User talk:SimonTrew

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

CSD

I give you a little background knowledge. A close relative of mine has been in hospital twice in two weeks with two not-so-minor strokes. I have been suffering blood poisioning and am on a strong antibiotic that makes it difficult sometimes for me to hit the keys right as my fingers don't work so well. I still managed to get through about a hundred Neelix redirects a night and brought down the totals in a month of doing about a hundred a night – not always right of course but with an intelligent choice to go CSD or RfD or keep – but I will not suffer personal abuse for what is essentially the remit granted by the G6 discussion six or seven months ago. Neither do I think Neelix should suffer that because they were created in good faith and actually as very many of them are Christian related I can guess but only guess that Neelix is a committed Christian so he doesn't have to answer to me or to anyone else at Wikipedia, he only has to ask forgiveness from his Lord, and I imagine he has done so. Now I believe somewhere in The Lord's Prayer it says forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us (in the KJV wot I learned) and although not much a Christian myself (I'm an apathist) I think whatever religion you should do that for anyone. It ain't me doing the Neelix bashing. If I am Neelix bashing then every other admin who keeps, closes or rejects one of my Neelix sends is Neelix bashing by saying "Neelix" by G6 – and for that matter G6 itself is presumably Neelix bashing because it actually not only has the name but links it to the user. So it ain't me doing the bashing here but following the WP:CONSENSUS. I suppose User:Anomie is "neelix bashing" by having lists called User:Anomie/Neelix list (numbers 1 to 5). I suppose that user must be "neelix bashing". We could call it the "öüóőúéáű list" for all I care but that is not going to help anyone, is it? Bye bye. Si Trew (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Do something else

Take a break from the Neelix stuff. Work on something else. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Oiyarbepsy. The thing is with this septacemia in my hands I have not really been able to do the fiddly bits to work on e.g. a French translation (I have a Belgian French keyboard I can swap to but pushing that in the back of the computer I couldn't manage that, but I could click through the Neelix list and make decisions for keep, delete, discuss.

Yes I know you can just change keyboard layout but it's for the symbols you don't use much that you don't know where they are that you want to look at the keys, I haven't looked at the keys typing this at all and this is Hungarian layout óöüőúáűő you would probably struggle to find ő for example but I have that right to the next of P on its own key). Taking a break was exactly what I was/am doing but I hope when I resume the Neelix redirects there will be none of this nonsense of "Neelix bashing". I don't know the percentage but quite a lot, I would reckon twenty to twenty five percent, I just speedily keep and rcat as {{R from plural}} or {{R from other name}} or {{R from other spelling}} or whatever. I do not just wander around with a blunderbuss taking potshots at them. Si Trew (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The encouragement means a lot to me. I thought I was on my own. Si Trew (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Get better Simon

