User talk:Lieutenant of Melkor

RULES:

1. If you post here, I will reply here.
2. If I post on your talk page, please reply there. However, if you move the dialogue here, it will continue here.
3. If you make a query, and I do not respond within 24–36 hours, most often I am either busy, or do not care that much for your query and do not know how to refuse it.
4. Bear in mind, under talk page guidelines, except in rare circumstances, I have the right to remove your posts in their entirety, and, contrary to popular misinformation by poorly-worded policy, my removal of them does NOT immediately constitute my having read them; there is a convenient tool called pop-ups which allows the registered user to revert edits without having seen them! I have no need to keep an explicit list of who's not welcome here; if I remove your posts twice or more, that's strong enough of a signal.

non-sock accounts

Having a glance at WP:SOCK for a moment, and I've come to ask - were these actions of his all done with malice and bad faith in mind? Having a look at when each account began and finished editing, it seems that there isn't any case of GotR using multiple accounts at the same time, or attempting to gain an upper hand against someone through the use of multiple accounts. This might be a case of someone simply choosing to cease one account, and start afresh. Having a look at WP:CLEANSTART, it is said that a user can start over and not touch on topics that they previously participated in. From memory, I remember that HXL49 used to participate in certain political topics, however in recent years GotR hasn't touched them at all. Could it just be that they genuinely are interested in the whole "clean start" process, but just happened to stumble across a few problems along the way?

Many of GotR's previous actions on the Wikipedia project have been problematic and disappointing, and has led to various conflict between him and other editors. However, people tend to change as they learn from previous experiences, and I trust that in future GotR may choose to make the correct decisions, and become an entirely different person to whom he was in the past, completely disassociated with his poor behaviour from earlier on. Yes, it can be argued that he should not have jumped from account to account because our policies discourage it, however to what extent does the spirit of having a "clean start" remain an available choice for someone like him, or for anyone? One may argue that someone may wish to "avoid scrutiny" by leaving an account, however that only holds valid if they continue to engage in the same behaviour which led to the scrutiny of their previous account. If we allow GotR to continue under a fresh account, his actions in the future will demonstrate to us, as a community, whether or not he is deserving of a block or removal from the project altogether. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

To right a great wrong

This also applies to all the other accounts listed. And I ask that the reviewing admin in the block log also unequivocally denounce the previous block log entry, namely the untruth "Abusing multiple accounts: and block evasion".

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

WP:OFFER, and before you proceed, read this carefully. Let us begin with the duration: From 24 hours to 96 hours to indefinite, when the indef rationale was "Abusing multiple accounts: and block evasion". Three of the "multiple accounts", (Northern Hemisphere Spring 2006–July 2010), (July 2010–September 2011), (September–December 2011), had all ceased editing well before August 2013, and I had intended to leave this one for SNT in August 2013. The "block evasion" that the blocking admin, whom I shall not name, had referred to occurred more than 36 hours before he started digging up on my past three identities; despite my full disclosure of them, without any chance to explain myself, I was pelted in the face with an indef. SNT was NOT used to gain ANY advantage over another editor, nor for ANY OTHER disruptive purpose; the same applies to this account. These were to begin quietly anew to continue to serve the project. Yes, I misunderstood the terms of WP:CLEANSTART, but given the hefty amount of work required to regain Autoreviewer and AWB rights, I have ZERO incentive to consider switching accounts. This points to a purely punitive block that occurred "after the fact", and I most certainly fit the casually-described conditions under WP:OFFER#Eligibility; I am not a repeat convict but instead one who previously did not control his temper well. I also intend to subject myself to a 1RR (usual exceptions for vandalism, spamming, etc.) to minimise the risk of edit wars, not use edit summaries exceeding one sentence, and abide by a strict WP:NPA policy. Although this** is not Wikipedia, it is (nearly) as addictive, and is an example of my civil discussion style, NOT due to fear of moderator consequences, but out of an example set by others on the forum. Your choice cannot be clearer: A continued wealth of contributions, or the rotting of our geographic coverage of the most populous nation.*** GotR ^Talk 07:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per discussion below. Editor is subject to 1RR and has promised to avoid using alternate accounts. m.o.p 14:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

**: I could have claimed that user to be anyone, but one could just use both sites' "e-mail user" function to prove I am indeed the owner.
***: During my absence, none of the articles in that template that I/others left incomplete have not undergone any significant expansion, and no new articles have been begun. It's laughable that an easily-edited and the most popular encyclopaedia that is supposed to function as a Gazetteer can have articles, however short, on every CDP in the U.S. and not even have a list of every town in equally important of a nation, and more outrageous that the community here can turn a blind eye to this gap. GotR ^Talk 07:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

To the reviewing admin: If you are "on the fence" and/or feel the request as is does not answer some of your questions, allow me to answer them first; I will during the weekend at the latest. GotR ^Talk 07:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to write a thorough block request.

