User talk:Mythdon

Mythdon's talk page

• All editors posting here are strongly urged to sign their posts with four tildes (~~~~). Unsigned comments will be tagged with {{unsigned}}. See WP:SIGNATURE for more details.
• If I start a discussion on your talk page, respond there. If you start a discussion on my talk page, I will respond here.
• Any vandalism, advertising, harassment, blatant personal attacks, disruptive editing, etc, will be removed without warning.
• Do not remove other editors comments. They will be re-inserted.
• Do not modify your comments after someone responds. They will be reverted back to the unmodified version. Exceptions include strike outs.
• Do not use this page for social networking. Any usage of this page for that purpose will not be tolerated, and any comments like that will be immediately removed.
• Template messages and notifications will be removed. While appreciated, these messages will be removed to prevent clutter of this page.
• It is not necessary to notify me of a reply to your talk page. Doing so is redundant, as I can check by myself.
• To discuss matters with me regarding the Simple English Wikipedia, you can do so at my talk page there.

---

Dazed and Confused

With your last edit at Dazed and Confused (song), did you intend to revert back to the last version by BelowGroundSound, who had earlier blanked the page, or to the prior revision by Alansohn? Just wondering since there were several edits made at practically the same time. Piriczki (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I had intended to revert the blanking by BelowGroundSound, but since I didn't act fast enough when I saw it on recent changes, it instead reverted this edit by the same user. I shortly after found out about the mistake I made, so I reverted the rollback. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

It is time for this account to have an indefinite break from Wikipedia affairs. The last ArbCom issue which involved you dates back to this ban. I see no sign of an improvement. If you want to appeal against this block, please use the appropriate steps that you are aware of. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What issues are you referring to and what do you mean by "I see no sign of an improvement"? —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to FayssalF

Diff: [1]

"His AN/I reports on people he's got no business with was discussed more than enough at his talk page and the point was brought to the attention of the ArbCom during the case..." - Actually, the case had nothing to do with any AN/I reports I had filed, and certainly not any you say "people he's got no business". If any reports I had made prior, during or after the case are "people he's got no business", please explain how? Being uninvolved does not invalidate the report. How does not being involved make the reports disruptive?

"Here we are here with Mythdon invading the AN/I with reports on users involving cases that has nothing to do with him whatsoever. " - Uninvolved doesn't make the reports disruptive, especially not for reports like this (allegation of username violation and this (suspicion of sockpuppetry. I'd like to know how being uninvolved in any of my reports, especially the username and sockpuppetry reports, automatically means the reports are disruptive.

Thanks. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

All answers can be found here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mythdon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Statement

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. Dont abuse the unblock template for non-unblock requests, if you need editor or administrator help, use the correct templates. Q ^{T C} 21:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.

So what is the correct template for these type of requests (i.e. requesting that the community review whether one should be unblocked or remain blocked), or is there none? —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you need help, there's {{help}} or if you need an admin, there's the handy {{adminhelp}}. Q ^{T C} 22:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Not what I am looking for. I am a blocked user who wishes for my block to be reviewed by the community (as opposed to the usual administrator). None of those templates address that. The reason I'd rather it be reviewed at ANI is because I do feel that that an unblock by just any administrator would be too controversial, and because I'd feel better if it's done that way. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mythdon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Statement

Decline reason:

This block was made as an enforcement action related to an ArbCom case. We recently had an admin loose his status for making such an unblock. He did it knowing such a thing might happen because he saw what he felt was gross misinterpretation of ArbCom's original intent. I don't see that here, this block was just reviewed at ANI and upheld, with a proposal for your permanent banning thrown in. So I'd be going against ArbCom and community consensus by unblocking you. No thanks. Your best bet is to email WP:BASC in several months. Continued unblock requests here will probably result in loss of talk page privelegesBeeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.

