User talk:131.111.185.66

Welcome to Wikipedia!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (131.111.185.66) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

ITN Credit

ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Pau

Please restore the Catalan name to the text body of the article on the Catalan song, as per discussion 22:39 GMT on Talk page. Pushing through an edit when it has been objected to is edit-warring. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I am fully aware that such an edit can be considered to be edit-warring. I hope you can be understanding, though, that I did not see your message on the talk page, which is why I reverted your edit. Now that I have seen your message, I shall reply there and also revert my own revert on this page out of courtesy. I must insist you assume good faith on my part: I would not have reverted your change had I known about your message. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. No problem. Please see advice above about registering for account and/or logging in. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Perhaps inconveniently, I prefer not having a Wikipedia account. I edit Wikipedia when I see something of interest that should be edited (my IP address is shared, so not all of the edits listed there are from me). It gives me the flexibility to edit at my own leisure. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You really should get an account, it would be helpful for other users. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never needed an account before, because I have never had to experience a situation like this one. I have always made it clear who I am, so I cannot see how I have been unhelpful for other users: I have simply inconvenienced myself. 86.137.43.20 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as 131.111.185.66 (talk).

Inappropriate

this kind of edit is abnormal and inappropriate. Please remove it. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it myself. A better way to have a clear RfC would have been signing your original proposal (which I have done for you). In ictu oculi (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I did sign my original proposal, and I also wrote 'I have included below further information' to show that the information was written by me. I have restored my helpful note about our comments. Please remember that this is a request for comments to outside editors so that we can resolve the dispute in which we find ourselves. It is relevant that other readers are aware that we are the parties involved. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for a week for disruptive editing. When the block expires, please actively consider not arguing the toss over contentious issues against all comers regardless of the feedback you get. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 24 April 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I initiated a move request at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown because I believe the current article title violates numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The page title is contentious and therefore the request is receiving both support and opposition from users. I acted purely in good faith here. Some users do not agree with my suggestion, and I found myself blocked by one of these users. From what I read, I was under the impression that I was blocked solely because an administrator did not agree with my move request. After speaking to another administrator, it seems as if I was blocked just because I reverted the close. I believed at the time that this was appropriate: the close seemed inconsistent with the rules I had read and I thought it had been performed by a non-neutral regular user. After speaking to an administrator elsewhere, I have learnt that my block is presumably because of my revert and not because of my request. I was told about how the revert system works and what I should have done after the first revert, even if the close was wrong. I misunderstood the rules, because I have never been involved in a situation like this before. I am asking to be unblocked temporarily. I have absolutely no intention of participating in the current discussion at the page any longer. Instead, I would like to reply to a message I have been sent from User:Jimbo Wales and to say goodbye to Wikipedia properly (just a post about what I have done here and what it has meant to me. Immediately after this, I shall request a permanent block: I do not think I wish to participate at Wikipedia any longer.

Decline reason:

Being unblocked to say "good bye" or reply to a message is not a valid reason for unblock - nobody requires you to do either of those actions. The few people who have viewed this page have seen you say "good bye", so "adios and good luck" the panda ₯’ 00:38, 25 April 2014 (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.

• As Guy indicated at ANI, this block follows a lengthy series of disruptions in various articles; twice reverting closes made by admins is enough for a block after such edits. The editor has operated under a number of IP addresses (see Talk:Pablo Casals) so this whole "permanent block" is moot even if we issued permanent blocks on IP addresses--the editor knows this, being quite conversant with our policies and guidelines. Frankly, I don't believe a word they say in this request. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  Frankly, your comment is lacking in diffs. Considering you were one of the ones whose close was reverted, I don't trust your ability to be impartial. The IP also wasn't the only one to revert the close. Arkon (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have had no choice but to edit under different IP addresses: my home IP address naturally changes and I cannot help that. I am currently at university, where I have a fixed address and no access to any other computer for many weeks into the future.

If you look at Guy's talk page, I wrote to him there when I undid his close: I thought he had got confused between move 7 and 8. To be entirely honest with you, I did not even know that you or Guy were administrators: I thought you were ordinary users who closed the request because you disagreed with me. I thought that those actions broke rules and undoing them would be the 'lesser of two evils'. I now know this was incorrect, and I can promise that I would not have done so had I known it was incorrect at the time.

