Writ Keeper (talk | contribs) →Kumioko: res |
172.56.2.154 (talk) →Kumioko: Reply |
||
Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
:::::::::I have, Kumioko, and I've also looked at Deoliveirafan's edit history as well, and here's what I see: Deoliveirafan makes edits to page, and BMK makes further edits that modify, yet ''do not revert'', Deoliveirafan's changes. Neither have used edit summaries, but since neither are actually reverting anyone, neither really have to. Deoliveirafan decides to take offense at BMK's edits for some reason, I guess, reverts BMK with a condescending, nonsensical edit summary of "Calm down, patience is a virtue dear", and posts a further condescending post on BMK's talk page. BMK takes the bait, reverts the condescending post, and calls Deoliveirafan a condescending asshole. Things escalate from there. So, no, it's not just as simple as "BMK said a bad word, he's being a meanie, block him". Deoliveirafan was being just as demeaning; they just chose to do so without bad words. That doesn't necessarily ''excuse'' BMK, but it's not nearly as much a slam dunk as you are making it out to be; responding in kind (or even overreacting) is not the same as being rude/mean/uncivil/whatever without provocation. As for your ban, I have several opinions about it (some you might not be expecting), but I don't have a comment about it, other than that unless and until it gets overturned through a legitimate channel, you should respect it even if you think it was unfair or against policy. |
:::::::::I have, Kumioko, and I've also looked at Deoliveirafan's edit history as well, and here's what I see: Deoliveirafan makes edits to page, and BMK makes further edits that modify, yet ''do not revert'', Deoliveirafan's changes. Neither have used edit summaries, but since neither are actually reverting anyone, neither really have to. Deoliveirafan decides to take offense at BMK's edits for some reason, I guess, reverts BMK with a condescending, nonsensical edit summary of "Calm down, patience is a virtue dear", and posts a further condescending post on BMK's talk page. BMK takes the bait, reverts the condescending post, and calls Deoliveirafan a condescending asshole. Things escalate from there. So, no, it's not just as simple as "BMK said a bad word, he's being a meanie, block him". Deoliveirafan was being just as demeaning; they just chose to do so without bad words. That doesn't necessarily ''excuse'' BMK, but it's not nearly as much a slam dunk as you are making it out to be; responding in kind (or even overreacting) is not the same as being rude/mean/uncivil/whatever without provocation. As for your ban, I have several opinions about it (some you might not be expecting), but I don't have a comment about it, other than that unless and until it gets overturned through a legitimate channel, you should respect it even if you think it was unfair or against policy. |
||
:::::::::BMK: Kumioko clearly has no interest in heeding any warning, so I don't see any reason to give one; it will accomplish exactly nothing, and I'm not a fan in general of people throwing their weight around just because they can, without any expectation of improving a situation. But if it makes you feel better: Kumioko, please don't comment on BMK further. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 21:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::::BMK: Kumioko clearly has no interest in heeding any warning, so I don't see any reason to give one; it will accomplish exactly nothing, and I'm not a fan in general of people throwing their weight around just because they can, without any expectation of improving a situation. But if it makes you feel better: Kumioko, please don't comment on BMK further. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ Keeper]] [[User Talk: Writ Keeper|⚇]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|♔]] 21:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::I just looked and I agree that user was a little condescending but BMK's comments of Fuck off and then calling the a condescending asshole were far worse IMO. Adding to that telling the user they were no longer allowed to post on his page and then stating on the AN thread that only admins were welcome on his talk page are further evidence of his abusive demeanor on Wiki. What I find even more appalling is that you and Andy, are jsutifying his conduct as others have done in the past so he gets away with being abusive yet again. Which will only ensure he does the exact same thing or worse later. At some point he is going to be banned, but how many editors will he run off the site and how much damage to morale will he cause with his shenanigans. |
|||
::::::::::As for my ban, I think you think the same thing everyone else does. You either agree with the community, or you don't and don't have the courage to say so. I have had at least 3 dozen editors who have sent me emails telling me they were afraid to vote for fear of retaliation by admins. So I'll tell you the same thing as them in the off chance you think I got screwed. If you disagree with the communities decision, for whatever reason, and didn't take the time to vote, or care enough to argue the merits of my ban, then that's on you. I was banned for having the morale courage to advocate for what is right, not hide and keep it to myself so others would like me. Your also right I should let my ban ride out. But since the community banned me for trying to make things better for editors, I have no reason to think they will let me come back in 6 months or a year anyway. Additionally, me silently riding out my ban shows the bullies and abusers they can do whatever they want and it shows the community what will happen to them if they argue with the authority of the admins or arbs. I don't have any respect for this community anymore and the only reason I even bother editing is just out of the principle of the unfair ban. If I was unbanned I would edit about once a month if that. Kumioko [[Special:Contributions/172.56.2.154|172.56.2.154]] ([[User talk:172.56.2.154|talk]]) 22:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:29, 11 May 2014
