User talk:Fluffernutter/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Tech News: 2014-17

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News updates

Recent software changes

  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf1) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on April 17. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on April 22, and all Wikipedias on April 24 (calendar).
  • CirrusSearch was enabled as a beta feature on 27 new wikis on April 18. [2] [3]
  • Problems with various fonts in SVG files were fixed last week. Files that use DejaVu Sans Condensed, DejaVu Serif Condensed, DejaVu Sans Light, Kochi Gothic and Kochi Mincho fonts now show correctly. [4] [5] [6] [7]
  • The page view statistics site developed by Henrik (stats.grok.se) should now work faster. [8]
  • You can read a summary of the Wikimedia technical report for March 2014. [9]

VisualEditor news

  • If you try to add a category which redirects to another category, VisualEditor will now suggest adding the target category directly. [10] [11]
  • VisualEditor tabs will no longer appear on Education Program pages. [12] [13]
  • You can now use VisualEditor on Meta-Wiki and the French Wikinews by enabling it in your preferences. [14] [15] [16]

Future software changes

  • MediaViewer will be enabled for all users on the Czech (cs), Estonian (et), Finnish (fi), Hebrew (he), Polish (pl), Romanian (ro), Slovak (sk), Thai (th) and Vietnamese (vi) Wikipedias on April 24. Feedback is welcome. [17]
  • Edits by anonymous users will now be marked with a new CSS class (mw-anonuserlink). This way, you can easily make those edits use a different color, font or background. [18] [19]
  • The user preference to remember login will soon be removed from all wikis. The edit review preferences will be moved to the recent changes tab, and the preference for the WikiLove tool will be moved to the editing tab. [20] [21] [22] [23]
  • You will soon be able to give parameters to preloaded templates. [24] [25]
  • You will soon be able to use CodeEditor in read-only mode on pages that you cannot edit. [26] [27]
  • It is now proposed to replace Bugzilla, Gerrit and other tools by a single tool called Phabricator. You can test Phabricator and add your opinion on MediaWiki.org. [28]
  • An IRC discussion about Phabricator will take place on April 22 at 03:30 AM UTC on the channel #wikimedia-office on freenode (time conversion). [29]

Problems

  • For about 40 minutes on April 17, there were problems with page loading due to high server load.
  • There is a problem with the rendering of formulas with MathJax. If you enabled MathJax in your preferences, you might need to turn it off and on again. [30]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by MediaWiki message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

08:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

April blitz wrap-up and May copyediting drive invitation

Guild of Copy Editors April 2014 Blitz wrap-up

Participation: Out of 17 people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 28 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the May drive! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014

Finnbay

Hi Fluffernutter, we disputed Finnbay article and agreed on variety of changes which should be merged with the current version. Would it be possible for you to check it out or release the "protection" in order for us or you to embed the changes please? Then, feel free to put an indefinite protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Campsite55: Great job, you guys! I've dropped the protection level back to "semi"; any autoconfirmed account should now be able to edit the article. Remember that if you guys fall back into a dispute, the talk page should be your first port of call - don't just revert each other. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Fluffernutter, thank you. I have made changes based on that talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnbay Please feel free to add/remove/change/lock anything :) Appreciated of your help on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campsite55 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hey fluffs, I know I'm new to Wikipedia so can you help me get the basics and stuff. d8)

Audiluver (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-18

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf2) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on April 24. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on April 29, and all Wikipedias on May 1 (calendar).
  • You can now use interwiki prefix c: to link to pages on Wikimedia Commons. [31]

VisualEditor news

  • You will soon be able to set content language and direction with VisualEditor. [32]
  • VisualEditor now works on all Wikipedias after broken MediaWiki:Common.js pages (and similar) were fixed last week. [33]
  • VisualEditor dialogs now use an animation of moving lines rather than animated GIF images.

Future software changes

  • CirrusSearch will be enabled as a beta feature on 41 new wikis, including Meta-Wiki and the Swedish (sv), Russian (ru), Polish (pl), Japanese (ja) and Chinese (zh) Wikipedias next week. This change means that CirrusSearch will now be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis.
  • MediaViewer will be enabled for all users on the French (fr) and Dutch (nl) Wikipedias on May 1. Feedback is welcome. [34]
  • The mobile version of Wikimedia wikis will soon include filters to limit the number of uploaded files that are copyright violations. [35]
  • CodeEditor will soon have a status bar about errors and warnings. [36] [37]
  • You can test a new version of Winter, a proposal to have a fixed toolbar at the top of wiki pages. Comments are welcome. [38]

