After many years of constructive editing, I was accidentally blocked 5 years ago when I created a new account, which drove me mad. See discussion above this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=574382876&oldid=574380296. I request a restoration of my editing privileges. Time has passed, and my activities and experiences in that time have affected me, and I have grown up. Time is also important as I was originally blocked as a vandal by mistake, and I found it hard to forgive the confusion. 3 years ago I realised I was still too emotionally involved, and excited. Now I forgive, and more or less forget, and feel ashamed that I behaved badly. I also see that the guidance concerning IP, and Checkuser blocks, and other blocks has much improved since then :) I am sorry that I got so worked up, obsessive, and that I was disruptive. Now I feel calm, I can control myself, and I would like to edit again. When I see something wrong, I want to correct it, when something is missing, sometimes I like to research it, and enrich the world's knowledge. I created An Oak Tree a long time ago. I would like to create entries for David Bainbridge (b. 1941), Michael Baldwin (b. 1945) and Harold Hurrell (b. 1940), co-founders of Art & Language I didn't want to address the specifics, as it was very painful for me, but I try. I realise that I lost control, forgot how to behave, and made a bit of a mess. I thought I was trying to improve the project, but I confused it with personal disputes. Most importantly, I think, I didn't back off, and became fixated with the idea that I needed to edit wikipedia then, defend my good name, not step back, not take a break, not let things calm down. I constructively edited wikipedia for many years before I was first blocked as a vandal, out of the blue, by mistake, by an administrator who later became a checkuser. This made it impossible to get the block overturned. He refused to do so, and refused to unblock me or apologise. I didn't understand why, what was happening, and it was a difficult period in my life, and due to impatience, ignorance and immaturity I became obsessed, and lost it. I now realise the importance of keeping calm, and taking steps away. I had already some resentment that Ip editors were treated badly, the newspapers were full of stories that people were put off editing wikipedia, and I felt I should try to campaign. I confused this with a content dispute regarding what I perceived as censorship, and went right off. My original block occured because a vandal used a prior Ip address I had used for years previously, that I linked to this account (with other Ip addresses and user names) , and a user, who later became a Checkuser, was confused, and I did not realise why nobody else would review his block, because I had no understanding of what a checkuser meant. This frustrated me, and sent me a little crazy. When the block was eventually lifted by the Checkuser whose page the administrator had been watching (he refused to do it himself), it seemed to me that nobody believed that a checkuser could make such mistakes, and people claimed he knew bad things about me because of his status. I wanted to clear my name, took it far too much to heart, and too personally, could not see who was acting in good faith, attacked everyone, and at the same time I had an exaggerated idea of the importance of editors being able to edit without being caught up in anti-vandalism actions. I felt caught in a Kafkaesque nightmare. One of the editors repeated this mistaken claim in ANI, and I got this ban for arguing about it, and for how I argued. Being right, and fixing what seemed to me then a broken system, seemed so important that I declined partial bans, was a nightmare, lost sight of the merits compromise. I was used to arguing about content, and sources, but totally unused to ANI, and such politics, I took the provocations, it was horrible, it felt awful. I realised that I was being judged on my conduct, but it seemed so hard to avoid the content of the discussions, not to argue, to insist on being right, rather than walking away. Thats why I left this completely alone for 3 years. Now I feel calm, I can control myself, and I would like to edit again. When I see something wrong, I want to correct it, when something is missing, sometimes I like to research it, and enrich the world's knowledge. I am mature, stable, believe in the project, and I have no intention, or desire, to get in such a horrible situation again. I know that this reads a bit still as if I am angry about the original accidental ban, but I am not. I write about it because due to it I felt trapped in an extreme situation that pushed my behaviour over the edge. I have matured, am a better person, argue less, understand the points of view of others better, and am calmer and wiser. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)14:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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).
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.
Dear Yamla thank you very much for responding to my request. I did not mean just that time has passed, but how my activities and experiences in that time affected me, and how I have grown up. Time is also important as I was originally blocked as a vandal by mistake, and I found it hard to forgive the editor who made the mistake. 3 years ago I realised I was still too emotionally involved, and excited. Now I forgive, and more or less forget.
I am sorry that I got so worked up, obsessive, and that I was disruptive.
I didn't want to address the specifics, as it was very painful for me, but I try.
I realise that I lost control, forgot how to behave, and made a bit of a mess. I thought I was trying to improve the project, but I confused it with personal disputes. Most importantly, I think, I didn't back off, and became fixated with the idea that I needed to edit wikipedia then, defend my good name, not step back, not take a break, not let things calm down.
I constructively edited wikipedia for many years before I was first blocked as a vandal, out of the blue, by mistake, by an administrator who later became a checkuser. This made it impossible to get the block overturned. He refused to do so, and refused to unblock me.
I didn't understand why, what was happening, and it was a difficult period in my life, and due to impatience, ignorance and immaturity I lost it.
I had already some resentment that Ip editors were treated badly, the newspapers were full of stories that people were put off editing wikipedia, and I felt I should try to campaign. I confused this with a content dispute regarding what I perceived as censorship, and went right off.
My original block occured because a vandal used a prior Ip address I had used for years previously, that I linked to this account (with other Ip addresses and user names) , and a user, who later became a Checkuser, was confused, and I did not realise why nobody else would review his block, because I had no understanding of what a checkuser meant. This frustrated me, and sent me a little crazy. When the block was eventually lifted by the Checkuser whose page the administrator had been watching (he refused to do it himself), it seemed to me that nobody believed that a checkuser could make such mistakes, and people claimed he knew bad things about me because of his status.
I wanted to clear my name, took it far too much to heart, and too personally, could not see who was acting in good faith, attacked everyone, and at the same time I had an exaggerated idea of the importance of editors being able to edit without being caught up in anti-vandalism actions.
I felt caught in a Kafkaesque nightmare.
One of the editors repeated this mistaken claim in ANI, and I got this ban for arguing about it, and for how I argued.
Being right, and fixing what seemed to me then a broken system, seemed so important that I declined partial bans, was a nightmare, lost sight of the merits compromise.
I was used to arguing about content, and sources, but totally unused to ANI, and such politics, I took the provocations, it was horrible,
it felt awful. I realised that I was being judged on my conduct, but it seemed so hard to avoid the content of the discussions, not to argue, to insist on being right, rather than walking away.
Thats why I left this completely alone for 3 years.
Now I feel calm, I can control myself, and I would like to edit again.
When I see something wrong, I want to correct it, when something is missing, sometimes I like to research it, and enrich the world's knowledge.
I am mature, stable, believe in the project, and I have no intention, or desire, to get in such a horrible situation again.
I know that this reads a bit still as if I am angry about the original accidental ban, but I am not.
I write about it because due to it I felt trapped in an extreme situation that pushed my behaviour over the edge.
I have matured, am a better person, argue less, understand the points of view of others better, and am calmer and wiser.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)23:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wise words given to a blocked editor: This absolute adherence to the idea that your interpretation of the rules is paramount and everyone else's input is merely an obstacle to overcome is an accurate summary of how you ended up in this position. Basaliskinspect damage⁄berate 4 August 2013
Thank you for your tolerance. Please correct my mistakes if they bother you.
I am investing my time with the aim of increasing human knowledge.
This makes the first barnstar that I can recall giving to an IP contributor in three years. Good job keeping a level head and working toward a compromise when someone (I guess that would be me) immediately assumed you were attempting to push a POV on Jewish Terrorism. I don't know if you have registered an account with Wikipedia, but if you haven't... I hope you do. Trusilver08:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user supports the right of anonymous users to edit Wikipedia.
Put new messages at the bottom of this page.
I may reply here, so watchlist this page, if you leave a post.
Editing tips for new editors
Conduct
Stay polite and reasonable, and if you mess up, let the other person know you're a new editor, so they understand it's not deliberate. Avoid battles and serial reversions or you'll get a block: see WP:3RR. Leave it for a bit and work on something else instead.
Learn from others
See how other people interpret things, and also what other people are doing wrong, so you can avoid it. Check out WP:AN/I and WP:AFD to get an idea of how things are viewed.
Content
Never put your own knowledge, views or analysis in an article. Everything has to come from a sound published source. First of all find a good source—something mainstream, not a blog or a fan site. See what it says and use that information, but paraphrase it: never copy and paste. Then put in a reference to show where the information came from. Referencing is key to good editing. You should be especially careful when adding material about living people.
Coding
Some of the coding (mark up) on Wiki is difficult, or other things like categories might not be easy to work out. Find another article similar to the one you're working on, click the edit button, then copy the relevant code, categories, stub notice or whatever, and paste it into your own article, changing the text where necessary. You can also do this for the coding for images (NB no need to specify "right": that's the default). There's a row of useful buttons above the edit box (highlight the text, then click the button) and various options below it.
Study articles
It is also a very good idea to study existing articles to see how they are written, the tone used, the headings and references etc, but make sure you look at one that's done well. The highest standard is a featured article: check some out.
Starting a new article
It's best to get experience before you do this. However, the first thing is to make sure the subject is notable. This means that it has to be written about in existing sources (see "Content" above). To be on the safe side, prepare it in a user sub-page (aka sandbox), where it will be safe, and get an experienced editor to check it out before uploading it to the main encyclopedia (aka article space).
User sub-pages
You can create extra pages from your user page. Type:
[[User:Tyrenius/Draft]]
on your user page or talk page. Then click the red link to start the page. Obviously replace "Tyrenius" with your own user name. You can change "Draft" to any title you prefer. You can create several such pages for different purposes.
Your own reference store
Make your own reference store of all the things you find useful—coding, templates, links to useful pages, names of editors you might want to consult etc. You can do this on your user page or create a sub-page for it.
If you want your edits to last and your articles to be kept, the key is to reference them. You can put the guide below on your user or talk page by pasting:
Stay polite and reasonable, and if you mess up, let the other person know you're a new editor, so they understand it's not deliberate. Avoid battles and serial reversions or you'll get a block: see WP:3RR. Leave it for a bit and work on something else instead.
Learn from others
See how other people interpret things, and also what other people are doing wrong, so you can avoid it. Check out WP:AN/I and WP:AFD to get an idea of how things are viewed.
Content
Never put your own knowledge, views or analysis in an article. Everything has to come from a sound published source. First of all find a good source—something mainstream, not a blog or a fan site. See what it says and use that information, but paraphrase it: never copy and paste. Then put in a reference to show where the information came from. Referencing is key to good editing. You should be especially careful when adding material about living people.
Coding
Some of the coding (mark up) on Wiki is difficult, or other things like categories might not be easy to work out. Find another article similar to the one you're working on, click the edit button, then copy the relevant code, categories, stub notice or whatever, and paste it into your own article, changing the text where necessary. You can also do this for the coding for images (NB no need to specify "right": that's the default). There's a row of useful buttons above the edit box (highlight the text, then click the button) and various options below it.
Study articles
It is also a very good idea to study existing articles to see how they are written, the tone used, the headings and references etc, but make sure you look at one that's done well. The highest standard is a featured article: check some out.
Starting a new article
It's best to get experience before you do this. However, the first thing is to make sure the subject is notable. This means that it has to be written about in existing sources (see "Content" above). To be on the safe side, prepare it in a user sub-page (aka sandbox), where it will be safe, and get an experienced editor to check it out before uploading it to the main encyclopedia (aka article space).
User sub-pages
You can create extra pages from your user page. Type:
[[User:Tyrenius/Draft]]
on your user page or talk page. Then click the red link to start the page. Obviously replace "Tyrenius" with your own user name. You can change "Draft" to any title you prefer. You can create several such pages for different purposes.
Your own reference store
Make your own reference store of all the things you find useful—coding, templates, links to useful pages, names of editors you might want to consult etc. You can do this on your user page or create a sub-page for it.
If you want your edits to last and your articles to be kept, the key is to reference them. You can put the guide below on your user or talk page by pasting:
ANI text relating to me and visual content from July 2012
I thought I'd copy this here as a point for discussion
This is a long-standing IP account, with a wide-ranging contribution history. For reasons unknown however, the contributor seems in the last few days to have developed what can only be described as an obsession with images of human genitalia, with urination, and with related matters. While the arguments presented regarding individual articles may on the surface seem valid on occasion, it seems apparent from recent contribution history [1] that the account is either being used to make some sort of WP:POINT, or otherwise being abused to cause discord. Already, the IP has taken what can only, when looked at as a pattern, looks like an attempt at systematic disruption on articles such as Human penis, ,Penis, Urolagnia, Urine , Phallus ,Vulva and Urination (possibly others too), Could I ask for admins (and others) to look into this, and decide on an appropriate course of action. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having second thoughts about this Andy. I've addressed three or four of his proposed edits now and see merit in some, and reasonable rationales in all (so far). The edit history does look very trollish, but the instances I've investigated all stand up. My initial reaction was to that edit history and the IPness (no pun intended). He does seem to be pressing rather hard in a controversial area, but that's no crime. Can you point me to problematical behaviour? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, this continues at List of water sports[2], Primordial phallus[3] - where the IP is proposing that an article on foetal development should be merged with an article on the symbolic representation of the erect penis in material culture, and Paraphilia[4] where a link to our Vanilla sex article is added to what is clearly a definition of biomedical terminology. This is trolling, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm with you on "vanilla sex". Indistinguishable from trolling. He's got a point on "water sports" and I wouldn't oppose "water sports" redirecting to List of water sports, and a "for other uses" hatnote at the top of that article pointing to a dab page containing
I too have concerns about this IP's edits and fascination with dicks, erections, ejaculation, vulvas, pissing, etc.. (Having such fascinations in one's private life is one thing, but bringing it here becomes disruptive.) They seem to be pressing the limits of NOTCENSORED by seeking the inclusion of sensitive images in unnecessary places. They want explicit images of erect penises, ejaculating penises, peeing men and women, vulvas, etc., in lots of places where such images are unnecessary. In article sections we usually use wikilinks and links to "main" articles. That's where the uncensored images are used, not just everywhere. I tried to explain, but IP93 just doesn't seem to get the hint. Here's something I wrote to illustrate:
"Images are used where necessary, but images that may be offensive to many are used more sparingly, IOW on the articles where they are most relevant. Instead of plastering/spamming (and that's what you seem to be doing) every tree in the forest with pictures of penises, we just put signs that say "penis", and an arrow. When one arrives at the penis tree, there will be a nice picture of a penis on THAT tree, because THAT is where it's relevant. It's not relevant on every other tree in the forest."
Will someone explain to them that wikilinks are sufficient (and don't have to be accompanied by an image), and that by using appropriate (and often very graphic) images on the final target articles, we are keeping Wikipedia uncensored, and that by refusing to plaster/spam such images all over the place, we are not violating NOTCENSORED? They need to stop this behavior. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added replies with my thoughts and some advice here and here.
