User talk:Rememberway/Archive 1

Tip

When you leave a multi-paragraph comment like this one on a talk page, it's usually easier for people to read the comment if you sign only the last paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for evading topic bans against your original account, and abusing an undisclosed alternate account. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Atama頭 21:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I haven't violated any topic bans at all, they all timed out months before. I'm currently under no topic restrictions at all, and I haven't violated them at any point. I notice that Atma claims on the sockpuppet page that I violated them numerous times, if so he can provide diffs, I simply haven't done so, he's either mistaken or lying. This account is my account, not an alternate, I avoided drawing attention to it, because of harassment by people like Cuchullain wandering around behind me and doing WP:POINTy reverts for trivial edits. You can continue the (pointless) unlimited ban if you want, but given I can create new accounts at the drop of a hat, I'm not really that bothered. It's not like I'm vandalising anything, and frankly, I don't really care, if I announce who I am I get followed around by hate-groupies. So why should I play your daft games?

Accept reason:

We'll give you another chance, sure. Just follow the same rules as any other editor please. Prodego ^talk 03:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion you are community banned from using any undisclosed alternate accounts, and that ban has no expiration. So to whom did you disclose this account when it was created? -- Atama頭 21:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On another review, I may have erred in stating that you had violated either of the other 2 topic bans during the time the ban was in effect. Your first ban was still violated, quite clearly, with the creation of this undisclosed alternate account. Aside from all of this, you're engaging in the exact same behavior that led to the initial ban discussion in the first place (see here and here for examples). -- Atama頭 22:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But those restrictions are gone completely months ago.Rememberway (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look as an example of what I have to put up with, Cuchullain guessed who I was and has already been following me around and revert warring trivial edits [1][2] but another well established editor didn't think much of his antics:[3] If I announce my accounts it all just gets worse. I don't respect that part of the block, my account(s) had done nothing worth a permanent ban, and even the block can be seen as a pattern of deliberate continuation of harassment. There's a huge difference between using a 'sockpuppet' to vote multiple different ways, and to avoid people following you around and revert warring you.Rememberway (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that I'm sure I haven't done anything being permabanned for, but that's your call I guess.Rememberway (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were concerns that your scrambling of your original account password would be a de facto permaban. So there were suggestions there on how you could return under a new account if you chose to. Rather than doing what was suggested there, or following any of the legitimate uses of an alternate account at WP:SOCK, you created a new account and edited for almost 9 months without informing anyone. I'd be inclined to be more lenient if you hadn't recently repeated the behavior that led to your bans in the first place, and honestly you might not have been found out if you hadn't done that either. Your unblock request is still in place and other administrators have a chance to review your situation. Just FYI, the standard procedure when blocking a sockpuppet is to blank and redirect the talk page, but I intentionally avoided that to give you a chance to plead your case if you chose to, and also because normally a person is encouraged to use their original account's talk page using the original account rather then the new account, but in your case of course that can't happen. -- Atama頭 22:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like Rememberway is being banned for other than being Wolfkeeper. You can do what you want, but as before, but to the extent it's objectively a stupid overreaction I'll ignore it. I know as well as you do that being an administrator doesn't make you omnipotent. To the extent that it's fair I'll follow it. I don't consider having to declare that my account is associated with Wolfkeeper is fair.Rememberway (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rememberway, if you're concerned about harassment, you could always disclose your connection to your original account to ArbCom via email. --Tathar (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend that. It will save you a lot of grief in the future and takes just a couple of minutes to do.

Email ArbCom

As I said before, if you can help it, try not to push the DICTDEF thing too much. This is just personal advice, one person to another. I think you might be okay if you can do that, again I think that's what caused people to figure out who you were in the first place. -- Atama頭 17:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it at the moment, and carry on with this as my main account, everyone knows it's me anyway at the moment. But depending on how it goes I may shut this account down, and create a new one, and then I'll do that then. Thanks for the link and advice!Rememberway (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the lowercase title formatting, at santorum (neologism). I had not thought of that. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome.Rememberway (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AT

Someone else posted a useful short response on my talk page before I could get to it:

Allow me to jump in here before Nyttend to try and help: See m:Wrong version. You're barking up the wrong tree, here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:50, 25 May 2011
No, you haven't got the point at all.Rememberway (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
(UTC)

