![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 02:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, Apteva. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
I didn't get back here before my previous comment was archived (sorry!), but whatever you did to the AANP Request move has done the trick; it now appears in the correct time slot on the RM page, and with just the move request showing. So, thanks for doing that! Moonraker12 ( talk) 14:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
If you're testing the limits of your topic ban, I think you crossed it in these comments. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I have asked the closer to clarify for you: User_talk:Seraphimblade#Violation, and further clarification needed. See my note at WP:AN#Post-close_notice. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I presume that this does not preclude other admins from simply blocking you, but I have not asked for that. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
There was also this edit, on a discussion of MOS punctuation styling that took place on the WT:TITLE page. — Neotarf ( talk) 01:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Notification: I have asked for a block at Wikipedia:AN/I#Topic_ban_violator_needs_a_block. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I realize now that you are from an advanced civilization and have come to impart wisdom to Planet Earth. Although citizens of Earth might appear very backward, in comparison to your world of peaceful collaboration, I want to confirm that many here, living in a hidden realm, have been enlightened by others from your planet when they visited here many centuries ago. In particular, they contacted the Greek philosopher Plato (known to you by the ancient name "Platon") and his contemporary Archimedes, who died during the Siege of Syracuse, despite orders that he should not be harmed. Also, Eratosthenes of Alexandria, on the Mediterranean coast of Ancient Egypt, and Nikola Tesla of Budapest were influenced by your civilization. The descendents of their students sometimes come here as "IP" editors (which is a code name meaning "Intellectually Profound" but disguised as " Internet Protocol"). Unfortunately, many years ago, there was an incident, on " The Day the Earth Stood Still" and a powerful alien robot taught many Earthlings to nuke anything or anyone around them, whom they did not like. When meeting such hostile inhabitants of this planet, the code phrase which is meant to stop their plan of total world anhilation is, " Klaatu barada nikto". From what we have heard, any attempts to talk with them using terms of rational thinking will fail. I hope this planet can survive until you accomplish your mission here. Anyway, again, welcome to our planet and may peace be with you. - Wikid77 ( talk) 14:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Repeal of hyphen ban and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Apteva ( talk) 00:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Excellent work here to find out why the bot was not working! Best, Tito Dutta ( talk) 09:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC) |
I put a quote from you on my user page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
With the recent suicide of Aaron Swartz ( User:AaronSw) at age 26, I wonder if we could do more to explain clinical depression and help provide more information about bullying. So many related articles are missing, which could answer some common concerns, and reduce fears. He joined as "AaronSw" in 2003, at age 16, and with his borderline computer activities, his prior girlfriend noted the federal investigation had been running 5 years, [2] to face 35 years in prison as threatened by so-called "bully" prosecutors. I am wondering if we could expand articles to clarify such concerns:
Because Aaron was a major player in the SOPA conflict, I wonder if he had been prosecuted as a chance to "send a message" to lax Internet users, and that would have led to extra bullying, as seems to happen often. I know WP is "not a forum" and "not therapy" but when teenagers grow with Wikipedia, it would be great if they knew WP had more answers about suicide, police brutality, and " rights of the accused". Things to ponder. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Just as a note for future reference in the "avoid-letter-k" case, I added the issue of "imagined consensus" to clarify the notion that so-called "disruption by denying consensus" pre-supposes that such consensus is real, rather than actually an imagined override of a policy by suggested guidelines. I noted the claimed consensus as a false premise, when amending my section: ARCdif-231. While there were already 8 declines, perhaps the case, after closure, could be reviewed to re-open the crippling restrictions to avoid part of the keyboard. I think the issue of "imagined consensus" is critical, as a potential landmark decision because editor actions are judged relative to Arbcom's interpretation of policies, guidelines and pillars. Also, I really see the "avoid-letter-k" issue as a landmark decision to limit just how bizarre can a topic-ban be relative to common-sense wp:ACCESS (editor is "hereby topic-banned from using numerals" due to disruptive actions about wp:MOSNUM?). While Arbcom might avoid content disputes, it could with enough savvy define limits of consensus-crying and keyboard-bans. Perhaps if re-opened, the avoid-letter-k analogy could be explored as to how outrageous can topic-bans become. Meanwhile, Arbcom had a history of ban-them-all and let the next conflict reset "consensus" but there are legal experts at Arbcom now. Perhaps there need to be qualification tests to see if people know what "policy" means. I guess the reason you talked with so many people is because the whole situation would escalate into a "wiki- trial of the century" as to how far should people be allowed to demand silence about forcing trivial text as mandatory-or-else. It is almost unbelievable how few saw the overall problem, in retrospect. - Wikid77 ( talk) 21:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.
