User talk:Topology Expert/Archive 11
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Topology Expert. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Unblocked
I've unblocked this user. I find some of the behavior of those who blocked him to be unreasonable and in some respects disrespectful to me and to any others who might be concerned. I've commented on some of their talk pages. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS: I'm initially inclined to agree with Topology Expert's way of phrasing his unblock request. It is true that that's not likely to be effective in getting anyone to unblock him, but the implied insults to those who blocked him appear to be deserved. If this user phrases his insults in explicit language but they are truthful, while another user uses superficially genteel-sounding language and is untruthful, who is the guiltier party? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- Disrespectful to *you*? That has got to go down as the single worst ever unblock reason I've ever heard. The block was entirely justified, he made multiple personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations against members of the community, and trolled (read: wasted considerable time of many people) at an administrative noticeboard. When he did not cease, and indeed appeared to be expanding his scope, he got blocked. An independent admin declined an unblock request on a reasonable basis. I can see you are friends with the guy. If I see any more unblocks like this, I will be making a recommendation to ArbCom that your adminship be reconsidered. Have reset block. Orderinchaos 02:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the unblock. I don't intend to contribute to that discussion anymore; I will stick to mathematics articles. This all started because I edited an article unrelated to mathematics (a similar incident occurred involving silly rabbit (who in fact should be an admin having more than 15000 edits)). Can something be done about these admins who block users based on a few days experience with them (silly rabbit was blocked for editing Fidel Castro but was eventually unblocked (and should never have been blocked in the first place))?
Topology Expert (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why, but every time I try to edit a page (apart from my talk), the following sign comes up:
You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.
This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. Your ability to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse from the other person.
The other user was blocked by Redvers for the following reason (see our blocking policy):
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Topology Expert". The reason given for Topology Expert's block is: "Trolling WP:AN; making unsubstantiated accusations against editors in good s
This block has been set to expire: 04:03, 7 December 2008.
Note: If you have JavaScript enabled, please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.
Note that you have not been blocked from editing directly. Most likely your computer is on a shared network with other people.
I tried logging in through the secure server but I still can't edit. Could you please tell me how I can edit again? I will try rebooting my computer but perhaps I should wait a while to see if the problem persists.
Thankyou for your help.
Topology Expert (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I should wait till tomorrow and hopefully I will be able to edit again.
Topology Expert (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what's going on; I'll see if I can find out. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- To User: Orderinchaos: I am shocked to hear that you are threatening Michael that you will remove his admin tools. He has made one of the highest number of edits to Wikipedia and is probably one of the most established (and knowledgeable) math admins I know. You blocked me with the reason that I am wasting 'valuable' editors' time, but aren't you wasting more time than me? And what's this block going to do to me? I am disappointed that an admin such as yourself treats the contributions of an established user as no value when it comes to a block. And removing Michael's admin tools? That's a joke. If you ask me, stop wasting other peoples' time and do something useful (that's exactly what I tried to do but what did Moondyne do?). What you have done is also insulting to me because by threatening mathematics editors, you are implying that maths is a waste of time bcause their edits have no value to Wikipedia.
And by the way, I don't care whether you unblock me now or in two days time. I want to ask the idiots who blocked me to explain how they think this block is going to protect Wikipedia (you are obviously blocking me because you want to 'play' with you admin tools). But truthfully speaking, all the admins involved in blocking me can't use their admin tools appropriately (you call your block reason any better than Michael's unblock reason?) and in fact their admin tools should be removed. Consider requesting the arbitration committee to do this.
Topology Expert (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
And can't any of the idiots (you know who I am referring to) understand that I would have no interest in wasting my time vandalizing an admin noticboard (don't you see that my reasons were perfectly valid but the over-powered idiots here did not bother to look at them). And I don't care that I am blocked; I have better things to do than waste my time gabbling with the idiots who blocked me. You obviously don't understand the value of mathematics and hence the block (this block is due to lack of knowledge and stpidity rather than the reason provided).
