User talk:Penyulap/Archives/2013

Marrakech montage

Can you create me a new montage, the current one looks wish washy and not vibrant enough. Please use the following files arranged in the order you think looks best:

• File:Djemaa el Fna, evening.JPG
• File:Placejemaaelfna.jpg
• File:Carpets in Marrakech.JPG
• File:MoroccoMarrakech souq.jpg
• File:Marrakech, Bab Agnaou door.JPG
• File:Kutubijos mečetė.jpg
• File:Menara Garden,Morocco,Marrakech.jpg
• File:Bahia Palace Marrakech Front Courtyard 2009 LL.JPG
• File:Medina of Marrakech (Nov. 2008).jpg
• File:El Badi Palace 5.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs)

14:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've done these.--andreasegde (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sweet, working. Penyulap ☏ 18:57, 1 Nov 2012 (UTC) 18:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Argh, taking longer cause the pics are all mixed up. I had both of the original ones done in this much time before I think. Penyulap ☏ 19:56, 1 Nov 2012 (UTC)

Whoah, hold the bus. Someone doesn't like the changes. Please read and advise.--andreasegde (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've changed them back to the original size, changed the contrast and angle. Use the one in the middle of each example, because it has less pixels, and is easier to collage.--andreasegde (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've had a philosophical grumble there, in the hope to get anything at all changed, hope you don't mind me hijacking the conversation there, didn't seem like you two were having fun. So many problems with en.wikipedia and commons. Of course, there are absolutely brilliant people who come up with the crap-cry of "If you don't like it just leave" and dang, how can you argue with that ? It's the cheapest way to fix anything at all. A brilliant philosophy. A motto to live by.

Hey, do you know what Elen was saying below ? I do not know the phrase 'I've never had anybody in thrall to me before.' it's not a phrase I come across much and don't understand it, any ideas, or even from a TP Angel ? Penyulap ☏ 18:01, 2 Nov 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pen. "In thrall to" means "in servitude to" or "in the power of", but Elen was being metaphorical there - her previous comment was "You are the master now", so she was teasing you by contrasting that with the condition you seemed to put yourself into by your inability to generate socks. It's a bit of fun (and that's something we could all do with more of, right?). Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah ! thanks for that, I did not know. Learn something new everyday. But it doesn't make sense to say it is a joke, because that is precisely the reason that she blocked me, here see for yourself in my blocklog

20:38, 24 August 2012 Elen of the Roads (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Penyulap (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Reblocking talkpage. User is not requesting an unblock, and has created a further sock account)

She even put in the diff and pointed to it here. She points directly to a page on COMMONS. not on English wikipedia where she has a sysop bit. So the only reasonable way for anyone to look at this is to see that my blocklog refers to a sock (which defines legit btw) on COMMONS.

I think explaining it is easiest using the United States presidential model. Hillary Clinton or the president, ever single time there is an election coming up in Russia or Europe or Japan or anywhere at all, they are all over the news telling everyone who they should vote for and who should be in charge of that country and of course a lot of people see that sort of thing and are like 'this person is a leader in the US, not the whole freaking universe, we have our own ideas and our own leaders.'

So if I do happen to mention that I have gone up the street to ask my grandmotherly friend to make some NEW SOCKS for me, what is to stop that, or even PALZ9000 working on the Russian project from ending up in my blocklog just the same way the Legit alternate account, which she found when I personally correctly labelled it as a legit alternate account. ? This is like where one person says she doesn't have jurisdiction outside English wikipedia, and other people do. What are people supposed to think when it is actually in my blocklog. shrug. Penyulap ☏ 06:59, 3 Nov 2012 (UTC)

Just to help you remember, you created that account on seven projects [1]. You created the commons and enwiki one on the same day - 21 August. This wasn't a problem on Commons - you weren't blocked on commons. But you were blocked on enwiki by Coren at the end of July [2]. Any account you created on Wikipedia after that would be treated as block evasion. So you got into hot water because you created the account on Wikipedia, not because of the account you created on Commons. Now it may be that you didn't realise that. You'd read the policy (you quoted the Wikipedia policy on your commons userpage), but perhaps you didn't understand that just creating an account would be treated as block evasion and would get you into trouble. I'll be frank, you sounded at the time like you were taking the mickey (to use an English phrase). As I recall, I linked to the talkpage on Commons, because of what it said on it. You kept saying you were being harrassed by socks but you couldn't file an SPI, and it now looked as if the socks were created by you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

this is not 'evidence' of account creation on more than one project. Penyulap ☏ 07:40, 4 Nov 2012 (UTC)

Special:Log/Bittybattybitbotisnotabot. Help:Unified_login explains it all - you created the account on Commons (no problem there), then flipped over to Wikipedia while still logged in on Commons and presto! it has activated your account here. The other dates on sulutil are when you visited the other wikis whie logged in as Bitty on Commons. Looking at your responses now, I think you didn't realise that would happen. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

the picture goes to the 'block evasion' link. Penyulap ☏ 15:26, 4 Nov 2012 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with the "Marrakech montage"?--andreasegde (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No it's a response to the comment from Penyulap immediately above it. Here, I've indented to make it more obvious. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

So, Elen, are you here for the craic, or are you feeling trolled? Rich Farmbrough, 16:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Varanasi montage

Can you create a montage including any of the following, whatever looks the best.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

14:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap/Dr. Blofeld, would it be OK for me to work on some of these, so as to improve lighting and line of sight?--andreasegde (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I was thinking they seem somewhat fuzzy when put side by side as well. Penyulap ☏ 15:18, 31 Oct 2012 (UTC) 15:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll send you two so you can check if they're as good as you would like.--andreasegde (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well better to ask the overlord about that, any mistake in judgement on my part would result in my immediate death I expect. Thankfully, it would probably be quick. Overlords save the slow gruesome deaths for non-henchies. Penyulap ☏ 16:27, 31 Oct 2012 (UTC)

This evil overlord has no objection to you improving picture quality. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What's going on Elen ? I just looked through the Evil overlord's contributions and can't see him saying a word, and he does use my page after all, so where is this new permission coming from ? wait, is it more ESP ? Also, it's not called 'illuminati' it's called 'S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and I think you'll find it explained on his userpage, so just click on the skull and crossbones to go there, on the other hand my userpage is 'illuminating' as well. Penyulap ☏ 18:52, 1 Nov 2012 (UTC)

I have done them all, Penyulap. BTW, I think the comments above "no objection to you improving picture quality" read like a prisoner's rights. Not very nice at all. This should stop, because it makes me spill my tea.--andreasegde (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What ? what do you mean ? Dr Blofeld is a nice bloke, EVIL to the bone of course, but who isn't these days ? I choose to think of it as there are no 'good' and 'evil' people, there are just 'charming' and 'tedious'. I've downloaded the images. The Holy cow, or bull in a 'china' shop one doesn't look so threatening to me, but wow, what a clear precise picture it is, you really can get a good look at the beast, what software did you use on the pics ? One or two still seem fuzzy, but I expect it is pollution. Penyulap ☏ 19:28, 1 Nov 2012 (UTC)

If any are fuzzy, I can correct that a bit, but sharpening adds to the blurry pixels that hang around poles and the corners of buildings. I use Google's 'Picasa'. (I don't like over-complicated programmes, because there are too many windows).--andreasegde (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Andrea, it's a joke. That's why the edit summary says something about it seeming funny to me. I seem to be surrounded by people assuming bad faith - I'm getting really tired of it. I'm sure Peny can explain about the Illuminati - overlords - images (illuminations) connections. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Elen, do you mind WP:UP#NOT filling up my talkpage unless it is about editing or requesting my unblock. This is not a social networking website. Penyulap ☏ 21:27, 1 Nov 2012 (UTC)

Take it away by all means. You are the master now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not falling for that, what am I an idiot ? I've been wearing sandals this last week cause I'm too scared to goto the shop and get some NEW SOCKS, plus, I have no idea if I'm allowed to create SOME NEW SOCKS on thewik.org either. After all, even though you only have a sysop bit on english wikipedia you banned me for making a LEGIT SOCK on commons, where you have no more rights than I do. Of course, I've been using my SOCKPUPPET on Russian wikipedia NONSTOP the whole time. I can't see me getting unblocked any time soon. Penyulap ☏ 22:02, 1 Nov 2012 (UTC)

This is great. I've never had anybody in thrall to me before. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What ? Penyulap ☏ 22:44, 1 Nov 2012 (UTC)

Oh, can you fix the sources similar to what the EVIL one has done here ? Penyulap ☏ 21:34, 1 Nov 2012 (UTC)

Far out, someone on commons is already requesting the information, and it has been 9 minutes since the upload. Penyulap ☏ 21:40, 1 Nov 2012 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Cluebot has died, R.I.P.

Well that is not great, Cluebot has, just like Mizsabot, choked to death on all the CRAP I/we churn out on this talkpage. Poor bugger. Actually, come to think of it, Elen can take some credit for killing him as well, her little section was the chicken bone that he gagged three times on before pitching face forward into his soup.

I think it was something she said. Penyulap ☏ 18:09, 2 Nov 2012 (UTC)

Potential new category: Bots that gagged on something Elen said. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Cluebot is very upset by your unfounded report of his death. He says he's still working as hard as can be. I however am wondering what made you say that, given Cluebot's function and your previous form. You should be careful, someone meaner than me might not assume it was just another of your daft jokes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, I think it would be good if you did not mention Elen of the Roads on this page any more. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, are you saying that Elen of the Roads can not answer for herself? This seems very strange.--andreasegde (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that Penyulap should not mention Elen of the Roads on this page any more, for reasons that should be obvious at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the soon to be famous mumble rule.

Do you know what I have been doing with all this spare time on my hands ? I've been absorbing cinematography CGI. Actually, I've showed a few people the talkshow set that I have made. They like it. I've made a bunch of video renders, the last few are my Tardis flying around through a tunnel, mainly filler to keep people interested in the dialogue that goes with it. Hey, who doesn't LOVE watching a Tardis, right ? It is amazing, I can't wait to upload it somewhere, commons most likely, or indo wikipedia. At the moment I've been putting bits on youtube as private videos for friends to review. I'm going to thread in video people make on their webcames or with mobile phones, so that there are people on the set, same as they do in music videos for like the last decade, as well as video where it looks like a hologram being generated on the set. People can write to me here (even when blocked email works, secret knowledge right there, I can't email other people, but they can email me, they don't even need to goto the wik or another language site, or have someone pass on messages.) Yeah, so the thing is, I have to think what will the audience think, is this bit boring or too tedious and long. Is this concept too hard to relate and understand. Thing is, I HAVE to pick out the concepts that they can understand, it's mass market really.

So like, where the whole ruckus for inserting a space into an article was blown up and resulted in me getting blocked, well, that's a concept they understand. Of course the blocking admin was challenged by someone because they said in my blocklog it was for a redirect, but the thing is, they denied that it was for the redirect, and then went with mumble.

In an open source community, just like in the public eye, if you can't name it, then I didn't do it. One or two admins nodding and winking at each other just doesn't cut it. Either there is an actual policy, or it's just mumble, a concept everyone can understand and enjoy. Where people who don't like someone vaguely mumble about some ethereal secret concept that only a few understand. Well, I understand it just fine Brad, and I cannot imagine that a few others, like most of the audience, can't also find the concept approachable and easy to relate to.

See, I could say I was blocked for nothing at all, but it sounds like I'm just another generic whiny whinging person, so that's no good. Look here, the English userpage of my LEGIT commons sockpuppet Bittybattybitbotisnotabot. You click on contributions to see all the damage that has been done by this supposedly abusive sockpuppet, right here and oh my god it's brilliant, even has the whole template for blocking with the reason right there.

So there is so much to choose from, either inserting a space, or nothing at all, or a single good faith redirect (most other people describe it that way) I think I'll go with the space as the hook for their interest, and if people want to dig from there, it just gets better and better.

Plus there is the whole talkpage access thing. Who can't enjoy that one ? There is a lovely clear list of people voting, and the voting forms a very clear consensus, and then Elen has put 'PEBCAK' into an edit summary like as if people don't have access to the internet these days to know what that means, flicks the consensus aside like overturning a chessboard when you don't like it, and blocks my ass with the aforementioned reasoning. The US leader who uses their English wikipedia sysop bit to say what will or won't go on on commons, where she has no sysop bit anymore than I do. SHIT, PALZ9000 outranks BOTH of us on Russian wikipedia. What a gas. But hey, honestly, calmly, and wanting to help you and Elen and everyone else, just what is expected of me precisely ? Can I create socks on my own non-sister wiki, 'the wik'  ? or gandma up the street socks ? real socks from the markets ? who knows ? all I know is there enough good material here for a lot of commentary. A good pilot episode or three. Oh, I'm going to have like a few people's heads in inverted glass jars, just like futurama, but call it futuredrama, like it was an ANI or ARBcom of the future. I have worked out how to process the audio from people's webcam video that they send me, just like I did the Peskyexpress audio, it's easy. So there is like a jury of talking heads in CGI rendered glass jars on the bench, all with something to say, I kindof like the idea myself. I can't wait to know what you all think.

So the whole "I am saying that Penyulap should not mention Elen of the Roads on this page any more, for reasons that should be obvious at this point." that is just perfect for me and my show. Because the community EXPECTS a blocked user to discuss their block with the blocking admin, who is, GUESS WHO ?? HUH, HUH ?? guess who the blocking admin was, guess, just guess, no, no I'll tell you who it was, it was ELEN!!! yes yes it was Elen, my new best friend Elen. I so totally LOVE talking with Elen and I'm glad she has a great sense of humour too. But hey, if you want to cite the new "Policy" is it Brad ? I don't think so, it's not "Policy". This new "mumble rule" where "oh yes wink wink everyone, nudge nudge, lets pretend that everyone will think that us one or two admins that don't like Pen's humour have some actual reason, some actual policy up our sleeve that we won't talk about.' Oh my, it's so choice. So perfect, I could kiss you.

Thing is, there are still two factions on wikipedia fighting for control of the project, those who follow the capitalist model, and those who follow the open source community model. The admins who figure they can model the form and function of governing a community of volunteers using their own country's Utopia as a model, be it the United States of Utopia where there is freedom to walk through Zucotti park and think whatever you want and then in rush the government forces to pepper spray and clear you out and smash your skulls, or in my case, on such a small scale, my god, the bluff succeeded. They blocked the community, not me, the community itself, from commenting further and producing another embarrassing consensus that I should have talkpage access. I was amazed that it worked, and somewhat outraged. I mean I don't mind me getting blocked, because there is always a question of consensus, what do people think, should I be blocked, or not, but blocking the community from speaking, silencing them ? That is tyranny. That is the United States all over. That is, in others words, a police state. Thing is, nobody funds a police state, they believe the lies until they know the truth, and then it stops. Nobody protest like Internet protesters. They just need a good force multiplier now and then.

The other faction is the open source community, which recognises that volunteers aren't going to work where they are treated with contempt in a class system. The whole 'admins are something special and non-admins count for nothing' doesn't translate into a place where people like the idea of working. The idea to block people and force them to sock (which I don't) to turn them into illegal immigrants like in the US where they have no rights, and if they complain they get deported well, it doesn't actually work.

