User talk:Apteva/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Apteva. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Moving forward

It is pathetic that I keep getting comments like "try to work out why you were blocked and what the real problem is". The reason why I was blocked was to stifle useful contributions. The real problem is that Wikipedia is messed up. Make me an Admin and I will help fix that. Wikipedia has made a left turn when they should have kept on moving forward. You can see the drop in contributors starting in 2007. Wikipedia is no longer a fun place that welcomes everyone, and has been losing editors faster than we are gaining editors. We had a peak of 4800 active contributors who made more than 100 edits in a month, and are perhaps going to level off at only 3000. Not enough to fix the things that need to be fixed. A relatively constant 10% of editors who make over 5 edits, also make over 100 edits that month. But the percentage of edits made by active editors, those making over 100 edits a month, has declined to less than 1% of all edits, to about 1/3 of 1%. I was mentioned as "blatantly suggesting edits" while blocked. That is because those things need to be fixed. I am currently making a list offline of things to be fixed, which I will be fixing when I am unblocked, which can of course be done at any time by any administrator who recognizes that the need for the block never existed, and the conditions for the block - suggesting a review of that left turn that Wikipedia is on - no longer exists, as pointed out above in the unblock appeal. A recent review of errors that I noticed six months ago showed that only 20% had six months later been noticed and fixed by someone else. I will of course again submit an unblock appeal when that is appropriate, but no one needs to wait for that - indef blocks are just that - they can be for a minute, an hour, a day, a week - just until whatever caused them is resolved. I noticed the advice of one of our 100,000 plus edit contributors, about making suggested edits on talk pages of blocked editors, that of course they should be made if they are useful,[1] and our rules for talk pages and removing talk page access clearly need to be clarified so that we do not need to leave this point up to debate. Of course having a rule that everyone is instructed to ignore all rules is always interesting, and good luck enforcing that one.[2] I see that the most recent edit to that policy emphasizes that all blocked editors are required to either make a note of anything they see that needs to be fixed, or create a sockpuppet and fix it themself, if they are in fact willing to point out the issue, as even arbitration committee rulings are to be ignored if they result in preventing improving the encyclopedia.[3] Apteva (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Above, I said it didn't matter if you agreed that your behavior was problematic as long as you agreed to stop engaging in it, you replied Correct, and which I have. Can you elaborate on that? Am I interpreting you correctly—did you agree to stop some certain behavior? Can you point me to your statement that you would stop so we can see exactly what you agreed to stop/etc? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This is going to require a little research and I am pretty short on time right now, but will post when I dig it up. But in a nutshell an editor requested that I be blocked because I did not let them get away with using a two comma format for an article, and instead I asked for an RfC to decide the issue, an RfC that I recused myself from. They asked that I be blocked so that I would not be able to vote in it, which I was not going to anyway. They lost the RfC but renamed the article in their preferred manner anyway, even though the RfC requires a different format. I had been arguing that publishers prefer a particular format on a subject that I will not mention, and was blocked from bringing up the subject even though it is a perfectly valid suggestion, and the most comical result is that even the WMF (that is us) when they publish books, they change our formatting to normal formatting. Yet the rules here idiotically say not to use that format. I agreed to a one calendar year ban on anyone bringing up the subject, but was blocked just to make sure that I did not bring it up. I agreed to completely forget about any formatting issues and just fix non-controversial errors and that fell on deaf ears. Just today if you look above I dug up the date that Jimbo said the inimitable "paradox" of following the ignore all rules rule, not sure where it can be added, but adding the reference and date is useful. That is not an error, but an addition. I come across many useful additions and many errors, but can not address those in any manner that I know of. Someone said there is a blog somewhere that people have been using, and that seems useful, but should be linked to from the block page. Something like, if you are blocked, please list any errors or other issues that you can not contribute so that someone who is not blocked can. As an encyclopedia we certainly do not care where things come from, although we can not attribute any text that is created by someone else unless they do it themself, so that is an obvious limitation. So spelling errors could be listed, but not paragraphs of text that would be useful to add. If people did suggest paragraphs of text on their own talk page that would work, because that would provide the required attribution (when someone copied and pasted it somewhere else in the edit summary they would just provide the link to the diff that created it). We do not want to discourage or stop people from contributing by blocking them, we want to stop them from making the encyclopedia worse. If they want to make it better, we need to facilitate that. There is not really any rush in anyone unblocking me because I do not have much time available right now anyway. But it would be nice to be able to. Apteva (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agreed to completely forget about any formatting issues and just fix non-controversial errors and that fell on deaf ears.—Ok. I understand it's hard to find the exact date where you agreed to this, but do you remember if it was before or after you opened the 3rd move request at Talk:Vidalia,_Georgia,_micropolitan_area? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. In December 2012 there was a proposal that formatting of a type that I will not mention not be discussed until the end of 2013, a moratorium that I agreed to (the silly thing about a topic ban is you can not discuss what you are not talking about). That RM was opened because those were anomalies - we had a hundred articles named with a one comma format, and three with two commas and I was just making all of them the same. But a couple of weeks later I was discussing the format, something I would not do now. I opened an RfC to lay it to bed but stated that I would not be participating. The RfC was eventually closed in November 2013, choosing neither format, but a third format that was suggested during the course of the RfC. No one has gone through the hundred or so articles and rename them. It is one of the lowest priority tasks on the planet. It does bother me that we spend so much time on inane discussions, but the solution is not to block those who do, but to simply ignore them and go edit something else. That only becomes a problem when those arguments get resolved in idiotic manners, as was done with the issue that I agreed to a moratorium for 2013. When there is an actual naming authority that chooses names for things it is completely idiotic for us to even be discussing how those items should be named, yet there is one of those discussions going on right now in an RfC - common names of birds. I am not going to participate, but this would certainly qualify as a "lamest discussion", because common names of birds have a naming authority, and for us to even discuss how they should be named is completely lame. I basically progressively backed away from such discussions. Right now due to a lack of free time available for Wikipedia I would not be able to make many edits even if I was unblocked, but it would be nice to clean up some of the articles that have had errors for over a year that I have not been able to get to (this is an alternate account, and until I can use alternate accounts, there are things that I simply can not fix even if I was not blocked). I might make half a dozen edits a month instead of a thousand right now, but they are useful, non-contentious edits. I just discovered that data for Nellis is available for 2012 and I would add that, for example. My goal when unblocked is to take things easy for a very long time. Been there done that, got the t-shirt, now I just want to fix a few things that need to be fixed, and leave the discussions to others. Nothing has changed since my first edit, 10,000 edits ago. I feel sorry for anyone reading Wikipedia and seeing a spelling error or factual error, which is why I click edit and fix it. What has changed is I am not interested in being harassed for wanting to fix things that I think need to be fixed and someone else thinks they should be done differently. That I can leave up to others to sort out, and I will use whatever they decide. There was a point that I was so harassed that I did not even feel like editing anything. Fortunately though I never threw in the towel, like many others have. I appreciate your taking the time to ask, and remind you that any admin who was thinking of lifting the indef would need to at least attempt to discuss the block with the blocking admin, Beeblebrox, although they were an odd admin to administer the block, as they appear to have decided at some point that I was the worst editor they had run across and both proposed and implemented the indef. Normally if someone proposes an action, they would leave it up to someone else to implement, unless it was completely cut and dried, and they were a new admin who had never blocked anyone and wanted to see if they were doing the right thing. You want to eliminate emotion and make decisions rationally, which is hard to do if you are really mad at someone. That was a point that I would have hoped that Arb would have noticed. I actually have no idea what caused them to form that negative opinion, as I have not had any interaction with them that I can recall. Apteva (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I see one interaction. "Disruptive editing: Using email to send me a long manifesto of condescending tripe". Evidently they really do not like getting email. But removing email privileges is certainly not the way to deal with that - just tell me that they do not like getting e-mail. I actually rarely use email and have it only on this alternate account so that if I become an admin people have a way of contacting me. But it is also useful for other purposes, such as requesting oversight, and I have used it several times for that. But it is not something that I would really ever have any use for from my primary account. Apteva (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the answer to my question is that you agreed to stop before starting the RM in question, but I can't tell—despite writing at length it almost seems like you didn't even answer the question. I'm going to assume the answer is before—please correct me if I am wrong. Here's the thing. I get it that "try to work out why you were blocked" is not satisfying or helpful. I believe you are operating in good faith here, and from your point of view I can understand why you think all of this is inane. However, the fact remains that many here consider your style of dispute resolution to be quite disruptive. It actually doesn't matter at all if you agree with this. It doesn't matter if you understand why they find it disruptive. It doesn't even matter if it is in fact disruptive. The bottom line is that you have a way of doing things that gets people quite riled up, and you need to stop if you want to edit here. Even if its everyone else who should change and not you, it's still the case that you need to stop if you want to keep editing here. You don't need to agree that you are disruptive, you don't need to apologize or admit you were wrong, you don't need to agree that you are the one who needs to change and not everyone else, you just need to change this style of resolving disputes. The immediate cause of this block is that you started an RM shortly after one that you participated in was closed in the way you didn't want. That is a taste, albeit a small one, of the dispute resolution style that I am referring to. Even after you had been told, many times, that this style wasn't working out for the rest of the community here. Then this—violating your ban and again continuing to argue about dashes. The behavior that I'm referring to, that has to stop, was continuing despite really extraordinary efforts to get you to change it. Does this make more sense than "try to work out why"? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think stating "The reason why I was blocked was to stifle useful contributions." is helping you in the slightest.--Maleko Mela (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That is my honest assessment of why I was blocked. If someone thinks that is why they were blocked that is what I would want them to say. But that is neither here nor there. The reason I was blocked is because someone wanted me to be blocked. It is not possible for them to have a legitimate reason to want me blocked at this time. I want to add a dozen numbers to the Nellis article, and I simply can not see any reason for blocking anyone from doing that. Until they are added the article is missing vital information. Apteva (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

