User talk:70.36.142.114

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

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

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (70.36.142.114) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! — Cirt (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your attention required at the American politics arbitration case[edit]

Please read and respond to the message I have left for you at the American politics arbitration evidence talk page, ss. "ATTN: 70.36.142.114". Thank you! AGK [•] 10:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Responded. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

RE: your comment on NYB talk page, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Arbitrator_AGK_sending_harassing_email.2C_makes_legal_threats and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#URGENT:_Real_life_threats There are discussions on external sites as well, see the link on the first poster's comment in my first diff. —Neotarf (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen that. Wow. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 05:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Kumioko has been making periodic comments on NYB and AGK talk pages, quickly reverted by talk page stalkers, and not publicly visible, but that may have made it more personal/irritating. Neotarf (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I've seen some of those commments, though maybe not all of them. I'm still unimpressed. WP:RBI was invented for this. It's not even long term abuse. It's only been a few months, if that. See extinction burst for psychobabble explanation. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 08:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I always did like Skinner, but in this case there was continuous reinforcement, as they continued to re-configure the edit filter that prevented Kumioko from signing his name, and Kumioko kept figuring out how to circumvent it. The most creative one is here. —Neotarf (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Right, that's what I'm getting at: the theory of WP:DENY is that continuous reinforcement makes the problem worse. Thanks for showing me that signature, which was pretty funny. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
There's probably some ambivalence about disengaging, because of the popcorn value. Ironically this is the point Kumioko has been making all along, that when it comes to policy, admins and arbs should not consider themselves to be above the law. Policy is there for a reason, and if it isn't, it should be changed, not flaunted. Beyond that, it might be disquieting for someone who makes an edit like this to find they can be reported to an ISP provider like this. At what point does the concept of "building an encyclopedia" override real life safety considerations? —Neotarf (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I had thought of replying to one of K's posts but figured the value of DENY outweighed the dubious value of whatever I could have said to him. I'm not sure what you're getting at about admins and policy. K's biggest concrete gripe that I remember was some kind of procedural slip when he got banned. I figured that NOTBURO applies in all directions and the ban was legitimate even if there was a "paperwork" error. I still would have been fine with an unban/unblock if he posted a reasonable request after staying away for a while. I don't know if that's still supportable in the current atmosphere. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
There was no procedural error that I could see. He had just survived one banning attempt, but the people who voted for him in that one, turned around and started another one, and voted against him in the second round. There probably could have been more attempt at a social solution, i.e. talking, but he was stirring the pot wrt a couple of former users, so WP:DENY came into play here, and there was no discussion about them, only diffs. I don't think K understood the concerns. The closing admin tried to make it an informal ban, and not log the thing, but someone else insisted on logging it. There was a great deal of reluctance, but also a resolve to pry him from the user pages, and stop pinging indeffed users from talk pages of blocked IP's. Oh, I think the community will have him back, all right, just not now. —Neotarf (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, admins and policy, I forgot. K has long complained that admins get away with stuff that garden-variety editors can't do. For instance, there is a policy against legal threats. For a non-admin, any legal talk, like using the word "libel" will probably get an instant block, no explanations given. Yet one of the arbs has openly discussed legal actions against K on his blog. Having a blog on the user pages is another no-no. Not to mention WP:POLEMIC. And outing has never been acceptable, even on external sites. This has resulted in banning before. But there is an obvious double standard here. Garden variety editors like myself have to either put up with irritating users or leave. If you're an admin, and you're irritated, you can use all of these tools, without justification, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. —Neotarf (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I saw a lot of those double standard posts but they just seemed like mindless tantrums. If he gave some concrete examples with diffs it might have seemed less childish and not resulted in a ban. Non-admins post legal "concerns" all the time and the results vary unpredictably. Sometimes they're even handled sanely. The stuff in NYB's blog is Wikipedia-related and generally ok for WP userspace, so I doubt anyone cares it has the word "blog" in the page title. I do agree the entry about Kumioko was ugly and I'm thinking of posting something about it. Discussing the computer fraud and abuse act in a post aimed at Kumioko was not nice. The CFAA is the statute that federal prosecutors went after Aaron Swartz with, so it hits a little bit close to home. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Ooh, I didn't know that about the Swartz case. I should probably follow some of that stuff more closely, it is interesting. I'm not so sure NYB blog is inappropriate, but I'm pretty sure what would happen to Neotarf/Neotarfblog if I created it; the issue here is WP:NOTBLOG and the double standard. Also that it is posted in a place where Kumioko cannot defend himself. You see how quickly his answers have been reverted there. Admin abuse is a real enough problem, and I think it has gotten better since that became a meme, but throwing the accusation around in situations where it does not fit is counterproductive. —Neotarf (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
If you write some reasonably sane userspace comment about Wikipedia titled "Neotarf userspace essay of May 20, 2014", nothing will happen to you. If you write the exact same comment and call it "Neotarf blog entry of May 20, 2014" and something happens, we have reached the bureaucratic event horizon. I like to hope we're not quite there yet, but I guess there's only one way to find out. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Why would I want to do such a thing? My blog is off-wiki, where I have control over it (relatively speaking at least, I had to go through some bizarre deletion situation when I first started it), and I have already moved the blog post "ArbCom index" from there to my Wikipedia user space, with the soporific title "ArbCom 2013". No one reads it, except for myself, which makes me happy. Unlike the typical arbitrator's page, neither my off-site blog or my user page has any significant traffic. Now, if NYB suddenly decided to monetize his on-wiki blog, I think I would be the first one out there with some rival ArbCom t-shirt designs. Until then, I will save up any IAR mojo I might have going at this point, in case I really need it some day. —Neotarf (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


"Kumioko has been making periodic comments on NYB and AGK talk pages" -- apparently, he has also been sending rather a lot of emails. Whose contents have been hinted at. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw a number of the posts on NYB's page (maybe not all) and didn't see anything calling for more than a DNFTT approach. I can accept that email with more serious threats might justify different treatment, depending on the content. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
He has claimed elsewhere that he sent unban requests, and told them they "sucked". I don't think he understands that the arbs can't unblock him--it's a community ban, not an arbcom ban. —Neotarf (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
"Dear Arb-commies: you suck, please unblock me." I'm sure that will work, lol. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
He certainly doesn't grovel. —Neotarf (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)