So hey, whatever, I invite you all to do as you please cause I don't care. I'm happy to do as I have always done and keep the high ground whether I am blocked or not, and although I have in the past been outraged that the community itself was blocked, and didn't know that they should just complain everywhere all the time in all forums, well, I dunno, maybe you Brad, can do what they didn't entirely succeed at, and try to bluff me with an interaction ban ? oh my ficking God. That is priceless. You seem to think I don't perfectly understand Elen. Read that as you shall. She can see where the tide turns. What do I care. But hey. It's ONLY you and Elen that matter. Sure there are others who don't want me to have access Brad, they agree with you, they are right there with you hoping for dear life that they will see me squeezed off the project and blocked. Thing is Brad, if you take the risk of looking for support, you also take the risk of giving voice to the opposition. I don't care if you want to look the fool or not, I really don't. Sure, I'd like the idea of you and Elen and everyone else looking sensible and fostering an open community where people LIKE to work, but Meh. Not for me to decide. I go with the flow. I only care what the community wants, that's why I'm not going to ask for an unblock. They can do it themselves, or you can bluff them into saying my vote counts above all of their combined votes because co-incidentally it happens to match yours, or Elens, or whatever noddle minority you can collect. It's all great material. I have to condense it down into video form though, and put all the video segments together, otherwise it's all TLDR, which doesn't work as commentary. Penyulap ☏ 07:00, 3 Nov 2012 (UTC)

@Elen, if you are unsure what I meant, check the history of my talkpage archive or the end of my talkpage archive. It's not on my talkpage history, because cluebot wrote to the archive, but was unable to confirm a write, and so didn't delete from this page. It occurred 3 times. Simple to see if you know where to look. easy to understand humour. Penyulap ☏ 07:16, 3 Nov 2012 (UTC)

I figured you meant Cluebot III not CluebotNG, but I didn't think to look in the archive history when I couldn't see a b0rk in the talkpage history. As you say, must be something on the page that gave it indigestion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso I think the better category here is bots that my endless yap and waffle has killed. There are now two of them that can't handle the pain of my endless drivel (which some people think is a good read, It's just bots that don't like it, oh, and a few people too I guess). Penyulap ☏ 07:21, 3 Nov 2012 (UTC) 07:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

<joke> "You should be careful, someone meaner than me might not assume it was just another of your daft jokes." Does that mean ... there's someone meaner? </joke>
p.s. I dona' think she's mean—she called me "sweek" ! (Presumably, a misspell of "sweet"!?) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You bet I'm mean (I am of scary tiger, rawr). And once I could type at 60 words a minute, and you could even read it. These days I manage half that, and most of it is correcting typos. I certainly didn't mean what comes up first when you put sweek into Urban dictionary - although I'm sure they make most of those words up. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to see here folks, we can all have a laugh and be light hearted about it, Elen seems to have a good sense of humour about her actions I guess ? Sure, a lot of people got seriously pissed off and it was a horror story in Public relations, but that's all just water under the bridge now, and heck, I can laugh about it, and it looks like everyone else can too. What can you do ? such is life. Penyulap ☏ 09:57, 3 Nov 2012 (UTC)

hmm, gee I don't know what to say, I was looking at that and looking at the keypad and how far away k is from the other letters in sweet, and couldn't see it, and then I googled it, like I googled PEBCAK. hmm, well, I don't know, I think you just need to let it go like water off a ducks back. If you start feeling sad like I sometimes do, then I guess it effects your work.

I am reminded of that scene in Charlie and the chocolate factory, you know, the one with Jonny Depp. That's my favourite version, anyhow he can't work out why his candies taste terrible, and he is on the psychiatrists couch talking about it. He says "I mean I've always just made sweets however I felt (voice slows down) and now I feel terrible, so my candies taste bad... (looks at Ooompa-Loompa psychaiatrist and says slowly) Hey, you're goood !! (and the oompa loompa hasn't said a word the whole time just smiles and nods)

It's like that I think, cause like, when I was banned, and of course my mind can't be idle, so I'm sucking in all the 3D CGI animation and churning out art, and look at the flavour of it.

File:Whambo in '84.gif

Yes, not my usual sillyness, but meh, what can you do ? kids in warzones draw tanks. Ha! and I wasn't even uncivil myself, I just pick up all the main vibes across the community and turn it into art. There was that whole Malleus thing going on and all. Penyulap ☏ 10:11, 3 Nov 2012 (UTC) {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Your talk page

It's good to see you back again Penyulap! I still got that email by the way. I'm gonna reply to it as soon as the server is back up... Regards, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey thanks Jag ! good to see you. I can't believe how many notable people take an interest in me. The man who made was it 5 million edits to the project, and the man who had the most _EVER_ articles deleted :D sorry Jag, I can't help it man, I am in such a great mood. And you are Number 1. :) Penyulap ☏ 19:08, 1 Nov 2012 (UTC)

Why, thank you Penyulap! Of course I have broken records with having a RECORD BREAKING 8,200 articles deleted! I am very proud of it! Something to tell my grandchildren one day! I reckon people still think that your talk page is still blocked, otherwise a whole load of people will be flooding in welcoming you back! :D ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You tha man Jag. ! welcome ? seriously, do you think so ? I mean, I know there are like one or two people who sortof think I'm funny, actually there are a quite a few who think I am funny, and there are two categories of those I guess, those who find it pleasant, and those who I should copy the template off my sockpuppet's userpage onto this page for. But I had the impression that people were scared off from talking to me, so I was like, thinking maybe people didn't care. I think some people don't know that email works for indef blocked editors. Secret knowledge I guess. Gee there is a lot of it.

Anyhow, I never go where I am made to feel unwelcome. I am in much demand in RL, or at least when I was mobile I certainly was, and never bothered in the least bit with places or people who didn't welcome me. I guess my culture is a bit strange that way. Penyulap ☏ 19:20, 1 Nov 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, Penyulap! I find your thoughts refreshing to read, and IMO WP is lucky to have you. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Penyulap ☏ 22:03, 1 Nov 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, see List of Wikipedians by articles deleted, I'm at top naturally. Polbot is number two with only a mere 6257 articles deleted... I wanted to have a dream, and everyone at ANI gave it to me. :D ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Out by a factor of 100 I'm afraid – iridescent 22:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not an admin - I mean that I created 10,000 articles by hand and in an ANI discussion in May more than 8,000 of them got deleted. Unless I find proper stats I conclude that no man or bot has ever had these many articles deleted! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 23:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry Jaguar, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would swear you're the worst of the worst, and I'm not just saying that to make you feel better, I'm damn sure I could find some if I looked in the ANI archives. Still, like I say below, you have to aim HIGHER. Then what can they do, bring back wikipedia just to delete it twice ? Penyulap ☏ 23:06, 1 Nov 2012 (UTC)

You need to think BIG Jaguar if you're ever going to get anywhere. Forget that robot, it's nothing but a poser. I'm going to replace wikipedia with my own website, thewik.net at the moment of course, mathematics is a slight impediment, the number of users there is, well, if you take the total number of editors on wikipedia, and then if YOU, THE READER, subtract the total number of editors you think are complete morons, then give or take a hundred for a margin of error, ah, I can't recall, I'm not good at math. Whatever. What I need are PROGRAMMERS or funds for such.

Yes, a long shot but you have to aim high. Aim at deleting every single article on wikipedia. That should be your goal. Don't let anyone tell you that you can't do it. Penyulap ☏ 22:42, 1 Nov 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'm gonna delete the whole of Wikipedia. That would please a lot of deletionists on here! After I deletd it I'll restore it and delete it again. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

That's the spirit young man !!! Now, go over to the wik and practice deleting the main page ! Delete, restore, delete, restore... practice until you can do it in your sleep soldier !! Penyulap ☏ 22:12, 2 Nov 2012 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Open letter to the Ombudsman commission

Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 To: cu-ombuds-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: complaint

I am hereby making a complaint regarding the use of the checkuser tool in regards to User:PALZ9000.

The blocklog of PALZ9000 on English wikipedia is the reason for the complaint.

I believe that my emails in the past have been misrepresented, and so I'll duplicate this message on my talkpage to allow a more open public scrutiny.

I won't respond to, acknowledge, or act upon private correspondence on this matter unless I first indicate as much on my user talkpage.

You have my permission to respond to this complaint publicly on my English wikipedia userpage.

Penyulap

---

November 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org. Courcelles 18:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Elen of the Roads did you a massive favour in allowing you to edit this page again. All you did in response was troll her. This will not be tolerated, so you have again lost your access to this page. You may appeal to the Arbitration Committee via e-mail, the address is above. Courcelles 18:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I find the trolling accusation rather strange, because if you look at this, you will see that since 31 July 2012, Penyulap has only made contributions to this page, and to this page only. How can one be trolling on a user's own talkpage?--andreasegde (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear. Either:

• Elen was here for the craic, and no trolling occurred. (And of course no blame attaches to either party.)
• Elen was here to bait Pen, and any trolling was not by Pen.

In any event to block someone who has taken you to the meta:Ombudsman commission is not WP:UNINVOLVED.

Rich Farmbrough, 17:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

Rich, even if that complaint actually alleged a breach of privacy, what would it have to do with Courcelles? — Coren ^(talk) 18:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

People like pushing buttons and blocking people. Listen, I'm gonna explain this simply - Elen of The Roads is an admin. She blocked Penyulap before - when Penyulap was 'trolling' her she took it as a joke, if she had taken it hostile she would have blocked Penyulap in an instant, but nope that didn't happen! Me and Penyulap have been in email contact for months, Penyulap has ADMITTED to using socks and he has ADMITTED that he won't sock again, but only tests out socks on thewik, which me and Penyulap are the only two users on at the moment (I think). Penyulap will want to become unblocked as he doesn't sock anymore (he can't sock at the moment if his account was already blocked). I know Penyulap is gonna contest this block at ArbCom, if (when) he does, we're all going to be there for him. An indefinate block is never forever. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Courcelles made the checkuser block in question. I don't see why he did a checkuser and blocked indef blocked an account that was already indef blocked by him, and that proclaimed its operator (i.e. was clearly not a sock) but he claims in the block log that he did. Rich Farmbrough, 19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

As far as I can tell, Courcelles did a check on the Penyulap account when he blocked it and blocked every alternate account (perhaps without noticing the PALZ9000 already was). I offer no opinion on whether the original block was or wasn't a good idea, but blocking alternate accounts is pretty much SOP when blocking indef, and a spurious "complaint" to the ombudsman that fails to even claim a breach of privacy certainly isn't a good reason to make him WP:INVOLVED – it's about as relevant as a complaint to the FDA about a parking citation. There may be reasons to object to the block, but involvement isn't one. — Coren ^(talk) 20:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice to see you are prejudging the ombudsman complaint. But once the ombudsman complaint has been made, Courcelles should not be taking additional admin actions against the complainant. We have over 1,000 admins only a handful count as involved. And it would be bad enough if there was cause for the block, but clearly there isn't, which makes it look like a revenge block. That's why I describe it as a monumental gaffe. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

(continued on your talk page; this is the wrong venue for this) — Coren ^(talk) 00:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Update

On 4 November, Penyulap posted an open letter to the Ombudsman commission on this page, making a complaint about the use of the checkuser tool. Penyulap has asked me to post the update below re what has happened in the matter since (=nothing). Penyulap himself is blocked from posting on this page, and I'm taking full responsibility for pasting his text below. (Talkpage blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, but only to prevent trolling and other inappropriate posting. I see nothing of that nature in the text below.) Should you have a problem with my post, please contact me for discussion (don't just revert me.) Bishonen | talk 01:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC).

• Over a month ago I wrote to the Ombudsman commission, regarding checkuser being used on a bot account (to determine its operator?), and 3 days later I followed up with a detailed complaint to one of the members of the commission. There has been no response of any kind from the commission, and no acknowledgement of receipt of my complaint. In addition, the individual I wrote to has not acknowledged or responded to my emails either. (signed via Bishonen) Penyulap ☏ 01:26, 5 Dec 2012 (UTC)}}

The Ombudsman commission is notoriously inactive. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I should probably expand on that. The Ombudsman commission has before them cases pending from at the very least 2011, and most likely several years. There was not even an ombudsman commission for several months earlier this year and nobody in said commission noticed or knew about it. It is likely the most dysfunctional body in the Wikimedia ecosystem and had deteriorated to being a theoretical institution rather than a practical one, if it ever was one. If you have a complaint about CU use on the English Wikipedia contact the AUSC. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me, if that is the case, then a note should be left on that page indicating that. I also think that, for cases of abuse of certain tools like Checkuser the Foundation should be notified. Since it is a requirement to notify them of the persons true identity for receipt of those tools, it seems reasonable they would have review and revocation authority as well. Whehter they choose to use it is another matter. This seems to me to be just another in a long list of failed initiatives showing the continued degradation of the project as a whole.Kumioko (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the role of the Ombudsman commission before commenting. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to Kumioko, the Foundation would expect WP:AUSC to handle a situation where a Checkuser is alleged to have misused their tools or disclosed personally identifiying information. If Peny would re-forward their emails to AUSC, I am sure they would look at it as promptly as the onrushing holiday season allows (I'm not on that committee, so don't want to give any guarantees, but I don't think they are that busy). Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

@Elen, good idea. Hopefully the user is watching this page.

@Snowolf, I admit I do not know the role of the Ombudsman but if they are defunct as it seems, then we have pretty much 2 options. Either get it going again somehow or shitcan the committee and if applicable farm their responsibilities out to other groups. Regardless of my knowledge on their function they are useless if they aren't responding to problems. Privacy issues should have to wait more than a year for resolution. Of all things here, the responses should be timely. Kumioko (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

@Snowolf, BTW after just reviewing the first sentence of the ombudsman comittee and seeing this statement in the first sentance "The ombudsman commission investigates complaints about violations of the privacy policy (in particular concerning the use of CheckUser tools) on any Wikimedia project for the board of trustees." It seems I wasn't as knowledgeless than your comments would indicate. Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I guess I'll clarify too. The Ombudsman commission is a body of the Wikimedia Foundation and it is specifically delegated by the Board of Trustees to handle cases of violation of the Privacy policies. As such by definition the WMF is aware of something when it is brought before the Ombudsman commission. It is not my place to speak for the Foundation or tag their bodies as active or inactive, these are policy decisions exclusively belonging to the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees and possibly Legal Department. It would be incredibly POINTy of me to do so and it is beyond my powers regardless. It is not a volunteer appointed body and it does not pertain to the Wikimedia community to handle this matter. The AUSC has some role in processing complains for Enwiki and in practical matters it is the only body that will look into this and do something. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. The foundation has been decidedly inactive in Wikipedia affairs so this really doesn't surprise me. I would note that there are at least 2 members from EN on the "commission" who are both active editors here. Perhaps the reason for inactivity is because the board/foundation has decided in one form or another not to support this body. Of course I don't know for sure but it seems reasonable based on my experience here that if the commission works for the board/foundation and the members felt as though they had no support for those they supported, then they would likely not be very active or interested in supporting them. This unfortunately leaves us in a state of no one watching the watchers. Since AUSC falls under Arbcom, and Arbcom has a dubious relationship to the community, I doubt that many would bother submitting for fear of ending up on Arbcom's scope themselves. It also seems a conflict of interest if someone wants to complain about a member of Arbcom, they have no where to go. Kumioko (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia is directly elected by the Community and is the authority granting and removing the Checkuser and Oversight permissions on the English Wikipedia. While I have no idea that you mean by "dubious relationship to the community", it is immaterial to this or any other matter, whatever it is your personal opinion on the current or past Arbitration Committee, you are free to express it anywhere you wish but it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. The Arbitration Committee has decided, on its own authority (unless I'm mistaken) as the body entrusted to manage the Checkuser and Oversight permissions pursuant to the relevant global policies, to form a committee, the AUSC, to handle complaints of abuse for the advanced permissions granted by them. As such the AUSC operates within the authority and scope granted to the Arbitration Committee and which the latter delegated to the AUSC. It is fully within the scope of the AUSC to handle such a request and I dunno why you seem to cast doubts on their ability to do so. Their 'jurisdiction' if you will is also part of the Ombudsman commission scope, and that is the instrument and body chosen by the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees to handle all Privacy policy matters. As such the matter can be submitted to both bodies and it makes only sense that if one is notoriously inactive the other one should be contacted. You are free to lobby your elected representatives on the Board of Trustees for a change of their stance on the matter, but this is hardly effective on an obscure talk page on the English Wikipedia, so I would advise you to send any complaints directly to the board see [3] or to the Trustee of your choice. It is not a matter that can be productively discussed or solved here and I don't think it's appropriate to speculate wildly of the causes of the inactivity in question here, without any knowledge of the matter, it really serves no purpose that I can see. You can also contact directly the members of the Commission and ask them about it, I don't see why not. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It also seems a conflict of interest if someone wants to complain about a member of Arbcom, they have no where to go. I don't see why that would be the case, the member in question would obviously not take part in the discussions and decisions on the matter. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I should clarify that there is at least one way of complaining about a member of the Arbcom. If it's a privacy policy issue, the Ombudsman is the competent body and it receives complaints very well (it just doesn't answer or handle them but that doesn't affect your ability to file a complaint with them). Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 17:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowolf my comment was not meant to offend you as a member of Arbcom and if that was the case I apologize. My point was simply that if someone in the Arbcom did something a member of the community wished to complain about, they would have no where to go for it to be handled in an unbiased manner. The recent hubbub over a members actions should be enough to show that. If it would have been done by someone outside the committee much worse would have happened and I'll leave it at that.