I don't know if you remember me but I've been around for years and we met each other at articles now and then. I hope you take care of your health Simon, blood poisoning isn't a trivial thing. Also, it is important that you don't let the stress from this Neelix thing touch you anymore. People nowadays have a need to hurt others and with your work here, and the way you do it, you are a target for them. You're right to not take that anymore and now it's time to get it out of your system and heal from that as well. But don't leave completely, just take a break, mow the lawn, grow some veggies etc. Hang on Simon, all the best to you. DeVerm (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I don't remember you User:DeVerm but no doubt we have crossed paths now and again – perhaps on some translated article or something? Thank you for your kind thoughts. I am on the mend. Someone has to do it so I took on the job and so I can kinda expect the criticism. It is not the disagreement – if in any doubt I take to RfD but I don't want to flood RfD with everything – the bad faith that I dislike. Because I have over the years added content to articles on many different subjects, I somewhat know everything about nothing (and not too much about that) but with say doing French translation you get to learn things you never knew like when I did Mariniere (can't do the grave accent on this keyboard). So I kinda do learn things from Wikipedia along the way! I'll be all right. I could even manage to call up the spirit of User:Mjroots the other day to help on a railway redirect. In no way cliquey but I kinda know who has helped me over the years and who to call on for their expertise, with the Neelix ones I cannot be expected to RS and check every single one, all I can do is say rubbish, keep, or RfD and ask an expert. That's what I have been trying to do anyway. Si Trew (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Sorry to hear you are ill. DeVerm and Oiyarbepsy have excellent advice (except for mowing the lawn). I'm looking forward to more of your abysmal doggerel in the not too distant future. Jschnur (talk) 06:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, mowing the lawn sounds ike a stich-up to me! _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The lawn looks great. I put the mower down on a shorter cut and it looks great now. The hardest thing was doing the rip-cord on the engine to get it started, after that I am fine, nothing wrong with me legs. Needs a bit of grass seed in a few places but is looking pretty nice. My landlords like it enough to thank me anyway. Si Trew (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The encouragement means a lot to me. I thought I was on my own. The doggerel some admins like it some don't but it must be as boring for them as it is for me so I try to make it a bit more interesting! I wouldn't recommend putting them in an anthology as I might outsell William MacGonagall or something! Si Trew (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the other day I made a mistake anyway. I accidentally called some bit that I quoted (a good one, not one of mine) a clerihew when in fact it is a double dactyl.

Hickory dickory

Micromus minimus

Took all his bravery

Ran up the clock

Something then struck him all

tergiversatory

Had it been twelve he'd have

Wound up in shock.

(Not one of mine. In E. O. Parrott's How to be well-versed in poetry a collection of kinda literary wit from newspaper competitions). Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I remember it was:

Upsetting the applecart

Scholar Copernicus

Ptolomy's rival for

solar esteem

Suggested his

Heliocentrical paradigm

Could be regarded as

Somewhat extreme.

I rather like the double dactyl, I think they are better than clerihews on the whole, you can do more with them. I was getting rid of a lot of "helio-centricalism" and that kind of things. And the poem is wrong anyway because of course Ptolomy had a terracentrical view, but I guess that wouldn't fit the meter quite so nicely. Best wishes User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, never let the facts get in the way of a good idea. Jschnur (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• Your not the only one doing silly Neelix delete noms. Mine include effulgent and manable. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

We'll get there User:Oiyarbepsy. We're doing it and managing it and making the encylopaedia better. Just other people don't think we do. As another user I forget which pointed out I think it was User:Ivanvector but I may be wrong, the problem with these is they become (my words feral) and escape into online dictionaries and so on. No problem with people inventing new words but Wikipedia is not the place to do it WP:NEOLOGISM. In fact many years ago I used to submit each week to Longman any new word I found in print (well before the days of Wikipedia) any word I found in print that was not in any dictionary I had (and I had/have several) for the Longman's Dictionary of New Words, they had a kinda send-in-your-quotation thing (which cost me a postage stamp) so they could add it to their corpus. I imagine with the Internet long gone now. Well, what you want with an etymological dictionary is to have kinda the first recorded use, that is how the [[OED]g works. So the quicker you see a new use you send it off to the lexicographers they can do with it what they will but then they have first recorded use. Si Trew (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Get well soon

