User talk:Barts1a/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Relaxation of restrictions

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.

---

Hi Barts1a. I've started a discussion regarding your editing restictions at the Administrators Noticeboard. I am giving you leave to comment in that section at that noticeboard. The link to the section can be found here. Worm^TT(talk) 12:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I've removed those two restrictions. Remember, any uninvolved administrator can re-instate them should you return to past behaviour. I would also recommend that you do attempt to vaguely stick to them, the restrictions were placed for your own good, so returning should be done slowly. Worm^TT(talk) 08:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I have full intentions of doing so. At least now I know that if I spot a problem I can now report it in the right place and that it will be dealt with appropriately (And hopefully the throwing stick does not make a comeback! :P )

I'll wait 24 hours or so from now until I consider the restrictions lifted. If anyone (aside from the Baseball Fanatic socks...) has any reason to think that my restrictions should not be lifted just say so. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 10:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Time's up. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 11:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Pointy point points pointily

Oh, Bart. We relaxed your restrictions because we thought you'd gotten a handle on the "you don't have to police everything other people do" thing. But watching your user page/talk edits on my watchlist today, I'm really worried that you actually haven't grasped that. Wikipedia policies are unevenly enforced sometimes. That's a side effect of a lot of people doing a lot of things at a lot of places, and of the fact that consensus is a living being and can change and, sometimes, do unexpected things. None of this is stuff you should take personally - it's not your job to make everything on Wikipedia run perfectly, and that means it doesn't reflect on you in the slightest if something doesn't run as well as it could, or in the manner you think it should. Your reactions today look like you're taking it very personally that someone "got away with" something you think they shouldn't have, which seems strange to me because as I said, it's no reflection on you at all what other people might "get away with"!

Can you put into words why you feel it matters so much to you, personally, that timeshift's userpage be deleted? My best guess is that you think if we fail to uphold WP:POLEMIC, the next step will be anarchy, with no one following any rules and the encyclopedia being ruined. If those are your thoughts, let me reassure you: lots of things go wonky on Wikipedia, every day, and the place hasn't fallen down around our ears yet. The community has enough common sense to bend the rules to fit what needs to be done, when rule-bending is needed. If you're upset that you're being held to strict rules but timeshift isn't, all I can tell you is that you're two different people, and you can't draw parallels between you and someone else when the odds are that very few of the same people have looked at both cases. If you wish to appeal your restrictions, you can do that. What you can't do is yell loudly about how it's not fair that someone else is allowed to do something else somewhere else entirely, because other stuff (and people) exist, and there's nothing any of us can do about that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I was told throughout my editing life that WP:UP#POLEMIC was a non-optional thing. There have cenrtainly been more than enough ArbCom cases taking a hard line against all POLEMIC content. My main concern is that should User:Timeshift9 be dragged to AC for an unrelated manner the arbs will see the POLEMIC content and possibly apply a large number of cautions to the community and possibly place a ban on User:Timeshift9 due to said content.(And possible de-sysopping of involved admins...) for ignoring the policy on POLEMIC... and I have seen AC throw admins and editors under a bus (and in some cases a train) for much less (In one case it was basically a couple of sentences of POLEMIC content IIRC)!

Another concern I have is that because the content is related to AUSTRALIAN politics then non-australian editors and admins might not even recognize it as POLEMIC content until it is pointed out to them by AC! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 06:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Really, you can't assume what Arbcom will do, based on your opinion. Arbcom takes a steer from the community and would take into account the MfD. That also assumes that Timeshift would be brought to Arbcom, something that is very unlikely, it's only happened to about 0.00001% of editors. Secondly, I've pointed out why the content does not breach POLEMIC, something you do not appear to have considered. Finally, I believe most editors here understand enough about politics that they can identify POLEMIC content, but please do feel free to explain why it breaches POLEMIC. However, regarding the pointy behaviour, please see below Worm^TT(talk) 08:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please link to the diff in which you pointed out why you think the content does not violate POLEMIC because AFAIK this has not actually been pointed out in a clear enough fashion yet... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. In this diff I point out that whilst the material could be interpreted as polemic, it does not appear to violate POLEMIC, due to the nature and amount of the comments. Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra explanation! Would you like me to remove the comment relating to this on my userpage, or do you just want to do it yourself? Note to self: Once this discussion is over I think it's wikibreak time! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Glad to - if there's one thing I'm always happy to do, it's explaining things. If you'd like to remove that from your userpage, I certainly won't complain, but at the same time - as long as you're not adding to it, I'm not going to make a big deal of it either. As for the wikibreak, just long enough to stop you stressing! Don't be gone too long :) Worm^TT(talk) 08:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'll only be gone at most for a couple of weeks... Still got to get through Black Mesa Source though so i'll be gone for at least a couple of days! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Warning