I would also note that if the Ombudsman commission isn't responding to complaints then that is evidence that nothing is being done. Even if the complaint has been read and acted on accordingly, no response equals no action. I could talk to a wall and would expect no response but I would also expect no action. If I complain to someone, I would expect at least some indication that it has been received if not reviewed and dealt with in one way or another. If the ombudsman are not doing this then they are ineffectual at their assigned task. Its nothing personal, I know we are all volunteers and I know that a lot of folks don't care for my opinions but I think any reasonable person would agree that complaints regarding privacy issues should be handled appropriately. If they are not being responded too, at least to notify the sender that its been received, then that is a major problem. Going back to AUSC, if the AUSC reports to Arbcom, best intentions aside, then that's a conflict of interest plain and simple. Its no secret I have major problems with a lot of decisions by Arbcom and I think that they cause more problems and drama in the community than they solve (much in the same way I am viewed I expect). That doesn't change the fact that to have the AUSC report to Arbcom about problems that potentially affect Arbcom members, in the absence of action by the Ombudsman, is just wrong. Since this case deals with several members of Arbcom in one form or another, the user essentially doesn't have anyone to complain too and expect an unbiased response. Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Er, Snowolf isn't a member of Arbcom. As for your comments about AUSC. Courcelles would not be able to hear a case against himself. Your assumption that AUSC would not censure an Arb if AUSC found against them is not only offensive to the non-arb members, it's not true either. They have done it before. Do you even know anything about AUSC? Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry I thought Snowolf was a member. Anyway, it has nothing really to do with Arbcom per sey. Its a simple fact of an organization policing another. Yes I am familiar with both the AUSC and Arbcom. Thats the 2nd time on this page someone suggested I didn't know what I was talking about. I realize I am not well liked but I'm not stupid. Considering that at least 3 of the 6 members of AUSC are also members of Arbcom and at least one of those has had a lot of issues with thinking they are above reproach and their decisions unquestionable, I think that speaks for itself. Offensive or not, its not an unbiased system. If a member reported a complaint or grievance to the AUSC about Arbcom with half the members of the group being Arbcom members, why would they think that the decision would be unbiased? Additionally the other members are appointed by Arbcom and would likely follow Arbcom thinking. AUSC is just Arbcom lite. There is almost no way a complaint to them about an Arbcom member would be seriously considered and would more likely be dismissed without significant review. Additionally, the mere fact that there have been far less cases for review are partly due to the fact that members of the community know if the Arbcom or a subcommittee accept a case then its the end. They may as well just log off and go away because once the case is accepted, they are guilty of something or the case wouldn't be accepted in the first place and it often leads to blocks or punishments for others involved. So less people bring cases forward for fear of losing rights and editors who are accepted just leave and don't waste time commenting. Its happened several times over the last couple years and I expect the trend will continue. Arbcom started with a noble mission and purpose but over time that has been corrupted and degraded to that of judge jury and executioner. The sentence for any crime, Wikideath. Kumioko (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap and all other interested people, after having this thread brought to my attention I searched my emails and found an email sent through meta email system from Penyulap.

Penyulap, unfortunately, I have no memory of seeing your email to me. Evidently when it hit my mailbox I did not make the connection to being related to an ombudsman commission case. I apologize for that. Since this matter is related to an Wikipedia English matter, I'll need to recuse hearing the case. But with your permission, I'll forward the email to the full OC. Sydney Poore --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that I'm not sure if the user can respond to give you said permission since the talk page is blocked from editing. Not sure if they are able to Email. Maybe they have not sure I just wanted to let you know. Kumioko (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I sent an email to Penyulap prior to posting here, so they can respond to me by email. Sydney Poore FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Great thank you. I just wanted to make sure you knew they couldn't respond. Kumioko (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for Penyulap to be blocked from contributing to this discussion directly. Message left for Courcelles. – SJ + 03:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Frankly there are a lot of us that feel that way. Good luck.Kumioko (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello FloNight, it's great that you've forwarded the email to the committee, but this doesn't address the underlying issues that have been raised here. Specifically, this doesn't make it any more likely that the OC will do anything about this once they receive the email, given the age and number of pending cases. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope Penyulap forgives me if I abuse a little bit more of his talk page to notify everybody that I've started m:Ombudsman commission/reform proposals to collect some thoughts and proposal for fixing this matter (the OC inactivity or ineffectiveness) going forward. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

section break and worried about revenge

I can see there is some good advice which follows commonsense, however clearly it's not consistent with policy or reality. Although it is suggested that I should contact the very small committee that Courcelles is a member of in order to ask him to review his own abuse of the CU, and two people suggest he'd recluse, that's not consistent with his actions in regards to this matter. He doesn't recluse. He blocked me, my page, deleted my page and the complaint, and then locked out the community from commenting. Not only I can't find anything at all that suggests he has to recluse, the policy I can find spells out that he can take more revenge on the next arbcom matter that comes up. It says so here.

An arbitrator's service on the Audit Subcommittee is part of his or her official service as an arbitrator, and therefore shall not constitute grounds for recusal in a subsequent matter involving the complainant or the subject of the complaint.

Pretty fucking simple. Last time I made a complaint, it up and disappeared like a fart in the wind, as well as getting me blocked. What am I ? a fucking moron to repeat the same experiment and expect a different result ? Einstein defines such as insanity does he not ?

Plus, there is no scrutiny at all, although there is no privacy matter and it is a purely abuse matter where the privacy policy doesn't apply, the policy page STILL says it has to be emailed.

1. All complaints about the use of CheckUser or Oversight privileges received by the Arbitration Committee shall be referred to the Audit Subcommittee by forwarding the complaint to the subcommittee's mailing list (arbcom-audit-en@lists.wikimedia.org).

Privacy is not needed anyhow.

(privacy policy says "Access to and release of personally identifiable information > Release — Policy on Release of Data

It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, or through other non-publicly-available methods, may be released by Wikimedia volunteers or staff, in any of the following situations:

• 2. With permission of the affected user

which I had already done in this matter. If the claims of checkuser finding anything were anything more than an obvious bluff, they could be revealed.

The process on meta is apparently patiently ignore the whole thing while the emails pile up for what did you say, more than a year ? and then they'd say it's not a privacy matter. Here on en.wiki it says the OC is for general abuse AND privacy. over there, it says it's ONLY for privacy. Here, there is nothing except this:

• In case of abusive use of the tool, the Steward or the editor with the CheckUser privilege will immediately have their access removed.

Doesn't say anything at all about the process by which this 'immediately' occurs. Is it magic ? is it like you close your eyes really hard and wish or chant something three times? Does it happen in a galaxy far far away ? There is no process, there is no policy, just layers of lies and bullshit. Oh I'd like to believe Elen when she says 'Courcelles would not be able to hear a case against himself.' but then I remember how I am at this very moment blocked because she is too fucking stubborn to admit that her sysop bit doesn't give her juristriction all over the world on every project including commons. Not that everyone hasn't been patient, but it's been fucking months of her leading us all along the garden path pretending she may one day admit that she doesn't rule the universe. So believe you Elen ? yeah, I'd like to I really would, pity I need a lobotomy first. I might as well post my Christmas message and fuck off to the other language projects, or my own projects. Penyulap ☏ 13:06, 21 Dec 2012 (UTC) 13:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ombudsman commission

Hi, I contact you as you took part in the discussion on, well, your own talk page concerning the Ombudsman committee matter. I've started some proposals and discussion on meta about how best to reform the OC to fix the issues it currently has and I would be very grateful if you could drop by and voice your opinion. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap is blocked from editing his talk page, by the very administrator he was complaining about to the ombudsman. This block was enacted after he reported the complaint on his talk page, and seems totally without merit. Rich Farmbrough, 16:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC).

Penyulap, you should now be able to edit this page. However, please keep any discussions about reforming the OC on Meta. – SJ + 22:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Courcelles response

Courcelles has maintained a total obduracy and refusal to even discuss his actions

*We've been through this a few times now, someone argues that he can use the talk page productively, and all he ends up doing with it is trolling. There's not a reason in the world to re-open that page, ever. Courcelles 05:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented for trolling, nor even clarification as to whether the trolling is the banter exchanged with Elen, or maybe the complaint against Corucelles to the Ombudsman. I can't see how anyone can justify blocking the person who complains against them, but perhaps that is the way things work now. Speak out and get blocked? Rich Farmbrough, 14:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC).

First, I dont't think any of us really expected him too change his stance. Second, anyone can see there is at least the perception of COI here since he blocked within minutes after his actions were reported to the Ombudsman. Third, he is not the only one who can unlock this page. He has been asked too, he has refused so he was given the opportunity. Now its time for someone else, who doesn't have a potential COI in this case, to do the right thing. Before I am lambasted for my statement I am not assuming bad faith or accusing Courcelles of anything. I am simply stating that there is a perception of innappropriate conduct by someone in a position of trust and power. Whether there is a COI or the act was purposeful is irrelevent, the perception is there. Kumioko (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have restored Penyulap's access to this page. Agreeing with Kumioko: please assume good faith and help reach a resolution to the original concern and complaint. – SJ + 22:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

is it possible to set protection of the page to unprotected rather than semi ?

I'll have a look at other things later, (RL intervenes) Penyulap ☏ 00:41, 21 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Now unprotected. – SJ + 03:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I prefer everyone can have their say. :) Penyulap ☏ 03:39, 21 Dec 2012 (UTC) 03:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank Heavens for that (eventually)! Under no circumstances (except for abuse which anyone would recognise as being abuse, and if any other editor - including Jimbo or an Arb - would have their talk page access revoked for so long, or have it protected for so long) am I in favour of any measure to "silence the dissenting voices". (aka "disperse the crowds") Pesky (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Auntie Pesky, the front of your message and the end of your message are so far apart that I lost my train of thought in the middle, (short attention span) but I know what you mean. Penyulap ☏ 08:03, 21 Dec 2012 (UTC)

conversation copied from the archive of courcelles talkpage, about my talkpage

I'll clarify for what it's worth that I've copied these parts here for the very few new users who don't know how to go through talkpage histories on pages that they don't know to look at. Yes, I know how to link, but this is easier for some readers. I have collapsed the sections myself, at the time I inserted them.