Sorry you're having a rough time of it lately, Simon. Septicemia is no trivial thing, take care of yourself. Wikipedia is a fine thing but it's not worth your health. Hope to see you back when you're feeling better. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. Maybe I will help clear the remaining Neelix backlog. Realize though, that there are other backlogs where I am about the only person working them, and if I move over to work "Neelix", I will be at least temporarily abandoning some other backlog to do that. Prioritization leaves us some hard choices. In hindsight, I think the community could have done a better job of defining "Neelix redirects guidelines and procedures"; it's sad that so much stress was generated over this. Finding the right balance between giving due respect to a fellow editor, while also dealing with the issues of their past edits, can be a challenge. wbm1058 (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I just want to add my best wishes too. Get well soon, Simon. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all, especially to User:Ivanvector because that user and I often have WP:CIVIL run-ins so a get well soon from Ivanvector means a hell of a lot to me. I am OK it is the drugs I looked it up there is an article on Wikipedia um I finished the box just threw it away Augmentin do send me a bit screwy so I apologise for that. Nearly better then I can get back to keep/delete/ask these Neelix redirects on Monday maybe. Thanks User:Wbm1058 if there is another list I take, I will take that and keep off the Neelix one. Si Trew (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Si, you might try Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings. If you look at the history of that, the list has grown for 13 of the last 14 weeks, and the one week that it was reduced in size was the last week that I put significant time into it. It was reduced in size for seven weeks in a row when I last did steady work on it. It's on my "to-do list" to develop a more automated system for working it more efficiently. If fixing spelling errors isn't your cup of tea, let me know and I'll make another suggestion. Can you {{cot}} the section below and say you're done discussing such matters. My eyes hurt just looking at it. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia that keeps me going, I am sorry if I am kinda making a bish of it but by exercising my fingers on my keyboard it keeps them moving and exercised. Last night I built a stupid well not jigsaw puzzle but 3D model of the Taipei Tower. I just need to keep them exercised and by keeping my fingers moving I can do that so I might as well make some use of them. Si Trew (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats

Your recent edits to User talk:Tavix could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. I wish I didn't have to leave this message here, but I chose this as an alternative to taking this directly to WP:AN/I as I usually would, due to our collaboration in the past and my respect for you. Legal threats are unacceptable and shouldn't be ignored. I wish you well in regard to above as well. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it was definitely a legal threat. Personal attacks against someone using their real name who is very easy to find as the only Simon Trew living in Hungary is a personal attack. I am perfectly entitled to make a legal threat User:Godsy when I get a personal attack the Wikipedia licence agreement does not exclude me from taking libel action against someone making personal attacks. To be fair, I was using Tavix as a bit of a test case, in fact I supported and wholly encouraged Tavix' adminship, I have no problem with User:Tavix but an editor who within two days of having adminship starts saying "Simon's problem is" is a personal attack. And I usually going through the Neelix redirects have had four or five a day. As you well know User:Godsy there is a record of every conversation and if someone makes a personal attack on me I have every legal right to challenge the nature of that. My rights that I give up to Wikimedia Foundation are that anything I write, essentially, belongs to them in perpetuum. It does not mean that I give up my personal rights and that is exactly why I said it was WP:NPA. It was said as a shot across the bows but as I said there, attack the argument not the person. "Simon's problem is" cannot be construed in any other way than a personal attack. I think people should maybe choose their words a little more carefully. I absolutely reserve the right to take legal action against anyone who libels me. Si Trew (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

And I think, the "threat" of a ban is confusing me with some user who gives a shit. Si Trew (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Si, you may take it better coming from me since AFAIK we don't have any particular history other than occasional disagreements at RFD and over how best to handle Neelix. The template Godsy is using above is confusingly worded, but he's not making a threat; what he's trying to say is that owing to assorted rulings and policy decisions, "legal threats" is one of the very few areas in which Wikipedia admins have no discretion. If an admin genuinely believes that someone is making a threat to take legal action against another editor or the WMF, that admin is obliged to indefinitely block the editor in question until the matter is resolved, to force the parties to use the correct channels. I don't believe for a moment that you're making a genuine legal threat (for one thing there's no legal aid for libel cases, and I can't imagine you have the private funds to file a protracted lawsuit in California, a state with the strongest anti-SLAPP laws in the world). Unless you are serious, I strongly advise not to make comments regarding taking legal action. Remember that Wikipedia is a global project, and admins from some places, particularly cultures with a strong "If I say I'm going to do a thing, I do it" ethos, are unlikely to grasp the nuances of the interaction of "frustrated venting" and "stiff upper lip". It's not for me, or anyone else, to tell you how to live your life, but if you're going to be indefinitely blocked "getting snappy about Neelix" is a really pointless thing to leave over.