SEE YOU SPACE COWBOY ... |
My signature
Although not relevant to the AN/I discussion, read Sauron#The_Lieutenant_of_Melkor. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 16:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, but my point is: if you're the lieutenant of Melkor, i.e. Sauron, who is using the first person to call you "my master" in your sig? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
ZackDickens12
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, of course he's allowed to remove things from his talk page, or restore them, no question about that. But we're also talking here about an editor who is obviously very young, and I think we have a certain obligation to educate inexperienced editors to the culture and byways of Wikipedia. Yes, certainly, I could have done that with a note on his talk page, and perhaps I should have -- but you'll notice that he's removed all the good advice he's received (from myself and others) already, so that would probably have been a wasted effort. I won't contest your revert (as you say, it's not something to dwell on), but I do wish you had allowed him to make that choice rather than taking it on yourself - maybe, just maybe, he might have decided to grow up just a little bit, which would have been a step in his progress.
In any case, water under the bridge. Best, BMK (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it's not that you're wrong; you're quite right that we need to educate inexperienced editors. But the question is: how do we do so, and what tone do we take while we do it? What's more the point is that you/we tried that already, and he restored them. So clearly it's his wish to have them, and, y'know, it's really not that big a deal, so there's no reason to possibly antagonize him further by removing it again. Trying to remove them once was all right, but trying again was a little much, IMO.
It's a fine line, of course: the need to provide meaningful instruction balanced against the need to not antagonize them (which will make them not listen to the instruction). I think, with this particular person, we're falling too much on the side of stick and not enough on the side of carrot. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" works (if you're of the school of thought that it does work, that is) because a child is a captive audience, so to speak--they have no choice but to take their medicine, which in turn gives them a chance to learn from it. Here, since editors are not a captive audience, employing the rod can simply drive them away forever, making any good advice unheard and thus worthless.
There's also the need to minimize damage, of course; drawing the line at the RfA, for example, was probably a good call (though even then, closing it 15 minutes after it went live was still probably somewhat hasty). But the self-awards is really not the behavior we need to make a stand about. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think that we, as a community, have a good handle on how to deal with young editors. We've got WP:CIR, of course, but that's most often used as a reason for blocking, and there's very little that can be done before it reaches that stage, because, in general, we insist on treating all editors the same, as responsible adults, even when its clear that this is not the case. (I'm speaking in the abstract here, not particularly talking about ZackDickens12 and this minor incident.) It's somewhat reminiscent of the WMF's refusal to see that not requiring registration, and allowing IP editing, is, overall, a detriment to the project, and that much vandalism and quasi-sockpuppetry (editors with accounts logging out to avoid scrutiny) would be eliminated if they changed their policy to something reasonable, like pretty much every other website on the Net.
Anyway, I'm rambling - my point is that it would be nice to have a way to deal with young editors somewhat differently than adult editors, other than the informal things that have grown up over time, such as the "Not Now" closing of ZD12's RfA. If there were systemic restrictions on their editing, and they understood that when they began, then it wouldn't seem so punitive to have curmudgeons like myself wagging their finger at them. As it is now, by assuming from the beginning that all editors are going to behave like responsible adults, the negative response to childish misbehavior is magnified; and by the time it becomes clear that the behavior is childish because a child is behind the keyboard, everyone's already a bit put out, and inclined to be harsher than they (I) probably should be. BMK (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think that we, as a community, have a good handle on how to deal with young editors. We've got WP:CIR, of course, but that's most often used as a reason for blocking, and there's very little that can be done before it reaches that stage, because, in general, we insist on treating all editors the same, as responsible adults, even when its clear that this is not the case. (I'm speaking in the abstract here, not particularly talking about ZackDickens12 and this minor incident.) It's somewhat reminiscent of the WMF's refusal to see that not requiring registration, and allowing IP editing, is, overall, a detriment to the project, and that much vandalism and quasi-sockpuppetry (editors with accounts logging out to avoid scrutiny) would be eliminated if they changed their policy to something reasonable, like pretty much every other website on the Net.
