User talk:Apteva/Archive 11

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

Comment

  • (due to my previous involvement with this user I am not commenting here as a member of the arbitration committee but in my capacity as an administrator)
  • Apteva, it has long been known that user:Delphi234 is your other account, the one you insist is your "main account". This has not been a secret for a very long time. Since the identity of your other account is known, and neither account name appears to be a real name, nobody (and I mean literally nobody) has any idea what possible sense it makes for you to claim that you need to make some edits with one account and some with the other for reasons of privacy. This nonsense is a large part of the reason you were formally restricted to one account to begin with. It was easily demonstrated that you had used both accounts to edit in the same topic areas. Anyone who feels compelled to dig up the relevant ANI threads can see for themselves how this evolved. As Anthony has tried to tell you, you need to start making some sense before you will have any chance whatsoever of ever being unblocked under either identity. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    Welcome to the real world. People do not "make sense". They are what they are. You may not like the fact that I insist on privacy, or anonymity, but that is a requirement that can not be changed. That absolutely requires alternative accounts. That part is widely understood, at least by some users. What I need is very simple. The ability to create and use alternate accounts, and edit with all of them. In no case have I ever used alternate accounts in an inappropriate or prohibited manner, or at least not intentionally. I can point to at least one template that was at one point but not intentionally, edited by more than one account. And I would be happy to have such edits oversighted so that they are completely removed. Apteva (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    This edit makes it clear that Apteva is still editing: "June was a pretty good month. I did about 500 edits." So Apteva either has another account besides Delphi234, or is editing as an IP. —Neotarf (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I had the same thought, but if you read the rest of the comment it sounds more like a reference to their commons account. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so it was. Delphi234 had close to 500 edits on Commons. —Neotarf (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia has over 100 projects, and my edits are spread out over at least a dozen projects. Normally most are on English Wikipedia or Commons, but not necessarily. There is no reason, for example, that all of my edits one month might be on, say Swedish Wikipedia. Even though I understand no Swedish, there are still valuable things that someone who does not understand the language can do. "Outing" an editor is pretty trivial, and must never be done. We identify socks after they have made no more than one edit. When that edit is used to vote twice, that is a valid block. When it is a valid, useful edit, that was just done to evade a block, per WP:IAR, it must be permitted, and no sanctions may ensue (Our Dear Leader commented "good luck on enforcing that rule"). I don't make the rules, I just follow them. Like anyone else, I make suggestions, but it is up to all of us to respond to the suggestions of others, and either make Wikipedia better or worse. Apteva (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually the more correct statement would be that Wikimedia has roughly 800 projects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew it was a lot. Being blocked here leaves me with no shortage of projects to work on. But being blocked here only "cuts off your nose to spite your face", and is counterproductive. Apteva (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You have asked me to review my decision regarding your unblock request; I do not usually make more than one determination on the same request, and will not do so now. We have a large number of other admins available. I would say, however, that in my personal view an unblock would require an acknowledgement from you that the editing for which you were blocked was indeed disruptive, and an agreement to use only one account. Anonymity is not increased in any way by the use of multiple accounts, and your implied reasoning claiming the need for two makes no sense. The only way in which your identity could be compromised would be if you, personally, divulged it, which I assume you have not.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It is quite simple. We allow alternative usernames because they are necessary. They are necessary to me, and restricting me to one means that there are hundreds of pages that I can not update, pages that are severely in need of edits. My editing for which I was blocked was perceived as disruptive, but categorically was not. I know that it was perceived as disruptive. But that was a false assessment. I was pointing out an error. As long as the error persists, it is valuable to point it out, even if you have to do it a hundred times. It is never disruptive to do that. It is perceived as disruptive, but it is in fact not disruptive. What is disruptive is to not fix the error. What is disruptive is to even discuss whether a valuable editor should be blocked. What is disruptive is to block them. What is disruptive is to not unblock me and remove all editing restrictions, so that I can edit the same as any other editor who edits for the first time. That is what is needed. I have no problem backing into it in stages. For example, to be unblocked in this account for six months, and then if that goes well, to free up the opportunity to use my main account, or actually, to create a new primary account, and use all three.
We have something called Admin review, and I believe there is also an editor review. Feel free to review me in six months after unblocking this account, and then removing the single account restriction.
To err is human. To be willing to admit your errors is divine. Are you up to the task? I am. And I can take blame even when I am blameless. But what is necessary is to move forward and let the past be in the past. Right now there are thousands of edits that if I did not make them, they would likely languish as a spelling error, or a broken link, or a word out of order, for months or years before someone else corrected them. That is of course, out of the billions of edits that need to be made. Four million articles means an awful lot of maintenance. And about 80% of the errors that I notice do get fixed by someone within the next year. But 20% do not. The error that is noted here has not been fixed. Here is another one. SEGS produces power both from solar and from natural gas, and there is data available for the monthly production from each, at least for the last decade, and would be a useful addition to the article. But even though I know where the data is to add it, how many others will figure out where it is, and who will add it if I do not? It is on the list of things to do when I am unblocked. There is absolutely no reason to force errors to stay there, and omissions to exist, just because an admin is too proud to admit that they made a mistake. We are losing good editors, but blocking them is not acceptable.
Whether my reasoning for use of alternative accounts makes any sense to you or not simply indicates a lack of understanding of how and why alternative accounts are legitimately used. You can read the section on them at WP:Sock. They are both legitimate and necessary. Even if we required that everyone only use their real name, they would still be necessary, for example for testing purposes, and where you knew your password could be stolen. I only use them in a both necessary and legitimate manner. Restricting me from doing so leaves a big hole in what I can do to help the project. Due to the fact that the issue is privacy I can not explain in more detail, publicly, without compromising that very privacy.