For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
They do not need to be marked biased, simply struck <s>'''Oppose'''</s> etc. Oppose None of the votes in an RFC/U count, as the purpose there is to work with the editor to help them find a better way of editing. In the RFC/U in question, nothing was accomplished because nothing of that sort took place (I had already agreed to a voluntary moratorium). In an ensuing (not concurrent as was the case) AN, only editor actions that took place after the RFC/U are relevant (in my case none, making the AN a complete farce, as well as the rejected appeal). Procedurally the AN needs to wait a week after the RFC/U to see if the glue has set. If there are any immediate infractions, an AN action is not needed, and are normally handled with short blocks to stop them. After a week of this the AN becomes a formality, but is based solely on the editors behavior after the RFC/U. So the whole process in this case was off from day one, and clearly simply a case of attempting to disrupt WP to make a point (something that will never stop, evidently), and succeeding, considering that now one editor has a keyboard with one less key to play with and dozens of editors wasted countless hours hammering that concession through – to the laughing stock of all. All we can do is roll our eyes. Obviously I could have dropped the issue long ago, but doing so is pointless and not to anyone's benefit. Lesson to everyone: If you see something that needs to be fixed, fix it. If it does not need to be fixed, quit insisting that it does (that is why the MOS is a guideline and Title is a policy). Oh well. Some day someone will figure this out.{{diff|
Apteva (
talk) 19:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
As one of the participants in the original Village Pump discussion about getting the Simple Wiki to the top of the Languages, you are invited to participate in the reopened discussion of the same. Your feedback will be appreciated.
Cheers, TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I am seeing further evidence that major conflict sessions are out-of-control, to beware getting into the middle, but rather join discussions from the side with limited wording. In past months, I had warned Jimbo that when example articles were mentioned at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, then others would target them for "tampering" of some sort. Today, the example was " Tornado preparedness" now sent to AfD, after I created it last year following massive tornado outbreaks in the U.S. Also noted for removal is new article "Warning signs of suicide" which could be improved, but deletion is being suggested as the main path. In the past, a targeted article was " Mimi Macpherson" (Elle's sister) or several other articles (or templates) mentioned in the disputes at Jimbo's talk-page. They often become targeted. Shifting the focus to other areas, I was enlightened how several ArbCom members had tediously noted they agreed with you on issues, and saw serious problems, but every single one could do nothing to protect a user who says the right things even though evidence of wikihounding and false consensus was clearly documented in the case. That is clear evidence that the present time is not the " Zeitgeist" for progress, when even ArbCom members see the truth and cannot turn themselves around and go hop-hop-hop. It isn't that hard to decide, "Sorry, no hounding of people who state sourced facts" with polite wording, done, next case. This is still the era of IP-address professors, adding information in the shadows as ever-changing IP users, and avoiding usernames dragged through the mud while people say you are right but they cannot do anything to help you. I guess when we see groups of users say, "Enough is enough, stop the badgering" then it might be safe to stand in major disputes, or mention example articles in a hot-topic forum. Otherwise, we need to watch the pulse of the intelligentsia and keep conversations more low-key, or supportive from the sidelines. - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Per Noetica's request on my talkpage, I have filed an Arbitration enforcement request to determine if your edit to WP:AT violates the discretionary sanctions on that article. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link... what I see there is the beginning of a discussion that quickly got sidetracked into a long discussion about hyphens and dashes and the MOS. In other words, there was no consensus reached on shortening the list.
