Jump to content

User talk:Mythdon/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Some of the talk page history that is missing from this page's history can be found here

Amendments

You really should stop. I honestly don't know why you don't realize that your behavior, particularly your need for repeated "clarifications" at arbitration, is only hours away from getting you actually banned. The committee isn't suggesting that you take a break, its voting unanimously to block you for 6 months. If you have any interest in editing Wikipedia again at any point, I suggest you apologize for becoming a vexatious litigant and restrain yourself from ever editing any arbitration page ever again. Nathan T 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that I should restrain myself from arbitration pages, but I hope that my next request doesn't result in another sanction. I've filed 5 requests for clarifications, and 2 requests for amendment, all of which are related to the Ryulong arbitration case. It feels like I've singed up for a six month site ban. What a shame. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you don't feel like you ought to avoid arbitration pages, but its transparently obvious that you should if you have any desire to continue editing. Nathan T 23:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
All I can hope is that another sanction doesn't occur following future requests. It's a shame that the motion is passing. Also, do you think I should be site banned or not? Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
If you are sitebanned for making repeated unwelcome requests at RFAR, and continue to do so once aformentioned siteban expires, then yes, you will most likely be banned again.Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 00:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Right now, I am debating whether or not to risk another site ban by filing more requests. Maybe I shouldn't have filed this request. All it was was a request for reformatting, basically. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ask yourself, what's the point? If you think it's worth getting banned for half a year to have grammar corrected....really, it's not worth it. Being banned is horrible. I'd compare it to being a caged animal in a zoo, with people poking you with sticks. It carries a stigma you can never shred. Really, nothing is worth getting banned. Take it from someone who's been there. My advice - Apologise for pissing off arbcom & the community, whether you think you have or not is irrelevant- you have. Agree to a topic ban from arbitration, and then go and quietly edit whatever articles you enjoy editing. Being banned is horrible, just apologise and mind your own business, and keep your head down. It's for the best. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 00:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't know. While I am debating whether I should file another request, I am also debating whether to do so based on how much work they're doing at the time of the request. Lets just say I wait until there are no cases opened, no clarification and amendment requests, and no motions. That would probably be an appropriate time to make another request, though most likely, that time will probably not be because ArbCom is always arbitrating something. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't imagine you'll have the option of filing another request, honestly. This motion has a majority - I believe its 24 hours after a motion has a majority that clerks will implement it, and at that point you will be banned until February, Nathan T 00:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the ban would last until March. February would only make it five months, and the motion says "six months" which adds up to March, which is six months from September. Also, the next request, if there is one, would not be until after the ban expires. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

<-Filing another request once your ban expires will demonstrate you have learned nought from the ban, and they will ban you again. I have offered an alternative proposal at RFAR, I suggest you accept it before it's too late. Steve Crossin The clock is ticking.... 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already responded to it. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you accidentally blanked the whole Amendment request? [1] Ripberger (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I pressed the wrong button and later corrected my mistake. Sorry. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

Mythdon, I noticed you don't have email enabled. Would you kindly send an email to me ? –xenotalk 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why? I don't want to email anyone. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I had some words of advice and I wanted to be frank. Never mind then. The email address is in the history if you change your mind. –xenotalk 01:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

I have made a couple of comments in a thread on the bottom of my talkpage, which you may or may not have seen, and which may or may not interest you.

