Jump to content

User talk:FAMASFREENODE

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, FAMASFREENODE, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! – Ronz (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Your RFA Suggestion

[edit]

Hi FAMASFREENODE. Your RFA is clearly mistimed. You are a new editor here and should gain experience across Wikipedia before you attempt an RFA. Please read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. And yes, please withdraw your RFA. Do ask me for any assistance if you may with respect to various facets of Wikipedia. Xender Lourdes (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Xender says is good advice. I've closed the RFA; for some reason, people get angry about premature RFA's, and start saying mean things. In addition to the link to Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, you can also take a look at WP:NOTNOW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Xender Lourdes and Floquenbeam:this user was familiar with the RFA candidate advices prior to submittal. the submittal was done in an urge to fulfill both the need for increase of number of admins, if even by 1 (the need for reserves) and to showcase that old yet unregistered readers exist who are proficient in the matters of metapedianismFAMASFREENODE (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you cannot show such competence when your actual account has only 20-something edits. We would have to take your word for it. And since you're kind of making mistakes left and right, there is no reason for people to do that. I'm afraid there is zero chance - not "a small chance", but "zero chance" that this would pass. Just re-read the suggested pages, go slow and be patient. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to what Floquenbeam and Xender Lourdes have said above, I would suggest that you wait at least a year to request adminship, and during that time to pick up knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Use that time to do some meaningful work, take part in content creation - preferably up to Good Article level, clearing backlogs, ivoting in AfDs, etc, to avoid conflict, to avoid derogatory or combative personal remarks, and to reach out and help others. This will also give us the opportunity to see how you interact with others etc which is essential as an admin, I know this was a great influence when I ran for adminship. I would suggest that before you go for another nomination that you consult with an experienced admin, particularly one with experience at RfA, such as User:Worm That Turned, User:WereSpielChequers, User:Kudpung or myself. If you do this, you will be in a much stronger position for a future RFA. Best of luck.--5 albert square (talk)
@5 albert square:this user is aware of the rules and workings and may retry approximately 7 months in the futureFAMASFREENODE (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FAMASFREENODE: I'd really recommend waiting a little longer than that - you may claim to be aware of 'rules and workings' but the simple mistakes you're making suggest that there could be room for improvement as I said below, it's no big deal, you've got plenty of time to become an admin, but it'd be really helpful to us all if you get stuck into some really important tasks, a lot of which don't require tools. Always here if you have any questions -- samtar talk or stalk 17:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just an example of something you could do right now - there are over 2000 unreferenced biographies of living people! All these need is someone with skills such as yours to track down a single reference -- samtar talk or stalk 17:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to edit so you can get more access to different functions you'll be very disappointed. the purpose of editing is to help build an accurate encyclopedia. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@VegasCasinoKid:this user was fully aware of the rules prior to notificationsFAMASFREENODE (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tutorial, mentoring and RfA

[edit]

Hi FAMASFREENODE, welcome to Wikipedia! Your request for adminship is likely to be closed as unsuccessful per WP:SNOW. I imagine that can be a little disappointing, but it's honestly no big deal - would you be interested in maybe taking the tutorial or talking about being mentored? -- samtar talk or stalk 17:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The
Adventure
The Wikipedia Adventure guide

Hi FAMASFREENODE!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to List of Masters of the Universe characters has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Masters of the Universe characters, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. -- samtar talk or stalk 15:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Samtar:this user advises looking into the change that has been made before hitting the undo buttonFAMASFREENODE (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be replying on the article talk, please look there. You state you're not new, but all this behavior is really indicative that you are - please slow down -- samtar talk or stalk 15:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a second look, and your reasoning, I agree with your removal. Please try to fill in the edit summary in the future -- samtar talk or stalk 15:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third Person

[edit]

Why do you talk about yourself in the third person? (Like saying "This user did this" instead of "I did this") Just asking. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Alcohol by volume, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Common year has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC) @CAPTAIN RAJU: this user asserts the fact that in the then-future, this user's edit to include common era link was completed by user:McGeddonFAMASFREENODE (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Septic shock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sequestration. 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) 09:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Marxism. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Schrödinger's Rapist. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. While a deletion discussion is proceeding, you should not take it on yourself to impose your own preferred outcome. It may be that the discussion will indeed conclude with a decision to merge the article. But it could also decide on deletion, or no change. The decision is one that should be made by a consensus of editors, not by one person acting unilaterally on the basis of their own opinion. RolandR (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (The Snake Men (Masters of The Universe)) has been reviewed!