I don't really mind the idea of shortening it... but let's get an uncluttered consensus, and some discussion on which examples should stay and which should be removed. I'll start a new talk page discussion. Blueboar ( talk) 13:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I've undone this extremely bold close, which you neglected to either sign or accompany with an edit summary. In future, if you're going to go around clerking heated threads, at least do others the courtesy of identifying both who is doing the closing and why. Not that it would have made this particular close, eleven whole minutes from the last comment, any more appropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I would have thought that after User:Seraphimblade's clarification of your ban on 10 Jan here, you would not continue your anti-MOS campaign at WT:TITLE as you did here. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the " Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
This relates to the recent AE request concerning you. You should take particular care not to edit these policy pages in a way that may be deemed not to reflect community consensus. Sandstein 21:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Apteva, many of us have attempted to seek moderation in the dispute sequence you've been involved in. At this point, consensus regarding the issues with which you are concerned has been confirmed by the community. Further attempts, whether by you or by other editors involved in these issues, to engage in behaviors considered tendentious or unhelpful to an encyclopedic community will doubtlessly be met with harsher sanctions, such as those imposed today. Although there are more than a few in the community who don't disagree with your viewpoints, we respect consensus, which, although occasionally challenged by determined minorities of editors, enables us to maintain a somewhat stable environment here.
I strongly encourage you to cease the behaviors that have gotten you into trouble in recent days, and to desist from the patterns that have instigated this troubled process. Despite the negative attention you've gotten lately, you are a valued contributor in various content areas. I think you ought to focus your efforts on working in the article namespace on article development itself, and should disengage entirely from areas that have caused controversy. Thanks, dci | TALK 03:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
When your 2-week block expires, I suggest you don't go around the areas you're topic-banned from. GoodDay ( talk) 06:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I just now see you were quietly blocked, some 4 hours ago, without notice, for a first-time "non-punishment" of 2 weeks, but the edit-banner reports this:
As you know, typically, admins would post a notice of a block, here, on this talk-page within minutes of the block, to offer "how to request an unblock" for other admins to note, and perhaps "48 hours" might be the length of a first-time block (not 2 weeks). However, the whole WP system has deteriorated into a sprawling mess, faster than you could alert people to fix all the run-away problems. I just noticed that article main-space had been violated by creating the December-2011 redirect " Manual of Style (punctuation)" to WP:MOS~~ as a main article title, as if the entire world thinks Wikipedia invented style manuals. When you tried to properly replace the bogus, browser-breaking redirect " wp:Manual of Style (article titles)" with the correct, direct link to " wp:Manual of Style" then someone claimed that improvement was a problem, despite guidelines which state to use direct page titles, not redirects, for such links. No wonder few people seem to be reading the MOS, when it is not even clearly linked by the correct title, but rather redirected with peculiar pseudo-titles. And then, I noticed the wp:MOS has a warning that policy " wp:Article_titles does not determine punctuation of titles" even though the policy page clearly states rules of title punctuation ("avoid quotation marks in titles" etc.). Then they site-banned 95,000-edit User:Youreallycan (aka ~Off2riorob) for one insulting comment(?). All just totally bizarre. The whole WP system is spiraling downward, as people create non-notable articles which disguise resumes or fringe medical care (for years!) as being part of those articles. So, please do not be upset with these unusual admins or people who do not understand that wp:Consensus requires the general consent of people working together, not telling several long-term editors that they "do not have consensus" to talk about fixing problems. I suspect there are just so many rampant problems, as Wikipedia is being flooded with crap articles, plus conflict-of-interest editing and adverts in lede sections, that the entire system is out of control at this point. No wonder people are reporting record-high levels of problem backlogs, as good editors are being overwhelmed by the rest. It is just a huge mess. I appreciate you trying to help, but how much can one talented person be asked to sacrifice under these conditions. - Wikid77 ( talk) 05:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Basalisk
inspect damage⁄
berate 06:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Apteva ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Obviously I only make productive contributions, and the edit I was blocked for is also productive and not a violation of the topic ban, but asking for a block was simply a vindictive way of disrupting wikipedia to make a point, alleging that they thought it was a violation of the topic ban even though it was not. I understand that and obviously it is not going to happen again. Obviously the block is not going to prevent damage or disruption, but instead is going to prevent productive contributions to wikipedia. Apteva ( talk) 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The claim that you "obviously" only make productive contributions is absurd, in view of the huge amount of time that has been wasted in discussions due to other editors regarding much of your editing as unconstructive. The editing which led to your block has been discussed at length, as you know, and there is a clear consensus that it was essentially in the topic area from which you are banned, whether or not you can argue that the exact wording of the ban excludes it. The only thing that is questionable about the block is that it is so short. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:07, 30 January 2013 (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.