I'm wondering if a short topic ban would be appropriate, even if only to force the IP to discuss the matter here, instead of everyone having to deal with them all over the place? A basic consensus needs to be arrived at here before they are allowed to continue this activity. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What bothers me isn't so much the editorial point of view, as the propensity to edit war over it. (Given that this is an IP account, we do not really know whether this is a long-standing user who has suddenly gotten interested in the issue, or someone new who is now editing from that IP address.) If this were a thoughtful effort to provide better content, I'd have no problem with it, per NOTCENSORED. From what I've seen, though, it seems less like someone coming in here to improve content, than someone who is just trying to see what they can get away from. And I really do feel that there has been enough edit warring against multiple editors who disagree with the IP, that this is taking on the appearance of trolling. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been persuaded by your collective arguments on the issues raised by the IP, but I'm not yet convinced the IP is trolling. It seems like sincere strong feelings about prudery, and an attempt, mostly through civil argument, to move the project toward a more radical position with regard to sexually explicit content. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this speculation could be moved to a more appropriate place, such as a polite respectful request for clarification on the user's talkpage. Guessing what the editor thinks is not always as productive as asking the authority on the issue. Penyulap ☏ 06:06, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Königsberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
II in 1945, the city was captured by the [[Soviet Union]] and became part of the [[Russian SFSR]]) as agreed by the Allies at the [[Potsdam Conference]]. In 1946 the city's name was changed to [[
6 October 2012|date=22 November 2011|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-1-118-29379-9|page=268}}<</ref>
{{tl|unblock|reason=I believe [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]]'s simple mistake should be corrected by any administrator.
This block is not due to block evasion or imposed by Checkuser. It was imposed by [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] possibly initially in good faith as a mistake. He mistakenly associated me with a (now expired) two week check user block aimed at logged in abuse through an IP I used to edit from. As it relates to the suitability of visual content on user pages, [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] violated the wikipedia blocking policy -<blockquote>"Conflicts of Interest
Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace."</blockquote> I put an image of the famous painting [[L'Origine du monde]] on my user and talk page once. [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] reverted the edits, labeled them as vandalism, blocked the image, and blocked me without warning, discussion, or explanation.
The same painting had been on my previous user page at [[User:Reasearch Method II|Research Method II]] since 2009 without any comment or complaint until [[User:Reaper Eternal|Reaper Eternal]] added it to the block list.
I have substituted "Victoire de l'Amour sacré sur l'Amour profane" by Giovanni Baglione, and initiated a discussion on my original choice further down the page.
I got locked out of previous accounts [[User:Research Method|Research Method]] .[[User:Reasearch Method II|Research Method II]], so after some IP editing, including [[Special:Contributions/93.96.148.42|93.96.148.42]] created this one.[[User:L'Origine du monde|L'Origine du monde]]
The 2 week Checkuser block on [[Special:Contributions/93.96.148.42|93.96.148.42]], which I havent used this year has expired, and had nothing to do with me, but was aimed at somebody else's account logged in at that IP -(for more details see below)
I emailed the ban appeals subcommittee on 23rd August.
[[User:L'Origine du monde|L'Origine du monde]] ([[User talk:L'Origine du monde#top|talk]]) 21:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)}}.
I've disabled your new unblock template (which I didn't see because it was in an unexpected place) since you should now be waiting for a response from Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock Request declined by JamesBWatson because "You have been given instructions below on how to appeal this checkuser block"
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).
You have been given instructions below on how to appeal this checkuser block. Also, posting personal attacks while blocked does ynot help your case. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
( Reaper Eternal added inappropriate username and userpage later. It started with block evasion ) I used to use one IP address a lot. A year later I create a user. I link this user to that IP address. [5] The IP adress had no edits for the last year, but a 2 week block from over a week ago. The template explaining it was misformed. I asked the editor why blocked [6] and he said people had been using accounts over it. Reaper Eternal gave me a eternal block in on the grounds that i broke the two week block on an IP address I haven't used for a year. Reaper Eternal has told me that [[User:L'Origine du monde|L'Origine du monde] is a disruptive name "referencing an erotic image", deleted my user page, turning my name red and damaging my talk page contributions. He makes various technical mumbo jumbo, but does not link to a single edit that would justify banning me, other than me posting a painting to my user page. If he didn't like my choice of art work, or name, he could quite easily have warned me, or initiated a discussion.L'Origine du monde (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why Reaper Eternal blocked me for "block evasion" . He has given no indication of what block he is referring to. I looked at an old IP address I havent had for a year to link to the new account I created, [[7]] saw it had been blocked for two weeks since 7th august, with no explanation, with no edits shown for the last year. Asked the admin who blocked it why, [[8]] and almost instantly my new account was blocked permanently by Reaper Eternal with no explanation. He also accused me of vandalising my User Page and deleted it. (Apparently the old IP was blocked because of a logged in user - easy to check I am not on that IP)}}L'Origine du monde (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite clear that you are the same person as that checkuser-blocked IP. However, if the block on your IP is in error, then the correct solution is to appeal the block on your IP by emailing arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org since it is a checkuser block, not to create another account with a username referencing an erotic image (violating the username policy) and an inappropriate NSFW userpage and talk page (violating userpage guidelines). I don't know what other accounts were on that IP—Elockid did not link to them. However, I do note that the IP was blocked without talkpage or email access, something indicative of a long-term disruptor of Wikipedia. Given the disruptive nature of this account's userpage, that doesn't really surprise me. Even if that isn't you, you still need to choose another non-disruptive username according to the username policy. Since this IP might be shared, could a checkuser see if this user is different from the other users apparently on the IP? Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to reviewing admins: That would have been impossible, as I was aware he had added the image of an out of copyright, very famous 1886 art work, by a great painter, displayed to children in a National museum to MediaWiki:Bad image list against this consensus - [[9]] . A similar dispute is described at [10].
"However, I do note that the IP was blocked without talkpage or email access, something indicative of a long-term disruptor of Wikipedia. " has no relevance to this account, and is Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators:
that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy); or:
that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead; or:
that your conduct (under any account or IP address) is not connected in any way with the block (this can happen if a block is aimed at resolving a separate situation and you are unintentionally blocked as a result because you use the same IP range).
If, over a year after i stopped editing from a particular IP address, that IP address gets blocked for two weeks, should the new account I open and link to it get blocked eternally?
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).
My conduct (under any account or IP address) was not connected in any way with the expired two week checkuser block I am accused of evading. WP:Block#Conflicts_of_interest with Reaper Eternal applies to this block. The checkuser block applied not to me, but to logged in abuse at an IP address User talk:93.96.148.42 I had not used for over 1 year (and incidently had two barnstars). The block was aimed at resolving a separate situation and I was unintentionally blocked as a result because I used the same IP range in the past, and asked the editor concerned why he blocked it- (his explanatory template was misformed)
Why did you block an account that hasn't been used for 1 year?[edit source]
Hi! Just checked my old page, and see you blocked it. Why? 93.96.148.4213:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC) L'Origine du monde (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
IPs have both logged out and log in users. Logged in abuse is the case here. Elockid (Talk) 14:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not appealing the block on that IP address, but this block on me, and my account, that came from a different editor after I asked that question, and before it was answered. [[11]] There seems to be a systematic problem with asking questions to Elockid - I notice 130 editors watch his page- and when I added to my previous question- ":Sorry to bother you again, but after asking you this question, somebody blocked my account for allegedly circumventing the block on that IP. I would be very grateful if you would explain on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:L%27Origine_du_monde that this block had nothing to do with the IP edits. I hope you will not consider this block evasion - it is very frustrating reading articles, and not being able to improve them." my edit was instantly reverted by JamesBWatson[12]. He then wrongly confirmed the block here (it is not a checkuser block), and also blocked the IP i made that request from for two months, without mentioning it here, [13] which makes me concerned I might face block evasion charges again even if the block here is lifted. L'Origine du monde (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You put an inappropriate image on your now-deleted user page on August 16. Due to the continuing shenanigans I do not perceive a sincere desire to start following Wikipedia policy from now on. I suggest that you confirm whether you've tried appealing the checkuser block at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org as was advised to you up above. If you haven't yet done so, I think the next admin who comes here should consider locking your talk page. In any case regular admins can't lift checkuser blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Your account was indefinitely blocked by User:Reaper Eternal, a checkuser, for evasion of the block of an IP which you previously used. You haven't responded to my question whether you'd made an appeal yet to the Arbcom list. I suggested above that your talk access should be disabled if you wouldn't confirm that you were pursuing that route. Opening an RfC on your talk page about the appropriateness of an unclad female figure on your user page seems wide of the mark for anyone who sincerely wants to be unblocked, so I've disabled the RfC and turned off your talkpage access. Use arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org for any further appeals. The only part of the saga that remains unclear to me is why your IP would be blocked in August 2013 when it had not edited since 2012. I assume that this depends on confidential information that I don't have access to. But it's easy to see that you created the L'Origine account on 16 August 2013 during a period when the IP was blocked. If as you seem to admit above, you have used both the IP address and the L'Origine account then the block evasion is technically there. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed arbcom on 23rd aug, and clearly stated that above, in my latest appeal. With regard to blocking an IP adress I had used, it is clearly stated above that the adress was blocked due to logged in use. This means that someone logged in to wikipedia through that IP. It has no relevance to me using that IP last year.5.28.101.157 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per your third unblock template (high up on this page, and not seen by me at the time) you did in fact write to Arbcom on 23 August. I suggest we all wait to see if they wish to unblock your account. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8 September 2013 User:Elockid The reason 93.96.148.42 was blocked was due to another user.
Comment: Per request to clarify some things here. The reason 93.96.148.42 was blocked was due to another user. While L'Origine du monde may have appeared to be editing from the IP last year, it appears based on the IP above, 5.28.101.157 (talk·contribs), he is no longer operating from 93.96.148.42. Behaviorally, I don't see a relation between the user that recently used 93.96.148.42 and L'Origine du monde. Elockid(Talk)14:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from his talk page)
There was a checkuser block placed on what was very obviously your IP, after which you created your account and inquired about it on Elockid's talk page, signing first as the IP and then as yourself. Given the very recent checkuser block, your inappropriate userpage/username combination, and the disputes on article talk pages, it looked a great deal like block evasion of a checkuser-placed block, for which I blocked you. For that mistake, I do apologize.User_talk:Reaper_Eternal/Archive_24#L.27Origine_du_monde_has_another_registered_account.3F
The last user who edited 93.96.148.42 is very different behaviorally. If I could reveal who was editing behind the IP address in question, I'm pretty sure people would see that L'Origine du monde is Unrelated behaviorally. Secondly, the articles interests are very different. Adding on the technical evidence, the useragents were different and it's not typical of the user who last edited from 93.96.148.42. It is evident that L'Origine du monde was in no way related to the user that last edited from 93.96.148.42. Because non-CUs can't see the evidence, it is very easy to mistake that 93.96.148.42 = L'Origine du monde. It's evident that he edited from that address but it's also evident that he is no longer editing from that address. User:Elockid (Talk) 19:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC) (copied from [noticeboard discussion][reply]
User:L'Origine du monde, fresh off a block, is now trying to blackmail Reaper Eternal, EdJohnston, and JamesBWatson by ordering them to "apologise sincerely for all [their] mistakes" or L'Origine du monde will "pursue further complaints". Obvious blackmail there and obviously not a good idea.
Since the user was unblocked under two hours ago, I am requesting that User:L'Origine du monde be reblocked and indefinitely (as they previously were), as they are obviously not here to edit constructively. :(talk page stalker)Neutralhomer • Talk
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
I'm truly sorry you accidentally got caught up in the sock detection and fighting part of Wikipedia. Unfortunately some folks continually disrupt Wikipedia by pretending to be someone else, it takes a lot of time and effort dealing with them, and the Wikimedia Foundation's allowance of anonymous editing and privacy policies limit the tools available to the volunteers who work in those areas. I've observed the comings and goings in the admin areas for years and I assure you Reaper Eternal (talk·contribs), EdJohnston (talk·contribs) and JamesBWatson (talk·contribs) are not capricious or malicious individuals and were acting in good faith. I hope you continue to edit Wikipedia despite the screw up.
Please in no way take this as encouragement to continue to pursue complaints against anyone -- I wrote no justice a while back which tries to explain why Wikipedia works that way it does. The best you can do is forgive Wikipedia for it's imperfections and resume editing. If this is unacceptable to you -- if you're not going to be content with the fact you're not going to get any recourse -- you're not going to be happy in the long term with Wikipedia and you'll want to find another use of your leisure time. NE Ent01:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much NEnt. It is quite possible that they were acting entirely in good faith - however, they don't seem to understand what they did wrong, nor how, which I find worrying, and feel needs to be addressed!♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )22:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can fully understand how frustrating and annoying you must have found the situation you found yourself in, apparently through no fault of your own. As you can probably imagine, I am also unhappy that I unwittingly took part in adding to that frustration and annoyance. I don't know whether you have looked at my talk page since I responded to your message there. If you have, then please look back there again, because I have retracted part of what I said, which I think was unhelpful, and if you did see it in its original form then I apologise for it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. Can you please explain to me what you meant by [comment in the middle of a discussion], which looked like an official end to the discussion, after 2 people had voted in favour of removing the image from the list, and what right you had to make it? I thought that it was rendered redundant by the continuing discussion, yet seemed to claim an authority that was not yours. I understood that under the circumstances striking through would be an appropriate reaction. Should I have written directly under your comment or what? I object strongly to any suggestion that my recent block was in any way justified.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )23:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I object to the continued waste of time spent on a ridiculous issue. Wikipedia is not an exercise in liberty where people get to decorate their user page with their favorite anatomical feature—get over it, and stop wasting other people's time. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC
Johnuniq, if this is not important to you, may I respectfully suggest you find something that is, and concentrate on it. Banning famous art works from userspace is a serious issue to me, as is, for example, banning pictures of penises from the Penis page.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )23:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to admins to action a request to add an image to or remove it from the list. And I, acting as an uninvolved sysop, have declined the request; after I have done so, others have commented, but, unless there emerges a consensus to overturn my decision, the decline is still valid. SalvioLet's talk about it!23:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I respectfully ask you to either remove your decline, or give reasons for it. It does not respect the conclusions of the discussion that precedes it, and appears to me to influence the discussion that continues afterwards. I fail to see how you can justifiably describe yourself as uninvolved having declined the request.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )23:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was uninvolved when I declined your request, which is what counts. And I don't intend to strike my decision, because I still think it's the right one and I stand by it: the image has been used for vandalism and, so, belongs on the list; furthermore, under WP:UP#Non-free images, the use of sexualised images is usually not permitted in userspace. SalvioLet's talk about it!00:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does "I was uninvolved when I declined your request, which is what counts." mean - you clearly had a personal opinion which you chose to express as only an administrator can, and thereby influence the ongoing discussion. You talk of "a consensus to overturn your decison" which makes little sense when your decision was to uphold the status quo! I would be very grateful if you would add your reasoning to your administrative decison in the discussion, as this would, to a degree, mitigate this effect. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )00:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Salvio acted in his position as an administrator to do what is required - make a determination based on policy on your request. If you don't agree with it, find a consensus. That's how the BIL add/remove works. Just like WP:RFPERM for example - it's up to an administrator, and you need consensus if you disagree with the admin. ~Charmlet-talk-00:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had typed a reply but I edit-conflicted... Thank you! This is possibly true. I do now see that he joined the discussion AFTER declining the request, and did give some reasons there. These are disconnected from the big red "X" he put there 9 hours after the discussion began by a couple of lines. I think that this is, in effect, an abuse of power in order to advance his agenda. ;) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )00:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for striking your comment - I didn't realise you were an administrator (with super powers) and am only familiar with RFCs where people sometimes try to shut them down early.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )00:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why you undid my comment on another users talkpage, or what your warning is for. [[14]] "Maintaining" - or Meddling in others talk pages- describes your action well . Reaper_Eternal clearly writes
Due to large time commitments in the recent past, I was unable to read and respond to a fair number of non-urgent messages. If your questions still need answering, feel free to dig them out of the archives (see the box below) and place them back on my talk page. My apologies.