[edit]

Thanks for creating The Snake Men (Masters of The Universe), FAMASFREENODE!

Wikipedia editor TheDwellerCamp just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Remember, when you create a page, remember to put attribution on the talk page.

To reply, leave a comment on TheDwellerCamp's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

June 2016

[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at List of Masters of the Universe characters. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Muffled Pocketed 14:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FAMASFREENODE reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ). Thank you. Muffled Pocketed 16:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I think this one might not be actionable - as you stopped after being warned - as an admin I have to say, getting blocked for edit warring over He-Man sounds like the worst possible thing to be blocked for. How about instead of making threats about ANI and the like, you discuss the changes you'd like to make on the talkpage with the other editors? It's clear at least a couple don't agree with your changes, and maybe everyone could come to a compromise if you talked to them. If I can be of any help, or offer any advice - please feel free to ping me. SQLQuery me! 03:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL:this user asserts the fact that the reporting at ANI has been performed after exhaustion of 3 revert limit with total awareness of the rules and possible consequences.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did report you to AN3. I didn't close it - but I imagine that it will JUST BARELY squeak thru without action. You're edit warring about he-man characters bud - knock it off. SQLQuery me! 05:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Acute liver failure, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at List of Masters of the Universe characters

[edit]

The report at the edit warring noticeboard has been closed with a warning to you. If you make further attempts to refactor pages related to Masters of the Universe without first getting consensus on a talk page, you may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:this user asserts the fact that the article split had gone unopposed and with consensus for it (refer to article talk page), the edit war began when user:TheDwellerCamp began to repeatedly undo the split with total disregard for wp:size (check page size in page information). in following the 3rr, this user reverted only 3 times, with addition of reason and warning in summary. failure to maintain the size-improved article, this user posted to ANI. it is upto the admins to give the final word.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The final word (from this admin} is that you need to get support from others for what you're trying to do. A concern about WP:SIZE on a long-existing article is hardly an emergency that needs dramatic intervention by you, a brand-new editor. We have time to wait for a discussion. Such a delay is unlikely to harm the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in reply to user EdJohnston, the size guideline states that articles in the >50 kiB zone should probably be split, with >100 kiB ones must be split. the size of the merged article and the problems it can cause are mentioned in the article talk page by this user.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say such articles "must" be split. Further, have you read the WP:HASTE section of the guideline? —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, edit warring can occur even if you don't break the three revert rule. 3RR is not a rule which is set in stone, and you don't have to break it to edit war. Omni Flames (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread that you unarchived

[edit]

It was in fact, archived, but not in the right place. See this diff. Anyway, I've archived it properly now. Omni Flames (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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).

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

Request reason:

this user performed the archiving of closed discussions in ANI due to them being done in and to reduce the size of ANI front-page, the warning provided by Omni Flames in the revert summary sufficed to stop this user from pre-emptive archiving. if the attempt was ground for a block, the first block with 48 hour length would suffice and not a block for indefinite period which would stop this user from ever participating in wikipedia FAMASFREENODE (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I appreciate this unblock request was made before the blocking admin posted the full rationale for that user's block. But the ANI archiving is clearly not the the sole reason for that user's block, and that user needs to make a new unblock request addressing the full block rationale. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