Per guideline: Users may be blocked from editing by Wikipedia administrators to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Blocks are lifted if they are not (or no longer) necessary to prevent such damage or disruption.
You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators:
that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy); or: that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead Apteva ( talk) 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
"Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area." Which is the sole reason that I use this account. Privacy. No one has a legitimate reason to violate my privacy. Apteva ( talk) 15:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
It's in the numbers, Apteva. Whether you're correct or not, is irrelevant, trust me on that. If enough editors tell you that blue is red? then you'd better stop arguing that blue is blue. GoodDay ( talk) 19:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion in a nutshell: Editor 1 comes up with an idea. 2 and 3 agree, but not 4 and 5. Long disharmonious discourse ensues, resulting in Arbitration committee sanctions. 4 is topic banned, and blocked for a year for using a sock to disagree with the topic ban. Now that there is less opposition, 1 and 2 railroad their idea through. 6, 7 and 8 all disagree, and are branded as in collusion with each other for all being right, and 1 and 2 being wrong. More editors join in. Now there are a dozen on each side, with most of the rest of Wikipedia agreeing that whatever they are arguing about amounts to settling for once and for all the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? A one year moratorium is requested. One more editor is topic banned, making it easier to pursue the idea of 1 and 2. Moral: This is no way to run a railroad. A better way to express this discussion is "When I want to learn something, I turn to wikipedia first, and [what editor 1 wanted] is of absolutely no relevance". |
Per the consensus at the discussion at WP:AN, you are restricted to editing solely from the Apteva account from now on. Delphi234 has been blocked indefinitely. Any editing by you from accounts other than Apteva will inevitably lead to an indefinite block on your Apteva account as well. Bencherlite Talk 19:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Since you still have much energy, then perhaps when you return you would be willing to reform the AN and AN/I processes. I have looked back at detailed cases from one year ago, from January 2012, and I have found that nothing much has improved, in terms of analyzing false claims and avoiding wall-of-text rambling by opponent editors. It is the same pattern now at ANI: "SSDV" (same-shit-different-victim). We cannot openly discuss article-format guidelines, when people are often dragged to ANI and badgered with 23-hour "rulings" when normal editors do not have time to respond to all false accusations within any given x-hour period. We need to allow normal people, with limited part-time hours, to edit Wikipedia pages. The unfounded claims require days to analyze, and there need to be separate subpages created to specifically reject the false claims, and then detect patterns of false claims and properly sanction the editors who wp:FORUMshop until an editor is hounded off the project. Many other editors have been dragged along in the same manner, for years now. You have first-hand experience in how the processes are out-of-control. If I had not been a debate judge for years, I wouldn't have seen the false arguments so clearly, and understood how calm, orderly decisions must follow procedures for careful examination of claims. Well, from this judge, I decided you won the debate, but lost the dogpile. Please consider helping with these reforms, if you wish. No pressure, just a suggestion. - Wikid77 ( talk) 21:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Per here and here, you are continuing to violate your topic ban related to dashes. Please stop or additional actions may be necessary. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 02:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, Apteva. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
I didn't get back here before my previous comment was archived (sorry!), but whatever you did to the AANP Request move has done the trick; it now appears in the correct time slot on the RM page, and with just the move request showing. So, thanks for doing that! Moonraker12 ( talk) 14:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
If you're testing the limits of your topic ban, I think you crossed it in these comments. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I have asked the closer to clarify for you: User_talk:Seraphimblade#Violation, and further clarification needed. See my note at WP:AN#Post-close_notice. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I presume that this does not preclude other admins from simply blocking you, but I have not asked for that. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