At this point you can choose to edit or become a victim of I Fought the Law (I fought the law, and the law won). You've received more apologies than most unjustly sanctioned editors get, and if you wish to pursue your concerns further the only good avenue left is the audit subcommittee. You're not the first editor I've seen get a raw deal and unfortunately I'm certain you won't be the last. Wikipedia is often like huge machine -- works great at producing an encyclopedia but if an editor gets caught up in the gears they just get ground up. Continuing to seek redress on wiki won't do any good and will just get you shown the door and forgotten in a few months. Sorry if that's harsh but that's the way it is and I can't fix it. NE Ent11:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like an acknowledgement that I was subject to a bad block. If I have got more apologies than most, God help the system, and no wonder wikipedia is not recruiting new editors. I had a lot of trouble with arrogant editors as an IP, as a registered editor I demand respect. Censorship should not be accepted as a reason for a block, and abusive checkusers should be disciplined. That said, it is important to try to resolve issues through dialogue. I don't understand why there are so many editors mucking arround with other editors' talk pages...♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )19:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reaper Eternal did not "abuse" his checkuser abilities. Per WP:CHECKUSER, he was justified in checking you, as (from what I see) he had reason to believe you were operating multiple accounts in a way not allowed by policy. Thus, he did not abuse his checkuser abilities. What happened is some sort of combination of confusing, ambiguous technical data and a misunderstanding, from what I see it. You continuing to demand that he resign or that he abused his checkuser privileges, to me, constitutes disruption, as it's already been explained to you what happened. It has already been agreed that it was a block that was technically ambiguous. Reaper did not block you for "censorship", he blocked you because he believed that you were violating policy. He then, even though he was under no obligation to, assumed good faith, accepted your explanations, and reviewed his block, at which point he agreed to overturn it. Seriously, drop the stick and back away from the dead horse, or you risk being blocked again for continued disruption. ~Charmlet-talk-21:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Charmlet - what policy did Eternal Reaper have reason to believe I was violating, and what do you mean by a technically ambiguous block?
Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia.
Exactly what I'm complaining about. The block was in no way ambiguous, but clearly had nothing to do with me. At the time Reaper Eternal was not a check user. Now he is, yet still does not understand what happened. At the same time, anyone he blocks as a check user will have to wait over two weeks for a committee to review their application. I am demanding an apology, and recognition of the facts. Resignation of checkuser or administrative privilege is not the issue at this stage.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )00:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reaper felt that you were evading a block, which is a violation of WP:BLOCK. The technical data the block was made upon was ambiguous, and was a matter of interpretation. If you continue demanding an apology, I will request you be blocked for disruption ad failure to drop the stick and walk away. It is disruptive and is not improving the encyclopedia. ~Charmlet-talk-00:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to not understand that the technical data is the CheckUser data that you don't have access to. Thus, you cannot say the data were clear. ~Charmlet-talk-00:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your last statement makes no sense - the block was made based on CheckUser data, which is automatically stored. You seem to not know what you're talking about with regards to the CheckUser tool. ~Charmlet-talk-01:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The block was made based on misreading my post on Ekolid's wall and invoking that "CheckUser" black box nobody would ever question. There was logged in abuse from an IP I'd used a year ago. No link to me whatsoever. None. Just a mistake by future Checkuser misreading the talk page of a checkuser, who doesn't understand the mistake he made.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )01:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:AGK. That body only adjudicates complaints about the conduct of checkusers once they have been appointed checkusers. As the user who mistakenly connected me to a check user block on my former IP address I linked to this new account I created was not a checkuser at the time he made the mistake that was the wrong body. The correct body was the full arbitration committee who decided that the apology was sufficient. I am happy to accept this decision, and thank you for the direction.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)02:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I replied there. And yes, there are more eyes than usual looking at your edits as you've managed to create quite a bit of drama around yourself and are making odd suggestions at Talk:Penis. My advice? Just stop whatever you're doing above and focus on quietly working in article space. --NeilNtalk to me00:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We are discussing your questionable actions so discussion belongs here, not on Johnuniq's page. That being said, assuming you won't delete the comment again, I see no reason to prolong this. --NeilNtalk to me01:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted User:Johnuniq's edit, and started a discussion on his page. I have expressed a strong preference for the discussion to happen there, and I repeat it. Oh, and did I mention feeling Harassed? What on earth do you think gives you the right to be so rude?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )01:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You had no policy based reason to remove his edit. The discussion of your actions will happen here, or if you prefer we can move it to AN/I. By the way, there is no harassment. Calling harassment just because you've been told you were in the wrong is not going to make you any friends, nor get you anywhere. ~Charmlet-talk-01:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
L'Origine, I'm sorry that you received an unfair block that prevented you from editing Wikipedia for two weeks, I truly am.
But your continuing actions, which seem to be more about causing drama and trying to make a point, will lead some Editors to start viewing you as a troll. I believe you are not a troll and you are interested in constructive work to improve the encyclopedia. But right now, most of your edits are from comments posted on Noticeboards and Talk Pages (89%) rather than on articles (11%) and I encourage you to balance out the negative conversations with productive edits on content to help improve WP. Wikipedia is not a place to right wrongs and you'll be happier if you are not sidetracked by personal disputes and concentrate on producing great work.
Thank you User:Liz. I do not understand your statistical cost-benefit analysis of my editorial activity. When there is something wrong with an article, sometimes I meet intense opposition in changing the status quo. Edit wars have ended in flawed compromise such as the illustration to Penis. Consultation can be the only option in the face of collusion to maintain a censored POV. Penises of minke whales on display at the Icelandic Phallological Museum♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk♥ )21:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥! My message was just meant to give you a head's up because some Editors viewed your persistent edits about apologies and penises as disruptive and there has been talk about imposing a block on your account (this occurred at WP:ANI. Personally, I don't think this is a good decision so I wanted to let you know that some people were reacting to your somewhat confrontational approach.
Ultimately, you're going to do what you want to do. I just thought you deserved a warning so you could either adapt your approach in Wikipedia discussions or go to An/I and respond to the criticism there. This doesn't have to end badly but a lot will depend on whether you willing to consider that you might not always have had the right approach to other Editors.
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for sopaboxing/disruptive editing/trolling/and so forth. See [15]. This should be considered a community-imposed block and as such should only be overturned if there is a consensus to do so. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we are clear, that single remark is absolutely not the proximate cause of your block, rather it is a result of the consensus in the entire conversation. I've posted some information down below regarding how to appeal. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to suggest that it should have been the end of the complaints that I was hounding him. Could you please explain what you believed the consensus to be at greater length below. If the instructions you gave above for appealing are wrong, would you please fix them.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)00:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
L'Origine -- one of the many, many unwritten rules of Wikipedia is what I've called the first law. You did good with the agreement to stop posting on wiki about Reaper Eternal. The next thing is the pictures -- unfortunately there's a subset of folks who have issues with NSFW photos of breasts, vaginas and penises on folks user pages and the like. (Personally I don't care one way on the other -- I'm old and have seen it before, ya know?) So I'd suggest you amend the unblock to statement with something like "I will not insert, or discuss inserting, sexually explicit photos in any place other than article space, article talk pages, and my own user and user talk pages." (Technically those are the spaces 0 to 4 at Wikipedia:Namespace). NE Ent00:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:NE Ent - I reread the discussion - I am pretty sure that the consensus was that I needed to get over the bad-block and stop cussing Reaper Eternal, which I had done before this block. I don't get what you mean by asking me to say "I will not insert, or discuss inserting, sexually explicit photos in any place other than article space, article talk pages, and my own user and user talk pages." I was not aware that that was something I was accused of. Do you think that will help me deal with the subset of folks who have issues with NSFW photos of breasts, vaginas and penises on folks user pages and the like??? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)00:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will help. Wikipedia is not necessarily a coherent, logical place; the two most important things for you to continue to contribute -- if you still want to after all you've been through -- are to get unblocked and develop a record of contributions to mainspace (articles). NE Ent01:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the L'Origine accounts earliest edits and block; she was blocked as a sock of 93.96.148.42(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), which apparently was an IP she used about a year ago, but after further review the block was determined to be inappropriate as a behavioral relation between L'Origine and recents edits from the IP was not observed; please see [16]. Prior to the accidental block she had 19 mainspace edits, 3 article talk, 5 on her own user / user talk and a single post on Elockid's page asking about why the old IP was blocked. It is true she has not rapidly assimilated the culture and unwritten rules of Wikipedia, but disruption is often in the eye of the beholder; it's my belief that had folks simply let her vent and left her alone things would not have escalated to this point. NE Ent02:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jackmcbarn - Umm, I can't comment there because I'm blocked, didn't you know? I also see that Beeblebrox has blanked my page as a courtesy while a discussion that, as far as I can see, supports my page goes on. This makes it hard for people to discuss it as they cant see what they are talking about - at least I cant seem to. There are userboxes, warning text, a high resolution painting that was scandalous in 1866- and an invitation to discuss the choice of painting on this page in the edit history. This is relevant to my work on this encylopedia. Perhaps this discussion could be moved to here, so I could join in? I have tried to have a discussion here about L'origine du monde as userpage content, but people seem keener to delete than discuss or explain. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)23:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But why does my user page have to be blanked as a courtesy I did not request while it is up for deletion?
"In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)."
Following the decision not to delete my userpage, I wonder if it might be possible to get Image:Origin-of-the-World.jpg to display properly on my userpage. It does not currently display because it was added to MediaWiki:Bad image list, apparently because the painting was being spammed in User space in early August [[17]].♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)02:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't have made that edit if I didn't see a need to do it. Not an overwhelming need, but a need nonetheless--the unlimited size makes it fairly impossible to even see it, especially on a mobile device. And the origin of the world, for better or for worse, is forbiddenforbiddenforbidden, so I don't see why an indefinitely-blocked user should have it there except to make a point or, as some wannabe admin might say, POINT. I suggest you try Template:Admin help, and maybe someone nicer than me will come along. BTW, if you manage to get clearance to put it back up, I'll be the first to applaud you--I wish I had paid more attention when I was in the Musee d'Orsay, but I think I was more interested in the Art Deco furniture. Then again, I think (I haven't paid that much attention) that your use of the image was deemed disruptive, so as a neutral, objective, and totally line-towing admin I'll keep my distance. Bonne chance. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW the smaller image works better for me, as every time I viewed the old version of the user page I had to continually scroll around and could never see the whole image. Now I can, it's actually a stronger image rather than having a screen full of flesh-coloured paint with no clue as to which body part was being represented... Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)09:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please put the page back exactly the way I left it. I was happy with it and the layout was considered. I wanted to show the brushstrokes in the painting not just the image If you want to change it, please discuss it with me further first. If you want the image, you only have to click on it, or zoom out. I don't think there is any reason why you should have to see a whole image instantly on a mobile. Regarding the other painting WP:NOTPOINTy applies.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)20:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zzuuzz, your contribution at [[19]] leads me to ask you to create an exception for my userpage, and
Apologies for curt nature of reply above, but looks much worse to me than before you changed it on my laptop. Lots of people have retina displays nowadays, and looked amazing beautiful on them :( 01:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The new version means that most shockable people see the whole shocking image, before they see the warning if they don't have the anti shock-image feature enabled. That was one reason for using such a large image - to avoid potential shock. I am more than happy to discus what images editors of 5 year standing may display in their user space at what resolution, indeed that is one of the reasons I created this account. I got upset when that discussion was confused with anti-vandalism. The image itself is important in anti censorship, and has a history in that use. There have been recent scandals over censorship of the image. It is clearly supported by a significant number of reliable sources that the ability to publicly display this art work is considered by some a measure of freedom of expression. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)02:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥,
I hope you realize this block is "indefinite" not "infinite". I hope you appeal the block, assuring the Admins that you understand where your behavior crossed the line and that you will be more productive in the future. Then I can post a "Welcome back!" post! LizRead!Talk!16:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Just an fyi, they can't appeal except to the community (per the blocking administrator), as it is a community imposed block. I didn't hope it'd get here, but L'Odm did this to themselves. I hope that in a few months' time (6 or so would be a good time for people to move on from their actions) we can welcome the user back as a productive editor. L'Odm - sorry it got to the point of you being blocked. It was not my intent in going to AN/I. ~Charmlet-talk-21:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: you crapped all over this talk page making LODM explain the CU incident all over again to you personally, and the you ran to ANI with a diff from the conversation you enticed complaining that LODM isn't "dropping the stick" [20] (the only diff in you ANI complaint was [21] from a conversation with you). Classic WP:BAIT. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ARBCOM indefinitely blocks a user -> User sends ARBCOM an email message
An Admin indefinitely blocks a user -> User can post an appeal on the Talk Page and any Admin can respond
"Community block" through AN/I -> Only the blocking Admin can "unblock" user?
Is this correct? Yes, I think it was a mistake to take this to AN/I...there is a mob mentality there and things can spiral out-of-control from what the original poster intended. LizRead!Talk!22:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LODM, as practical advice: you won't get anywhere at AN/I. Trust me, I know the dynamics of that place. If you want to edit again, you should appeal to WP:BASC. It will take weeks. Oh, and the first user who reported you ANI on September 9 is another expert player [22]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz:No, that is wrong and I don't know where you are seeing anything that says only the blocking admin can undo the block. This is a community imposed block, I merely enacted the consensus, like closing an AFD or any number of other administrative actions. So, no even I, the blocking admin, cannot summarily undo this block on my own authority. There would need to be a consensus established that they should be unblocked.
@Someone: I'm afraid you are also incorrect, BASC hears appeals from users that were blocked by ArbCom or by a single admin. They will also consider requests for unblocking a talk page should the user have their talk page revoked. But they cannot undo a community-imposed block. Nobody has the authority to do that except the community itself.
Now, all that being said, this user has yet to appeal this block in any way so far as I know, so why don't we all just take a break from posting here and let them decide what they wish to do about this? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Beeblebrox, hence my question mark. I was unsure. That's why I said, "Is this correct?". So, what is the vehicle to get a community consensus to unblock an Editor? I have yet to see that occur so I'm guessing it doesn't happen often.
