User talk:Apteva: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:22, 23 May 2013

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello, Apteva, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emailing

Apteva, what is going on? I've received complaints from two editors who say you emailed them apparently asking for support concerning a discussion about your other account. I've seen no direct evidence, but if you have emailed editors concerning political matters, please be very careful not to expose yourself to criticism concerning the canvassing rules, which can be surprisingly tight in their application.

On the matter of alternate accounts, while I'm here—let me say that I've pushed for them to be banned in all but exceptional circumstances (unsuccessfully). I remain strongly opposed to alt accounts, which generally have the potential to cause suspicion and undermine social cohesion.

Thank you and I hope you understand my thinking. Tony (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the culture of one user one account but there are reasons that prohibit that, such as privacy, and the choice is either let me edit with alternate accounts, or I will not edit in areas that would be affected. The choice is obvious, let me edit in all areas, and that obviously means allowing alternative accounts. It is not an option to change the policy that says that alternative accounts are not allowed, and my not being able to follow that policy seriously impacts my ability to contribute. Apteva (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Tony1 received complaints from two editors, and one of them wasn't me (see the "Canvassing" thread above, that means that you must have contacted at least 3 editors, when above you stated that I was the only editor you contacted outside of ArbCom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're banging the privacy drum again, Apteva, but the fact is that in all of thousands of words of debate you have never been able to articulate exactly why having two accounts is necessary for privacy (or, indeed, how having two accounts is even beneficial to privacy, since alternate accounts must be clearly and publicly linked). The only explanation you have ever provided is "I need to have a second account for privacy reasons". That's it. Until you can provide more of a rationale than that then your one account restriction is never going to change. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To whose satisfaction? We allow alternate accounts for obvious reasons, and this is one of them. I am no different than anyone else, and expect to be under no other restrictions than anyone else. The fact is that I have never abused alternate accounts and by adhering faithfully to the restrictions I am currently under there are many edits that I can not make, which if done, would improve Wikipedia, and so far no one else has done them. I keep waiting, but it would be so much easier, to just click edit. I can, of course, invoke WP:IAR, and do them anyway, but I am relatively certain that could be held against me, and it therefore is best that I just wait out the silly restriction. Apteva (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apteva insisted previously, in the Canvassing discussion s/he chose to hide, that s/he contacted only one editor, yet now the evidence is that s/he emailed at least three. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'To whose satisfaction?' So far, you have stonewalled and explained it to absolutely nobody's satisfaction. Habitually in sensitive cases, which yours doesn't appear to be, the editor concerned would declare only to arbcom, so only abrcom members and clerks would know the true ownership of the private account. The latter is not the sort of privacy you seek. If the claims to privacy are indeed that serious, allowing you to use the other blocked account once again does little to protect it, and you really ought to contemplate applying to Arbcom for special dispensation for a private account. I'm sure in that case that you will be reminded that any attempt to use the account to deceive the community will result in revocation of said account. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could but that is not normally how alternative accounts are created. I just want the same policy that applies to everyone to apply to me. Apteva (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's exactly how it's meant to be if privacy is the core concern. See WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per wp:notify, "Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account" Apteva (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate undeclared alternative accounts are allowed, under poorly described conditions, at WP:SOCK. There are a great many little reasons to occassionaly use an undeclared alternative account, usually involving privacy. Asking for permission defeats the attempt at privacy. If you need to seek support, it is probably a bad idea. If you have ever had trust issues, it is probably a very bad idea. You need to behave scrupulously, knowing that sock-misbehaviour is given extremely little leeway and is likely to result in the public linking of all you intended to keep private. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Beans, I strongly discourage clarifying the conditions where alternative accounts are allowed. WP has a strong culture of one person one account, and there are some things that it is impossible to do with a single account. I do not recommend giving anyone ideas. Apteva (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence I think contains the gist well: "Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies."

