Jump to content

User talk:Miletian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greetings!

@Anna Frodesiak: I haven't edited from my account for years - I'm impressed by the technical advances. I've not checked my talkpage for years either, but I just glanced at it and saw your message of 10:11, 21 October 2016. I thought for a moment you had sent it this morning. I see you're an administrator - can you restore talkpage access to User talk:Meletian and User talk:Vote (X) for Change so we can chat? All the best, Miletian (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to you too. Actually, there is no need to restore talk access to User talk:Vote (X) for Change and Miletian has talk access to this page. So, let's chat here. Log in as Miletian and can discuss things here. Does that sound good? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak:Good morning to you (or, for you, good evening). I am watching this page. All the best, Miletian (talk) 09:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi "X". I've always been curious about what motivates socks. I mean, it's been years, and it all gets reverted. To me, it seems like such a waste of your valuable life. I'm just wondering why you do it? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak:Good morning/evening again. I seem to be popular - I just got a welcome message from Commons. You appear to be recommending that I make an unblock request. I'm not allowed to do that from here - it has to be from the talkpage of my original account. That is why I requested you to restore my editing access to User talk:Vote (X) for Change. All the best, Miletian (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't say popular. :)
I am certainly not recommending that you make an unblock request. The chance of you ever, ever being unblocked is zero, and I mean zero.
I wrote to you to understand your point of view. I wish to know why you would spend hundreds of hours doing something that all gets undone. It just seems, well, odd. Please do tell me how you feel and why you keep trying to make edits? For fun? To help Wikipedia? To hurt others? I'm so curious.
Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: I'm curious as to why you think I might wish to edit Wikipedia "to hurt others". Can you expand on your thoughts? Miletian (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Because you are hurting others. It is a consequence of what you are doing. We are volunteers trying to build an encyclopedia. You are indefinitely blocked. See this? That is hundreds of hours of time taken from volunteers, kind people who would rather be enjoying life and not doing that. That is hurting people and you have done that. You alone.
You seem like a kind person. Wanting to hurt others does not seem to fit who you are. This is why I am writing to you. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: Sorry, I'm not getting this. When editors' accounts are indefinitely blocked they file an unblock request. To do that they need to edit from the talk page of the first account they registered. In my case it is User talk:Vote (X) for Change. That is why I requested you to unlock that talk page. All the best, Miletian (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not talk about unblocking. That won't happen, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, never. You've hurt Wikipedians (people) for years. Let's talk about that instead. How do you feel about that? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: I don't think your views are representative of the community generally. Peter Damian was indefinitely blocked in 2008, long before my account was. He was given six chances and indefinitely blocked again in 2009 after commenting the place should be blown up and destroyed. He was given another two chances but after socking and abusing his talk page talk page access was revoked. He was then community banned but continued socking. Notwithstanding, his talk page access was restored in 2010 for the purpose of an unblock request. This failed, access was removed and he carried on socking. He is now a productive editor. I note that you do mentoring and your username is a pun. Cleverly chosen!
Anyway, as we get closer to Christmas your views may change. A happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year if we don't speak again. Being where you are you no doubt get two chances to celebrate the New Year. I see the rooster is coming up. Is that felicitous? Miletian (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, my views are indeed representative of the community. Second, let's talk about you, not Peter Damian. Assuming you will never be unblocked, how do you feel about hurting people, which evidently, you are? If you do not wish to talk about that, then this discussion is over before it begins. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: Good morning/evening again. It's Black Friday over here - presumably you got all that out of the way with "Singles Day" two weeks ago. Did you pick up any bargains?
So down to business. You comment "My views are indeed representative of the community." [citation needed] on that. Here's SemanticMantis:

So, let me get this straight: an IP (that at least one person thinks is connected to a user that was banned over six years ago) attempts to help out with our troll problem, but is prevented from reverting a malicious troll because of a (malfunctioning?) filter.

When IP user comments here that this seems to be a problem, in agreement with OP, the IP is quickly blocked? This is hilarious, but sad. - SemanticMantis 16:37, 28 October 2016.

And here's Peter James:

A deletion request here is unlikely to succeed; for legal disputes you could try contacting the Wikimedia Foundation. The page you refer to wasn't created for harassment, but to document a suspected pattern of disruption and to be linked to, to provide context when dealing with it. I wouldn't call what is documented there "abuse"; it should probably be moved into user space or into the sockpuppet investigations case. - Peter James 23:53, 19 April 2016.

Finally, here's Black Kite:

Trying to get an editor blocked for good-faith editing is the definition of disruptive editing. Let's move on. - Black Kite 19:25, 23 November 2016.