Problems

  • For about 30 minutes on April 21, there were problems with image scaling due to a high server load. [39] [40]
  • On April 22, it was not possible to use the Collection extension for about 90 minutes due to a server move. [41] [42]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by MediaWiki message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

07:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Heleen Mees

While protecting Heleen Mees at this point has stopped the edit-warring, what you've actually achieved is to give an editor with a COI issue who has now been blocked twice for edit warring on the page and who has engaged in meat and sockpuppetry exactly what she wants. A better option would have been to block Bmwz3hm for breaching 3RR a third time. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I assume you're familiar with m:The Wrong Version? We generally protect articles in the state we find them, unless there's a pressing reason not to do so. Almost always, that upsets someone on one side of the dispute. In this case, I found the article in that state and I protected it in that state. Considering Bmwz3hm is arguing that the other version contains "character assassination" - whether that's true or not - the current version is also the more conservative version with regard to our "do no harm" approach to BLP. Now that it's protected, you're going to need to work with the other user on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. I know that might feel like a waste of time, but there's nothing to lose trying, since no one can edit the article in the meantime. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
My argument is that Bmwz3hm should have been blocked for breaching 3RR for a third time, rather than protecting the article. The article has been reviewed by several independent editors, myself included, and the only person who seems to have issue with it is Bmwz3hm. It was filled with self-serving edits by Bmwz3hm who is demonstrating ownership over the article, as this edit demonstrates. Since Bmwz3hm's last 3RR block expired two days ago, she has made absolutely no attempt to discuss anything at the article's talk page. Instead, she has resorted to meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry to revert to her preferred version after several editors have worked on it. She has only returned to the article since pending changes protection prevented her puppets from disrupting the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with AussieLegend. --TheCockroach (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@AussieLegend and TheCockroach: I would suggest that both of you take a page out of Bilby's book and work on compromising with the user. This is not a dire emergency that calls for editing the article right this second; the world will not end if the article stays as it is for a little while. Now that ignore-talking-and-just-revert isn't an option for anyone, at least give talking another try before insisting that long-term blocks are the only possible solution. As Bilby says, the protection gives everyone some breathing room to evaluate, consider, and hash things out. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I didn't say it was the end of the world or an emergency. --TheCockroach (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
There have been numerous requests for Bmwz3hm to discuss and not continue reverting but she refuses. When an editor refuses to collaborate, it's hard to collaborate them. I have to ask, given that Bmwz3hm has obviously breached 3RR for a third time, why did you not block Bmwz3hm? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
None of the attempts to discuss happened when everyone was on even footing with regard to not being able to push on the article itself. I didn't block this time because previous blocks have accomplished nothing, and there's no reason to think another one would change that. On the other hand, forcing everyone to the bargaining table to hash out whatever messy consensus they can, has a chance of making a difference. If someone is claiming that a BLP contains "character assassination", it's our obligation to at least try to address that concern, even if the person saying it is messing up with regard to other policies. Right now Bmwz3hm has their preferred version of the article live, and they know it's secure there for at least a little while. That means they will no longer feel that it's an emergency and they need to revert BLP violations. That also means that maybe now they'll be willing to discuss the issues with you, since they're not in siege mode.

In short: I understand that you're frustrated with what's been going on there, and I know at times it can feel like the only solution to problems onwiki is to block someone, but to my outside eyes, I see a situation where blocking doesn't fix anything and talking might. Therefore, I acted to increase the odds of talking happening rather than blocking to accomplish nothing. Will it work? I don't know. But since Bmwz3hm seems to have some honest problems with the article's content - whether they're right or wrong about them - making everyone discuss one last time is worth a try before going to the nuclear option. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

