Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:41, 30 January 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)

A suggestion

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)

Bizarre block

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:

• "00:25, 29 January 2013 Basalisk (talk | contribs) blocked Apteva (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Disruptive editing: Violation of topic ban)"

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

January 2013

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

Request reason:

Notes:

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

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

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. ] (]) 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. ] (]) 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock reviewed |1=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. ] (]) 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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)

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)

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)

• Requests for unblock