For starters, OFFER is an essay, not a policy. It has no bearing on your current situation. I'd like to get that out of the way before we start off.

But, I'm uninvolved and I'd like to hear you out. Before I do that, can you clear up a few things?

For example, your e-mail harassment of administrators after your block last year; your e-mail and talk page access were taken away. What were your intentions?

A recurring theme in your block requests and edits seems to be "you need me, as I am irreplaceable". Do you think this excuses your past behaviour?

You stated in August that, if unblocked, all of your work would be under Sinfonie non troppo. Any particular reason you're not making an unblock request from that account?

Have you been editing Wikipedia in violation of your block terms in the past six months?

Relevantly, is the only reason you're making an unblock request right now because WP:OFFER uses six months as an example? It's February - as you said yourself, you're in school and do not have time to edit anyway (if I misunderstood, my apologies).

Feel free to answer these at your leisure. m.o.p 01:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for calling this "thorough", despite my having only addressed the false sockpuppetry charges vigorously. So, IN SHORT, before I become too entangled in writing a lengthy response:

Well too many things on here are essays/guidelines, not policies, regardless of how rational they are.

I didn't e-mail "harass" the administrators the other times I was blocked. I felt that, irrespective of the merits of the four-day block, the revoking of talk page access had no justification based on policy (I hope you will not call WP:TPG a mere "guideline"; it's the golden standard regardless), so at that point the only thing to ensure my voice was being heard was to contact admins via e-mail. If I had truly intended to e-mail "harass" them, I wouldn't resort to such inefficient (you know they are, too) methods.

It does not excuse past behaviour but it does not excuse the judgment of one individual acting in haste without input from the wider community (no, the users who I have been involved with certainly DO NOT COUNT as the "community", by ANY measure). Please do not misunderstand me on this one.

I changed my mind since then. I am self-dissuaded from a "WP:CLEANSTART" for the reasons I gave above and, given this hasty block under SNT, I have even less of a reason to continue under that name; a secondary reason is that, AFAIK, block logs cannot be altered easily, or at all. I don't deem the location of my unblock request to be that important.

No and no. The last part is correct, which is the only reason why I welcome a short-term block as a means of self-control LOL. Why now? I messaged Benlisquare in private that I would make an unblock request in December (four months, mind you), but only now has the injustice of the block agitated me sufficiently to attempt a come-back. I still do not have the time to edit as extensively as I did before, but I for the time being intend to assume a sentinel role, rather than to create articles en masse or go on AWB campaigns. And do keep in mind the title of this section.

I hope that was adequate. If you have questions that require diffs or multiple questions, do not expect as quick of a response; you'll likely be disappointed otherwise. GotR ^Talk 01:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oh mentioning Benlisquare made me realise one of his initials, LBJ, coincides with my most hated U.S. president. GotR ^Talk 01:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Semantics aside, one of the administrators felt you were reaching enough to revoke your e-mail access due to misuse. It worries me a bit that you seem to see their decision as 'wrong'. To tie this into your next point, remember that administrators are elected by the community with the understanding that they will carry out decisions on behalf of the community and enforce the guidelines this project is built on. It worries me equally that you seem to believe said administrators (all of whom have many years of experience under their belts) to be misrepresenting the community's interests. Again, if I'm misrepresenting your stance, please set me straight.

If there's anything else you'd like to mention, now's the time. m.o.p 02:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Master of Puppets:@Guardian of the Rings: - In case it was missed, Toddst1 is currently utilizing the WikiBreak enforcer and I highly doubt he'll be replying. After taking a close look, I personally believe that the indefinite block was not a good one. That said, stick to one account for a good, long time. I hope you can be welcomed back and I surely do. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Master of Puppets: No....I only criticised the decision to revoke my talk page access, which prompted my e-mailing. I made no comment today about the decision to disable "e-mail user" access. Next, you are indeed misunderstanding/misrepresenting my stance on whether administrators act on the community's behalf. I only stated the escalation to indef was done very much so in haste; after all, within 12 hours of inquiring about my previous accounts, he hit the "block" trigger, without allowing me to explain myself. And I can only conclude that his actions were in effect not serving the community at all. In short, neutral (at worst) intentions → harmful effect.