I am a good faith editor: if you look at the move request, even if you disagree with it, I referred only to guidelines and policies without trying to allow my personal feelings to interfere. I think it is unfair, albeit understandable given my reverts (even though they were not meant as they came across and I have already learnt from them), that I am the only user to be banned.

Ultimately, I have spent a decent amount of time on Wikipedia attempting both to improve both articles and the implementation of policies. After tonight, though, I realise that Wikipedia is not the place for me. This is why I would like a permanent block after apologising personally to users for those mistakes I made, replying to my unanswered messages and saying goodbye to some editors I will miss. Permanently banning this IP address afterwards will give me the distance I want to forget all about Wikipedia editing, so it would be effective, especially because I only have access to this address for many weeks to come. Instead, I am just waiting around for one week, and I cannot see what this would achieve, especially because I can promise that I will not participate in the current discussion. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict] You can always sign up for an account. It's free. Where this Arkon character is coming from is not clear, so let's feel free to disregard that. Here's the thing: admins' edits aren't really all that sacred, but when someone closes something it's probably a good thing to check who they are before you revert them, esp. if this happens twice in a row. Now you understand that Guy and I don't have much reason to look too kindly on your edits, and it's not helped by the fact that unfortunately someone else reverted me (see? not sacred), so this unholy mess is going to fester on for a little bit. But if you want to be unblocked just so you can get blocked again, you're just creating more work, esp. since, as I explained above (sorry, without a diff, haha), our policy is that IPs do not get blocked (not banned) indefinitely. Your request below, however, is much more reasonable, and it might be granted. Good luck to you, whether you stay or go. [I typed this before you removed your unblock request.] Drmies (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This Arkon character told you that you are not impartial, which you just stated yourself. This character also told you that you didn't provide diffs for your accusations (still haven't). That character then concluded by stating the fact that only one of the reverters was actually blocked. Pretty easy, really. Arkon (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being understanding, Arkon. Drmies, I checked your user page before I reverted you to see whether you were an administrator. I checked your user boxes (where I thought such a notice had to be) and did not find anything. I did not scroll down any further. I hope you can understand, from the comment you made in the close, why I thought it was a non-neutral close made by a regular user rather than a neutral and disinterested close by an administrator. That does not excuse me from making the revert, though, although I did not understand how the revert system worked (I thought I was entitled to three reverts and to revert your BOLD move, but I was wrong). It was hugely unfair and, in my opinion, wrong for Talk:Pablo Casals to be considered. I was part of a contentious request for comments, but this was decided in my favour and there was never any suggestion at the time I should have been banned. Given what has happened, and how a perfectly legitimate move request started in good faith ended up the way it has, I have lost respect for Wikipedia users and I no longer have the faith in administrators that I should. I very much doubt I will be participating again, which is a shame. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have just withdrawn an updated request for review I made. Whilst I accept that my reverts were wrong and I would not do such a thing again (now that I understand the situation better), I still think it is unfair that I am the only user to have been blocked after what has happened. The entire situation has been full of problematic edits by users, administrators and non-administrators alike. Despite this, I have learnt from my block and I recognise that it relates to my actions and not the actions of others. Now that I have had a few hours to reflect on what has happened, I have assured myself that I am more than capable of leaving Wikipedia without a permanent block. When the block expires next week, I shall finish what I mentioned above and take a long 'Wikibreak'. There is no need for a further block and there is no need for a permanent block, unlike what I requested above. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW 131, I think it was a well argued case, and I'm very sorry that it may not see the light of day, due to a small cabal of editors who wield power and influence and aren't able to see neutrally on these matters, nor are they willing to trust the community to weigh your arguments carefully. But don't let this vindictive and bullshit block scare you off wikipedia, it's a good place generally.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Obiwankenobi. I think it is a huge shame that my good faith request has turned out the way it has. It seems as if many users have replied without even reading the notes that I took so long to prepare (look at all of those citing NOTINHERITED incorrectly). Ultimately, I think the non-NPOV attempts to remove any mention of 'wife' are wrong, but that is a different matter altogether. I am also disappointed that my well-intended request was removed after no more than a couple of hours, seemingly because of the personal feelings of administrators: I do not think there is a consensus that requests like this should not be discussed, even if they have numerous supports.