(edit conflict) An uninvited comment I know, but personally I think your heart is in the right place and you're very enthusiasic - which is great! But diving head first into something is often not the best of ideas. If you were to be unblocked, I think the community would like to see some slow, careful content editing under the mentorship of another editor. To me, it's clear you're not here to hurt the 'pedia, but we expect a certain level of competence which currently you're not showing -- samtar talk or stalk 10:39 am, Today (UTC+1)
Samtar, a public apology is due for deleting your post. Sorry about that! Muffled Pocketed 09:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it! -- samtar talk or stalk 10:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If FAMASFREENODE, was in fact blocked, solely for the ANI archiving issue (@Tokyogirl79: Was this the reason for the block? It's hard to tell from the block summary), I kind-of agree that an indef-block is unnecessary here. They were (in my opinion) acting in good faith and did stop promptly as soon as I asked them to. Of course, these comments are just from a non-admin and so carry little weight. If the block wasn't for the archiving, then ignore this comment. Omni Flames (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Suggestion to the reviewing administrator: the use of the third person in this editor's speech suggests that somebody else is guiding him; but of course, unblock requests cannot be placed on behalf of others. Muffled Pocketed 09:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, then this should be blocked as a shared account as he's been speaking in third-person since he joined. Omni Flames (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted my block rationale below, which I hadn't finished before this user posted an unblock notice. To be perfectly honest, this seems like a situation where the user is evading a prior block and at the very least, a situation where the user is editing in areas where they really, really shouldn't - despite clear indication that their edits were seen as inappropriate. It's kind of a case where they've had every indication that what they're doing is wrong, but they don't seem to really be responding to attempts to help guide them. My decision was made for a fairly wide range of editing problems and to be honest, I don't see them really responding to a shorter block - especially since there are concerns of sockpuppetry. There are far too many concerns here to be comfortable allowing them to freely edit at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Omni Flames: I also have to note that they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=history tried to archive at 8:11, 14 June 2016, after you had reverted earlier edits and posted a request for them to stop on 7:54, 14 June 2016. It's possible that they might not have seen the warning, but their edits have been continually reverted by multiple different people at ANI. There's no way that they couldn't have known that what they were doing was seen as disruptive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tokyogirl79: I just read your block rationale, and I agree that was the right action to take. If FAMASFREENODE is not a new editor (and it's pretty obvious that he isn't) then he's clearly here to disrupt Wikipedia and not to contribute constructively. About the ANI archiving: I think it's possible, although unlikely that he didn't see my first revert. However even if he didn't, it's true that he shouldn't have been attempting to archive threads in the first place. Omni Flames (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the list of attempts to pre-emptively archive content on ANI:
  1. Attempt 1, 7:38, 14 June 2016‎ . This was reverted by SpacemanSpiff
  2. Attempt 2, 7:50, 14 June 2016. This was reverted by Omni Flames. This was followed by a mass removal of content here.
  3. Attempt 3, between 7:50 and 8:03, 14 June 2016‎. This was reverted by Omni Flames.
  4. Attempt 4, 8:11, 14 June 2016‎. This was reverted by John from Idegon.
That's one too many reverts, especially given that they all happened within a very short amount of time and the user has already been warned about edit warring. That shows that they're not listening or paying attention to what other people are doing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in reply to Omni Flames, this user performed the archiving without looking into the page history, as the wikipedia framework does not send notifications for reverts regardless of summaries, this user missed the reverts with notice until the very last archiving by this user, which is when this user stopped the archiving drive, as noticed by this user not archiving any still-remaining closed discussions.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tokyogirl79: The first two attempts were good faith attempts to fix a thread which had been improperly archived (it was in the archives of the wrong noticeboard, see the section above). The other two however, I agree, should not have been made. Omni Flames (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin's block rationale

[edit]
  • I was originally just going to warn you, but you've been active for less than a month and you've already made several actions that are clearly inappropriate.
  1. You opened an RfA only days after opening your account in May 2016. This is not a suitable amount of time to show that you understand policy and claiming that you understand policy is not going to cut it. There are people who have had RfAs declined after years of experience, so adminship is not something you can get easily. Nor should it.
  2. You've tried to close an ANI thread despite the fact that you are not an admin and you appear to lack the experience necessary to close a discussion like this one.
  3. You were engaged in an edit war that resulted in you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=725218423#User:FAMASFREENODE_reported_by_User:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi_.28Result:_Warned.29 getting reported to AN3. You were let off with a warning, but a harsh one. There were also concerns that you might be a previous editor editing under a new account. If this is the case, you need to divulge the prior account - especially if the older account is blocked.
  4. You have been reported to ANI for the same edit war, where the concerns of sockpuppetry were raised.
  5. Your responses to people trying to help have been fairly lackluster, to say the least. You've been extremely terse and continually refer to yourself in the third person. Not only does this make it rather difficult to properly communicate, but it can actually be seen as rude, which can lead to further disruption. I'm also fairly concerned about the fact that several editors such as samtar have tried to offer you suggestions (like about RfAs) and your reactions have suggested that you know better - despite evidence to the contrary in most of these situations.
Now the problem here is that your edits clearly suggest that you're not a new editor and you've caused enough problems to where you've been reported far more than the average new editor. I have to share in the concerns that you're not new here and may be someone who may have been previously blocked from editing. Your edits have been disruptive enough to where I have to assume that if left to your own devices, you'd likely just continue in your editing pattern.
You might be able to be unblocked, but here's what we need from you:
  1. You need to promise that you will communicate better with people. Short one line missives aren't going to cut it and you need to discuss things on article talk pages when you're involved with an edit war. It doesn't matter who is wrong or right in those situations - you need to keep open lines of discussion. You also need to post in a way that shows that you are open to communication, especially if you ever hope to become an admin.
  2. You need to stop archiving and closing discussions at ANI. You can weigh in on things, but you cannot close anything there until you have at the very least a year's experience with editing. This is not negotiable. Your actions have been seen as controversial and reverted, which should be enough to suggest that you should stop rather than continue on.
  3. You need to state your prior account. I think that it's very unlikely that you're a completely new editor. There is such as thing as a WP:CLEANSTART, however you cannot open a new account if your old one was blocked. (There are a few exceptions but by large the blocks forbid new account creation.) Your actions also give off the impression that if there is a prior account, it was likely one blocked for disruptive editing so letting us know about your past accounts is very important - especially if you ever hope to run for adminship. You do not necessarily have to post this info here - you can submit this information to an admin via e-mail or to OTRS.
  4. You need to show that you understand the reasons for the block and give examples. Note: This portion was added after the user's responses showed an inability or unwillingness to fully understand the reasons for the block and the requirements for unblock.
This is a bit of a steep reaction, but you've been disruptive enough to where I honestly don't think that you'd respond in any other manner - especially considering that you were actively trying to archive ANI even as you had people questioning whether or not you were a troll or sockpuppet. That doesn't really suggest that you're here to edit responsibly. I have to assume that anything else would likely get a short response that suggests that you're not really getting the points people are trying to make. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify my above, I'm not disputing your block Tokyogirl79 Rather just hoping the editor stops and thinks - I'm all for second chances but I agree wholeheartedly with your blocking rationale -- samtar talk or stalk 09:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in reply to the concerns expressed by Tokyogirl79

