User talk:Claritas

Goodbye

[I got a bit emotional writing this, and it was fairly rightly described as a rant over at ANI, so I've blanked it. Check in the history if you want to read.]

I've left a note requesting that the FAC be kept open for a bit longer first, as I am emailing you now. —fetch·comms 22:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm quite happy for you to finish the FAC for me. E-mail me for all queries. Claritas § 16:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Haverfordwest election, 1571

-- Cirt (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Standard offer.

Hey, I've been reading the ANI discussion, and I've got a suggestion of something which might be acceptable as a compromise for conditions for unblocking me. It's essentially an extended standard offer. 1. I will not edit/sock for two years. 2. I will make a list of every account I've had. 3. During the period in which I am prohibited from editing, I will produce complete articles on subjects either chosen by me or other editors, in wikiformat, which can be copied/pasted into the mainspace (so the work for others is trivial). I would prefer subjects of which there is ample coverage online (through GBooks) etc, so that there is no need to assume good faith. If anyone is willing to act as a proxy for me, GAR/PR/FAC is always possible. 4. Once the two years is up, assuming there is consensus to accept this or any other amended version of this, I will return to the project, but:

• • I will not participate in community discussions, including AFDs of pages I have created. I will not nominate any article for deletion per CSD, PROD or on AFD, and I will not de-CSD or de-PROD any articles. The only exceptions to these would be discussions related to my conduct, or discussions which have no vote element which I have been explicitly invited to join.
  • I will look forward to being mentored by Jack Merridew if he will commit himself to doing so (question left by BOZ on his talk for you input).
  • I will accept any other sanctions placed on my editing by community consensus.

Would this be feasible ? Claritas § 17:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Oh, some more of my reactions to the ANI thread. Jclemens thinks I may have vote-stacked on all the AFDs I've contributed to (hundreds). This simply isn't the case - I've never vote-stacked at all, although I can understand why the suspicion is warranted. If you check a few ones at random (just by the age of the other accounts - I really started editing circa Dec. 2009). Also, in response to Andrew Lehan's comment, which basically is asking for a ban, I can say two things: 1. I'm a minor (not disclosing my real age due to all your lovely child protection policies), and I think I'll be a little more mature and a little less likely to want to "game systems" (obsession was an exaggeration, promise =D) in two years time. Secondly, Jack Merridew seems to have got into rather more serious trouble than me (check out Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick), and he's been allowed back. Sure, be harsh to me, but I think a ban is excessive. Claritas § 17:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any evidence of vote-stacking; the small number of articles edited by more than one of the accounts is shown here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal of this section. You may not remove declined unblock requests while blocked.  Sandstein  18:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I hide them with <!-- --> ? This is my talk page, after all. Claritas § 16:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No. WP:BLANKING explains what you may and may not do when it comes to removing stuff from your talk page. Favonian (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll just move them to a separate part of my talk page to avoid clutter. I envisage some more (thought probably in rather better faith than those above). Claritas § 18:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock requests archive

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

82.21.30.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Nefesf9". The reason given for Nefesf9's block is: "Disruptive editing".

• Blocking administrator: CactusWriter (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: Given that the other three editors recently on that IP -- User:Nefes9, User:Anton dvsk, and User:Blest Withouten Match -- have exactly the same editing patterns as this account, I find it obvious that this is the same user as the other three blocked editors, and have blocked this account directly. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm making a request for my IP to unblocked so I can discuss my unfortunate recent activities with other editors and contribute to the FAC of William H. Prescott. Please feel free to monitor my edits or refuse the unblock request. Claritas § 17:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This 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).

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

---

Request reason:

They're my alternate accounts, I admit it. With over 6000 edits, though, I think it would be preferable if I could have a reasoned dialogue outside this page. There was no consensus at the WP:ANI discussion to block me ([1]). Please reconsider. I'm not saying that a block will not eventually be appropriate, but I'd prefer to participate in the discussion concerning it. Claritas § 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Declined due to admitted sock-puppetry, and severe disruption from User:nefesf9, from which you requested a block yourself [2]  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 18:25, 8 September 2010 (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.

This 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am User:Adorno rocks, User:Jan 1922, User:Nooba sooba booba looba. Sorry about that, I'd block them all

Decline reason:

Thanks for sharing. I'll look into it. TNXMan 17:19, 23 October 2010 (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.

This 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please ban me. I'm sick of being "just" blocked when there's never been any consensus that I should be unblocked in the future.

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. If you continue to misuse the unblock template for messages that are not unblock requests, you will be blocked from editing this page.  Sandstein  20:53, 26 October 2010 (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.