But as pointed out above it is far less important that someone understand why they were blocked than to know that they are not going to repeat the actions that caused them to be blocked. All blocks are preventative, and if we know that the action that caused the block is not going to be repeated, the block is removed. The actions that caused the block dealt with issues of deciding how things should be formatted, and as stated, I have been there, done that, and have the t-shirt. Now I just want to go back to editing, just like every other editor who has never made even one edit. Apteva (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you have Erik's ear right now and I don't want to interrupt further. As an Admin is currently discussing this with you I think you are in good hands and will let you continue. Hopefully, happy editing in the future.--Maleko Mela (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Mark is making a really important point here: in appealing your block, statements like The reason why I was blocked was to stifle useful contributions really torpedo your request. They are a really good way to get anyone to immediately decline. Again, no comment here on whether that reaction is reasonable, it's just the way it is: I've seen a number of unblock requests and this seems like a consistent pattern: that kind of statement = "decline". I would encourage you to instead dispassionately focus on what you would do differently if unblocked. You are probably right that I ought to discuss with Beeblebrox/etc first, so I can't make any guarantees, but I think if you promised to approach every dispute on Wikipedia by limiting yourself to one comment and then under no circumstances re-opening any kind of "closed" issue that progress might be made here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Words can barely express how overjoyed I am to have been pinged in this discussion. It's so refreshing to see that you have owned up to your past errors, and furthermore are not blatantly misrepresenting the series of events that led to your banning. And you have been perfectly honest and upfront about the fact that BASC declined an appeal from you barely a week ago. Oh wait, none of that happened, you are still blaming others, self-agfrandizing, and not bothering to get your facts straight before speaking.

Why did you ping me, exaclty? I'm not sure what you hoped to accomplish by that. For the record:

I don't mind getting emails, I get them all the time. What I do mind is getting long condescending lectures from self important people who drone on and on, oblivious to the fact that literally nobody agrees with them.
I did not implement anything that I personally proposed, but even if I had there was a very strong consensus for blocking you. This was noted by placing this diff [4] in your block log.
While I recused myself from voting in the the BASC discussion about you Iwas still aware of it and consider what you are doing to be blatant forum shopping.