Are you allowed to copy a message to User talk:Jimbo Wales for me or to ask him to visit this page? If you are not, please ignore this. I was in the middle of writing to him when I was blocked and I am worried that he does not know I am blocked and he thinks I am being rude by not replying. I would like to reply with the following:

Thank you for your reply, Jimbo. I am sorry I was not able to reply sooner. It turned out that a reasonable discussion was not possible and the request has turned out horribly. I have ended up being blocked by an administrator and I can only edit my user page.

My whole argument on the page was that, even if 'Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown)' is considered by some to be sexist, because it is how she is best described by common sources, then I think policy means that it is still the best option. My concern with 'Sarah Jane Brown' is that she is never called Jane: in a discussion one year ago, only one reliable source was found for Jane, and that was an article written in The Guardian on her wedding day (which also used her maiden name). I would be more supportive of something like 'Sarah Brown (philanthropist)', because she has actually been described as this by reliable sources on multiple occasions.

Whatever I think, though, it seems as if the issue is too problematic for users to consider calmly. I made the request in good faith and considered the policies carefully, yet the request has caused multiple arguments spread throughout various pages. The actions made by various users last night, by both administrators and non-administrators, have destroyed my confidence in Wikipedia. I no longer feel that I can trust administrators as a regular editor should do. Because of this, I have decided I shall withdraw from editing completely, even after the block has expired. This is a shame, but it is what I feel is most appropriate for myself. I genuinely, however, wish you and your project the best of luck in the future. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Obi, thank you for your support. I expect (and somewhat hope, given the contention of what has happened) that this matter might be assessed by a place like ARBCOM, so as to establish what actions should have been done and what should not have been done. I am truly sorry that my request has turned out the way it has, but I am not sure I can be sorry for making it (or taking the time to make it, either). 131.111.185.66 (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Guy has now claimed on WP:ANI that his block is 'based on a pattern of disruptive behaviour going back months, with endless querulous demands for things that are not going to happen.'. The majority of my recent edits have related to a contentious request for comments at Talk:Pablo Casals. An administrator assessed that there was consensus for my changes (which were subsequently made) and there was no suggestion that I had been disruptive. I made a previous edit request at Talk:Liverpool and was thanked for doing so. Guy's assessment of my previous editing history is wrong, in my opinion. Guy's close was ambiguous and it looked as if he had got confused between requests 7 and 8. I tried to contact him on his user page, where he was unhelpful, rude and told me to 'Talk to the hand', thereby preventing any chance of communication. I am now unable to respond to any of the allegations made against me because of his block. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi: Please let me know if you get this message. I have never tried to use a ping before so I do not know how it works or whether it will work for me now. I am obviously very concerned about what is now happening throughout Wikipedia because of my (good faith) move request. However you feel, please try not to get yourself a block, because I would feel incredibly guilty if that were to happen. The threats to block are obviously becoming more and more serious and I feel that this matter has gone far beyond WP:ANI now. I think the only course of actions would be WP:ARBCOM. Perhaps they could establish a temporary solution and they could investigate the actions of users properly. What do you think? I would have filed a case, but I am unable to do so because of my block (I can only edit this page). It might help prevent any further escalation. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I apologise in advance for making this request again. After reading the help page (which I had not done before), I realise that my previous request was inappropriate and focused on the wrong aspects of the block. I was banned for reverting a close made by two administrators. The entire situation is very complicated and there have been multiple revertions by multiple users. Regardless, I did not know that the two users were administrators: I thought they were ordinary users who had performed an incorrect action. After learning more about reverts, I understand that, even if the two administrators had made the wrong decision, or if they had been ordinary users, I should not have reverted the close. I was under the impression that I was allowed to make three reverts and also to revert bold actions. This was incorrect. I am a good faith editor who has absolutely no interest in disrupting Wikipedia. I have not reduced myself to personal attacks and my block was a consequence of not understanding the revert system. If I were to be unblocked, I can promise you that I would not make any such revert again.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I apologise in advance for making this request again. After reading the help page (which I had not done before), I realise that my previous request was inappropriate and focused on the wrong aspects of the block. I was banned for reverting a close made by two administrators. The entire situation is very complicated and there have been multiple revertions by multiple users. Regardless, I did not know that the two users were administrators: I thought they were ordinary users who had performed an incorrect action. After learning more about reverts, I understand that, even if the two administrators had made the wrong decision, or if they had been ordinary users, I should not have reverted the close. I was under the impression that I was allowed to make three reverts and also to revert bold actions. This was incorrect. I am a good faith editor who has absolutely no interest in disrupting Wikipedia. I have not reduced myself to personal attacks and my block was a consequence of not understanding the revert system. If I were to be unblocked, I can promise you that I would not make any such revert again. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I apologise in advance for making this request again. After reading the help page (which I had not done before), I realise that my previous request was inappropriate and focused on the wrong aspects of the block. I was banned for reverting a close made by two administrators. The entire situation is very complicated and there have been multiple revertions by multiple users. Regardless, I did not know that the two users were administrators: I thought they were ordinary users who had performed an incorrect action. After learning more about reverts, I understand that, even if the two administrators had made the wrong decision, or if they had been ordinary users, I should not have reverted the close. I was under the impression that I was allowed to make three reverts and also to revert bold actions. This was incorrect. I am a good faith editor who has absolutely no interest in disrupting Wikipedia. I have not reduced myself to personal attacks and my block was a consequence of not understanding the revert system. If I were to be unblocked, I can promise you that I would not make any such revert again. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I apologise in advance for making this request again. After reading the help page (which I had not done before), I realise that my previous request was inappropriate and focused on the wrong aspects of the block. I was banned for reverting a close made by two administrators. The entire situation is very complicated and there have been multiple revertions by multiple users. Regardless, I did not know that the two users were administrators: I thought they were ordinary users who had performed an incorrect action. After learning more about reverts, I understand that, even if the two administrators had made the wrong decision, or if they had been ordinary users, I should not have reverted the close. I was under the impression that I was allowed to make three reverts and also to revert bold actions. This was incorrect. I am a good faith editor who has absolutely no interest in disrupting Wikipedia. I have not reduced myself to personal attacks and my block was a consequence of not understanding the revert system. If I were to be unblocked, I can promise you that I would not make any such revert again. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