Topology Expert (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I did actually take the time to go through your (IMO false and overblown) allegations against the people concerned, and the diffs presented (and looked beyond those to the article histories and surrounding contribs of each user concerned) and saw a user (Moondyne) who was trying to do the right thing throughout, and some *really* poor edits from you which amounted to unsourced commentary and POV. I mean, I have some sympathy - I was more academically inclined than much else and *hated* sport at school and was forced to do it until an unrelated accident saw me excluded from it for the final year and a half of my education, which came as something of a relief. But there's a place for that sort of stuff and it's a blog, rather than Wikipedia - I used to have one where I ranted about politics and culture but didn't keep it up. Anyway, to the second issue, and the one that got you blocked - you raised some points at the AN, they were reviewed by from what I can see at least three people with no editing history in the area. Your response was to escalate and threaten and impugn yet more people. That isn't strictly speaking *vandalising* an admin noticeboard, but it is certainly *using it improperly*. When that extends to the sort of stuff you were doing, it becomes disruptive behaviour and then blockable. An admin without any connection to Australia or any of your editing areas believed 48 hours was fair - I would personally have chosen 24, but 48 was within acceptable bounds (a week would have been excessive.) My action, which was discussed with another three uninvolved admins (none of them Australian), was merely to reinstate the original block as given. It is not abuse of one's tools to protect the encyclopaedia from harm - that's why we're given them. And WP:DE is a ground on which one can be blocked.
- Yet another admin reviewed that when you placed an unblock notice which contained insults. Then the whole business with Michael happened. I don't really care how long someone has been an admin or how they act or how many edits they have (I myself have over 40,000 edits), but admin tools are given by the community to a user on trust. If the person uses them in a manner which does not inspire trust, then they lose them. It's not an entitlement. And like I said at MH's talk page, at least four admins have had their admin bit removed for bad judgement. I don't make that call - the community, or ArbCom on behalf of the community, does.
- At the end of the day, this comes back to behaviour. When you behave badly, you can expect that ill consequences can or will arise. When you behave appropriately, then you don't have those sorts of consequences and can get on happily doing whatever you do around the place. I think you need to stop lashing out and blaming others, and think a bit more about how you got to where you are now. Orderinchaos 09:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and as for mathematics, best not to make assumptions from edits. I completed one unit short of a mathematics minor in my undergraduate degree some years ago, and I did actually do chemistry as a second major. I was thinking of becoming a high school maths teacher for most of last year, as well, and did in fact take classes between year 8 and year 11, and enjoyed that. Also was ranked in two independent standardised psychological tests as being in the top 0.4% of the general population for mathematics ability in 2005 and 2007. From a Wiki angle, though, I'm most useful to the social sciences so that's where I choose to invest my edits. Orderinchaos 09:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Well all I have to say to your second post is that high school math teachers are generally stupid (and I think many university professors will agree with this based on their students). And high school maths is not really mathematics (real mathematics comes at graduate studies (depending on the university) if you ask me).
Topology Expert (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. Now as for sports, I have a few links for you. A student from the school was not allowed to do university courses and instead forced to do sports. When I gather all the links (it took some luck to get the first one; I seached 'Christ Church Grammar School math' and other surfing to get there), I will present them. I don't know Hale school; we are dealing with Christ Church. You will have to trust me on this (refs are hard to find but I will try): I have heard a lot of bad things about this school in terms of sports etc... and my refs should prove most of it but there are some implications. For example, 'elite private school' refers to this school in one of my refs (I know for a fact) but I can't find other refs to back it up.
Topology Expert (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
And as for Michael's adminship; not a single member of the community (except for your gang of idiots) is going to agree to his admin tools being removed.
Topology Expert (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I want to expand some math articles (being a high school math teacher, you should know vector space or locally connected space right?) which are currently going through peer reviews. If you are really stubborn about this block, can you at least allow me to edit pages in category: mathematics? You can block me from editing anything else until my 'time out' is over.
Topology Expert (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, when I say that you are stupid, I am right. How do you think blocking me, will improve progress in Wikipedia. I have not wasted any time (the people who participated in that discussion don't do anything anyway; they have no real proffession and hence they waste their time playing with admin tools); you are in fact wasting your time: go and improve Wikipedia in terms of social sciences instead of blocking a perfectly good user who intends to improve math articles.
Topology Expert (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
And I have not behaved badly. I am well respected in real life and quite famous. But that is besides the point. Wikipedia should be protected from you and your gang because you are blocking users from making useful edits.
Topology Expert (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Finally, the only reason why I edited Christ Church Grammar School was because it lacked neutral POV and someone from the school wrote this. What idiots.
Topology Expert (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- TE, I strongly advise you stop attacking other editors. I know you are upset about this, but calling other people "stupid" or "idiot" is not going to help to reduce your block; it is more likely to increase it. I suggest you go and do something else for the next 24 hours and stop releasing steam here :) Martin 10:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Re two of the above posts - there's no facility to selectively unblock. You're either blocked from everything or can edit anything that a user of your level (autoconfirmed) can edit. There's simply no option on the block/unblock page to do otherwise - the editable options are text fields "Time" and "Reason", and yes/no's "Prevent account creation", "Autoblock any IP addresses used" (these two are normally ticked), "Prevent user from sending e-mail", "Watch this user's user and talk pages" (these two normally unticked) and "Allow user to edit own talk page" (ticked, obviously.)