I don't believe I have anything else to add and will not be watching this talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to inadvertently ping someone; it's not clear to me anyway that poking you was intentional here. But wait, what do you mean BASC declined an appeal? What was the point of unblocking the user page if it wasn't to allow Apteva to make a request here? If there was forumshopping going on or this appeal is a misuse of the conditions of the talkpage being unblocked or something I would like to know more. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That is true, it was an inadvertent ping, and the link was done because you can not really name someone without adding a link. I did want to make certain that no one unblocked me without giving B the courtesy of discussion. It is true that many admins look for things like "it wasn't me" to decide whether to unblock, but those statements are irrelevant. What is important is what is the editor going to do moving forward? We want everyone to help us build the encyclopedia. We never wish to exclude anyone, and always have a vested interest in working with anyone who has been causing problems to help them learn how to contribute productively. I asked an experienced admin if they wanted to mentor me, and they declined. Maybe Erik would be willing to help me learn how to contribute productively. I would like to move towards being another editor with no restrictions, just like any other. I am perfectly willing to do the above suggestion, but will want it to go away eventually, not so that I can participate more than once, not so that I can re-open a closed discussion, but so that there are no restrictions on what I do. I honestly have a hard time seeing how anyone remembers what 10,000 restrictions there are on various editors. But I have no interest in either participating in any discussions or in opening any discussions, let alone re-opening them. I am only interested in fixing errors and adding content. There are plenty of others who can do the discussions, and I will simply use the results in knowing how to edit. I appreciate B from recusing themself from the BASC appeal, as that was appropriate, and it reinforces my impression of B, as a perfectly reasonable editor. The first interaction that I recall was when they proposed a one calendar year moratorium on formatting in a manner that I can not mention, a moratorium that I thought was completely reasonable and that I agreed to. I recently noted that Arb lifted a block "so that they could vandalize" and were quickly re-blocked. I appreciate ARB for giving them a chance, and that is what ARB is for - to appeal any decision that anyone thinks is unreasonable. As I have very little time available right now, unblocking now is moot, but it still would be nice, and would result in a small number of edits, such as adding the 2012 data to the Nellis article.

The bottom line, is that I have dug myself into a hole, and would like to get some help getting out. This is not an unblock request - that will come at an appropriate time. This is though, an outline of what I would do if unblocked, and all existing restrictions removed (and replaced with the restriction to not comment more than once in a discussion or re-open a closed discussion): Make a small number of non-controversial corrections and additions. Apteva (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This is what I would like to know. These two users seem to have followed me around making negative comments about the contents of my user page [5] [6], and yet I have never heard of either one of them before. They don't seem to be bothering other editors in similar circumstances. So what do they have in common? Your talk page. [7] What have you been telling them about me? —Neotarf (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. I have not been telling anyone about anything if I can help it and certainly do not recall saying anything about you to anyone. Wbm1058 I know fairly well because they are a frequent contributor at RM, Incnis Mrsi I have little information about although I have seen them from time to time. I would not call that a negative comment about your user page, just a notification that a template was being used inappropriately. What caused them to see it in March 2013 and July 2013 I have no idea, but that is a very long time ago now. Apteva (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There has been some more recent activity as well, but as before, nothing pertaining to the other editors. Who have you discussed this with more recently? Perhaps someone is taking your remarks the wrong way. —Neotarf (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The answer is the same. No I have not discussed this. If you are concerned you can invoke "the right to disappear" and have your account anonymized. Apteva (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Question

This is a two part question. First, what do I have to do to get unblocked, and second, what do I have to do to have all editing restrictions removed? There are four. Blocked/prohibited from using alternate accounts/prohibited from using email/prohibited from discussing "the letter Q". Each can be addressed separately, or as a group. Obviously there is a lot that I would be able to contribute that I can not now, because of these four restrictions. Theoretically blocks and restrictions are only imposed to protect the encyclopedia, but in fact the sole function of all four is to hurt the encyclopedia, prohibiting quality edits, and nothing else. Apteva (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

May

During the last year, Wikipedia has added 300,000 articles, and lost 290 very active editors (who made over 100 edits per month), and 2200 active editors (who made over 5 edits per month). Wikipedia is not writing itself. Many of those "articles" are redirects and stubs, but all of them require maintenance. Wikipedia has more readers than a year ago, but less active editors. This is not a good trend. The reason that I want to have all restrictions removed, is so that I can be one of those active editors. This is an alternate account. Even with this account unblocked, I would not be able to update hundreds of vital articles until the restriction on using alternate accounts is removed. The reason we allow alternate accounts is because they are necessary. There are several reasons for this, but mostly for testing and privacy or security. Alternate accounts have never been abused by this editor, so it is important to remove that restriction, so that those hundreds of articles can be updated. One of the edits that I would do, if I was unblocked, is add the letter "f" to a file name. It is marked as a dead link, but the extension is simply missing the last letter. It is a pdf, and the f is missing, but instead of it being added, it was marked as a dead link.