Need I go on? If an administrator accused you of calling them "a self - declared sex worker" (which they did to me) how would you feel? Who is hurting who in this situation? Moving on to pleasanter topics (after all, it's a beautiful day) there's a three - part series currently running on Channel 4 television, Our Guy in China, with Guy Martin. You should be able to view it on their catchup website.

I see you didn't edit on 5 December 2015 which was the day en:wp was blocked. Did you feel aggrieved that you were unable to express your opinion through no fault of your own? If so, then you may understand how I feel. All the best, Miletian (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am beginning to understand. What you are saying is that you were unfairly blocked. In response to this injustice, you have been editing with IPs for several years. Is that right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: You know how some people divide up their areas of interest among a number of accounts? That way they can have a larger number of articles on watch without overloading their watchlist. I decided to do the same - unfortunately at the time I opened the second account the first one had been blocked. Nobody warned me about this - an SPI was filed in the middle of the night against my original account and it was blocked. Then the second account was blocked for "abuse of multiple accounts". What happens in this situation is that the editor is asked to nominate one account to edit from and the others are blocked. I chose to edit from IPs because all the work relating to the names I had chosen for the accounts was by then finished. Miletian (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Okay, I'm up to date on the history. Now, about what's happened since. The community, justly or unjustly, said you are not welcome here anymore. Since then, you've been continuing to edit using lots of different IPs. When discovered, the IP is blocked and your edits reverted. Is that right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: [citation needed] on that. This is a bit like Trump. He's not welcome but he still got elected. I wasn't aware that I was less popular than either Donald or Hillary. All the best, Miletian (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond to what I asked, okay? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: Your premise is that I am "not welcome here anymore". I can't comment on that because you don't provide the source you used to arrive at that conclusion. If you can explain the basis of your claim I'll be happy to discuss it. All the best, Miletian (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source? You must be joking? Here are dozens and dozens of people who all agree that you are not welcome here anymore:
You can see that these thousands of hours you've spend have been wasted, all reverted, all not welcome, all not helping Wikipedia, all pointless.
When you are old and nearing the end, you will reflect. You will be honest with yourself then. You do not want this memory. End this part of your life. Turn elsewhere, optimistically, to a new thing in life. If you stay here, the real hurt is to yourself. Be honest with yourself. You know this is true. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who are these "dozens and dozens" of people? Looking at the SPI I see all the complaints are by one person - Jc3s5h - while the "abuse" report was concocted by Elockid, who quit the project after he was exposed as a fraud, and Future Perfect at Sunrise, who has been desysopped. Jc3s5h is a liar:
Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Speedy deletion declined: User talk:[redacted]

Hello [redacted], and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:[redacted], a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: User talk pages aren't usually deleted - see WP:UP#DELETE. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (21 March 2010).

The SPI is a tissue of lies:

134.Jc3s5h is such a liar. He says "both Chris Bennett and myself have been active in this SPI." This case is 26 pages long and Bennett has uttered just six words, one of which was an animal noise. - 81.159.32.4 19:07, 18 July 2010.

164.This afternoon an editor filed an SPI against me, claiming that he had protected the page so that I would not be able to file a defence. His conscience must have pricked him, because a few minutes later he filed an RfC on himself. I filed my defence at the SPI but about thirty seconds later MuZemike reverted it and blocked me. - 94.194.22.179 21:27, 21 July 2011.

237.Just spotted another claim by Jc3s5h that I said there was a consensus at the reference desk and was being ingenuous. I deal with that in my edit summary. Jc3s5h obviously doesn't check his facts - another reason to consign his report to the garbage can. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

249.In this edit the IP promotes the Revised Julian calendar, which was one of Vote...'s favorite topics. The change is to Julian calendar, which was an article frequently edited by Vote.... The location of the IP is London, same as Vote.... - Jc3s5h 17:46, 8 July 2015.

250.*? Additional information needed. Actually, that edit promotes Revised Gregorian (not Julian) calendar. @Jc3s5h: Please provide more evidence. Evidence should be WP:Diffs (see:Diffsneeded). - Vanjagenije 10:17, 9 July 2015.

256.The clerk, however, pointed out that @Jc3s5h:'s claim that s/he was promoting the Revised Julian calendar was a pack of lies and asked for diffs. At this point Future Perfect at Sunrise, who has never helped out at SPI, crawls out of the woodwork, finds for the OP without giving any reason and blocks. So MarnetteD'd observation that the case was closed as a WP:DUCK is inaccurate. If salesman A promotes Coca - Cola and salesman B promotes Pepsi - Cola that would be equivalent to a statement that salesman A promotes Pepsi.

257.I examined Jc3s5h's contribution record looking for postings to ANI. Virtually all of them related to either the alleged sockmaster or the Hackney library and every single thread proceeded from start to finish without any notice to the parties complained about. Then I turned to the SPI archive. The original complaint, by Jc3s5h, similarly proceeded from start to finish without notice to the party. In fact, it seems to have been carefully arranged to run while the alleged sockmaster would be asleep. Virtually all of the remaining complaints are by Jc3s5h and while a few facts are correctly reported most are not and there is no sane basis for the conclusions he draws.