@Sportsguy17: If he does nothing with {{tl|unblock}}, I will remove his posts on sight; I do not welcome him here. That said, there are loopholes around the Wikibreak enforcer; I myself have exploited them on occasion. And thank you for introducing me to a new template!!! GotR ^Talk 04:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for misunderstanding, but I find it a bit odd that you think the decision was made without adequate foresight, given the block rationale of "Disruptive editing: continued personal attacks, WP:BATTLE behavior after numerous warnings, discussions and other admonisment". Keep in mind, this is after your earlier block for very similar reasons. Having seen the discussion leading up to the block, as well as the circumstances, it seems perfectly reasonable. Or perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you think it was made in error? m.o.p 05:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

M.O.P., Yesterday and today I was lampooning only the rationale for the indef and the rationale for removal of talk-page access during the 4-day one. If we cannot set this straight, we're going nowhere.... GotR ^Talk 05:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hi GotR. I would like to see you edit here again, as you have been doing a great job on subdivisions of China (although I believe you are exaggerating your irreplaceability: just because nobody hasn't picked up the job yet, it does not mean nobody will, and there is no WP:DEADLINE), but there are a couple of things you should think about before you are unblocked. One is that you should stop focusing on whether or not your indefblock was justified. What happened to you (blocks escalated after you didn't keep your cool while being blocked, but instead throwing red flags like new accounts in the face of all admins) isn't a case of you being singled out by an abusive admin, but actually fairly typical admin behaviour. At some point we tend to lose our patience and decide that a user is more trouble than they are worth (and the community expects us to make such decisions). You have a collection of accounts, all with block logs attached, that make it a bit wearying to even try to find out whether you were treated fairly at all times in the past. I think that you should stick to one account, strictly limit yourself to one revert, and you should not expect to find justice on Wikipedia for everything wrong that has happened to you. If others make a decision about you that you think is unfair and wrong, please first try to understand where they are coming from before you title your unblock request "to right a great wrong". Having said all this, I would like to see you unblocked, but I haven't been able to push myself to do unblock you yet. —Kusma (t·c) 06:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• >"although I believe you are exaggerating your irreplaceability"> Purely a matter of opinion then. No point in discussing it further. It is worth pointing out, however, given the rapid urbanisation of the P.R.C., there are changes in the classification of even county-level divisions every year (You don't really see that in the U.S.). If we wait several years, much of the information I have compiled will already have been outdated.
• >"One is that you should stop focusing on whether or not your indefblock was justified".< Isn't that one of the requirements for unblock requests? So do you think I and/or others here have addressed that adequately?
• >"You have a collection of accounts, all with block logs attached, that make it a bit wearying to even try to find out whether you were treated fairly at all times in the past".< I'll help sort things out for you. Looking back, I find the only excessive blocks to be the current one and another one from several years back which I will not point to unless pushed/is necessary; even if you asked me about the details nothing short of a lie detector in person (will they ever work online?) would lead you to believe I am being truthful.
• >"and you should not expect to find justice on Wikipedia for everything wrong that has happened to you"<. Fair; it doesn't occur in the real world, either, a similar situation being the number of wrongly executed death-row inmates in the U.S. I am only asking the community take the decision [to banish an editor that can sow the seeds of explosive growth in an area with much potential] with an order of magnitude of more gravitas. This is not one of those clear-cut cases of an editor using sockpuppetry for pure disruption (you would have no expectation of them being cooperative in disclosure!) or an editor who is beyond redemption.
• >"Having said all this, I would like to see you unblocked, but I haven't been able to push myself to do unblock you yet." So what is the missing component of the puzzle? Please be more to the point. GotR ^Talk 07:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• • It would be easier if you could comment on your behaviour that led to the original 24-hour and 4-day blocks on this account, and explain whether we should expect that behaviour from you again (or why not). —Kusma (t·c) 11:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Per the unblock request, I think the last passage ("I am not a repeat convict but instead one who previously did not control his temper well. I also intend to subject myself to a 1RR (usual exceptions for vandalism, spamming, etc.) to minimise the risk of edit wars, not use edit summaries exceeding one sentence, and abide by a strict WP:NPA policy.") covers your question.

While I do not agree with the notion that an unblock request is for discussion of block justification, that's beside the point, and your opinion is your own, GotR.

To be perfectly clear (per your request): if you edit war, you will be blocked again. If you make anything even resembling a personal attack or jab at another editor, ditto. Can I count on you to uphold your end of the bargain in the face of any Wiki/life-related stress? m.o.p 13:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kusma:, I do not have the time today and possibly tomorrow to adequately address the 96 hours in more than one sentence.

@Master of Puppets: >"Per the unblock request, I think the last passage"<. Thank you for covering my back on this front. It's also worth examining my C-D Forum posts as a sign of good behaviour; technically many promises are empty unless corroborated by evidence of having fulfilled them (recall Bush II about "nation-building" in 2000 and Obama about civil liberties, foreign policy, etc. in 2008?) I'm not suggesting I am anything like most career politicians, but simply staking my view on "promises" and "apologies". Take my Forum posts and usual minding-own-business editing in the past as your insurance. GotR ^Talk 13:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'm willing to give you another chance. It should go without saying that violating any of these terms will result in the reinstatement of your block. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help otherwise. Best, m.o.p 14:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you introduce another entry in the block log of the other accounts exonerating the top entry "Abusing multiple accounts"? I care less whether they are unblocked, but would like to see the stigma removed; it does not look good if someone (i.e. not any of you here) does not take care to examine further.