Your protection of Penyulap's talkpage

Extended content

I see you have fullprotected Penyulap's talkpage, Courcelles. Penyulap doesn't in any case have access to it per the terms (terms just instituted by you) of his block, and I can't see that you have supplied any explanation for why other users shouldn't get to post there. We've had the situation of "page non-protected, user without tpa" before, for a considerable time; we had it from September 28 to October 31; were there any problems with that? Problems on the page, I mean. (Cheatsheet: no, there weren't.) Admittedly, there was a silly request for arbitration about my unprotection of the page, but then that was promptly rejected by the arbitrators, with a generous helping of criticism of the original protection. Since you were part of that process (where you were the only arb who even evinced enough doubt about it to call for a reply from me), I'm surprised to see you now protecting Penyulap's talkpage yourself. All the arguments against Jc37's protection of the page made at that RFAR apply equally to your recent protection, as far as I can see. Would you please explain your rationale or unprotect? Or, as monotonous as this is getting, I will. Bishonen | talk 21:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC). Another unprotection by you on a page you are involved in would be a poor idea. The page was being used for nothing but trolling, by both Penyulap and other users. This user is indeffed, and that's not changing anytime soon, there are no legitimate uses of this page any longer, and as Penyulap was not the only other user trolling on the page, removing the chance of continued trolling is perfectly the right thing to do, esp. given Penyulap's continued inclination to sock. Courcelles 23:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Courcelles: Penyulap has been blocked with talk page access revoked, so your full-protection is superfluous. Site policy requires us to use page protection only to prevent disruption; if the only source of disruption on that page was Penyulap's trolling, then the TPA revocation alone should be sufficient. AGK [•] 00:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC) I think since Courcelles has taken the step to remove Penyulap's talkpage rights mid-flow as it were, it is probaby preferrable to protect it for a short while - which the various policies do allow for, the purpose being I believe to 'disperse the crowd' as it were. Also, when the protection was lifted last time, it was quickly obvious that users were proxying content onto it for Penyulap. Now my opinion is that this kind of proxying ought to be limited to a request to have talkpage restored to make an unblock request, which wasn't what was happening. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC) (e/c with Elen) Also@Courcelles: Oh, I didn't know he'd been exhibiting a continued inclination to sock, where was that? I assume you're not referring to the by no means secret or abusive Bittybattybitbotisnotabot alternative account created on Commons, where Penyulap wasn't blocked? He then, supposedly, created Bittybatty on several other projects including en, where he was blocked, thereby purportedly evading the block. But here's the thing: Elen realised, just recently, that the en Bittybatty "sock" was created automatically, most likely without Pen even being aware of it. If you didn't notice that post by Elen, please read it now, it's most clarifying. Other things in your reply aren't altogether clear to me, sorry. In what way am I involved in, with, or on User talk:Penyulap? Please bear in mind that we have a new situation now, there have been developments since the last time I unprotected. If there hadn't been, then indeed I suppose your protection would have amounted to wheel warring (as the "third mover", reinstating Jc37's original protection). But I make no such charge, since I think both time passed and events unfolding had restarted the clock on the situation, and thereby you could be said to protect for new reasons (though not, IMO, better reasons). If the situation is new for you it's also new for me, though. You have seen a detailed account by me, in that RFAR, of the extent to which I have been and am involved with Penyulap himself (the only later addition has been me calling him a "well-meaning user" on Elen's page, if that's involvement). As far as involvement with his talkpage, it would surely make more sense to say that you were involved with the content of the page you blanked, as Penyulap had recently (in fact just seven hours earlier) posted what he called [an open letter to the Ombudsman commission on it, which took issue with a checkuser action performed by you. To summarise: I don't think you were involved for protection purposes, but then neither am I involved for unprotection purposes. But I do think you were involved for blanking purposes, or, to put it as politely as I can at this time of night (2 AM), you being the one to blank the page wasn't best practice. BTW, I've removed the comment you left below the block template on the page. The informative part of it, about appealing the block by e-mail, was already in the template, and the bad-tempered emotive part surely needn't stand as a monument on an otherwise blank page. I really think you'll agree with me there. No? Sorry this is so long, but I thought I'd better give you my reasoning in some detail. I'd appreciate the same factualness from you; please give examples when you say things like "involved" or "inclination to sock", it makes it much easier to follow. Bishonen | talk 01:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC). @Elen: when the protection was lifted last time, it was quickly obvious that users were proxying content onto it for Penyulap. You must be thinking of something or somebody else. During the time the protection was lifted, 28 September to 31 October, all that happened on the page was that ClueBot archived it and that one user posted requests for graphic work (not on a very large scale). I may be naive, but I don't see what was unsuitable about that, it seemed totally benign. Bishonen | talk 01:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC). I'm going to keep a close eye on this one, as proxying for Penyulap on his talk page would be clear grounds to re-full protect it, but, for now, I'll lower it to semi. (As there are legitimate concerns that the user will sock, either by accounts or esp. IP's, the semi is something I don't see any reason to lift whatsoever.) Courcelles 06:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC) No idea if there have been more instances of socking or not, but I blocked User:180.181.67.106 a few weeks ago for clear (self-admitted) socking at Jimbo Wales talk page. The earlier block evasions with the same IP at ThatPeskyCommoner's talk page were IMO acceptable (under IAR, no need to become inhuman in such situations), but the later edits at Jimbo's talk page were standard block evasion. Fram (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Hardly uninvolved,as the admin that made a bad block on Pen previously. Rich Farmbrough, 14:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC). A. Blocking someone (or taking another admin action) doesn't make that admin involved wrt further blocks. B. How does me being involved vs. uninvolved have any relevance here anyway? The question was raised above (this or previous section) whether Penyulap had socked here (at Wikipedia, not at Commons). I provided an example (perhaps the only one, no idea of that). Whether I was involved or not doesn't make any difference from that angle of course. Fram (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC) It does when it was a bad block, and you know it was. It was pointed out to you and you more or less said "so what". At least you could have apologised. But you appear displaying personal animus against Pen, not a new phenomena. Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC). Accusations without diffs, and putting words in my mouth and even reading my mind? Thanks, but I'll pass on having another pointless discussion with you. Fram (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC) But not miss an opportunity for a pointless escalation to Arbcom. Rich Farmbrough, 15:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC). I can't believe that this has happened. Elen had no need to go to Pen's talk page, I would say that if anyone is trolling here it is not Pen, at least as far as could see. Elen is quite able to tell me to"sod off" and tell Bish never to darken her talk page again, but constitutionally unable to leave Pen alone. Or was the "trolling" the letter to the ombudsman? In which case this stinks of Arbcom closing ranks (especially with AGK and Brad chipping in). I know Arbcom has been very slow in seeing the conflict of interest failures that I have brought up in the past, but it would have been wise to have left this to an uninvolved admin. I had not intially noticed that the complaint was against you, but that makes matters much much worse. Moreover I am deeply unhappy about the lack of thought, the lack of explanation, the general shoddiness with which blocks are handed out and other admin actions taken, quite apart form the total lack of human consideration for one's fellow editors. It is clear that in the first instance a block was made for a good faith redirect, and that subsequent blocks were based on empty headed reading of light hearted comments. Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC). I've pointed out, in the past (and yes, I believe in respect of the same user) that blocking an editor may be fine, but any actions taken should never go so far as sending them to Coventry. A block should never, ever mean that nobody else is allowed to speak to them either. That is, beyond a doubt, punitive rather than preventative. Silencing the dissenting voices, on any subject, is just another example of a Ceaușescu-esque abuse of a position of power. The tendency for this to happen is the major reason for my current disenchantment with the 'pedia. Positions of trust, authority and power are being abused. That makes for a tyrannical, oppressive environment, and far more disturbing and distasteful than most of the situations which lead to it. Barack Obama said: "Laudable efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics or to oppress minorities. The strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech." We seem to be acquiring a very repressive, heavy-handed "Government" in this community. We seem to moving away from enlightened approaches to civilisation, and towards a military Junta style of "leadership". It's more like dictatorship. Ordinary, non-disruptive, concerned people are edging about in some fear that they will be the next to be silenced if they express their concerns. First they came springs to mind. They "dispersed the crowds" at Tianamen Square and the surroundings, as well. Was that right? Pesky (talk) 07:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Perhaps you ought to consider expressing yourself in Newspeak Pesky, the adopted language of Wikipedia's ruling elite. Malleus Fatuorum 07:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC) @Pesky - People died in Tiananmen Square. Real people. Comparing your wiki issues to something like that is irresponsible. Doc talk 07:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Why are you replying to me? I never mentioned Tiananmen Square. Malleus Fatuorum 08:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC) You replied when I was drafting - not a response to you but a comment on Pesky's analogy, now clarified. Doc talk 08:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC) I do appreciate that my post was (a bit?! heh!) hyperbolic. However, on a lesser scale, it's a kinda parallel. People get emotionally damaged, and scared, and concerned, in here. And they also get "disappeared", too, especially when nobody is allowed to talk to them. When the reaction to dissent of any kind seems to be on the lines of "silence the dissenters!" it gets scary. Ordinary, non-disruptive, concerned Wikipedians are afraid that they will be next. Just to silence the critics, and brush stuff under the carpet. This is a very, very real concern for me, and I apologise if the only real-world parallels I can think of which I can actually link to are a bit OTT. It's the mindset which is disturbing, rather than the extent. Pesky (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Adding: of course I realise that Pen has "issues". I;m not denying that for a moment. But he also has talents. One is in the area of visual / graphics work. Another is in the area of sniffing out socks. And I cannot rid my mind of the lurking suspicion that, just maybe, his biggest "sin" was that he got far too close to the scent trail of a mole. A so-far-undiscovered sockmaster, possibly in a high-profile position. Pesky (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC) More adding (sorry!): I've been involved in the Real Life situation of investigating and dealing with abuses of power and process, and miscarriages of justice, for over a decade. With years and years of experience and investigation, one develops a "nose" for little things which ring quiet alarm bells, and one of those things is an apparent out-of-scale attempt to "make something go away". On the whole, it tends to occur when someone, somewhere, has something to hide; it frequently gets things brushed under the carpet and "disappeared" for years. The case of the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, the London Police corruption investigation, and an unnerving array of others, illustrate this. Sometimes the reaction is just too much for the apparent offences. People are "shut up". Pesky (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Pen's admitted joke sock was actually nothing compared to the admitted joke sock of Il Duce of the Featured Article space, Raul654. Which admin is going to volunteer to block Raul, revoke his talk page access, and full-protect his talk page to keep any wayward supporters from complaining there? Show of hands, please.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Declared as an alt the day it was created - sock "legit" would seem to apply very clearly. @Pesky - You are an excellent part of this project, and it would be a shame to see you quit or otherwise restrict your involvement in Wikipedia for political reasons. Don't believe the hype! If you do and decide to go, I will be saddened to lose a respected voice in this crazy den of pigs :( Doc talk 10:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Bless you, Doc. Real Life is absolute shite at the moment, so: #1 I'm not functioning at my best, and #2 I probably ought to be concentrating more on that stuff, really. Though there's very little I can actually do about it, though. Pesky (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Note on socking There seem to be a rather duff assumption on the go on this talkpage. A blocked user cannot create a legitimate sock. They are blocked. They cannot edit Wikipedia. They cannot legitimately create a different account and edit Wikipedia from that while they remain blocked. Creating an account elsewhere and sneaking in via automatic account creation is common among sockmasters (I believe they think the checkuser tool won't pick it up). I never got a straight answer from Penyulap about the automatic account creation, and he has been editing anonymously on his IP, which definitely is socking. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC) I think it was Fram who said that the sympathy and concern Pen posted on my talk in regard to my toddler grandson's cancer and lung-removal was best looked at in the light of IAR. On the grounds of simple humanity. Adding: oh, and Pen was totally open about it. Signed with his own name. No attempt at hiding anything. Pesky (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC) I hate socking, but, if that had been Pen's only socking, I'd have been inclined to overlook it. It wasn't, not by a country mile. And most of it has not been nearly as good-natured. Courcelles 20:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC) Pesky, that wasn't what I was referring to. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC) I'm glad it wasn't that. One of the things which still concerns me is that people regularly pop up editing from IP addresses in conversations where it's clear that they'd rather be anonymous to the other editors involved in the conversation (and generally clear-enough-on-the-evidence that they're not newbies). We don;t know, obviously, if their "real" account is blocked, or whatever. But unless they do something really drastic, either nothing is done about it, or nobody ever knows if anything was done about it. Just on the basis of common-sense logic and statistics, it's likely that some (many?) of them are also socking. It appears that Pen gets picked out where others doing the same thing are ignored. I know he has issues (including health issues which may well be a contributory factor), but isn't there any way we can defuse this situation, so that we can make use of his exceptional talents in things like graphics creation and editing, etc.? Adding: it seems that we may have got ourselves into a kind of circular situation here; along the lines of "the beatings will continue until the whining has stopped". Like treating someone's allergy rash with an ointment made out of whatever it was that causes the rash ... there must be something better that we can attempt. Pesky (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC) There are differences between "unsanctioned user, occasionally edits logged out in innocent manner", "unsanctioned user, edits logged out for unacceptable (including but not limited to votestacking)", "sanctioned user, edits logged out, no issue with sanctions", "sanctioned user, edits logged out to circumvent sanctions" and "blocked user, edits logged out". There are a couple other scenarios, but these five are the big ones that cover most uses of IP's by people who also have accounts. Most of the folks who have accounts don't NEED to get caught, because they're doing absolutely nothing wrong. If any admin ever deals with those situations? They go to oversight. Not to file a socking case, but to, if the editor wants, get the IP out of the history. Oversight deals with the situation many times a day when user X doesn't realise they weren't logged in until they save the edit. Fine, dandy, takes two seconds and no one ever thinks of it again. − But using an IP to evade scrutiny, votestack, get around a topic ban or a block? Then, yeah, that's a CU matter. A user who is blocked may not edit Wikipedia outside of if their talk page is still open. Full stop, end of discussion. I won't go into BEANS territory about how to "get away" with using an IP, as you acknowledge, there are likely banned or blocked users using IP's as we speak; but that doesn't change the fact that they're doing something that is not allowed, and that if they do arouse suspicion, they're going to be stopped to the best of our ability. If we stop doing that, then we might as well send the blocking and banning policy pages straight to MFD. It is a bit like a traffic light. Because we can't stop everyone who runs a red light, we don't just decide that running red lights is something we're not trying to stop anymore. But that we still hold "running red lights is bad" doesn't mean there aren't occasional, rare times where running one isn't acceptable. That's like the note on your talk page; that sometimes something not ordinarily allowed should be overlooked doesn't mean that the underlying issue should no longer be enforced. No, it isn't some "the beatings will continue" situation, it is "the current sanctions will remain until they're no longer needed." And the socking proves the need for the sanction; we have a long standing WP:SO baseline; follow the sanctions and we'll consider lifting them. The number of people who can't get a second chance with a year of not editing WP are very small, but as SOP (at least for BASC) unblock/ban requests aren't considered without at least six months without using a sock. It's possible; a few folks a month manage to do it, and doing so shows an actual commitment to follow the expectations and goals of the project in a way that socking will never be able to do; as the sockmaster, every edit, chooses not to follow what is expected of everyone else. Courcelles 05:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification here. I do fully appreciate all those differences now. Sadly, real life stuff has been getting in the way (heh!) of things in here, and clearly affecting my mood, as well as time resources and so on. Would there be any way forwards for Pen to be able to come back to us (constructively) without having to wait ages? (Sorry, I'm appearing really thick here! I did read the above ... I meant any way which we can actually get through to him!) Pesky (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There were some parts removed from courcelles talkpage, which is perfectly normal, as it is his talkpage and he didn't want them there. I don't mind it being on my talkpage however, and it is easier for noobs to follow without clicking if I pop them in here.

Penyulap's block

the end of this section was removed from the other page

Extended content

Sorry to say this - me and Penyulap have been in email contact for months. I think I might know him best around here, he wants to contest this block and no doubt he would let ArbCom know about it. I don't understand how 'trolling' Elen made him get blocked? If you see on this revision on his talk page it was all just a joke, and it appears that Elen of the Roads thought it was too? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Trolling, admitting he is just wasting the project's resources, Wall of trolling, trolling. I can't read Elen's mind as to why she was participating there, but she extended an olive branch and got slapped with it by Penyulap's endless trolling. Courcelles 19:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC) I'm pretty much done with editing around here but I stopped in to check my user page and saw this on my watchlist So I thought I would take the time to comment also about this rather pointless waste of your powers Courcelles. Penyalup is restricted to his usertalk page. If he rants there and people choose to read and respond, then its really not harming anything. There was some meaningful discussion going on there and frankly this is the same sort of pointless blocking that causes editors to dislike Wikipedia and Arbcom. I also think that blanking the talk page, aside from the block itself was not appropriate and if you were anyone but Arbcom I suspect you would have had some folks telling you to stop. I would also think that if it was bothering Elen, she would have said something, which she may well have to you and we are not aware. But I don't really get that impression. Kumioko (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC) This seems an odd thing to do Courcelles. How can one "troll" one's own talk page? If Elen has a problem with Penyulap's responses she can just stop posting there. In fact, it looks to me that he was in the process of resolving a misconception with Elen. Even in the short time his access was reinstated, he produced an excellent montage. What did you achieve with this block? How does this action contribute to building Wikipedia? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC) You absolutely can troll on your own talk page, see the links above; he was trolling the project by his conduct, and not working to an unblock. A blocked user's talk page does not exist for nonsense. 23:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courcelles (talk • contribs) 23:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Kumioko and others: the community allows blocked editors to edit their talk page only to appeal their block. Penyulap was quite obviously using his or her talk page to continue the type of conduct for which a block was originally given, so why is it unreasonable to revoke talk page access? In terms of blocks, we have two classes: blocked and unblocked. No third "blocked, but it's fine to use your talk page in a way that doesn't benefit the project" class exists. I've seen this type of extensive use of talk page access by blocked users quite a lot, and inevitably those users' talk pages turn into a source of distraction and drama. No appeal was forthcoming, so the page was simply closed down. AGK [•] 00:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC) This is a common misconception, and one we have already thrashed out. And constructive work was being done. The talk page was closed down by the editor who was being taken to the ombudsman, claiming authority of the ARbCom. I reiterate what I said to ArbCom -an dthe world at large - over the previous protection of the talk page. "It is a shame to see editors being treated badly here." It is much much worse when those entrusted with most power by the community break the most basic rules of good governance. I am shocked that this is not immediately apparent. Rich Farmbrough, 03:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC). 03:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Evasive manoeuvres

this section was removed altogether from the other page

Extended content
Note: Courcelles has removed some of my queries and advice here. Notably that he has made a horrendous WP:INVOLVED block gaffe, and done it in the name of the arbitration committee, and should self-revert immediately. That he has mis-characterized content. And so forth. Rich Farmbrough, 15:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

Penyulap ☏ 07:48, 21 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap's christmas message

Merry Christmas everyone :)

recent commentary on Russia Today reminded me that it's time for my Christmas message. They'd observed that Julian Assange was going to make his Christmas address from the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy, an action more familiar with heads of state like the Queen of England, Penyulap of the wik, or the Pope... of the popey thingy.

While on a recent long trip to co-incidentally get a medial check, I had a medical emergency (which was actually fortuitous timing, if I have to fall ill either way). One of my kidneys became fully blocked causing one unbelievable amount of (short term) pain and most of a week spent in hospital. I'm comfortable now and back at home, the kidney is no longer fully blocked, but will require more travel (grumble, not easy) and regular checking. Hopefully that won't be radiological. I had 2 CAT scans and something called a mag3 which was freaky because you can feel the radioactive injection spread across (some parts of) your body. Although they shoved so much into a tube in my arm, there was really a lot to choose from. An iodine contrast and morphine(yuk) being most notable spreading sensations. ..and those tubes were shoved into creases on my arm too both times (sigh). I've now got a lovely copy of the CT which, although the operating system didn't recognise the format, my art program did! So I have been gawking at my insides from lots of different angles, all in fully animated progressive cross-sections, wooHoo! But for the mag3 I'd have to do an artists impression, but that is not too hard I think so Woo Hoo Too !

Anyhow, I like to find something good out of it all.

My animation skills have been growing. The stuff I had started shoving in my head a while ago is like paying off, but I haven't uploaded enough of it, and that tardis is way too low res to even see. I figure I'll try to get videos uploaded to link short gifs too so that people can enjoy tardis porn or whatever more exciting thing than that, whatever is the latest thing. I have at least one very exciting amusing artwork to upload that I think people will enjoy. :)

Replacing wikipedia is making progress, slowly though. Some I can't talk of as it is in confidence, but I was thinking that I should probably at some point do what I have been avoiding, which is to shove a modern programming language or languages into my head and pop out the much better replacement for wikipedia that so many people want so much. Thing is I have been dragging my feet because shoving that in your head is useless pretty fast as languages change fast, so what you learn this year is obsolete too quickly, and then your head is full of nonsense of the wrong kind. I guess if I have another long break that would be something to bite the bullet on though.

The most important task for the new site apart from being a lovely place to work would be providing a refuge from RL. Ironically at the moment, RL is a refuge from wikipedia for far too many people, being such a social disgrace that people completely give up on it. For many, working on wikipedia is pretty much ducking into a cubicle, (of the office kind or otherwise) and dropping off something and getting the hell out before someone has a go at you. It will be cool to use a proper site that is designed fundamentally to avoid conflict across the entire project and foster a healthier working environment. Well, that is the dream, and the objective towards which I plot every night. Penyulap ☏ 13:06, 21 Dec 2012 (UTC) 13:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Which Courcelles is it ? some clarity.

The complaint to the Ombudsman, as it is stated on this page, is about PALZ9000 block log. The block log looks a lot like this right now...

there are two 'Courcelles' mentioned in the block log, but Courcelles says that the complaint isn't about him here. [4], plus keeps on calling me a sockmaster, something I get threatened not to do without evidence on this very page. Bots are LEGIT. PALZ HAS a bot flag.

If there is any question about which Courcelles in PALZ blocklog the complaint is about, it is about the one who, as first order of business when he woke up that day, deleted the complaint, deleted the entire content of the talkpage, blocked me, and then blocked the entire community from having a say. (not the other Courcelles in the block log, or maybe there is only one, who knows) Penyulap ☏ 13:10, 21 Dec 2012 (UTC)

They're the same person. The second is just Courcelles reblocking to indicate that it's a Checkuser block. This is done because other admins may not unblock people blocked for CU reasons without first consulting a CU. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well it's obvious they're the same, Penyulap was being sarcastic. --Z 17:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This crowd is getting pretty ugly. It had better be dispersed. Disperse, Ye Troublesome Crowd! Thom2002 (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I have permission from one person who emailed me to mention that they are too scared to post on my talkpage. They've said "Of course it isn't retribution towards me I'm worried about, I'm afraid any light-hearted exchange with you, or even welcoming you back, will be willfully misintepreted(sic) to try and do you harm, and as mentioned, I don't want to be party to that."

While I detect that the admin responsible for my block elen has probably, and do correct me if I am wrong here, been told privately to avoid my talkpage at all costs, this leaves me as the perfect illustration of what I think is a major problem with blocks, that the emphasis for fixing erroneous blocks is shifted entirely to the blockee, rather than the person who is actually responsible for making, and whose job it is to see that the block is proper in the first place.

