Open main menu
My block log

Short story: Since many here will look at a person's block log without taking the time to read and comprehend it, or are simply confused by it, Boing! said Zebedee stated, "Just for the record, I want to confirm that Flyer 22's block log is the result of a genuine 'My brother did it' episode. I communicated with Flyer by email at the time (as did other admins), and I was convinced that she was not guilty of any abuse herself - and the block that I made was indeed to help her secure her account, as I noted in the log. In fact, none of the blocks is a result of any misbehaviour by Flyer 22."

More on the topic is stated at the bottom of this section

My views on disruptive editors, including WP:Socks, and disgruntled editors

During the time that I became known for usually being right about WP:Sockpuppetry matters, I was labeled a "sockhunter" by some. I am not one, however. I never go looking for returning editors. It's rather that the returning editors either are familiar with me and are silly enough to try to edit alongside me as though I will not recognize them, or they are returning editors I am not familiar with...but clearly are not newbies. I can easily recognize that a person is not a newbie, even though I likely will not press the person on it unless necessary. Why wouldn't I press it? Well, long-term sockmasters will just return anyway. Sometimes it's best if I keep an eye on a sock instead of reporting them; see what I did in this case, for example. Sometimes I don't have enough evidence to report them. There is also the fact that not all returning editors are socks (see WP:Clean start), although most of them are. I know of the usual excuses for "a newbie" editing like an experienced editor (for example, editing solely as an IP beforehand and/or being a lurker), and these excuses more often than not turn out to be a cover for socking. Wikipedia is a passionate place. It's also a flawed place, as is anything else. It usually is not the case that a person can simply lurk on Wikipedia without getting involved in some dispute or without otherwise editing it. And if you edit as an IP, you get far less respect and privileges, which is why the WP:IPs are human too essay exists. Years of editing solely as an IP can happen, but it's unlikely.

Contrary to what may be popular belief, I can be open to a person getting another chance after I've caught them socking. And, yes, I still see Cali11298 around. Reporting him will not help unless it's necessary to report him. He will return and return. If he is out of my sight, he is out of my mind. If he is being disruptive at an article I watch, or at a noticeboard, then I shall report him. If he is looking to become an admin (as he has expressed to me before), then I shall report him. If you study his editing style, you should be able to spot him too. For the most part, he edits the same way, except he is now being smarter.

I have views on administrators who protect the project from disruptive editors, and acknowledge a lack respect for those who don't.

There is also a serious harassment issue on Wikipedia; see WP:Harassment. As some very well know, I have been stalked/harassed on Wikipedia a number of times. Some have been blocked or otherwise restricted because of the harassment. I would list the cases, but that would be WP:POLEMIC, similar to how even listing the traits of indefinitely blocked or banned editors might be seen as WP:POLEMIC. You can see some of the cases by searching the WP:ANI archives via this link. As can also be seen with that link, it's not unusual for the harasser to claim that I was doing the harassing. Because of my experiences in these cases, I recognize a pattern with some disgruntled editors. If you offend a Wikipedia editor via a significant dispute, and sometimes even a minor dispute, it is likely that the editor will seek to stalk and harass you, or get "payback" in some other way. They will hold that grudge with a vengeance, looking for any opportunity to get payback. I move on, even though I do not forget; these editors do not. It's an unfortunate downside of editing here. The bright side is that not all editors who become embroiled in a passionate or minor dispute act this way.

My views on Wikipedia in general

I try to avoid Wikipedia as much as possible now and would rather not converse here like I am on some social network. To me, editing here is a job. I do the job and leave, and repeat. While here, I often debate, and often with sources. It's not because I want to, but rather because I often find that I need to when trying to get an editor to understand the WP:Due weight policy or something else about the topic of the article. If you intend to debate me about what a Wikipedia topic covers, and how much weight to give whatever issue, use sources. Reliable ones. Otherwise, I am unlikely to continue debating you unless it's me trying to get you to understand. Instead, I am likely to seek some form of WP:Dispute resolution.

Editing Wikipedia for many years can make a person grumpy, especially if that person edits a lot of contentious topics. I became grumpy like many other Wikipedians; for how that happened, see this section and this discussion. To be less grumpy, and resemble the optimistic, better-tempered editor I used to be, I've changed some ways that I edit these days. I was even "reborn". More power to those who have remained relatively the same despite the hostile environment that is Wikipedia.

My views on the WP:Neutral policy are commonly clear since so many editors interpret it wrongly.

I support the WP:Child protection policy, which concerns pedophiles, child sexual abusers, etc. editing Wikipedia; for my views on the matter, see this section, and this discussion.

As for me considering WP:Adminship, I really do appreciate past posts on my talk page, and emails, supporting me becoming an administrator, but I am unlikely to ever accept a nomination. See User talk:Flyer22 Reborn/Archive 21#RfA for why. Also, when I see newbies and obvious WP:Sockpuppets getting elevated to adminship status, it is hard for me not to consider that the process is broken. I very much agree with Softlavender's thoughts on adminship. In other words, selecting administrators based solely on their clean block log, many edits without any regard for how those many edits were acquired, and for seemingly being drama-free is not how we should be doing things here. A clean block log, many edits and a drama-free status can be part of the process of nominating an administrator, but there should be more to it than that.

I used to like this site and defend it, but I now view much of it as corrupt. For example, a good number of experienced Wikipedians don't even follow the rules right (which, in some cases, is more of an interpretation difference than a bias difference). Editing here can also be a huge time stink. Life is too precious to spend as much of my time here as I used to. And if someone I know reads Wikipedia, I will tell them to definitely check those sources to make sure that the words aren't twisted or fabricated; that is how much my trust in this site has declined.

One more thing: Some people on Wikipedia have viewed me as too strict or stern. Well, I've often had a stern attitude because I was raised in a stern environment. I grew up a lot faster than others my age, which is why, for the longest time, it was odd for me to see people who are age 14 years and older be coddled and treated like little children. At age 14, I was learning how to be an adult. By age 16, I considered myself an adult. So my concept of "child" was a little different than others'. But any time there was the case of someone significantly older using their experience to manipulate the younger person, my concept of "child" was in line with others' concepts. For example, seeing a 22-year-old take advantage of a 16-year-old's naivete automatically made me protective of the 16-year-old and view the 16-year-old as a child. As I've aged, I've also realized that people in their early 20s can sometimes seem like children to me. And then there are the 16-year-olds who look and act like adults, and the adults who are mentally and emotionally stunted and are essentially children or teenagers. All of this has given me a deeper outlook on assessing a person and deciding if I should be stern with them and how stern. I know that we are supposed to take it easy on our newbies, who are like baby Wikipedians, and I do keep that in mind. Same goes for other less experienced Wikipedians. But some of them simply don't seem to get the point the first time around and being stern with them after that can help.

My WP:GAs and WP:FAs

Not listed since listing them results in unwanted attention from stalkers and disgruntled editors; see what I stated above.