As for posting here, the original post I made was just saying hello and reminding her/him that she/he had a chance to appeal. Considering how she/he was ill-treated, I do not think that a kind gesture is something to be frowned on. IMHO. LizRead!Talk!23:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has in fact been known to happen, but in my experience only in cases where the blocked user posts an unblock request themselves which clearly and specifically addresses the reasons for the block and indicates what they might do differently if they were unblocked. That request is then copied over to the appropriate noticeboard, usually whichever one the block discussion was at, and a community discussion ensues. Any replies the blocked user has to the conversation there can be copied over for them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox is there any chance you could clearly and specifically explain the reasons for your block. To me it looks as though there were many different contributions to the ANI discussion of different views and I would like to know what you understood to be the consensus reasoning. Your current summary is "for sopaboxing/disruptive editing/trolling/and so forth. " linking to an even more compact "===Blocking===
Yeah, I think that pretty well sums it up. You seem to be more interested in causing problems than in building an encyclopedia, and many comments in that discussion reflect that perspective. It's not about any single "smoking gun" but rather your overall approach to this project and your interactions with other users. The diff in the block log is just the last diff in the conversation that led to this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note a request to comment here directed to one of my Arbitration Committee colleagues with respect to whether or not Arbcom will consider unblock requests of users who are subject to a community-determined block (as opposed to an Arbcom ban or a single-admin block). Yes, we do consider them; however, the bar for unblock is higher than for other types of blocks (normally we would be looking for some indication that the community block/ban was carried out in a way that does not meet usual practices, such as a very short discussion or inadequate comment). Should we be considering the lifting of a community-based block/ban, the community is often invited to comment. It should be noted that the vast majority of blocks/bans of any type are usually affirmed by the Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC). Risker (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Risker thank you for your contribution. Could you please direct me to some information about community-determined blocks, as Beeblebrox has yet to do so, and I can't find anything. It is a bit hard for me to know what normal practise is in these circumstances.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)03:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you want to know that has not already been explained. There was a discussion amongst members of the community. The consensus as I read it was that the community members that particpated by and large agreed that you should be blocked, so I blocked you. As that was the process by which you were blocked, it should usually be the process by which you are unblocked. In other words, no one administrator should overturn any decision, anywhere on Wikipedia, that is demonstrably the result of a consensus-based process. This applies to deletion discussions, requests for comment, and yes, community discussions regarding sanctioning a user. I don't know that we have a rigidly defined process if that is what you are looking for, but I do know that this is nothing new or unusual and blocks imposed as the result of a community discussion are usually reviewed the same way. If you are wanting a policy link to back that up WP:CONSENSUS pretty much covers it right in the first sentence: "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals." Beeblebrox (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the consensus was that I had had a rough time, and should drop the stick. I did that, then you blocked me. A number of editors pointed to contributions I had made to wikipedia. False allegations were made about my past behaviour and secret checkuser evidence of my sins. WP:CONSENSUS says that consensus is not a vote. You claim to be personally convinced that I am WP:NOTHERE. You clearly instructed me above to use the appeals process, and referred me to the guidelines now you say I can't - why did you do that? I think you misinterpreted the consensus, and that another administrator should interpret it differently. How does your judgement become consensus? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)03:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've completed the necessary steps for the appeal. Now ... you wait. You have an active unblock request which is listed at Category:Requests_for_unblock -- at some point another admin will review the situation; they could decline the unblock, accept the unblock, or ask you follow up questions. NE Ent09:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"blocks imposed as the result of a community discussion are usually reviewed the same way"
I don't see, if this is true, how can a blocked Editor participate in a community discussion about their situation. How can they explain, apologize, clarify the situation, acknowledge what they've done, say they will never do it again, etc. in a community forum like AN/I if they can't post there?
And NE Ent, your saying that L'Origine has done the necessary steps because he/she "has an active unblock request which is listed at Category:Requests_for_unblock" implies that an individual Admin will review his/her situation (see below) and it won't be a community discussion at all!
People get blocked and unblocked every day and Wikipedia has been around for 12 years. It really can't be this confusing, right? Something is just lost in the explanation, I imagine. But I can't tell who has the accurate understanding about how the system operates. LizRead!Talk!23:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to what actions you wish to complain about? I did nothing except ask for your conduct to be reviewed, and at the time I asked, you were still not dropping the stick. I, at the end, made clear that I did not want you blocked, so you cannot blame it on me. ~Charmlet-talk-19:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to do that - remember what happened last time I went to AN/I (you got blocked when I didn't want you to). If I go to AN/I, someone will see your latest unblock requests and feel that you're not dropping the stick, and you'll end up with talkpage removed. It's in your best interest to stay away for a few weeks, then maybe you can request an unblock. But I strongly recommend you wait a while. ~Charmlet-talk-20:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not want you blocked - I never mentioned block. And 'tis not a threat, but a warning - if you attempt to further complain, that's the likely result. Please - I want to see you back, but the community doesn't. Just wait a month. Then ask. Maybe go to Commons or another project for a while. I don't know. But don't keep digging :/ ~Charmlet-talk-20:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUsers (which Reaper is one, and was one when he made the block) have access to data that goes beyond IP address. I will not divulge details (as that'd be stuffing beans up Wikipedia's collective nose), but please know that it's very rare that if all the evidence matches it's different people, unless one of the two involved is trying to hide something (and even then it's quite a bit of spoofing that'd be needed). This seems to be one of those rare cases where it's wrong. My remarks were only in an attempt to help you better understand the checkuser tool. ~Charmlet-talk-20:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your apology. You took me to ANI for showing a fundamental misunderstanding for the CheckUser policies. User:Reaper Eternal was watching checkuser user:Elockid's talkpage, mistakenly connected me with a block due to logged in use on an IP I used to use, and refused to unblock me because he disliked my name and choice of paintings. He had no access to data on me that other editors don't. Do you agree with me User:Charmlet? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)21:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree with the second part (He had no... don't.), as after he became a checkuser it is possible he checkusered you - which may have prompted the discussion with Elockid. Mistakes happened - and in all honesty, I'd suggest a name change (when unblocked). Controversial names cause drama (see the arbitration on Ril's signature, which is the closest thing to an arbitration over a name I can think of), and it'd be better to just change it and move on. Or not change it, but still move on. ~Charmlet-talk-21:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Charmlet, I am happy to move on. Many things are possible in this world, and I agree that he had potential access to data about me. Since he has said nothing about it, could you either a) assume he didn't access it or b) ask him if he did checkuser me and find negative information. He clearly stated he had made a mistake in blocking me, and I would be grateful if you would agree with him and me.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)21:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Charmlet I would also be grateful if you would explain this contribution to the ANI you started about our discussion that got me blocked -
- Adam - No, they got blocked by a checkuser based on evidence that, quite frankly, I don't wish to detail to the world what it includes. L'Origine du monde needs to just drop it. At an AN/I thread about their failure to move on and drop it, they keep failing to move on and not dropping it. This needs to stop.
L'OdM, I have pasted your appeal to WP:AN but frankly while you are actively pursuing this attempt to clear your name after posting your appeal, I think it's going nowhere. It is for precisely this wikilawyering that you were blocked in the first place. You came within a whisker of avoiding a block and then couldn't restrain yourself, dragged all this up again and here we are. Wikipedia is not fair, or democratic, or a court of law. I'm afraid you'll have to put up with an injustice if you want to resume editing. Consuming these many electrons and editor-hours on a minor event in the receding past is what's disruptive, and why you were most recently blocked. If you can't learn to drop the stick you'll not get your editing privileges back. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)22:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my case for you at WP:AN. I still think it's unlikely you will be successful, but if you are this means that you must not refer to RE's block of you ever again nor ask for any further apologies, explanations or restitution. If ever you do, I'll look really stupid at WP:AN and will be the one to indef block you again. If you're unwilling to proceed on this basis, please let me know and I'll strike my support of your unblock appeal at WP:AN. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)22:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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).
I have improved this encyclopedia, and intend to improve it further. My five years of editing disprove Beeblebrox's personal judgement that I am WP:NOTHERE, and I question his discovery of a consensus in the ANI at User:L'Origine du monde for an indefinite block, as I think that the consensus was that I should stop talking about Reaper Eternal, which I had agreed to do before this block, and a number of editors thought my behaviour understandable, and that I was being baited. Beeblebrox indicated above how to appeal this block, and instructed me to read the guide to appealing blocks. There is no mention of "community-imposed block" procedure at either link, and I believe any admin can revert Beeblebrox's block. An examination of my edit history clearly shows that I am here, and have been for the past 5 years, and User:L'Origine du monde demonstrates no clear consensus to block me indefinately.
Decline reason:
Under your current account alone, you have made 350 edits to the project, of which 238 have been made to user talk pages in clear pursuit of the agenda that has characterised your account's edits from the beginning. In your short time on this project, your edits have attracted a great deal of community attention and consumed a great deal of editor time. This is clearly not a situation that can be tolerated. Wikipedia is staffed by volunteers who have more important things to do than to constantly managing your combative behaviour and inability to drop a complaint that has been resolved or answered. Given your edits to date, no reasonable person could expect there to be an immediate improvement in your behaviour if I unblocked you. I am therefore dismissing (declining) your appeal.
I also note your claim that the ANI discussion which led to your block was procedurally flawed. If this claim were true, it would not mean the block had to be reversed, but merely affect the status of your block by relegating it from a community block (which can only be reversed by BASC or another ANI discussion) to a standard block (which can be reversed by any other uninvolved administrator after proper consideration). However, it is clear to me that community consensus (here) does support your block. A majority of the editors in that thread did opine that the best thing to do is block you; hence, the blocking administrator was implementing a community consensus. Therefore, I am both upholding the original block as warranted and proper, and affirming that it was supported by consensus of the community.
My own personal view is that you may have more success as a Wikipedia contributor if you return to the project in six months or a year; an extended break may help you to gain some perspective on Wikipedia's mission and your purpose in contributing here. AGK[•]10:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
User:AGK thank you for responding to my appeal. Please explain why you are only considering this account, rather than my editing over the past 5 years, and what is the significance of the number of edits I made to user talk pages? I stated my intention to deal with my complaint as you told me to above before I was blocked, which means a reasonable person could expect there to be an immediate improvement in my behaviour. The vast majority of those edits were made to my user page after I was blocked from editing other pages by mistake. What agenda are you talking about, other than getting the block overturned, and other editors to understand I had done nothing wrong, and let me edit constructively? I have been constructively editing for years, but was wrongly blocked almost as soon as I created this account.
I do not understand what you mean by my "inability to drop a complaint that has been resolved or answered". My problem was that my complaint was not answered or resolved, rather I was repeatedly told that people are often blocked by mistake, and that it is not normal to receive an apology.
♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)12:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous edits do not mitigate your recent disruptive conduct, and having considered your response here I am still unconvinced that it would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia to unblock you. AGK[•]22:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:AGK, what is wrong with my previous edits (before the bad-block) - do you think they support WP:NOTHERE? When, as a Checkuser and one of the 6 members of the Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee that will review my complaint, you describe it as "resolved or answered" I am concerned. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)15:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the edits from THIS account before it was bad-blocked - what is wrong with them?
Extended content
13:37, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+395) . . User talk:L'Origine du monde ({{unblock|I have no idea why i have been blocked- I looked at an old IP address I havent had for a year to link to from my new my account, saw it had been blocked, with no explanation, having not been used for a year. Asked the admin who blocked it why, a)
13:22, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+127) . . User talk:Elockid (→Why did you block an account that hasn't been used for 1 year?)
13:21, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+209) . . User talk:Elockid (→Why did you block an account that hasn't been used for 1 year?: new section)
13:20, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+62) . . User talk:L'Origine du monde
13:06, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+9) . . Königsberg (| alternate_name = Кёнигсберг)
13:04, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-33) . . Kaliningrad
13:03, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Kaliningrad (Russian: Кёнигсберг)
12:58, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+9) . . m Königsberg (→Sambians)
12:55, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+16) . . Königsberg (→Sambians: farming village Sakkeim,)
12:54, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+29) . . Königsberg (→Sambians: including the fishing village and port Lipnick,)
12:52, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+207) . . Königsberg (→History: meaning Oak Forest <ref>http://books.google.de/books?id=QI0eAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA609&ots=6OYtKssfFw&dq=%22old%20prussians%22%20konigsberg&pg=PA609#v=onepage&q=%22old%20prussians%22%20konigsberg&f=false</ref>)
12:49, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+22) . . N Sambian (←Redirected page to Sambians) (current)
12:47, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-1) . . Königsberg (→Soviet Russian Kaliningrad)
12:46, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,471) . . Talk:Oral sex (→Illustrations - why old pictures, no anal, and no photographs?: WP:GRATUITOUS says Controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers)
12:37, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,049) . . Talk:Oral sex (→Edit request: rfc|lang|soc Is Anilingus oral sex? Should it be included in the first line of the article, or should that be restricted to genitals?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥) 19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
12:15, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-3,409) . . Königsberg (→Soviet Russian Kaliningrad: deleted material duplicated from kaliningrad article)
12:10, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+71) . . Königsberg (→Russian Empire: Five Imperial Russian general-governors administered the city during the war from 1758–62; they included William Fermor and Nikolaus Friedrich von Korff. The Russian army did not abandon the town until 17)
11:58, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+56) . . Königsberg
11:56, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+8) . . Königsberg (===Sambians=== Königsberg was preceded by a Sambian, or Old Prussian ,fort known as Twangste (Tuwangste, Tvankste), as well as several Prussian settlements, including Lipnick, Sakkeim, and [[T)
11:54, 17 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+23) . . Königsberg (→History: ===Old Prussian Fort===)
20:08, 16 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+253) . . Talk:Oral sex (→Edit request: Undue weight? The third sentence currently contradicts the first. Sex_organ#Human_genitals is definately the correct link.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥) 19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC))
19:54, 16 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-194) . . Western painting (<ref>Discussion of the role of patrons in the Renaissance, retrieved 11 November 2008</ref> deleted - geocities!!!)
19:53, 16 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-87) . . Western painting (→Neo-expressionism: Susan Rothenberg, 1979, Neo-expressionism deleted- not important)
19:51, 16 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-162) . . Western painting (→Neo-expressionism: Susan Rothenberg, 1979, Neo-expressionismEric Fischl, 1981, Figurative Neo-expressionism deleted, as not very important)
19:34, 16 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Michael Landy ((As a "Royal Academician" he may use the letters RA after his name.) correct vandalism)
19:30, 16 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+314) . . User talk:L'Origine du monde
19:28, 16 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+204) . . User talk:Reasearch Method II (I got locked out of this account, so after some IP editing, created this one.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥) 19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)) (current)
19:22, 16 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+32) . . N User talk:L'Origine du monde (←Created page with 'File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg')
19:21, 16 August 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+33) . . N User:L'Origine du monde (←Created page with 'Image:Origin-of-the-World.jpg')
♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]
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).
This is my only account. I have had two previous accounts, and edited from IP addresses, over the last 5 years. Some of these are linked to above. I am not WP:NOTHERE, but here. I am happy to undertake to refrain from personal attacks on editors who blocked me. However, I am not so happy that Beeblebrox who blocked me writes " This is someone who has edited here before, probably under multiple past identities" and "If I had to guess I would say the reason this block has not been appealed yet is that LODM is already operating another account." [[23]] when I clearly linked to my previous accounts on this talk page, and was mistakenly blocked BECAUSE I associated this account with my previous IPs. User:AGK who reviewed my last appeal also focussed exclusively on this account. The reason for me writing lots of stuff on this page when blocked was because of me sticking to the rules, the reason I was complaining that I did not get a proper apology for my bad block was that people keep saying bad things about me based on that bad checkuser block. I was previously subject to a bad block for 3 weeks. There is no Checkuser evidence against me, and claims made in the ANI that there is were wrong. Please unblock me.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)16:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
As this block was effectively imposed by the community after a discussion at AN/I, I think this needs reviewing centrally rather than by a single editor here. I have posted the appeal here at WP:AN for community comment. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)21:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think less than 10% of my edits are concerned with sex. I am unclear why the discussion is focussed on them.