258.Next I turned to the talk page of the library. There are a number of cases brought by Jc3s5h, all of which were thrown out. The library was also involved in an SPI case brought by him which was also duly thrown out. What is Future Perfect at Sunrise's involvement? He is heavily involved, which means that he shouldn't have been allowed within a hundred miles of the SPI. He blocked all the Hackney libraries for six months. He gave no reason for so doing. Dennis examined the readers' edits and certified that they were unexceptionable. One reader did an independent study and found that they were of an unusually high standard for a public IP. Of some six hundred edits not one was vandalism.

This is what the community thinks of Jc3s5h:

"Being argumentative, arguing for the sake of arguing." - 12 September 2006.

"Never revert good faith edits. Discuss or improve. Reversion is for fighting vandalism." - 22 September 2006.

"I'm not being sarcastic. I understand your source concern, however this statement is painfully obvious from the very definition. Would you require a source to say that a policy of genocide is bad?" - 26 May 2007.

"You are a troll. Go away." - 3 March 2008.

"Be careful accusing people of messing things up." - 13 March 2008.

"If you acknowledge that making a controversial change without discussion is unhelpful, please stop doing it. More to the point, please stop reverting; you have now made three exact reversions in 10 hours." - 29 August 2008.

"Your edit summary says there is a consensus. There isn't. Don't revert until there actually is a consensus." - 9 September 2008.

"Your statements are beyond fallacious. This is not how you try to get your way and is disruptive." - 9 October 2008.

"F-U. I don't care what you think of my editing. So up yours m****r-f****r." (1 December 2008).

"I came to the conclusion that you are a 'brick' and are provoking an edit war. You have little knowledge of the subject. Why am I even talking to you???" - 11 January 2009.

A consensus was reached by editors on the use of templates. Jc3s5h attempted to justify his deletion of them by use of words such as "bastard" and "truly idiotic and uncalled for".

"The debate is over. Autoformatting lost." - Jc3s5h
"There is significant support for autoformatting." (12 January 2009)

[1].

"cyber bully with a chip on their shoulder" - 68.154.253.60 00:10, 26 March 2009.

Never mind, Jc3s5h. I see now, by your writing This is much greater than Greg's suspicion, that this has turned into some sort of face-saving contest where you perceive there is some sort of world-wide audience watching this discussion with bated breath and it is this audience you are now addressing. So rather than simply address me with something like “Greg, here is a calculation I just did…” (which would have been much more polite and mature) you behave like you’re in a 6th-grade classroom. - Greg L 17:25, 19 October 2009.

[2]

"This is a clear abuse of rollback." - 28 October 2009.

"But I feel an upwelling of empathy for you, because you seem to be so eager to express your good ideas, even at the expense of alienating your listeners." (20 November 2009).

[3]

101.I have proposed an indefinite block at WP:ANI#Demand community ban for Vote (X) for Change. - Jc3s5h 14:07, 2 June 2010.

102."Demand"? - Beyond My Ken 15:38, 2 June 2010.

103.Wow, there is a debate over the name of a calendar. -- Alpha Quadrant 16:04, 2 June 2010.

104.Little things. - Rohedin 22:10, 2 June 2010.

Ad hominen attack

This so called "results of discussion"[4] is little more than a thinly veiled personal attack. If you disagree with another editor, do say so and why. However, ad hominem attacks are not constructive and if you try this again, we will be discussing this matter at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Common Era. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (Huey45 (talk) 01:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

There you go again. It most certainly was not wrong. The only action that was wrong was for you to accuse me in your edit summary (for a disrupted and unjustified edit at that) of not understanding the information, thereby implying ignorance or intellectual inferiority. It was an ad hominem argument to "justify" your removal of content from the article and as I noticed on your talk page, it's certainly not the first time that you've engaged in personal attacks. If you actually cared to read the rules some time, you'd notice that WP:NPA makes it very clear that one should address the content and not the contributor; something which you seem to repeatedly fail to do. If you continue to flaunt the rules and disregard the warnings that result, then you're going to find yourself in trouble over and over again.(Huey45 (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

122.The other troublemaker, Jc3s5h, is on a block warning for ad hominem attacks. - 86.162.232.145 10:32, 24 June 2010.

[5].

Verifiability

Please don't insult people with edit summaries like this one:[6]. Actually I was in the process of explaining on the talk page, only SlimVirgin basically filibustered the process, and contrary to your assertion, Blueboar's edit showed a total understanding of the issue. Which suggests that you're the one with the deficit in understanding. Would you care to go clean up any of the hundreds of references to personal communications littering articles, or would you rather pretend the problem doesn't exist? Fences&Windows 21:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist in your personal attacks.