There was also this edit, on a discussion of MOS punctuation styling that took place on the WT:TITLE page. — Neotarf ( talk) 01:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Notification: I have asked for a block at Wikipedia:AN/I#Topic_ban_violator_needs_a_block. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I realize now that you are from an advanced civilization and have come to impart wisdom to Planet Earth. Although citizens of Earth might appear very backward, in comparison to your world of peaceful collaboration, I want to confirm that many here, living in a hidden realm, have been enlightened by others from your planet when they visited here many centuries ago. In particular, they contacted the Greek philosopher Plato (known to you by the ancient name "Platon") and his contemporary Archimedes, who died during the Siege of Syracuse, despite orders that he should not be harmed. Also, Eratosthenes of Alexandria, on the Mediterranean coast of Ancient Egypt, and Nikola Tesla of Budapest were influenced by your civilization. The descendents of their students sometimes come here as "IP" editors (which is a code name meaning "Intellectually Profound" but disguised as " Internet Protocol"). Unfortunately, many years ago, there was an incident, on " The Day the Earth Stood Still" and a powerful alien robot taught many Earthlings to nuke anything or anyone around them, whom they did not like. When meeting such hostile inhabitants of this planet, the code phrase which is meant to stop their plan of total world anhilation is, " Klaatu barada nikto". From what we have heard, any attempts to talk with them using terms of rational thinking will fail. I hope this planet can survive until you accomplish your mission here. Anyway, again, welcome to our planet and may peace be with you. - Wikid77 ( talk) 14:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Repeal of hyphen ban and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, Apteva ( talk) 00:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Excellent work here to find out why the bot was not working! Best, Tito Dutta ( talk) 09:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC) |
I put a quote from you on my user page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 21:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
With the recent suicide of Aaron Swartz ( User:AaronSw) at age 26, I wonder if we could do more to explain clinical depression and help provide more information about bullying. So many related articles are missing, which could answer some common concerns, and reduce fears. He joined as "AaronSw" in 2003, at age 16, and with his borderline computer activities, his prior girlfriend noted the federal investigation had been running 5 years, [2] to face 35 years in prison as threatened by so-called "bully" prosecutors. I am wondering if we could expand articles to clarify such concerns:
Because Aaron was a major player in the SOPA conflict, I wonder if he had been prosecuted as a chance to "send a message" to lax Internet users, and that would have led to extra bullying, as seems to happen often. I know WP is "not a forum" and "not therapy" but when teenagers grow with Wikipedia, it would be great if they knew WP had more answers about suicide, police brutality, and " rights of the accused". Things to ponder. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Just as a note for future reference in the "avoid-letter-k" case, I added the issue of "imagined consensus" to clarify the notion that so-called "disruption by denying consensus" pre-supposes that such consensus is real, rather than actually an imagined override of a policy by suggested guidelines. I noted the claimed consensus as a false premise, when amending my section: ARCdif-231. While there were already 8 declines, perhaps the case, after closure, could be reviewed to re-open the crippling restrictions to avoid part of the keyboard. I think the issue of "imagined consensus" is critical, as a potential landmark decision because editor actions are judged relative to Arbcom's interpretation of policies, guidelines and pillars. Also, I really see the "avoid-letter-k" issue as a landmark decision to limit just how bizarre can a topic-ban be relative to common-sense wp:ACCESS (editor is "hereby topic-banned from using numerals" due to disruptive actions about wp:MOSNUM?). While Arbcom might avoid content disputes, it could with enough savvy define limits of consensus-crying and keyboard-bans. Perhaps if re-opened, the avoid-letter-k analogy could be explored as to how outrageous can topic-bans become. Meanwhile, Arbcom had a history of ban-them-all and let the next conflict reset "consensus" but there are legal experts at Arbcom now. Perhaps there need to be qualification tests to see if people know what "policy" means. I guess the reason you talked with so many people is because the whole situation would escalate into a "wiki- trial of the century" as to how far should people be allowed to demand silence about forcing trivial text as mandatory-or-else. It is almost unbelievable how few saw the overall problem, in retrospect. - Wikid77 ( talk) 21:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This is a courtesy notice that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.