(inserted note), no, wait, consulting the block log, it's back to being blocked for the "Editor not here to create an encyclopedia" essay. That was when I left to go on a break and someone slammed the door shut behind me. I haven't had a decent actual real reason for a block for so very long. Since the good old days of telling Spectre to fuck off and troll elsewhere about a week or three ahead of the whole community making a tb for him. Oh those were the days, a real policy mentioned in the block summary. (sigh)

Noobs aren't supposed to know how to deal with blocks, and with the infatuation the establishment has with CREEP(the misused word for 'we want to sway everything in our own favour) we'd lose a S**T load of good editors to sloppy, trolling, or otherwise confusing blocks that noobs are given and somehow expected to know how to deal with properly and expected to go about the job of cleaning up after the admin who made the mess in the first place. (hence this is why I've declined so far, and will for some time to come, to make any 1st party request. Your block, your freaking job to clean it up, or it's my T-Shirt to wear on parade in the protest march for every Newbie who gets this kind of sh*t dumped on them)

I think the immediate situation here is quite easily balanced, if the minority of admins want to press the idea against consensus that reading en.wikipedia whilst logged in to another language to do legitimate, welcome work is something that needs to be protected against because OMG it will destroy and disrupt the project, I'll have to put on my thinking cap and make some more bots for other projects, thereby making it nice and fresh and easy for them to diff examples as compelling as those mentioned on this page as to why the block should be kept. Penyulap ☏ 05:04, 23 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Of course calling it a sock of an indeffed user, rather than a legitimate alternative account of an indeffed user could be considered "merely" sloppy. Using checkuser fiat on a legitimate, declared account seems an abuse of power, to say the least. But that seems to be the pattern here, sad to say. Nonetheless talk page access is restored, that at least has been righted. We look now to clarification of the scope of the Checkuser Ombudsman, that which the English Wikipedia seems to have requested is over and above that which could be considered imposed by the Foundation. Rich Farmbrough, 20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC).

How do you think she'll take it if I start blaming Elen for blocking my kidney ? It's pretty obvious where I had bought socks at the market (I did) and then next minute I have a blocked kidney. I think Elen has a lot to answer for !

On a serious note though, that is the point, it's gratuitous and pointless. It has a purpose of course, just as calling me an abusive sockpuppeteer endlessly against the communities objections has a purpose. What is the point of getting a bot flag ? why do we bother having bot applications at all when they are just 'abusive socks' same as any other abusive sockpuppet. My bot flag is a measure of the community putting there trust in me, similar to a RfA (except it's not a 'horrible broken process', just a poorly organised one). That bot flag means something to the community and it sure as hell means something to the bot operators. I may well be a bit cheeky, but everything PALZ has done in article space has always been proper. He is a combined effort. He might not be the most prolific bot, similar in speed to his operator, but that is no reason to show such contempt for the entire sector of the community. People should stick to just insulting me, personally. I don't care. But disgracing the entire community and our processes sends what message ? That we can take lessons from 4chan on professionalism. Just call me an annoying smartass, it's not as if I'd do anything but agree, using the tools to do it seems inappropriate. Blocking out the community repeatedly, and taking clear and obvious revenge, I mean whatever happened to lackeys ? Penyulap ☏ 22:41, 21 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Broken ISS article history

At the moment, the last 6 months or so of the International Space Station article versions are broken, viewing them will show you how, the Christmas on the International Space Station references show up midway through the article. There are serious problems with the functioning of the ISS talkpage, I doubt if anyone cares enough about the articles history to want to assist, and as BittyBatty would go beserk and start reading en.wikipedia while logged into another site, I can't fix it myself. The person making personal attacks and saying it's fixed is, well, I don't need to say as it's obvious, just look at the article history and you'll know if it is 'fixed or not'.

The fix is trivial and would take just a few moments. I didn't write the code myself, I had help from some brilliant people with it, but I do understand it perfectly and know what is wrong and how to fix it. If someone wants to run the Gauntlet of this page and that one as well. No mean feat. any takers?

You can probably sneak past the owners if you pretend to be a critic of mine, just use one of PALZ protest placards and badmouth me a lot, it won't take a particularly cunning ruse to get the job done.

Penyulap ☏ 10:50, 22 Dec 2012 (UTC)

This 'problem' will hide itself starting on new years day, until the following December, appearing every year until the code is repaired. Penyulap ☏ 17:33, 23 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. It took me longer to figure out what the problem was from your explanation and the page histories than it took me to fix it - it turns out all it needed was a simple addition of <noinclude></noinclude>! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool, I was going to say how to do it after I found someone to assist, I didn't realise you wouldn't need pointers. Hey, how about making the templates disappear too? They hardy need to be in both articles, although it is a much lower priority. The Christmas article and the Chinese space station are just being badge of shamed rather than discussed imo. Thanks for the help.

(cheeky time) Now, err, can you go and support their calls to blame me for wrecking the article ? Thing is, I been blocked for I have no idea how long, so you'd THINK that'd be anyone's big opportunity to fix whatever they like with the article, but absolutely nothing is happening, it never does. I figure it's easier to get them a heap of support and decent sized crowd all chanting "Penyulap wrecked the article" and then see where on Earth they are going with it. That's got me consumed with suspense and curiosity. I mean, after they've gotten rid of the oldest most respectable editors like Wwheaton, whose been editing since long long before my time, I wonder what on earth they'll do next. I don't really want to have to wait till I die, because the LAST thing I'd ever want to see in the afterlife is wikipedia, cause then I'd know I'm screwed and in hell. after this many weeks or months being blocked, I wonder why on Earth they haven't done something. Maybe I will have to die to get some results.

Meh, I guess I might never know in that case, cause I'm like, not that committed, just insanely curious. Plus, Wwheaton talking, that's like the Indian guy in one flew over the cookoos nest saying thanks when he never spoke before. I just figure I'm too much of a dramaqueen generally, so it's like amazing to see him mention my name, and say such nice things too. Hmm.. Penyulap ☏ 20:31, 23 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Hmph, wow, that Christmas article needs a LOT of work done to it, it was basically nothing at all except filler to work the code, I figured I'd have like 6 months to sort it all out and write it all properly before it went up. I want to get a gif of the Christmas tree floating, one of the guys I forget his name but can see his face, oh it's nespoli, yeah, he and the crew do an interview and he lets the tree spin a few times, so we can have a little spinning tree gif that'd give readers a smile I think. Not that I'd want to pre-empt discussions on the merge, but religion in space goes nowhere. There is like just the Muslim prayers and not needing to face Mecca that'd go into it, there was only one Jew who went into space, Rhamon, (he never came back) and that'd go in his article. Christmas however is a completely different thing, material from here to Mars on Christmas. It's every government's chance to trot out their space program and remind the taxpayers and patriots just what they are up to in orbit, they never ever miss a chance. They make many many calls and so on. It's pretty much the only thing to break the mind-numbing boredom up there in some ways I guess. Well, that and blasting the Americans out the airlock, that's pretty big too. Meh.

Good god I've been blocked for 6 months solid. what a crock. Penyulap ☏ 20:43, 23 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Hi Penyulap. Glad to see you have talk page access again. I just wanted to wish you happy holidays. Sorry to hear about your kidney problems. I hope everything turns out OK. You have a flare with words and I always enjoyed reading the stuff you wrote. I miss seeing your comments around town. I hope things get worked out so that you'll be back to editing sometime soon. Seasons greetings and all the best to you, my friend. Kind regards. 64.40.54.83 (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Penyulap ☏ 11:54, 22 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone keep track of these blocks ? which one applies at the moment?

There was like the Elen rules the world one, but that was for talkpage access wasn't it ? but there was the ombudsman block after that, which was undone, but then there is the slam the door on your ass when you go on holiday block 'not here to create an encyclopedia' essay block which someone mentions to me is the one at the moment. It's so totally pointless trying to keep track of all these ridiculous blocks. I have no freaking idea which one applies. Shrug, can't say I care, I don't think it is the real one that Black kite did, that was over ages ago. Still, if I don't try to pay some attention to all this crap I can't expect some talkpage angel to let me know who I'm supposed to be blocked by. I just don't give it much thought at all. I'm too busy finding cool ass music to go with the movies I'm wanting to make. Penyulap ☏ 14:22, 23 Dec 2012 (UTC) category:Wikipedians not here to create an encyclopaedia as far as they know

I found this.--andreasegde (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but that hardly helps I think it's like the last undo, I mean, I have no idea what I'm supposed to be bitchin' about, say, do us a favour, you're an admin, go block me on the wik, something clear and easy to complain about. There are so many shitty half assed blocks in my log I have no idea how to work out which is what. I found this !! Penyulap ☏ 16:11, 23 Dec 2012 (UTC)

An impressive 12 blocks/unblocks since all this began in the Summer. I can't decide whether the best analogy for Penyulap is Aung San Suu Kyi or Pussy Riot, although I do quite enjoy the thought of Pen singing protest songs on the soleas of the arbitration committee. Here's to our leading iconoclast. Thom2002 (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

too complicated, think of me as the road runner. I'll leave the occasional hotdog bun with a red cylinder inside and a hissing fuse that you can hardly notice it if you're a wolf looking for someone to devour. Everytime someone does some roundhouse kick in my direction it skips like a stone on the surface of the water into the heads of several critics and ends up smacking the person throwing the swing. Like PALZ page recent history. After this in the official venue, despite this, I get this while this editor continues his work unhindered. I expect it all started here, so how does that look to a passerby ? Naturally if you ask me how am I doing, I'll have to smile and say 'can't complain' Penyulap ☏ 17:23, 23 Dec 2012 (UTC)

There is no off position for the Genius switch - New age dispute resolution.

There is such a problem with dispute resolution on wikipedia, what with so many people fed up and leaving. I see a vast improvement that can be made in this area. Rather than the usual blame the person who complains and chuck gazillions of boomerangs even when you can't chuck to save your life. (recalling Vivek Rai here, who is a saint who went to ANI and there all like boomerang! boomerang! even though it goes NOWHERE).

So instead of the misdirection thing where attention is diverted away from the guilty party by pointing at the editor who is rightfully making a complaint, we should direct it at the weather, or the stock market, or some infinitely variable inanimate object. So rather than point at the complainant and say "Ho, look, she's too upset" or "Ho, look she's not upset enough" we could point at the weather and say "Ho, we can't deal with this abuse, the weather is too stormy" or "Ho, we can't deal with this abuse, the weather is too fine"

See? it doesn't make the editor who has been abused feel they are being treated like a moron, where a minority can bluff them into taking "personal" responsibility for the systemic failure. Naturally nothing gets done about the failure, that goes without saying, but the editor doesn't get the impression it's their fault, or that they're having lame-ass bluffs foisted upon them.

Take my block, (only thing known is it's a bullshit block, whichever one it is) and instead of saying "Ho, we can't clean up a bad block, the victim doesn't complain enough about it, without an appeal, no matter how ridiculous or inappropriate, our hands are tied" or "Oh we can't do anything about abuse of admin tools, the victim is too upset about it" in all cases, we have to ignore what is going on because look at the rabbit in the hat, look at the rabbit everyone over here, that's right, don't look at the abusers. Look at the magic show, over here over here that's right don't see what the magician doesn't want you to see. Lovely.

It sounds much more professional and less confrontational to pick a neutral excuse for inaction "Oh we can't look at obvious abuse no matter how serious because look at the financial crisis in the European Union for God sake. Won't some body think of the Euro ? Look at the Euro everyone, the Euro is in trouble." or how about "OH blocks have to stay in place forever, no matter how stupid they are because look at the fine day outside, the weather is too nice to worry about such things"

In case of abusive use of the tool, the Steward or the editor with the CheckUser privilege will immediately have their access removed.

Policy page and other assorted fairytales

I'm such a genius, instead of trying to get the editor to play "blame the victim" let's play "blame the stock market" huh ?, huh ? Penyulap ☏ 08:52, 24 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, does the possibility that your own behaviour might be a factor in your block even enter into consideration? Have you even considered the possibility that your your behaviour was problematic enough that a block was inevitable and that the primary reason you haven't been unblocked is that most people agreed with the block?

I've been keeping an eye on the entire mess for the duration in the vain hope that things would settle down enough that you could be unblocked; but during this period you've done nothing but complain about imaginary abuse, set yourself up as a martyr, and shift blame whichever way the wind blows except in your own direction. How about you apply your aforementioned genius to a bit of self-examination instead of trying grasping at straws trying to find absolutely anything but yourself to blame? — Coren ^(talk) 15:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Just who is this meant to convince ? the consensus and comments left on various talkpages and copied onto this page, like the community itself, have spoken. Saying the phrase "most people" can't replace my frikkin brain, I can count. So can the community, they can count for themselves. Some of them don't even need to take off their shoes to get past 10. I don't even need to count the people who are too scared to publicly post to have a clear comprehensive majority.

Police state Vs Humour? the mob has spoken, contempt for consensus continues. Penyulap ☏ 15:46, 24 Dec 2012 (UTC)

I see the answer to my questions is a resounding "No". This is regrettable, if not entirely unexpected; I wish you good holidays, and hope you use the new year for introspection and self-examination.

I'm going offer for you one last observation before I cease my involvement with you: Wikipedia's history is replete with former editors who have been... ill-counselled by agitators posing as commiserating comrades when they got into trouble. Invariably, that relationship was very good at stirring up temporary drama. Just as invariably, that drama ended up at the "victim"'s detriment (and only theirs). Please consider whether you're not making the same mistake yourself. — Coren ^(talk) 16:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a long history of Checkusers needing the tools to work out who operates an approved bot. I'm not sure the question of who is operating PALZ has been settled. I've been trying to get him to agree to DNA testing, which I naturally have no problem with as I have nothing to hide, but PALZ is giving me crappy excuses trying to pretend he has no DNA, which is bullshit because everyone has DNA. No, I think there is some doubt about who PALZ operator really is, and I think that using checkuser to work out who the approved bot is may not answer the question at all. Of course, we all know what happens if you complain now don't we. Pretty frikking simple. and oh my god, there are people who will still try to pretend this, all of this, the whole lot, is my doing ? when you repeat a Big lie it's supposed to be that the mob believes it, it's supposed to be like 'you can fool most of the people' or some such number. I'm sure that number is supposed to be like, a bigger number, like maybe 2 or 3, or hey, even two or three would be GREAT if you can do a good enough job of dispersing the crowds.. Merry Christmas. Oh, and be sure to leave your crap slam the door on someone who has left on a wikibreak essay block here for someone else to clean up after you. Penyulap ☏ 16:31, 24 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Actually I have to disagree, Coren, the answer was a resounding "mu", though to which of your questions it is unclear, probably all of them.

I will take the somewhat dangerous step, though, of answering the first question. Penyulap is certainly aware that his own behaviour is a factor in the block. It does not follow from this either that the block was good, was of the right length, or that it should be removed.

Given, however, the series of dubious admin actions taken against Pen since the block, my instinct would be to unblock unless the block was for the most egregious of reasons. My only reservation (which always applied when I was considering unblocks) would be to avoid an unblock followed by another block after a more or less short period of time. At the moment I am unable to offer any advice on this, as I have no idea what the original block was about.

I must say that the comment "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not particularly apt, as we have seen Pen provide graphical services, and his bot continues to contribute positively to other language editions.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC).

Personally, I'm no comrade, just a mindless agitator hell-bent on causing trouble. By combining this strategy with my other one of making constructive edits (which is another of Pen's dirty little tricks), I hope acheive my twin objectives: BRING DOWN WIKIPEDIA and SUBTLY DESTROY PENYULAP. Mwa ha ha ha ha and Evil Christmas to you all. Thom2002 (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, Mwa ha. (too busy right now, will finish the rest of the Ha's in the new year) Penyulap ☏ 21:20, 26 Dec 2012 (UTC) from L.E.O.

The space station is a freehand sketch I did yesterday (or was it the day before?) I just did it out of memory, so for the 1 spaceflight enthusiast who looks at this in like 3 months or something and thinks 'hey, what station is that' it's not. I have like a proper long clip about 300megs or something and it's HD, but it ALL has to be cut down to fit into what I can upload to commons. Later, I'll complete the clip and upload it, (there is no ticker, I just did that then as a comment). I have enough clips, and I have the music, and I just need to draw up an opening sequence and the Penyulap Space report will be ready to spam the crap out of youtube :) Bwahahahahahaha I can do for them what I do for the ISS article, and if the commons upload wizard will take a day off from choking my uploads, I'll be able to upload some joke vids of space stations. (Unfortunately it looks unlikely that anything will get into articles like the Chinese Space Station, which is the reason that I absorbed CGI cinematography in the first place. But that doesn't matter, knowledge and skill comes in handy for people who don't suffer from self esteem. Plus, it's about time I absorbed some proper website writing languages and replaced wikipedias ass with a much sexier ass of my own. Oh Yeah! Penyulap ☏ 21:47, 26 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Long version with muzak a-la 2001 and a sleepy cameraman, so cewl. Penyulap ☏ 00:02, 27 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Free Speech

There used to be a thing called Freedom of Speech on one's own talk pages, because how could one get away with saying "Happy Xmas", even though that had NOTHING to do with "building an Encyclopedia"? The (syn)tax inspectors have taken over the building, and they are not going to allow anyone to disagree with them.