- I asked a CU, and it's him. I think I'm going to softblock that and his two accounts that are artifacts from his renames and give him a final warning. This nonsense has got to stop; I still don't think it's to the point of a year-long or indef yet, but I don't think a shorter block will improve the situation appreciably, so hopefully this will serve. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to thank you and the IP for fixing the csd on Zack100. I thought a deletion or block would help get Zack's attention, but I didn't think an SPI was the way to go. (I don't know much about that subject.) Let's continue to work with Zack with both encouragement and some slaps on the wrist. – S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I'm hoping, but if he doesn't slow down and start listening, there is a point where we can't keep humoring him. Some might argue that we've reached that point already. The probelm is that the only tool we really have is blocking, and with young editors, it's far too blunt an instrument; even a day's block can seem like an eternity, and they will very rarely see an indefinite--or even a block of finite but long duration, like a year--as anything less than a permanent ban. That's what I was alluding to in my post to BMK just above: we basically can't block him without losing him forever. But we can't wait forever, either, and there's the rub. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I may generally be a hardass, but I don't disagree with what you folks are saying. Where I define the line that gets crossed to justify a long block is almost certainly less forgiving that your, but I do agree that ZD12 is not quite there yet. He's working overtime at getting there, though.
Thanks for looking into it. BMK (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I may generally be a hardass, but I don't disagree with what you folks are saying. Where I define the line that gets crossed to justify a long block is almost certainly less forgiving that your, but I do agree that ZD12 is not quite there yet. He's working overtime at getting there, though.
- Yeah, that's what I'm hoping, but if he doesn't slow down and start listening, there is a point where we can't keep humoring him. Some might argue that we've reached that point already. The probelm is that the only tool we really have is blocking, and with young editors, it's far too blunt an instrument; even a day's block can seem like an eternity, and they will very rarely see an indefinite--or even a block of finite but long duration, like a year--as anything less than a permanent ban. That's what I was alluding to in my post to BMK just above: we basically can't block him without losing him forever. But we can't wait forever, either, and there's the rub. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to thank you and the IP for fixing the csd on Zack100. I thought a deletion or block would help get Zack's attention, but I didn't think an SPI was the way to go. (I don't know much about that subject.) Let's continue to work with Zack with both encouragement and some slaps on the wrist. – S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I asked a CU, and it's him. I think I'm going to softblock that and his two accounts that are artifacts from his renames and give him a final warning. This nonsense has got to stop; I still don't think it's to the point of a year-long or indef yet, but I don't think a shorter block will improve the situation appreciably, so hopefully this will serve. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Now he's requesting that his talk page be deleted, and he's done something bizarre to get an article deleted - I can't unravel it (see his contribs). BMK (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Noting that I posted on the MfD and on his talkpage before I saw any of this. If he winds up being long-term blocked or indeffed, which would be an unfortunate outcome for his morale if not for the encyclopedia, I might wind up blanking (as opposed to deleting) his talkpage, to help him to stay away for awhile. In any event, we'll see how he responds to my post on his talk. (I note that he's asked for an unblock, but hasn't posted an unblock request using the template, which means few admins will see it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, no, probably several admins will see it, and I think that's part of the problem with the way we've handled this. Too many cooks are in the kitchen here. I mean, yes, he's being disruptive. I actually saw part of the beginning of this latest episode and was considering blocking him, but I was too tired to make a real go of it. But now I wake up and there are like six new threads on his talk page, all from different people. Most are probably telling him more or less the same thing, but everyone has to get their say, I suppose. But while we're all stumbling over each other to tell this kid exactly how wrong he is, what does this look like to him? How does it make him feel? I mean, hearing it from one person is necessary, but hearing it from the entire peanut gallery? Well, I say "peanut gallery", but I don't really mean that, because most of the editors who commented are people I very highly respect (not to mention that I'm as guilty of it as anyone). But this is the kind of thing I think leads people to believe that we are an insular group who hate any newcomers trying to intrude on our territory; it looks like we're all just dogpiling on the innocent newbie. I mean, he needs to hear someone tell him what he's doing wrong, but does he really need to hear it in surround sound? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have intervened at all if I'd seen how many other admins were on the case ... partly a function of some earlier interactions on his talkpage having been blanked ... wait, this is where I came in ...