We've always been on an equal footing when it came to the content. Bmwz3hm had the opportunity at any time to discuss on the talk page but didn't want to. She certainly had the opportunity to talk in the past two days but instead spent her time being a puppet master. My first edits on this subject were an explanation on the talk page,[43], followed by edits to the article,[44] but Bmwz3hm made no attempt to discuss. She simply reverted without explanation,[45] and then went on her way while I was posting on her talk page.[46] This is typical. She has been given so many opportunities to collaborate and just doesn't want to. As for the blocks not working, after he blocked her a second time, Spike Wilbury said "if it is clear your edit is disputed, get consensus on the talk page before making the edit again. That doesn't mean keep making the edit just because you posted about it on the talk page. If you resume this behavior once unblocked, I shall have to consider an indefinite block until you indicate some basic understanding of consensus and edit warring". Her response to that was "Give that advise to Theobald Tiger and yourself. You are the ones who started the edit-warring". She simply doesn't want to collaborate and has demonstrated that time after time. Now she has no reason to do so since her version of the article is protected. All that will happen is, if she's not indef blocked, is to wait until the protection is expired and revert as soon as somebody restores the version that everyone except her has no problem with. Or, if pending changes expires, she'll get her puppets to do it for her. As for her claim about character assasinations, that simply isn't supportable. It's only been today that she's started this argument. Her problem is that the article doesn't make her out to be more than she is. She seems to want the article to be an advertising piece. Just to show you how disingenuous her claims are, let's look at "The other text is filled with vicious and superfluous references to the charges against Heleen Mees that are now set for dismissal". In that revision, aside from deleting refernce in the prose to her place of birth, removal of formatting from all of the references, removing maintenance templates without addressing the identified problem and so on, she's removed references to some quite valid third-party references about her, replacing them with links to her own website, removed a sourced claim about her being "spokeswoman for former Secretary of State Willem Vermeend", some valid categories and a note (also sourced) that the charges against her would be dismissed if she satisfied two condition. (The source says these are that she will go to therapy and stays out of trouble for a year) There is nothing in what she removed that is character assasination. It's simple reporting of facts surrounding the charges that she seems quite happy to have in the article. It's just a way of asserting ownership. She did this a few days ago, as I explained at Talk:Heleen Mees#Sneaky edit-warring. Sneaky edit-warring, sneaky edit summaries, sneaky using meat and sockpuppets...... Surely it's obvious. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I was about to make a comment but I see that AussieLegend pretty much has it covered. I'm afraid you've made a bad call here. This isn't the case of an individual expressing a BLP concern, its a very clear case of someone connected to this individual trying to manipulate their wiki image. I've been watching this as an uninvolved editor for a couple of days, I've seen several editors and admins reaching out and its to no avail. The only response in talk so far as been to describe those editors as "evil" [47] and to crow about the article being frozen at the "right" version. WCMemail 18:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys, but I don't know what else to tell you other than repeating that I've chosen to handle the issue without an immediate block, and given that it's not an emergency that calls for people to edit the article right this second, I'm going to stick with giving the editor that last chance. My judgment is that the user seems to have actual issues to discuss, if only they can be made to discuss them. Locking them out won't fix that, locking the article might, and so I've opted for the action that might, possibly, if things go well, actually resolve something. I've left the user a large list of do's and don'ts and some very pointed advice about how to move forward from here, and we'll spend the next few days/weeks seeing if they're willing to work within that framework. If so, great. If not, then we will have exhausted other good-faith avenues and blocking will be what's left. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This is the sort of thing that we've had to put up with. Now you've seen it. As I've shown above, and as Wee Curry Monster has said, this is not a case of an editor with real issues; it's an editor who wants their Wikipedia page to be as they want it to be and will resort to doing anything she can to keep it that way. I'm sorry you can't see that when multiple other editors, including several admins, all can. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The plain language of the protection policy not only permits, but encourages, admins to protect "the current version", subject to exceptions that don't seem to apply in this case. Fluffernutter was in the right, full stop. Pakaran 19:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the [WP:WRONG]] version, as seen here [[48] the immediate response to the comment from Fluffernutter is its them not me WP:NOTTHEM. Its always the same response, there is no attempt to engage in talk and they've had plenty of chances. No one said Fluffernutter was wrong, we all said he simply made a bad call. I can fully understand why there is frustration when instead of addressing the problem editor, all of the editors are told to go for a group hug on the talk page and this will magically transform the problem editor into a good wikipedian. Never going to happen, get real. WCMemail 19:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
And FYI socking on multiple wikis [49], I trust you'll block the socks please? WCMemail 19:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
If the SPI closes the way it's trending, that will certainly take care of things neatly. Good faith only goes so far. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks in any event for taking a stand, fighting the good fight, and assuming good faith. We need more people who do that. Pakaran 20:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Fluffernutter. For your information, just in case you don't know, Bmwz3hm, Kinker020 and Bilbao86 have been blocked for sockpuppetry on nl-wiki. (Checkuser) Kind regards, ErikvanB (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014