This place used to be about communication, but it's not anymore. It's about CONTROL. Sad, but true. Amen...--andreasegde (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There used to be a lot of things on Wikipedia but free speech was never one of them. Actually let me rephrase, any WP user has free speech so long as that is a right granted by their respective governments but WP has never been a platform for people to express their views. Free speech is a concept that applies to governments, not to private organizations. Concluding that there was at one time free speech by virtue of the fact that one can say merry christmas is a non sequitur. Talk pages are for communication vis a vis building the encyclopedia; off topic communication is tolerated liberally because most of the time it's not disruptive, but when it is it's cut off. Sædon^talk 21:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

What the ? If I were trying to tell everyone to go watch this or saying Palestinian children have a right to exist on the face of the Earth, I'd be making a statement. What the hell am I doing except being an idiot ? Hello ? fitting in. The day idiocy is outlawed on wackypedia is the day there are no editors left. What on Earth does free speech have to do with what I'm doing ?

There is of course confusion between the misuse of NOTSOCIAL to undermine the pillar that says 'camaraderie' as the terrorist police state takes over. I mean police state, sorry terrorist is the real life critic of a government, on wikipedia they blanket label anyone who disagrees with the admin who is speaking as trolling. Penyulap ☏ 21:32, 26 Dec 2012 (UTC)

The crux of the argument though is this. Whether the community itself, which has twice been banned (or was it more?), or I, have any business at all questioning the whims of one or two corrupt admins, or suggesting that the system, or any action by the admin is imperfect.

Hey, what's the difference between a corrupt admin and GOD ? huh ? god doesn't walk around all day thinking he's a wikipedia admin Penyulap ☏ 21:38, 26 Dec 2012 (UTC)

I agree, what the hell does free speech have to do with anything? Nothing, which was essentially my point. Re the rest: not worth the conversation; you don't listen, you just talk, and that's why you're still blocked. Sædon^talk 00:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't give out barnstars for the most stupid reason for my block, but hey, maybe I should consider it. Hmm, can anybody top WP:NO TALKING!!!! I think it competes fairly well with the essays mentioned in my blocklog.

Andreasegde was speaking about CONSENSUS, you know, that thing that WMF pretends to have on it's site while pressing it's own ridiculous agenda 'we'll beat our volunteers into submission' lol. Penyulap ☏ 00:10, 27 Dec 2012 (UTC)

If there were a consensus to unblock you then someone would have done so. You have not been unblocked, ergo there is no consensus QED. Yes you have a few editors who support your unblock, no that is not a consensus. I think you are confusing silence from opposition as a lack of opposition when in reality the silence exists because you're blocked and as such there is no reason to argue. If an admin did unblock you I imagine you'd see a lot of people speak up and demand a reversal until you start considering the advice that has been painstakingly given to you by many each time your talk page access gets restored. I don't know why we're all still playing this game nor do I understand why you think things are going to be different this time without anything on your end having changed.

Of course I could be totally wrong and there's one way to find out: appeal to ANI and let the chips fall where they may, but don't be surprised if someone proposes a full site ban and it passes. Sædon^talk 02:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

First off, prior to the block being imposed, I had gone on wikibreak. The banner at the top of the page went up well prior to the block, I'd stopped editing, and now you'll never be able to suggest that the block was required. I have always demonstrated a respect for consensus, for example I think the only editing restriction I've had was when I undertook to take a break from the ISS article and the ISS talkpage and I exceeded the duration of my undertaking in both cases.

Full site ban ? Please ! I welcome the opportunity to conduct a roll call of just who supports that and who doesn't, it would be quite illuminating regardless of the outcome.

Second, consensus doesn't exist for an essay. That's why it is an essay, so blocking someone according to a few peoples opinion is definitively inappropriate and against consensus. Penyulap ☏ 04:57, 27 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, there is the tooth fairy article as well, which according to many editors is an appalling disgrace (I use cleaner language to describe it than they do) and you don't see me trying to improve that article now do you ? No, there is a difference between punishment, political control, revenge, and attempting to prevent disruption. Penyulap ☏ 05:01, 27 Dec 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with that last sentence there. I have never viewed the tooth fairy article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you viewed any other part of English wikipedia in one browser tab while working on a different site with an alternate account in another tab ? Hmmm ? Fess up ! Penyulap ☏ 05:21, 27 Dec 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "different site with an alternate account"? I don't have sock accounts here, and yes not all of my accounts on other (non-WMF) websites are called "Demiurge1000". (Some administrators on WMF sites sometimes sign their messages under variations of my username, but for now it seems that there's not much I can do about that.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

required reading Penyulap ☏ 05:39, 27 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! It appears that I already read all of that some time ago, although I can't claim to have gained much enlightenment from it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Enlightenment on wackypedia. yes indeed. Well, it's like the whole ban Richard for making a dozen edits, I don't have a link to it offhand, but I think that the whole issue was not that the edits were anything but perfectly fine and good edits, and not that there was Trillions and trillions of them, the thing was that with special software which nobody has any access to except one? person, who was snooping where they weren't meant to, they uncovered traces which technically couldn't exist that suggested Richard used software on his home computer to prepare the edits before cutting and pasting them. Anyhow, luckily the high court of wikipedia, relying on Richards integrity to prove what would otherwise have been technically impossible, banned his ass to prevent the destruction of the project and protect the sensitive eyes of the one person who was looking where they shouldn't have seeing what they couldn't have. That is what is brilliant about me, whilst they can seize upon Richards self admitted naughtiness and punish him for the integrity of admitting his evil wrongdoing which destroyed 48% of the project, in my case, it's quite different. My alleged violations of various essays are patently mainstream by the rules of editing, I'm not saying that my humour doesn't cause nosebleeds, strokes and other assorted cranial haemorrhages, I'm sure it does. But the thing is, people seem to like the humour that causes these terrible casualties in a particular small sector of the admin corps, plus what I do is very clearly spelled out as LEGITimate editing.

Seriously, if you were me, would you give up your completely squeaky clean editing history and go off and sock ? They say the best revenge is to live well, or in my case, continue to edit well. I don't bother to have secrets, and it's much more fun, by a considerable margin, to be me than it is to be someone else.

For a small minority of people, the only answer there is to my wit, charm, humour, and outrageous modesty is to hover the mouse over "block user" box, pull a face which looks a great deal like a chickens ass and then pound and smash away at the mousebutton like a kid at the pedestrian crossing just ah-hittin that button over and over. Thing is, it could leave some feeling frustrated that they STILL haven't had their desires satisfied. I can only figure doing it three or four times in a row without punctuating with unblocks is the go. note of caution, when you think you've found a bluff that you can get away with, check for a fuse first, saves your little tummy expanding rapidly for a few moments and the inevitable whisp of smoke from the mouth. Penyulap ☏ 06:50, 27 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Can we make some forward progress, please?

Extended content

Anybody that's been watching ACE2012, RfA and BN recently knows that all this infighting cannot continue. Well-respected members of the community are succumbing to this issue and it's unhealthy for the project. So can we please make some progress here? The basic issue The basic problem here was that Penyulap would see something that needed to be corrected and would push to get it fixed. Some in the community felt that nothing was wrong or that Penyulap pushed too hard and that it became disruptive. Of course others did not agree. A second issue was that of undeclared accounts, but I'm not certain how much of an issue that is as Penyulap has declared all of the alternate accounts as far as I know. If I'm mistaken, somebody please let me know. A mentor as a possible solution Historically, the solution in these cases has been a mentor. I know, I know, both sides will absolutely reject this idea and that's fine. But the status quo is not really a solution. So if somebody wants to suggest something else, that's great. The bigger issue Both sides know that My SideTM is right and the Other SideTM is wrong and both sides are digging their heels in. Well guess what, there's enough right and wrong to go around for everybody. The solution is not "My way or the highway". The solution lies somewhere in the middle. The way forward is for both sides to compromise a little. I'm begging, I'm pleading on my hands and knees, please, both sides move a little towards the center, even if it's only an inch. Please try to deescalate the situation. Please try to see things from the other side. Please try to find something you can give to the other side. Please try to work towards a compromise of some kind. Please don't be another example of Wikipedia failing because that is simply not healthy for the community at large. Thank you for your time and understanding. Kind regards. 64.40.57.52 (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC) If anyone should like to know why this section is collapsed, then I should say to this editor 'you don't fool this Penyulap, not that easily.' actually, I noticed a nice comment the other day, something along the lines of 'we have to take it slowly because Penyulap is sensitive to, and responds prolifically, to drama. I thought that was lovely, because it is so true. But of course the other hand was slipping the coin into the pocket at the same time. I don't miss a trick, and saying that the matter will be dealt with when hell freezes over is not what is written on the policy page, but I appreciate the wordcraft, I thought it delightful. Penyulap ☏ 17:39, 27 Dec 2012 (UTC) You caught me, Penyulap. I'm sorry I tried to fool you and several other editors that have been hurt by the community. You see I've never been on the receiving end of ABF from the community. I've never been subjected to an invalid block for many long months/years by a CU for a completely unjustifiable reason and to have the project miss out on all the work I could have done. I simply cannot relate to your situation at all, so you have my sincere apologies for trying to fool you. All the best. 64.40.54.68 (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Sorry. That came off way more snarky than I had intended. I wasn't trying to fool you. I was trying to help because I understand what it is like to be mistreated by the community. 64.40.54.68 (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Really ? aww, tell me all about it..ⓘ what shall I call you ? Mr CantAct ? Mr Icanfool ? Hey do you know it's my birthday in another 364 days ? Incidentally, thanks for this valuable contribution you really know how to get on a person's good side don't you. Now, tell me, how come you haven't introduced yourself, or at least said "Penyulap, how are you ?". you should follow these rules if you want to chat. Penyulap ☏ 06:42, 28 Dec 2012 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

The actual future, and the more than 20,000 people who experienced the broken 'pedia on the ISS page

The place wikipedia is going is oblivion obviously. The manner in which it gets there may be unclear to some. Basically the reputation will fall by the wayside with increasing velocity based on currency of content. Nobody intelligent willing enough to be a slave in the police state means nothing but embarrassing blunders that are increasingly frequent. For example, take the International Space Station. The talkpage doesn't work, and with me blocked for six months solid it just goes from bad to worse with more editors unable to assist.

The Wik is a bit busted at the moment, which is one more reason why I should start absorbing website programming, besides the obvious need to replace wikipedia. I had, prior to it going live on the mainpage here, posted on the wik a correct caption with the image of the ISS that was on the wikipedia mainpage. I think on the wik at the moment even though the page itself is broken, the history with timestamp and edit summary is visible here showing I knew. But because even the life and death topics I commented on when blocked seem to divide people over the use of IAR, then regular editing even if it saves you lot the embarrassment, is of course not possible.

Out of the 900,000 people who viewed the mainpage, and read the embarrassing mainpage blunder, TWENTY THOUSAND read, understood, and clicked through to the ISS article. The person who did the caption wasn't responsible, they left the picture of the day on the ISS talkpage for everyone to see, even asking for it to be checked to avoid any embarrassing mistakes. Thing is, people who are smart enough to count past eight have left already, or don't watch or help on that broken page. People like professional author Lee-Brandon Cremer who is now my friend have also left from wikipedia altogether, so whilst there are editors aplenty who decend firemans poles whenever there is discussion of the lipstick on the pig known as ENG:VAR on the ISS talkpage, there is nobody left who can tell the difference between the pride of the European Space Agency's Spacecraft fleet, the ATV, and a Russian space station module. So the whole project is a total embarrassment, and I expect that LeeBrandon who has a lovely thing going on now over on facebook and twitter and his own site doesn't get lampooned by the French International Astronautical Federation for his use of dialect. Seeing how I've been blocked from spaceflight for six months, then obviously blocking me longer won't fix a thing in spaceflight, lets face it, it's rooted totally and an embarrassment to the original idea set out for wikipedia.

Picture of the day

The International Space Station (ISS) as seen from the Space Shuttle Endeavour. Zarya, the first module of the ISS launched in 1998, is seen in the foreground. Since then, twenty-six Space Shuttle flights have docked with the ISS to assemble various other modules and components, which include four pairs of solar arrays seen on each side.Photo: NASA

Here is the template at the time of writing this maybe it differs from the above.

As I had written on the wik, the ISS as shown in the image has 20 sets of solar arrays. 12 belong to the station, the rest to docked spacecraft. The module in the foreground is not Zarya, it is a docked spacecraft, the ATV. If the ATV was not docked, then the module in the foreground wouldn't be Zarya, it would be the service module Zvezda, which contains the stations bridge, provides propulsion, and life support. It's a soyuz on top and a progress underneath (you can't see it, but that is the protocol) and the only thing I couldn't tell off by heart looking at the pic first time was which Soyuz it was, which turns out to be the Yuri Gagarin anniversary celebration spacecraft. (50years). Thing is, the only place to write anything was anywhere but wikipedia. Well, I haven't got my yearning to write about spaceflight back just yet, I think it was the complexity of the station that was the attractor. I'd LIKE to work with Lee Brandon Cremer and others on a spaceflight website, but I am thinking it is much better for me to get into programming. Better for the community, but don't know if I will, people get really shellshocked when they leave wiki, and it takes a long time to want to write again.

The wikipedia ISS article has already got more than 2 dozen things that need fixing or updating and nobody including me will fix it. It HAS got a good solid 6 month headstart on where all of wikipedia will end up, that is, on ebay, or a garage sale. I've seen what old encyclopaedias go for, and it's not much at all. They used to cost thousands of dollars brand new, literally. But you can get them for the cost of travelling to pick them up because they are useless to the owners once out of date. I think however, we can advertise that wikipedias punctuation is freshened daily, and spacing in articles is always on the move. I think people will like that. I see bots put spaces into section titles and take them out again a week later. It's really sophisticated. New information is over-rated we can tell people, plus, there is still going to be new editor churn for quite a while. People who have a resume to insert, a magic teapot, a corporate agenda. Yes, it'll be brilliant.

Of course all the people playing survivor will end will end up alone with that huge novelty check that says ten million dollars. It will probably also say 'past due' but that is no problem, sociopaths are unaware to the collapsing realities around them, so focused upon themselves they will ride it out to the end and know all along that they are brilliant.

I would most like to keep the many friends that I have made here, long after they have left wikipedia. There will be other, better websites, that is fact. Because wikipedia makes the internet not suck by gathering it all into one place (title of a banner I shall make possibly). There shall be other sites, and the old information from wikipedia is only a bot copy away, and if I have anything to say about a new site, if I can load a few programming languages into my head same as I load in cinematography CGI and 'sketch up a site' or draw what the nice people think a site should be, then we'll have a cool place to work. A refuge from the real life outside. Naturally coyotes and sociopaths exist, but building a site which only specifically annoys the shit out of them is just as easy as everything else I do. The processes and structure is a perfectly trivial thing to adjust, it's done everywhere else on the web to one degree or another. It is important that websites come and go, but fun on the net continues, and just the same way as I cram everything into my skull by first working up a good vacuum, wikipedia's demise will create a good solid vacuum, and has in many ways, for a better site to exist. Penyulap ☏ 16:47, 27 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, the wik is unable to get a response from commons whenever it tries to fetch an image. So the images are turned off for now to circumvent the problem. I wonder if that's my doing. Penyulap ☏ 17:04, 27 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Where's my message Dude ?

Prompted by the message on Jaguar's talkpage about not getting a Christmas message, I'd like to point out that I can't give people awards on their pages or leave messages and so on whilst I am blocked. The Evil Dr Blofeld passed his 1,000 DYK as well as Christmas passing.