- I assume it would be silly to ask if he's been pointed to Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors at least once? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is a question of whether this is CIR or trolling. While I have gone well out of my way to assume good faith in every comment I've made, there is a voice in the back of my head that says we are being played. The timing of the button pushing is almost too perfect. Regardless, the most recent edits make it clear that the distinction is no longer as relevant. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's kind of an academic point now, as I've just applied an indefblock that I think is valid either way, but the fact that he chose Prodego, of all people, to appeal to for a block of Doc9871, plus his various other shenanigans has made me now lean towards trolling. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Well, actually, I've realized that his choice of Prodego kinda makes sense, but still. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I got pinged and unpinged, I see[1]. Trolls really just hate being called out and busted. They'd much rather carry on the charade for their own "jollies". Trolls that hide behind the lie of being a young editor abuse the AGF of good editors to their advantage. After all: who's going to pick on a little kid? I use caution before ABF'ing and labeling an editor as a troll, believe me. Age is irrelevant when being claimed as an "excuse", as he did with the "I am young if someone is young please don't block them" request. There are plenty of young computer-savvy people all over the world who edit here, as either good or bad WP editors. We don't want minors posting their personal information, but aside from that it makes no difference how old one is. It only matters if one can competently edit here. Normal editors wouldn't delete what I had to say on their talk page with "I don't trust you!!!!" Perhaps it's just a hopeless incompetent, and not a real troll. Meh. Call it a "gut feeling", but I knew this was a bad apple. Cheers :) Doc talk 07:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- In case you hadn't noticed, he's carrying on pasting that article back into his talk page - time to deny access? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Probably. Dennis has handled it for now, but any repetition and I'll revoke TP access. Not a happy time for anyone, but at least it'll be over, for better or worse. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, episodes like this are always a bit sad - maybe he'll be back when he's grown up a bit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think we're well past the point where gross incompetence (for whatever reason) is indistinguishable from deliberate trolling, and I'm more and more in agreement with Doc that the latter is probable. BMK (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, it hardly matters now. I'm not going to remove TPA unless he makes it necessary by further shenanigans. Whether it's trolling or not, the situation is kinda bumming me out, and I really don't think there's anything else to say about it, so no more, please. We've spent more than enough time on this, and I'm tired of things. If one of y'all see something that really requires TPA removal, and for one reason or another can't do it yourself, feel free to post a succinct message below; otherwise, let's let it go. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think we're well past the point where gross incompetence (for whatever reason) is indistinguishable from deliberate trolling, and I'm more and more in agreement with Doc that the latter is probable. BMK (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, episodes like this are always a bit sad - maybe he'll be back when he's grown up a bit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Probably. Dennis has handled it for now, but any repetition and I'll revoke TP access. Not a happy time for anyone, but at least it'll be over, for better or worse. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
API page history
Thanks for taking the trouble to document the recent issue at User:Writ Keeper/FM-Interleaved edit history. The topic is a bit too hot for me to want to edit your page so I'll mention that the "10:44, 6 May 2014" item is missing "Mrdthree". Re the identical timestamps, if you ever wanted to dig deeper, it is possible to use the API to get the timestamp to the nearest second. Example: [2] The "Z" indicates UTC time. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know about the API, but I didn't want to spend *that* much time on it; I was just copying and pasting from history pages, with user contribs pages as a reference. That's why the one username is missing; I must've accidentally pulled it from the contribs page instead. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
question
Thanks for the db-user. Can you also salt the page? Malke 2010 (talk) 04:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Uh, sure, no problem. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yup. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Kumioko