I would like to remind those participating in this ANI that it is not supposed to be a discussion about content. The policy(?) I am accused of violating, described by User:BullRangifer as
"Images are used where necessary, but images that may be offensive to many are used more sparingly, IOW on the articles where they are most relevant. Instead of plastering/spamming (and that's what you seem to be doing) every tree in the forest with pictures of penises, we just put signs that say "penis", and an arrow. When one arrives at the penis tree, there will be a nice picture of a penis on THAT tree, because THAT is where it's relevant. It's not relevant on every other tree in the forest."
I would like to restate my conviction that attempting to insert germane images is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and that such discussion should take place on the merits of the material, relevant policy, and consensus rather than through imputing bad motives to opposing editors in a content dispute. I have not attempted to add offensive images to inappropriate articles. The blocking editor User:Beeblebrox wrote about Talk:Oral_sex#Illustrations_-_why_old_pictures.2C_no_anal.2C_and_no_photographs. "Look at the charming discussion at Talk:Oral sex about, well, it's about licking a persons asshole and LODM argues that the article is not acceptable without an actual photograph of someone's asshole being licked. (as opposed to the usual WP:ASTONISH compliant bland drawings we use in articles relating to sex acts. " ( WP:ASTONISH does not mention images, bland or otherwise )- There is currently no image of "someone's asshole being licked," and I actually wrote "Looking at the article, there are 4 illustrations, of which 3 are C19 paintings (2 french, and one Chinese) and one created specially for the article. All four illustrations show oral-genital contact, not one shows oral-anal. It would be good to add pictures of oral- anal, and photographs". ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)04:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me if you want this section to be considered by editors at WP:AN (ie if you would like this section copied there.) Please let me know if this was your intention and I will do so. However I should give you a heads up about this. You ask why the bulk of the conversation is about a topic that comprises less than 10% of your edits; the answer is because it is this 10% that has been problematic so of course that is where the discussion focusses. Having 90% of productive edits is not going to outweigh this. Furthermore I suspect that your argument above and the way you make it will weigh against you rather than in your favour. It would, in fact, be the kind of post that you would likely be topic banned from making should an unblock result from the current discussion. Self-justification in unblock appeals never plays well. Let me know if you nevertheless want this posting to WP:AN. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)10:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's BS, to put it mildly. Your edits involved FAR MORE than just counteracting removals of "all images of the human penis from the Penis page to the subpage Human penis." You, using IPs, were spamming many articles with numerous, often poor quality, images, sometimes in clumps, even when there were already images! You even sought to edit war. Your edits were not constructive, but you wouldn't listen to anyone else. AN/I was even involved. Anyone taking a looking at the archived AN/I discussion will get a picture of what was REALLY occurring. It's nothing like what you describe.
That you can edit constructively in other areas is also a fact, which is why I !voted for an unblock, but only on condition of a topic ban and strict supervision. Stay away from the sexual/anatomical/pathological/perversion topics. You get too carried away. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brangifer that is offensive, and unwarranted. Removing "all images of the human penis from the Penis page to the subpage Human penis." - was a single example of WP:censorship. In that 14 month old AN/I I was accused of using one "long-standing IP account, with a wide-ranging contribution history." to attempt to add images to "Human penis, ,Penis, Urolagnia, Urine , Phallus ,Vulva and Urination." In that AN/I User:Anthonyhcole wrote "It seems like sincere strong feelings about prudery, and an attempt, mostly through civil argument, to move the project toward a more radical position with regard to sexually explicit content." Please give an example of me spamming one article with numerous poor quality images.
I'm not going to go back now and examine that contribution history, but it was pretty obvious. The arguments, topics, choice of images, edit warring, etc., all match your MO, even to this day. It was enough to get you dragged to AN/I, where I then commented. I also added links to my appeals to you. Here is what I wrote there:
I have added replies with my thoughts and some advice here and here. I'm wondering if a short topic ban would be appropriate, even if only to force the IP to discuss the matter here, instead of everyone having to deal with them all over the place? A basic consensus needs to be arrived at here before they are allowed to continue this activity. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked out the history of your other registered accounts and IPs, but here they are for others to look at if they wish:
That's all for now as I see no point in discussing this more with you. You will only prolong the agony you've caused this project with your IDHT attitude. This is all quite a shame, since you have, at least previously, been capable of good work in other areas, but this subject seems to have become the focus of your attention and damaged your reputation. We still need editors who resist censorship, but you pushed the envelope far beyond what even Wikipedia can bear.
I trusted @Kim Dent-Brown: to handle you, and on that basis !voted for an unblock, but with strict conditions. I know he could have done a great job as your mentor and keeper, but I agree with Kim's change of heart and also think your block should not be lifted.
I suggest you use your blocked time to do something else, and resist the temptation to evade your block by editing using IPs. You are welcome to read Wikipedia, but you have lost the right to touch any editing functions. Period. It wouldn't surprise me if you lost the right to edit this talk page soon. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, as requested. However the very fact that you are prolonging in this discussion, when I've told you on- and off-wiki that such tendentiousness and self-justification is a problem during block appeals, worries me. If you can't control your combative implulses now, at a time when it's most in your own interests to do so, than will you be able to control them subsequently? I judge not, so I've changed my !vote to opposing any unblock. Very sorry, but I think I gave you fair warning. I laid my reputation on the line for you at WP:AN but I'm not willing to take a risk that I'm virtually certain now would not pay off. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)13:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
L'Origine du monde, I have been watching this from the sideline and thought I want to give my thoughts about what you did. You seem to be very good at reading and interpreting policies & guidelines. So have you read important ones such as assuming good faith? I cannot deny that the other side has done something incorrect and those things are outside your control, but respect and editing in good faith are two-way street. You keep stressing that the other side is wrong. But what about you? Your handling in this situation is not the most ideal and there's room for improvement. Originally Kim vouched to supervise you in the hopes that you can turn around by letting matters rest. However, it's impossible when you keep shooting yourself in the foot and continue pursuing those who you deem were "wrong". Quite frankly, pardon my language, you just don't know when to shut up for your own good. Every time you shot back against someone, you lose more supporters because they gave up trying to convince you and the community. And as you can see, Kim was the one who can draw people supporting Kim's proposal. Instead of able to return immediately to the community and show that you're a good contributor (with conditions attached), you now have to wait at least 6-12 months just to re-initiate the same discussion on WP:AN without guaranteeing that discussion may draw more supporters. Even if you're unblocked at that time, it will come with the same conditions attached (if not more stringent because you don't have someone like Kim who volunteered to supervise you). If I were you, L'Origine du monde, I would retract what you said by crossing out what you said just now in the hopes that Kim will reconsider (cause, once again, it will only get harder without Kim's support). OhanaUnitedTalk page02:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brangifer please give an example of me spamming one article with numerous poor quality images as you claimed I did above. While we had a content dispute, I dispute your description of my activity, or perhaps more pertinently your memory, and ask you to provide examples or rephrase your description of my activity. I would like to point out that this is my talk page, and an elaboration would be helpful. Over a year ago you wrote about our content dispute "The AN/I thread may end up getting longer if you can't heed the reverts, rebuffs, advice and hints you've been getting. I'm considering a topic ban." which never happened. Why do you support that now because I got blocked for another reason, and there don't seem to be any complaints about my recent edits, except for 1866 paintings in my user space. I have edited arab-israeli in the past, and my Oral sex edits were in good faith.- -- Brangifer (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2012 (♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)22:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:OhanaUnited thank you. I agree that my post above is not the most diplomatic, but I do not see how the project benefits when getting blocked involved forced agreement with everyone one has had a content dispute with, or agreement with untrue accusations. I was not blocked for editing in the sexual sphere before, and I do not accept that my editing there was judged wrong. Rather, I think my good faith artistic edits were misinterpreted by the vandalism detection system. If you look at the article Penis, you can see that there is missing visual content, and that due to anti vandalism a certain puritanistic iconoclasm had taken hold. How important is the inclusion of relevant free visual images are to wikipedia is something one is able to discuss as adults on talk pages. Making public accusations of spamming, without evidence shows how negative cultural perceptions of topics of Perversion can distort discourse. In the previous ANI there were repeated, untrue (see appeal section above) accusations that I misunderstood WP:Checkuser, and while I can see how my response created a negative attitude, I cannot see why my edits are not valued. For example, I put in effort, including calling a rfc to get a discriminatory line "People with histrionic personality disorder and narcissism may have a limited or minimal capability for experiencing love. " removed from Love. [[24]] I had to fight to get that edit through.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)23:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kim Dent-Brown , at the risk of sounding parochial, I would like to mention that when you wrote "However I should give you a heads up about this" I did not understand you to mean "I want to give you a serious warning". Now, when I can reflect, and google, I understand that, but at the time you wrote it had positive connotations for me.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)03:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you mean my note from 29 September above, where I said "...I suspect that your argument above and the way you make it will weigh against you rather than in your favour. It would, in fact, be the kind of post that you would likely be topic banned from making should an unblock result from the current discussion. Self-justification in unblock appeals never plays well. Let me know if you nevertheless want this posting to WP:AN." I don't know how you could possibly read that as encouragement to go ahead, or as anything other than advice NOT to proceed. It was your call as to whether or not you wanted me to post it to AN. I advised against it, you asked me to nevertheless, I did so on your behalf and here we are. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)18:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, yet somehow the American slang confused me. It sounds positive to me. In a similar way, I asked you what you thought of this wording for an appeal, and you understood me to be asking you to post it to AN.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)22:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am still very confused by all that has happened since I created this account, and linked it to my previous edits. There seems to be consensus that I should take a break, so I am. Help and suggestions are welcome. I am still puzzled about what to do when people repeatedly make false claims. Obviously it is best to ignore them, but in the context of a discussion on AN where participants do not look at edit histories, how should one deal with it? How much authority to people give to such statements?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)14:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should ignore their false claims. And I am pleased that you have had the self-awareness and maturity to realise that you ought to take a break. I wish you the very best of luck with it. Yours, AGK[•]14:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I'd check in and it's great to see you have Talk Page access, ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥. What I think you might want to do during your break is do work at the Commons, another Wikipedia or project like Wiktionary, Wikiquote or Wikibooks. Find some copyright-free photos that might help out that article you were working on and upload them to the Commons. There are a lot of ways you can contribute beyond English Wikipedia (there is even Simple English Wikipedia that is unconnected to this one).
After a few months, appeal your block, show the constructive work you've done on other Wikiprojects and you have a good chance of having this block lifted. Good luck! LizRead!Talk!20:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that I got so mad when I couldn't get the mistaken block undone, and thank you for your apologies. I had no understanding of the meaning of the mistake that had been made, or the anti vandalism pit I had fallen into, and I guess my situation was fairly unique. Looking back, I can see that I was shocked to be blocked, and remembered discrimination as an IP editor, which coloured my viewpoint. "Indefinite Block" was such a shock it knocked me totally off balance, and led me to confuse the ideal with the realisable with fears of Kafka! Sometimes, when you feel like editing constructively, 3 weeks can feel like a lifetime. Not to diminish my apologies. I understand that I got things seriously out of perspective♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)19:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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).
I am sorry that I went crazy. In the 5 years I have been editing wikipedia my only previous block was 1day for violating 1rr in Arab-Israeli - the 3 weeks+ of mistaken indefinite block really pushed my powers of endurance, and I over reacted to those who questioned my innocence and mistakenly thought I had been identified as a vandal by Checkuser. Having taken a break, I accept the mistake, apologise for my over reactions and bad behaviour. I can see that my situation was unusual, and think that I can improve the unblock template and related text so the directions are clearer. I would like to point to Right to Exist, to which I made the majority of edits, as an example of my abilities to contribute in controversial areas, and improve this great work. I believe I have insight into my overreaction to unusual circumstances, and a greater understanding of the administrative and anti-vandalism procedures.
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.
As this block was upheld by community consensus at WP:AN, it would be inappropriate for a single administrator to unblock. Having read the discussion, I suspect that most participants would believe it was too soon to consider unblocking. I suggest that the Wikipedia:Standard offer might be a path to follow. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having read Wikipedia:Standard offer I would like to point to my insight into my overreaction to a mistaken ban, and my greater understanding of the administrative and anti-vandalism procedures. I don't see the point in the 6 month since I was reacting to a unusual situation I have already assimilated. I am capable of heeding warnings. I would like my appeal referred to the community.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)22:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello L'Origine, I will paste your appeal into the administrators' noticeboard. You won't be able to post there of course but if you want to contribute to the discussion please post here and ask someone to copy it across. For what it's worth, I suspect that after this discussion and closure you will not be successful this time round. How you comport yourself during the appeal will have an effect on next time however. I'm afraid there's a certain amount of humble pie to be eaten on these occasions, and that's what you'll be served up at WP:AN I suspect. Bon appetit! Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)13:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:EatsShootsAndLeaves and others I apologise that 3 weeks in August in administrative limbo left me angry and confused, and I lost the control I have developed over years of editing, and started taking things personally and striking out in all directions. I am very sorry for my bad behaviour towards you and those involved in the fight against vandalism. If I questioned your good faith I apologise and I accept that I was over excited. I am sorry to offer such a delayed response to your request for an apology. I decided to wait out the discussion to help complete my emotional distance. I see that you are a respected editor who performs valued tasks, and I apologise sincerely for any incivility. The following is intended not as justification, but as explanation. I was very angry that just when I had decided to activate an account again, having had a fixed IP for years, I was mistakenly identified as evading a block, lost all my editing abilities as a result, and had my userspace deleted. Such a block evading vandal would not entitled to put offensive pictures on his userspace. An experienced editor such as myself is entitled to use visual imagery in her userspace with the intention of aiding the development of the project I believe. Last year I identified what I consider a serious problem - the removal of relevant visual material from various articles that had been debated and approved by consensus justified by a need to avoid offending people either without debate, or misrepresenting previous debate. When I questioned this last year, I was accused of being a pervert and having an obsessive need to post pictures of penises. Requests, for example, to add a photograph of a human penis to Penis or of a urinating penis to Urination as supported by archival discussion were misrepresented as a desire to post shock images and I felt intimidated by their accusations. I now understand that there is a serious problem with IP editors vandalising such pages, and that prejudice against me as an IP editor in such an area was rational. It is possible that editorial values have shifted against photographic illustration of bodily organs or bodily functions, but this should be discussed openly and explicitly based on past consensus and on the extra information that can be shown. The other tactic I felt was being used was to question the "quality "of images resulting in the exclusion of images. It is an argument that if you are looking for a photograph of a penis you should not come to an encyclopedia, but go to a porn shop - but IMHO when there is an image on wikicommons why expose the reader to the danger of searching the dodgy wastes of the internet for it. I guess I questioned the motives of a lot of hard working editors, some of who referred me to ANI once. The long and the short of it is that I wrongly suspected some kind of conspiracy against when I was blocked, and the painting which I had chosen, that is to me a symbol of freedom of visual expression and opposition to visual censorship was labeled vandalism and removed from all editors user space in an unconventional way with no discussion beyond the label vandalism. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)04:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
I was blocked by Beeblebrox enforcing what he described as a community block imposed at this discussion - [26]. That discussion was largely concerned with my not dropping the stick in requests for apologies for a mistaken 3 week block I suffered in August. [27] - summarised here [28]. He has since called me a trolling|Troll who has probably edited under "multiple past identities" (I link clearly to two accounts and a number of IPs at the top of this page.) [29]. He blanked my user page as a "courtesy," [30], and wants it to stay blanked for anti-vandalism reasons [31]. I am concerned that he wrote
I get the feeling that what we have here are two users at opposite ends of the spectrum. One who wants to talk about genitalia and put pictures of it all over the place, and another who thinks we shouldn't do that at all. The rest of us are in the middle, we don't want pictures of vaginas and penises adorning as many pages as possible but we also know that they have their place and purpose on this project.