My advice to you, for what it is worth, is that you step far away from Wikipedia and focus on others things completely for a long time. I am sorry to see that things have gone so badly wrong for you, and what I have suggested is now the best approach for everyone's sake. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw your comment, Newyorkbrad. You didn't need to notify me of it. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Objectives following ban

Following the conclusion of the six month site ban, I intend to do the following:

These are things that I feel that should be done following the ban. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am certain that this will be dismissed out of hand, but I must try at least once more: you state that the first thing you're going to do on being unbanned is to do one of the things that got you banned to begin with. If you really think that's the wisest course of action, then I fear you will be re-banned not long after the present ban expires. Your choice, entirely, but do think it through. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think that they'd dismiss every single future request. I'll be thinking it through on whether I should really risk it. I'll ask the committee not to pass such a motion at the ending paragraph of my statement at the next request. I'll give you a hint on what the next request will be: It will involve the conduct probation, and the authority of the imposing administrators. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have thought about some additional objectives:

  • Enforce the rollback guideline, by warning users of misuses/abuses
  • Continue to post at WP:ANI, as I had before, though I will post there more than I previously had
  • Perform copyedits and fixes on articles.

After some thought, I think these are necessary too. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

New Item on Admin Notice Board regarding Bf20204 (now editing as Ba20204)

Hi - I put a new notice board item up regarding a user who was blocked for outing me this week. He is back editing under a new account (but signing his old user name) before his block is up, resorting to personal attacks/accusations, etc. Thought you would be interested. Bevinbell 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon is banned until March 2010 and is unable to edit his talkpage, I you want to communicate with him, you could try [[2]] on the simple wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he can edit his talkpage--he was banned on September 9th, and he has talkpage edits here since then. Keepscases (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
No , he can't, they forgot to remove his ability to edit here, it is the difference between a block and a ban .. apparently. Check in his log [[3]] User Steve Smith did it on the 12th. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It is NOT the difference between a block and a ban. According to WP:BAN, talk page privileges may be revoked, they don't have to be. Steve just went ahead and disabled talk page editing ability anyway, for no good reason if you ask me. When asked about it, he added "Abuse of talk page privileges" to his reasons, which I think is an exceptionally liberal interpretation of "abuse".--Atlan (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it matters much, as I said he can be contacted on simple wiki at the link, so, a break is as good as a rest. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It is typically considered impolite to carry on a conversation on a talk page where the host is unable to respond. If the below explanation from Steve is unsatisfactory, this thread should be continued at his talk page. –xenotalk 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Howdy, I just noticed this discussion. Jayron32 took this up with me several days ago, in response to which I acknowledged that my stated rationale was not sufficient to disable talk page editing. However, I believe that this was the right move, notwithstanding my error, because Mythdon was using his talk page to announce his intentions to persist in the behaviour that got him banned once the ban expired. Either he's trolling (my assumption of good faith has been challenged repeatedly by this user) or he's just so completely out to lunch that a complete break from Wikipedia is clearly needed. Of course, any admin may undo my action if consensus appears to be leaning that way. Steve Smith (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say it was a bad decision, I just felt the rationale behind it was poor, as you yourself acknowledge. Thanks for clearing it up. Xeno is right of course, let's not continue on this talk page.--Atlan (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
edit conflict..For what it is worth, I agree with Steve, and mythdon has not mailed anyone to request alteration of the restriction, so its good.. and as I said he is editing intermittently on simple wiki if anyone wants to talk with him they can there. Also I agree with Xeno and Atlan, that excessive discussion (if it is required) should be done at another venue. Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Here's to you being a better editor in the future! Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! Powergate92Talk 21:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused

With your last edit at Dazed and Confused (song), did you intend to revert back to the last version by BelowGroundSound, who had earlier blanked the page, or to the prior revision by Alansohn? Just wondering since there were several edits made at practically the same time. Piriczki (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I had intended to revert the blanking by BelowGroundSound, but since I didn't act fast enough when I saw it on recent changes, it instead reverted this edit by the same user. I shortly after found out about the mistake I made, so I reverted the rollback. —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

It is time for this account to have an indefinite break from Wikipedia affairs. The last ArbCom issue which involved you dates back to this ban. I see no sign of an improvement. If you want to appeal against this block, please use the appropriate steps that you are aware of. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What issues are you referring to and what do you mean by "I see no sign of an improvement"? —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to FayssalF

Diff: [4]

"His AN/I reports on people he's got no business with was discussed more than enough at his talk page and the point was brought to the attention of the ArbCom during the case..." - Actually, the case had nothing to do with any AN/I reports I had filed, and certainly not any you say "people he's got no business". If any reports I had made prior, during or after the case are "people he's got no business", please explain how? Being uninvolved does not invalidate the report. How does not being involved make the reports disruptive?