Despite the fact that K. was banned, I have been scrupulous about not violating the voluntary IBAN between us. I did not participate in the banning discussion, have passed up many opportunities to comment about the rampant socking, etc. Now K, using 2607:fb90:1808:bdc6:db8b:aa6f:3ca9:e6b7 has left messages on my talk page. Please block this account and warn K. that the IBAN is still in effect. One more instance of their violating the ban, and I will consider myself released from it. BMK (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- One can't really be warned for violating a voluntary interaction ban, and I'm not really sure what the use of warning Kumioko would be anyway. Nevertheless, I would urge you to respect the IBAN regardless. For good or ill, whether it was justified or not, Kumioko is considered banned by the community, and there's really not any good that will come from any comments on the situation. Let it be. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, sorry. he posted a comment about me on AN, so its over. You were supposed to be the keeper of the voluntary IBAN, a role I do not see that you could fulfill if you refuse to warn either of the parties when they break it. Doesn't matter, I upheld it, biting my tongue the whole time, and he's behaved exactly as he always does, so pfffft. I'm deeply disappointed in you, Writ Keeper. BMK (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Disappointing people seems to be a running theme for me this week. Oh well, shit happens; I'm not too thrilled with your recent responses either, but y'know, you're not here to curry my favor any more than I'm here to curry yours, so I guess them's the breaks. I honestly don't remember what you are talking about as far as me being a referee of a voluntary interaction ban, but it may be so; it doesn't matter, though, because Kumioko is banned, so I don't really know what you want me to do about it (other than blocking the IP, which I was going to do before real life stood in the way). A warning would be meaningless, and it's not like there's some sort of super-double-secret ban that I can place on him now that he's done something while banned. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Of course he's banned, but from my POV, I was still upholding the voluntary IBAN between us, and as long as he didn't comment on me or interact with me, I was prepared to continue to uphold it. Some might consider that stupid, but I gave my word and I intended to keep it. I asked you to intervene in order to do everything possible to save that IBAN - again, my word, my honor. The community ban is between him and the Wikipedia commnity in general, the voluntary IBAN was between two people, him and me. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. BMK (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that, but now that Kumioko is banned, "everything possible" equates to "nothing", because there is no greater sanction to impose. I don't really know what you're expecting me to do. It's not that I don't want to help you, it's that there is nothing that can be done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- What? I was extremely explicit about what I was asking you to do: block the IP sock, and post a notice (warning) as the keeper of the IBAN that he had violated it, and if he did it again I would consider myself released from it. How could I have been any clearer than that? Whether the warning had any effect in terms of the community ban, it had, at least to me, meaning in terms of the voluntary IBAN between two people. If you had warned him, he would have been able to make the choice - continue to comment on me, or back off and honor the IBAN. I could not post that comment, because I was upholding the IBAN, and he was counting on me to keep my side of it: "When did I identify myself" he wrote in an edit summary, forgetting he had done so on another edit. BMK (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldnt worry about disappointing BK write keeper, he is an abusive editor that manipulates people into getting his way. And your right, I am banned, for advocating that admins should be held accountable for screwing up and for commenting about arbcom failures. I wasn't a vandal, I wasn't socking and I wasn't violating copyright. I was advocating policy so I was banned. Not blocked banned. I think its petty that people are so interested in deleting my comments and you are too happy to allow BMK to tell a user to fuck off and then call the an asshole inthe edit summary. No one has done anything about that, no one cares about his abuse. I have no respect for any of you if you cannot even uphold policy against editors like him. If you wanna do the right thing for once, then look at BMK's edit history for the day. He and editors like him are the ones that need to be banned, not me. Kumi's back. 172.56.2.223 (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have, Kumioko, and I've also looked at Deoliveirafan's edit history as well, and here's what I see: Deoliveirafan makes edits to page, and BMK makes further edits that modify, yet do not revert, Deoliveirafan's changes. Neither have used edit summaries, but since neither are actually reverting anyone, neither really have to. Deoliveirafan decides to take offense at BMK's edits for some reason, I guess, reverts BMK with a condescending, nonsensical edit summary of "Calm down, patience is a virtue dear", and posts a further condescending post on BMK's talk page. BMK takes the bait, reverts the condescending post, and calls Deoliveirafan a condescending asshole. Things escalate from there. So, no, it's not just as simple as "BMK said a bad word, he's being a meanie, block him". Deoliveirafan was being just as demeaning; they just chose to do so without bad words. That doesn't necessarily excuse BMK, but it's not nearly as much a slam dunk as you are making it out to be; responding in kind (or even overreacting) is not the same as being rude/mean/uncivil/whatever without provocation. As for your ban, I have several opinions about it (some you might not be expecting), but I don't have a comment about it, other than that unless and until it gets overturned through a legitimate channel, you should respect it even if you think it was unfair or against policy.
