Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:09, 12 February 2013

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello, Apteva, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

January 2013

Archiving reset to 14 days. -Wikid77 15:47, 3 February 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.

The above of course is laughable if it was not so funny. My edits are constructive. The edits of the tar and feather mob that brought the RFC/U, the AN, the ANI, the AE, and the AN are the ones that are unproductive, per both WP:FOC and WP:NPA. I had already agreed to a voluntary moratorium, so no topic ban was needed. I did not violate the terms of the topic ban, but was construed to have. The appropriate action is a warning, not a block, and a hatting of the conversation as was done, and reverting it would more appropriately have been handled by blocking whoever had reverted it, instead of warning the editor who had correctly done the hatting. No further action was necessary. Misplaced Pages has a serious problem, but I am not the problem. The problem is allowing incivility to go unheeded. "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." Most of us have forgotten that sentence. Apteva (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously in an edit-war over punctuation? That sort of stuff is irrelevant junk - it is of no interest whatsoever to the viewing public. So it's not worth edit-warring and getting blocked for it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No. But it would be a violation of the topic ban to be much more specific. Apteva (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there was something about types of dashes. I can give you my full assurance that no one in the reading public gives a hoot in hades about types of dashes. What we care about is article content, i.e. facts. When I want to learn something, I turn to wikipedia first, and the type of dashes or hyphens used is of absolutely no relevance. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Per guideline: Users may be blocked from editing by Misplaced Pages administrators to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages. 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 insteadApteva (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note to User:Nathan Johnson. I am not avoiding WP:Scrutiny, which states: Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. and under legitimate uses, it states:

"Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Note to User:Cailil. The first User box at User:Apteva says "This username is an alternative account of Delphi234." The categories for the user includes "Alternative Misplaced Pages accounts". I do not see how more obvious it could be made. Apteva (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note to administrators considering this unblock request; please see the discussion leading to this block at AN for more context: Misplaced Pages:AN#Continuing_topic_ban_violations_by_Apteva. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • From which it should be clear that this was not a violation of the topic ban, which says, "Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion." I clarified that means that I can enter dashes and hyphens but can not once entered modify them. I changed a link in a see also section that violates the MOS to one that is correct, a link to the MOS. That was construed to be a discussion of the use of dashes and hyphens, even though it was not. Obviously I have no intention of making that mistake again. Apteva (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a discussion of the use, but it was a modifying of the use. That's part of your topic ban. gwickwire_edits 22:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That was the allegation, but obviously that is not as clearly a violation as changing one character to another or in discussing how those characters should be used or in modifying any of the guidelines we have of how those characters are used. All of those would have been a violation, and none of those are what was done, nor what I ever would have done. What I can and will do, though, is avoid doing anything that someone could allege to be a violation, even though it is not a violation. So what I did looked like a violation to someone even though it was not a violation. What I will not do in the future is do anything that looks to them like a violation, to the best of my ability. It is extremely unlikely that they or anyone will disagree and jump up and say that they think that I violated the topic ban. If there was a chance that I might, a block would be needed to stop that from happening. Since there is no chance of it happening, a block is counterproductive and unnecessary. Apteva (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seemed to be violating at least the intent of the person who wrote the ban; see this comment. In any case, I just wanted any closing administrator to know that this block may have been made in response to alleged community consensus and to be sure and review that discussion before deciding whether to unblock or not. HaugenErik (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just in all honesty here, I take the "all other types of related punctuation" (not exact quote) to mean any punctuation changes. That's broadly construed. You claim to be productive, but you skirt the edges of your topic ban like this. You really need to stop saying you're innocent. There have been discussions on both AN and AN/I that came to an overwhelming consensus you violayted your topic ban. You say there's no chance of you violating it again, but you still do not understand it. You say "it is not a violation" when consensus is that you did violate it. That's not productive, nor a reason to unblock. gwickwire_edits 03:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No one has suggested that I can not change commas to periods but only short horizontal lines. As there are eight of them, that is what is meant by broadly construed, not as well as other punctuation. While I do not think I violated the topic ban, I do understand and do not agree with their interpretation of my violating the topic ban, and I do fully understand how to avoid doing anything similar in the future that they might think is a violation of the topic ban. For example, right now another editor is topic banned from using automated editing, and was blocked for using a spread sheet to sort a table. While I know that that is not using automated editing, and a number of other editors thought it was not automated editing, they are still blocked because of that perceived violation. So like me it does not matter if someone violates a topic ban, it matters if someone thinks they violated a topic ban. I know how to avoid that perception of violating the topic ban. I am not going to call it violating the topic ban any more than I am going to say that they violated using automated editing, because while they might have, it does not look to me like they did, and only they know if they did or not. In my case the ban is very easy to tell if I violated it or not and also very easy to tell if someone is going to accuse me of violating it even when I am not, and I do not plan on spending the next few months getting periodically accused of violating the topic ban, by keeping a wide berth of what anyone could think was a violation.