131.111.185.66

I hope you don't leave, 131, and return to editing when your block is over. Admins will not permanently block an IP address because it is potentially used by lots of different people. So, I guess you will have to exercise self-control or, better yet, create a registered account. It should be that IPs and user account are treated the same but the fact is that when you have an account with a name attached, editors will treat you with more good faith and as a distinct person since anyone at your university could conceivably use the same IP address that you are using. I've edited both as an IP user and a registered account and once you have a username, you start acquiring allies who will support you (and enemies, too, but that's a part of life). Most people just don't get attached to (or even remember) an IP number and so they are more suspicious. Like I said, it shouldn't be that way but it's human nature.

As far as "I no longer have the faith in administrators that I should have", well, I think you will quickly find that editors' faith in admins varies quite a deal, depending on the admin and the editor. Some productive editors are openly hostile to admins but as long as they abide by WP rules and keep focused on the work they do and don't seek out conflict, they usually won't run into problems. Most editors have mixed feelings towards the admin corps, as a unit, that includes some resentment when they have been censured or got their knuckles whacked along with gratitude that, for the most part, admins do thankless work that results in other editors heaping abuse in their direction. Just like any human organization, Wikipedia is not perfect, there are plenty of blind spots and faults but for a collaborative creation of tens of thousands of different flawed editors, it is also pretty remarkable that it exists at all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Liz. Ultimately, I am just an anonymous user who edits Wikipedia when I see little mistakes, like spellings or incorrect links. Over the past few months, I have become more interested and have tried to learn more about how Wikipedia works. I am glad you seem to understand that I am not out to cause trouble and that I am not a bad person. Just so you know, this is only my IP address whilst at university: when I am at home, my IP address changes and so my edits are scattered around. That has never been a problem, because my edits have never been contentious.