Your statement "Anonymity is not increased in any way by the use of multiple accounts" completely misses the point. You do know that privacy is one of the reasons for using alternative accounts, I hope. Yes we are very good at ferreting out sockpuppets and neatly linking them together, but that is only done when those accounts are used inappropriately. In some cases they are already linked. For example, a user might have an account called Brad, and one they use at work and call Brad-work, with a link to the account. But that can not always be done. A user can take a photo of them self, and not wish to identify them self, and so upload it using a throw-away account, just to maintain their anonymity. There is no requirement of linking an alternative account, unless it is being used to edit policy pages. I am not convinced that "The only way in which your identity could be compromised" would be if I reveal it myself. There are multiple examples of users being "outed", and doing so is in my view, actually fairly trivial, but simply must not be done. There are serious real world consequences. Apteva (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's what you sound like to everyone else:
"I have been unfairly persecuted by people who do not understand that I am so smart and so vital to this project that the rules do not apply to me. Even if they did, I am the only one who understands the rules and despite my efforts to explain them to these other, inferior users the rabble have decided the rules do apply to me and, with their tiny brains, have decided to unfairly sanction me. The only thing I can do is keep repeating the same arguments again and again and again and again in the hope that your rodent-like minds may finally understand how great I am and how detrimental to the project it is that I am blocked."
I think I finally get it: you need two accounts because your massive ego is just too huge to be constrained to one... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Your attempts to belittle quality editors makes me wonder why you are still an Admin. No, I have little ego. Wikipedia is edited by people with IQs from 80 to 180. How smart someone is is not particularly important. There is no one here who is more valuable than anyone else. Being an Admin is not more valuable than being an editor - it is just a different role with different tools. Yes I was wrongly persecuted, but that was ancient history, and I have long ago dropped the torch on trying to fix the fact that we do not spell things the same as the majority of the world. There are too many other things to fix to worry about how many pixels there are in punctuation. I believe that you were the one who suggested a 2013 moratorium on discussing the topic, which I agreed to, and kept.
The only thing that I am saying, is that just like everyone else, I am a valuable contributor to the project, but can not contribute to this wiki if I am blocked here, and can not contribute fully if restricted in any way. All I am asking is to be treated the same as anyone who has never made even one edit. It plain and simply hurts Wikipedia for me to be blocked. That is categorically undeniable. Not because I am smart, not because I am valuable, but because the edits I make improve the encyclopedia. At the high water mark in June 2007 we had I think about 4400 high volume editors, making more than 100 edits a month. We are closer to 3000 today. What happened to the other 1400? Why are we gaining readers and losing editors? That is the only issue to address. Is it because of bullying by Admins such as yourself? Is it because people get tired of "arguing about trivia with morons"? Something is seriously wrong with the culture of Wikipedia, and it needs to be changed.
I do have a large need for privacy, and obviously can not explain in public why using two accounts assists maintaining my privacy. I believe that I attempted to e-mail you an explanation which was also not understood. But I would not try to understand users, and focus more on what users are doing. Are they helping or hurting. I have made 10,000 quality edits, and will make more. As I previously stated, I can not promise to make even one edit if unblocked, but likely will - and they will obviously be useful. Can anyone else make them? Yes. Will they? Maybe - eventually - but we obviously need all the edits we can get.
So the only thing that I am saying is that I am ready and willing to help, and have only one obstacle between helping - which is that I am currently blocked. That is the only thing that needs to change. I continue to be thanked for my edits, I was just granted autopatrol status on another project, because of the recognition that my edits do not need to be checked. So why am I blocked here? Do you really think it is so important to have a table that says 2008 and 2009 that I be blocked so that I can not fix it? Do you really think it is so important that no one know what the output of SEGS was for 2013 that I be blocked so that I can not add it? Is it really so important that no one know the output of some of the SEGS plants in 2012 that I be blocked so that I can not add it? Per WP:IAR, it is acceptable to just create a new username and go right on editing, but I am fully aware that will simply be used against me so I am not taking that route, and am simply patiently waiting to be unblocked. But as months stretch into years this is more than absurd to continue the block. Apteva (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason why I keep the welcome message on this page, instead of archiving it, is so that I can refer to it often. The first of the five pillars is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Wikipedia if it does not provide accurate information is not very useful to anyone. So why do we insist on spelling things differently than the majority of the world. We have an article about a bird, and it gives the name of the bird, with a link to a reference. But when you click on the reference, the spelling is not the same - albeit in the capitalization, but capitalization matters - in a spelling bee, students are always failed if they do not use correct capitalization. The recent decision to force bird names to use common names instead of correct names is not good. Yes most of the world calls it a Bald eagle. But that is not the correct name, which is Bald Eagle. You would think that would be in an encyclopedia, which "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias". The previous way of doing it, which was to use the correct name in Ornithological articles, and the common name elsewhere, made a lot more sense than pretending that the name is really "Bald eagle". I seem to recall someone else saying, so if there is an association of motorcycles that decides the correct name of motorcycles we have to use it? The word "official", means "because I said so, and I have the authority to do so". Are those official names? The Ornithologists agree that their names are official. Who are we to disagree? Can any motorcycle association claim to define official names for motorcycles? Probably not. The question was more of a straw argument. Birds do have a recognized naming authority - and so do comets. We do not always defer to actual names, but always at least indicate what the actual name is. I suppose that a compromise would be to write the article Bald eagle, Bald eagle (Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus)[1], but just using the correct name seems much simpler. Apteva (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk page access restored

Further to your emailed request, I have restored your talk page access for the limited purpose of allowing you to make an appeal under the standard offer. This does not constitute a personal or ArbCom endorsement of your case. AGK [•] 21:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Standard offer

The reason for this request is very simple. Here is what the standard offer is: 

The standard offer
It's simple:
Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion. Done.
Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. Done.
Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return. Done.

First, the allegations of sockpuppetry are completely false. I have done nothing but wait patiently to be unblocked. In the meantime I have found another niche to work on to help with the 800+ projects that make up Wikipedia, and have done another 3,000 trouble free edits on top of the 10,000 trouble free edits made before I noticed that some items were not spelled correctly and brought up the issue. While I would expect spelling to be important for an encyclopedia, well, that is not an issue that I am going to bring up. Someone else will figure that out and figure out a simple solution. In the meantime things get spelled the way they get spelled. It is totally false that I make up my own rules. I carefully read the guidelines and policies and follow them. It is totally false that I do not work collaboratively. I often propose sandboxes for editors to make suggestions, and so on. I admit that I have in the past been way too vocal, and I promise to tone it down. In fact no one will even know that I am editing - all of my time will continue to be spent on the niche that I have been working on, which will occupy my time forever, and my only editing on en-WP will be fixing the occasional error, updating the occasional file, fixing a broken link, providing a reference, updating the caption for a file, or replacing an image with a better image. And occasionally creating a page or helping to bring one to GA or FA status. While I can do all of that on almost 200 other Wikipedia's it is important to also be able to do it on the en-WP as well. You can see what I have done to the da:SEGS article, and how sorely out of date the en:SEGS one is (it looks spiffy until you realize that most of the tables were created by me, and it screeches to a halt in 2012 - and only includes half of the plants after 2002, I-IV, while the da article covers all nine - and includes production from natural gas, from 2001-2013).

To give you an idea of just how few edits I will be making, following are the only edits that I would have made in November through today.

  1. Variable renewable energy fix link to solar farms (use solar farms)
  2. Photovoltaic power station format references
  3. Solar cell#Manufacturers and certification replace image with File:Photovoltaics cell production.svg
  4. Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia update case count in image caption
  5. create Mount Signal Solar Plant
  6. Cost of electricity by source#Photovoltaics Swanson's Law is 20% decrease in price every doubling of cumulative shipped volume
  7. Efficient energy use#Organisations and programs rm Africa from Iceland - revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Efficient_energy_use&diff=532183975&oldid=531671737
  8. IGCC remove second link for Integrated gasification combined cycle
  9. Cost of electricity by source#Estimates add image File:LCOE US Plants Coming Online in 2019.svg, close parentheses (IGCC) in table

And I would have only done 7 edits in September and none in October. As you can see, that is not a very long list, even though I made over 250 edits so far this month, more than that in October, and over 400 in September. Some of those may have already been done, but basically, there is no reason to have any restrictions against me and a lot of reasons to remove them. I would be happy to answer any questions that anyone has. Broken and dead links do not fix themselves, and I am happy to help, time permitting. Apteva (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please remove the notice about sockpuppetry as it is categorically false. I did not know about the "investigation" and could not respond even if I had known about it, but the only thing I have been doing on enwiki is patiently waiting to be unblocked and have not made a single edit by any account other than of course to talk page. I am neither a sockpuppet nor a sockpuppetor. We do though, allow alternative accounts because they are necessary. The sockpuppetry investigation was nothing but a fishing trip, and only turned up that this is an alternative account (duh). It did not show one single edit by any account, none. It could not because I have not made any. This is though, a shared IP address, and if it showed any edits under this IP address they clearly were not done by myself. Please also restore Pending changes reviewer, Rollbackers, Autopatrolled groups as all of those will all be useful and clearly are warranted. Apteva (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Afghan War move discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (1978–present)#Requested move 21 February 2015. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

2nd 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).

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

Request reason:

No, User:Wbm1058, I have not secretly reincarnated himself, and have only been waiting patiently to be unblocked. The accusations of sockpuppetry are categorically false. But I am not able to work on RM not just because I am blocked, but because I have discovered over 5,000 images that need to be converted to SVG, and almost 6,000 SVG images that need to be translated, and will be busy forever doing that, plus updating the thousands of images with time sensitive data that need to be updated, like population graphs. But I will be able to answer questions. The reason that I would like to be unblocked is that it is 100% clear that the previous behavior that got me blocked will never be repeated, and I occasionally find important edits to make. Like one issue that I noticed in December that was not fixed until June, after that page had in the interval been viewed 6 million times! And updating the SEGS page to say that it has always used both solar and natural gas and provide the output through 2013, as was done to the Danish and French wiki sites. Like fixing the broken links to the NTSB in 2002 United States airtanker crashes page which I figured out where the links have been moved to on that site over a year ago. But that page gets only about 20 views a day, so it could be almost forever before anyone else notices the broken links. If you have any questions about my being unblocked, I would like the opportunity of answering them, instead of simply rejecting the request and then my answering them, as if the answers did not even matter. Wikipedia does not write itself, and I can provide useful edits, and would like the opportunity to do so. I have helped at least four pages reach GA status, and can do the same for more pages in the future. While all of those pages are still GA, there is a former FA page that gets over 30,000 views each day that I would like to bring to GA or FA status. It is currently listed as a level 4 vital article (the highest importance). So the upside of unblocking me? It helps Wikipedia. The downside? Nothing. Apteva (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

1) Your block log is extensive, and your unblock request doesn't give me much confidence that you won't repeat past mistakes.

2) You have an active account on the Commons, and you help with images there.

PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

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

User:PhilKnight, these are absurd reasons for not unblocking me, and as pointed out only hurts Wikipedia. Is that your intention, to make Wikipedia worse? Then you should resign your adminship, because you are hurting, not helping Wikipedia. I am sure though, that in most of your other admin actions you are helping though. But not this time. All of the previous blocks (not counting early on when I did not know of 3RR and a warning would have been better) were for only one reason. I thought it would be a good idea that Wikipedia spell things correctly, which it does not, because of only one reason - it lets the MOS determine spelling, not how things are actually spelled. But I have set that issue aside and will not bring it up and thus will never be blocked again. Why is that not as blatantly obvious as it is? You can even read the entire list of edits that I would do above, during the first three weeks of November. Have any of them been picked up by anyone else? None. You seriously think it is more important to block a good editor (me) than it is to have redlinks stay redlinks, references stay unformatted, articles not be written? As to images, many of the images that I create would strongly benefit articles, and I do put them into other languages when I create them, but it is stupid to not allow me to add them to the wiki that is read many times as often as any other. It is not as if I have created a few images. More like over 1,000. Your review is rejected, and I ask you to reconsider or let someone who is actually interested in helping Wikipedia review this request and unblock me. Your "reasons" are not reasons.

Like I said, give me the opportunity to answer your questions instead of acting as if the answers did not matter. Wikipedia is too important to stop someone from helping who wants to help and will be able to do that only in a manner that is helpful. Many of the errors that I would be able to fix are very important. Like not promulgating the erroneous statement about Swanson's law that someone would only find out about if they clicked the link, and we know that few readers are going to do that. Do you actually like having a table say "Integrated Coal-Gassification Combined Cycle (IGCC" instead of closing the parentheses? Who else is going to fix that and when? That article has been viewed roughly 235,000 times since that error was introduced, and 200,000 people, if that many were unique viewers, either did not notice it, or did not realize how easy and important it was to just click edit and fix it (or just let it confirm their conviction that Wikipedia is not well written). I do fix things when I see them. The only thing I have not been able to fix is the above mentioned issue that got me blocked, and as mentioned, I am not going to bring that up, because I am not here to be blocked. I am nothing but a quality editor who will benefit Wikipedia by being unblocked. So the choice is yours. Help Wikipedia by unblocking me, hurt Wikipedia by not unblocking me. An easy choice. Apteva (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome to create a new unblock request for someone else to review, but you cannot remove the decline from an admin. only (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
What in six months? That is stupid. Ever heard of WP:IAR? The only edits that I am going to be making are similar to the ones listed and it is simply impossible to be blocked for doing edits like that. And completely idiotic to stop me from making them. By not allowing me to get a fair review you, User:Only are only hurting Wikipedia. Not good. Apteva (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, you're welcome to create a new unblock request, you just can't delete the one that's already here. I never said you weren't allowed a fair review. I simply said you need to retain the review of PhilKnight. only (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I can not create a new unblock request for another six months, but I do ask you to overturn this one for good reason. The reason is 1. The reason for the previous blocks simply is not going to be repeated. I have already listed the only types of edits, and in fact the only edits that I would have made during the first three weeks of November. And 2. I am clearly a quality editor who has made over 10,000 useful edits before being blocked and another 3,000 after being blocked (on other WMF projects of course). Wikipedia only benefits from my being unblocked, and only suffers from my being blocked. In six months how many of the above edits will have been made? Maybe half of them. What earthly reason is there to make an edit wait when a good editor is available just waiting to be unblocked? I did carefully retain the review of PhilKnight, but that was exactly what I wanted to avoid - a review without asking even one single question. Like, "what about your extensive block log?" Answer: That was all for only one reason - and I am not going to pursue that ever again. All of my available editing time is taken up on images, but I do find a few edits now and then that need to be made, and I am good at bringing articles to GA status, a talent that is in short supply. And "What about your just working on commons?" Answer - how would that make any sense? I created an image that shows nuclear proliferation, called Nuclear proliferation.svg, that would make a whole lot more sense in the Nuclear power#Nuclear proliferation section instead of the one that just shows the arsenals of the US and Russia, and does not directly relate to proliferation. I have not just created a few images, but over a thousand, and as I create SVG versions I replace them in other language wikis for the outdated PNG ones, but what bizarro world do we live in that I can not replace them on enwiki? That needs to be corrected, and now would not be soon enough. When I create the SVG population charts, using 2010 data, to replace the PNG ones with 2003 data, I normally also update the PNG chart so it also has 2010 data, but SVGs are clearly superior, and it is silly to block me just so that readers can not have easy access to the SVG images, just so that readers can see red links instead of blue ones, just so that readers can not find an article on the Mount Signal Solar Plant, just so that 30,000 readers a day can read an article that is not even GA, because that is the only thing that blocking me is doing. It is not blocking me for any valid reason. If you are unsure, unblock me and in five years check my edits and block log. You will find no new blocks and you will find no edits that are not similar to the nine that are listed above. None. What is the harm in that? None. I am a content creator and copy editor, and while I have little time to do that, because I am instead doing that with charts and diagrams, the time that I do have for enwiki is valuable to use. Apteva (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

As to not trusting me, the fact is that I have made over 3,000 trouble free edits to other WMF projects since being blocked here - and created four more charts just since filing this unblock request, two of which can be beneficially used on enwiki to replace the charts that they replace (one is used in 8 enwiki articles). Who is going to do that, and when, if not me?. If there was going to be any trouble, it certainly would have showed up there. Why is that not obvious? If I am not unblocked now, and have to wait another six months, that will mean that millions of readers will still not have the advantage of the edits that I would be able to make. Why is blocking me so important to deny readers the opportunity to see blue links instead of red links, find references instead of them being dead links, and read articles that are GA instead of ones that are not? It makes no sense at all. That is the only effect that my being blocked has - Wikipedia is worse than it would be. There is no other difference. Blocks are preventative. How can anyone in good conscience block someone only so that Wikipedia will be worse? Because that is the only thing that you are doing - deliberately making Wikipedia worse - the very definition of vandalism. Apteva (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

How do I get the attention of an admin who will improve Wikipedia instead of ones that will make it worse? (That is absolutely the only thing that blocking me does.) This is more than absurd to block a good editor just because of something that was done in the past and is not going to be repeated. Any suggestions? This page is watched by 68 editors, certainly someone is still active and can help. Apteva (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Why was this page on my watchlist again? Sorry, I can't remember, I haven't been around much these last two years. Oh, here's why, I gave you a piece of advice at the start of this whole thing. In fact it was a full 24 days before you got your first block since 2008. From the look of things you did follow my advice for a time, but ultimately went back to what you had been doing...and it got you blocked. If only you had heeded that advice I gave you...things these last two years might have turned out so much differently for you. If you really do want to come back to the project; then you really need to take a few weeks off, step back, and try to determine for yourself what you've done that has led you down this path you've taken. You're of course welcome to ignore advice once again and keep doing what you are doing, but how far do you think that will get you? Best wishes, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Very good advice. Actually though I have not only taken a few weeks off but have taken an entire year off, and have as a result long ago (probably about two weeks after being blocked!) decided to completely abandon the issue that was so important to me that it got me blocked. I have found myself quite useful on other WMF projects though, and have racked up another 3,000 plus edits over the last six months to a year, and have found a niche that will keep me busy there forever.
So I have abandoned forever the issue that got me blocked, and will never bring it up again. That is the salient feature of this saga that no one seems to realize. How to find out? Unblock me. There is no other way. The problem is that the charts that I have created need to be incorporated into articles. I have done that on languages from Arabic to Zulu, but it is important that they are included in the largest wiki, the English wiki.
All I want to do is necessary edits - edits that are not getting done by anyone else. But this is not even my primary account, it is an alternative account which has always been and will always be operated in a manner that is permitted for alternative accounts. What I would like though, is to be unblocked so that I can request a standard offer, either now or probably better six months to a year from now, and have all editing restrictions removed so that I can go back to using my primary account. That is the account that I really need - so if you wish you can unblock that one instead of this one (you can email me if you are unsure what it is).
@Fluffernutter:And as to not following the rules and not collaborating, the only reason the welcome notice is at the top of this page is so that I can refer to the rules, the same rules that everyone follows, and follow them. And I routinely collaborate with others. I got a request to help bring an article to GA, for example, and we worked together on it. And it is still GA today. Apteva (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: This is being repeated because you might not have seen it. No I have not secretly re-incarnated myself, and have only been patiently waiting to be unblocked. If you miss me, just contact any admin and ask that I be unblocked. Or become one yourself. I will not though, be returning to RM, for two reasons, but will be able to answer any questions. The first reason is I am going to stay far away from the issue that got me blocked, and the second is all of my WP time is being spent on creating and translating SVG files, and with 6,000 files of each that need that done, that will occupy my time forever. But when those SVG files are created, they need to be incorporated into article pages, and while I have been doing that on other wikis, and for the ones that are translated, that also needs to be done on the enwiki. For example one article uses a chart with 2007 data, while there is an SVG chart available that has 2013 data. I typically notice about 2 or 3 edits a week that need to be done in enwiki, and have a backlog of 100-200 since being blocked that are waiting to be done. Like updating Solar Energy Generating Systems to include through 2013. And early next year, 2014. Apteva (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, Apteva, that edit was not intended to make a serious allegation, and was probably one that in hindsight, I should not have made. Are you able to file edit requests for the edits you want to make? I suppose if this page is the only one that you can still edit, you would need to make your edit requests here? You may have noticed my failed run for ArbCom, I wasn't really expecting to win a seat but was surprised by the number of flat-out opposes I got. One statement I made in that campaign, in response to a candidate question, was that I was reluctant to block an editor for making constructive edits, so I might be willing to help in that regard, to the extent I am permitted to. The 2007 "US energy consumption by sector" chart says its source is the US Energy Information Administration. The 2013 chart does not provide a reference for the data, other than that it is the work of User:Delphi234. To update to the newer chart myself, I would need to verify the source. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest caution in that good faith suggestion. Apteva did place some edit request here in the past and lost talk page access in part because of them. Apteva, I do hope you are able to return some day and was hopeful that your offer at the end might have offered a better outcome then what happened. In many ways I imagine the tone of your unblock requests does not help your cause. PaleAqua (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
True. We do though need to have a way of blocked editors making a list of edits that need to be made, sort of like how COI edit suggestions are made on talk pages, and just strike out the ones that would be proxy edits, and must not be made.
When you are blocked for absolutely no reason it is pretty hard to know what to say. I am not saying that I should not have been blocked, I am saying that the day after I was blocked an admin should have asked me, are you willing to contribute productively as you have been, and drop that issue? The answer is obviously yes. So yes I am ready and able to return today. This very minute. I will not be making very many edits though, other than cleaning up the 100 to 200 that I know about, because I am busy working on making and translating SVGs, which occupies my available editing time. My return is contingent solely on any admin realizing how ludicrous it is to block one of the only 3,000 very prolific editors that we have, ones who make over 100 edits a month. To give a sense of urgency of unblocking me, there is a growing number of people, readers, who are affected by my being blocked, and it stands today at roughly 50,000 per day - 10 million in six months, 20 million in a year - and in a year it will likely be 100,000 per day who are affected - having to read an article with a broken link, with a dead link to a reference, with an out of date chart or data. It only hurts Wikipedia to continue the block, and absolutely nothing else.
I got my wrist slapped for way too vocally bringing up an important issue that we are simply messing up on, and I am glad that I brought it up. I am not glad that I was blocked, nor is that ever a reason for blocking anyone, but I am not going to bring it up again - at all - and will let someone else figure out even what it is. There are too many other things to spend my time on to improve the encyclopedia.
The Serenity Prayer says that you have to accept the things that you can not change, change the things that you can, and have the wisdom to know the difference. Well I do have the wisdom to know that I can not change that and do have the serenity to accept that. Now how about just granting me a standard offer and allow my valuable edits to be made? Please? Over 20 million people a year will benefit from my being unblocked, and absolutely no one benefits from by being blocked. So if any admin sees this, please, do the right thing. You are not doing it for me, I already know about all of the broken links and dead links, where they should go. I already know about the solar plant that has an article on ruwiki but not on enwiki. It does not help me to unblock me, but it helps all of the rest of the 3,000 very prolific editors, because for every edit that I make, it is one less that they need to make. You are doing it for the 20 million readers who needlessly see those problems that would have been corrected, like the six million in one article alone before someone else finally clicked edit and fixed it. Those are the people affected by my being blocked. There are only a handful of users watching this page, but there are over 500 active admins who could fix this problem - the problem that a valuable editor is being blocked for no reason. Apteva (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Statements like Over 20 million people a year will benefit from my being unblocked, and absolutely no one benefits from by being blocked are probably a big reason that you haven't been unblocked. While you no doubt did not mean it that way it comes across as arrogant and works against you. I recently ended up helping someone with a move request and recalled how good a job you used to do formatting so the the RMCD bot could pick them out properly. Yes I didn't get it 100% fixed, but I'm a wikisloth hopefully someone else will fix the last little bit with user talk link, otherwise I'll probably get around to it eventually .PaleAqua (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. For several reasons, I would like to see you back as an en.WP editor, but I support the decline. You are knowledgeable, industrious, and well intended, but you are not showing an understanding of what happened, and your position has not changed. You were not blocked for your beliefs but rather your behavior. I don't like the prima donna argument that you are so valuable that you must be unblocked. The argument is poor, not on point, and misses the audience. There are editors who do lots of good work but who are also difficult to deal with on certain issues. WP tolerates such editors within limits, but there is a point where the trouble outweighs the benefit. That's what happened in your case. Nothing that you say above shows an understanding of the trouble you've caused; it's about how valuable you are, how you were right all along, and how you were happy to do it. I don't see a genuine mea culpa there ("way too vocally" isn't enough). Maybe you have abandoned the topic that got you blocked, but you held onto that topic so long that it got you indeff'd. That's a behavior issue that can happen with other topics. For some reason, you view the indef as a minor step ("wrist slapped") rather than a significant event. Many people were involved in the decision. I don't see an appropriate level of understanding the issues, and therefore continuing the block prevents recurrance. Glrx (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    The prima donna argument is poor and annoying, but does it matter that it was made? "Nothing that you say above shows an understanding of the trouble you've caused"/"I don't see a genuine mea culpa"—Again, does this matter as long as the user agrees to stop that behavior? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, it matters – because I, for one, just don't have confidence in Apteva's competence to avoid such behaviour. Even if he "agrees" to stop such behaviour, I doubt his ability to act in such a way or to achieve such a stop. Nor do I see his contributions as being so valuable that there's a reason to ignore this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    While you do not appear to be an WP:Admin, after I am unblocked, I encourage you to notify WP:ANI the very second you notice even one post on any article or project talk space any time either in 2015 or 2016, and I am certain that any admin will be happy to take appropriate action - laugh you off or block me, as warranted. The fact is that the reason I am here is to improve Wikipedia, and have made many valuable contributions along that line - 10,000 before being blocked, 4,000 after being blocked. Every day an estimated 50,000 people would benefit from my being unblocked. And that is only because I would have been making about 2 to 3 edits a week, 100 to 200 that have accumulated in my absence - some of which have been noticed and fixed by someone else, but over 100 that are still waiting to be discovered and fixed and it is a crying shame that I can not fix them for those readers. As mentioned a page was viewed 6 million times with an error that I knew about but was prevented from fixing - for two reasons - one because of being blocked and two because of having too much integrity to just fix it anyway (in violation of the block, by invoking WP:IAR), before someone else finally did. But the proof is in the pudding. And the only way I know of to prove my veracity is to unblock me and find out. Wikipedia operates through collaborative editing, and you are free to waste your time checking my edit history to see if I make any such edits. You will not find any. I will confine my posts to articles, and user talk pages, and almost no user talk pages other than this one. If I find for example, a fully protected page (template for example) that needs to be edited, I will be forced to post that edit request somewhere but will do that on a user talk page instead, such as the primary editor for that page. But seeing is believing. I have myself seen countless vandals who have been unblocked and the next thing the do is vandalize again, but I am not and have never been someone like that. My only task is to improve the encyclopedia. The reason for a two calendar year moratorium on discussion is to allow me to focus on what is important and get a better sense of proper means of discussion. Apteva (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    No, I am not an admin. – And unlike you, I have never made the mistake of pretending to be one and carrying out admin-like actions on other people's talk: pages. One of those little things that's still in the great pile of reasons why I'm glad you're blocked, and for which you fail to appreciate why you're blocked. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    And you will not find me doing that either (posting notices of inappropriate action on user talk pages that were discovered doing RCP - which is one of the most important portions of RCP - to notify the offender of what they did wrong instead of just reverting - most users who do WP:RCP are not admins). Apteva (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Choices. Feel free to re-block me immediately if I even come close to doing anything in any way inappropriate. But the fact is I simply have work to do, and am needlessly being prevented from doing it. There are over 100 edits that I know about that need to be done but no one else has noticed (or bothered to fix even when I have listed them). So there are only two choices:
    • A. Unblock me and Wikipedia gains a valuable editor, very good at finding things that need to be fixed and fixing them, an editor with over 14,000 edits, and who has created over 100 articles.
    • B. Keep me blocked and make millions of people find links that are broken, red links where we have articles ([[solar farms]] is a red link, even [[solar farm]]s would have gone to the redirect from solar farm), references that are unformatted, words that are misspelled, English that is barely English that needs to be cleaned up, pages that are out of date or missing information - or do not even exist.
    • Those are the only two choices. There are no others. There is not some mysterious way that I am going to be a menace - if I wanted to do that it is impossible for anyone to stop me, and so I clearly do not. The simple fact is that all I have done since being blocked is find another way to help, and make a list of pages that need corrections - a list that now has over 100 items, and are viewed by roughly 100,000 people a day - more on the rare days that I notice an issue on a high traffic page, but those are not the problem. Someone else will notice it and fix it, like someone finally did after it being viewed like that six million times more than it would have if I had been unblocked last December instead of today. The more important ones are the less trafficked pages that can go years before being noticed. And every month that goes by the list gets longer, and more and more people are adversely affected by my absence here. The fact is we only have 3,000 very active editors, people who contribute over 100 edits a month, and we categorically need every one we can get. Yes, Wikipedia does need me, just as it needs the other 3,000 like me who also contribute over 100 edits a month (over 400 in December, over 200 in January, for me, and no, none on enwiki since being blocked, even though WP:IAR says I should have just made all of those 100 edits - the reason I have not is surprise surprise, I am not a sockpuppet or a sockpuppeter, and I am simply not going to give any possible reason to be accused of being one - can anyone find even one edit that I am supposed to have made since being blocked that would have made me one? No. And why not? There are none. And please take that silly notice off of my user page unless you can find one to even ask me about. All the checkuser found out is that this is an alternative account - duh - one that has always only been used appropriately as such). Apteva (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I still don't think you're seeing the problem that others, certainly I, see with your actions.
First of all, it's a rude response but "TL;DR". You make your case verbosely, and that isn't helping.
Mostly though, this is not about fixing typos in solar farms. You are not blocked because other editors think there is no need for such edits. You are not blocked because other editors do not think you will make such useful edits. When you were editing, you did two things: one useful, one disruptive. We can live without your useful edits, and we choose to do so if it stops your disruptive edits too.
If you want to convince others that you should be unblocked, then you need to convince us that you will no longer do the disruptive things; because you understand that they were disruptive, and that you agree to stop doing that. Instead you're just telling us, over and over again, how good your constructive edits were. No-one cares about that. You are failing to address the thing we do care about.
As to the socking issue, then your complaint here comes across as petty, whining, arrogant and failing WP:COMPETENCE. It does not aid your case.
You ran two accounts in a way which demonstrated that you fail to understand justifications for alternate accounts. When questioned, you then chose to argue and tell all of us that we were, all of us, wrong. You did not have one blocked because you were disruptive with it, but because you were being blocked for other reasons, you didn't explain a good reason for why you needed two, and then you just kept arguing with everyone as if you were in the right (A Clue: you're not). You have never demonstrated the competence to show otherwise, but you are persistently arrogant in asserting that the whole world is wrong, except you. To make a case of that one, you have to be good at it: you're not. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't even think it's necessary for Apteva to "understand that they were disruptive", as long as Apteva agrees to stop the behavior in question. I've been trying to think of a concise way of clarifying exactly and specifically what that agreement ought to look like, but from outside correspondence with Apteva it is difficult to tell if there is any potential for such an arrangement. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
If they don't understand what was disruptive and why, how can we expect them to avoid it in the future?
Thus far, this is the part I just don't have any confidence in. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I do understand why you think it was disruptive and I also know why it was not disruptive (pointing out a necessary improvement - which is still being discussed as we speak). But the simple fact is that I do not have time to do anything other than a few low level edits here. All my time is spent on creating and translating SVGs and I have a backlog of over 6,000 of each that are waiting for me to do. But often those new SVGs when created have new data that makes the image used here obsolete and needs to be replaced. One of them still in use has 2007 data, while the SVG has 2013 data, and as soon as 2014 data is available will have 2014 data. Apteva (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
If one at least understands what, then the editor can not do that thing. An understanding of how or an agreement that it even is disruptive isn't necessary for not doing a certain thing, as long as there is a clear understanding of what. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Big time. I saw something I thought would be an improvement and brought it up about a billion times. Who knew there is a page for persistent issues where I could have listed it and just gone back to editing. Live and learn. Time to move on. I sincerely apologize for all the grief I caused and certainly am not going to make that mistake again. The one thing I ask for is a standard offer so that I can start over, cautiously and very slowly. Apteva (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The one where I said I would obviously agree to and adhere to any agreement that was proposed? Or the one that said that any proposal would be incredibly silly? And not because I would not adhere to it but because absolutely none of my edits are in any way outside of any possible agreement, rendering any proposal totally unnecessary and totally silly. If you want an agreement, here it is:
During this calendar year I will not make even one edit on any article talk page, or on any project talk page. Or get into a long discussion with anyone on their talk page. Long discussions on my own talk page are perfectly acceptable, and are encouraged. Apteva (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think abstaining from article talk pages is really going to be all that helpful. And I doubt that the calendar year clause is going to fly, but I might be wrong. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The goal is to create a quality editor, which I know I can be, without any restrictions. Apteva (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Participating in discussions is not an option because they take too much time and would stop me from the work I am doing - creating and translating SVGs. The translations are particularly time consuming. So if there was a "good" me, and a "bad" me, which there is not, but if there was, one that worked on solar articles, one that worked on improving how Wikipedia does things, you can not have the bad me even if you wanted them, because they are not available. Wikipedia will need to find someone else to work on those things for two reasons. One, no one wants to hear from me - there are editors who would likely disagree just because I agreed with something. But more importantly, I can not afford the time to participate. The only edits that I will be doing on enwiki are low level maintenance edits, ones that are non-controversial, and necessary. Ones that do not in any way require any discussion. Sure I might participate in another discussion about WP two or three years from now, but when I do it will be only if that point has not been made, or needs to be seconded, and will limit my participation to one or two short posts. Been there done that with anything else. But blocking me so that I will not participate in a discussion four years from now that I might not even participate in is just ludicrous. Unblock me now so that I can do the maintenance edits that need to be done, and block me four years from now if the post I make then is problematic. Yeesh. Be reasonable. And realistic. Apteva (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Apteva/Archive_11&oldid=1139840418"