I stand by what I wrote. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why make this edit—with that edit summary?

With this edit you removed a comma with an edit summary of "Fix date conversion error". The recent conversion was made via this edit however that edit did not introduce the comma that you removed (following the 2010). Why did you perform your edit with the edit summary you provided?  GFHandel.   03:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A correct date conversion would have removed the comma after the year, because such a comma is used after years in mdy dates, but not usually in dmy dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

192.This User:Jc3s5h#Barnstars is plain creepy. - 93.97.18.221 10:04, 18 August 2011.

Gregorian calendar

Properly-labelled minor edits which are in fact truly minor in nature -- consisting of adding exactly one (1) comma as clarificatory punctuation -- are hardly a high-priority in requiring edit summaries. It would be a shame if you let your apparent love of petty bureaucracy get in the way of other people trying to improve Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Gregorian calendar" revert

The edit you've reverted contained many more changes than the one you objected to. Changing citation style of one reference to use a "cite book" template is a very minor thing. If you really strongly object to structured information and prefer manually formatted entries, then you should change just that. What you did, is throwing out the baby with the bath water: you discarded a lot of extra added information in the citation (and other changes in the article) just because you didn't like one thing that was easily fixable with an incremental change instead of a revert. This is really a poor form of editorship. Don't do this again. I'm going to revert your revert back (since it was really done in bad faith), and you should do an incremental change to it as you see fit. cherkash (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[7] [8] [9]

Not cool

After all that discussion why would you go and make a bad faith edit completely changing the meaning to exactly the opposite of what was discussed and call my attempts to include what is actually in the standard "ramblings"? JMJimmy (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[10], [11], [12]

"I am not exactly sure what your problem is, but I do not plan to spend thousands of dollars for hiring a polling company." - 76.102.233.65 23:55, 24 January 2016.

Jc3s5h is no more than a vandal.

"Entire comment removed to fix misspelt word. Clear vandalism. Warning uncivil." - 31 August 2004.

"Not insulting you personally. Described your edit as 'vandalism' as it seems to be." - 20 September 2006.

He introduces incorrect syntax into articles. On 19 June 2010 he changed the sentence "Since the calendar uses astronomical calculation for determining the vernal equinox, it has no intrinsic error, but this makes it an observation based calendar" to read "Since the calendar uses astronomical calculation for determining vernal equinox, it has no intrinsic error, but this makes it an observation based calendar." On 26 June he removed an updated link, forcing the site owner to add back the correct URL himself. On 2 July an editor corrected the spelling of the word "calender" to "calendar". It didn't take long before Jc3s5h restored the misspelling.

211.While I appreciate that Jc3s5h is a skilled editor who does a lot of useful work, he frequently oversteps the mark. Yesterday he accused me of "vandalism" and "citation damage". [13], see also [14].

212.An examination of the diff will show that Jc corrects a page citation from 2 - 28 to 26 - 28. However,this diff [15] shows that Jc himself added in the incorrect cite, furthermore this diff [16] under edit summary "Correct page numbers" shows that in fact I added the correct cite and Jc replaced it with the wrong one. - 93.97.18.221 15:52, 26 September 2011.

When you look at those diffs you will see that as of 14:36, 25 September 2011 the page reference for McCarthy and Seidelmann was correctly given as 26-28. At 14:53 he changes it to 2-28. At the same time he removes the name of Blackburn from the citation for the book by Blackburn and Holford-Strevens.

Like any vandal he inserts false information into articles:

226.Having been notified that the information was wrong one would have thought that Jc3s5h would have discussed on the talk page before attempting to re - add it, but instead added it a fourth time at 13:56, removing 156.61.250.250's referenced edit, including the source provided, which he claimed was original research. Instead of claiming the material was original research and removing it together with its accompanying reference the editor should have opened a discussion on the talk page explaining why he considered a referenced edit was original research. At 14:13 156.61.250.250 pointed out this error and removed the incorrect information a fourth time.

This is what he thinks of administrators:

An administrator edits a page.[17] Jc3s5h reverts.[18]

Blueboar's interpretation is complete crap. (03:46, 11 May 2010).

This is what administrators think of him:

52.The reasons given were:

Original research
I don't think that calculating the difference between Julian and Gregorian dates counts as original research. - 62.31.226.77 20:41, 10 February 2010.

53.I've wasted all the time I intend to; I will regard any further rules unworthy of my attention unless they appear in a reliable publication. I will revert any further damage to the article. Original research is damage. - Jc3s5h 21:46, 10 February 2010.