"Here we are here with Mythdon invading the AN/I with reports on users involving cases that has nothing to do with him whatsoever. " - Uninvolved doesn't make the reports disruptive, especially not for reports like this (allegation of username violation and this (suspicion of sockpuppetry. I'd like to know how being uninvolved in any of my reports, especially the username and sockpuppetry reports, automatically means the reports are disruptive.

Thanks. —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't getting anywhere, and I don't see how it will. I will wait for FayssalF's further explanation, and see what happens in the meantime. —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved isn't what makes it disruptive. What makes it disruptive is that you are - as you have done over the course of literally years - avoiding actually contributing to the project. As an example of your long-term disruption, see User_talk:Mythdon/Archive_7#Common_Era. That conversation we had some weeks before your ban six months ago was typical of how you have approached this project...you interpret things your way and argue with everyone who tells you your interpretation is not in keeping with community consensus. Now, after a six month ban (during which you were banned on other projects as well), you come back and nearly immediately head over to the most contentious area of this entire project - the single page out of 61,829,371 pages that is absolutely guaranteed to generate controversy - and you jump in with both feet. That you don't realize what the direct result of that behavior would be is almost enough indication by itself that you should be blocked indefinitely.  Frank  |  talk  01:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
"Avoiding actually contributing to the project. " - Well, what I have done to contribute to the project is contribute to anti-vandalism efforts. How does not contributing content automatically make it disruptive? —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't automatically make it disruptive. But when you actively argue with others in regard to how policies work, that's disruptive. See the same page linked above...the section on King Mondo. It was only three days after the previous conversation. We need vandal fighters, for sure. We do not need people adding to the noise on WP:ANI, nor do we need editors that try to rewrite policy and take up the time of other editors who are out there contributing. If all you did was fight vandalism and keep yourself out of controversy, nobody would have any complaint. Despite this course of action being recommended to you here, here, and further discussion here, you didn't choose to follow it.  Frank  |  talk  03:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
"...nor do we need editors that try to rewrite policy and take up the time of other editors who are out there contributing. " - I am not making any attempt to rewrite policy, nor have I taken up the time of any content contributor (at least not since my return, in case you want to construe my pre-2010 actions as such). "But when you actively argue with others in regard to how policies work, that's disruptive. " - I did not argue on how policies work in any of my reports on ANI. Also, how are the Common Era and King Mondo discussions relevant to this matter? —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It's all the same thing: a long-term pattern of disruptive behavior. It's absolutely relevant to include your pre-2010 contributions as if they happened only yesterday. You wasted no time after your block expired in getting back to exactly the same behavior as before.  Frank  |  talk  03:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not relevant to the issues of today. Common Era and King Mondo were incidents that were about my concerns that articles had sourcing/citation issues. This is about an issue of my reports to ANI. While both include interpretation of policy, that doesn't make them relevant to eachother. If you still disagree, that's fine, but I will stand where I stand. —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Also, in response to "But when you actively argue with others in regard to how policies work" again - There is no arguing in any of my comments on ANI. In the sockpuppetry thread (dismissed due to lack of/insufficent evidence) and the username violation (though actioned, the action wasn't agreed), I never argued with anyone. Please point to any recent comment on ANI that you think is arguing by me? —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
As I added at ANI, at the bottom of the thread discussing this block, it's the long-term pattern that I'm referring to. You had six months off to observe and think about what part of your behavior was not up to community standard, and you took less than a week to go back to the same tendentious editing that resulted in the ban. This, even after being wisely advised right here on your talk page to avoid ANI.  Frank  |  talk  04:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I think what Frank means when he says "Avoiding actually contributing to the project." is you have not been contributing content to Wikipedia, you have been reverting vandalism and discussing stuff at AN/I. If you're not contributing content to an article then you're not improving an article. Powergate92Talk 03:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