Your removal of a section at Talk:Bisexuality

Fluffernutter, why did you remove this section at the Bisexuality article? Having followed your edit history so that it may shed light on this matter, that edit seems to be connected to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: No, it's unrelated to that ANI thread. If you look at the edit summary of my removal, it cites an OTRS ticket. In short, there was content in that thread that we received a communication about, and since it appeared to be a discussion that was no longer ongoing and could safely become not-visible-at-first-glance, the way I handled the ticket was to courtesy-blank the section. If the issues the section was discussing aren't resolved, please feel free to start a new discussion on the topic - there's nothing wrong with the topic itself, this just had to do with that particular group of comments. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I mistook User:Estlandia for User:Elvey, which is why I connected that edit with that discussion. I saw the WP:OTRS tag, but I couldn't make out anything in the aforementioned bisexuality discussion that would require that it be removed. I figured that perhaps it is a personal identity or WP:Vanish matter, but then, looking at recent posts on User:Estlandia's talk page, I figured that User:Estlandia was still editing (forgot to check that user's contributions to see if he or she was editing lately). So then I briefly looked at your contributions. Thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-19

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf3) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on May 1. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on May 6, and all Wikipedias on May 8 (calendar).
  • The Compact Personal Bar was added as a beta feature to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on May 1. It will be added as a beta feature to non-Wikipedia wikis on May 6, and to all Wikipedias on May 8. To test it, you can enable it now in your preferences on MediaWiki.org. [50]
  • It is now easier to disable the CodeEditor tool. [51]

VisualEditor news

  • External links in VisualEditor are now in the same light blue color as in MediaWiki. [52]
  • The template tool now tells you if a parameter is obsolete. [53]
  • You can now add "suggested" parameters in TemplateData; VisualEditor will add them like required ones. [54]
  • There is a new type for TemplateData parameters: wiki-file-name for file names. [55][56]
  • Editing formulae in VisualEditor will soon be enabled for all users. [57] [58]
  • You will soon be able to try a new beta feature to edit text in another language. [59] [60]

Future software changes

  • MediaViewer will be enabled for all users on the Japanese (ja), Portuguese (pt), Spanish (es), Swedish (sv) and Telugu (te) Wikipedias on May 8. Feedback is welcome. [61]
  • You can help translate about 100 new language names that have been added to our data source. They are used, for example, as hover text for interwiki links. Send an e-mail to Nemo if you want to help.
  • If you click on a redirect page in your watchlist, you will soon access the redirect itself. [62] [63]

Problems

  • For about 40 minutes around 00:20 UTC on April 29, there were problems with page loading due to high server load.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by MediaWiki message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

07:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The Pledge of the Computing Professional

I've replied to your request for speedy deletion for The Pledge of the Computing Professional on its talk page. Honestly, we're trying to do things properly, but we got slammed the last time we tried to create this page for exactly the opposite problem that you cited. If you could help point us in the proper direction as to how to bring the article up to Wikipedia standards, we'd be appreciative ... Jim Huggins (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Huggins: Well, no matter what else is going on, you absolutely cannot use text you've copied from somewhere else the way the article currently does. That's considered a copyright violation. If TPotCP owns the copyright to that text, they could potentially license the text under Wikipedia's terms, but that would require communication from the copyright holder to our Volunteer Response Team to verify the copyright status, and, more importantly, it would require that TPotCP be willing to license that text in such a way that anyone could change, edit, and copy that text pretty much any way they want in the future.

As far as notability, information on that policy is available at this page. The long and short of it is that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". That means that third-party sources unrelated to the topic must have found the topic so worthy of comment that they've written about it at length and repeatedly. If the New York Times has written an article about TPotCP, that's very different than only TPotCP's own website writing about it. The fact is, not every organization that people want to write about meets that notability standard. Lacking notability to Wikipedia's standards is not a reflection on whether an organization is useful, or good, or valuable; it's just based on the fact that not enough other places have taken notice of the topic yet.

If you think that TPotCP does meet our notability standards - if there are multiple, reliable, third-party sources that have written in detail about TPotCP - then you will need to re-write your article, from scratch and not copying text from anywhere, and discuss and cite those sources in the article. Unless that's done, the article is likely to be deleted again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay ... the point about the text is well-taken. We can work on rewriting the text in a way that doesn't duplicate the text on the website, and the automated link there will help identify the pain points. (Frankly, I'm the second editor on this, so I'm not sure which sources are duplicates and which aren't.)

As for notability ... we cite on the website endorsements from two other respected organizations (Order of the Engineer and Association for Computing Machinery), and give verifiable sources for those endorsements. We have links to two videos of the organizations activities on two different campuses and one citation in an academic paper by another author. Is that not enough for external validity? Or do we simply have to wait for someone outside of the organization to think that we're interesting enough to create our page for us? Jim Huggins (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Huggins: Being endorsed by other organizations generally wouldn't constitute substantive coverage (lots of organizations link to each other as a matter of course). Videos of the organization's activities wouldn't count as third-party sources (it's not someone talking about the org, it's just the org doing what the org does). A citation in an academic paper, assuming the paper isn't by someone representing the organization, would count as a third-party source (which may or may not be substantive, depending on how heavily the citation is used in the paper), but is not enough coverage to drive an article all on its own. Ideally you'd be using sources like, say, a newspaper writing about "wow, this TPotCP organization is doing something really important", or a journal article about career outcomes for people who do and don't pledge, or a magazine article about a really notable person who's been greatly influenced by their membership in TPotCP, etc.