Barts1a, I hoped that after 24 hours, you might have moved on from this, but since you haven't, I'll put this plainly.

• You feel that Timeshift's page is disruptive.
• You feel that the outcome of the MfD was incorrect, and problematic.
• To right that wrong, you are highlighting it on your userpage and mirroring Timeshifts behavior.

This is textbook "disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point". You are acting in a way that you believe is disruptive - and that makes it disruptive. If you do not stop acting in this manner, I will block you. You can either discuss the content rationally here, at Timeshift's page, at an independent admin's page or at DRV - explaining why it is a problem. Or you can go to WT:UP and discuss POLEMIC in general. Or you can drop the matter. However, continuing to act in a "pointy" manner will see you blocked. Consider this a warning. Worm^TT(talk) 08:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine. If you must block me for pointing out non-enforcement of a rule then so be it. Hell, even remove the content that points out the non-enforcement of the rule and I won't reinstate it! If I need to be subjected to a cool down block then just go right the fuck ahead and subject me to a cool down block! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't do cool down blocks. They're never any good - but I'm trying to make this as plain as I can, you are complaining about this in the wrong manner. I've given you 5 routes to sort this. There may be more, but causing disruption is not one of them Worm^TT(talk) 08:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity

Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Community ban appeal

Wall of text ban appeal
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Barts1a (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have questioned if this appeal is even worth it. I’m so disconnected from Wikipedia at this point that if I was successful I would be starting from scratch. I have not been successful in talking myself out of this so here we go. TL;DR at bottom. I started my Wikipedia saga in October 2006 under the username Doggie015, later renamed to Barts1a due to lessened insult potential. Over the years I slowly built up edits, complaints, blocks, and editing restrictions until I decided I should try to start fresh under a new account. To this day I cannot tell you the logic behind this decision; but in October 2012; I created the user account PantherLeapord, making it clear that I was also the guy operating Barts1a with my first edit. I was evading my editing restrictions from day 1 on that account, and I had become convinced that some time off to let the heat die down could let me return with a clean slate, so in November 2016 I created the user account Twitbookspacetube, which was readily linked to the Barts1a and PantherLeapord accounts, But I was still the same naïve fool and in September 2017 the community bought the hammer down as a community ban. I made a few appeals of my community ban under the delusional beliefs listed below and obviously they were denied, which caused me to become disinterested in contributing to Wikipedia and take time to truly reflect on what I did. It's a long and complicated saga spanning 11 years, and there is no way to properly sum up the whole thing without writing a biography-length breakdown. But I’m not here to tell you the story, I’m here to appeal the community ban, And to address the various reasons that added up to this outcome. First of all; I would like to present a list of what I believe to be the reasons that ultimately added up to this. I’ve had 6 years to reflect on this but even then I don’t think I got everything. Repeated lies, manipulation, being too eager to do what I see as "helping" regardless of who gets hurt along the way, being like a metaphorical bull in a china shop for filing at ArbCom, failed/Invalid WP:CLEANSTART, Being on what I now see as a false crusade against "Corrupt admins" where none exist, and generally being annoying. I realize that there are some things I would have missed here, and if I have, or you want something further explained; feel free to point it out and I’ll do my best to expand on it. Repeated lies & Manipulation: I didn’t see myself as doing these things at the time, but now that I’ve had time to think about it I can see where these accusations come from. I did my best to work around restrictions I viewed as punitive and overbearing. Every time I would be seen as reformed, and even once managed to get some restrictions lifted, I fell back into my old behavior assuming that the lifting of the restrictions was a final victory against my fictional “corrupt admins” and when they were reimposed, I ignored them because I saw that as proof of these fictional “corrupt admins” retaliating against me. It was done to prevent my