has a detailed interview easily found about him in a reliable source, got deleted. I offered ample links and rational as to why the article was clearly notable, which it of course is. I'll bring that to deletion review once this block is lifted. Dream Focus 09:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)copied from user talk pablo 09:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, and per the recent comments at
  WP:NOTNEWS violations must be evil. Please stick to improving the encyclopedia without the drama. Any unblock request should be accompanied by an undertaking to remove the blogs and rants from User:Dream Focus. Johnuniq (talk
  ) 00:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Very bad block, a warning should have been given first. Just imagine that you make some statement that leads to you being blocked because it is judged to be against community norms. For argument's sake we can assume that the statement actually is against community norms (as e.g. some later AN/I thread will make clear). Then, unless the block was needed as an emergency action to protect Wikipedia (in case of inappropriate comments like we're discussing here, that's hardly a possibility), your block would not have prevented any problems. Apart form this violating Wikipedia's blocking policy, the block is also counterproductive. Thing is that while you may have felt that your comments were not over the top when you made them, you could in principle be open to be persuaded that these sorts of comments should not be made here. However, because you are now blocked, that is likely going to make you argue differently. You may now defend your comments because, even if they are against community norms, they are not so much over the top that it should have led to a block (from your POV). So, the focus now shifts from the comments to the block and it leads you to dig in. The net result may be that when the block is lifted, you won't take on board the community feedback about your comments as much as you would otherwise have done. If you persist in making inappropriate comments after multiple warnings that are supported by the community, then you can always be blocked. In such a case, when writing an inappropriate comment, you make a deliberate choice to violate community norms about which you were warned previously. Count Iblis (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support block: DF's battleground mentality and incivility has been a long standing problem. Even during this discussion, he does not seem to grasp the fact that he has been acting inappropriately, and rather than demonstrating any sincere and contrite resolution to improve his behavior, he espresses disdain for consensus and a flippant disregard for his fellow editors. I'd have nothing against extending the block to "indef" until he gets the point and sincerely promises to change his ways. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn block He might be blunt, and fond of hyperbole, but unless someone is going to write "WP:TELL ME WHAT I WANT TO HEAR ALL OF THE TIME" I think the project would be better served by reserving this type of action for occasions that are actively disruptive. Grumping on his talk page seems about as passive of a form of expression that I can think of. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Confused. Could I have missed some context? There's no way on earth that an editor could be blocked under Wikipedia policy for calling deletionism or deltionists as a class evil without there being more to the story, and to do so would be to take a side in a schism. Deletionism is a kind of evil. So there, are you going to block me? There is some serious thought as to why otherwise sentient good willed people would make it their urgent business to undo other people's contributions, and some would say this is a problematic attitude on the one hand, and process fault run amok on Wikipedia on the other. I know I've missed any current wikipolitics about article rescue squadron, or any dispute that led up to this. And for sure, the vast majority of new pages on subjects of questionable notability are simply not fit for the encyclopedia. But how did it come to this? If blocks are supposed to prevent disruption, what possible disruption is there from railing against deletionism on one's own page? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Three questions

The above discussion is convoluted in part because three separate questions are being discussed as if they were one question. (See

Was the block good

No. While improper behavior by an editor is a necessary condition for a block, it is not sufficient. DF has been engaging in similar behavior since 2009 [30]; the fact the community has long since tolerated the behavior implies there was no urgent need to bypass lesser sanctions. Arguments that

• I agree with that view. Imagine if Kiefer.Wolfowitz were blocked the first (or the second) time he disparaged some other editor instead of holding Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. It's possible (but not very plausible) that he might not have disparaged anyone else after that, but Wikipedia would have also been deprived of all his other contributions. Dream Focus does appear to do occasional stuff that builds the encyclopedia (article edit picked at random from his recent contribs). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 12:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think the most inappropriate part is his inability or unwillingness to see the matter from the other side or accept that hyperbole can become counterproductive. He does seem to have saddled on the proverbial
  WP:DEADHORSE at this point, although blunt confrontation can sometimes have that effect. ASCIIn2Bme (talk
  ) 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I do see that some people are sincere in not seeing any humor there and thus bothered by it. I can reword things, it isn't a problem. I tried editing my user page already, but the block prevents me from doing that. I asked specifically what people were bothered by and examples. Dream Focus 02:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Hell no And the lack of understanding, lack of sincerity, and incompetence by continually suggesting that they can simply replace "evil" with "bad" and still do it is mind-boggling (
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 12:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me EXACTLY what "appropriate behaviors" you are referring to? Don't be vague and expect me to somehow read your mind. I asked if I replaced the word "evil" with "bad" would that solve that problem? No one answered me on that. You need to be specific. Dream Focus 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Copied from Dream Focus' talk page by Goodvac (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Changing evil to bad won't work either. It's still that same battleground mentality. The people who disagree with you aren't bad or evil, and until you stop looking at them like that I'm not sure you should be unblocked. AniMate 23:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(

WP:EQ to research "appropriate behaviors". When you are finished reading, you will also know the answer to your second question. I will give you a hint however, the answer is no. My76Strat (talk

) 23:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks isn't valid here. I'm not targeting anyone personally. I am not attacking all deletionists either. I'm am complaining about specific Wikipedia related problems. And this [31] bit on my user page, with the edit summary "The barbarian hordes have overwhelmed us at last! Civilization is surely doomed." is clearly done in a joking manner as most clearly understood. Dream Focus 23:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)