For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
They do not need to be marked biased, simply struck <s>'''Oppose'''</s> etc. Oppose None of the votes in an RFC/U count, as the purpose there is to work with the editor to help them find a better way of editing. In the RFC/U in question, nothing was accomplished because nothing of that sort took place (I had already agreed to a voluntary moratorium). In an ensuing (not concurrent as was the case) AN, only editor actions that took place after the RFC/U are relevant (in my case none, making the AN a complete farce, as well as the rejected appeal). Procedurally the AN needs to wait a week after the RFC/U to see if the glue has set. If there are any immediate infractions, an AN action is not needed, and are normally handled with short blocks to stop them. After a week of this the AN becomes a formality, but is based solely on the editors behavior after the RFC/U. So the whole process in this case was off from day one, and clearly simply a case of attempting to disrupt WP to make a point (something that will never stop, evidently), and succeeding, considering that now one editor has a keyboard with one less key to play with and dozens of editors wasted countless hours hammering that concession through – to the laughing stock of all. All we can do is roll our eyes. Obviously I could have dropped the issue long ago, but doing so is pointless and not to anyone's benefit. Lesson to everyone: If you see something that needs to be fixed, fix it. If it does not need to be fixed, quit insisting that it does (that is why the MOS is a guideline and Title is a policy). Oh well. Some day someone will figure this out.{{diff|
Apteva (
talk) 19:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
As one of the participants in the original Village Pump discussion about getting the Simple Wiki to the top of the Languages, you are invited to participate in the reopened discussion of the same. Your feedback will be appreciated.
Cheers, TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I am seeing further evidence that major conflict sessions are out-of-control, to beware getting into the middle, but rather join discussions from the side with limited wording. In past months, I had warned Jimbo that when example articles were mentioned at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, then others would target them for "tampering" of some sort. Today, the example was " Tornado preparedness" now sent to AfD, after I created it last year following massive tornado outbreaks in the U.S. Also noted for removal is new article "Warning signs of suicide" which could be improved, but deletion is being suggested as the main path. In the past, a targeted article was " Mimi Macpherson" (Elle's sister) or several other articles (or templates) mentioned in the disputes at Jimbo's talk-page. They often become targeted. Shifting the focus to other areas, I was enlightened how several ArbCom members had tediously noted they agreed with you on issues, and saw serious problems, but every single one could do nothing to protect a user who says the right things even though evidence of wikihounding and false consensus was clearly documented in the case. That is clear evidence that the present time is not the " Zeitgeist" for progress, when even ArbCom members see the truth and cannot turn themselves around and go hop-hop-hop. It isn't that hard to decide, "Sorry, no hounding of people who state sourced facts" with polite wording, done, next case. This is still the era of IP-address professors, adding information in the shadows as ever-changing IP users, and avoiding usernames dragged through the mud while people say you are right but they cannot do anything to help you. I guess when we see groups of users say, "Enough is enough, stop the badgering" then it might be safe to stand in major disputes, or mention example articles in a hot-topic forum. Otherwise, we need to watch the pulse of the intelligentsia and keep conversations more low-key, or supportive from the sidelines. - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Per Noetica's request on my talkpage, I have filed an Arbitration enforcement request to determine if your edit to WP:AT violates the discretionary sanctions on that article. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link... what I see there is the beginning of a discussion that quickly got sidetracked into a long discussion about hyphens and dashes and the MOS. In other words, there was no consensus reached on shortening the list.