regarding concern 1:the RFA was opened due to this user, referring to the self, due to spur of the moment, noticing an apparent lack of active admins in ANI with the lampshading on the fact that adminship can be taken away upon noticing of abuse, by one click. regarding concern 2:the issue which was pre-emptively closed by this user was something that was caused by misperception on the accuser's part, the accused did not mean the expression in any tone of racism, which the accused later expressed by the self. regarding concern 3 and 4the ANI report was done by this user due to the two users, one of whom is now blocked for accusations of sockpuppetry, failing to understand the concerns of wp:size regarding the article and reverting the edits by this user. checking of the article history shows that the actions by this user went unoppossed until the two users began their reversions. this user, in keeping with the 3rr rule, reverted 3 times, followed by posting in ANI out of own behest for admin intervention in the issue. regarding concern 5 this user utilizes third persons with linguistic verbosities due to purposes pertaining to formality and clarity as to convey the thoughts in the most clarified method that is possible. it is not indicative of this account being operated by multiple person nor of any misdemeanor.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's my responses:
  1. The RfA process specifically points out that you shouldn't open a request prior to a certain amount of editing. When you were told about this your responses were fairly dismissive, especially when several people - including at least one admin - told you to wait a year.
  2. The problem with that close is that you were in no position to close this ANI thread - or any ANI thread. You don't have the experience or the tact to close an ANI thread, especially not one on a heated subject of that nature. Most new editors are already aware of this.
  3. You lack the experience to really be able to know when to archive an ANI post. You had several actions reverted and you continued, despite clear indication that this was unacceptable.
  4. The thing about 3RR is that 3 isn't exactly a magic number of times you can revert. What the guideline means is that if you revert three times without clear discussion and consensus, it can be reported. This should not be taken to mean that you have three attempts to revert other people's actions before you get blocked. That shows a severe misunderstanding of policy.
  5. While there is no mandated way to post on Wikipedia, writing in third person is frankly confusing and does not really reflect well on you considering that you've made several problematic edits on Wikipedia. I would recommend that you use typical first person pronouns (or alternate pronouns) to refer to yourself. Considering that there's enough to suspect that sockpuppetry or possible multiple people editing an account, I would recommend against editing in third person. This is a recommendation and not a mandate, but I can honestly say that if you continue speaking in third person it's almost certainly going to result in more issues, confusion, and misunderstandings.
So far you don't really seem to be getting the point - that your edits have been disruptive and that part of the requirement for your unblock is that you stop editing in that fashion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This user understood the points with total clarification and also mentions the fact that not all edits by this user are disruptive, as displayed in the contrib log of this user. this user will refrain from archiving discussions in ANI until clear consensus and closing discussions are performed in the cases as well as refrain from disruptive editing.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should refrain from archiving or closing any ANI discussions, no matter how obvious the result may seem, until you have far more experience. Omni Flames (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FAMASFREENODE: (edit conflict × 2) Thank you for those explanations of your actions - I would urge you to take a moments break from Wikipedia (perhaps a couple of days?) and come see if you can agree to the three conditions of a possible unblock. A lot of editors seem to think you may have had previous accounts, which would explain a couple of things - have you had a previous account? Please be honest with us. I would like to think that if you can agree to the above and show us you can be trusted with a second chance that you would be given one. It would be fair to say this would be an admin offering you some more rope which I again hope you'd use constructively -- samtar talk or stalk 10:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × 3)To be honest, I don't think that you do. I've specifically stated that an unblock would require you to not close ANI until a year has passed and/or until you have shown that you are thoroughly competent in ANI matters. That is very different from what you wrote above, so I don't think that you understand the reasons for your block at all. Also, you haven't responded about the concerns of sockpuppetry. In other words you need to convince us that you actually understand and aren't just saying what you think we want to hear. The type of disruption you've caused is a bit more than the average stuff that most editors do. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Samtar I'd actually like to add that I'd like to see acknowledgment that he understands the reasons for the block. His edits since I posted that have shown that he really, really doesn't understand why he's been blocked, possibly because he's deliberately refusing to understand the situation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @FAMASFREENODE: There is a certain irony to you claiming your manner of speech as being as clear as possible and then producing sentences such as, this user, referring to the self, due to spur of the moment, noticing an apparent lack of active admins in ANI with the lampshading on and utilizes third persons with linguistic verbosities due to purposes pertaining to formality and clarity as to convey the thoughts in the most clarified method that is possible. Combined with a seeming inability to punctuate or pause for breath, I perceive grounds for believing WP:CIR an issue with this user. Muffled Pocketed 10:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in reply to Tokyogirl79, this user understood the reasons for the block being pre-emptive participation in matters without complete precognition of situations and consequences and also understood the rule of "do not close ANI until 365 days from creation of account has passed and competency has been displayed.". this user also asserts the fact that this user did not have any prior account within wikipedia and the knowledge displayed regarding some of the rules and sections of wikipedia is due to being a reader without an account. it is after continuous watching that this user's urges to participate reached the threshold where this user created an account.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give specific examples and explain why these edits were seen as problematic? My problem here is that you don't seem to be getting the point of why people found your edits disruptive. You seem to be missing the point, to the point where it almost seems deliberate. I highly recommend that you take the 2-3 days away to think about things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the archiving of ANI was disruptive due to the closed ANI discussions were needed to be kept in the front page for viewing by the parties involved for sometime and pre-emptive archiving prevents that. this user has posted what the user has understood in mind and no deliberate avoidance of getting the point is being performed.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But do you agree that you should have not archived it in the first place? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in reply to ThePlatypusofDoom, the rule being that, this user replies in an affirmativeFAMASFREENODE (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what's wrong with your manner of communicating: The above response, "in reply to ThePlatypusofDoom, the rule being that, this user replies in an affirmative", could have simply been "yes". This ridiculous response is what one would expect to hear in a comedy film - Monty Python and the Holy Grail comes to mind - not from someone who is trying to participate at a collaborative website. Continuing with this idiosyncratic style of communication is certainly not going to improve your chances of being unblocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - the more I see of it, the more I'm seeing trolling. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've had that feeling from the start. The mix of legit edits with semi-disruptive ones seems planned as a smokescreen. The use of third person seems (as others have said) likely to hide any idiosyncrasies which might give away the master (also for the lulz of conviluted sentences which deflect easy understanding). In my mind, there's enough here for an indef - but that's why I'm not an admin. BMK (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
State what your previous account was, please. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FAMASFREENODE, what was your previous account? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee: Agreed. it is annoying, and seems to serve no purpose besides that and possibly trying to hide speech patterns. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ThePlatypusofDoom: He gives his reason for knowing policy, guidelines, etc. as a new starter, and it is actually the same in principle as you gave Interesting, huh. Muffled Pocketed 19:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm kinda the pot calling the kettle black here, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TPOD: Please see your talk page. BMK (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, can you please stop talking about yourself in the third person? It's really annoying, and it raises suspicions. You are far more likely to be unblocked if you do this. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming back and looking over the page, I have to say that I'm more convinced now that this is a case of someone evading a block in order to continue trolling Wikipedia. As stated above, the speech patterns are identical to the type used by characters in the George R.R. Martin series GoT/ASoIaF and I don't think that I've ever seen this used anywhere else, at least not in conversation. You'll see this to a certain degree in academic papers to show that they are trying to avoid making personal opinions, but no academic worth their salt would use it in this manner because it not only runs the risk of annoying and confusing the reader, but it takes more work to write a clearer conversational sentence in the third person than it would in the first person. There's no reason to use it on Wikipedia and the only reasons I can think of are typically due to trolling or otherwise intentional disruption. I do not endorse an unblock of this user because I do not think that they have the ability to edit, collaborate, and otherwise interact with other editors responsibly or maturely, not because they cannot at this point in time but because they will not.
They've shown a clear disregard for rules and guidelines despite several editors trying quite patiently to help them along. If you look at the editor's prior actions you'll see that they have slowly started to escalate their actions over time, relying on the relative leeway most of us give to newer editors to keep them from getting anything more than a slap on the wrist. I've dealt with some hard headed newbies and most straighten up (for the most part) after the first time they're brought to admin attention and/or told by more than one person that they're acting inappropriately, even if it's for separate issues. The ones who don't straighten up are the ones who have no intention of actually collaborating on Wikipedia and are here for their own purposes, whether it's to troll or to edit as they see fit. FAMASFREENODE falls into the latter rather than the former because there's no good reason why they would continue to edit so irresponsibly and despite repeated indications and outright warnings that they were doing something wrong. That's so deliberate that I think that an unblock would only result in the same actions, if not immediately then within a relatively short period of time. If they haven't heeded the multiple warnings and indications they've received so far then I honestly doubt that they'll pay attention to what's being said here. Especially since they've specifically ignored certain aspects of what has been written, such as ignoring the repeated requests for the prior account info, trying to rephrase unblock requirements in order to give themselves more leeway (or ignoring them outright), and so on - that shows that they've learned nothing and if anything, shows a certain level of cunning and an acknowledgement that they know what they were doing was incorrect and inappropriate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DicksonRidingDicks (talk • contribs) 03:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