I intentionally avoided looking at details of the page history or finding out who was advocating what before I protected it, so that I could be impartial and avoid protected the version that I thought was better. A quick glance at the page history showed that there was edit warring going on by autoconfirmed users, so full protection was warranted. I've only protected for a week; it's not as if protection is indefinite. Nyttend (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lock is counterproductive right now.Rememberway (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Fly by Night (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended

It is obvious to me that you have a different perspective on the appropriate manner of interacting on Wikipedia than the community consensus. Under the circumstances I have regrettably come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is not suitable for someone of your convictions, and have enforced an indefinite separation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

What rule am I supposed to have broken? Or can any admin just block anyone he wants, at any time, by claiming that they're 'editing funny' ????? Or claim that they have 'convictions'. What convictions??? At worst, this is just a content dispute, nearly all of my edits remain in the articles I have edited. In fact I've been consistently seeking consensus, and I have no intention to escalate anything any further. The whole thing has just been totally, totally, totally blown out of all proportion by other editors. I appreciate that as an administrator it's not always easy to see the wood for the trees, particularly if people make bad faith, wild claims about somebody's behaviour as Fly by Night has been; but I certainly make no claims to always make perfect edits, and I'm sure that nobody else does either.

I have not done anything wrong that would require me to be blocked, but there are no specific accusations by the blocking admin that I can respond to on WP:ANI, so I apologise to only respond in generalities. If there are any specific questions about anything that has happened, I would be quite willing to answer them.

Decline reason:

This block appears perfectly sound. You've been given lots of chances, yet keep behaving unacceptably and your responses at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rememberway and below were totally unhelpful. If you want to be unblocked, please first take the time to consider your conduct and provide a convincing explanation of how you will edit more productively in the future. Nick-D (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2011 (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.

Rememberway (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technicallly, since the English Wikipedia is not a set of laws, you don't have to break a "rule" to be blocked. As labeled, this block is for WP:Disruptive editing. It is possible to fully comply with the letter of the "rules" and still be disruptive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The perception of disruption is artificially manufactured by Fly by Night; he's been going around deleting material and repeatedly claiming bad faith for me. If you go through his claims in WP:ANI one by one, they're not true. None of them are true. A lot of his edits are being reverted by others, not only me. If you look at what my edits actually are, I am not making disruptive edits. -Rememberway (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you intend your edits to be non-disruptive. I have no opinion on whether this particular incident, if viewed in isolation, would be sufficient justification for a block. My only point is that your unblock request is based on the false premise that breaking a specific "rule" is necessary for a block. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for assuming good faith. But I expect and intend to be treated fairly, and that implies following some kind of sensible rules, and that's my understanding of how this is supposed to work. -Rememberway (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that Wikipedia:Disruptive editing constitute rules, and my edits are not disruptive editing as defined there, they are productive edits. -Rememberway (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a long and acrimonious history with both Wolfkeeper and Rememberway. However this is a bad block - it's a block over a content disagreement, not over behaviour. Even though Rememberway's behaviour is not exemplary (and I personally would love an indef block of him, it would make my editing so much easier) - but this block is far in excess of anything deserved by his editing behaviour on this issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this users long history of blocks (which are spread over three accounts) should be taken into account before accusing the admin of "a bad block". [4] [5] [6] memphisto 22:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one calling for some of those blocks (and none of which are related to this). They don't change the context of this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the user's blocks are related in some way to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. memphisto 23:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you need to consider that I'm on over 35,000 edits and I've been here 5.5 years. I'm blocked about once every 9 months for something, given that 5 of these blocks were for the same event. I'm blocked about once every 5,000 edits. I personally think that that's not a totally unreasonable average number, but I wish it was higher.

The problem I have at the moment is that the admins just look at the length of the list which is long because of how long I've been here, and how many edits I've made, and then pretty much just block me for anything they want. Look, you need to consider that I'm not even 3RR here, and the blocking admin has permablocked me and claimed it's a favour to me. Gee thanks! -Rememberway (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The corollary of which is that all editors will end up indef-blocked. The longer they're here, the more likely to collect a minor block, and if each block must be longer than the next, there you go. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don't think that if you look at my edits that they are disruptive; they are just not, and I welcome anyone to look at them, and if you have any questions, I will be glad to explain what I was trying to do and why. -Rememberway (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also claiming that this is a bad block. The definition of WP:DISRUPTIVE is:

Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of

disrupting progress toward improving an article, or

disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia.