To me no one should be blocked for violating a topic ban unless everyone thinks that they violated the topic ban, not for cases where some people think they did and some people think that they did not. For me the test of no one is more practical to follow, instead of asking for everyone, because I have no plans of getting blocked, and have far better things to do than to allow this to come up again. Apteva (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You must be joking. Are you seriously suggesting that you think that if any one person opposes everybody else, no matter how much or little justification they can give for their eccentric point of view, that point of view automatically overrides everybody else, no matter how many they are and how good their reasons are??? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The best analogy is a jury trial. It does not take a majority vote, or an almost complete consensus, it requires a complete consensus, and has to be decided beyond a reasonable doubt. Blocking an otherwise constructive editor is a serious step, particularly a block as long as a week or two, and must not be done if there is any doubt about the need for that block. The question to ask is what would be the consequences if there was no block. If damage to Misplaced Pages could be prevented by a block, then a block can be appropriate. Many vandals just move on instead of continuing to vandalize, after escalated warnings, and no block is needed. One turned to venting at the talk page of the warner, but stopped their vandalism. In the case of the editor who was accused of using automation by making one edit that used a spreadsheet to sort a table, a simple undo of that edit and a discussion of whether that constituted a violation of the topic ban on that editors talk page would have been sufficient, instead of preventing them from working productively on Misplaced Pages by asking for and obtaining a block. No I am not joking. Blocks are serious impediments to editing, and are too big a stick to wield lightly. The principle in consensus decision making is that even if one person out of 6,000 disagrees, they just might be right. In my case I have not done any edits recently anyway because of doing other WM work that is unaffected by the block, and of course there are many other WM projects that I can apply my talents to during the next week. I could learn German, or another language, for example. Apteva (talk) 16:13, 30 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)

A good analogy, but something is seriously wrong if wikipedia no longer cares if blue is red. Apteva (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I can think of a whole string of reasons why your arguments about jury trials are invalid, including the fact that not all jurisdictions require unanimous verdicts: some accept majorities. It would be a waste of my time explaining all of the reasons. However, I will just mention one of them, which is perhaps the most fundamental. A user called "NE Ent" once wrote It's important to realize WP does not have a justice system. It "has a most of us just want to edit and if someone causes too much aggravation they're going get blocked because no one wants to deal with it" system. The exact wording there may not fit this case perfectly, but the general idea expressed fits it like a glove. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I agreed to the voluntary moratorium, which should have been where this ended. All of the rest is needless drama. Apteva (talk) 20:59, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 is of absolutely no relevance".