I see that many bird names have been renamed, which is a shame - "what is written is less regarded than the style it's written in". Birds actually have a naming authority, and it is more than bizarre to choose to make up our own names in an encyclopedia, instead of using the correct bird names. It is somewhat comical to see that "a sock of a blocked user" initiated one of the move requests. Does this mean that their edits are valued or relished? When Wikipedia started, the original advice was to capitalize all species names, which is done for some, and is done for all common names of birds, and then someone noticed this was goofy, and for a long time there was insistence by the bird lovers that bird names really are capitalized, but has now reverted to only proper names. Sigh. Bird names are proper names. But as I have often stated, I follow all guidelines and policies, even when I disagree with them. In this case I would likely if asked about an article about a bird name, say, well the actual name is "Crowned Crane", but we call it a "crowned crane". If asked why, I would only be able to say, "because we are stupid". After all isn't most of Wikipedia written by 5th graders? It is more than comical to see a sentence that says so and so calls them the "crowned crane", and then look up the cited reference and see that it says no such thing, but instead says "Crowned Crane". ("Each of the two Crowned Crane species") Apteva (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

". This is an alternate account. "

Please tell us clearly: are you operating an alternate account at this time, despite your block? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No. I am not making any edits and will not until I am unblocked. This is not my primary account. I have created many articles with my primary account that I can not edit until the restriction of using alternate accounts is lifted. Many of those articles have not been updated in a year and a half now, because of that restriction, and now show information that is a year and a half old, as no one else is updating them, and it is inexcusable to not allow me to update them. Many of the articles that were created by this account have not been updated in the year since I have been blocked. The articles that are more in need of updating are the ones that I would be editing from my primary account. The only edits that I make from this account are RCP, RM, and solar. This account was created for the purpose of becoming an admin and to make edits that I could not make from my primary account. Obviously the converse is true - I can not make edits from this account that would be made from my primary account, which is why those articles languished for six months while I continued to update the solar articles. NB: Sockpuppetry would only apply if I was using two accounts to participate in the same discussion in order to make it appear that more than one person was taking that position. I have never done that and never will do that. I only use alternate accounts in a manner that is allowed. The reason we allow them is they are required. Apteva (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

An unblocked editor can edit any article from any account. There are no restrictions (other than individual topic bans). It is most rare for an alternate account to be permitted, simply to edit a different area of interest (it does happen, but very rarely).

This is your primary account. You don't have any other accounts. You had another account once, as I recall, but it was indef blocked as an unnecessary alternate account. You have given no valid reason to restore it. There is no need for it, simply to edit a different set of articles.

Blocks are also (in general) applied to the person, not the account. Any personal blocks you have (as at present) apply equally to all accounts.

As you have no other accounts, this becomes your primary account. Disputing this is seen as a wasteful disruption on your part. WP does not recognise your reasoning or justification here, and your continual advocacy in its favour was long ago seen as tendentious and disruptive. Your best route to having any account is to accept that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Not true. This is an alternative account, and there are many edits that I can not make until I have access to my primary account restored. I may, though, create another primary account, but it will not be this one. I edit an article on blue widgets from my primary account. I can not edit them from this account due to privacy issues. When access to alternate accounts is restored, I will once again be able to edit articles about blue widgets. In the mean time the articles on blue widgets are getting out of date and in need of updating, as the slack has not been picked up. Calling this "my only account" or "by default my primary account" is simply a lack of understanding of how alternative accounts work. They are not a replacement, they are essential. Apteva (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"Calling this "my only account" or "by default my primary account" is simply a lack of understanding of how alternative accounts work."

One of us is insane. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Not likely. Alternative accounts are created to edit things that can not be edited from your primary account, or at times that you can not use your primary account. I have a lot of things that I would like to edit, that I would do if the restrictions were removed. That is all that I am asking, that I have the same restrictions as everyone else. As in "none". I will use this account for the things that I can do from here, and I will use my primary account for the things that I can not do from this account. But no, this is not my primary account, and restricting me to one account does not make this my only account, it just means that until the restriction is removed I am partially but not completely blocked. The edits still need to be made. Who is going to make them? Apteva (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