54.I believe this edit [19] to Gregorian calendar is original research. The editor adding the material has already been informed of the original research at Talk:Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars, where he or she posted an earlier version of his or her conversion process. - Jc3s5h 21:05, 12 February 2010.

55.The grade level does not matter ... it is a routine conversion from one system of dates to another by applying a fairly simple mathematical formula. Not OR. - Blueboar 22:58, 12 February 2010.

56.That's a content dispute, not vandalism -- be sure you don't get blocked for violating the rules against edit - warring. -- SarekOfVulcan 16:40, 14 February 2010.

57.The 3RR exemption for vandalism only applies in clear cases of vandalism, which this isn't. - Sarek of Vulcan 17:55, 14 February 2010.

72.This edit by 62.140.210.158 was substantially reinstated in this edit by Vote (X) for Change. - Jc3s5h 17:12, 9 March 2010.

73.Other admins might differ, but I can't see anything with which I can justify a block or even a warning. - Tan39 17:16, 9 March 2010.

74.Pardon my ignorance: I'm not Catholic or even religious. Nothing in that statement is an obvious falsehood to me. I don't doubt that you know what you're talking about, but I cannot see that the motive of this editor is bad faith. I could be wrong. - Tan39 17:28, 9 March 2010.

75.Tan was spot on with his reply. - JodyB 17:29, 9 March 2010.

82.His pals are [redacted] (the prosecutor here, who uses an alias) who was described as "ignorant" by a contributor to Talk:Anno Domini#"After Death" and the limits of good faith and Joe Kress, who was described as "a racist" by a contributor to Iranian calendar. - 217.169.37.146 10:39, 10 March 2010.

83.This is plainly a long term problem and I can see no solution other than permanent semi - protection.Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc3s5h (talk.contribs) 11:44, 10 March 2010.

84.Julian calendar

Same problem as Gregorian calendar above.
X Declined, not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - GedUK 12:13, 10 March 2010.

85.Revised Julian calendar

Same problem as Gregorian calendar above.
X Declined, not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. - GedUK 12:13, 10 March 2010.

86.The other two calendars haven't had anything like the recent disruption levels needed to require protection ... I'm loathe to indef semi any of them, not least because there are constructive IP edits to all three articles. I'd rather consider a range block if that's possible, though I'm not really familiar with rangeblocking IPs, I'd be worried about taking out most of London. - GedUK 12:19, 10 March 2010.

87.Isn't there a policy against having discussions with blocked users and their sock puppets? If there isn't there should be. I also won't bother making further improvement to Gregorian calendar, Julian calendar, or Revised Julian calendar because your inadequate action will not protect any improvements from further damage. - Jc3s5h 12:25, 10 March 2010.

88.The editor in question has stated that he/she edits from public libraries in the London area. On the whole, I think indefinite protection of 3 articles is better than long - term blocks on all the public libraries in the greater London area. After all, the IP editors can either obtain accounts or request changes on the talk pages. - Jc3s5h 12:32, 10 March 2010.

89.I'm sorry, but there simply isn't the protection history on any of the articles to indef protect them, and on two of them there isn't the recent editing history to give any sort of protection at this stage. - GedUK 12:41, 10 March 2010.

91.Semi - protect. Edits by sockpuppets of the blocked User:Vote (X) for Change which included a claimed association between my anonymous userid and a real world name. - Jc3s5h 14:57, 13 March 2010.

92.X Declined for now - only in cases of severe vandalism should a user talk page be protected, only looks like one edit so far. - AlexiusHoratius 20:27, 13 March 2010.

"Jc3s5h, are you done badgering anyone that dares speak the words 'ISO format' or 'ISO date'? Because it's really getting annoying, and seems to be your only contribution to the MoS."

[Jc3s5h owns up to being a "pain in the ass".]
"Doing the same thing and expecting different results is a common pathology. How about finding a persuasive argument that will change their minds instead?" (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, 25 May 2010).

162.A class of the exempt reverts, which do not count for three - revert - rule purposes, is "Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts." In this statement, what is a "tagged sockpuppet"? - Jc3s5h 19:21, 21 July 2011.

163.Is there some reason for thinking the answer I gave above (when you last asked this question) is wrong? - JamesBWatson 19:31, 21 July 2011.

Jc3s5h frequently threatens editors. His collegiality is non - existent:

39.Revision history for Gregorian calendar

40.*22:49, 19 January 2010 (diff|hist) 62.31.226.77 (talk|contribs) (69,128 bytes) (There is a large block of text in the source immediately above Proleptic Gregorian calendar which does not appear in the article. This should fix it.)

41.*22:54, 19 January 2010 (diff|hist) Jc3s5h (talk|contribs) (66,878 bytes) (Do not add material without supplying a reliable source.)