Okay, thanks. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally - If I were to appeal this block to the community, how do I do so? —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

By requesting here that an admin list it once again on WP:ANI, or by emailing WP:BASC and asking them to do it. However, since this was there less than two weeks ago it's possible you won't be able to find an admin willing to do that for you just yet. I'll repeat that the best move you can make at this point is to wait a while before trying again to get unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

How do I request that an administrator "list it once again on WP:ANI"? —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

By posting another unblock request saying so, but it's still at the reviewing admins discretion whether they will even do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did something similar to that just a few days prior (requesting that my block be community reviewed, and that an administrator post my request to ANI), but was dismissed as misuse of the unblock template, and was advised to use the {{help}} template if I needed help (but I know the {{help}} template isn't used for that). —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You received a workable suggestion: using {{help}} or {{adminhelp}} to flag someone down and request they proxy your post to ANI. I see nothing in the usage notes in either of these templates that would preclude use in this manner. –xeno^talk 19:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. From {{adminhelp}}, the documentation information reads "please note if you are currently blocked and wish to contest the blocking, it is recommended you use {{unblock}} instead of the helper templates. This ensures your request goes to the right people." - In this case, "the right people" would be the administrators. Nothing in the text reads that requested proxying (i.e. do things on one's own behalf) is legitimate use of the template. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You aren't requesting an unblock, you're requesting a community review of the block. There similarly is nothing in the template that says requesting it to ask for a proxy edit is illegitimate. You ask for advice then refuse it when you get it. Unwatching your page - best of luck. –xeno^talk 19:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

But if there is nothing that says it is legitimate, then it is illegitimate use of the template. The mere fact that nothing says something is illegitimate is not indication of legitimacy; in these cases, if nothing says it is legitimate, then it is not legitimate— template's must be used according to what is said to be legitimate-- not based on what is not said to be illegitimate. The reason I refute your advice is because it is the wrong advice. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would advise you to enroll in an introductory logic class (or perhaps simply read affirming the consequent). Does the template say that using it to ask for help with deletion matters? Does it say you can ask for help with protection matters? Does it say you can ask for help with images? Is asking for help with any of these things a legitimate use of the template? –xeno^talk 20:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

All of that matters. For example, {{infobox VG}} explicitly states it's usage is for basic information of a video game article (e.g. release date, publisher, developer, etc.). Because nothing states it can be used for a television series article, it can't be used for such articles— just because nothing says it can't be used for that doesn't make such a use legit- we even have a template for that. If you still don't understand where I'm getting at, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do that you will get it. This is my last reply. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't delineate all the appropriate uses of the helpme template because there are so many different uses, most of which are appropriate. It is simply said what it should not be used for - the rest is fair game. We expect people to use it with common sense. Your peculiar arguments above make me question whether you possess this facility. I agree with Beeblebrox below and suspect if you continue in this manner you won't have anyone left on your talk page with which to speak. –xeno^talk 20:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This need to argue incessantly is a large part of the reason you have been blocked in the first place. This entire conversation is most likely moot since it is unlikely any admin would post your request at ANI seeing as your block was already reviewed and upheld there 12 days ago [2] Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mythdon

At a recent ANI thread, a few members of the community expressed concern regarding ANI reports that I had filed this month.

FayssalF (talk · contribs), the blocking administrator had plenty of concern regarding the ANI threads I started, basically being concerns of "mind your own business" and others.

First, I'd like to discuss the sockpuppetry theory and username violation threads; "mind your own business" is an extremely weak argument to invalidate these reports, because these are incidents that anyone can just spot and report regardless of how much it has to do with them (although during the threads themselves, no such argument was made). The merits of the complaints were however dismissed.

As for this thread; this thread also fell under the concerns by FayssalF. FayssalF states (not this thread though, but the ANI thread on me) "looking for disputes all over Wikipedia and report them here without leaving a chance for the parties to try to sort out their problems at their talk pages beforehand" - The parties were given a perfect chance to sort it out, but no resolution came, so I did feel the need to report it. The community felt that action was needed, and a 24 hour interaction ban was even imposed upon the "parties" (i.e. Mbz1, Daedalus969, etc). While I know I wasn't the best person to report it (now that I think about it, it may have better for one of the parties to do so), I was certainly a legitimate person to do so.

In response to a few comments by FayssalF during the thread:

• Spending 99% of the time on AN/I... ArbCom pages and discussing policies... - False. My contributions are much more than that. My contributions also contain vandal fighting, minor (non-content) article edits, RFC comments, etc.
• Here we are here with Mythdon invading the AN/I with reports on users involving cases that has nothing to do with him whatsoever. - The mere argument of "it has nothing to do with you" does not automatically invalidate a report, although having to do with the report may be better than not.

NOTE: I am not requesting that the reviewing administrator act upon this request, but am requesting that the reviewing administrator post this request to ANI so the community can review this block.

—Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The block was already reviewed at ANI. The only thing I can see that discussion achieved was a proposal to have you banned outright; that proposal did not achieve consensus. The community feeling appears to be that if you can find an admin willing to unblock you, then so be it. You've already acknowledged above that such an unblock would likely be controversial, and I agree. I suggest you wait six months before attempting to do so; essentially that would be an unblock under WP:OFFER. Repeated requests on this page will likely result in your talk page access being removed. If that happens, you do have recourse: see [3].  Frank  |  talk  23:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this thread again, and FayssalF's concern of "...and report them here without leaving a chance for the parties to try to sort out their problems at their talk pages beforehand" - Upon further thinking, I guess I should have waited longer for Daedalus969, Mbz1 and DarkFalls (and any others) to either sort it out (I don't think I did give them a chance now that I think about it) or report it before reporting it myself. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to decline the unblock request, because I'm certain there would be wikilawyering about "involved admin", but I will comment that you are misunderstanding the reason for the block. It's not about one incident. It's the latest incident in a long series of disruptive incidents. To my own personal knowledge, the disruption started more than a year ago. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mythdon, and in re-reading my oppose from then, I don't see a lot that has changed. In the time you were banned from here, you also earned an indefinite block on Simple Wikipedia. That's not necessarily a reason for a block here, but perhaps it helps you understand that it's your own actions that are resulting in the blocks.  Frank  |  talk  14:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not about one incident and and I understand that this block is based on my own actions. I'm just saying that now that I think about it, this report did not in fact "[leave] a chance for the parties to try to sort out their problems at their talk pages beforehand". And about your oppose in regards to my first request for adminship, nothing in your oppose has anything to do with the issue regarding this block. Your oppose was based on my interactions with other editors, civility, AFD's, and "not showing any knowledge of consensus around here" (I did and do acknowledge consensus here). This block is based on the ANI reports I filed this month, with concern that I'm causing more drama than light and not minding my own business, combined with concern that its the same behavior as before (prior to September 2009). Please explain how they link. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It has taken you 13 days to acknowledge consensus regarding your block, by stating things like "...now that I think about it..." and by your strikeouts above upon further consideration. I don't think more discussion at this point is necessary; you've been advised to come back in more than a few months; more discussion now is only likely to lengthen the time until any unblock request would be considered, because the standard offer typically looks at stepping away - completely - from Wikipedia. You haven't done that yet. (I know that offer mentions socking, but the spirit is the same for disruption.)  Frank  |  talk  01:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That does not explain how your RFA oppose concerns have anything to do with this issue. That only explains your position on whether I acknowledge consensus of my block. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Your belief that there is no connection between the two is central to the problem. In rereading that oppose, I see little difference in your activities between then and now. There are two wikilinks to you not "getting it" regarding closing your RfA back then, same as "not getting it" here about your block. I made specific mention of your tendentious interactions with a single editor; that didn't stop until a series of RfCs were opened and modified repeatedly. You're now doing the same thing, trying to modify a block. I also mentioned that you don't display the temperament expected of an admin; in watching your talk page and your frequent appearances at ANI since then, as well as my own interactions with you, I have question that your temperament is suitable at all for contributing to a project in which the opinions of others must be considered. Technical ability is one thing; doing things that concur with what a group believes is appropriate is quite another. Despite a large amount of WP:AGF on my part, that opinion hasn't changed since our first interaction.  Frank  |  talk  14:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Doing things that concur with what a group believes is appropriate is quite another. " - I'd like to know what that means, or did you mean "don't concur with what a group believes is appropriate is quite another"? —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole sentence: Technical ability is one thing; doing things that concur with what a group believes is appropriate is quite another. You display the technical ability. You do not display the ability to do things that concur with what the community believes.  Frank  |  talk  01:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

But doesn't reporting and enforcing policy violations concur with what the community believes? —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you have been banned, and are currently blocked, should suggest to you that perhaps your understanding of "what the community believes" is imperfect at best. There are, as ever, avenues for you to appeal your block that don't require any intermediary. My suggestion to you is that wait for a few months, maybe experiment and learn in another online community, and then lodge an appeal with the arbitration committee. Nathan ^T 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The only way to appeal to ArbCom is through the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, but at this point or any future point, I would be in no position to contact the subcommittee. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)