"An unblocked editor can edit any article from any account" That is categorically false. While it is theoretically true, due to several reasons, it can not be done in practice. In my case it is because of privacy, but it could just as well be for security, for example not wishing to log into a secure account from an unsecure network. We allow alternative accounts because they are necessary, and I have a specific need that can not be met other than by using an alternative account. Of the two accounts that I primarily use, I would be happy to flip back and forth between them once a month, but that is a little silly. What that would do though, is keep each set of articles no more than two months out of date. Right now the articles that I would be editing from the primary account are now about a year and a half out of date. Some of them have had some edits made, but many have a lot of things that still need to be updated - and some are relatively highly traffic. Suggesting that I edit them from this account is simply not going to happen. I can not give up my anonymity. Apteva (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What is undeniable is that I do thousands of quality edits on subjects that I can not edit from this account, and will not be able to get back to editing them until I either create a new account or simply go back to the same account that I have been using. It only hurts the project to keep the one account restriction in place for me. That is not a restriction that anyone else has other than for very specific reasons. I just need to be treated just like every other editor, and have the same restrictions that every other editor has. Apteva (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There is an unfortunate edit[8] which changed the heading of the discussion of bird capitalization from a neutral heading to a biased heading, which is both prohibited, and makes a search for the discussion fail. I would recommend reverting this edit. The correct way to do this, since no edits can be made in an archive, is to unarchive it[9], revert that edit, add a plain text alternate title "Common name bird decapitalization", and then re-archive the section. However, it is a bit messy to just undo the archiving, because it was archived into two archives, 156 and 157. The closed discussion was archived into Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 156. Whether manually unarchiving it will allow the above edit to be reverted is to be determined. In any case it should be manually put back into the same archive (156) after the edit is made, instead of creating yet another duplicate in the archives. Apteva (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I advise strongly against you attempting to unarchive a closed discussion. I would advise anyone against this, but especially you. I have never seen you demonstrate the political and WP competence to achieve such a thing without causing annoyed chaos, with repercussions upon yourself.

If you really wish to do this, and if you're unblocked to permit it, then I would advise instead simply starting it as a new discussion thread and linking to the old thread in its archive. Possibly quoting short points from it, at most. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not understand the question. This is a discussion that ran from April 4 to April 25 and was closed on May 1. It runs almost 64,000 words and 461,000 bytes. There is no possible way that anyone can rename the section heading of a closed discussion, for many reasons, yet this is what was in fact done on May 3. That is what needs to be reverted. The process of fixing something that has already been archived is a little bit complicated, but it is pretty straightforward. First it is unarchived, the correction is made on the talk page, and then it is restored to the archives. Anyone can do that, but it is important to not get tripped up and accidentally create duplicate archives (MOS talk archives already have examples of this) or leave something out of the archives. This is not an issue of "starting a new discussion". It is simply a matter of correctly archiving a closed discussion, with the heading that it had while it was being discussed. Apteva (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As to my own archiving skills I have no idea what your concern is, as there is nothing to worry about there. I have many times set up, repaired, added navigation, and adjusted archiving, and am not aware of anyone ever having any issue with anything that I have done. If they did it was a lack of understanding of archiving on their part, not mine. Apteva (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that editors have confused the word "title" in the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles. Article titles are determined by the WP:AT policy. The page MOS/Titles exists to show how to indicate the title of a work within a page, not how to title an article about that work. All of that page that refers to the naming of a article title needs to be moved to WP:AT and its sub-pages. Apteva (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

July

Maybe another 300 edits. I have been mostly working on translations, and they are very slow, so some days I am only able to make one edit. Who knew there was a language called "Sinhala" that is the primary language for 16 million people, but has barely over 11,000 articles? Apteva (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

June

June was a pretty good month. I did about 500 edits, and learned how to create SVG bar, line, and pie charts - and how to translate them within the same file into any language. Unfortunately this has been of little to no benefit to the English Wikipedia, because I have no way of pointing them out or replacing outdated charts with new ones. To do this, I need to have all restrictions removed. Just as if I was a new editor. To that end. I am making another unblock request, as I believe it is more than warranted. I have zero interest in discussing anything that anyone wanted me blocked for. I only wish to do things that are completely non-controversial, and completely of benefit. Apteva (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

This block has outlived its usefulness. I have no interest in performing any action that led to the block, and am only interested in making non-controversial positive contributions. Most importantly, I need the freedom to use my primary account. This is an alternative account, and I can do some things from it, but many things I can not do from this account. Apteva (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As a previously uninvolved admin I have spent some long time ploughing through this entire thread. I cannot any previous instance in which a blocked editor appeared so unable for so long and in the face of so many adverse comments to recognize the degree of disruption his editing had caused. An understanding and recognition of this is necessary as a pre-requisite for unblock. As a separate issue, and given that both are equally anonymous (unless either uses your real name) are you prepared to tell us the name of your primary account? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:52, 10 July 2014 (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.

Done "An understanding and recognition of this is necessary as a pre-requisite for unblock."

Listen, I fully understand that some people have called it disruption, and what it was, but it clearly was never disruptive. I was simply pointing out an error, adnauseum. Nothing wrong with that and users must always be encouraged to do that. Otherwise we portray inaccurate information to users. The latest debacle is bird names. Bird names are established by the Ornithologists, and they have a "quirky" way of using all capital letters. It was a disaster to recently rename all of the bird names to common names instead of anywhere indicating the actual name of the bird. You end up with goofy things like "Ross's gull", which in the references is called "Ross's Gull". I fully understand that there are "Soup Nazi's" who simply want to control how Wikipedia is presented, no matter how goofy their choices are. That is not why I am here. I am here just to make non-controversial changes - like correcting spelling, adding images from commons, things that absolutely no one disagrees with, and are valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. Others can work things out with the "Soup Nazi's". I am not interested in that issue. I can note that it is a problem, but that is not why I am here, and not a subject that interests me. It is a subject that affects me, and all users, and hopefully wiser heads will prevail in the future, and the MOS will be cleaned up to 1) remove all article title suggestions (those belong in WP:AT) 2) remove all suggestions for good writing - those belong in essays, not in guidelines. But someone else will have to do that - that is not a task that interests me. As to telling you the name of my primary account, I will create a new account for that purpose, as both of the accounts that I have been primarily using are not appropriate for that purpose. The problem comes in with editing renewable energy templates, which require edits from both accounts, as they are used by both accounts, so to solve that problem, a third and new account will be used for them.
- So in summary:
  - Yes I understand the "problems" I caused (pushed someone's button and triggered a 500,000 byte discussion on whether I was causing a problem - trust me, if it takes that long to decide - it was never a problem)
  - No I am not going to continue that behavior
As such there is absolutely no reason for me to not be unblocked. None. This is what I am going to do when I am unblocked. Growth of photovoltaics has a table that says 2008 at the top, and 2009 at the bottom. Both can not be correct. No one can disagree that that is a valuable edit. And will anyone else do it? Maybe, eventually. It has been like that since 2012. I never noticed it until now. Will anyone else notice it? And if they do, will they click edit? We likely have over 1,000 times more viewers than editors. The other 999 see errors but do not want to or are chased away by the "Soup Nazi's" from fixing things. How many other indef editors can make useful contributions? Probably a lot. We used to have about 4000 very active editors, and have less than 3000 today. Each year we have more readers and less editors. We are simply doing something seriously wrong, that has since April 2007 discouraged, instead of encouraged editing. We need to change that. Now. Apteva (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As to the comment on User_talk:Anthony.bradbury, "Certainly if he is ever unblocked, which currently is of low probability, it will need to be on the basis of a single account restriction". First, that is "he or she" thank you. "Its identity" is perfectly acceptable. Using a gender is not. Second, absolutely not. We allow alternate accounts because they are necessary, and they just as necessary to me as anyone else - or more so. I have never abused alternative accounts, and only used them in a necessary manner. It may not be a secret to some people what other account I am using, but Wikipedia has many millions of users, and I can categorically guarantee that it is a secret to the vast majority of them. And publishing it here or anywhere is a violation of my privacy. That is another reason why I need to switch to a new primary account. And third, I am only blocked on English WP, I am not blocked anywhere else, and I continue to make thousands of valuable edits - the English WP could take advantage of, but only because of not being unblocked here, can not. That needs to be rectified. I urge you to reconsider, and unblock me. I can actually promise that I will not be making more than about 10 English WP edits during August, because I am busy with other things. But WP will benefit from those few edits. Which means, per WP:IAR, I must be unblocked. Apteva (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users (see Purpose and goals below). Any user may report disruption and ask administrators to consider blocking a disruptive account or IP address (see Requesting blocks).

It is clearly demonstrated that I am not going to damage or disrupt WP, and therefore there is no reason for me to be blocked. Yes I would be blocked if I picked a fight over any number of things, but no I am not going to do that. All I am going to do is make necessary edits. Apteva (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Anthony Bradbury - could you please review this again? Obviously the reason for the block is now ancient history, and no longer applies. I will not repeat the actions that caused the block, and will simply go on to make useful, productive edits, that everyone will be glad that I am making. Obviously I understand the reason for the block. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)