42.*09:12, 20 January 2010 (diff|hist) 156.61.160.1 (talk|contribs) (69,128 bytes) (62.31.226.77 was trying to remove phantom text from the source. It's still there.)

43.*13:58, 20 January 2010 (diff|hist) Jc3s5h (talk|contribs) (66,878 bytes) (Undo unsourced crap with deceptive edit summary)

44.*22:46, 20 January 2010 (diff|hist) 62.31.226.77 (talk|contribs) (69,158 bytes) (The reason why the source text "increasingly parish registers ... period of time" is not in the article is because it is labelled [ref name=EC-NA] which was earlier allotted to different text.)

45.Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Gregorian calendar. Before making any potentially controversial edits it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Jc3s5h 22:55, 19 January 2010.

46.Please do not add unsourced original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Jc3s5h 14:02, 20 January 2010.

47.This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Gregorian calendar, you will be blocked from editing. -- Jc3s5h 23:11, 20 January 2011.

48.I see now that you were trying to fix the article, because some text in the source was not appearing in the article as displayed. - Jc3s5h 23:39, 20 January 2010.

DEMAND TO UNDO EDIT

REVERT THIS EDIT AT ONCE OR I WILL REPORT THIS DISRUPTION AT WP:ANI. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop misrepresenting me and changing the context of my comments

Hi Jc3s5h, I can see that you disagree with my view that the un-discussed and un-approved change to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers should be reverted, but please discuss it rationally, and in context on the talkpage.

But, please:

  1. Do not misrepresent me as you did here.
  2. Do not separate my comment from the context in which they were made as you did here.
  3. Do not threaten me as you did here.

Thank you. -- de Facto (talk). 20:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what he thinks of the Foundation:

97.On 10 March 2009 [redacted] ceased contributing under his own name. In a valedictory message on his talk page he said "This user no longer contributes under his real name. This user feels the Wikimedia developers are out of control and it is dangerous to use a real name in Wikimedia Foundation projects".

This is what he thinks of Wikipedia:

Let the article rot. (02:43, 6 March 2013)

I'm not interested in discussing how and why you were blocked. You feel unfairly blocked by the few so you are hurting the many by socking. That is the bottom line. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: Anna, imagine you are a lawyer. Your client is charged with murder. They protest their innocence and you defend them at their trial, but they are found guilty and sentenced to hang. Someone gives you information which proves their innocence. Do you
  • Tell them you're not interested because your client was charged with murder but hurt many people by giving evidence at his trial or

Conclusion

You were not sentenced to hang. You were sentenced to go away. In response, you stayed and hurt many people, justifying that because of being innocent of your first crime. That is indefensible. Don't you know that?

And you expect me to come to your defense over being falsely accused of one crime after you have committed hundreds of crimes since.

This is not about helping Wikipedia. You avoided talking about that since the beginning. This whole thing has been about you selfishly trying to get justice for yourself, and you think it is okay to do a terrible injustice to hundreds of volunteers and Wikipedia to achieve that.

Look, sometimes people are falsely accused. This is only Wikipedia, not real life. Tough luck. Too bad. Find something else in life. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC) 5[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Anna, you seem to think that Wikipedia is some form of fantasy land where the normal standards of civilised behaviour are suspended. They are not. @Patient Zero: is an autistic schoolkid. (Hey, that username is a reference to the guy who is supposed to have infected the entire world with AIDS. Wow!) (S)he says (s)he has an interest in British law. So you might like to get his/her opinion on what follows:

Trick or treat?

Boa noite! I like the facility to speak in French and Portuguese - I think Spanish is such an ugly language. This may be of interest:

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change

I propose the deletion of this page. It is a spoof report Special:Diff/706678161#Why Do We Need Something New?. Its originator, Elockid, has now left the project, while Sunshine, who provided much of the content, appeared before the Arbitration Committee in January charged with abuse. 78.145.31.82 (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This morning's Daily Telegraph reports:

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said people who create false profiles ... could face charges including harassment. New draft guidelines published by the CPS set out how prosecutors should take tough action against anyone who attempts to humiliate or undermine someone else by publishing false information online ...

"... an online footprint will be left by the offender."

A CPS spokesman said the guidelines cover the use of false online profiles ... which are set up to publicise "false and damaging information".

For example, it may be a criminal offence if a profile is created under the name of the victim with fake information uploaded which, if believed, could damage their reputation and humiliate them," the spokesman said.

... "This may amount to an offence, such as grossly offensive communication or harassment."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.33.254 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion request here is unlikely to succeed; for legal disputes you could try contacting the Wikimedia Foundation. The page you refer to wasn't created for harassment, but to document a suspected pattern of disruption and to be linked to, to provide context when dealing with it. I wouldn't call what is documented there "abuse"; it should probably be moved into user space or into the sockpuppet investigations case. Are you User:Vote (X) for Change or not? Peter James (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the page was created for harassment can be determined by what it says. It starts off

She routinely edit wars with Jc3s5h ...