I don't really mind the idea of shortening it... but let's get an uncluttered consensus, and some discussion on which examples should stay and which should be removed. I'll start a new talk page discussion. Blueboar ( talk) 13:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I've undone this extremely bold close, which you neglected to either sign or accompany with an edit summary. In future, if you're going to go around clerking heated threads, at least do others the courtesy of identifying both who is doing the closing and why. Not that it would have made this particular close, eleven whole minutes from the last comment, any more appropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I would have thought that after User:Seraphimblade's clarification of your ban on 10 Jan here, you would not continue your anti-MOS campaign at WT:TITLE as you did here. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the " Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
This relates to the recent AE request concerning you. You should take particular care not to edit these policy pages in a way that may be deemed not to reflect community consensus. Sandstein 21:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Apteva, many of us have attempted to seek moderation in the dispute sequence you've been involved in. At this point, consensus regarding the issues with which you are concerned has been confirmed by the community. Further attempts, whether by you or by other editors involved in these issues, to engage in behaviors considered tendentious or unhelpful to an encyclopedic community will doubtlessly be met with harsher sanctions, such as those imposed today. Although there are more than a few in the community who don't disagree with your viewpoints, we respect consensus, which, although occasionally challenged by determined minorities of editors, enables us to maintain a somewhat stable environment here.
I strongly encourage you to cease the behaviors that have gotten you into trouble in recent days, and to desist from the patterns that have instigated this troubled process. Despite the negative attention you've gotten lately, you are a valued contributor in various content areas. I think you ought to focus your efforts on working in the article namespace on article development itself, and should disengage entirely from areas that have caused controversy. Thanks, dci | TALK 03:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
When your 2-week block expires, I suggest you don't go around the areas you're topic-banned from. GoodDay ( talk) 06:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I just now see you were quietly blocked, some 4 hours ago, without notice, for a first-time "non-punishment" of 2 weeks, but the edit-banner reports this:
As you know, typically, admins would post a notice of a block, here, on this talk-page within minutes of the block, to offer "how to request an unblock" for other admins to note, and perhaps "48 hours" might be the length of a first-time block (not 2 weeks). However, the whole WP system has deteriorated into a sprawling mess, faster than you could alert people to fix all the run-away problems. I just noticed that article main-space had been violated by creating the December-2011 redirect " Manual of Style (punctuation)" to WP:MOS~~ as a main article title, as if the entire world thinks Wikipedia invented style manuals. When you tried to properly replace the bogus, browser-breaking redirect " wp:Manual of Style (article titles)" with the correct, direct link to " wp:Manual of Style" then someone claimed that improvement was a problem, despite guidelines which state to use direct page titles, not redirects, for such links. No wonder few people seem to be reading the MOS, when it is not even clearly linked by the correct title, but rather redirected with peculiar pseudo-titles. And then, I noticed the wp:MOS has a warning that policy " wp:Article_titles does not determine punctuation of titles" even though the policy page clearly states rules of title punctuation ("avoid quotation marks in titles" etc.). Then they site-banned 95,000-edit User:Youreallycan (aka ~Off2riorob) for one insulting comment(?). All just totally bizarre. The whole WP system is spiraling downward, as people create non-notable articles which disguise resumes or fringe medical care (for years!) as being part of those articles. So, please do not be upset with these unusual admins or people who do not understand that wp:Consensus requires the general consent of people working together, not telling several long-term editors that they "do not have consensus" to talk about fixing problems. I suspect there are just so many rampant problems, as Wikipedia is being flooded with crap articles, plus conflict-of-interest editing and adverts in lede sections, that the entire system is out of control at this point. No wonder people are reporting record-high levels of problem backlogs, as good editors are being overwhelmed by the rest. It is just a huge mess. I appreciate you trying to help, but how much can one talented person be asked to sacrifice under these conditions. - Wikid77 ( talk) 05:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Basalisk
inspect damage⁄
berate 06:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Apteva ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Obviously I only make productive contributions, and the edit I was blocked for is also productive and not a violation of the topic ban, but asking for a block was simply a vindictive way of disrupting wikipedia to make a point, alleging that they thought it was a violation of the topic ban even though it was not. I understand that and obviously it is not going to happen again. Obviously the block is not going to prevent damage or disruption, but instead is going to prevent productive contributions to wikipedia. Apteva ( talk) 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The claim that you "obviously" only make productive contributions is absurd, in view of the huge amount of time that has been wasted in discussions due to other editors regarding much of your editing as unconstructive. The editing which led to your block has been discussed at length, as you know, and there is a clear consensus that it was essentially in the topic area from which you are banned, whether or not you can argue that the exact wording of the ban excludes it. The only thing that is questionable about the block is that it is so short. JamesBWatson ( talk) 13:07, 30 January 2013 (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.