Your second paragraph has made me think and, perhaps after a bit of time away, I might feel more positively about Wikipedia. My problem lay in that I had full trust in administrators to stay neutral and to guide discussions to civil ends, and so the actions I saw last night came across as especially bad to me. It is especially frustrating to have been accused by an administrator of being 'sexist', 'disruptive', 'pointy', 'misogynist', 'yanking our collective chain' and 'making endless querulous demands' without being given the chance to make any reply when I had given up my time to make what I thought was an appropriate suggestion. There was a complete lack of good faith and the same administrator is now threatening to block anyone who discusses it further. Whilst I am very appreciative of the work of other Wikipedia users, I just do not feel comfortable around here any more.

In case you read this message, please may you alert Obiwankenobi to the 'ping' I gave him above? I am worried he might get himself into trouble because of my request, and I would feel guilty because of this. I think this whole matter has gone far out of hand and it needs proper assessment away from ANI.

Thank you again, Liz. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No. You're blocked because of pretty much everything you have done related to the article Sarah Jane Brown. Not only related to ridiculous and repeated move requests, but comments on Jimbo's page and elsewhere. I hate to say it, but everything you have done related to that article meets the definition of a WP:TROLL, and that's not a good thing. You're on a one-IP single-minded crusade, and abusing process and people in the process. The reversions of closes were merely straws that broke certain camels backs. Yes, your statements were indeed sexist, misogynist (yeah, pretty much synonyms), pointy, and yanking our collective chain. I personally couldn't believe in 2014 that there were still people with 1930's-type thinking. So, your unblock request above is wholly wrong - and unrelated to the history of your actions that led to the block. You'll need to address those elements, i.e. your entire behaviour related to that article, no matter where that behaviour took place. the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

those are some well styled personal attacks there Panda. Praytell did you even bother to read the move request? I've seen a lot of move requests from IPs and this is one of the better ones I've ever seen - @In ictu oculi: and @B2C: for their opinion as well on the IPs move request and adherence to policy. Moreover, I think this IP filed the earlier request to move to Sarah Brown - was that also sexist? Tarc tried to revert that first move request, calling it misogynist - based apparently not on the act but on a potential future act. Are you also working for the pre-crime division where you can be sexist before you are sexist? I haven't seen the IPs other contributions but can you please show me a sexist diff, eg a diff where a woman is treated differently because of her gender? That's what sexism means. You do realize we have hundreds of other articles that are disambiguated based on relationship, including 71 other wives and dozens of sons, daughters and fathers and even a few husbands - are those all misogynistic or misandrist -and should we block all of the editors who selected such horrible titles? We even have a category, Category:Spouses of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and an article on same. You also point out multiple move requests at SJB - did you ever bother to read them? People tried to move this article away from 'wife' or 'spouse' for 4 years!! But they were constantly rebuffed by consensus, that fickle bird. But now that the 'Jane' camp has captured the flag with what is frankly an amazingly anti-reader title (page views dropped by roughly 56% after the move to SJB, suggesting readers had a harder time finding the article!), they say 'stop with the disruptive move requests' - in other words, move requests are only disruptive if we like the current title; if we don't like the current title, make as many move requests as it takes! The hypocrisy displayed is nothing short of stunning. Real misogyny and real misandry exists on the wiki, but you're looking in the wrong place, and making a mountain out of a molehill. Did you know the vast bulk of reliable sources introduce Sarah Brown as "wife of Gordon Brown, ex PM" or "Sarah Brown, wife of the PM" - Are they _all_ sexist? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how you can find a single personal attack there, Obi-wan. So I'll just let you vent, knowing that if you're wrong about personal attacks at the beginning of your rant, then the pattern likely continues through the rest. I provided a clear way forward for the IP to amend their unblock so that they can indeed become unblocked - apparently I'm the only one who considers that a priority. Others want to lay blame, rather than solve the problem. Good luck with that the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This IP was the victim of bullying, plain and simple. We have named editors who have done much worse collective-yanking-of-chains but who were let off easy. As for personal attacks, calling someone a troll, sexist, misogynist, having "1930's thinking", "abusing people and process" - yeah, those are ALL personal attacks in my book. Your statement is so full of falsehoods that it's obvious you're not familiar with the details of the case, so perhaps you should cease giving partisan advice here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)