All answers can be found here. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. Dont abuse the unblock template for non-unblock requests, if you need editor or administrator help, use the correct templates. Q T C 21:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So what is the correct template for these type of requests (i.e. requesting that the community review whether one should be unblocked or remain blocked), or is there none? —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
If you need help, there's {{help}} or if you need an admin, there's the handy {{adminhelp}}. Q T C 22:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Not what I am looking for. I am a blocked user who wishes for my block to be reviewed by the community (as opposed to the usual administrator). None of those templates address that. The reason I'd rather it be reviewed at ANI is because I do feel that that an unblock by just any administrator would be too controversial, and because I'd feel better if it's done that way. —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Decline reason:

This block was made as an enforcement action related to an ArbCom case. We recently had an admin loose his status for making such an unblock. He did it knowing such a thing might happen because he saw what he felt was gross misinterpretation of ArbCom's original intent. I don't see that here, this block was just reviewed at ANI and upheld, with a proposal for your permanent banning thrown in. So I'd be going against ArbCom and community consensus by unblocking you. No thanks. Your best bet is to email WP:BASC in several months. Continued unblock requests here will probably result in loss of talk page privelegesBeeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Okay, thanks. —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 18:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Additionally - If I were to appeal this block to the community, how do I do so? —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
By requesting here that an admin list it once again on WP:ANI, or by emailing WP:BASC and asking them to do it. However, since this was there less than two weeks ago it's possible you won't be able to find an admin willing to do that for you just yet. I'll repeat that the best move you can make at this point is to wait a while before trying again to get unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
How do I request that an administrator "list it once again on WP:ANI"? —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 18:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
By posting another unblock request saying so, but it's still at the reviewing admins discretion whether they will even do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I did something similar to that just a few days prior (requesting that my block be community reviewed, and that an administrator post my request to ANI), but was dismissed as misuse of the unblock template, and was advised to use the {{help}} template if I needed help (but I know the {{help}} template isn't used for that). —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
You received a workable suggestion: using {{help}} or {{adminhelp}} to flag someone down and request they proxy your post to ANI. I see nothing in the usage notes in either of these templates that would preclude use in this manner. –xenotalk 19:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. From {{adminhelp}}, the documentation information reads "please note if you are currently blocked and wish to contest the blocking, it is recommended you use {{unblock}} instead of the helper templates. This ensures your request goes to the right people." - In this case, "the right people" would be the administrators. Nothing in the text reads that requested proxying (i.e. do things on one's own behalf) is legitimate use of the template. —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
You aren't requesting an unblock, you're requesting a community review of the block. There similarly is nothing in the template that says requesting it to ask for a proxy edit is illegitimate. You ask for advice then refuse it when you get it. Unwatching your page - best of luck. –xenotalk 19:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
But if there is nothing that says it is legitimate, then it is illegitimate use of the template. The mere fact that nothing says something is illegitimate is not indication of legitimacy; in these cases, if nothing says it is legitimate, then it is not legitimate— template's must be used according to what is said to be legitimate-- not based on what is not said to be illegitimate. The reason I refute your advice is because it is the wrong advice. —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I would advise you to enroll in an introductory logic class (or perhaps simply read affirming the consequent). Does the template say that using it to ask for help with deletion matters? Does it say you can ask for help with protection matters? Does it say you can ask for help with images? Is asking for help with any of these things a legitimate use of the template? –xenotalk 20:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
All of that matters. For example, {{infobox VG}} explicitly states it's usage is for basic information of a video game article (e.g. release date, publisher, developer, etc.). Because nothing states it can be used for a television series article, it can't be used for such articles— just because nothing says it can't be used for that doesn't make such a use legit- we even have a template for that. If you still don't understand where I'm getting at, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can do that you will get it. This is my last reply. —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
We don't delineate all the appropriate uses of the helpme template because there are so many different uses, most of which are appropriate. It is simply said what it should not be used for - the rest is fair game. We expect people to use it with common sense. Your peculiar arguments above make me question whether you possess this facility. I agree with Beeblebrox below and suspect if you continue in this manner you won't have anyone left on your talk page with which to speak. –xenotalk 20:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
This need to argue incessantly is a large part of the reason you have been blocked in the first place. This entire conversation is most likely moot since it is unlikely any admin would post your request at ANI seeing as your block was already reviewed and upheld there 12 days ago [5] Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mythdon