- BMK: Kumioko clearly has no interest in heeding any warning, so I don't see any reason to give one; it will accomplish exactly nothing, and I'm not a fan in general of people throwing their weight around just because they can, without any expectation of improving a situation. But if it makes you feel better: Kumioko, please don't comment on BMK further. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I just looked and I agree that user was a little condescending but BMK's comments of Fuck off and then calling the a condescending asshole were far worse IMO. Adding to that telling the user they were no longer allowed to post on his page and then stating on the AN thread that only admins were welcome on his talk page are further evidence of his abusive demeanor on Wiki. What I find even more appalling is that you and Andy, are jsutifying his conduct as others have done in the past so he gets away with being abusive yet again. Which will only ensure he does the exact same thing or worse later. At some point he is going to be banned, but how many editors will he run off the site and how much damage to morale will he cause with his shenanigans.
- As for my ban, I think you think the same thing everyone else does. You either agree with the community, or you don't and don't have the courage to say so. I have had at least 3 dozen editors who have sent me emails telling me they were afraid to vote for fear of retaliation by admins. So I'll tell you the same thing as them in the off chance you think I got screwed. If you disagree with the communities decision, for whatever reason, and didn't take the time to vote, or care enough to argue the merits of my ban, then that's on you. I was banned for having the morale courage to advocate for what is right, not hide and keep it to myself so others would like me. Your also right I should let my ban ride out. But since the community banned me for trying to make things better for editors, I have no reason to think they will let me come back in 6 months or a year anyway. Additionally, me silently riding out my ban shows the bullies and abusers they can do whatever they want and it shows the community what will happen to them if they argue with the authority of the admins or arbs. I don't have any respect for this community anymore and the only reason I even bother editing is just out of the principle of the unfair ban. If I was unbanned I would edit about once a month if that. Kumioko 172.56.2.154 (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldnt worry about disappointing BK write keeper, he is an abusive editor that manipulates people into getting his way. And your right, I am banned, for advocating that admins should be held accountable for screwing up and for commenting about arbcom failures. I wasn't a vandal, I wasn't socking and I wasn't violating copyright. I was advocating policy so I was banned. Not blocked banned. I think its petty that people are so interested in deleting my comments and you are too happy to allow BMK to tell a user to fuck off and then call the an asshole inthe edit summary. No one has done anything about that, no one cares about his abuse. I have no respect for any of you if you cannot even uphold policy against editors like him. If you wanna do the right thing for once, then look at BMK's edit history for the day. He and editors like him are the ones that need to be banned, not me. Kumi's back. 172.56.2.223 (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- What? I was extremely explicit about what I was asking you to do: block the IP sock, and post a notice (warning) as the keeper of the IBAN that he had violated it, and if he did it again I would consider myself released from it. How could I have been any clearer than that? Whether the warning had any effect in terms of the community ban, it had, at least to me, meaning in terms of the voluntary IBAN between two people. If you had warned him, he would have been able to make the choice - continue to comment on me, or back off and honor the IBAN. I could not post that comment, because I was upholding the IBAN, and he was counting on me to keep my side of it: "When did I identify myself" he wrote in an edit summary, forgetting he had done so on another edit. BMK (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that, but now that Kumioko is banned, "everything possible" equates to "nothing", because there is no greater sanction to impose. I don't really know what you're expecting me to do. It's not that I don't want to help you, it's that there is nothing that can be done. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Of course he's banned, but from my POV, I was still upholding the voluntary IBAN between us, and as long as he didn't comment on me or interact with me, I was prepared to continue to uphold it. Some might consider that stupid, but I gave my word and I intended to keep it. I asked you to intervene in order to do everything possible to save that IBAN - again, my word, my honor. The community ban is between him and the Wikipedia commnity in general, the voluntary IBAN was between two people, him and me. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. BMK (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Disappointing people seems to be a running theme for me this week. Oh well, shit happens; I'm not too thrilled with your recent responses either, but y'know, you're not here to curry my favor any more than I'm here to curry yours, so I guess them's the breaks. I honestly don't remember what you are talking about as far as me being a referee of a voluntary interaction ban, but it may be so; it doesn't matter, though, because Kumioko is banned, so I don't really know what you want me to do about it (other than blocking the IP, which I was going to do before real life stood in the way). A warning would be meaningless, and it's not like there's some sort of super-double-secret ban that I can place on him now that he's done something while banned. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- No, sorry. he posted a comment about me on AN, so its over. You were supposed to be the keeper of the voluntary IBAN, a role I do not see that you could fulfill if you refuse to warn either of the parties when they break it. Doesn't matter, I upheld it, biting my tongue the whole time, and he's behaved exactly as he always does, so pfffft. I'm deeply disappointed in you, Writ Keeper. BMK (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)