Restriction to one account and Delphi234 blocked

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 19:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong account. This is the alternate account. Apteva (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The community has consensified (or come to a consensus) that this account is to be your only account. So, use this one. Sorry if it's not the one you wanted, but you violated your topic ban so this is what happened. gwickwire_edits 21:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Apteva did not violate the hyphen/dash topic-ban set by the closing admin (which I also debated before enactment), but only neared an imagined "community topic-ban" suggested without consensus in RfC/Apteva, and that is no reason to impose a one-username restriction, plus 2 people confirmed no improper use of those 2 usernames, and so per wp:SOCK#LEGIT, there is no basis for the username restriction which violates privacy concerns, and I have asked that an uninvolved admin remove the unfounded block as well. Denying any user the privacy of their username(s) is a very serious matter, not to be rushed to judgment in a matter of 2 days but perhaps an analysis for 5 days would be more suitable. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Go look at the AN discussion looked above. Consensus on AN was for a 1-account limit. Therefore, one account. You can ask all you want, but one admin cannot override consensus. gwickwire_edits 03:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is why it is being appealed. It is correct that no one admin can overrule an AN discussion (although the closer can). As it is not reasonable or practical, it will need to be appealed. In the meantime I can continue on with other areas, such as RCP, RM, and of course working on becoming an admin. Right now it can be (has been) appealed to Arb, and in six months or so it can be appealed to AN, along with the topic ban. Apteva (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Appeal filed. Not practical to restrict my editing. Apteva (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your primary account, Delphi234/Apteva are listed as being registered as follows:

• User:Delphi234 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  Created on 22 May 2008 at 01:52

• User:Apteva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  Created on 29 May 2008 at 01:31

Your RfAs were filed under Apteva, and the user right changes are also associated with this account: it seems to have been operated as the main account. While it may be chronologically correct for the adopted sole account to be Delphi234, I don't know what policies there are to guide this. Do you? -- Trevj (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally the older account is treated as the primary account. In my case it not only is it the older account but the more important account. This account was created both for privacy and for the specific purpose of becoming an admin. I do not consider it to be my primary account, and only use it for three purposes, RM, RCP, and to edit solar articles plus being the admin account after I become an admin. Only one account can have admin privileges. Recently I became embroiled in an RM discussion that went on to several other areas and led to some of those who did not want me to bring up the topic to file an RFC/U, AN, AE, and ANI actions. Just as a hint, if someone needs 500,000 bytes to try to prove that someone is being disruptive, it is extremely likely that the editor who is being disruptive is the one who is on the other end of the argument, i.e. the one who is pushing the idea of disruption, and not the editor being accused of disruption. (almost by definition those 500,000 bytes are a disruption of wikipedia) Apteva (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not a good idea for the first edit after ten days to consist of a repudiation of the lengthy community discussions that occurred prior to the recent block. Nor is it a good idea to signal a return to battle with talk of another party being at fault. Past problems need to be dropped, with engagement in a completely different field of activity. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Need to reform ANI procedures

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages operates by tradition. We try something out and if it works follow that tradition. The correct process to follow when discussions are going no where and occupy a wall of text is to hat them, which was done at WP:ANI, only to be reverted by the same editor who had opened the thread. That is a a blockable offense, despite the fact that the editor hatting it was warned. So I do not see that anything needs to be changed at AN or AN/I other than to not waste so much hot air on things. 134 pages of text (527,000 bytes) to create a topic ban, when I had already agreed to a moratorium and all that was needed was two words (back off)? Absolutely absurd. Some people really need to get a life. Some of Misplaced Pages's traditions are good, and some are bad. The only way to change the bad ones is to not follow them, and set higher standards for conduct. Apteva (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

• Need how-to guides for talking: Well perhaps there could be some how-to pages for discussions, such as "How to talk to people" with examples. I am thinking people could learn stuff like this:

• "Do you think your edit violated the topic-ban?" - "No."
• "Would you please not do that again?" - "Well, I do not see any problem."
• "Okay, but would you just agree to not do that again without prior discussion?" - "Okay, fine."

Similarly, we could create several other examples of how to talk to people, and then, when some other disagreement arises, then we could suggest to follow whichever particular how-to guide would apply to the situation. Years ago, I taught computer classes to 6-year-old students, and many of them could learn much faster than what we see around here, but the difference is that the students were following lesson plans which explained the concepts along the way. In prior cases where you have explained things, the reasoning has been so crystal clear, but it seems people just cannot focus on what you are saying and get confused, probably by the wp:IDHT-walls of text obscuring the concise answers you give. Hence, if discussions could re-focus on "20-question" dialogues to follow, then they could re-align their attention to talk with you, rather than rambling with all types of wild off-topic accusations. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)