The overarching reason why we are here is to provide the public with factual information. If you look at Jc3s5h's contributions you find s/he added the following claim at 11:44, 11 May 2016:

the Gregorian calendar ... moved Washington's birthday a year and 11 days to February 22, 1732.

It didn't. Under the calendar reform, eleven (not 376) days were removed. Wednesday, 2 September 1752 was immediately followed by Thursday, 14 September of the same year. 109.154.44.14 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Man jailed for fake Facebook page abuse

A man has been jailed for creating a fake Facebook account with abusive messages in an attempt to get his neighbour arrested after a row over parking.

A----- C-----, 48, of Croydon, pretended on the site to be his neighbour A----- S----. The offensive posts described the C----- family as "spastic" and "inbred" and threatened to poison their dogs with anti-freeze. The page also said that Mr S---- hated disabled people, thought "mixed-race children should be a crime" and said the "KKK are needed in Croydon".

C----- was jailed for 10 months at Croydon Crown Court.

- Daily Telegraph, 8 November 2016.

Arbitration Committee allegations not notified to the party

It has come to my notice that one of the arbitrators, Opabinia Regalis, has made allegations to you about an editor on en:wp, Vote (X) for Change. She did not have the courtesy to notify her she was doing this, nor did she supply a copy of the allegations. Perhaps you could post a copy on her talk page, en:User talk:Vote (X) for Change so she can see what is being alleged and respond as appropriate.

I know something of this case, and two discussions I have located would appear to be worthy of your attention. The first is on the talk page of one of the administrators, Zzuuzz, who said that the ban had been "superseded", extract below:

I followed the links and I reached this: User talk:DoRD/Archive 2#Showing you something I just wanted to be certain to make sure you saw. 86.149.12.63 (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that temporary conditional unblock half an hour ago. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the discussion which immediately followed it? 86.149.12.63 (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the community unban discussion? I saw the re-block two days later. I think we're done here. Would you like me to block you again? -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did Fram see the discussion? 86.149.12.63 (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm . -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The above discussion concluded that the OP was not banned and you did not block him/her. At the administrators' noticeboard you have blocked an OP claiming (s)he is "banned" without linking to any discussion. Are the two matters related? 188.220.41.218 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So,

  • This user's account is blocked[20] and there has been no successful appeal against the block,
  • This user is community banned[21] and there has been no successful appeal against the ban,
  • This user continues to violate Wikipedia policy, and refer to themselves in the third person

I conclude that there is no doubt that this user (User:Vote (X) for Change) is banned. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened to come upon this discussion by chance. Zzuuzz did not have the courtesy to notify the participants that he was reopening it.

So

  • Fram blocked per incuriam, i.e. at the time he placed the block he didn't know the editor had been unbanned.
  • When he discovered his mistake he didn't extend the block but let it run off.
  • End of story. 86.149.14.193 (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second discussion is on the talk page of the reference desks, most of which have been protected, against consensus, for up to three months:

A wise admin once told me that it's easiest to think of these characters as being actually all the same guy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not so wise, Bugs. When the CU results come through that administrator is going to be in trouble (think Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry). Two more administrators are also in trouble - Elockid and Sunshine. The editor was unbanned years ago and they both know it. That's why no "abuse" report was filed for six years (check the date of creation on the "history" tab). All the best, 92.27.34.20 (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly this is only the most recent in a long string of incidents by the English Wikipedia Arbitration committee or its members. They have no respect for the Arbcom's rules, site policy, WMF policy or the limits of their authority.

  • Recently that disbanded both the Audit subcommittee and the Block appeal subcommittee without so much as a whisper to the community even though the community had non Arb members on the AUSC. Those community members didn't even know until someone else outside the Arbcom mentioned it too them.
  • Then, in a case to ban The Devils Advocate the outgoing arbitration committee didn't have enough votes to ban him so they extended the case and let the new group vote on it as well and then they were able to achieve the ban some wanted.
  • There was recently even a community discussion about disbanding the arbcom for its problematic behavior. As of yet it hasn't gone anywhere but its unlikely it would because if it did start to gain momentum, the arbs would close it as a disruption and probably block some of the participants to quell the mutiny.