I strongly feel that there should be a place in this encylcopedia for genitalia and bodily functions, and that it should be possible to discuss this in an adult manner. It is clear from discussion that his desire to blank my page for 150 year old art is an extreme view not reflective of community opinion. The community did not judge me a vandal. As an editor I am allowed to include material relevant to my editing in my userspace. If it seems to me that pictures benefical to the project have been censored, I should be able to discuss it without being called a vandal. I would like him to provide some diffs to support his repeated claim that I have been "putting pictures of genitalia all over the place", because they are untrue. I tried to add relevant pictures to relevant articles, last year and was called a pervert. Most of my efforts have, in any case, concentrated on discussion. Administrator Beeblebrox seems to on the other side of a legitimate content dispute with me, and I would rather that a neutral administrator was responsible for this community imposed ban. Is there any sense to my request, or am I but wikilawering? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)03:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As is reflected in these very remarks, your block is the result of a consensus that came from a community discussion. I merely enacted the block, it was the community that decided you should be blocked, so you can rest assured this is not something I did all on my own just because I don't like old artworks or whatever. I don't hold any extreme views about art and if you were actually paying attention you would see that I not only closed the previous mfd of your userpage but the very quote you reproduce here is part of my argument against the current nomination. So yeah, this is some pretty lame wikilawyering you acre engaging in here. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Beeblebrox. You clearly stated in that discussion that your personal preference was to blank my userpage. Please would you provide diffs to support your claim that I have been posting "pictures of genitalia all over the place" - presumably you meant in inappropriate places other than my user page. There is no consensus to reflect that claim. I would also refer you to Wikipedia:Civility. I find your repeated unsubstantiated allegations against me in fora I am excluded from unpleasant and unwarranted. If I was rude to you, I apologise, but I do not see what I have done to justify this abuse from you.
Conflicts of interest
Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace.
The only specific example I can find that you have given so far of my bad editing was in the first unblock discussion when you wrote
The problem with that idea is that they take a battleground approach to everything. I took a pretty deep look at their edit history when considering the block and what I found there was a user who seems to delight in deliberately provoking others into conflict. Look at the charming discussion at Talk:Oral sex about, well, it's about licking a persons asshole and LODM argues that the article is not acceptable without an actual photograph of someone's asshole being licked. (as opposed to the usual WP:ASTONISH compliant bland drawings we use in articles relating to sex acts. This is not "fighting censorship" which is their favorite cloak for their activities, it is just trying to get as many explicit images up in people's faces as possible. This is symptomatic of their approach to pretty much everything so I don't see how just setting this one issue to rest will resolve things.
WP:ASTONISH makes no mention at all of images. You are entitled to your views on content, you are entitled to engage in discussion, but I do not think you, as an administrator, should be raising content disputes such as this to justify banning me. I accept that I was a bit heated when my edits were contested by another editor who assumed that my mistaken ban was real, but I think I have a perfect right to DISCUSS adding pertinent images to relevant articles without being accused of " trying to get as many explicit images up in people's faces as possible." and that your comments here, and as above clearly illustrate that we have a content dispute in this subject area - which, it seems to me, you take personally. I know that most of the editors engaged in the unblock discussion did not examine my edit history. You invoked your authority as a blocking editor to make unjustified claims about my edit history, which you keep repeating. If you want to claim I posted lots of shock images, why no diffs? I am grateful that you write that there is no evidence that i have been sock puppetting, but I don't understand why you would suggest I have, other than my mistaken block. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥(♥ Talk ♥)04:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
♥ L'Origine du monde ♥, you seem to be engaging in more wikilawyering, deflection, and outright deception. I'll explain. By only mentioning the deletion of the image from your userpage, you seem to be deflecting attention from your earlier postings (as IPs) of many images that were unnecessary in number and graphicness in places where they were not needed, all over the objections of numerous editors. While I suspect there doesn't exist any image which might shock you, others do not feel the same, but you never seem to understand or accomodate that POV. Here are several examples (from right above) of your denials that you even did such a thing:
"I would like him to provide some diffs to support his repeated claim that I have been "putting pictures of genitalia all over the place", because they are untrue. I tried to add relevant pictures to relevant articles, last year and was called a pervert." That's a deceptive denial that you did it, and an implied accusation of lying. You were not accused of being a pervert for no reason at all. You did, as IPs, post lots of images of genitalia all over the place.
"Please would you provide diffs to support your claim that I have been posting "pictures of genitalia all over the place" - presumably you meant in inappropriate places other than my user page. There is no consensus to reflect that claim." Another clear denial, as well as an accusation of lying, but we both know you, using IPs, did post many graphic images of genitalia, and editors objected. There is no need for digging up diffs now, other than for you to just cause other editors difficulty. That's obstructionism.
Another denial, and implied accusation of lying, is this quote: "If you want to claim I posted lots of shock images, why no diffs?" Again you're denying you did it and trying to cause other editors a lot of difficulty in digging up the diffs where you did do it. Stop the deception. Admit you did it. You don't have to agree that they were graphic or shocking, but at least be honest enough to admit that you did post many images which other editors found shocking, excessive, and often misplaced.
You show no evidence of understanding what you did wrong, and your denials really make a good case for never allowing you back here and even denying you access to this talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am closing this admin help request. I don't actually see any meaningful request for any admin intervention. The admin help template is not just to call administrators' attention to your usual and posturing. I do see that you have gone through the motions of phrasing part of your usual "Oh dear, I'm a victim" stuff in the ostensible form of a request for admin help, saying "I would rather that a neutral administrator was responsible for this community imposed ban. Is there any sense to my request, or am I but wikilawering?" but that is just part of your usual game of "I didn't hear that", since it is inconceivable that by now you have failed to notice the consensus, and that you really believe that Beeblebrox is out on a limb. In fact, the more you post your complaints here that you have been unfairly picked on, the more clear it becomes that unblocking you would be totally unsuitable. However, I will give you the satisfaction of having an answer to your "Question for administrator. No, there isn't any sense to your request. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is some difference of opinion as to exactly how a blocked editor should be permitted to edit his or her talk page. Those who take a strict view are of the opinion that the only reason for allowing talk page access is to allow unblock requests, while others allow more leeway. However, it has now become clear that your use of talk page access goes well beyond the uses which are generally regarded as appropriate, even by those to the liberal side of the middle range. Over the course of just under two months since your block, you have repeatedly used talk page access in ways which only confirm that, as stated in the block log, you are not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Therefore, to prevent further waste of time of other editors, whose time could be more fruitfully employed on other tasks, your talk page access has been removed, as you were told would be likely to be the result of your persistent unconstructive posts.
I received an email appealing this block today. As I explained several times back when it was issued, this is a community-based sanction, not a single-admin block, so I actually can't just lift it myself without consulting the community once again. I am frankly far too busy with my final Arbitration Committee case to put any real time into this, so I am re-instating talk page access to allow this user to appeal.
The way this normally works is that you post a normal unblock request asking for a community review and stating the reasons why you believe you should be unblocked. Iff your request does not appear to be an attempt at trolling/vandalism/etc, it will be copied to WP:AN or WP:ANI for discussion. Anything you have to add can be posted here and copied over to the discussion.
As you know, L'Origine du monde,I too have received an email from you, asking me to unblock you. I am reasonably inclined to give you another chance. However, since the block was based on an unambiguous consensus at a community discussion, I agree with Beeblebrox that it should be put back to the community to discuss. Even were that not the case, I think it would be better for you to make an unblock request here, so that your reasons are visible to other editors, rather than an administrator unblocking based only on comments in an email that nobody else can see. I would therefore encourage you to make an unblock request as Beeblebrox suggests. I will also offer you a couple of pieces of advice, both to make an unblock more likely, and to make it less likely that, if you are unblocked, you get blocked again. Firstly, take care that if you are unblocked, you avoid editing in ways that you know are likely to be opposed by a large proportion of editors, no matter how convinced you may be that you are right and others are wrong. Secondly, don't deny things that are visible to anyone who looks at the evidence: for example, you denied that the ban that Beeblebrox imposed was based on a community consensus, despite the fact that consensus is clearly visible to anyone who looks at the discussion. (That sort of denialism was a large part of the reason why I removed your talk page access.) I will also take this opportunity to apologise for my failure to properly proof-read an earlier post to this page. I wrote "... your usual and posturing ...": presumably some other word was supposed to come after "usual", but more than a year later I have no idea what that word was. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your consideration, and I would like to take the opportunity to wish you both a happy new year full of light, joy, and objectivity.
Apologies for not properly formatting my request. Forgotten a lot. Will work on it. Thank you :)
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).
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.
It has been almost 5 years. I have grown in maturity. When I read wrong things here I still want to correct them, and to learn...
AGK please help me! I don't want to get sucked back into the vortex!
NE Ent I would be grateful for assistance.
Please note below has not been revised or edited for 3 years.
It is impossible to fully empathize with someone who has experienced a perceived bad block until having been in a similar situation oneself. I hope your unblock request succeeds. Warmest regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT)02:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was going through the administrators noticeboard and found your request to be unblocked. Welcome back! If you need another editor to connect with my talk page is open to you. The Very Best of Regards, Barbara✐ ✉ 10:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
I think this was only enacted in 2012. Anyways - be careful. It is perhaps a technicality (though it does definitely foster talk-page consensus) - but violations are treated rather harshly.Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walther Rathenau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Do not start up your problematic editing in these areas (or when it comes to image matters) again. No more spamming when it comes to urination and urolagnia. Otherwise, I will take you to WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some recent edits seem to be doing stuff like diff which gratuitously lists several items of interest. That puts your own slant on topics. Don't do it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to be more specific. You know what you've recently edited regarding penises and urination. You also know the problems you caused in the past. After this silly move request and this bit that El C reverted you on, I will see you at WP:ANI sooner than later. You even re-added this after what Johnuniq stated above. BullRangifer, Cullen328, Beeblebrox, JamesBWatson, and others, I am not going to put up with this editor's disruptive editing again. I will go straight to WP:ANI with a case if no one beats me to it. This editor should never have been unblocked. Has not changed. At all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain when reverting you at the Human penis article. You just think you know better. You will be indefinitely blocked again. It's not a personal attack. It's a fact. I am just as fed up with you now as I was years ago. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:Due. As has been discussed at WP:Med, we do not go by the DSM-5's definition for the WP:Lead sentence in all of our medical articles. Furthermore, as made clear in the DSM-5 section of that article, "the DSM-5 adds a distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders." And lead sentences should not be as long as the one you added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Human penis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. I see nothing on the talk page or in the archive by you or about this. Per WP:BRD take this to the talk page, and if there is a previous discussion then link to it.Meters (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I saw your edit summary linking to Talk:Human_penis/Archive_1#Photo_for_urination?, but that thread does not discuss your current edit adding commons categories. Your current edit has been challenged by being undone. Either discuss it on the talk page or leave it alone. You have already made this edit 4 times. Meters (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for disruptive editing and edit warring at Human penis. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If L'Origine du monde makes an unblock request which moves an uninvolved admin to unblock, that's fine by me; it's not necessary to consult me. However, for my own part, I seriously considered an indefinite block, in view of the user's history. Bishonen | talk20:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
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).
I request an unblock because I have been trying to improve the encyclopedia. I see now that I made a stupid mistake when copying the wikimedia links from Urination to Human penis, but nobody pointed that out until I created the talk page discussion as instructed above. There is an old discussion on the human penis page where it was agreed that a photograph should illustrate the action, which has not been followed, and I thought that a wikimedia link should be less controversial. I was banned by mistake many years ago, and do not think it fair that this should be misrepresented and used against me. I did not break the 3R rule, and followed the instructions I was given to create a talk page discussion, which has revealed to me that I stupidly included female urination by mistake. I had, and have, no intention to do so, but was confused by the reverts that did not mention this. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥23:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You are blocked for your disruptive edit war (and not for WP:3RR). Please see WP:EW where it says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." I see no recognition of that in this unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Let me get this straight. You added two commons categories to Human penis, {{commons category|Human male urination}} and {{commons category|Human female urination}},[32] and then attempted three times to edit war this addition — both the male and the female urination image categories on commons — into the article, without ever noticing your own original edit summary or the content of your own edit? And when you posted this on the talkpage, which again makes it clear, both in your edit summary and the appearance of your post, you also didn't notice that it was about both male and female urination? And you also didn't notice that a user pointed it out specifically[33] — your response to that was "Why do you think illustration is inappropriate in an encyclopedia?" And was other people's fault, because you were "confused by the reverts that did not mention this". Is that right? To be clear, it was not because of the female urination thing specifically that I blocked you. It was for edit warring and disruption, and for going to talk far too late (not until you were up against the bright-line 3RR). Bishonen | talk10:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen, if you look at [34] you will see that the editor changed his inital edit while I was writing my reply. When I returned to the page and read his revised version I had been blocked, so could not respond. I agree that I should not have been edit warring, but I think it unfair to get a 1 month block when editors gave no explanation, and I was following the warning I had been given.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥20:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to see you think reverts should be made at all; it's always best to not revert at all, or once at the most, before discussing on talk. And most especially when you're reverted by several people. The "3RR rule", which mentions 3 reverts, isn't a reason to revert 3 times, but a "bright-line rule": you're almost sure to be blocked if you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours, but you can certainly edit war without breaking that rule. But I think you really know this; your editing suggests it, and the warnings you have been given state it explicitly, for instance this: "To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war."
As for the female urination, it would have been better if you'd read the other user's whole comment before posting in response to it when you got an edit conflict, but that's not the point here. As I've already written, "it was not because of the female urination thing specifically that I blocked you, it was for edit warring and disruption, and for going to talk far too late (not until you were up against the bright-line 3RR)". Bishonen | talk03:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen I read the whole comment, then the other user changed their comment after I started to respond to it. Flyer22 Reborn reverted me twice with personal attacks, and no explanation except expressing a desire to see me banned. [35], made a personal attack on me above, again with no explanation, and has attacked me in other places including below. I should not have risen to his bait, but I am puzzled why you do not sanction him. The warning above says "keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring'even if you don't violate the three-revert rule should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly." When you blocked me, I had stopped reverting, and started a discussion on the talk page. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥11:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your first revert said "Do not start your disruptive editing regarding urination again." second revert was described as " We don't do this. Stop it. I will see you indefinitely blocked again. You should never edit this site."♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥19:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And? I told you that "we don't do this." You are the one who decided not to listen a significantly experienced Wikipedian and do what you want to do. You are the one who then reverted another significantly experienced Wikipedian who quite clearly told you "no encyclopedic value; nothing on talk." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit like that, whatever exactly you mean, although I agree with the main edit, and don't understand why you reverted either of them. I have repeatedly asked you to leave me alone, and stop harassing me, and I repeat the injunction. You are irritating the heck out of me. Please stop.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥19:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me a question. I replied. Your comment that you don't edit like that is not supported by even a glance at your edit history. You still have not stated that you are not that IP. I am not harassing you. See what WP:Harassment means. As for irritation, we both know how I feel about you in that regard. I would be more than happy to not have to interact with you ever again. When you are talking about me, especially when you do not need to, you should not be surprised to see me respond. For now, I will stop commenting on your talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 Reborn thank you very much for your silence. I did not make that edit, I was once mistakenly blocked for sock puppetry, but that block was reverted, and it was confirmed it was a mistake. Policy says you should not use my page to " display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues." Wikipedia:Harassment#User space harassment. Thank you very much for your understanding.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥14:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://jaapl.org/content/42/2/191, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words please. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Diannaa. The links say the edit doesn't exist, but seem to identify a 70% similarity, showing that I had paraphrased the content. Please could you explain your assessment, and what level of (dis)similarity is required?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥12:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry the link doesn't work for you - sometimes it doesn't and I don't know why. Content you add to Wikipedia has to be completely re-worded in your own words and shouldn't contain any wording whatsoever from the source document.