We have a policy about notability that specifically covers organizations here; it might help you more to read that instead of the general notability policy I linked before. In general, it helps me when I'm trying to figure this stuff out to think of it in terms of, "Can I prove that important people/news sources who are not involved with [my thing] think [my thing] is worth talking about?" If yes, then cite those sources. If no - whether because no one of that level has taken notice, or because no one has put it in writing that they think [my thing] is important, then it's probably not possible to write a Wikipedia article about [my thing] at that point.

I should also point out that we do have a policy that governs writing about a topic you, personally, are involved in. The upshot of that policy is pretty common-sense: it can be very hard to write neutrally about a topic you're personally involved in, so you should be careful to abide by all our policies when you're doing it. You don't really seem to be having much trouble writing neutrally, but do be aware that because you are a member of an organization you consider valuable, it might be tough for you to judge whether or not the organization is notable from the outside. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of the issues and dangers regarding NPOV, in part due to some previous editing experiences, and am trying hard to be a good Wikipedia citizen in that regard. (I'm glad that you don't see any obvious problems there.)

Regarding number/weight of outside sources ... I guess it's a judgment call which y'all Wikipedia admins will have to make. Two years ago, we wouldn't have qualified at notable by any standard, as we had no external citations. Ten years from now, I'm sure no-one will question notability. Obviously, at some point in between, we'll cross the line into notability. I'm certainly too close to the organization to judge if we've reached that point yet. I think we've supplied all the external sources we have at this point; we'll leave the rest to the collective judgment of y'all.

I appreciate your constructive dialogue on this. Jim Huggins (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko

Good-faith discussion that rapidly went nowhere

Your right, I do know the process but the process isn't working because everyone is pointing at someone else.

  • Contacted Arbcom and they say they don't have the authority to overrule the community
  • Community says I can't ask in person but must ask an admin (insulting, pointless and stupid) to post on my behalf or
  • Contact the Ban appeals committee, who is part of Arbcom, who stated they don't have the authority to over turn a ban appeal by the community and wouldn't even if they wanted too because I was banned for being critical of them.

So I a now in the position where I cannot get unbanned because no one has the authority to do it the desire to do it, or the policy is in the way of the process. This is a perfect case if IAR and Bold. The problem is I am not an admin so IAR and Bold don't apply. I am not just going to let my ban go. It was a bullshit ban by a bunch of bullies trying to silence a critic. I will not accept it until the day I die or Wikipedia goes offline due to a lack of editors interested in dealing with abusive admins.

So if you would like to open a discussion on my behalf (not an advocate in my defense, just a starter of the discussion) that would be great. I rather doubt you or any other admin is going to do that though since I have been critical of admin abuse. Kumioko172.56.3.188 (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

PS I totally relate to the message at the top of your talk page. Unfortunately I cant really see much good in the project these days but at least your not banned and shunned by the community due to bullies and bad editors like me...so it could be worse. 172.56.3.188 (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I see two problems with your request that I/someone start an unban discussion for you.