At a recent ANI thread, a few members of the community expressed concern regarding ANI reports that I had filed this month.

FayssalF (talk · contribs), the blocking administrator had plenty of concern regarding the ANI threads I started, basically being concerns of "mind your own business" and others.

First, I'd like to discuss the sockpuppetry theory and username violation threads; "mind your own business" is an extremely weak argument to invalidate these reports, because these are incidents that anyone can just spot and report regardless of how much it has to do with them (although during the threads themselves, no such argument was made). The merits of the complaints were however dismissed.

As for this thread; this thread also fell under the concerns by FayssalF. FayssalF states (not this thread though, but the ANI thread on me) "looking for disputes all over Wikipedia and report them here without leaving a chance for the parties to try to sort out their problems at their talk pages beforehand" - The parties were given a perfect chance to sort it out, but no resolution came, so I did feel the need to report it. The community felt that action was needed, and a 24 hour interaction ban was even imposed upon the "parties" (i.e. Mbz1, Daedalus969, etc). While I know I wasn't the best person to report it (now that I think about it, it may have better for one of the parties to do so), I was certainly a legitimate person to do so.

In response to a few comments by FayssalF during the thread:

  • Spending 99% of the time on AN/I... ArbCom pages and discussing policies... - False. My contributions are much more than that. My contributions also contain vandal fighting, minor (non-content) article edits, RFC comments, etc.
  • Here we are here with Mythdon invading the AN/I with reports on users involving cases that has nothing to do with him whatsoever. - The mere argument of "it has nothing to do with you" does not automatically invalidate a report, although having to do with the report may be better than not.

NOTE: I am not requesting that the reviewing administrator act upon this request, but am requesting that the reviewing administrator post this request to ANI so the community can review this block.

—Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The block was already reviewed at ANI. The only thing I can see that discussion achieved was a proposal to have you banned outright; that proposal did not achieve consensus. The community feeling appears to be that if you can find an admin willing to unblock you, then so be it. You've already acknowledged above that such an unblock would likely be controversial, and I agree. I suggest you wait six months before attempting to do so; essentially that would be an unblock under WP:OFFER. Repeated requests on this page will likely result in your talk page access being removed. If that happens, you do have recourse: see [6].  Frank  |  talk  23:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this thread again, and FayssalF's concern of "...and report them here without leaving a chance for the parties to try to sort out their problems at their talk pages beforehand" - Upon further thinking, I guess I should have waited longer for Daedalus969, Mbz1 and DarkFalls (and any others) to either sort it out (I don't think I did give them a chance now that I think about it) or report it before reporting it myself. —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to decline the unblock request, because I'm certain there would be wikilawyering about "involved admin", but I will comment that you are misunderstanding the reason for the block. It's not about one incident. It's the latest incident in a long series of disruptive incidents. To my own personal knowledge, the disruption started more than a year ago. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mythdon, and in re-reading my oppose from then, I don't see a lot that has changed. In the time you were banned from here, you also earned an indefinite block on Simple Wikipedia. That's not necessarily a reason for a block here, but perhaps it helps you understand that it's your own actions that are resulting in the blocks.  Frank  |  talk  14:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I know it's not about one incident and and I understand that this block is based on my own actions. I'm just saying that now that I think about it, this report did not in fact "[leave] a chance for the parties to try to sort out their problems at their talk pages beforehand". And about your oppose in regards to my first request for adminship, nothing in your oppose has anything to do with the issue regarding this block. Your oppose was based on my interactions with other editors, civility, AFD's, and "not showing any knowledge of consensus around here" (I did and do acknowledge consensus here). This block is based on the ANI reports I filed this month, with concern that I'm causing more drama than light and not minding my own business, combined with concern that its the same behavior as before (prior to September 2009). Please explain how they link. —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It has taken you 13 days to acknowledge consensus regarding your block, by stating things like "...now that I think about it..." and by your strikeouts above upon further consideration. I don't think more discussion at this point is necessary; you've been advised to come back in more than a few months; more discussion now is only likely to lengthen the time until any unblock request would be considered, because the standard offer typically looks at stepping away - completely - from Wikipedia. You haven't done that yet. (I know that offer mentions socking, but the spirit is the same for disruption.)  Frank  |  talk  01:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
That does not explain how your RFA oppose concerns have anything to do with this issue. That only explains your position on whether I acknowledge consensus of my block. —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Your belief that there is no connection between the two is central to the problem. In rereading that oppose, I see little difference in your activities between then and now. There are two wikilinks to you not "getting it" regarding closing your RfA back then, same as "not getting it" here about your block. I made specific mention of your tendentious interactions with a single editor; that didn't stop until a series of RfCs were opened and modified repeatedly. You're now doing the same thing, trying to modify a block. I also mentioned that you don't display the temperament expected of an admin; in watching your talk page and your frequent appearances at ANI since then, as well as my own interactions with you, I have question that your temperament is suitable at all for contributing to a project in which the opinions of others must be considered. Technical ability is one thing; doing things that concur with what a group believes is appropriate is quite another. Despite a large amount of WP:AGF on my part, that opinion hasn't changed since our first interaction.  Frank  |  talk  14:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
"Doing things that concur with what a group believes is appropriate is quite another. " - I'd like to know what that means, or did you mean "don't concur with what a group believes is appropriate is quite another"? —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The whole sentence: Technical ability is one thing; doing things that concur with what a group believes is appropriate is quite another. You display the technical ability. You do not display the ability to do things that concur with what the community believes.  Frank  |  talk  01:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
But doesn't reporting and enforcing policy violations concur with what the community believes? —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The fact that you have been banned, and are currently blocked, should suggest to you that perhaps your understanding of "what the community believes" is imperfect at best. There are, as ever, avenues for you to appeal your block that don't require any intermediary. My suggestion to you is that wait for a few months, maybe experiment and learn in another online community, and then lodge an appeal with the arbitration committee. Nathan T 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
The only way to appeal to ArbCom is through the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, but at this point or any future point, I would be in no position to contact the subcommittee. —Mythdon (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Block/ban appeal

{{admin help}}

It has been three years since I was banned from Wikipedia for six months, which was later followed by an indefinite block. I want to keep this as concise yet understandable as possible. The links above will give the community a better understanding of the situation.

My time on Wikipedia has essentially been spent obsessing over the most trivial technicalities and worrying too much about the actions of other users.

I have taken to literal minded judgments when making decisions regarding article edits and interactions with other users. In my discussion tactics, I used mainly rules and technicalities to justify my preposterous and disproportionate arguments.

Although I may have attempted to gear editors the right direction, I have not managed to follow suit. Instead, I got worried about the actions of other users while failing to focus on building an encyclopedia. Warning otherwise well established rollbackers actually slows down the vandal fighting process with the "you have new messages". They click their talk page only to see a message saying "hey, I really think you shouldn't have did this rollback". While many of the warnings may or may not have had valid points, I chose to make a hobby of caring too much about the edits of other users. Essentially I was patrolling the recent changes patrollers.