To update, there is no reason why I can't be unblocked, save it be the most stupid reason of all IMO. Someone has to ask, because the admin won't clean up after themselves. Doesn't have to be, and sure won't be for some time, myself, because I want to measure just how idiotic wikipedia is in this regard. With many good admins along with the bad being aware of this 'essay block' to prevent Penyulap roaming loose and what ? BLP ? NPA ? Threats ? no people, it's the essay "not here to build an encyclopedia". Yeah, I'm a real terrorist aren't I ? wait, the few corrupt people who like it that way call anyone who wants to improve the utopia that is wikipedia a 'troll' now don't they. Any goofball can request an unblock for me, and thereby hopefully S.P.E.C.T.R.E. will destroy the project :) Penyulap ☏ 06:51, 31 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is allowed (as per previous Admin comments) to send a "Christmas message", because it's not about "Building an Encyclopedia". When we will ever learn this simple message? I mean, all I wanted to do was say, "Well done", but that has nothing to do with factual editing, with a reference supplied, of course. It's very confusing.--andreasegde (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not supremely stupid enough to get blocked for, every block I get has to surpass the last, either on corruption, stupidity or both. I do have one in mind actually, that would surpass getting blocked for a single Good Faith redirect, a single space, editing some other project or making a legitimate complaint to the ombudsman. All we need is an endless supply of human stupidity, and THAT my friend is what is awesome about wikipedia.

it's like who was it said "two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the first one" ? Penyulap ☏ 22:28, 3 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Closed unblock discussion

As a courtesy to talk page stalkers, I thought I'd point out that an unblock discussion was initiated and closed per WP:SNOW at WP:AN#Unblocking Penyulap. The closing editor made it clear that it could be reopened if any editor felt that Penyulap should in fact be unblocked. Ryan Vesey 19:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

when you suggested I didn't know the reason for the block, were you speaking from experience ? it seems there is quite a lot of talk of socking, without the least bit of evidence at all. Never the less, good someone notified me. 40 minutes to closing the thread. hmm, The list is getting rather way obvious. Penyulap ☏ 23:18, 11 Jan 2013 (UTC)

I was speaking of your unblock email related to the actual reason you were unblocked. I don't know why you're referring to socking. Ryan Vesey 00:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You're too transparent here Ryan, you say 'I once commented that Penyulap had probably served enough time, but I certainly take that back. so there are only two possible scenarios here Ryan, you can name a policy and diff some reason for my block which you clearly support, or you've been one of the people to thrust their hands into the air for rollcall. You clearly have an opinion on the block, so where does it come from, email or policy ? Name a policy, diff some claimed damage that I'm supposed to have done. If you have no reason that you can say out loud and in public then it must needs be the other. and if reason and commonsense fail you here, there is always the unilateral block on a whim, very popular Ryan, you know you want to sign the guestbook as others have done. Penyulap ☏ 00:38, 12 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Looks like yet another one who can't put up. Penyulap ☏ 23:02, 12 Jan 2013 (UTC)

First Wikipedian to make me laugh in awhile

"Not every Author is married, with a wife hanging over their shoulder nagging and criticizing their every word, Wikipedia has a lot to offer these Authors" Penyulap _talk 07:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

May I borrow this for my user page? It is clever. Lenny Kaufman ^talk 22:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You have, and you may. Penyulap ☏ 22:57, 12 Jan 2013 (UTC) 22:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for Jaguar

Barnstar for TenPoundHammer

File:Ten Pound Hammer's Barnstar 2013.gif

I read your request for content related admin assistance at AN here:

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This CFD has been sitting open for twenty-four days with a consensus to delete. Why the hell has no one closed it yet? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Those damn CFD closers are slacking on the job again. Dock them all a week's pay. (Seriously, though, we're all volunteers here, maybe bring it to people's attention a little less harshly?) Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Speaking merely for myself as a regular at cfd, the holidays have distracted me some. Hoping to be a bit more active in the near future : ) - jc37 04:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC) OMG!! A CfD open for 24 days!!!! It's no wonder I felt the entire structure of Wikipedia shaking earlier today. Let's go, admins, close it up, chop chop - TPH has spoken and you must obey. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Rofl. - jc37 07:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC) A better question is "why the hell do we still allow TPH on Wikipedia with an attitude and lack of situational awareness like this". But BMK has a point (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I thought to award you the barnstar not just for your monumental dedicated body of work, but because for some reason you look beyond the complete contempt shown by some for the idea that admin tools should be used for actual work, rather than only smallest, pettiest things. Penyulap ☏ 22:26, 17 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Offer

Penyulap, I've been vaguely watching from the sidelines since your outburst at me 6 months ago. Whether or not you believe it, I was trying to help back then and I am willing to offer a hand now. So, here's my offer. If you would like, I will spend a bit of time putting together a history of your situation, reading through what happened leading up to your present block. I will present this to you, so you can see it from an outsiders perspective. There is, however, a catch. Once that's happened, there are three ways it might go.

1. If it is clear from the history that you should be exonerated, I will do my utmost to show this history to the right people, and gain consensus to unblock.
2. If it is clear from the history that the blocks were proper, you will have a choice.
   1. Agree with the history, focus on the areas we agree are your failings and work to become a postive member of the community so that you might be unblocked
   2. Disagree with the history and I will take the history to the administrators noticeboard and start a discussion to have you community banned, without talk page access.

Like I say, 3 plausible outcomes. I can tell you the history will have diffs, policy citations and a full explanation of what happened based on a thorough investigation I'm willing to do. I expect it's the best offer you're going to get and since it's clear that doing nothing is leaving us in a stalemate, I'd like to get this sorted. Worm^TT(talk) 08:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The last 'discussion was 40 minutes, so I figure the next will be co-ordinated by IRC and over in half that. Penyulap ☏ 09:16, 17 Jan 2013 (UTC)

You didn't fool me then, you don't fool me now, I see straight through you. "believe it' you say, not in a Billion years. Penyulap ☏ 09:29, 17 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Very well Penyulap. It was a genuine offer. I tried. Worm^TT(talk) 09:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Cliché ? oh how surprising. Penyulap ☏ 09:49, 17 Jan 2013 (UTC)

(One of Pesky's TPSers weighing in) You know Penyulap, I think you should take Worm up on the offer, with the exception of the community ban threat (Worm: I think a better alternative is to just say you will go to AN and see what the consensus for appropriate sanction is; the "death sentence" of a community ban is, IMHO, being handed out too easily these days, when a time-limited sanction is more appropriate, would you modify your proposal?). My thinking, Penyulap, is if it doesn't go your way, you are really no worse off than you are now. If it DOES go your way, or if you can live with option #1, you will be in a way better place. Worm is usually pretty fair and level-headed, and did a good job of sorting out a bad spat I was involved in that involved two problematic editors making my life miserable that time - one is now blocked as a sock and the other no longer edits. I'm still standing!  ;-) So Worm, please modify your deal slightly to leave a path out in all directions, and Pen, if Worm does this, please accept the deal. I know Pesky frets about you, though she's been busy in RL and less active on wiki lately, and I'd be willing to assist her efforts when she's not around. Montanabw^(talk) 17:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine, he can 'gather up evidence' as he pleases, and I'll agree to it on a condition, that Bishonen‎ judges the evidence and makes a decision, or Worm explains why Bishonen‎ wouldn't be fair. Worm has a demonstrated mysterious ability to be blind or see things as he pleases. Good at threats while even today still hasn't taken action where 'evidence' is clear. If she'd agree, that'd be fine. otherwise go get yet another spectacular decision from Arbcom, or bring out the socks who know nothing of the case, but strangely know precisely what to think and have a strong opinion about it for another 'discussion' at AN.

Arbcom is great, worm, how does you aforementioned comment here apply when it's an arb ? Courcelles has continuously called me a sockmaster without any diffs or evidence. So how does one arb judge the situation when it's one of their buddies. Give an opinion on that matter, or stammer and stutter and avoid the issue as Arbcom does when it's one of their chums. Although in this case, it's not one of their own, it's more than one. Penyulap ☏ 20:13, 17 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, involving Bishonen is a great idea, assuming she'd be amenable. Tomorrow I'll have a thorough investigation for you. I will review any investigations with Bishonen. As for your other question, I haven't seen Courcelles comments. If he has no evidence of sockpuppetry, then I will ask him to withdraw the comments. If he were to carry on without any evidence, then I would block him, just as I would block anyone who carried on making accusations. If there's anything you want me to investigate specifically, feel free to point me towards it. Worm^TT(talk) 20:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Flowery words Worm, but you are still not agreeing with the word 'judges' which I used as the sole condition. You substitute your own words 'involving' and 'review'. The difference doesn't go unnoticed Worm, it is the sole condition, not an optional accessory to let Bish be another spectator at your Texas lynching. Spectators there are plenty, fair and impartial judges are in short supply. Penyulap ☏ 20:37, 17 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Careful Penyulap, at least let me attempt to put together the history before you judge me. If Bishonen judging the situation is likely to mean an actual positive outcome, I'm all for it. My words were not intended to take away from that, it's just how I talk. I've already alerted her to this conversation. Worm^TT(talk) 21:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you lay it on a bit thicker ? I think some people down the back didn't hear you. Your trying to handpick the evidence AND judges and are asking if I agree with any of this trying to appear as if you have some kind of resolution to bomb Libya. Take it somewhere else. Penyulap ☏ 21:39, 17 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Pen, please at least agree to let Worm put together the history and try and sort out what exactly happened? Last I heard, you didn't even know what the current block was for, and why, and so on ... this situation needs to be sorted out by someone who's not going to be labelled "One of Pen's fan club / supporters / enablers / posse" etc. Don't bite the Worm that's trying to see if something productive and constructive can be done here. Worm is not "out to get you". Let him help, please. I don't suppose there's anybody who actually knows all the story inside out and backwards; it's a heck of a tangled knot, and unravelling it all to try and fix the situation is the only thing which is going to work. Worm's offering some quite intensive (and extensive) research here. Let bygones be bygones between you both, accept the olive branch and offer of help in resolving the situation. You never know, it might work. And Worm's astute enough to be able to make a list of those with an axe to grind, as he goes through the old shite, so he'll spot the wrong-doers (such as those who were topic-banned within a few days of you asking them to go and troll somewhere else, please ;P) who might turn up at AN/I or wherever. He'll spot who shouldn't be there, because it was them who was in the wrong, as and when (and if) they turn up trying to stir the pot. Pesky (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Pesky, he is aware of, and does nothing whatsoever about, the abusive editor I brought a SPI against. The SPI he helped to shut down, despite knowing what was going on. This is irrefutable fact. Your letting emotion cloud your judgement. I am not. Penyulap ☏ 22:00, 17 Jan 2013 (UTC)

It's probably exhaustion clouding my judgment (if it is) rather than emotion. I'm sure Worm will be quite happy to include re-evaluating abusive editors, SPI's etc. along with the rest of the history. It's all part of the history, after all. Give him a chance. Meanwhile, we have blizzards expected soon ... snowman time! Pesky (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Funny, Pesky got in before me, but I was just gonna say, please stop it with the ranting at Worm, Pen. Hang on to your suspicions of him if you must, but a) I think you're dead wrong, and b) why can't you just fricking keep them to yourself. I'm not nice like Pesky and Montanabw, but you knew that. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC).

Harsh, but at least dedicated to the community and actual policy. Not so much as a contemptuous grudging afterthought when you have no choice but to consider it.

If I am wrong, you show me where I am wrong and I admit it fast and free. I'm open and honest and none can dispute these things. Empty baseless namecalling is all the rage in the emails that fly around, and where is the substance ? Reason. Reason. Reason is what will change my mind, not repeating 'oh you're wrong' when all evidence is to the contrary. Evidence. Evidence is what my case is filled with, and it all points to my innocence and mistreatment. Revenge blocking of myself and the community itself ? oh we'll just ignore that one, we'll just block penyulap to fix the problem. If there is a problem with the government that wikileaks exposes, we'll just assassinate Julian shall we ? That fixes the problem does it ?

"I can tell you the history will have diffs, policy citations and a full explanation of what happened based on a thorough investigation I'm willing to do."

Oh golly gee, I'm so excited after 171 days of the community demands to know what the block is about to finally have the biggest secret of this year revealed. Wow, I'm all a-quiver. Strange place to reveal it though, I wonder why it's been held back completely and comprehensively until my 'execution trial' where what Montanabw calls a "death sentence" will be handed down. Curious thing that, apparently I'm not the only one you can't fool in this regard. The never before seen reasons for the most controversial blocks will be revealed for everyone to see 40 minutes ? before judgement ? that's how long the unblock request took to slam shut. nice work. (<--insert gfx of high speed rail-road here-->) Penyulap ☏ 00:33, 18 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Penuylap, I guess I don't expect you to listen to me any more than you're listening to anyone else who's posted here today, but I want to point out to you how very strange your behavior today appears to me. To me, it looks like an arbitrator (a known-to-be-very-lenient one who likes nothing better than helping editors who've had trouble return to the fold) made you an offer: he'd investigate the block you're contesting, and either vindicate you or explain to you what mistakes you made. Your response was to accuse him of bad faith, and then to continue accusing him of bad faith, on-and-off, for the rest of the day. You're accusing people of belligerence, of sociopathy, of all manner of terrible things, when in fact, they are begging to be allowed to help you. The only belligerence I've seen here today has been from you, and I'm utterly confused by why you're choosing to respond to a really remarkable offer of help - from two people, now that Bishonen has also commented - with what appear to be assumptions of conspiracy and wrongdoing on the part of the people trying to help you (and, apparently, on the parts of everyone from the Wikipedia admins to Commons to the WMF). What, exactly, would you have to lose by allowing Worm to look into this? The absolute worst thing that could happen, even if you're 100% right that he has it in for you and a conspiracy is afoot, is that you remain blocked and (allegedly) railroaded. As you believe you are now, and as you believe you've been for quite a while. The absolute best thing that could happen? Complete vindication and an unblock. As far as I can tell, you have nothing to lose by accepting Worm's offer, because you can't possibly be any worse off after than you are now. Even if he took the "request community ban" route, and even if it managed to pass, you'd still be in pretty much exactly the same situation you're in now: namely, you're indefinitely blocked and no admin will unblock you without full community discussion. It just completely baffles me that even though things can't go any further downhill, you're refusing this offer. Perhaps you feel that you're sort of a wiki-martyr right now, refusing to play any kind of ball with the people who you think did you wrong, but if you're going to be so determined to refuse help on whatever principle you feel bound to, you're locking off all your own routes back to the community. No one is going to be able to help you if you refuse to accept even the most generous offers of help.

Sigh. Like I said, I guess I don't expect you to listen to me, but I wanted to take the vague chance that I could get through to you. I hope you consider what I've said. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Back the fuck up. I haven't accused anyone of being a sociopath, that is a horrendous accusation you're making there. I was asking questions in an esoteric manner. If your going to start jumping out and sticking up your hand and everyone else's besides saying "oH Oh Oh that's me that's me" then fuck that. I'll keep my mouth shut. Why is that such an unbelievable taboo touchy raw nerve ? ..reminds me of Elen's misunderstanding when I said 'Evil overlord, and she thought I meant her, instead of Dr Blofeld here Penyulap ☏ 01:45, 18 Jan 2013 (UTC)

There have been MANY requests from many people to unblock me, 3rd party blocks are perfectly allowable. There is no requirement that I should like to be unblocked anymore than I should like to be blocked. It's immaterial to consensus, which is supposed to be what counts. No, you go have your arguments amongst yourselves, don't bring more horrendous claims to my talkpage, or try to sell the idea that I *AM* the consensus or I *AM* the policy or my word is the required law. Every Tom Dick and Harry fiddles with my block log. Go talk to the people who are trying to unblock me and stop avoiding the dispersed crowds. Try talking to THEM for once, rather than attacking me with bullshit accusations. Penyulap ☏ 01:56, 18 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Hi Penyulap - I hope you don't mind a comment here from me, but if I'm unwelcome just say so and I'll be gone. People (good people) are trying to reach out to you and help you. I have quite a bit of sympathy for your position and I think there's evidence (though I cannot see all of it) that you've had a raw deal and deserve an impartial investigation - and the denials of your talk page access have been shockingly inappropriate, in my opinion. But if you carry on responding this way to those who are trying to help you, I don't see any realistic chance of an unblock. Up front, I'm happy to disclose that I know WormTT in real life, but it's partly because of that that I know him to be a very fair and caring person, who will go further than almost anyone else I know on Wikipedia to help people (no, strike the "almost"), and I really would urge you to give him a chance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Not responsible for advice never given. Plenty of people see precisely what is going on, I myself am one of them, The few who do the dispersal want to say "Oh look, we are all sitting in a darkened picture theatre winking at Penyulap and at each other, why doesn't everyone know what we are doing ?" Then worm turns up and says "oh I'll help you by revealing to the public what we have been winking about all this time if you agree that it is all true, before we tell anyone what it is. The time for telling the public what I did was 172 days ago. The people to form a consensus with is the people who were trying to help with this long before you started with the pepper spray. I see the last attempts here and here are more esoteric, whimsically unspecific, and vague that I ever am, despite a clear enough request for clarification.