Here is what the bot report shows. Overlapping material is marked in bold:
Paraphilia was first introduced as a term into DSM-III to replace the DSM-II term sexual deviation “because it correctly emphasizes that the deviation (para-) lies in that to which the person is attracted (philia)”[1].
Since 1990, a significant number of US states have passed Sexually violent predator laws. These allow for sex offenders to be civilly committed to mental hospitals after completing mandatory prison sentences. These laws rely for their constitutionality on a violent sexual offender having a mental abnormality predisposing him or her to commit sexual offenses.
DSM-5 redefined the term paraphilia to refer to a persistent, intense, atypical sexual arousal pattern, independent of whether it causes any distress or impairment, which, by itself, would not be considered disordered and instead uses the term paraphilic disorder to refer to the disorder-worthy entities included in The Manual, defined as persistent and intense atypical sexual arousal patterns accompanied by clinically significant distress or impairment. It introduced a new distinction between ascertaining a paraphilia and diagnosing a paraphilic disorder.
Diagnosing a paraphilic disorder, requires A. an atypical focus of sexual arousal and an arousal pattern that is recurrent, intense, and persists for at least six months, and B. a harm component, requiring the presence of distress, impairment in functioning, or involvement of nonconsenting victims.
^Mann RM, Hanson RK, Thornton D: Assessing risk for sexual recidivism: some proposals on the nature of psychologically meaningful risk factors. Sex Abuse 22:191–217, 2010
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).
Prior to this block, I was last warned about 1RR edit warring on 08:16, 24 May 2018. A warning was given about edit warring at 19:22, 27 March 2019, having seen this I created a talk page discussion at 20:19, 27 March 2019, and was blocked for one month at 20:23, 27 March 2019. I made a mistaken edit, and should not have engaged in repeated reverts, but I felt provoked by the uninformative personal attacks used by an editor to revert me, first "Do not start your disruptive editing regarding urination again.", and secondly " We don't do this. Stop it. I will see you indefinitely blocked again. You should never edit this site."( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_penis&action=history ) I need to keep my cool, but a warning works on me. (UTC) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥19:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
(1) You know perfectly well that edit-warring is unacceptable; as you yourself pointed out in this unblock request, you have been warned about it in the past. You don't need to be warned over and over again every time you edit-war; you don't get to game the system by continually edit-warring until you get yet another warning, stop for a while, and then return to edit-warring on another occasion, until you get another warning... (2) The "personal attacks" that you quote were not personal attacks at all: they were constructive attempts to get you to stop your persistent disruptive editing. (3) You say you "made a mistaken edit". I am unconvinced that it was a mistake, rather than an edit made with full knowledge of what you were doing, in the mistaken belief that you could get away with it until you got another edit-warring warning. If, however, it really was a mistake, then you never seem to learn, so unblocking you would be unlikely to help. (4) You say "I need to keep my cool, but a warning works on me." Really? In view of all the warnings you have had over the years, followed by exactly the same kind of editing after a break, I don't think it does. (5) When Bishonen placed the present block she said in the block log "Perhaps indefinite would have been better, in view of the user's history." I agree 100% with that, except for the word "perhaps". Bishonen was being very generous in letting you have another chance after a month, and there is no case at all for making it even shorter. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Flyer22 Reborn has been edit warring with me, wikistalking me, repeatedly attacking me personally, and expressing a desire to get me blocked, something he succeeded in doing. What can be done to stop him behaving like this? Is there any way I can block him, or prevent him from making comments about me, rather than the content of my edits? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥11:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any admin is free to look at our history, and what the community decided time and time again when it comes to L'Origine du monde's editing. There's years worth of material above on L'Origine du monde's talk page. I have not been WP:Hounding L'Origine du monde. Every sexual article that L'Origine du monde shows up to is on my watchlist. And given L'Origine du monde's history, an editor looking at L'Origine du monde's edits is valid for reasons that WP:Hounding states anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The way to stop Flyer22 Reborn "behaving like this" is for you to stop the persistent disruptive editing that she is dealing with. (By the way, I wonder why you assume that Flyer22 Reborn is "he". She isn't.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22 Reborn "The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." I have no objection to you politely pointing out specific problems with my edits, or indeed reporting me for sock-puppetry in the appropriate forum. But I repeat my request that you be polite, and focus on content, rather than me. Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Avoiding personal attacks.
I didn't know you had come back to Wikipedia and had been unblocked. I hope you have a better experience this time around and can collaborate more productively with other editors. Remember not to get into edit wars...it's always better to stop and discuss on the article talk page when you come into contact with an editor who objects to an edit. They might have knowledge about the history of the article that you don't or you might be able to persuade them on the merits of your argument. Good luck. LizRead!Talk!03:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a guide template to your talk page. You could try and read the links :) The main points to remember are to assume good faith, keep calm, not revert edits. Also be bold :)♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥13:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See your edits and edit summaries here and here. Compare Wiktionary, kosher, sense 2: "(figuratively, by extension) In accordance with standards or usual practice." Example: "Is what I have done kosher with Mr. Smith?" This figurative sense is by no means a rare way of using the word, and I find it quite hard to believe you're a stranger to it. Please don't go out of your way to irritate other users, or their assumption of good faith is likely to run out. Bishonen | talk19:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Hello, User:L'Origine du monde, your user sig is broken and breaks Syntax highlighting in every talk page that contains it, for the entire remainder of the page upon which it appears, because it breaks basic principles of nesting of HTML and wikicode tag and metacharacters. Please see WP:CUSTOMSIG for guidelines. Note also, that WP:SIGFONT advises staying away from deprecated <font> tags. To my knowledge, your sig is the following:
[[User:L'Origine du monde|<span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC;font-size:15px; text-shadow: 0 0 .2"><b><span style="color:red">♥ L'Origine du monde ♥</span></b></span>]] <sup><span style="color:blue">♥ [[User talk:L'Origine du monde|<span style="color:blue">Talk</span>]]♥ </span></sup>
For starters, notice the improper position of your wikilink close bracket metacharacters ]], which occurs before the closures of the intervening <span> and <font> tags.
Secondly, it may be easier for you to balance the sig code, if you drop the <font> tag entirely, as is recommended, and import the color property directly into the <span> or else use Wiki templates like {{Red}} and {{Blue}} instead. For bold, use the standard triple-apostrophe rather than the <b> tag. You might want to try this instead:
'''[[User:L'Origine du monde|<span style="color:red; font-family:Edwardian Script ITC;font-size:15px; text-shadow: 0 0 .2">♥ L'Origine du monde ♥</span>]]''' <sup>{{Blue|♥ [[User talk:L'Origine du monde|Talk]] ♥}}</sup>
Note that your talk page links don't work, at least in my browser, and this markup doesn't fix that. It's your responsibility to ensure that your sig works, so please make sure you validate that, but please don't use your current sig on talk pages anymore until you've fixed it. (You can avoid using your broken signature by not using ~~~~ for the time being.) You can still sign talk posts by just typing your user id, followed by five tildes to generate the timestamp, like this:
[[User:L'Origine du monde]] ([[User talk:L'Origine du monde|Talk]]) ~~~~~
and that will work, while you work out the fix for your custom sig. An easier alternative, is just to go to Preferences > Signature, and blank the Signature markup, until you've figured out the new one. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing serious, thanks for taking care of it. There's still a problem in that in my browser at least, it doesn't seem to hyperlink your Talk page link for some reason; but that causes no adverse effects on the rest of the page, but I'm not quite sure why it isn't linking it. I'm sure I could figure it out if I spent the time, but I don't have it right now. If you want to hyperlink your Talk link, you might try asking for help at WP:VPT. (If you do, then be sure to provide a link there back to this conversation.) Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you want a blank space next to the hearts, I would use instead of an actual blank, so your signature doesn't wrap at the end of a line, with one heart on one line, and the matching heart on the next line. If you look at the signature of your 18:37 post above, and then while looking at it, slowly start narrowing your browser window until there is only a heart at the right margin, and then narrow a tiny bit more, you will see what I mean. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear L'Origine du monde, I saw you were concerned about the merging of Art-Language and Art & Language. Maybe you haven't noticed there was a pending discussion about it in the Art & Language Talk page. Very best, --Philippe49730 (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
It is incumbent on you as the proposer of a wp:BOLD edit to justify it on the talk page and gain consensus, per WP:BRD. As I mentioned before, by your logic the lead of Moscow should include that it was a Polish city because Poland captured it during a war.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ermenrich I am puzzled that you find the need to write to me here when I had already written on your talk page. Let us keep this discussion there unless you would like to create a discussion or RFC on the Konigsberg talk page where I will be happy to participate. I do not think that reverting your reversion of my edit qualifies as edit warring, since your justification for your edit was factually mistaken, and reflected a far from neutral point of view (you claimed the fact was used in Russian Propaganda). ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥
L'Origine du monde, Ermenrich is correct to warn you here: this warning is about your behavior more than about the content of the edit. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies I am puzzled by what you mean. He reverted me without giving a sensible reason, didn't want to discuss it, then reverted me again with no reason given, after writing this, which is edit warring, as far as I can understand it. My edit reflected the content of the article. He is writing about Russian Propaganda... Anyway I made an RFC :) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥
OK--for starters, please don't do in your edit summary what you are already doing in the edit itself: one ping is enough. Second, they did, of course, provide an explanation the first time, and it was at that point that you should have gone to the talk page. But you are missing the point: Ermenrich warned you here because they had a problem with your behavior, and I am affirming that they were correct to warn you here. You edit, they revert, you make your case on the talk page. With your lengthy history here, this should not be news to you, and with your block history, you should be more careful than you are. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Swag Lord where in MOS:LEADSENTENCE does it say that. It says "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." and gives many examples where the profession of the subject is mentioned, even if not what he/she was famous for. If a man's profession was slaveownership, or slave driving, surely this defines who or what he or she was. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥21:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll down to the biography section: The first sentence should usually state:...5. The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.). Being president of the United States is the main reason why these individuals are notable--not slave ownership. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
Your recent editing history at Frieze Art Fair shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit at this article is against MOS. The number of slaves at Mount Vernon held as dower slaves, owned outright by the Washingtons, or rented from others needs to be cited within the main text before it can be added to the lead section. Your edit is against the MOS:LEAD guideline, per the Manual of Style the lead section is to be a summary of the important points of an article. Shearonink (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, show me where rent/rented/renting or similar wording as that pertains to people held in bondage or people controlled by George Washington otherwise known as slaves is mentioned or extensively dealt with within the main body of the slavery article. Shearonink (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lease is mentioned, which is a synonym. I believe that the number of slaves he controlled and form of ownership is important , and I am not sure that I understand how anyone could disagree with that.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥18:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know...if you had simply said to something along the lines of looking for the term "lease" within the article rather than only ever mentioning the word "rent" that would have been helpful.
I don't disagree with anything re: content in this matter, the main issues for me are 1)Verifiability - sourcing statements to reliable sources so readers can verify the information themselves plus keeping those statements neutral and 2)following the Manual of Style guidelines re: Lead sections. Shearonink (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
? I am not "satisfied". At this point I am only concerned that you have not been providing verifiability for your edits. As to being "satisfied" I think adding the exact numbers to the lead of the main article's lead could be considered overkill and a surfeit of information. Frankly, in light of your recent edits on both the main article and the GW slavery article I think trying to shoehorn all the information ever - all the numbers, all the info about George Washington and the people he held in bondage, all his views about slavery, etc., etc. into the main GW article is too much, it's already over 1MB in length. Shearonink (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shearonink I think simple facts about how many slaves he rented are more important than much of that other information. I disagree with your characterisation of my edits, and I would be very grateful if you would continue the discussion on the relevant talk page, starting with an explanation as to why mountvernon.org is not a reliable source. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥19:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Invasion of Quebec (1775) into George Washington. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Good editing practices#The normal editing process is just part of an essay and that page isn't a WP:Guideline or a WP:Policy etc but...as a fellow editor I am finding it hard to follow your incremental edits, meaning your many small edits that happen in rapid succession on an article with each individual edit maybe only changing a word or two in each sentence. The pertinent part of this essay is this:
Make incremental changes
Large changes in a single edit are difficult to read, and may be reverted by other editors on mere suspicion. Adding an entire section at once is usually acceptable, since it is self-contained. Making multiple changes in a single edit, particularly when edits stretch across different sections, should be avoided.
It can really help to create a collegial/communal editing atmosphere if editors can consolidate their many small edits into a larger one that is then Published. Then fellow editors can see clearly the direction the active editor is heading. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are correct, I misread the intent of the essay...and it isjust an essay. I personally find many many incremental small edits to be frustrating, adding a word or two here, deleting a little something there...trying to figure out the point of the editor in question's many many edits. If someone is doing a multitude of minor edits bit by bit, why not add them all at once? I know you are not one but, sadly, in my experience, incremental editing is sometimes used by troll-vandal editors as a method of trying to slip vandalism into their target article. In your case, it's just a matter of editing preferences - cheers. Shearonink (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
There was an objection to proposed deletion, which you can see at the article, so it cannot be deleted via prod; I have listed it for AfD, and you should comment there. DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Gunness until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Twice, but whatever. A couple more quick notes: please don't add pings to both your comments and your edit summaries, as it results in a double ping. Also, Generalrelative uses they/them pronouns. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're back to routinely double pinging due to user links in edit summaries. If you intent to continue copying your comments into the edit summary box, you could trim the links out of the edit summary before posting, or start using a template like Template:User link, as templates do not work in edit summaries. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your behavior at Talk:Aleksandr Dugin#Dugin isn't a fascist does not conform with talk page guidelines. First, I have asked you twice to stop pinging me (the first time in a round-about way [36], the second time directly [37]) yet you responded by pinging me again [38]. I have now been pinged by you 10 times today on a single talk page, which is excessive. Second, properly indenting your comments isn't optional (per e.g. WP:TPYES, WP:TALKGAP) and fixing indentation, as I have done, is permitted (per WP:TPO) though since you've requested I stop doing so I will. However you should be aware that failure to properly indent your comments once you are aware that you must do so may be considered a form of disruptive editing. Generalrelative (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generalrelative I find it strange that you complain about me pinging you on that page before you asked me not to. I have always understood it to be normal to do so when replying to somebody - am I mistaken? Apologies for my one mistaken ping, see above. I repeatedly asked you to explain the exact reasoning behind your desire to include "Fascist" in the first sentence, but you declined to do so- is that in line with talk page guidelines? I would be grateful if you would explain here or on that page. I do not believe that it is disruptive to avoid 12 or more sets of colons before comments by resetting.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥16:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) I find it strange that you complain about me pinging you on that page before you asked me not to. I'm not sure what you're referring to as me complaining here. In the first diff I linked above I told you that you do not need to ping me every time you comment. In the second I told you directly to stop pinging me. Then you did it again, which could reasonably be considered a mild form of harassment.