WP:AN

Since it is clear that you will continue to edit Wikipedia no matter what, I have proposed that you be unbanned and unblocked. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unban proposal on User:Claritas for details. –MuZemike 23:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia !

{{admin help}} Hi. I haven't socked for nearly a month, and in that time I've got three featured pictures and a good record at Commons. I'd like to ask whether I might be able to proxy edit through someone, or on a subpage of my talk (is this possible ?). I'm willing to make a clean start here as soon as possible - it's probably rather too early for me to request unbanning, but I hope my contributions at Commons show that it would be possible in the medium term. --Claritas § 23:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's only been a month. That being said, I'm not an admin. The "manifesto" at this talk page on meta linked from this old Administrators noticeboard page is kind of astonishing. User talk:86.6.32.228, etc. I feel (without having looked more into why you were blocked) that this type of hostile attitude (a sort of metaphorical finger to the bans) is probably what got you banned indefinitely in the first place. I would suggest continuing to build a good track record elsewhere, possibly for another year. A month is a long time to someone beating their head against a wall daily, but generally speaking it's not that long. Banaticus (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You said here you would wait 6 months. A block is just that - it means "no editing by any means" - If you found someone else to add your data, it's likely that they would be spotted and blocked as a sock.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 12:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Really ? I've previously made proxy edits through Wikipedia admins. I can list them if you feel like blocking them as socks. I said I would wait 6 months, but I've had a really positive response from Commons concerning my contributions. It's pretty clear I'm editing in good faith. If I make one edit out of line, I can be blocked with a click. and anyway, I'm not requesting unbanning, simply the preliminary step of a proxied editing arrangement.--Claritas § 12:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Lucky you. The only edits I know allowed, from a blocked user, are ones to their talk page and via others to relevant discussions about the user at admin noticeboards, etc. If you know of such a policy (maybe I've missed that one) then please provide a link. Maybe you could also supply the names of these admins who are editing articles for you - I think that could start a nice discussion at WP:AN.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 13:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I won't give you their names, because unlike you, they consider a banned user who's interested in contributing positively to the project a good thing. The relevant policy is ignore all rules. --Claritas § 14:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I was just explaining the normal block policy. If others wish to put their heads above the parapet, and go for WP:IAR then that's own decision, and they have to be prepared to defend that decision if so asked.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The Unban proposal on User:Claritas from a month ago seemed to pretty clearly indicate that community consensus is against an unbanning at this time. Admins who wish to lift the ban should review that response before taking any action. BOZ (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that was before I became a productive contributor to wikimedia projects who stopped socking. There are issues with it in that it was essentially a pointy action by MuZemike to protest Jimbo's unilateral unbanning of some sock. He's right that it would be essentially impossible to technically prevent me from editing Wikipedia. --Claritas § 23:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you believe there might be a reason to think that you would have a better result now, you might ask a simpathetic person to try it again, and let it run longer this time. Otherwise, I think anyone unblocking you would be overturned because of lack of consensus. BOZ (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(note) removing day+ old adminhelp request as you aren't really requesting adminhelp here. I personally agree with the comments above that it is likely too soon to request an unban. I would also not personally support editing through a proxy.  7  05:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep my current informal system running, and I'll apply through the ban appeal committee of Arbcom in a few month. Cheers guys. --Claritas § 10:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?

An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but I'm currently banned. Hopefully will be editing again in June or so. --Claritas § 12:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Treskilling Yellow

{{helpme}}

Please could a user add a talkback template to Crisco 1492's page. I can't because I'm banned. --Claritas § 22:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Claritas, do you have a link to where you got the digitization of the Treskilling Yellow? At the featured picture nomination, it has been suspended until a source has been listed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, from http://www.glenstephens.com/Sweden-TreSkillingYellow.jpg. I'm pleased it's going to achieve FP status here too ! --Claritas § 22:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks a lot! It is a striking picture... and an even more interesting topic. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Papal States - Piastre 1675.jpeg

It would be great if this picture could be added to Jubilee (Christianity) - I just noticed it didn't have an image of any Holy Year issues. --Claritas § 21:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this should be considered an acceptable exception to the principal that blocked and banned users can't edit by proxy. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Per ignore all rules, this edit would improve Wikipedia, therefore the "ban" on "proxying" which de facto doesn't exist (see previous talk page subheading for a trivial example) should not be invoked. I'm trying to positively contribute to Wikipedia by creating useful photographs, but if they're unused they add little to the project. --Claritas § 20:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, reluctantly, under WP:IAR. Feel free to revert/re-edit if I've done something wrong or you don't feel I should have added it. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks =) --Claritas § 16:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