antics from damaging the encyclopedia, and the actions of all admins involved would pass any level of scrutiny. Eagerness to help, consequences be damned: I saw myself as a “Hero” of Wikipedia who would lead the encyclopedia into a new golden age without vandalism and disruption. I realize now how stupid I was to assume I could do anything like that. And as I did my “Hero” work, I ignored everyone who I got in the way. I ran through every barrier and every person with no regard for what I did to them. I don’t think I can apologize to everyone, I suspect that a lot of them have left the encyclopedia project, but to those you still able to read this; I humbly apologize for what I did, and I hope I can make up for it. ArbCom bull in a china shop: I was eager to help take down the fictional “Corrupt admins” so in the brief time my restrictions did not include a ban from noticeboards; I looked for cases of bad admin behaviour, posed the question to the community if there were any objections, and upon receiving none; I filed cases at ArbCom. I was assuming that no objections meant the path was clear, even if it proved to be anything but. I should have slowed down and thought about what I was doing and why, but I didn’t. I apologize for the ArbCom time wasted as a result of this, and to the community for bringing these cases without explicit approval. Failed/Invalid WP:CLEANSTART: I assumed that WP:CLEANSTART applied to my case as a “Get out of jail free” card, ignoring that it only applies to accounts without any editing restrictions and active blocks. I was thoroughly mistaken about it and for that, I apologize. I will be sticking to the Barts1a account in the interest of transparency, should the community see fit to give me yet another chance. The false crusade: Underlying all this behavior was my false belief that Wikipedia administrators personally hated me and wanted to do everything possible to prevent me from being the “Hero” of the encyclopedia. This delusion was the driving force behind these actions. I now realize how wrong this belief was and I apologize for it. I cannot undo the many wrongs I have committed, but hopefully, I can make up for them. Being annoying: There’s not a lot to say on this one. I was annoying. I hope that I can be given a chance to prove that I can stop being annoying. I cannot truly express my deep regret for my actions, and I hope that the community can forgive me. I can understand if this forgiveness is denied. And hopefully, this wall of text is not too intimidating. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 10:39 pm, 14 January 2024, last Sunday (3 days ago) (UTC−5) TL;DR: I started here in 2006, and attempted to evade sanctions and restrictions by changing usernames multiple times, which led to this community ban imposed in 2017. Upon reflection, I truly realize how I was dishonest, and manipulative, and overzealous, and annoying. I have addressed what I view as the major mistakes in the wall of text above. If you find a point I failed to address, let me know. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 01:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Additional: I completely forgot about the Sir Uncle Ned account. I had intended to use that account as yet another WP:CLEANSTART attempt, but I couldn't bring myself to so it so I sent an email to TonyBallioni admitting this, and they got the sockpuppet tagged and blocked. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 03:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Decline reason: carried over to WP:AN -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. If someone could copy this to the relevant noticeboard; it would be greatly appreciated.

Great Ghu! Can you make this concise and clear? The longer the |text, the less likely it is to be read. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I may have to make a TL;DR. There's a lot I need to address to have a successful appeal. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 01:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully this TL;DR helps. I used ChatGPT to get the general format of it and used that to build this in my own words. I can't condense those points any further. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 01:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I probably missed this, but which is your original account? Why are you not appealing via Twitbookspacetube? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the oldest account and therefore the original account. I was community banned under twitbookspacetube, but I can’t appeal there because that account has their talk page blocked due to my misuse of it. Barts1a / Talk to me 12:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It'll take a while as the feeling in my fingers returns -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