2) You are entitled to talk page engagement, but you are not entitled to dictate the terms of the conversation, nor are you entitled to having your demands satisfied. My argument is that the first sentence is both verifiable and due (as I stated clearly on the talk page), that it clearly enjoys longstanding consensus, and that the matter has been discussed many times. That's enough for now. If the language is seriously in danger of being removed, I will delve deeper into the sources and relevant policies to state a more detailed case.
3) If you want to outdent, use {{od}}. But your implicit description of your commenting behavior is not accurate. Many times you simply ignored formatting protocols entirely to place your comment at the left margin. Diffs can be supplied for this if necessary, but really, just look. Generalrelative (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[User:Generalrelative|Generalrelative]] I explictly asked you if it is normal to "ping" someone when replying to them. This is my talk page. Either be polite and engage with me, or stop harassing me.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥17:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, most of the experienced editors whose preferences I know would rather not be pinged more than once during an active discussion; a few indicated in their signature that they would like a ping. For most, if you don't get a response in a couple days, and you don't have any reason to suspect that the other editor is just done responding, that's often a good time for another ping. As far as I know, there's not policy or guideline around this, so I'm just sharing my personal experience. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Thank you! I would like an uninvolved editor, ideally an administrator, to ask him to calm down. I do not want to go to ANI. I don't think he will listen to me as he seems to view me as an antagonist.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥23:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Margarita Simonyan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I reverted back to the last stable version. People need to make a case on talk for their edits, not edit war. I have no idea who is right or wrong, in terms of content. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a a user named https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Volunteer_Marek who has been breaking a lot of rules and has over 100 edits that are editorialized/ falsified information that I could count in his most recent edits and has broken edit warring rules nearly half a dozen times of what I have seen so far, he seems to be chronically doing it and was wondering if you could go thru the report process with him as I’ve never done it and it might be easier and better for you to do it compared to me as I’m still learning about the rules Bobisland (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Doug Weller unfortunately I have had a number of issues with Generalrelative who reverted my edit "Deleted unsourced material, and source that didn't support it." with the untrue description "Restoring well sourced, WP:DUE content.)." I find it very hard to see how they could have done that in good faith, since they gave no explanation or apology for their behaviour.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥13:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to point out to Generalrelative how they were making me feel in the hope that they will respect my edits, and improve their editing in the future. I hope they have understood. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥13:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an excuse for suggesting someone is editing in bad faith, being civil wouldn't hurt you and not being civil can be seen as disruptive. Doug Wellertalk14:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technically this edit was your second revert of the day and a violation of the one-revert rule in place at that article. I recommend a self-reversion. I don't intend to drag you to the boards over it, but 1RR is a bright-line rule and I'd rather see you stay on the right side of it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still explicitly support the rearrangement. My support doesn't change the 1RR math, but it does affect my willingness to call for a sanction, which again, I'm not going to do. I know it's hard to see it this way, since we're in the midst of this dispute, but my intention here is to prevent you for being sanctioned over such a minor violation. You can help me prevent that by self-reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't revert it because it was immediately reverted by someone else, with whom I am discussing his edit. I do not think that reinstating the undisputed part of a disputed edit following discussion on the talk page breaches the spirit of 1R, but thank you! ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥15:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to learn how to do it and have some of the rule breaking stuff saved I feel like my complaint containing a lot of rule breaking will be better than yours in showing just one incident Bobisland (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Can you add Brazil, the Czech Republic, Portugal and the USA in the paragraph Countries recognising Holodomor as genocide? More details on the discussion page of the Holodomor article. 46.211.103.70 (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Art & Language, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. You removed three maintenance tags from the article Art & Language without resolving the problems with the article. This is disruptive to the integrity of the encyclopedia. Editors MUST resolve the issues before attempting to remove such tags. You have also added a considerable amount of additional unsourced content, when the article was already tagged for needing more citations.Netherzone (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Netherzone please check out WP:DRIVEBY. Most of what I added was sourced pictures. Better improve the article than spoil it with multiple unexplained tags. I find it rude and unpleasant of you to describe my edits as unconstructive, especially when clearly explained in the edit summary as "(removed innactive tags)" [[41].
If you want to add these tags to the article, please explain why on the talk page, and please also explain exactly what you want changed before the tags can be removed.
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User Talk:Netherzone. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I have been pinged multiple times by you on several talk pages,which is not necessary. And I do not appreciate the personal attack you left on my talk page where you described me as ignorant, impolite, irrational and unpleasant. Please do not do that agin. Regarding the Art & Language article, you should not remove maintenance tags from articles without first resolving the issues, which you did not do. Please reinstate the tags that you removed twice, and refrain from insulting other editors, both of which are disruptive. Thank you.Netherzone (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone I only described you as ignorant of Contemporary art, for which I apologise, and did not describe you as impolite, irrational or unpleasant, and I strongly object to making false claims about me. I wrote "Specifically I find you reversal of this edit [[42]] claiming it is "promotional" as irrational and unpleasant. We can all make mistakes while editing, but it is not hard to be polite."
'You accused me of adding promotional content - what did you mean, and why did you revert my edit about the tree "that owns itself"? Why do I have to ask you this again?
I also asked you to explain what exactly you want changed on Art and Language, but you haven't. I don't understand why you don't improve the article yourself, but want tags there...
Please stop. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Art & Language, you may be blocked from editing. Please STOP removing the COI maintenance tag from this article, you have done so three times now. The last time you did so, you stated that there was no justification for it, this is incorrect. The COI issues are not resolved, the justification is on the article talk page stating COI: the article has been heavily edited by single purpose editors, editors who never responded to COI inquiries nor made a disclosure, editors adding COPYVIO material, SPA editor adding huge listings of works held by the collector and who owns the museum whose primary function is to house Art & Language’s works, edits made by several commercial galleries that represent A&L, etc.. Additionally, one of the main Single Purpose Editors who added large amounts of unsourced content failed to ever respond to the COI notification on their user page, thus the COI issues are NOT resolved. Please stop removing this template you are creating a slow moving edit war by continuing to do so. This is disruptive and tendentious. Additionally, you have insulted me (thank you for the non-apology apology), and accused me of being a "drive by tagger" which I am not. If you examine the article history, you will see that I have extensively worked on the article, and have cleaned up some, but not all of the problems yet. The unsourced content added by the COI SPA involves living persons and is thus also a BLP violation. Please stop edit warring over the maintenance tag, and try to develop patience.Netherzone (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone my edit summary said "Removed COI tag because not properly explained on talk page - no editor identified, and editor who added the tag is not discussing his addition." I think it unreasonable of you to ignore messages for a week, despite editing the encyclopedia, still not answer specific questions about your COI tag, but revert me and write your long waffle above accusing me of impatience. There was no previous mention of COI on the talk page, nobody is currently mentioned, and despite repeated requests you haven't explained who you are talking about, when the editing happened what BLP violations you have identified, or what changes you want to remove the COI. Drive by tagging because there was no explanation for them on the talk page- did you read the link I provided? I don't like your repeated tags here above. You seem to be engaged in an edit war yourself - I don't understand why you want 3 tags on the article about what seems to be the same issue. I made a very clear apology above, explaining how you misread what I wrote, and I would like you to read it, and engage with the discussion on the relevant pages rather than write more criticism of me here. I would also like you to explain what you thought I was promoting by criticising that Oak Tree.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥14:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BLUDGEON. As previously requested, please stop pinging me multiple times whenever you communicate with me. I am not required to edit or reply to you on your timeline; I am a volunteer here, with a full time job, who is traveling presently for work, and I have other WP priorities. Please be respectful. I have already provided justifications several times on the Art & Language article talk page and in my edit summaries. Just because you don't agree with those justifications is not a reason for you to bludgeon the process. If you would kindly look through the article history (which I have also asked you to do more than once, but I will explain again), you will find that the most frequent editor, who has added scores of unsourced content, and who primarily only edits Art & Language, Château de Montsoreau-Museum of Contemporary Art where the permanent collection of Art & Language is held and where they had added a tremendous amount of puffery, Philippe Méaille the owner of the Art & Language collection and the president of the Chateau de Montsoreau museum which houses that collection, and whose other edits are to frequently add Art & Language content to other articles, as well as half of their article creations having to do with Art & Language, including the article on the building that houses the A&L collection (which was deleted four times before being accepted under another article name). As an experienced editor, that seems quite odd to me, and is clearly indicative of conflict of interest editing, or worse, UPE, undisclosed paid editing. And that they never responded to the message I left for them regarding COI, is a pattern I've seen before. There have also been numerous other single-purpose editors. I have already communicated this, please stop making demands for justification when I have already done so. The maintenance tags that you so vehemently object to are are a helpful way to alert the community that work is needed on a specific article. I will continue to clean. up the unsourced content and original research and the remainder of COI content, but I won't be doing it on your timeline as you are certainly not the boss of me. I have other priorities on the encyclopedia and in real life. As previously suggested, please try to cultivate patience. Thank you and goodbye. Netherzone (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You added these tags to the article, you should explain them there, just as you should explain why you rudely accused me of promotional editing and edit warring and ideally stop making accusations against me. I do not understand why I need to ask you so many times, and still not get an answer about what you need changed to justify removing the COI tag. As far as I can follow your logic, the last such edit was 3 years ago, and you think it should remain for ever, which is surely wrong. I have been careful to only include your name in my comment, not in the summary, so I don't know why you get lots of pings - sorry! ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥18:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone please STOP being rude. Bludgeon does not, I think, describe trying to get one editor, such as yourself, to contribute an explanation of a tag to a talk page. While it may be self evident to you, you do actually need to explain yourself. "In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people. This can happen on a talk page, deletion discussion, or in any discussion at Wikipedia. It is undesirable and considered a form of disruptive editing.
I see that you had actually given a kind of explanation on the relevant talk page. As you can see, I disagree with you about the NPOV nature of the lists of artists and museums. I hope on reflection you will agree. Thanks for improving the article & happy travels!♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥18:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Art & Language. This is your fourth warning not to remove maintenance tags without resolving the issues, yet you continue to do so. It will take time to go through all of the contributions going back several years of COI editing by various contributors. I see that you are familiar with the main COI editor per:[44], why did you not remove his problematic edits but rather chose to engage me in these ridiculous demands. I will be restoring the template until the issues with the article are resolved. I strongly advise you not to remove the template yet another time.Netherzone (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone you can keep writing warnings, despite me explicitly asking you not to. As I clearly stated"COI tag removed - while there appears to have been COI editing in the past, the article has been cleaned up, and no violations of NPOV have been identified on the talk page" I can't see anything much wrong with the article - you just keep adding the tag without explaining what is wrong with the article. It is a very short and simple article, just because someone edited it years ago there is no need to put a COI tag - and certainly no need to keep posting rude notices on my talk page. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥20:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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).
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 you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
What exactly do you mean? Which editing, what refusal? I complained that an administrator was rude to me, and that he/her refused to make a formal complaint, or a polite request about my editing. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥03:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a complaint about an administrator who accused me of COI editing. Guidelines seem clear to me - COI editing means ask on talk page. The editor didn't do that but made unpleasant implications on a project-talk page. How is that disruptive? Which edit(s) does this ban refer to? ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥♥ Talk ♥03:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is your entire pattern of behavior for approximately the last two weeks. When someone says something that you do not like twice and you respond with strident objections umpteen times, demanding apologies and a one month block, that's tendentious. Your long history of disruptive edits and several blocks factored into my decision to make the block indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already have explained your obvious misconduct, and I will not engage in any sealioning conversations with you. It is up you to write a convincing unblock request for review by another administrator. So far, your appeals have failed because they consist of variations on "I did nothing wrong and the other person was responsible". Hint: that argument is unpersuasive. Cullen328 (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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).
An editor wrongly accused me of a COI. It is not true, it is a lie, fake, mot real, not me. If that editor wanted to make the accusation properly, there is a procedure to follow which he/her did not. I don't need to drop the stick when I am fighting false accusations that are not being made in the right way
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.
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).
I do not think that others have the right to repeatedly and falsely accuse me of a a POV. If you think there is a POV problem please raise it on on my talk page, or in the relevant place. I have been editing this thing for 15 years, and I deserve support, not getting banned for complaining about an administrator misbehaving
Decline reason:
Interesting that you talk about having edited for 15 years. You failed to mention that in those 15 years you have been blocked indefinitely three times, once without access to your talk page. I read these three requests in response to the most recent such block, all sounding the same unsteady, off-key trumpet that talks all about everyone else and not at all about themselves, and I do not wonder why.
In fact, based on that previous record, and the way it is clear you have exhausted what little patience the admins more familiar with you have left, I will be once again revoking your talk page access after I save this because you're just going round in circles, and ... well, at the very least, there are other users whose unblock requests we might actually care about. And we won't have to look at this stupid little fly graphic, either. Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
You are not banned. You are indefinitely blocked. Those are different. The misconduct in question is far more than "complaining about an administrator misbehaving". Cullen328 (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 I don't understand you, and would be very grateful if you could explain properly your concern.
I have already given you an explanation and I am not going to engage in sealioning conversations. I am no longer your target audience. You need to convince an uninvolved administrator that you should be unblocked. Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen a convincing explanation from you, and I think it rude of you to fail to provide an understandable explanation and claim sealioning while providing no proper explanation. Administrators make mistakes too.
I am under no obligation to furnish an explanation that you find convincing. Direct your efforts at persuasion to uninvolved administrators. I am not changing my mind. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.
@Daniel Case: A minor comment, but unless I've missed or misunderstood something while it might be technically correct that they've been indefinitely blocked three times, it's probably fairer to say they were indefinitely blocked twice. Once from 2013 until 2018, and now. From what I can tell, the first indefinite block (also in 2013) for block evasion was accepted as a probable mistake. [45] and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#User:L'Origine du monde There was an additional 1 month block in 2019 where the blocking admin opioned that perhaps indefinite would have been better. This doesn't make any difference to the end result. I only bring it up because of their apparent long term inability to drop the stick/let things go. In the hope by me mentioning this now, it will reduce the chance they will see the need to do so themselves in some fashion. (Long term as per the ANI that lead to the earlier indefinite.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
.svg){kind=small}
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Königsberg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
or 
) located above the edit window.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Reaper Eternal, you may be blocked from editing. Do not take it upon yourself to "maintain" other user's talk pages. The discussion you pasted still exists in the archives of Reaper Eternal's talk page. | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:L'Origine du monde. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 02:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Art & Language, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. You removed three maintenance tags from the article Art & Language without resolving the problems with the article. This is disruptive to the integrity of the encyclopedia. Editors MUST resolve the issues before attempting to remove such tags. You have also added a considerable amount of additional unsourced content, when the article was already tagged for needing more citations. Netherzone (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