In my interactions with Ryulong, who I edited with on a topic area we both loved, our interactions started off as my questioning the particular details of the articles and his answers to my questions. That later evolved into a power struggle. We would go back and forth on talk pages arguing eachothers point of view while failing to pursue appropriate dispute resolutions or achieve compromise. On one hand, I am trying to enforce my interpretation of policy. On the other hand, Ryulong is trying to get me to see past policies and actually question the consequences of such an application. He tried and failed countless times to get me to use common sense.

As I developed an emotional attachment to the articles (which I was in denial of), I became increasingly obsessed with Ryulong's edits, warning his rollback edits. Ryulong began to grow frustrated of my actions and began to threaten to seek blocks in response to my AFD requests which were nothing more than a narrow minded proposed resolution to the verification problems with the Power Rangers articles.

Here I expected other users to go out and look for sources. But even after I couldn't find sources and other editors gave me their input, I was unreceptive to these suggestions continuing to argue the point further and further towards a dead end. This rendered me virtually incapable of collaborating with other editors, let alone communicating professionally.

Perhaps the only contribution I have truly made to Wikipedia is the vandal fighting. But this does not compensate for the disruptive clarification requests, ANI reports, rollback warnings and all around immaturity. I treated janitorial work as the whole of my duties, rather than searching for new information to contribute to Wikipedia.

My concept of conflict resolution stumbled upon any and all disputes I saw circulating Wikipedia at any given moment and made efforts to resolve disputes. But in the end, all it did was stir up confrontation and cop an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude. If anything, I initiated drama resulting in eventual ANI reports regarding these conflicts.

My lack of balance between being janitor and editor has been the cancer of what has needlessly annoyed otherwise well established contributors. Same with the excessive clarification requests. While it may not necessarily be the amount of requests that is disruptive, such an amount may be a sign of a bigger problem. While some questions were legitimate, I could have and should have made an effort to avoid the situations prompting these requests and just went on to help produce a guideline for the tokusatsu articles, changing my general approach, finding a mentor and not going off on every instance of bad behavior while not contributing to the project.

Whenever an administrator warned me, I took to questioning the consequences of continued behavior rather than seeing where I could improve or at least what I did wrong. Pestering the administrator regarding his or her warning further conduct results in a block by continue to ask wikilawyering questions does nothing but actually drag the administrator into the conflict themselves and nettle them into frustrations regarding having moved along to other disputes but must instead continue to needlessly discuss this one.

When I first began editing, I did truly want to build an encyclopedia. But over time, I slowly grew too involved with the administrative side of the project. There's nothing wrong with wanting to administrate, but to obsess of the behind the scenes drama while failing to put to the table new knowledge for the wiki merely dramatizes disputes rather than build an encyclopedia.

It was actually last year that I did realize these things. However, having grown bored of Wikipedia at the time, I abstained from an appeal. Now, I am once again committed to contributing to Wikipedia in each and every way I can.

I would like to apologize for the precious time I have wasted with my constant hammering, pestering, hampering, annoyances, questions, etc.

If allowed back, I do not intend to return to the tokusatsu articles which I had edited during my first tenure. For my second tenure, I will make efforts to balance out my time as an editor with that of the janitor (but first, I must start off as merely the editor). I will not go off on every single instance and say "hey man, I really think you shouldn't have done that" nor look for every conflict on Wikipedia and get involved for the sake of getting involved. I will turn more attention to my work rather than caressing the details regarding the actions of others.

So I am asking that an administrator please proxy this appeal to the AN/I for discussion. Thanks.

—Mythdon (talk contribs) 06:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done to WP:AN#Unblock request from User:Mythdon. JohnCD (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked

Per consensus, you have been unblocked. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mythdon/Archive_9&oldid=1136160801"