- I'd also suggest you need a major attitude adjustment - we are a community here, whereas you seem to think you are *better* than the community. I would not presume the same of myself and nor would most of our editors, including ones whom I and others hold in the highest of respect who have dozens of FAs or featured images (I'm not seeing any from you, although I could be mistaken) or have contributed to dispute resolution in a productive or constructive way. Orderinchaos 11:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and re "the people who participated in that discussion don't do anything anyway; they have no real proffession and hence they waste their time playing with admin tools" - this amused me, especially knowing two of the individuals concerned (who also have more featured articles than you, some of which were cited in an academic study from Europe as some of the best content on specialist matters that Wikipedia has to offer). What you don't know would scare you. Seriously, if you are a "well respected and quite famous" expert (and not a junior high school student as I suspect), what on earth are you doing posting wads of stuff here, on AN etc? Orderinchaos 11:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
But they are idiots (why can't something be done about this pointless incident). Since I can't edit any page apart from this one, can I request you to get another math admin (or another math user) who I have not interacted with much to check over this case? Otherwise this block is biased because in my opinion they blocked me because they wanted to (misuse of power). I mean apart from the gang of idiots who blocked me, I don't think other users would strongly be in support of blocking me. In fact, I am sure other (sane) users would be against this block.
Topology Expert (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
And I am sure that you will agree that most of what I said was true?
Topology Expert (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Well there are many famous mathematics editors who spend their time contributing to Wikipedia. And by the way, I am as old as a primary school student but I have finished school ages ago and being an expert mathematician is not about credentials but about knowledge (and why are you wasting your time here?).
Topology Expert (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
And I never said that I am better than everyone. I said that it is useless to block me (and you will have to admit that I have made useful contributions, yes?). OK then, how about this: I won't participate in that discussion (although I am still clueless as to why my accusations were not valid. I said sorry twice and ceased from editing that school article after I was warned. If you had warned me before blocking me (and told me that I would be blocked), then I might have stopped). I will only contribute to math articles (which are going through peer reviews) and I am sorry for using words such as 'stupid' and 'idiot' (and telling the truth). If I violate any of these, you may block me again but I promise not to do so. OK?
Topology Expert (talk) 11:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect you are not going to take any advice from me (such as: when in a hole, stop digging), but in my opinion, after reading what happened, your block was perfectly justified. Michael Hardy's unblock was unwise, in part because you were supposed to learn something from the block and he made that harder, and in part because it was clear he would be reversed.
- Your edits that originally led to this situation were not vandalism in the technical sense of the word, but they were still completely unacceptable. You may have been right, and I have a lot of sympathy for the sentiments you expressed, but truth is not an excuse for violating policies in a disruptive way. Your block wasn't wrong just because the blocking admin used an incorrect and insulting word to describe your behaviour. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the points made by Orderinchaos and Hans Adler above, especially the advice that when in a hole, stop digging. While I perhaps wouldn't have placed the block myself, it was justified. Michael's unblock without discussion was very very wrong and, notwithstanding the huge respect I have for the work he does, I will support Orderinchaos in bringing it to the ArbCom if it happens again. And it won't be a disaster for Wikipedia if you (Topology Expert) don't edit Wikipedia for two days. As somebody who has been here for more than five years, I think that patience is one of the most important attributes of a good editor. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
What was I supposed to learn from this block? I was never warned that I would be blocked; it just happened out of the blue.
Topology Expert (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
No, it won't be a disaster if I don't edit at all (let alone for two days) but what is a disaster is that everyone here misses the point of this block. I was not blocked for editing that school article (but I will provide every reference necessary), I was blocked for truthfully accusing someone of misusing his power (not his admin tools). If at all this accusation was false, an admin should have notified me politely instead of his post directly after my request. And without assuming good faith, accused me of being a vandal (for all proof of the statements made in the last two sentences, have a look at the link).
Not that I don't agree with some of the points given (like digging the hole) but I think it is clear that there is no need for me to mention that the people who blocked me are idiots because it is blatantly obvious.
Topology Expert (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
And it is not Michael's fault for the unblock (I am not saying this just because it is me who was unblocked) because he probably unblocked me because he did not check all the links (and explained his unblock at great depth on the blockers' talk page). Maybe doing so would have influenced his decision but in any case, this block was inappropriate for the reasons I mentioned (what was I supposed to learn from this? I mean if I was told nicely to learn a policy, it would have been more effective than blocking me. You will have to admit (and already have) that being rude will get no-one anywhere and yet the admin who blocked me does not understand this (he blocked me without warning, assuming good faith, being polite etc...)).