These are just a couple of examples in a long list of problematic behavior. The people on the Arbcom, regardless of who they are at the time, know that they have absolute power and can do anything they want. There is no checks and balances, no auditing, nothing to prevent abuse and its harming the project and driving editors out so that the only the most abusive admins are left. There are still a lot of good admins and editors left from which to build on but the WMF needs to do something about the ENWP arbcom. It's no secret I haven't had any respect for the Arbcom in a long time. They have shown time and time again they cannot be trusted and have no respect for their own policies and procedures its also clear that the community is losing patience with their behavior as well. I highly recommend that the foundation take action immediately to either eliminate the ENWP arbcom or force them to start following their own policy and show that the WMF will not allow them to do as they wish regardless of policy. Reguyla (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reguyla. Can't the enwiki community remove its own Arbcom if the situation demands it? Spanish Wikipedia did so years ago. Raystorm (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, yes, but its almost impossible to come to an agreement about in anything in that community and even if they did, I am not convinced the Arbcom would listen. They would likely just say that the community cannot remove them or that it didn't constitute a true consensus or they would argue that it didn't meet some rule of policy the feel is needed, etc.. They have already, routinely, redefined the rules to suit them. I just think and have for some time now that the Foundation should review their actions and procedures because there is currently no auditing done on them and no checks and balances so they are, in essence, allowed to do whatever they want. Reguyla (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. But can't the (very vibrant) community of enwiki set up some checks and balances? Without going into the specific case of en:arbcom, can't the community set up an ombuds figure, specific policies or the like? In Spanish Wikipedia we spend a lot of time discussing checks and balances for eg admins, and some policies are approved and some aren't. Can't the en:community come up with something that is able to address concerns? Raystorm (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, not without the person starting the process being accused and possible blocked for disruption or some other fallacy by the members of the arbcom to prevent such a thing. On ENWP there is also a lot of discussion about checks and balances for admins, changing RFA, etc. and in all the years there has been talk, not one has been adopted. They are always shot down regardless of how much or little support they receive, no matter what the idea is or how well thought out, they are always shot down. Because in the end, the admins on the site have to close the discussion and the ones who are willing to do that type of close are usually not the ones who want such a change. At this point the only way that change is going to happen with regard to the Arbcom is if it comes from the foundation itself. Frankly, if they are unwilling or unable to do so then they don't really care about the success of Wikipedia because the Arbcom and a couple of the more aggressive admins are driving the site down and running all the editors out. Reguyla (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For arguments' sake, what would you have the WMF do, exactly? Raystorm (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure that the Arbcom is following policy and their own procedures and hold them accountable if they do not. If the WMF reviews some of the efforts of the Arbcom over even the last year they are going to see a horrible track record and a complete disregard for policy. The community can't do anything about it but the foundation certainly can if they want to improve the culture of the projects and reduce harassment. Reguyla (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess that pretty much answers my questions and comments. No one at the WMF even cares enough to leave a comment saying they care, which is frankly exactly what the English Wikipedia Arbcom counts on. Complacency at the WMF and a complete lack of checks and balances to prevent the widespread abusiveness of editors and site policy and the ongoing corruption, abuse and POV pushing that happens on Wiki nearly everyday. As long as the money keeps flowing in and people keep donating, then the Arbcom can do whatever they want. Reguyla (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What follows from your argument is that the posting of the "LTA" report and the failure to take it down are criminal offences. Wikipedia is not an online version of Private Eye (which collapses under the weight of lawsuits) but an encyclopaedia of which the major pillar is that everything presented as fact has been verified as true. So something needs to be done about this page. Do you have any suggestions? Miletian (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion over

This has been pure WP:IDHT from the beginning. I've revoked talk access. Again, please do not waste more of your life on this. The chance of you being unblocked is near zero because of your behaviour since being blocked. Whether blocked fairly or unfairly in the first place, you've selfishly become an LTA since. Wikipedia does not want your edits.


If you wish to fight for justice, consider fighting for justice for someone other than yourself. The thousands of hours you've spent on your own case could have been spent volunteering to help Syrian refugees or looking after sick kids or animals in a shelter.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Pasted from commons:

Anna, we are making progress! In the past few days the chances of my account being unblocked have risen from "zero" to "almost zero". Let's see if we can keep the momentum going. I could volunteer to help Syrian refugees, but at present I clear up vandalism on Wikipedia. This is an essential task which has to be done by somebody. I can't imagine that I am "hurting the many" by doing it - quite the reverse. I am so pleased that you agree that both the uploading and the hosting of the "LTA" report are criminal offences. We both need to work to getting this page deleted. Would you be prepared to do it under G10 "pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose"? Thank you for your care and attention to this matter. All the best, 156.61.250.250 13:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No progress. Still zero. And if you think you're here to help, you are deluding yourself. Your edits are not needed or welcome here. Wikipedia has plenty of vandal-fighters, and they are a net positive. They don't cost the project in terms of blocking and reverting. This is about you and justice for yourself. It always has been, evidenced by the fact that the conversation always heads that way. Nobody is buying the "I'm here to help and you're stopping me unfairly." bit. That is old and weak. Good-bye. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miletian&oldid=752734395"