User talk:Peteforsyth
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by 71.46.49.251 (talk) at 19:41, 13 November 2011 (→Something is seriously wrong with the Wikipedia blocking policy: new section). It may differ significantly from the current version .
Latest comment: 13 years ago by 71.46.49.251 in topic Something is seriously wrong with the Wikipedia blocking policy
Hmm
I take it that I shouldn't be signing up for things on Meta? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- If you do, it might be a good idea to get that ban lifted first, or else make your presence on that page so clearly valuable that consensus would be easy to achieve. This is actually a pretty good example of the sort of thing I have in mind; I think it's perfectly fine and desirable for somebody in your position to make contributions to this wiki, but I wouldn't be comfortable with you adding your name to certain public-facing lists here without some community consideration. -Pete F 01:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- If you noticed, the original ban which was for one year and expected to last only 6 months was transformed by a later ArbCom without any new evidence of abuse on Wiki into an indefinite ban with the notion that "probation" or "restrictions" can equal "more ban". With such a radical change, it is obvious that it would never be lifted. I was given an email from one Arbitrator that I can forward you that says that there are 7 Arbitrators that will never want me unbanned no matter what and that the only way to be able to return is to have them removed. It is kinda funny for an individual who never had an RfC filed against them, had every block that year overturned, etc. to be treated that way, especially when the case was filed by myself because I was tired of being harassed. And yes, I was actually harassed - the admin in question sent out all of my personal details to people through email and even outed me publicly on the ArbCom case pages and yet wasn't even desysopped. It is so odd that one of the Arbitrators who wants me gone no matter what claimed that I "outed" a user by pointing out that he previous tried to have me indefinitely banned on a previous name while he was harassing me on my user talk page. I never released any real names or personal info, but alluded to a previous account that the Arbitrators all know was not a real name of his and that he was operating multiple socks and have been operating multiple socks for a long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- What jumps out to me from looking at that ArbCom decision more closely, is that you've also had some troubles with Commons and a mailing list. Nothing fatal about that of course; but I think if a group were forming, or an outreach-oriented page were being formed, I'd want to have a clear demonstration that other people wanted you participating. Of course, the "Assume Good Faith" concept is always there; hopefully, if people involved with such pages had no direct or recent bad experiences interacting with you, they'd gladly work with you. So I don't think this should be cause for alarm. -Pete F 22:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- The "trouble" on Commons was by an admin who blocked me for saying that a blatant pedophile should be banned on Commons and then he not only had to undo the block but he was deemed abusive for using a sitting Foundation Board Member's IRC cloak in order to gain permissions on IRC he had no right to have and used it to try and boot me from chat and intimidate me. On the mailing list, I quit because one of the users there was trying to use the list to call people for political action and I said it was inappropriate. Then as some sort of retaliation the one guy said that if I ever came back I would be on moderation. None of those actually mattered to the Arbitrators. You can read their conversation on Wikipedia Review in the ArbCom-l leaks. That was all just added later. On ArbCom-l one Arbitrator said I was worse than an admitted pedophile who used adminship to blatantly harass people (according to the ArbCom-l description), which shows how some of their claims really don't match reality. After all, I am an academic who writes a religion column, is prominent in politics, a leader in multiple civic organizations, etc., and everyone who met me irl at any meet-up preferred my company over most Wiki regulars. If I was really that awful, I wouldn't have had so much support or have Jimbo say I did a really good job as an admin at Wikiversity after my ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- OK. -Pete F 04:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- It doesn't matter regardless. The Arbitrators are the power structure of en.wiki and have the right to do whatever they want for any reason. For your info, I always seek permission before attending events, posting in certain areas, etc. because of the ban. So, you don't have any opposition from me on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- Well, it looks like the essay hit a bit of a nerve. Sorry, that wasn't my intent. Very glad to know the essay seems acceptable to you, though. And I hope things get easier in the various situations described above. -Pete F 07:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- If you know anything about Wiki culture, it never does. Hey, it isn't as bad as Conservapedia where people get booted almost immediately for questioning things like "Why do you have an article on how liberals are fat?" But yeah. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- Well, it looks like the essay hit a bit of a nerve. Sorry, that wasn't my intent. Very glad to know the essay seems acceptable to you, though. And I hope things get easier in the various situations described above. -Pete F 07:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- It doesn't matter regardless. The Arbitrators are the power structure of en.wiki and have the right to do whatever they want for any reason. For your info, I always seek permission before attending events, posting in certain areas, etc. because of the ban. So, you don't have any opposition from me on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- OK. -Pete F 04:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- The "trouble" on Commons was by an admin who blocked me for saying that a blatant pedophile should be banned on Commons and then he not only had to undo the block but he was deemed abusive for using a sitting Foundation Board Member's IRC cloak in order to gain permissions on IRC he had no right to have and used it to try and boot me from chat and intimidate me. On the mailing list, I quit because one of the users there was trying to use the list to call people for political action and I said it was inappropriate. Then as some sort of retaliation the one guy said that if I ever came back I would be on moderation. None of those actually mattered to the Arbitrators. You can read their conversation on Wikipedia Review in the ArbCom-l leaks. That was all just added later. On ArbCom-l one Arbitrator said I was worse than an admitted pedophile who used adminship to blatantly harass people (according to the ArbCom-l description), which shows how some of their claims really don't match reality. After all, I am an academic who writes a religion column, is prominent in politics, a leader in multiple civic organizations, etc., and everyone who met me irl at any meet-up preferred my company over most Wiki regulars. If I was really that awful, I wouldn't have had so much support or have Jimbo say I did a really good job as an admin at Wikiversity after my ban. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- What jumps out to me from looking at that ArbCom decision more closely, is that you've also had some troubles with Commons and a mailing list. Nothing fatal about that of course; but I think if a group were forming, or an outreach-oriented page were being formed, I'd want to have a clear demonstration that other people wanted you participating. Of course, the "Assume Good Faith" concept is always there; hopefully, if people involved with such pages had no direct or recent bad experiences interacting with you, they'd gladly work with you. So I don't think this should be cause for alarm. -Pete F 22:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- If you noticed, the original ban which was for one year and expected to last only 6 months was transformed by a later ArbCom without any new evidence of abuse on Wiki into an indefinite ban with the notion that "probation" or "restrictions" can equal "more ban". With such a radical change, it is obvious that it would never be lifted. I was given an email from one Arbitrator that I can forward you that says that there are 7 Arbitrators that will never want me unbanned no matter what and that the only way to be able to return is to have them removed. It is kinda funny for an individual who never had an RfC filed against them, had every block that year overturned, etc. to be treated that way, especially when the case was filed by myself because I was tired of being harassed. And yes, I was actually harassed - the admin in question sent out all of my personal details to people through email and even outed me publicly on the ArbCom case pages and yet wasn't even desysopped. It is so odd that one of the Arbitrators who wants me gone no matter what claimed that I "outed" a user by pointing out that he previous tried to have me indefinitely banned on a previous name while he was harassing me on my user talk page. I never released any real names or personal info, but alluded to a previous account that the Arbitrators all know was not a real name of his and that he was operating multiple socks and have been operating multiple socks for a long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
Cough
You said to ping you. Yet another IP. The guy doesn't understand that you can sock by jumping from IP to IP to try and hide your tracks (as can be seen from the linked SPI which has a lot of IP addresses used to get around blocks). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sue Table
Hi Pete, I was just trying to figure how to fill the table, you improved it a lot, but maybe I need a little more help: may I add a row with my opinion? or evryboby fill the same cell with checkmark and then Sue count fot this?? --Xaura 15:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC) (in my dummy_mood)Reply
- Hi Xaura, I am trying to figure it out as much as you are :) But I think it's a little different than you describe: each cell can get one checkmark, if anyone thinks that criterion is important. I believe Sue's hope is that, if people disagree about a certain cell, it will lead to a useful discussion on the talk page. It seems like a strange way to stimulate discussion, rather confusing, but potentially very effective! -Pete F 15:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- And, thanks for the compliment on the table improvement, glad to hear it helped! -Pete F 15:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
- OH! tht's why I cannot copy as I'm used to! If even you cannot figure how to fill the table I'll have to ask the boss herself!--Xaura 15:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Reply
Something is seriously wrong with the Wikipedia blocking policy
So someone who has a computer and internet access elsewhere, and can create a log in name that way, can edit on a Hillsborough County Public Library computer, but those who do not have those resources can't. Is that the right way for Wikipedia blocks to be enacted? Doesn't this favor those with resources and disenfranchise those without? This does not seem right to me.
Where is the evidence that there is more vandalizm from Hillsborough County Public Library computers than other large systems. I haven't see the evidence. A year ban for a county public library system with over one million people depending on it? 71.46.49.251 19:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Reply