Wikipedia:Sock#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts is a list of some specifics, all of which must be scrupulously avoided, and the list is not complete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. I have nothing to gain and everything to lose and would rather gain the trust of the community and get on with editing. If you look at my history I have scrupulously avoided "attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies." Those are serious issues, and I take avoiding them very seriously. I have lived within the sanctions, but the sanctions are hurting Wikipedia. I will, though, if it bothers me too much, contact Arb and notify my intent to invoke IAR and with which account before doing so. Hopefully the sanction will be removed long before that is necessary. Apteva (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apteva, I think SmokeyJoe summed it up nicely with these five words: "You need to behave scrupulously". I'm not sure how many editors feel that you have done that with regard to this matter. And I would pay particular attention to Basalisk's excellent comment. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, if it was up to me, I would probably give you back the other account as I would prefer to see you productively back in article space, rather than make a humongous nuisance of yourself in AE AI or even the style spaces. Then there's also giving you rope, not that you need it. But it isn't up to me. You seem to be in self-destruct mode. I sincerely hope that you will conduct yourself properly. I'll make no predictions as to what will become of you, but I wish you good luck. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of two things happens when editors get harassed and sanctioned. They either go rogue and turn to sockpuppetry and cause endless problems or they count to ten and come back as productive editors (and the sanctions get lifted). I am the latter. I have strictly adhered to the sanctions. Too strictly for some, who asked that I be blocked for following them a little bit too closely. Apteva (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who asked for you to be blocked? Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the following request. "This time, an enforcement block is unquestionably needed. Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)" Apteva (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, 4 months ago I did. So much happened since then... Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who knew that the link to "Avoiding personal attacks" is actually called WP:AVOIDYOU. I did not even notice that until this week. I am happy to offer a suggested alternative wording if the word "you" ever seems to be appropriate. And obviously, using an editor's name is thousands of times worse than "you". Apteva (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could AVOID YOU better if you would stop commenting on my talk page, especially on things that don't even involve you. Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. The meaning of that phrase is avoid the use of the word you. On Wikipedia, everything concerns everyone. Apteva (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sveta Planman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization

Apteva, you seem to have returned to your campaign to deny that the WP:MOS applies to style in titles. This didn't go well for you before, and continuing this kind of disruption, on the edge of your topic ban, is not likely to make anybody happy going forward. So drop the stick, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The convention page that you link references the style guidelines relevant to band name and song/album name capitalizatin: MOS:CT and MOS:TM. By requesting the removal of this section, you seem to be testing the boundaries of your newly clarified topic ban, which bans you "from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles." If that's not the point of what you're doing here by suggesting removal of the section that directly references the relevant MOS sections, what is your point? Why not drop it? Dicklyon (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section recommending removal of a duplication of NCCAPS was created before the addition referring to MOS was added, and the objection is still valid. The only appropriate change is to replace the section with "See WP:NCCAPS for capitalization, or better, just delete the section. Is it your idea that you can just chase me away from any discussion by adding a link to the MOS? Apteva (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013 - I have blocked you for one month

You seem to be completely incapable of droping your vendetta against Dicklyon. The AE explicitly did not accept your complaint and yet here were are again at ANI with another fatuous complaint of more of the same and failure to back away. Given your unwillingness to compromise, I see no option but to exclude you from editing for a month to demonstrate that the community will not tolerate any further disruption of this type. I'm confident that you will recieve a much longer break if you insist on repeating this behaviour when you return. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What AE said was that of the six statements, three crossed the line, and as a result, Dicklyon was reminded to not continue. Since then there has been no abatement of the inappropriate behavior that has been going on for many years, although looking back at the last RFC/U, at least Dicklyon has not been calling editors names anymore, so that is a huge improvement, but if on a scale of 1 to 10 name calling is a 1 and a 6 is minimum acceptable behavior, they are making progress, but still not acting appropriately. I recommend either long blocks or yet another RFC/U. In my case, blocks are absurd, because I am not the problem, nor is there anything wrong with any of my edits. In the face of all of the incivility I simply respond professionally and report inappropriate actions to appropriate venues, in this case AE and ANI. It is Dicklyon who has been harassing me, and not in appropriate forums, but in guideline and article discussions. Apteva (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Very cute. My behavior is not a problem. Wikipedia must not tolerate incivility. I have absolutely nothing against the editor in question, only their actions, which absolutely must stop. A better proposal would be, for example, to fix the problem. Blocking me and not sanctioning the editor simply encourages the incivility.
What I will, do though, to make everyone happy, is promise to avoid Dicklyon for the balance of the block period, ending on June 23, 2013, and not bring up their incivility in any forum, on or off wiki, during that period. It will be up to others to do that, should it continue. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so that agreement will be more beneficial to Wikipedia.