Per guideline: Users may be blocked from editing by Wikipedia administrators to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Blocks are lifted if they are not (or no longer) necessary to prevent such damage or disruption.
You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators:
that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy); or: that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead Apteva ( talk) 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
"Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area." Which is the sole reason that I use this account. Privacy. No one has a legitimate reason to violate my privacy. Apteva ( talk) 15:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
It's in the numbers, Apteva. Whether you're correct or not, is irrelevant, trust me on that. If enough editors tell you that blue is red? then you'd better stop arguing that blue is blue. GoodDay ( talk) 19:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion in a nutshell: Editor 1 comes up with an idea. 2 and 3 agree, but not 4 and 5. Long disharmonious discourse ensues, resulting in Arbitration committee sanctions. 4 is topic banned, and blocked for a year for using a sock to disagree with the topic ban. Now that there is less opposition, 1 and 2 railroad their idea through. 6, 7 and 8 all disagree, and are branded as in collusion with each other for all being right, and 1 and 2 being wrong. More editors join in. Now there are a dozen on each side, with most of the rest of Wikipedia agreeing that whatever they are arguing about amounts to settling for once and for all the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? A one year moratorium is requested. One more editor is topic banned, making it easier to pursue the idea of 1 and 2. Moral: This is no way to run a railroad. A better way to express this discussion is "When I want to learn something, I turn to wikipedia first, and [what editor 1 wanted] is of absolutely no relevance". |
Per the consensus at the discussion at WP:AN, you are restricted to editing solely from the Apteva account from now on. Delphi234 has been blocked indefinitely. Any editing by you from accounts other than Apteva will inevitably lead to an indefinite block on your Apteva account as well. Bencherlite Talk 19:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Since you still have much energy, then perhaps when you return you would be willing to reform the AN and AN/I processes. I have looked back at detailed cases from one year ago, from January 2012, and I have found that nothing much has improved, in terms of analyzing false claims and avoiding wall-of-text rambling by opponent editors. It is the same pattern now at ANI: "SSDV" (same-shit-different-victim). We cannot openly discuss article-format guidelines, when people are often dragged to ANI and badgered with 23-hour "rulings" when normal editors do not have time to respond to all false accusations within any given x-hour period. We need to allow normal people, with limited part-time hours, to edit Wikipedia pages. The unfounded claims require days to analyze, and there need to be separate subpages created to specifically reject the false claims, and then detect patterns of false claims and properly sanction the editors who wp:FORUMshop until an editor is hounded off the project. Many other editors have been dragged along in the same manner, for years now. You have first-hand experience in how the processes are out-of-control. If I had not been a debate judge for years, I wouldn't have seen the false arguments so clearly, and understood how calm, orderly decisions must follow procedures for careful examination of claims. Well, from this judge, I decided you won the debate, but lost the dogpile. Please consider helping with these reforms, if you wish. No pressure, just a suggestion. - Wikid77 ( talk) 21:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Per here and here, you are continuing to violate your topic ban related to dashes. Please stop or additional actions may be necessary. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)