William H. Prescott

Please could an editor post a message on Moondyne's talk page politely asking him or her to discuss with me the addition of the category "Blind people" to William H. Prescott. I believe this is incorrect, and it is clearly stated in the article that Prescott was visually impaired, not blind. --Claritas § 22:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read through the article and asked User:Moondyne to consider changing the category here. Dru of Id (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Moondyne (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Claritas § 07:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Also, there's a weird malformed "Gardiner, p. ixGardiner, p. 143" at the end of lead, which should be removed, I'm not sure where it comes from. I'd look at the history to see if someone's been messing up the cites. --Claritas § 07:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that this edit by 173.59.72.36 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) has been the root of several problems on that page. However i have reverted back to a revision prior to his edit, so that should be sorted now (i believe i have also restored any additions made to the page afterwards). Cheers, benzband (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, thanks =). --Claritas § 23:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

File:A drinking fountain in Saint-Paul-de-Vence.JPG

{{admin-help}} Could an admin please undelete this and upload it to Commons, or e-mail me a copy of it so I can upload it myself ? I'd reupload it myself, but I deleted the copy on my computer. --Claritas § 08:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from inappropriate use of the {{adminhelp}} template. You are banned, and I don't intend on restoring images created via your puppets. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you might not answer a courteous request from a fellow human being, but I'm sure another admin will do so. It's not inappropriate, I'm requesting help from an admin. It's a great photo, and I'm sad that Wikipedia would lose it if most admins were like you - how many banned users are only socking to improve the wiki? --Claritas § 19:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are banned from editing. Further requests like this one will lead to your talk page access being revoked. Favonian (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

=P --Claritas § 19:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3

{{Help me}} Hey, could someone direct MuZeMike to my talk page with a talkback template ? I'd like to talk to him about something. --Claritas § 09:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• • It should be mentioned in that RFC that when a user is technically impossible to block (because they have access to essentially an unlimited range of IP addresses through VPNs and the like), and their contributions are overwhelmingly positive, the user has no real motivation to go through the whole standard offer process, and yet it would be still advantageous for them to return for the fold from the community's point of view. I'd suggest that Arbcom/CheckUsers only check accounts when they have been disruptive edits from that account. Disruptive edits of any nature, mind you, but if the account is 100% good-editing, per IAR, there's no point unveiling it.

I'm not sure whether you agree with me about this, following your unsuccessful block request of me, but I'd rather have my name cleared and edit from my primary account. It would cause a lot less trouble if people actually knew which edits were mine, and could just watch what I'm doing, in case I get out of hand again. I've made 10,000+ edits from my socks, and I've created several good articles, and only received one (3RR) block, which suggests that I'm a net asset to the project, and Wikipedia would be worse if I wasn't block evading. Thanks for listening. --Claritas § 09:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism, please revert

{{help me}} Shapurji Saklatvala needs some rollback applied. I'd create another sock, but cba. Cheers. --Claritas § 20:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

help me

Please chuck Template:You've got mail on Jimbo's talk. Thanks. --Claritas § 20:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If you mean User talk:Jimbo Wales, it isn't protected, so you can do it :)  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  21:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Claritas is blocked, Hazard-SJ. The only thing he can edit is this page. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  23:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, hopefully lol. --Claritas § 02:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Same request. --Claritas § 00:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ban appeal

In 2010, after a few thousand productive edits, I focused my energies on removing hoaxes from Wikipedia. Foolishly, I made a sockpuppet in order to see what would happen if a partially hoaxed article was created. This was an abuse of the trust of the Wikipedia community, and I regret it. I did, however, make sure that all the false information was eventually removed, and the end product was an article on an individual who otherwise may not have been covered.

When this activity was discovered, I foolishly started editing from another account, with the misplaced conviction that if all my edits were constructive, I would not be found out.

I am committed to improving Wikipedia, not disrupting it, and I regret my occasional outbursts. If you care to consult the contributions of my last sock, He to Hecuba, you'll see high quality mainspace contributions, such as the GAs on Gregory of Nyssa and Clement of Alexandria. I feel it's unfair that my sockpuppets are blocked not because I'm doing anything wrong but simply due to my past misdeeds. I was banned for block evasion, not disruptive editing.

If unbanned, I will never use an alternate account again. I will focus my contributions to article space. I'd obey a 1RR across namespaces and assist in work against open proxies and sockpuppetry, which I have significant experience with.

I am a teenager, and I feel I've matured a lot in the past two years. I recognize the problems with my past editing patterns, and I hope the community will offer me a second chance. I'm willing to wait out whatever time the community wills me to.--Claritas § 12:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)