As regards Neelix, I would echo the suggestion that you leave it for a bit. I believe Drmies and I between us deleted all the genuinely problematic ones, so the ones which are left are pointless rather than actively disruptive. If they survive a month longer than they otherwise would have, it's no big deal, and it's obvious from your recent comments that you're finding dealing with them frustrating. ‑ Iridescent 11:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said, you're confusing me with a man who gives a shit. I absolutely have a right that any editor who makes a personal libel against me – and I know for a fact that I am the only Simon Trew in Hungary because I have the paperwork and in Hungary you have list of names you can give at birth – it cannot refer to anyone but me. Now, whatever the "rules" are I am entitled to sue and I absolutely reserve that right. The rights I gave under the Wikimedia copyright were essentially for anything I wrote to belong to the Foundation in perpetuum. It did not absolve them of any blame or libel (and it would be libel not slander because, not because it is written but because it is repeatable, a distinction some people fail to understand). You are dealing with a libertarian not quite as good as Albert Haddock but takes the Police to court for false arrest, takes a traffic warden to court for neglect of duty and so on. I am perfectly capable of taking anyone here who libels my name to court and I would probably win. But I am not even interested in taking an individual to court. I will just take the Wikimedia Foundation to court for libel and it will hit all the papers. I am quite capable of doing that. And I reserve my right to do it. Saying to someone "Legally, you are out of order" does not of itself constitute a threat, it is a notice of intent that should be served, essentially a writ. Legally, Wikimedia Foundation is out of order by allowing these libels of my good name to be published on their website. Fine, I take Wikimedia Foundation to court. Wikipedia is not the Supreme Justice Court. There are legal remedies when one's name gets libelled and I shall quite happily take them. Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The remedy, I imagine the Wikimedia Foundation would say, is don't use your real name. But it is actually very hard to change your name on Wikipedia as User:Champion well knows. Even were I so to do, the edit history would have my real name running all the way through it. But were it for people libelling me on Wikipedia then no harm would have been caused. Wikimedia Foundation as the legal owner is then mulcted in damages and must pay for the libel, whatever the small print says. I've been caused a libel, the Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for that libel, and they can pay reasonable damages for that libel. You can't go around just casting aspersions at real people and expect no comeback. Wikimedia Foundation is not some kind of fairy goddess that dispenses goodness. It dispenses evil as well through its participants and as a legal entity (a Delaware Company I belive these days, whereas HMRC owes me two pounds and sixpence and says so) and expect no possible comeback. What the crappy thing basically says is "I can run you over in my car but that is your fault for crossing the road, and since I sounded my horn it is your fault for not getting out of the way". Legally that is bollox. Si Trew (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Taking it further, because my dander is up as the good Albert Haddock said, who has made the libel (assume there is one for simplicity)? Is it the publisher of the information that is to say the Wikimedia Foundation or is it the individual who posted that information? In English common law it is actually both, for example in the Bananaballs case where Sonia Sutcliffe the wife of mass murdererer Peter Sutcliffe sued both Ian Hislop the editor and Pressdram Ltd the publisher of Private Eye) and were prosecuted jointly and severally. (The judge awarded 600,000 quid but it was reduced on appeal, meanwhile Eye's subscribers had raised a considerable sum towards the costs, which were given to the family's victims when won at the Court of Appeal, as it says at the article. I have been reading the Eye for a good thirty years now, very good investigative journalism). I can do the same. I do have my wits about me. And I would probably choose an English court of law because they look down rather heavily on libels (that is hardly forum shopping when I am an English citizen). Si Trew (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If that's justice, I'm a banana! _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, nobody's saying you don't have the right to sue. What I'm saying is that if you say anything which gives the impression you're planning to sue (rather than just talking about the theoretical possibility), there's a legal obligation to ban you from Wikipedia until the matter is resolved. Thus, what Godsy is saying is that if you're not planning on taking legal action, avoid saying anything that could give that impression (unless you're explicitly trying to commit wikicide, in which case there are much easier ways). ‑ Iridescent 12:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Seconding what Iridescent has said here: blocking for legal threats is a bright-line rule, you've crossed that line (noting above that you stated, "Oh, it was definitely a legal threat") and all of your opining about how you have served a notice and reserve the right to sue is dancing on the far side of that line, but everyone here seems to agree that you don't mean it seriously. Still, I strongly suggest you formally retract your threat. I know you don't like to click through links and maybe can't with your injury so I'm going to reproduce some text here from Wikipedia's no legal threats policy:

Section #Defamation:

A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to delete libelous material as soon as it is identified. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-en-qwikipedia.org.

Section #Perceived legal threats:

It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous," that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention. To avoid misunderstandings, use less charged wording, such as “that statement about me is false and damaging, and I ask that it be corrected."

If you feel that you've been personally attacked then there are ways that we can deal with that within the site, without involving the courts. Or, if you intend to sue, then for legal reasons you'll be blocked until your suit is resolved. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No I am simply reserving my right to sue. As I say I am a libertarian. I have walked through shopping malls with lit cigarettes and when told to stop smoking said "I am not smoking I am merely carrying a lit cigarette" (I should ideally have had a lit firework sparkler in the other hand, to make the point), since there seems no legal definition of what "smoking" actually is. Anyway, if you want something that makes your breath smell, is injurious to your health, causes untold amounts of litter and is unpleasant to be seen by others you should ban chewing gum. DIsgusting stuff and so difficult to get off a floor that they use a special chemical to do it, it really is the most disgusting habit, far worse than smoking. Should be banned everywhere. I propose for a year that smoking is allowed everywhere chewing gum is allowed and chewing gum is banned everywhere smoking is banned. Disgusting, horrible stuff. You draw up against a desk and someone has stuck their chewy wad of gum underneath it or whatever, disgusting lazy people, rather than put it in a bin. Disgusting it should be banned. Si Trew (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not intend to sue Tavix I intend to sue the Wikimedia Foundation and subpoena Jimmy Wales as the head of that foundation. If Jimbo fails to appear at court I don't think the courts will regard the matter very highly in the Wikimedia Foundation's favour. If someone goes around making personal accusations ("Simon's problem is") in full knowledge that I am the only Simon Trew on Wikipedia and in fact the only one in the whole country (there is another well-known Simon Trew in England who was, last time I knew, working at RAF Sandhurst as a military historian so I dissociate myself from him for legal reasons) then that user, with a pat diagnosis of what my problem is, is simply making a personal attack.

Now, Wikipedia has policies against personal attacks but fails to enforce those policies which is an act of negligence. You can't just go throwing mud around and hope none of it sticks. In this case it has not so much stuck as arrived in a bulldozer and flatten. For that, the Wikimedia Foundation is responsible. Were it not for their negligence in enforcing their own contract, this would not have happened.

You can't just go around attacking anyone Wikipedia editor or not who is acting in good faith and then walk away saying "oh, that's life", people are responsible for their actions. What has happened is that because recruitment agents tend to scout around websites and will find my name I will now find at job interviews for my next contract that "Simon Trew's problem is" this or that or the other. Note carefully it was not User:SimonTrew or Si Trew it was my name with the space i.e. a defamation. You can't just bandy around people's names like that and then hide behind a pseudonym yourself, you have to come to the court with clean hands, a dirty dog will get no justice from the courts as the good Albert Haddock said. Don't worry I shall ask the Wikimedia Foundation legally for all the real names of the people giving me abuse, if I am blocked, and will under legal writ force them to give them to me under English law. Then we shall have some fun in court. I fully intend to sue. I do not make idle threats. I have sued or taken to court as I said, the police, various other agencies of government, innocent bystanders, bodies corporate, Anglian Water for writing a one-sided contract that it refused to let me alter when it was the monopoly provider, under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. I actually read the small print. I have not won them all or sometimes they give in before it goes to court. But I know my way around a court. I have taken my landlord's agent to the Small Claims Court for not paying for something for three months, I do know my way around a court and a legal act, I have been threatened once with being "sectioned" under the Mental Health Act 2007 when I was a bit high on prescription drugs (the only drugs I do are alcohol and nicotine) but when I asked which section, three or five, they did not know, so without that knowledge they couldn't "section" me, that was an idle threat and the only night in my life since my birth that I have spent in hospital (under duress). I fully intend to subpoena Jimmy Wales and the rest of the Wikimedia Foundation board and generally make life a nuisance. If I win, the whole of Wikimedia will be shut down as a gross invasion of privacy and that will be "to the unspeakable advantage of human knowledge" as Ambrose Bierce puts it. It is by no means an idle threat. I have spent many an interesting evening at a police station after being arrested for an offence that is not an offence, like the good Albert Haddock, sorta WP:IDONTLIKEIT by the police, I ask the duty sergeant for the duty solictor, spend a rather boring evening in a police cell and eventually it goes on tape and it's found that it's false arrest for doing something undesirable to the police but perfectly legal, I dunno what have I done flown a kite near power lines (Benjamin Franklin would have approved!) ran naked round the block on my birthday for a bet (no actual offence in that, the offence of indecent exposure is only if someone is genuinely offended by your being naked, otherwise you could not have the naked bike ride, if anything the offence would be with laying and taking the bet without being a licenced bookmaker but I think the Betting and Gaming Act 1960 does not cover private bets made on private premises since that is just a private contract and, in fact, in England winnings on bets are not subject to income tax so there are varioous financial devices to disguise investments as bets, this is legally but not actually regulated by the superbly named Horserace Totalisator Board but in practice done by the Gambling Commission), all kinds of things to test the law. I also, you may care to know, give very generously to the Police Benevolent Fund every Christmas but the police, at least in England, can only police by consent and they know that, so you have to kinda test them every now and again to test the limits of the law. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. So, bye bye for now. Si Trew (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

An apology expected

Look there is a very simple way out of this without resorting to the courts. When a gentleman gets something wrong he says sorry. All I need is a sincere apology from User:Tavix it doesn't have to be a long one (holds onion) but a simple "sorry" for taking my name and "blackening" it as I was accused several times of doing with Neelix' even though that is not his real name as mine is. Tavix got it wrong, you stand up like a man and say sorry. That's all it needs. You don't say "Simon Trew's problem is", you have no idea what my problems are, you are not my doctor or psychiatrist. Absolutely the wrong thing to say. As I said, attack the argument not the person. Si Trew (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Simon, I apologize for saying that. I want you to know that I did not mean it as an attack and I regret that you took it that way. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is SimonTrew. Thank you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

SimonTrew, I assume you are all done with the legal threats now? Tavix has graciously apologized, which, while he didn't have to, does have the effect of making your complaint moot. In deference to all the people in the section above who value your contributions at RFD, I'd really like to avoid an indef block with no talk page access. But now that this is at ANI, that is what is going to happen really soon if you don't specifically say you withdraw all legal threats. Tavix went above and beyond here; can I ask you to do the same? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep that is totally accepted. Thanks to User:Tavix for the gracious apology. By the way I was also in the London County Court once for a trivial motoring offence and the judge totting up the costs against me got it wrong and I said to my barrister "he's out, he's forgotten to carry the one. Thank you Mr. Trew, that will be an extra hundred pounds against you"! Sometimes I should know when to shut my gob. Si Trew (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

As a footnote, the thing is if you say "Simon Trew does this" or "Simon Trew does that" you are immediately setting yourself up for a libel case and I think care should be taken to attack the argument not the person. Since I am the only Simon Trew living in Hungary – and I know that as a fact because I have to register my name and address with the Hungarian authorities – I am very much identifiable as the person you are referring to. I am not saying Travix (doing it on purpose) libelled me I am saying I thought it was pretty close to the wire which is why I went through all this legal guff. I have been to court on several occasions for things much less than this, and sometimes won, sometimes lost, but nope, not an idle threat at all, I know my law, I know when to call a judge Your Worship or Sir/Madam or Your Honour, I am perfectly at home in a court of law. So, nope, was not an idle threat at all I quite happily know how to get a writ of subpoena and ask Jimmy Wales to present himself in person, I bet that would hit the press whether he did or didn't. Not an idle threat, I don't make idle threats. I make real threats. Thanks once again for the apology, that was all I wanted. I probably took it the wrong way but I think you have to be a bit careful. I think to say User:SimonTrew is fine because you don't know that my real name is Simon Trew any more than I know that Tavix' is Ta Vix or whatever, but you are identifying a living person and accusing them of malicious behaviour is essentially libel. The courts in England do not look kindly on that, in fact tend to award very high damages, which is why as an English citizen without forum shopping I'd have the Wikimedia Foundation into the High Court in London and then see what they have to say about it. I have a tame barista oops no barrister who looks after these things for me. Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please be a gracious to Tavix as he is being to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely I tried to do that by graciously accepting the apologgy. (edit conflict) I don't think much more needs to be said. My worry was not actually the "attack" against me but if you 'finger' anyone individually and then say "they did this, they did that" then you are immediately putting the Wikimedia Foundation in danger of a libel case if that is an identifiable individual and I am very identifiable as an uncommon name and the only person living in Hungary, and it is well-known at Wikipedia that I live in Hungary, with the name Simon Trew, so the authorities can absolutely instantly check up and find out where I live and so on as I have to carry and register an address card and an identification card. So I am absolutely pinpointed I might as well be on Google Maps. You have to attack the argument not the person. I told you I brought it as something of a test case but I will if personally attacked take the Wikimedia Foundation to court because I believe, despite all its disclaimers, the Wikimedia Foundation is responsible for the content it publishes. It can't have it both ways. It can't say "Oh, give us your content but it's nothing to do with us". It has a legal responsibility to ensure there is no libel and things like that. It does that with things like WP:BLP for example, but when it comes to individual editors, it walks away and says, nope, tough, nothing to do with us, you came here voluntarily, your problem. You might come here voluntarily but you don't come here voluntarily to be abused. I do not mean by User:Tavix, this was something of a test case as indeed I said right at the start, but I will take the Wikimedia Foundation to court if my name gets trawled through the mud. What would you do? I have a professional reputation of high standing, you wouldn't say User:StephenHawking's problem is he can't speak. You can't do that. You can disagree with someone but to say it is a "problem" is a judgement. Now, a judgement is what judges do. And where do you find judges? In courts. Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

SimonTrew, it saddens me to see that you are going to continue using legal threats to try to get your way around here, after around a dozen people have bent over backwards trying to stave off this result. I am blocking you indefinitely. Since you are using your user talk page to make these threats, I am withdrawing talk page access as well. When you are ready to drop this attempt at legal bullying, you can contact UTRS (see the template below above for information). I very much hope this is a temporary situation, and that you get better soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

p.s. You can email me at floquenbeamgmail.com if you wish to discuss an unblock with me personally. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Floquenbeam, although the WP:UTRS page is wikilinked in your block notice, you later added "When you are ready to drop this attempt at legal bullying, you can contact UTRS (see the template below for information)", but there is no template listed below your post. Could you clarify or add that or whatever? Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Not really convinced this error was confusing, but fixed it anyway just to be safe. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It was quite confusing to me. Even now, the "template" referred to is ambiguous, but I'm guessing "template" refers to the block notice. Softlavender (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)