Topology Expert (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate you wanting to defend Michael but the fact is that under the policies of the project, an admin is responsible for all actions he/she takes and not looking at links or not discussing with others is not an acceptable excuse. I like Michael, I think he's a good guy and I don't want to see him taken to ArbCom (although I too would support Orderinchaos if he did take it there because Michael's actions were a very clear and serious breach of important policy) but it needs to be clear that Michael was definitely in the wrong. As for your unblock request, I don't think you should be unblocked due to the personal attacks you have continued making (in fact, I think you're very lucky that none of us have chosen to extend the block because of the NPA violations). As others have said, it is unlikely anyone will unblock you with all the attacks on this page. I appreciate you wanting to speak your mind, but Wikipedia does not have "free speech" and we must all try to follow the behaviour policies and guidelines when interacting with each other. I don't think you will be unblocked, but if you want to improve your chances somewhat then you really should redact all the attacks and name calling on this page. Sarah 00:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Advice and request
I don't really need advice about this block (I am going to take Martin's and just read (but not edit articles) if necessary) but thanks anyway.
A request to the users who blocked me: If you are coming here to write nonsense, don't. If you are coming here to unblock me, go ahead. I don't really care what you do as long as you don't vandalize my talk page (notice how I can change the definition of 'vandalizm' too).
Topology Expert (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Unblock request
Topology Expert (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I won't participate in that discussion (although I am still clueless as to why my accusations were not valid. I said sorry twice and ceased from editing that school article after I was warned. If you had warned me before blocking me (and told me that I would be blocked), then I might have stopped). I will only contribute to math articles (which are going through peer reviews) and I am sorry for using words such as 'stupid' and 'idiot' (and telling the truth). If I violate any of these, you may block me again but I promise not to do so
Decline reason:
In general, administrators won't undo another admin's block unless there is a very good reason. You are currently under only a short block; when it expires, you are welcome to edit Wikipedia appropriately, without making personal attacks, as you've said that you will. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:22, 6 December 2008 (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.
Topology Expert (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I won't give anymore unblock requests; this is the last one. But I want another admin to review this (such as User:Ice Cold Beer) because the admin who first blocked me said that he would unblock if I said sorry and stopped editing that discussion. That is exactly what I have done. And as for personal attacks: keep the rules you make is my motto. The admin who blocked me made a personal attack against me by calling me a vandal and by saying that 'in-order-to protect Wikipedia, I am blocking you'. Why should I keep the rules if the admin who blocked me does not?
Decline reason:
As FisherQueen says above, blocks should not be undone without a very good reason. The block was for personal attacks at WP:AN, which then continued on this page. Personal attacks are treated pretty seriously, and "He started it" is not a valid excuse. The block is half over, so after a few more hours you'll be welcome to resume constructive editing and put this issue behind you. Euryalus (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2008 (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.
Note to reviewing admin: the purpose of this block was to attempt to stop this user from spitting out accusations against anyone who disagreed with him. I did indeed say that I was happy for an unblock if he apologised and stopped; but his non-apology apology (basically: I'm sorry, even though what I said was true) is further up the page and clearly the personal attacks against people who disagree with him have not stopped. So my previous statement on unblocking still hasn't been met. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 18:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for what I have said (it was insulting, yes) and I won't make any accusations. I won't say anymore.
Topology Expert (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I really appreciate that you have the decency not to review this request yourself and instead let another admin do it. Therefore, I am removing any accusations that you are biased (but not necessarily the accusations against other admins). Thankyou.
Topology Expert (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a suggestion (I'm not going to approve or decline your unblock, as I think I've been too closely involved in the WT:WPM discussions): if you wish to appear sincere in your apologies, don't in the same breath include stuff that appears to contradict them or that makes it seem you are only apologizing out of necessity rather than because you think it's the right thing to do. That includes the "(and telling the truth)" bit in your first unblock request in this section and the "he did it first" excuse for your personal attacks in the second one. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of that but I would rather write my personal opinion than write something meaningless (if you know what I mean).
Topology Expert (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Blocks as in the policy are to protect Wikipedia. How is this block doing that?
Topology Expert (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
'He started it' is not a valid excuse. But it is true. In my opinion this block was made because my accusations were correct (admins never even explained why they were incorrect) and admins were afraid that this would give their friend a bad name. Hence they blocked me.
Topology Expert (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Section title editting
Please don't edit a section title on AN when the section has been marked as resolved; especially with an edit summary of "Just Joking!". Admins could see that as being pointy. Minkythecat (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
"Clearly" is just bad style
See section title. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Topology Expert. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |