User talk:Nagualdesign/Archive 7

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by .

Blocked for continued problems of conduct

Latest comment: 6 years ago114 comments12 people in discussion

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

I am sorry that it has come to this point. Your continued flouting of some of the most basic rules of WP:CONDUCT, and your recalcitrance to any level of admonishment leave no other choice.

Please take the time for some soul searching and for reading the policies and guidelines - not with the intention to justify your conduct, but to honestly see where your idea of conduct deviates from them. It would also help if you reread what has already been said above.

You might want to start with the very guideline that you like to cite so often, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, especially those parts of it that apply to non-article talk pages. "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration." This is illustrated by the image of the pyramid in section Behavior that is unacceptable, which I am repeating here for your convenience. As you will see, your attack of user:86.20.193.222 in the previous section is on the lowest section there, "Ad hominem".

Certified a load of old bollocks

One rule that you particularly like to misuse for your own purposes is WP:TPO. Admittedly, that could be written more clearly. That section specifically applies to article talk pages, not WT:HD, for which you claim it. Those are covered in the lede with the guidance that "discussion should be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." But even WP:TPO, if one looks for its intent, contains much advice and other information that can be applied on other talk pages, such as "It is still common to simply delete [...] comments or discussion [that violate the rules]", which debunks your misinterpretation that you repeat in your edit summaries and your reply to user:86.20.193.222.

Again, I regret that this was necessary. I sincerely hope that you will take this as an opportunity to improve, since your continued contributions at WP:HD show that you do have a desire to help others and you certainly have skills that we value here at Wikipedia. — Sebastian 08:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific. Please provide diffs. nagualdesign 08:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20377 was submitted on Jan 19, 2018 08:50:07. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Another fun-packed day in store (sarcasm). Time for a nice long bath, I think... nagualdesign 08:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Since you also reverted the removal of one of my comments at the help desk, which I forgot to mention in my appeal, but (I assume) you haven't been blocked, could you please weigh in on the UTRS appeal? Cheers. nagualdesign 09:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I’ve looked at (but not reserved) the UTRS appeal. I would prefer to see this appeal handled on-wiki as that would make it easier to have more back-and-forth with the blocking admin. I have to agree that diff would make it a lot easier to review the merits of this block. @SebastianHelm: could yo possibly provide examples of the conduct leading to the block? Beeblebrox (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher), but. I doubt that that will be possible I'm afraid, Beeblebrox, as there aren't any. Although the blocking admin suggests in their block notice that there were ad hominem attacks on the IP, all ND actually said was—in abridgement—not to refactor his posts and noted a previous ANI. The stuff about arseholes, etc, was already discussed of course. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zaphod: I'd prefer it if the UTRS appeal could be handled off-Wiki if you don't mind. Although the email I received from Yunshui says there is no private information associated with my appeal, if you've read it you will understand that there are parts which I feel would be unfair to make public. And I don't think Sebastian intends to reply to either of our messages. I hope you understand. nagualdesign 11:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Synopsis

Per request by nagualdesign and user:Beeblebrox, here's a synopsis of relevant diffs that led to the block. Sorry if my explanation wasn't clear enough.

11:05, 16 January In reply to user:Kasra tcme's question at WP:HD, nagualdesign responds with an off-topic, unhelpful reply, ridiculing the user.
12:11, 16 January: SebastianHelm addresses nagualdesign very politely, asking to reconsider the reply.
12:32, 16 January: nagualdesign replies with further ridicule.
23:37, 16 January: SebastianHelm removes the HD reply with edit summary "removing off-topic, unhelpful reply"
02:06, 18 January: nagualdesign writes another off-topic comment.
02:13, 18 January: nagualdesign repeats his initial comment.
17:40, 18 January An IP user removes the second off-topic comment and informs nagualdesign about it.
18:51, 18 January: nagualdesign further attacks user:Kasra tcme as "a-hole".
21:54, 18 January: nagualdesign attacks the IP user ad hominem.

— Sebastian 12:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

In what way did I ridicule anybody, attack anybody or make an ad hominem?! nagualdesign 12:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think what it boils down to is that points 1-8 were already subject to discussion in this section, which is when any admiistrative action should have taken place. The only subsequent event—Diff#9—is so clearly not ad hom. that it's difficult see how it could be mistaken so. Calling a thing such does not make it so. The same goes for the suggested "ridicule," and as for "off-topic" remarks, if they were at all blockable (except when so persistent and unencyclopaeic that it becomes disrupive, clearly not the case here) then you'd have to block far more comprehensively—up to and including Jimmy Wales! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please read the definition of "Ad hominem" in the picture. You did both of its defining acts: You attacked the characteristics and authority of user:86.20.193.222 . — Sebastian 12:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolute bullshit. I did nothing of the sort. nagualdesign 12:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Here's my version of events:

11:05, 16 January: In reply to Kasra tcme's unfounded accusation and silly question nagualdesign responds with an joke (but also provides courtesy links for other users).
12:12, 16 January: SebastianHelm says he found it "humorous", but asks nagualdesign to consider that Kasra tcme is "unfit to be an editor" and might turn violent if we don't pander to his needs.
12:32, 16 January: nagualdesign explains that Kasra tcme had made an unfounded accusation of "hate and racism" against Beyond My Ken.
23:37, 16 January: SebastianHelm removes the HD reply, contrary to WP:TPO.
02:06, 18 January: nagualdesign makes an unrelated joke (and also links the section header to the article and informs editors that the images now face deletion).
02:13, 18 January: nagualdesign reverts SebastianHelm's edit, restoring his initial comment.
17:40, 18 January: IP user removes the second comment, contrary to WP:TPO.
18:51, 18 January: nagualdesign disagrees with SebastianHelm about how he chose to deal with Kasra tcme, who SebastianHelm considers "simple-minded" (ie, with humour. Evidently Sebastian considers this as 'mocking the afflicted').
21:54, 18 January: nagualdesign politely informs the IP user not to drag his name into unrelated drama.

nagualdesign 12:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for quietly correcting my error about the first user's name. It was indeed not an IP editor, but user:Kasra tcme. I will correct that in my list, as well. — Sebastian 12:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I should perhaps also point out, in case anyone missed it, that NeilN also reverted the IP's removal of the "Don't mess with Ken" comment, but since Sebastian isn't concerned with Neil's conduct he hasn't mentioned that bit, or maybe he didn't even notice. (Sorry to drag you into this, Neil, but I'm sure you understand why I've brought it up.) nagualdesign 12:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you really think it is wise to stress the fact that you have friends who help you avert WP:3RR? That I'm not concerned about that should have become clear by now, and I find it tedious to investigate such matters. But there might be others reading this who find it interesting. — Sebastian 13:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I could have reverted it myself without breaking WP:3RR but Neil got there before me. I didn't contact him about it (although I did thank him when I saw the edit). I think it's rather unfair of you to imply that Neil would behave anything less than impeccably. nagualdesign 13:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This is another example why I admonished you above to "[read] the policies and guidelines - not with the intention to justify your conduct, but to honestly see where your idea of conduct deviates from them.". If you did this, you would notice that the intention of Wikipedia:Edit warring is to avoid edit-warring, and that "[3RR] is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.". (I take some responsibility about this, too: I realize it would have been clearer if I had used the term "edit warring" instead of the shortcut. )

BTW, I did not mean to cast any shadow of doubt on Neil; one can still assume good faint and consider the possibility that he somehow honestly thought he was improving Wikipedia with his revert. (If I were concerned about this, I would ask him about this.) I'm just noticing that you're peculiarly centered on reversions. I already wondered about that looking at the differences between our lists. (In particular, in #6 it doesn't matter for me if you reverted my edit; as far as I'm concerned, that's just as if you had written the same comment again.) — Sebastian 13:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't edit warring by any definition. How is even possible to be considered edit warring without even coming close to 3RR?! Is a single edit a war? Because 2 would be pretty close to 3, I would have thought. I don't think I'm peculiarly centred on reversions either, since I used the exact same diffs as you. nagualdesign 14:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Since we're publically casting aspersions now and my off-Wiki UTRS appeal appears to have fallen on deaf ears, how about this take on things:

23:54, 17 January: SebastianHelm gets upset that nagualdesign didn't ask him about his story, then takes the following day off.
16:27, 18 January: In the meantime an IP user begins editing for the first time in several weeks, and rather brusquely so, leaving nagualdesign wondering whether the mild-mannered Sebastian wears glasses but is otherwise indistinguishable from the IP of steel (though the two are mysteriously never seen at the same time).
02:23, 19 January: After some deliberation nagualdesign opens a new topic at HD about editing while logged out.
07:26, 19 January: After some discussion at HD, including much input from the IP, nagualdesign ends the discussion.*
08:06, 19 January 2018: Sebastian returns and promptly blocks nagualdesign, claiming that he was uncivil towards the IP.

Honestly, I hope my suspicions are wrong, but considering your 180 degree shift in attitude over the last couple of days I'm sensing that you may have issues. nagualdesign 13:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

*Thanks to IvanVector for pointing me in the direction of WP:GHBH. That's exactly what I needed to know. nagualdesign 14:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: I don't appreciate being characterized as "friend who help you avert WP:3RR" and would like an explanation of why you did this. In case you hadn't noticed, the IP removed more than Nagualdesign's comment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I should also note that two admins (including myself) commented on the IP's increasingly unhelpful posts at WP:ANI. And this was after this thread where the IP was defended. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

There are a number of unfounded accusations now circulating in this discussion, which I think has run its course. The points, as this uninvolved admin sees them:

Nagaldesign’s posts were not what one normally expects at the help desks and were not actually helpful at all
That being said, they do not constitute “personal attacks or harassment” of a blockable nature
Sebastian was maybe a bit too close to this issue to see it clearly and should have asked uninvolved admins to look into it before issuing a block, even a short one.

That could have avoided all this talk and casting of aspersions on one another. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

SebastianHelm and ADMINACCT

SebastianHelm, I am formally asking you, per WP:ADMINACCT, to explain what in this post [1] constitutes, as you claim above, "[an attack on] the IP user ad hominem".
Further, please clearly explain what you mean by "You attacked the characteristics and authority of user:86.20.193.222" [2] – what is an IP's "authority"?
I am also looking forward to your answer to NeilN's query to you above [3].

E Eng 14:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I've reviewed what happened (to the extent of the links here), and I share those questions. I furthermore have some very serious concerns about the block. I think that there are issues of WP:INVOLVED here, and most of the block seems like a very thin-skinned reaction by SebastianHelm to being, himself, talked back to rather mildly, as opposed to any demonstrable misbehavior directed at anyone else. I ask SebatianHelm to respond to what I said here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

For the reasons stated above. Neither of the reasons given by the blocking admin (Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy) have any basis in reality.

Accept reason:

I've reviewed the diffs supplied by the blocking administrator supposedly constituting personal ad hominem attacks, and find the rationale for blocking highly unreasonable. The last diff supplied which supposedly necessitated blocking contains no sort of personal attack that I can interpret, and is merely fair comment on an administrative process. I am therefore accepting this appeal and reversing the block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That being said, nagualdesign, this is your second recent block for what amounts to "talking back" to an administrator who was trying to give you advice, which you could again have avoided by listening in the first place. The Help Desk is for helping users, full stop. Ridicule is an extremely poor way to help someone with what they think is a genuine problem, even if you think it's "stupid". The next time you get a note from an administrator advising you to change course, don't ignore it and double down on your actions or you're going to find that your next block will be for a much longer time. You seem like an intelligent person so I think you can interpret my meaning when I say there is a wrong way to be right. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate your prompt action in unblocking, I'm not happy with your implications that "talking back to an administrator" is anything like an offense, and that "a note from an administrator advising you to change course" should be obeyed unhesitatingly. E Eng 16:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair points, but neither is "a note from an administrator advising you to change course" a wise thing to purposefully ignore. Administrators can be wrong and often are, but most of us are reasonable people willing to listen to a reasonable argument. Actions that amount to "fuck you, I'm doing what I want anyway" rarely constitute reasonable arguments. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me, Ivan, but you can spare me the sanctimonious platitudes ("talking back" to an administrator who was trying to give you advice.) Some would call it discussion, and I have no inclination to kowtow to anybody, admin or otherwise. The fact of the matter is that Sebastian's reasons for blocking me were bullshit. And again, I didn't ridicule anybody, I wrote "Don't mess with Ken or he'll wipe the floor with you. That guy can bench press over 256 kB." It's ridiculous, as in silly, but that's not the same thing as ridiculing. And "is he more powerful than me?" is a pretty stupid question, which is probably why Sebastian repeatedly referred to him as "unfit" (for editing), "simple-minded" and "less fortunate".

If you want to compare this to my previous block, as I think we already established it was largely the phrase "With all due respect, get a grip" that got your hackles up on that occasion, and my quoting something verbatim, and making clear that it was a quote, was lost in the heat of the moment (along with the "With all due respect" part, I might add). Next time I have a discussion with somebody, admin or not, I'll speak my mind as I see fit, and there's absolutely no reason that any potential block should be "much longer" considering that this one was completely unfounded. I hope you can also see that I'm actually a very reasonable person, I just don't take bullshit lying down. Your characterizing of that as me saying "fuck you, I'm doing what I want anyway" is completely unfair. I didn't purposefully ignore anything, I engaged in discussion. nagualdesign 16:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I still expect answers from SebastianHelm to my questions above. E Eng 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: you may want to take that up at WP:AN. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, first I'll wait and see how S.H. handles himself here. E Eng 16:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I will be watching too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems like for some admins, issuing a block is so exhausting that they have to take the rest of the day off from logging in, or even a few days or even weeks. Odd, that. 23:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is a bit odd that. Thankfully there's always an IP ready to step in for a few days or weeks to fill in the void. You've gotta hand it to those anonymous users, they really do a lot of the legwork around here. ahem Pardon me. ghbh... Something sticking in my craw. nagualdesign 00:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, there may be a time zone difference. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Dollars to donuts. E Eng 01:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I slept rather late today and missed all the action, but having now reviewed the rationale for the block I would have to see I agree 100% with reversing it, and would suggest it may have violated WP:INVOLVED as the blocking admin was actively in a dispute with the person they blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I taught rather late today and agree with Beeblebrox on the first item (not a personal attack and at any rate not "enough" to add up to a block) but not necessarily on the second--that's not how I read INVOLVED but it's possible that I may have missed something. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Let’s all take a deep breath and calm down here please

First off, normally if you suspect socking, you either file a report or shut up. Hinting about it without filing an appropriate report is more of a whispering campaign approach that is not desirable. I hope you realize that admin socking is a very serious accusation and is not taken lightly. As such, I have alerted the WP:ARBCOM to this situation as admin socking falls within their purview. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Since admin socking is a very serious accusation and is not taken lightly I'm very thankful that you're the one who alerted ARBCOM so that I don't have to. I did post something along those lines as part of my UTRS request earlier today but someone decided that, since I was still allowed to edit my talk page, the UTRS request may as well go in the bin.

It's a funny ol' place, isn't it? I mean, if you suspected somebody of a serious crime and reported it to the police they'd do their own investigating rather than expecting members of the public to become armchair detectives, and the seriousness of the alleged offence certainly wouldn't be used as a reason to discourage people from reporting it. And if someone goes to court and they're found not guilty they don't sentence the accuser. I can only imagine that ARBCOM members must have to travel by slow boat from the four corners of the globe in order to meet up or something, hence them being so incredibly reluctant to do so. Though I would have thought that in this day and age any one of them could do a preliminary check with just a few clicks, and it would only be necessary to punish persistent timewasters.

Still, rather you than me, right?

nagualdesign 01:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Reminds me of the one about the [insert your least favorite ethnicity here] mine detector.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

01:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I was on the committee in 2014, and am a checkuser myself. CUs will not, ever, publicly disclose what IP address a person is using, but if Sebastian was also the IP in question, he would undoubtedly lose his admin tools in short order and possibly be blocked for so egregiously (not to mention a little too obviously) abusing the trust the community has placed in him. This wouldn’t be something that would require a full case, they could indeed figure it out as individuals in a matter of minutes.

I understand your suspicion, and found it not entirely an unreasonable point, or I wouldn’t have looked any further into it. The IP is clearly an experienced and opinionated user, with a bit of overlap with Sebastian, so it is worth looking into, and if I or the committee found solid evidence of it I can assure I’d be the first in line asking for their rapid desysopping and blocking, but you should also be open to the idea that this is a returning user or long-term ip user who just happened to get wrapped up in all this. It also isn’t unusual for someone to take a break after other admins and members of the community have told them they screwed up. It’s not optimal, per ADMINACCT, but it’s understandable. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You've pretty much mirrored my own thoughts, which is reassuring. I'm not adverse to being wrong though. In fact I think I'd be happier if I was in this case, as it would restore my confidence to some degree in Wikipedia's ability to choose and regulate admins. I have to admit to being fascinated to find out the result of all this though. We shall see... nagualdesign 01:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Beeb, I'm very surprised at your tepid "It’s not optimal, per ADMINACCT, but it’s understandable"; it's wholly unacceptable. Take a break, sure, but own up first. It's already clear SH should have kept his hands off for INVOLVED reasons, but if indeed he just happens to be unable to make himself available afterward, that's yet another reason he should have left this matter to another admin. It's like the sheriff locking someone up and then going fishing. E Eng 01:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really. He did in fact repond to my request to clarify the underlying reasons for the block, as these were not at all clear. When the resounding response to that explanation was that the block was unjustified, he went quiet. He has raised no objection that I can see to the reversal of his actions. It would be nice if he respond to the further questions here, but he’s alllowed to take a day off if he wants. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I still disagree. Seeing that he'd poked a wasps' nest, he should have had the courtesy to stick around and account for himself -- especially once everyone was telling him he'd made a serious mistake.

On an unrelated topic, I've just now after all these years realized that your username isn't Beetle-brox. E Eng 04:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please tell me that you've read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy though, or watched the 1980s TV series, or at the very least watched the film. If not, DON'T PANIC, the BBC series and the audiobook are available on YouTube. That will be your homework for the weekend.

I must say, I was doing a little soul-searching, asking myself whether making an allegation against SH was a spiteful thing to do under the circumstances, and reading your "he'd poked a wasps' nest" made my face drop for a moment. I don't enjoy thinking of myself in such terms but I do have a sting in my tail. Not that you meant your analogy in that way, of course.

As it turns out, neither SH or the IP have returned thus far, so it seems increasingly likely, to me at least, that I was right. And if that turns out to be the case I have to tell myself that I did the right thing. I have to wonder what effect all of this might have on SHIP's mental health though, especially considering what sort of person would adopt such a 'split personality' online, and whether our illustrious project is really worth these civilian casualties. Maybe that's one of the real reasons that ARBCOM don't relish their job. Makes you think, doesn't it? nagualdesign 13:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Given his most recent comment in this thread, I'm seriously considering asking that EEng be indeffed per WP:CIR. The inability to immediately recognize a HGG reference is a serious, serious problem. Even if he's joking... Well, that's no laughing matter.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

18:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm more a Whole Earth Catalog man myself. E Eng 19:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I've never read Wikipedia in the voice of The Hitchhiker's Guide before, but I was just reading through that article and this paragraph could have been written by Douglas Adams himself:

The radio series (and the LP and TV versions) greatly benefited from the narration of noted comedy actor Peter Jones as The Book. He was cast after it was decided that a "Peter Jonesy" sort of voice was required. This led to a three-month search for an actor who sounded exactly like Peter Jones, which was unsuccessful: the producers then hired Peter Jones as exactly the "Peter Jonesy" voice they were looking for.

nagualdesign 20:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ow investigation

–E Eng

For the record, the committee got back to me with a finding that no action was necessary. My ow investigation came to the same conclusion. I would also note, since both are a matter fo public record, that the IP is in the UK, while Sebastian lives in Germany. I can’t discuss the CU evidence but suffice to say it was fairly conclusive. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for letting me know. nagualdesign 03:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: That IP was given a 3 month block in the past hour or so, so it seems that the odd whiff they were exuding wasn't entirely without reason. They were evading a block, I think. nagualdesign 00:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, I can’t comment on CU evidence, but clearly they did exhibit all the hallmarks of an experienced user editing as an IP, it just wasn’t Sebastian. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, all socks have a distinctive aroma. Even fresh ones like Sigurd Hring that are changed frequently and are sweet to begin with develop sour notes. Dirty old socks like this one you can smell a mile off. I'm a bit disappointed that the committee didn't spot what was really going on, nor did your ow investigation, though I have to take responsibility for giving you a bum steer there. In future I think I'll be slightly more dubious of any IP or new user that shows a thorough understanding of Wikipedia's inner workings.

I've been here well over 10 years (I was once an IP user) and I must admit that I only discovered WP:ANI within the past year, only realized that the word hatting comes from {{hat}} in the past few months, and I'm still not entirely certain what sysop is short for – Don't tell me! I like to let the penny drop in its own time. The echo it makes on the way down helps me sound the depth of my own inexperience. I'm often told how intelligent and knowledgeable I am (as if I didn't know!) so it's nice to be reminded now and then that, since my knowledge is finite, my ignorance is infinite. nagualdesign 08:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I replied to your questions

at User talk:SebastianHelm#nagualdesign incident. — Sebastian 16:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

SebastianHelm, there's something weird going on because it's apparent from what you posted there [4] that you're mixing me up with Nagualdesign. Please just answer my questions in a straightforward way, here where the discussion is already ongoing, after reminding yourself who is who. If that's complicated for you to sort out, that's a burden you created for yourself by disappearing without warning and leaving the rest of us to try figure out without you what's going on. I will add that I consider this a serious matter -- and I believe I speak for others in saying that -- and am considering taking this to AN. E Eng 17:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: Please see the specific questions from EEng and from me, above, at #SebastianHelm and ADMINACCT. These questions are separate from any questions that Nagualdesign has asked. Please answer these questions. Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: Having read User talk:SebastianHelm#nagualdesign incident I agree with EEng; you seems to be confusing the two of us and it isn't very clear who you're addressing. You didn't really answer the questions either, so perhaps I ought to restate them here:

Why did you write "you have friends who help you avert WP:3RR" in reference to NeilN?
What in this post constituted an ad hominem attack?
In what way did I attack "the characteristics and authority" of 86.20.193.222?
Tryptofish wrote, "I've reviewed what happened (to the extent of the links here), and I share those questions. I furthermore have some very serious concerns about the block. I think that there are issues of WP:INVOLVED here, and most of the block seems like a very thin-skinned reaction by SebastianHelm to being, himself, talked back to rather mildly, as opposed to any demonstrable misbehavior directed at anyone else. I ask SebatianHelm to respond to what I said here."

nagualdesign 23:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This area is intentionally left blank

What now?

Tryptofish, Beeblebrox, Serial_Number_54129 (and everyone else): Despite repeated requests on his talk page and pings here, Sebastian Helm continues to blithely ignore editors' direct requests that he account for his administrative actions. What now? E Eng 13:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't look very good at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging NeilN, IvanVector and SebastianHelm (without a space) too. Personally, I'd give him another 24 hours then, if he doesn't respond, pass this onto WP:AN. nagualdesign 13:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

...He was still online for nearly an hour after I replied to him on his talk page, so evidently he's chosen to ignore the invitation (the 6th on that page, by my count, along with the multitude of pings here), so maybe waiting another 24 hours is pointless. nagualdesign 14:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

No one can force SebastianHelm to answer questions he doesn't want to so going to WP:AN would be a waste of time. The only recourse you have is Arbcom for admonishment or desysopping and it's doubtful they'll take the case as he's admitted his mistake unless you have a really strong case for WP:INVOLVED. Probably best to move on, but remember this incident, as any repeat definitely shows a history of poor tool usage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

NN, what happened to WP:ADMINACCT? All this prancing about with teabags is just an act designed to make us think he's some kind of spiritual being above earthly accountability. Bullshit. He's just another low-edit-count holdover from the days when adminship was anyone's for the asking. I'm sick of these highhanded dilettantes who contribute no content, and don't know how things actually get done, wielding a truncheon over those that do. It's funny, we've had three bad-block situations in the last month illustrating three distinct species: Oshwah, a good guy who made a mistake but seems a deer in the headlights when it comes to remedying it; Coffee, who's just out of control; and this guy here, who's popped up after two years' absence to impose order on the errant rabble. Everyone's always saying adminship is no big deal; well then, losing it should be no big deal either. (I'm excluding Oshwah in that.) E Eng 15:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@EEng: I'm on your side. Look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy where I was a named party and which was all about ~~WP:ADMINACCT~~ WP:ADMINCOND with a similar type of admin. I almost got put on probation for giving evidence. My advice above was based on what is, not what should be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Playing Devil's Avocado perhaps, but perhaps they thinks their virtual tea-room fulfills their obligations to nagualdesign, whilst their obligations to User:EEng have been satisfied by these odd responses. However, avocados aside, for someone who has a big box saying:

I prefer to keep conversations together. Therefore, I usually will reply under your message. I may also move your message with my reply to a more appropriate place. (Usually that would be your talk page, if the discussion started there.) If I left a message on your talk page, I will watch it until you're back, or up to a week. So, in most cases, there's no need to notify me of your reply.

As well as User:SebastianHelm/Accountability, I think they are aware of ADMINACCT sufficiently already :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Just noting I'm aware of this discussion, although the ping above did not work (you erroneously capitalized the "v" in Ivanvector). If you've pinged me elsewhere with a capital V I have not seen it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. I thought CamelCase was all the rage these days. nagualdesign 14:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I really think we should take this somewhere re his refusal to respond to ADMINACCT requests. I never quite understand AN vs ANI. I ask again: what now? Or will we just let this particular prick off? E Eng 21:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I imagine phrases like "having an axe to grind" will be bandied about but I'm not really bothered by that prospect. What does bother me is Sebastian's "I made a mistake. Big deal" attitude and his refusal to face the music. I'll lodge a complaint at AN or ANI myself tomorrow if nobody beats me to it, though I'm not sure of the difference between the two either. nagualdesign 22:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that NeilN's advice on this is very good: WP:AN (or WP:ANI) would be all heat and no light (so nagualdesign, please don't), so going directly to ArbCom, with a request that they deal with it by motion instead of by a full case, is really our only option other than letting it pass. And I agree with NeilN that we need more than what we have right now to get ArbCom to act. (I also hope to hear from Beeblebrox on these points.) I also want to say that I would be happy to be a party but I do not want to be the filing editor.
That said, I believe that there are WP:COMPETENCE issues here, and I really would like to see a desysop (something that AN and ANI cannot do). What we still need are diffs demonstrating a pattern over time, not just this one block. I suggest that whoever feels the most motivated here (EEng) should go carefully through SebastianHelm's user talk history, as far back as the RfA, and see what you can find. If there have been multiple past examples of documented WP:IDHT in response to WP:ADMINACCT, then we have a case. While you're at it, see if he has ever agreed to a voluntary admin recall procedure.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I've had the competence idea in the back of my head as well. It's a bit of English nonproficiency and a bit of... I don't know what. I'm not out to get this guy, but on the other hand the refusal to ACCT just can't be tolerated. I have an idea. Drmies, you're a retired Arb with nothing but time on your hands. Could you have a quiet word with SB about answering the reasonable questions above? E Eng 22:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Before I say this let me be clear that I am not familiar enough with this admin to say whether or not there is a pattern here or reason to desysopping, and am explicitly not advocating for such a procedure. That being said, I have filed such a case, and it isn’t easy. You’ve got to come correct from the get go with evidence or the case will not even be heard. The case I filed was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream. We also heard a similar case right after that while I was on the committee, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. In both these cases the user in question was desysyopped, reviewing these may give you some idea of the the amount of evidence you would need to justify a full case. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a desysopping, just (for now) this prick to respond, as he's required to. I forgot you were an arb. Can you have the quiet word I mentioned in my prior post? E Eng 22:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: don't refer to him with pejoratives any more, and don't comment on any other admins in this context. I know that makes me sound like the proverbial Miss Snodgrass, but this thing has the potential to be scrutinized by people who don't have a sense of humor. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you're probably right, but it's no secret that I have long believed that there's a small % of admins who make all the others (who do hard work for little recognition) look bad. Awaiting BB or Drmies to break the ice. E Eng 23:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Couple things:

The IP that help trigger this situation has been checkuser blocked which is completely and utterly unsurprising.
According to User:SebastianHelm/Accountability, Sebastian's recall criteria can be considered to be this: User:EVula/opining/admin recall

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Just mentioning, before this gets out of control again: unsurprising though it may be, they would have blocked Sebastian as well had it been him. It wasn’t. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Took me a while to parse this: you mean that if Sebastian and the IP were the same that Sebastian would have also been blocked, yes? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if that was vague. The IP was absolutely not Sebastian. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Minor information: his RfA was in 2007, which was when RfA standards were much lower. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

EEng, I read as much as I could handle right now. I'm shooting from the hip cause I have to get out of here (the page and this place, my office). a. I think that was a bad block. I would never have blocked for that, and I think most of us wouldn't have. b. Keep in mind that I have NOT followed all the diffs etc: I have seen no evidence that Sebastian was INVOLVED in the way I think of as involved. If they reverted what they considered to be a personal attack, material inappropriate for a talk page, etc., that doesn't make them involved. If Beeblebrox thinks they were involved, it may well be that I missed something. c. The sock accusation, sorry Nagualdesign, but that's weak; again, I may have missed something, but that extraordinary claim requires strong evidence, and apparently CU/ArbCom/whatever felt the same way. d. Most importantly? EEng, you want answers from Sebastian, but (as NeilN says above, I think?) you can't demand those. If the answers don't satisfy you can't really hit them over the head and say "I want more" though it is of course your right (or Naugaldesign's) to ask for ... what's the word I'm looking for ... I really need to get going ... redress? from ArbCom, AN, etc. If you want more from me, I don't have any more right now (long day, bloodsugars...), but I will say that I am not very proud of my colleague right now having placed that block. Laterz, Drmies (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC) [update--just read Tryptofish's comment, and yeah, maybe AN isn't helpful.]

Hi, Nagualdesign. I'm checking back to find out what you (and secondarily, other editors watching here) feel about the situation now. I put some questions to the blocking admin, and he has replied here: [5]. I guess the question comes down to whether or not to pursue further action, or to just put it behind you and move on.

It's up to you and not to me, and I'll be happy to try to help either way, but here is my advice. I think that you should "declare victory", and move on. The reply isn't perfect (the third numbered point is excuse-making), but we will never get perfection. And there is a lot of acknowledgment of error, both in the reply to me and in "I failed miserably... I went too far... I feel like the principal who tried to teach a child "not to hit smaller people" by hitting him.". I believe he will think twice before treating anyone else the way he treated you, and that this comes as close to an apology as you can realistically expect to get around here. Also, his saying these things pretty much guarantees that nobody will succeed at getting any sort of sanctions. But please let me know what you think – and happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I read that post earlier today, and I agree that much of it reads like excuse-making. You can't get blood out of a stone, so I think it's probably for the best if we stop squeezing. Everything's here in black and while for all to read. Lessons have probably been learned. Honestly, I've got better things to do with my time. I'll take the opportunity to thank all involved for their support. And thanks for asking, Tryptofish. nagualdesign 18:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This guy's such a skilled kill-them-with-kindness bullshitter, and the project's got much bigger problems in terms of out-of-control admins [6] so I think we should let this one go unless he does it again. But like Tfish I'll back up whatever ND wants to do. E Eng 19:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree with both of you. I think that's all for the best. And ND, you can be certain that I feel strongly about trying to help editors who get shafted the way that you did (based, in part, on first-hand experience, and wanting to try to make things better going forward). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Since I'll be busy tomorrow and may not be available I've already begun drafting a formal complaint which, having read the comments posted immediately above, I've (roughly) formed into a formal request for arbitration. You can read it at User talk:Nagualdesign/SebastianHelm. I'll leave that up in the air for now. Any feedback would be appreciated, particularly from Sebastian. Please leave your comments below. Cheers. nagualdesign 00:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we're ready for that quite yet -- let's see if either former arb already mentioned can talk some sense into him. E Eng 00:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Like I say, I've got a busy day ahead of me tomorrow so I was just using the time I have now to get the ball rolling. If Sebastian provides a satisfactory response there may be no need for any balls to roll. nagualdesign 00:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

And if we do take it further, a full arbitration is over-over-overkill. Plus your complaint should be as simple as Multiple editors [diff][diff][diff][diff][diff] have requested SH to respond re ADMINACCT, and he's refused. Smack him. E Eng 00:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

You are Alan Ford and I claim my five pounds.

nagualdesign 00:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

All I can say is that I find it highly unlikely ArbCom woud take a case based on what you have there. It’s just not enough. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, of course it's not an arbitration case. But I'm still not hearing, BB, why you can't tell SH directly how serious a matter it is that he refuses to respond to questions posed about his administrative actions. E Eng 03:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not familiar enough with WP's sanctions systems to know where best to file this sort of complaint. The idea that it'll go nowhere is fairly risible though. The fact that non-admins need to have a strong enough case or enough evidence ("proof", they say) to even point the finger without facing a possible backlash is in fairly stark contrast with the sort of reasoning that Sebastian was required to present when he summarily blocked me. For harrassment! Anyway, I have a long day ahead of me so I'll bid you all anon for now. Perhaps later this evening we'll have a less disappointing resolution on the table. nagualdesign 09:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It’s not just non-admins. Anyone attempting to get an administrator removed would be expected to be able to demonstrate a pattern of poor judgement, not just a single incident. Blocks, as you have seen, can easily be revoked by any admin if found to be in error. Revoking adminship, on the other hand, would mean that the admin involved would have to convince the community as a whole, not just as single other admin, that they should be re-instated. As to why I haven’t personally gone and called Sebastian out, I don’t feel inclined to. Simple as that. If anyone thinks there is merit in pursuing this further, the onus is on them, not me or drmies or anyone else, to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, this has nothing to do with desysopping. But this prick's thumbing his nose at repeated requests from multiple editors to simply explain he action, and that's intolerable. I'll go over the history and if things unfolded the way I remember, I'm taking this to AN. This is the kind of jerk admin who gives the rest of them a bad name. And yes I said jerk. E Eng 20:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, stop with the name calling. Do whatever you feel is needed, just do it properly without resorting to name calling. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

What Beeblebrox said. Name calling is downright childish. I mean it: stop. All you are doing with that is making things harder for nagualdesign. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

About the RfArb, please don't. At least not yet. I just edited it to take my name off of it. If you submit it, you will get a shitstorm of abuse in response, and the Committee will rapidly decline it with no action. Believe me, I've seen this happen before. It won't work. That said, I still think that there may be an Arb case here. But it will have to be based on a demonstrated pattern over time. Alternatively, I'm actively thinking about a multiple-admin case under a casename like "Administrator accountability". But there has to be enough there to justify a case, and it's a high bar. One thing that has to happen first is to exhaust everything that can be tried at a lower level.

And, thanks to NeilN's post above, you've got a good option at a lower level: you can make a formal request to SebastianHelm for administrator recall. That right there is a good option for right now. I think lots of us will be willing to help you with that. I certainly will. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It's the end of a long day for me and I haven't got the energy to think about all this right now. I did read through User:SebastianHelm/Accountability though, and would say that it looks a little disingenuous when he's already begun moving the goalposts ("at least two administrators" → "at least three administrators"), which also tells me he's reading this page and playing dumb. My only other thought was that he missed a c from "I am practicing "self-mediation"." Anyway, if he had any sort of integrity of the kind he professes to have he wouldn't require special evidence before doing a little honest introspection, so I expect a formal request would be a waste of time. Unless... if you're reading this, Sebastian, I formally request you to consider administrator recall. Now, I'm off to do a little useful editing before I hit the hay. nagualdesign 00:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Then, literally, sleep on it! Actually, the goal won't be to get him to voluntarily agree. But get diffs like the one you just posted (wow!), and you have a much stronger case. Anyway, have a good night! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just been reading through User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC, where Sebastian is now choosing to focus his efforts. On the surface this sort of effort appears laudable, and I too am a proponent of non-violent communication, but in the real world NVC rarely involves sitting in a circle of chairs, listening and nodding along, followed by "Mm-hmm, okay, I hear what you're saying...". Really listening to people and hearing what they're saying does not involve having them first conform to your ideas of a proper forum. Allowing someone to speak in a raised voice – even shouting at you – and express themselves in other non-verbal ways is a far more effective way of listening. Shouting isn't violence, and being thin-skinned isn't helpful.

In his final post of the day he even chose to misrepresent what happened. I didn't make fun of anybody, I only made an absurd post in response to another absurd post, and I certainly didn't tell Sebastian that he had no sense of humour. Sadly, that whole discussion is more of an attempt at virtue signalling on Sebastian's part than it is about genuinely deconstructing his ego. It's a shame because Biogeographist strikes me as a valuable mentor, but when he/she says, "We all make mistakes, and it's a fairly widespread ethical principle that when you see that you have made a mistake (or misdeed), you acknowledge (confess and expose) the mistake, feel remorse for having made the mistake, vow to learn from the mistake and not to repeat it in the future, and take action to remedy the effects of the mistake. It sounds like you have done all that." Sebastian made no attempt to hold his hand up.

There's nowt as queer as folk, I tell thee! Night, Tryptofish. nagualdesign 01:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are no longer planning to go ahead with the arb request, maybe you should have the draft page deleted, using WP:G7. Otherwise, someone might come along and hassle you for supposedly hosting an "attack page" in your userspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice. I think I'll just leave it for the time being. nagualdesign 19:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. By way of guidance, what I have frequently seen in the past is that keeping a page used to prepare for dispute resolution is considered appropriate for a certain amount of time, but if months go by without taking any dispute resolution action, and the page names a user by username, after some months administrators start to consider it a WP:Attack page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand that, and I agree that attack pages should be deleted, but this is not a biographical article nor is it poorly sourced. It details the facts, along with diffs, about the behaviour of an admin and was written in good faith and in a neutral way. If push comes to shove I'll delete it, but for now it may as well remain. If anyone wants to hassle me about it then so be it. nagualdesign 20:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I just want to make sure that you know that being true or not eventually will be rejected as a rationale, and that the policy is that you cannot keep negative information about another editor for an indefinite period of time. It's fine for now and there is no short-term issue, but I just want to make sure that you are fully aware of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Cheers. nagualdesign 20:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Having thought about it some more, I'll delete it when this section gets archived in 30 days and the link is no longer relevant. nagualdesign 20:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That sounds good! (Or should I say "that that that sounds good"?) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Elizabeth II#RfC about the photos of Queen Elizabeth II

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Nagualdesign. A courtesy note to let you know that I've closed an RFC you initiated, at Talk:Elizabeth_II#RfC_about_the_photos_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II. Apologies for the delay in closing this RFC; there's a backlog and it's being worked through. Kind regards, Fish+Karate 14:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: Thank you. nagualdesign 19:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)