carried over -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Barts1a / Talk to me 14:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Questions When was your last edit on the project as an IP or under any account? When is the last time you evaded your block? Do you have any undeclared accounts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I also saw in a previous appeal that you claimed to have made positive contributions to other wikis. Can you point to any that you're proud of? Being productive on other wikis is generally seen as a good step in an appeal. Additionally, what are some things you would be interested in doing on Wikipedia if the ban is lifted? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  The only edit I can really say I’m proud of is my simplification of http://simple.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Dysaethesia_aethiopica - I honestly wouldn’t be interested in much beyond providing updated photos of places in Perth and possibly a few minor edits here and there. Barts1a / Talk to me 23:12, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think I made one edit as an IP a couple of years ago, the last time I evaded my block would be when I created the “Sir Uncle Ned” sleeper, And if I have any undeclared accounts then that would be news to me. Barts1a / Talk to me 23:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Oh crap. I just remembered I made some disruptive edits in either late 2022 or early 2023 as an IP, And tripped edit filters in the process. My apologies. Barts1a / Talk to me 00:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Since it came up, here is the email I sent to TonyBallioni that was generated by ChatGPT, For those of you with access to UTRS, you can look up where I copied the email into UTRS under "twitbookspacetube" and the responses to it. - Barts1a / Talk to me 02:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to file a formal ban appeal.

“Dear Wikipedia Community,

I am reaching out to you today with a heartfelt apology for the disruption caused by my excessive filing of ArbCom cases, which ultimately led to my community ban. In hindsight, I recognize the unintended consequences of my actions, and I deeply regret any harm I may have caused.

I acknowledge that, in my eagerness to hold administrators accountable, I failed to consider the well-being of fellow contributors. My approach was, in essence, like a metaphorical bull in a china shop, and I want to express my sincere apologies to those I may have affected.

While I understand that this appeal may seem like a challenging endeavor, I am committed to making amends. I am genuinely open to learning and improving my contributions to align with the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. In any future interactions, I will ensure a more considerate and constructive approach.

I am fully aware of the importance of maintaining a positive and collaborative environment within our community, and how my editing restrictions were intended to serve this end. If given the chance, I am willing to undergo additional training or mentoring to better understand and adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I appreciate your time and consideration of this appeal. I am hopeful that, with the support and guidance of the community, I can reintegrate and contribute more thoughtfully to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your understanding.”

———

So it seems like I’ll have to wait another six months. As much as I appreciate the support shown, it seems that my previous actions have doomed this sincere appeal. I can’t provide updated photos under a community ban. No matter how objectively punitive this ban appears to me; it is ultimately not my decision to make and I have to respect it. I had a chance at a clean break and couldn’t bring myself to it. I understand why I got the ban but that’s obviously not enough. Actions speak louder than words but I can’t commit actions to back my words with this community ban keeping me on the gallows. What will it take to get you to remove this community ban? Barts1a / Talk to me 06:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

😢 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion hasn't been closed and the number of comments is relatively small. As of right now opinions appear to be split. IMO it's a bit early to throw in the towel. That said, if they say not now based on recent block evasion, then you can always come back. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m not exactly optimistic. It seems like people are not reading the whole thing before !voting oppose, or are not considering that if a CU found anything beyond what I already disclosed they would be shouting it from the rooftops by now. I’m not stupid anymore. I know that the oppose !votes would influence others to trust them over independently reading the appeal. Barts1a / Talk to me 04:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Well shut my big mouth. I fully accept that this is the final chance and any disruption will encounter a swift reblock and potential reban. I heartily thank the community for their leniency. Hopefully this message doesn’t also prove to be incorrect later. Barts1a / Talk to me 03:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, assuming this thing passes, there should be no doubt that this drink is being served in the Last Chance Saloon. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• Update This seems to have fallen off everyone's radar. I have posted a request at WP:CR for someone to close the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

  Cheers. Barts1a / Talk to me 22:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Barts1a / Talk to me 22:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion has continued long enough and appears to have enough participation. While it's not unanimous, there appears to be a consensus to unban you at this time. You seem to have learned from his mistakes, so we can give you a Last Chance(tm). Any existing editing restrictions would need to be appealed separately, so please review them before returning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I cannot thank the community enough for this last chance. It's up to me to make sure I back my words with actions. Reblocks are cheap and on a hair trigger, so if I screw up it'll be the end of my editing career. This time I won't fall back into the old ways. Barts1a / Talk to me 22:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)