First, it only makes sense for another editor to start an unban request if they think you should be unbanned. While it's technically possible for someone neutral or negative on your unbanning to start a thread, there's very little impetus for anyone who doesn't already want to see you unbanned to do so - if X thinks you need to remain banned, why would X ask the community to unban you? If you can't find even one person who would like to see you editing again who can open a discussion for you, that might be a sign that your ban is not as cabal-driven as you claim. This is where having burned all your bridges is not paying off for you. The pool of people who think you, in your current mindset, are an asset to the project who should be unbanned is severely more limited than it would have been, say, a year ago. I'm among them - a year ago, I would have said that you were a good-faith editor who was prone to being overemotional, but was generally helping the project. Now, I not only can't say that, but I have to say that you appear determined to not contribute constructively to the project or the community in any way, whether you're banned or not.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, there is zero point to starting a discussion of your ban unless there is a sign that you would abide by the results of that discussion. Thus far, you have shown absolutely no inclination to abide by the results of discussions about your editing privileges. If the situation were "Kumioko would like to see his ban re-discussed, and if consensus is to continue the ban he will sadly accept that", you'd have a much easier time convincing someone to give an unban discussion a chance than with your current approach of "I will never accept my ban". As it stands, giving you the requested discussion now means that there's a very good chance it would fix absolutely nothing, you'd continue evading your ban, and we'd be doing this same song-and-dance the day after any ban discussion closes. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, let me clarify a couple things.
  1. The statement I will never accept my ban is in reference to the current one that was brought about by a couple of editors who subitted ban requests in rapid succession once a week or so for a couple months until they got the result they wanted. The first part of the problem there for me is that it didn't matter to anyone that the previous ones came back with no consensus, only the one to ban me. The second part of the problem is the community allowed them to do it in the first place.
  2. I never socked or violated policy prior to my ban. I have never denied creating alternate accounts since because I don't recognize my ban. There is no reason too, it was done in an underhanded way to ensure it would succeed.
  3. My current attitude is the way it is because I am so frustrated with the lack of respect for policy that I have seen from the community, the admins and the arbs. If they don't respect the policy, why should I? If BWilkins is allowed to operate 3 or more accounts concurrently, why is that not socking? If Newyorkbrad is allowed to host a blog on Wiki against policy and direct legal threats, why would I respect that? I shouldn't, no one should and the only reason that they aren't being blocked or banned is because they are admins/arbs so no one cares. But because I dared to criticize admins for the very stuff you talk about on the top of your talk page, I am the A-hole? It makes zero sense.
So if people want to keep my ban in place that's fine. I'll keep doing what I'm doing too. And since there is no limit to the amount of IP's or accounts I can create, I can keep going for a long time. If I was that much of a detriment to the community people would be deleting the articles I created and undoing all my edits. They would be calling for an SPI and reviewing all my work. They are not doing that, because I was not banned for being a detriment to the community. I was banned for having the courage to stand up to some long term abusive admins and that is bad for their control of the community. Kumioko 208.54.35.148 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
This is not correct - even IPv6 has a finite limit on the number of individual IP addresses available. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh sure there is a technical limit your right, but the point I was trying to make was that its rather trivial for me to change IPs or accounts. I don't think Wikipedia is going to eliminate IP editing and even then I would just create an account. I don't want too, I never did, but if I have no choice to comment then that's what I will do and being banned or not is not and has not stopped me. It just wastes a lot of time for no reason other than for some abusive editors and admins to attempt to send a message to the community. I wasn't banned for vandalism, copyright infringment or even socking. I as banned for my criticism of admins and the failures of arbcom. Kumioko 208.54.35.238 (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
And to no great surprise, no comments! I don't know why I even tried, no one in this project wants to have a civil discussion. Not here or anywhere else. Just the childish silent treatment. That's ok, no one can say I didn't try. Kumioko 172.56.2.147 (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
"What's so civil about war anyway?" - W. Axl Rose --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The peace that follows it when both sides are tired of fighting. Kumioko172.56.3.93 (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
There's really nothing left to say once you agreed with me that you have no intention of abiding by any consensus that might say you should remain banned, Kumioko. As long as "if people want to keep my ban in place that's fine. I'll keep doing what I'm doing too" is your position, any new community discussion about whether to lift or keep your ban is useless from the start. At least a slight willingness to abide by community consensus by all parties is required for a consensus-building discussion to happen. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thats not what i meant and you know it. Your just using that as an excuse. But frankly ibhave no reason to think the community is going to be fair anyway. They werent when they let a group of bullies ban me from the project. Not block, ban, perminaently. For criticizing abusive admins andbthe failures ofbarbcom. I was banned for suggesting adminsshould be held accountable and shouldbhave to follow policy. The community didnt care about them submitting multiple requests until they got what they wanted. Where was the commnity when newyorkbrad made baseless and unsupported legal threats? No where around. I tried repeatedly to get people to see how abusive my ban was and no one cares. Because it didnt happen to them. Wikifriends it seems are like scaffolding, temporrlary and ugly, to be used only when needed. Kumioko2607:FB90:1802:5BAC:BA1B:A15F:D207:1AEC (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

See not a word, because no one can dispute the unfair and underhanded tactics used against me. No one can dispute the draconian use of an unfair ban. And you wonder why i dont accept it? You wonder why i continue to post? Because i will not be bullied be a few corrupt admins and wannabe admins who want to continue to be exempt from policy and corrupt policy. Novi am not going to accept my ban, so someone may as well unblock me so we can all quite wasting time. And for your information the reason im not constructive is beause im fucking banned. Its not like i can do much. KumiokoAGFWarrior (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko, I agree the community did the ban, and the community can undo the ban. If you want to appeal the ban to the community, I would be willing to paste your request over to a noticeboard. I opposed your ban in the first vote, and didn't vote in the second one. That said, my opinion is that you should take a break for a while--your admin abuse campaign is not really going anywhere. Also, the good ship Wikipedia has a new captain over at WMF, and a lot of people are willing to give it some time to see what happens. But like I said, if you are ready to make a request, I would be willing to copy it over. Or my email is really, really easy to google, even for IPs. —Neotarf (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Neotarf: It would make more sense for you to do this on his talk page. Mine is really not the place for structuring a ban appeal for a third party. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, but which talk page. I would imagine they are all locked up tighter than Fort Knox. Or would be, once he started posting an unban request. —Neotarf (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know offhand if any of his blocked accounts allow talk page access, but I would suspect that if they don't, that's perhaps a sign that he should be emailing you his request, not evading block settings to post it onwiki. Have you considered establishing email contact with him from your end? I suspect one or more of his accounts will have an email set. At any rate, whatever other communication method you guys settle on, my talk page is still not the place to hash out unban requests I'm not involved in, and I would very much prefer that you not use it as such. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
First I want to address the comment from the closing of the thread. Your right, it was a good faith attempt on my part. I didn't have to ask, I could have gone on. Apparently that is preferred so ok no problem I can oblige. Second, I find it the blocking reason to be a flat out lie that I thought better of you. I guess I was wrong on that too because the last I checked a month doesn't constitute long term abuse. You must be referring to abuse as all the articles I created, the GA/FA/FL's I developed and the hundreds of thousands of other edits. Which is all the more reason that I recommend you just delete them. Apparently no one noticed that I didn't create any alternate accounts until after I was banned against policy and common sense, just to show the community what happens when admins and arbs are questioned.
In the case of my block request, I do not want to be "unbanned". I want my ban overturned. It was illegitimate and against policy and although I appreciate the thought Neotarf, what Fluffernutter hasn't explained is that only a checkuser can request I be unblocked because, since I have created a bunch of new accounts after my ban, the community cannot override a checkuser block. Of course those accounts wouldn't have been necessary if I wasn't banned against policy and the only reason I am leaving all the comments all over is to get mu ban overturned, so its a wicked cycle. The whole reason I came here was because I thought Fluffernutter to be one of the few checkusers that were still uncorrupted and trustworthy. Yet again, I was wrong. So at this point, the only thing I can do is continue to leave comments about how I was persecuted in the hopes that either the community will see I was right and overturn the ban or see that the only reason I am leaving the comments was because I was unfairly banned. Perhaps the new ED Lila will do some research into the bans on this project annd invalid them and create a clean slate (not likely, but possible) Free Kumioko! 172.56.3.160 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Uh, Fluffernutter isn't a CU. Oversighter, yes; CU, no. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
As Writ Keeper points out, I'm not a checkuser. I never have been. So yes, you were in error there. Whether I am also evil, corrupt, and generally Just Terrible(tm) seems to be a matter of personal opinion. At any rate, I'm not willing to unblock you due to your ongoing behavior. I will be collapsing and/or removing any further commentary to this thread, as it's not paying off for anybody. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I apologize I was wrong about the CU role and I don't think you are "evil" and I didn't think you had been corrupted until this discussion. Unfortunately you repeatedly misconstrued my comments and used an obviously incorrect statement of long time abuse in order to inflate an already inflated charge further. The only reason I have an attitude at all is because I was screwed over, against policy, and no one in the community cares...because it didn't happen to them. If this had happened to you, you would be pissed as well. I had hoped this discussion would lead to something better for me and the community but if you or anyone else don't want to listen, I can't make you. Kumioko 172.56.3.200 (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Understood, thank you. —Neotarf (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Kiko4564 unblock discussion

Hello Fluffernutter, sorry to trouble you, but Kiko4564 (a user you have previously blocked, changed the block settings for, or unblocked) has requested to be unblocked. There is a discussion at ANI which so far has attracted no interest, if you wish to leave a comment, you can find the discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Unblock_request_by_User:Kiko4564. Nick (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Human cell lineage tree un-delete

Dear Fluffernutter,

You have deleted the Human cell lineage tree because of an image or text that apparently violated rights. The text was not copied from the specified site you mentioned, but from various free public sources which the site you mentioned have used themselves. I know that because I've asked members of the "Human cell lineage tree" for materials to write about the project. Secondly, the deletion was so fast that and I did not have the chance to respond, edit or even COPY the text that I've worked on for a very very long while. So please bring back the page or at least give me the text which I've worked on for so long and I'll modify it according to your further instructions.

Thank you, StephenKJohnson (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello StephenKJohnson. I'm afraid I cannot restore text for you that has been copied from elsewhere. If you read over the links you were given in the deletion notice, you'll see that for legal reasons Wikipedia only accepts original prose or prose explicitly licensed under a compatible free license. In this case, your text was not an adaptation of other sources, but a direct copy of them with no attribution. It is extremely unlikely that, working off of the same sources, you and at least one other website would have come up with completely, word-for-word identical prose. And even if the source(s) you copied were freely licensed, which is not currently evident, you are not allowed to claim their work as your own by publishing it on Wikipedia without attribution. And all that set aside, the text you were using was promotional in nature, not neutral and encyclopedic. In short, the text I deleted is useless for the purpose of writing an encyclopedia article; if you want to write an article on this topic, you're going to have to do it from scratch, not copying other sources and not writing in the style of a press release. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, my friend

Excuse me why you delete some lines from an article Abdulwahab Alamrani It is well documented..!!--عمار اليماني (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@عمار اليماني: I removed that text because a) it was not about Abdulwahab Alamrani, but about "some Yemeni Ambassadors" not including him, and thus was misplaced in an article about Alamrani and b) it appears to be using the article about a particular person as an excuse to publish the author's opinions about what other people are doing and why ("because they go along with the current political forces" and "previous political leaders are in control and still oppress press freedom" are not neutral phrasings; instead they very strongly imply the personal opinions of the person who wrote that, and say negative things about the people being written about). Please read WP:NPOV if you're not clear on what is and isn't neutral for an encyclopedia article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems that there is an error in the drafting of those lines will be re-drafted again and then you can read again thank you--عمار اليماني (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2014

When a puppy poops the carpet...

...you don't ignore it. Sure, the puppy didn't know any better, but you nevertheless rub his or her nose in the poop so they learn not to do it again. You don't do this out of meanness or because you're angry (although you may be), you do it because it's part of the puppy's training and you would like for them not to do it again, eventually.

Similarly, Kumioko is clearly a man without any impulse control whatsoever, little empathy, and no real awareness that he's not the most important thing in the world -- these things drive his sockpuppetry. Yes, playing Whack-a-Mole and having an editing filter are important mechanical devises to help keep him under control, but essentially nothing's going to change until this man learns that what he is doing is shameful and wrong. I plan to point that out to him whenever I have the chance. Those aren't insults', they're therapy, and in the long run they may be more helpful in getting him to stop than the mechanical measures. For these reasons I think you were wrong to collapse my comments, and more wrong not to delete his comments - he should never get the idea that we will allow him to speak here in any manner until such time as he might be unbanned. I'm not going to uncollapse, obviously, but I did want to give you my thinking on the subject. Best, BMK (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: please step away from the Kumioko issue at this point. Your behavior, including following him to each of his sock's talk pages to continue insulting him, is not only excessively personalizing the dispute, but is profoundly unhelpful to any effort to convince him to stop socking. No matter how banned someone is, there is no reason to descend to calling them "without honor", "pitiful", or "sociopaths" on this project. It doesn't fix anything about their behavior, and it's pretty much sure to make things 100% worse. If you need to vent your spleen out of frustration, do it to the wall in real life rather than descending to nasty personal attacks onwiki. Your behavior is not "therapy". It's not some sort of "dog training"; you're referring to another human being as a dog, for god's sake (and for that matter, if you were at all familiar with dog training, you'd be aware that rubbing a dog's nose in its mess is in fact not at all useful and serves only to vent the frustration of the human and confuse the dog). You are severely misunderstanding how we approach both other users and disciplinary issues in general on this project if you think what you are doing is standard or acceptable procedure. Your behavior is disruptive to the functioning of the SPI at this point and you need to back away. I don't care how frustrated you are, you are not helping. If you continue in this vein, you are likely to find yourself blocked alongside Kumioko. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think you're wrong. I think you folks have tried it your way and it's not working, and another method was needed - but, on the other hand, I'm not Kumioko, either, I'm not going to go against the explicit warning of an admin to stop, so I will. I give you my word on that. BMK (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, thanks for the info on dog training. I spoke from colloquial information, not from personal knowledge. I haven't had a dog since my dog died 45 years ago, and I'm generally more of a cat person, but can't have them because I became sensitized and I'm violently allegic to them now. I do, actually, appreciate being corrected on factual matters. BMK (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, one last thing: I had put down "6minuterun" as the name of one of the socks on the SPI, and it was correctly noted that that name is not registered, so I corrected it to "6minuterunner" to fix my own mistake. I will now step away. BMK (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fluffernutter/Archive_18&oldid=998774926"