Except for disruptive sockpuppetry or something equally extreme, that's understood as blocks of increasing length, and not from zero to infinity? I'll soon be signing off for the next 24–39 hours, but my gratitude to you goes without saying. Without commenting on other specific users, you at least exhibit reason and a degree of professionalism (having spent less than 36 hours interacting with you, I have no right or reason to say more, but this is still an impression), something which is to some extent in short supply in this branch of WMF. GotR ^Talk 14:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

In reply to your question above, block timing is determined on a case-by-case basis by whichever administrator is present at the time.
To the query on my talk page: we cannot delete or hide those pages under these circumstances. I understand that you'd like them gone, but selectively altering history isn't quite in line with our ideal of transparency.
As for the block log entries; that's a step without precedent, and rather meaningless given that block log rationale does not supersede a talk page discussion. If you're worried about an administrator getting the wrong idea, I can assure you that nobody will be making an assumption based on the other block logs.
And thank you for the kind words. m.o.p 19:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you state permanent deletion is not an option in the community's view, why don't you or someone else delete them and then recreate them as redirects? I don't need anyone to, out of neglect (or worse, to muckrake on me), cite these diffs. GotR ^Talk 02:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As cliché as it sounds, what's done is done. In my opinion, your contributions demonstrate your merit; some entries in your block log or a few tagged userpages are not a reflection on you as an editor. They may have had weight in the past, but they are not relevant anymore. Having them hidden is giving them attention they are not due.

Opinions aside, I can't fulfill the above request because that's effectively revision deletion, which is not applicable in this case. m.o.p 07:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Alexf^(talk) 14:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Previous account userpages

How about redirecting them all to this account's user page? It would make the connection clear but not claim (or deny) any wrongdoing. If you want, I can do that for you so you don't look like edit warring. —Kusma (t·c) 16:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and welcome back! —Kusma (t·c) 16:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively (pun intended, sorry) you could restore the pages to their prior state and add {{User alternative account}} templates linking them to this one. NE Ent 19:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

To the both of you: Just wondering whether the third option, deletion of them is appropriate, given my disclosure. @NE Ent:: they are no alternatives at the moment because they are still blocked, despite my request. And I have no foreseeable need to use public computers in the near future, either. GotR ^Talk 03:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Not "alternative" in the sense you're still using them, but in the sense you've contributed to Wikipedia using them. As parts of the community are highly prejudicial against the use of alternative accounts, I think some sort of explicit linkage will be needed in order for there to be a consensus to remove the ugly "banned for sockpuppetry" tags on them. NE Ent 10:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Tags or no, it's equally ugly for those entries to stand as they are. Actually that's a prerequisite to any "de-uglification". You did not answer my question about whether deletion, and freezing (although that doesn't prevent other admins from editing), of them altogether is appropriate. I had tagged them for CSD-U1 before that user falsely decided there was a impropriety to those accounts. GotR ^Talk 17:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm glad you're back. Thanks for creating those climate subpages, I had never noticed them before. I fixed a small typo that mislabeled Bettles as Bethel. ♥Soap♥ 04:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chaoyang District, Beijing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guomao (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The Dai River - China vs. Hebei

Guardian, thanks for updating and cleaning up the Dai River stub I created earlier today! It looks much better cleaner now - my prose is always a little twisty for some reason. However, even though the river is intra-provincial, the list of Chinese rivers says it's the only one called Dai. For those people who don't know their Chinese provinces, having it as Dai (China), leaving in a link to the China webpage, and referring to Hebei explicitly as a province might all help clarify things. What do you think? TI. Gracchus (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NCRIVER states "In practice, most rivers needing disambiguation have been identified by the smallest appropriate political entity", and WP:NC-ZH#Place names asks to avoid using ", China" or the like for disambiguation. As for the opening sentence, I do not care whether Hebei is "embellished". I question the "who don't know their FOO's states/provinces" reasoning, since it's not as if every U.S. state is universally known, either. GotR ^Talk 02:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - I appreciate your prompt feedback. I'm still pretty green, and so your knowledge of policy in these areas is significantly better than mine. Since the naming policy suggests that only province-level entities should be labeled "Name, China," I will leave the sentence as it is, since province is implied by the addition of the nation name, and curious people can simply click the link.

As an aside, I don't assume that any "generic" reader of Wikipedia will be able to recognize the name of a US State, and would err towards including the information if I thought it wasn't otherwise obvious. Just out of curiosity, what does FOO mean? I've never seen the term - should I know it? Thanks again for your pithy rewrite and for pointing me towards the pertinent Wikipedia policies. TI. Gracchus (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)