H'mmm to be fair he did mention somewhere wheer his choice of moniker came from; I seem to remember it was software-orientated rather than assaultware ;) but tbh can't be arsed ploughing through his 500-nonsensical posts to find it... Muffled Pocketed 10:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: It's on his user page. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh so it is. Thank you ThePlatypusofDoom, help yourself to an annelid worm. Muffled Pocketed 11:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, FAMASFREENODE, will you agree to talk in the first person? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: He says on his user page that he uses it here because he uses FAMAS on freenode. I guess I'm assuming that it originally came from the name of the weapon, but I don't know of any other meaning of the name. I'd echo the query from ThePlatypusofDoom; will you agree to talk in the first person? GoldenRing (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in reply to @GoldenRing and ThePlatypusofDoom:, switching out of third persons with linguistic verbosity as conversational mode can be done. this user asserts the fact that in wikipedia userspace, there are users who utilize various forms of non-regular conversational mode and are allowed without any retribution, examples include but are not limited to utilization of memes, pop culture one-liners, roleplaying various stereotypes. with the presence of them, this user finds it a matter of concern that this user's chosen mode of conversation being third persons with linguistic verbosities is targeted as a point of retribution.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 07:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were asked repeatedly to speak in first person, as it was found to be disruptive. This is not the only reason you were blocked, rather it's a symptom of a larger issue, namely disruptive editing and possible evasion of a block. This, paired with your last comment, gives off the impression that you're not really here to contribute to Wikipedia. We're not going to go through another long talk page section of us trying to explain to you why your actions are problematic, especially since you show a repeated refusal to understand the points everyone has painstakingly tried to make here. There's no way that you shouldn't be aware of the various issues unless you're trying to be disruptive via your usertalk. I'm reblocking you and removing talk page access. You can file an appeal through the e-mail system, but I would not endorse an unblock. Part of editing Wikipedia is learning to work with others and I don't see where you're willing to even remotely meet anyone halfway here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

August 2016

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FAMASFREENODE&oldid=1079163192"