My edits do not disrupt progress towards building an encyclopedia. If they did so I would have been blocked long, long, long ago. I therefore request to be unblocked for what is (at worst) a content disagreement. -Rememberway (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unconditional unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been the subject of bad faith attacks by other users, both in subject lines and at ANI and I have been blocked for pointing this out.
I don't mind a well intentioned block that is cleared up in a reasonable time frame, these things happen sometimes and I would consider it to fully settled, however, if this is not sorted out fairly soon, with a suitable unblock reason, then I fully intend to take this up with arbcom.

I have done nothing at all wrong, and I request an unconditional unblock that makes that clear. -Rememberway (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You seem to have been blocked eight times as Wolfkeeper and three times as Rememberway. That should be enough to justify a long holiday from Wikipedia. At this point, any hopes that you might edit more cooperatively in the future would not be justified by the record. You express no remorse whatever and you put the blame on others for all the conflicts you've been in. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2011 (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.

Unblock

Comments from blocking admin; to Rememberway - the period is indefinite, not infinite; you are not blocked "forever", but "for as long as there appears to be an issue". To reviewing admin(s) my rationale for the tariff is given in my advice to WP:ANI, where a complaint that Rememberway's response to issues being raised with his contributions is to accuse other editors of bad faith and harassment was to accuse the complaining editors of bad faith and harassment. If Rememberway were to undertake to direct their responses to the issue of his edits rather than the individuals bringing the complaint then I would be inclined to support the unblock request. Although Rememberway's comments do not violate WP:NPA, I do think they should bear the maxim of "Comment on the content, not the contributor" in mind if they are to continue editing the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rememberway, I don't think you are doing yourself any favours with your comments above. Have you considered taking a complete time-out from Wikipedia - so you can return at a later date suitably refreshed? memphisto 12:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(updated) I agree that I was blocked fairly, it's just the length that I disagree with. -Rememberway (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I totally get it now

Rememberway, be careful you don't get banned from your own talk page by abusing the unblock procedure. And, as I mentioned above, is this not the right time for you to take a wikibreak? memphisto 16:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, probably as it stands at this instant I'm effectively permanently blocked, with no chance of coming back, so it wouldn't matter. If I took a wikibreak, they wouldn't let me back anyway, since I'm permanently blocked. Is that not the case? -Rememberway (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're blocked for an indefinite period, which is not a permanent block. The block will be lifted if or when you are able to demonstrate that you've learned from your past mistakes and explain how you will avoid repeating this behavior in the future. I agree that taking a break from editing before attempting this is a good idea. See also WP:OFFER. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The catch 22 is that since I'm blocked I can't demonstrate anything of course, so I'm really permabanned, and that is a clearly deliberate act by the blocking admin:

I have indefinitely blocked Rememberway for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, with a block rationale of "There appears to be a schism between what WP believes and what Rememberway perceives to be legitimate editing. It is unfair to expect Rememberway to exist in such an indifferent editing environment." I did review the specific complaints and found them justified, but the decision to indef block was Rememberway's responses above to the complaint here; they exemplified the behaviours complained of. It may be that Rememberway/Wolfkeeper is correct and the WP community wrong, in which case the editor need find an editing environment that is more sympathetic. Wikipedia is not a place to "right great wrongs", or small ones either.

He obviously didn't check the complaints very well, because they had been carefully taken out of context by the complainant, and it would have been obvious that that was the case if he'd looked around a bit.

You'll also note that he stated that I was trying to 'right great wrongs', which is total news to me, and when I tried to discuss the situation via email he described me as an 'advocate', which was also completely news to me. And the condescending part 'It is unfair to expect Rememberway to exist in such an indifferent editing environment.' well that's my problem, but it also completely clearly indicates that this is a bad faith block on his part, and that he's bought the complainants story, hook, line and sinker. -Rememberway (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two typical ways of demonstrating that you've learned from this experience and will not persist in the behavior that led to the block are:

Appeal the block or ban using words that communicate this (e.g., not "I have done nothing at all wrong")
Work on some other WMF project, without making the same kinds of mistakes. If you can do it there, people assume that you would be able to do it here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the advice. -Rememberway (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]