Y the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption

Y the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions

Decline reason:

{{subst:Reviewing the statement you've made, I do not have the necessary confidence to unblock you. You blame the other person for your own misbehavior, and the way you put a limit on your agreement makes me think that as soon as the block would have expired, you would be back to what got us here. As such, I'm going to decline to unblock.}} SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2013 (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.

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 :What AE said was that of the six statements, three crossed the line, and as a result, Dicklyon was reminded to not continue. Since then there has been no abatement of the inappropriate behavior that has been going on for many years, although looking back at [[WP:Requests for comment/Dicklyon 2|the last RFC/U]], at least Dicklyon has not been calling editors names anymore, so that is a huge improvement, but if on a scale of 1 to 10 name calling is a 1 and a 6 is minimum acceptable behavior, they are making progress, but still not acting appropriately. I recommend either long blocks or yet another RFC/U. In my case, blocks are absurd, because I am not the problem, nor is there anything wrong with any of my edits. In the face of all of the incivility I simply respond professionally and report inappropriate actions to appropriate venues, in this case AE and ANI. It is Dicklyon who has been harassing me, and not in appropriate forums, but in guideline and article discussions. [[User:Apteva|Apteva]] ([[User talk:Apteva#top|talk]]) 17:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
-{{unblock|Very cute. My behavior is not a problem. Wikipedia must not tolerate incivility. I have absolutely nothing against the editor in question, only their actions, which absolutely must stop. A better proposal would be, for example, to fix the problem. Blocking me and not sanctioning the editor simply encourages the incivility.<br>What I will, do though, to make everyone happy, is promise to avoid Dicklyon for the balance of the block period, ending on June 23, 2013, and not bring up their incivility in any forum, on or off wiki, during that period. It will be up to others to do that, should it continue. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so that agreement will be more beneficial to Wikipedia.<p>{{tick}} the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption<p>{{tick}} the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions}}
+{{unblock reviewed | 1=Very cute. My behavior is not a problem. Wikipedia must not tolerate incivility. I have absolutely nothing against the editor in question, only their actions, which absolutely must stop. A better proposal would be, for example, to fix the problem. Blocking me and not sanctioning the editor simply encourages the incivility.<br>What I will, do though, to make everyone happy, is promise to avoid Dicklyon for the balance of the block period, ending on June 23, 2013, and not bring up their incivility in any forum, on or off wiki, during that period. It will be up to others to do that, should it continue. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so that agreement will be more beneficial to Wikipedia.<p>[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|alt=Yes|link=]]<span style="display:none">Y</span> the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption<p>[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|alt=Yes|link=]]<span style="display:none">Y</span> the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions | decline={{subst:Reviewing the statement you've made, I do not have the necessary confidence to unblock you. You blame the other person for your own misbehavior, and the way you put a limit on your agreement makes me think that as soon as the block would have expired, you would be back to what got us here. As such, I'm going to decline to unblock.}} [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 21:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)}}
-*Acknowledging your email. I have removed the gender specific term as requested. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 20:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
-*:Thanks. That is very important to me, and it needs to be assumed that it might be important to everyone. It is just basic common courtesy today. Also, I was pretty sure that I had mentioned that, so it made me wonder if the thread was even read before closing it: "It is the results that I am looking for, no calling me by gendered pronouns, no calling me you, no talking about me in a discussion about something else."[[User:Apteva|Apteva]] ([[User talk:Apteva#top|talk]]) 20:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
-*::Also, FYI, this is a shared IP, so removing the IP autoblock would help, and have no affect on me, but having it could affect others. [[User:Apteva|Apteva]] ([[User talk:Apteva#top|talk]]) 20:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)