The consensus, the only consensus, that can ever be achieved is that nobody knows or cares what the hell the block was all about, someone asked them in email to block and bar the living crap out of me and they'll score brownie points by publicly going on record with falsehoods or empty words. No doubt any diffs are going to be POST BLOCK. 'Oh look Penyulap is one of the many people who doesn't just love the unjust block they got, time to ban and bury the truth ! kill kill kill kill kill'

Now the effort is to blame the 172 days of contempt for community enquiry on my wanting or not wanting an enquiry today Oh look, Penyulap isn't begging for an enquiry, I guess we can all ignore the last six months of attempts at clarification that the community has made. Yep, must be Penyulap's fault, lets ban!". This is so sad that you think it flies. People have been quite able to do enquiries all along the way, many have, many shall. Moreover, none required my say-so to do-so. Penyulap ☏ 03:02, 18 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Re "The time for telling the public what I did was 172 days ago". Yes, I agree that was the best time. But it didn't happen, that time no longer exists, and we can't go back to it. The only possible time we can move forward from is now. If you are saying that it is too late and that no redress is now possible (and if I am mistaken please correct me), then I disagree. I think we should never say never, and no matter when the ideal (and missed) opportunity was, I simply do not believe that there cannot be further possibilities now. Or to put it another way, what would *you* like to happen now? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as I can see, WormTT is not remotely trying to impose conditions anything like "...if you agree that it is all true". I see him offering to investigate what has happened with no preconceptions or preconditions. That's just how I see it, but I know him well enough to be confident in my understanding. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Pen, I can see how much you're hurting, frustrated, bitter, cynical, and all that stuff, and in your shoes I guess I would be as well. You've been through a lot of shite, only a proportion of which you brought on yourself (and probably not the major part of it, either). But do, please, try not to feel so harshly about Worm! I'm pretty sure that you and he had more of a real crossed-wires misunderstanding situation than anything else, at first, but something went badly wrong somewhere, and I'm sure that the real Worm doesn't deserve this amount of mistrust from you. It's almost as if you've kinda turned him into some kind of ogre, in your head, and he isn't, he really isn't! I've done this kind of thing (no, not here in WikiLand!) myself in the past, and been almost totally unable to deal with and communicate with someone (more than once, actually) who later turned out to be exactly the person I needed for the situation I was in. I can feel how you're feeling. But, despite the knots and snarls in the past, trust me, at least, and let Worm help us all out here.

I really feel for you; I understand that kind of almost-obsessive rage / distrust thing oh so well! Been there, done that, there are a couple of folks here in WikiLand that I certainly feel (at present) that I could never, ever trust again. But ... if they were actually to stretch out a hand to me and want to help out in a situation like this, I would give them a chance (even if the ulterior motive, which I would never admit to, was just to prove everyone wrong! Oh yes, I know that mental scenario oh so well, too!)

Please trust me. Let us help out (well, I say "us", but I mostly mean Worm and whoever else can chip in, as my Real Life situation is still taking priority over most stuff and occupying a lot of brain space and resources in emotion and resilience as well as time). I know of another person in here who had a real kinda personality clash with Worm, but now they both get on pretty darned well and appreciate each other's merits. Damned close to a good working friendship, now. It would be nice to see something like that here. Pesky (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You, and they, are getting way totally carried away with the idea that I care about the way they look. Same as the ISS article, if people want to go around looking like idiots who am I to argue with them ? seriously ? Worm wants to come on stage, make a dramatic entrance, bow to the crowds pretend he's some caped crusader here to save the day, and you want to clap and cheer your pretend hero. Fine whatever have a ball, enjoy yourselves, I don't care for your dramas. You ask my opinion I'll tell you, woop-de-doo. Actually, let me take that back and rephrase, woop-de-frikkin-do. I've drawn bigger better more dramatic characters in my art then thrown them away. the zilla mob have better thespian skills. The fact of the matter is not just the admin backed abuse that he is backing up in regards to the SPI and the edits to my userpage (Palz) that stand, TO THIS DAY UNCHALLENGED, the fact of the matter is this, and you forget. Other more sincere, dedicated and skilled people have been contesting this crap block for six months. What, they now decide after six months that I haven't just faded away as everyone is supposed to do that it's time for action ? I haven't accepted my lot as an illegal mexican immigrant in the US working in the hot sun picking some crops, maintaining some article cowering so nobody notices I'm some sock ? Fuck that. Go find someone else to pull that crap on. I'm not black, I'm not mexican, I'm not some illegal immigrant or sock or anything else you would prefer to write me off as. You can either use reason to communicate with me or fail, fear, threats, bullying, all that crap doesn't work. You're either right or you're wrong, and the sooner you explain yourself like adults and act like adults who can admit when they are wrong the sooner you'll stop looking the way you do. Wikipedia right now doesn't seem to have a spaceflight editor who can count past 8 to keep watch over the ISS article. You think I care ? go, look like idiots on your main page, and what, I'm supposed to argue with you ?

stop labouring under the idea that my life centres around small people. I don't give your little dramas anything of the attention you'd like to think I do. If people want to make the most ridiculous block, or ZOMG call for my murder, go ahead. You're the ones looking ridiculous, not me. If some crusader wants to fly right in like superman I'll be gracious enough to open the door on the other side of the house so he can fly right out without smacking into the wall, that's how generous I am. Richard has made enquiries, Bish has made enquiries, Jag has made an appeal. You seem to expect that I care either for someone trying to own an unblock (which is not the objective) or someone trying to engineer a ban ? Why ? Go off any play amongst yourselves. If you decide to stop looking foolish and act mature and admit imperfection ZOMG, good for you. Or try to find a reason for a ban that is not yet another monumental embarrassment for yourselves. Look, I'm sure you don't have to search a universe far far away for someone who cares, but WTF ask me ? what is wrong with talking to the people who have been talking for the last 6 months for a change. Penyulap ☏ 07:18, 18 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Cut the angst, really! "Go off any play amongst yourselves. If you decide to stop looking foolish and act mature and admit imperfection ZOMG, good for you. Or try to find a reason for a ban that is not yet another monumental embarrassment for yourselves." Just answer the damned questions, present the evidence, stop yelling at everyone, and try to move on. Take several chill pills. My arm's getting tired, holding my hand out like this. You tell me to go, I'll go. Pesky (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Here's how. Do it like that. Do it all. Make it clear (again). All in one place. Just do it. Pesky (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Competition for the spotlight is getting tough these days ! rather dramatic don't you think Pesky ? look, if one more person wants to look into my block, as I understand it, the place to start is with the blocking admin. Not with me. He can go and ask the blocking admin why I am blocked, same as everyone else. If he uploads a picture of himself wearing either a superman outfit or a T-shirt with a huge W painted on it, I may reconsider. Otherwise, it is immensely disrespectful to the many people who have put in so much effort to get the block examined. Penyulap ☏ 08:01, 18 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Jeeeeeeze! [Pesky spins, flaps, jumps up and down in frustration, etc. etc.] You don't need to start with the blocking admin! The blocking admin's consent is not required! It's common knowledge that the blocking admin is not always the best person to ask for an opinion – that's called human nature. That's how it is; loads of know that. All the smart ones. Pen [laugh, please laugh, laughter is good for you] ... I know that, underneath it all, you're actually a Shining Wit. But put the rage down for a while, because right this moment it would appear that you're almost going out of your way to come across as the opposite. Pesky (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Rage? I'm playing starcraft right now, I think youre antenna need adjustment. Penyulap ☏ 08:22, 18 Jan 2013 (UTC)

It's quite simple in my eyes Penyulap. If you are willing to accept the possibility that this situation is in some part your own doing, I am willing to put in the investigation to find out whether or not it actually is. I didn't make those blocks, I'm not fully appraised of the situation, I don't know what they are for. All I want to see from you is the hint that I'm not going to be putting in a lot of effort for naught. I'm not going to ask the blocking admin again, because that didn't work twice. That would fit Einstein's definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I'm not asking for us to be buddies afterwards, I'm not even asking for you to change your opinion of me. In any of the three outcomes, I didn't expect us to interact again. I'm not involved in a great cabal designed to keep you blocked. I'm not doing this as an Arbitrator (as Fluff suggests), I'm not doing this as an admin. I think performing in either of those roles given Penyulap's opinion of me would be poor judgement on my part as it would give an impression of impropriety, and there's enough of that as it is.
Finally, I will give you a reason why. This deadlock for 6 months is harming the encyclopedia. Bytes and bytes of discussion are being wasted because neither side will ever agree, unless something changes. Editors I give a damn about, who do good work, are wasting their time on this situation. They sit on both sides. I want this deadlock to end. If that means I have to do a bit of work, so be it. Worm^TT(talk) 08:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Bit busy here at the moment, wiping out a Zerg base, I wish I had time to assist. Have you tried applying to the P.O.C. ? they might be able to help. Penyulap ☏ 09:03, 18 Jan 2013 (UTC)

a note on the end of wikipedia

The single-minded belligerent pursuit of a few small minded admins never under any circumstances admitting they are wrong, is what is bringing this place to a plummeting closure.

Consider the very first cab off the rank when you google sociopath here you go see any pattern ? quote from the page "Think you can spot one? Think again."

Another link from the first page of results says www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html here] " Sociopaths never apologize. They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack."

The disturbing thing here is, that they are moving towards diverting funds from donations to indemnifying themselves legally. They are suggesting ever more frequently that they want the WMF to divert funding to hire professionals to defend their could-easily-become criminal actions, without any suggestion anywhere that any funding to hire professionals should include professionals to screen for sociopaths and people who can become dangerous without the communities attention. You won't know about it, because it's under all circumstances removed from wikipedia. That's policy. No community oversight, and sociopaths policing themselves just doesn't work. So is it morally correct to work for free so the WMF can sell your work and fund the defense of the next batch of suicides ? is that the plan here ?

I got such a shock the other day, when I went to see just how large the wikipedia database really is. For all it's hype and pomp, the pages about size of wikipedia don't give the Gigabyte figure. I laughed at the hype when I found that it fits on a $80 hard disk drive, the size that many people throw in the garbage. This rapidly failing experiment is plummeting into oblivion because of the pervasive dedication to one sided thought, immature models of management alien to the rest of the internet, and steadily growing poor reputation in the academic and internet community. It's begging to be replaced and they know it. Like a little kid standing in front of a hiding place when you want to search their room, my own little website which has maybe half a dozen pages and half a dozen users drew the attention behind the scenes at commons, where they cut the feed for images ! I haven't even absorbed programming at all yet, and the foundation appears paranoid about the threat of a replacement however unlikely it is to succeed. Today six pages, tomorrow 15 million and counting. Good work Pinky.

What is the one and only thing I can bring a six page project that makes it a credible threat to with wikipedia project ? I wonder. Penyulap ☏ 00:33, 18 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap,

Please take it easy, like Dr. Who witnessing the exploding sun in billion years or so.

I have had intense disagreements with both WTT/David and with Bishonen, but each is honest. If either makes a mistake, then the mistake was hard to resist, and others have made the mistake first and more severely! ;) I cannot say the same about many administrators!

Try just to focus on providing evidence to WTT, and avoid any more negativism, which isn't good for anybody or for your speedy return to editing. (Pesky asked me to look in.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Quoting myself:

Worm has demonstrated [an] ability to be blind or see things as he pleases. Good at threats while even today still hasn't taken action where 'evidence' is clear. Penyulap ☏ 21:27, 18 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Deal with WTT and others where they are, not where you want them to be.

Try to entertain the hypothesis that WTT would like to help you. Can you make sense of his comments in that light, a bit better? Maybe he needs to justify your being brought back to others, and needs to be seen as fair. You are not helping him or yourself.

If Wikipedia really is evil, then just quit. It's not worth it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Screw that, if you don't like it, you quit. This is not the first time he has been here begging for my help, and his motives are always absolutely appalling. At the moment I think the offer is "I'll be very happy to beat you senseless and ban you if you don't help me look like some kind of hero" But just to sum up:

• The person who makes the block is supposed to have some kind of esoteric vague idea about what the fuck they are doing playing with the admin tools for. So hey, here is a thought, go ask them.
• If there is no impending imminent damage and DOOM, that's right DOOOOOOOOM about to befall the project, then what, you leave the block in place ? is that what the policy says ? well ok, I'm cool with that.
• Numerous people have made earnest attempts at dialogue and unblocking. He can go on deliberately ignoring them forevermore and there is nothing we can do about it. I personally think he is unable to see the 'little people' from where he hovers above the unwashed masses, but am happy to be corrected on that one. Penyulap ☏ 01:37, 19 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Pen, Worm's offering his help, not begging for yours. Regardless of any past interactions, he's offering his help. So am I, and Montana, and Bish. We all (hopefully including you) just want to get this sorted out. The hardest bit, at the moment, seems to be just finding out what the block was for. Once we have that, we might be able to get somewhere. Pesky (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Appeal to the POC

I wish to submit myself to the authority of the Penyulap Ombudsman Commission. Despite not apparently having done anything in particular, I feel that it is appropriate for the POC to initiate a series of increasingly incomprehensible blocks on the basis that I have confused some of my fellow editors, and confusion makes them angry. In accordance with the principles of the POC, I will then grovel prostrate on the floor, repent of all my unspecified sins and beg forgiveness in a suitably dignified manner. Following a thorough hearing of at least 0.006 miliseconds, if the Marsupial Magistrates are appeased by my acts of contrition, I hope to be allowed to trundle around with training wheels and a permanent minder five paces behind me, during day light hours only and wearing a dunces cap. I can haz unblock? Thom2002 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

See Pen? You have many friends here. Let Bish and Worm do some digging. Can't hurt, can't make anything worse, and it might help. Montanabw^(talk) 19:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

All appeals to the POC must be by email, see the collapsible box at the top of the page, Penyulap ☏ 22:29, 18 Jan 2013 (UTC)

The Man of Faith

A Man of Faith was in his lonely house, on a hilltop, with flood waters rising around him. His phone was cut off, and his mobile had no signal (because the mast was destroyed in the flood). As he looked out of his ground-floor windows, a huge boat came floating along. It had been painted with big purple and yellow flowers, right down to the water line. The man at the helm (who had dreadlocks) called out: "Hi! I'm Noah's grandson, here to pick you up!" The Man of Faith took a good look, and didn't like what he saw. "It's OK, thanks!" he replied. "I have faith that my God will save me!" The helmsman sighed, and steered away.

The Man of Faith felt the water rising around his legs, and climbed to his upper floor. A little while later, he heard the sound of a motor. A flying blue car appears, driven by a red-haired girl. The Man of Faith kinda recognises the car … but it's not supposed to be driven by a red-haired girl, and it looks very battered. Before the girl can call to him, he says: "No thanks! I'm a Man of Faith - my God will save me!" The girl sighs, and drives away.

The waters carry on rising, and the Man of Faith climbs up onto his roof. He watches the waters lapping around the house's walls. A jingling sound attracts his attention, and he turns around just in time to see a fat man in a green outfit, sitting in a huge sleigh, landing on the roof. "Sorry about the smell," the fat man calls, "but it's not the reindeer's normal working day, and they haven't had a bath! Oh, and by the way, the normal suit is in the wash, and Mrs Christmas has to move the buttons over. Again." The Man of Faith scratches his head. This looks all wrong. And then there's the smell … "Ummmm," he says, trying to think of a tactful way to put it. "Look, thanks and all that, but … I'm a Man of Faith. My God will save me! I'm sure there's some folks over the other side of the mountain who need you more." The fat man shrugs, picks up the reins, and flies off in his sleigh.

The waters carry on rising, and the Man of Faith climbs up his chimney. He hugs himself with his arms, and tries to draw his feet up out of the rising waters. In the distance he notices something pink flying towards him. It gets closer, and he can see that it's a flying horse. A pink flying horse. The horse hovers gracefully above him, looking a little embarrassed. "Umm it's me," it says. "Pegasus. Here to save you." The Man of Faith says "No, you're not Pegasus. Pegasus is white." Pegasus grins sheepishly. "Well …. you know those days when you forget to take the red sock out of the tub?" The Man of Faith replies: "But I'm a Man of Faith; my God will save me," and sends Pegasus off.

The waters continue to rise, and eventually the Man of Faith drowns and finds himself facing an angel with a clipboard. "What the f%$*!" he says. "I'm a man of faith, total faith! Why didn't God save me?" The angel looks across at him, and shrugs. "Fuxaix, man," the angel says. "He sent you the Ark, Harry Potter's daughter in the Weasleys' flying car, Father Christmas's sleigh, and Pegasus, one after the other! What exactly were you waiting for?" Pesky (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, and then the guy from mythbusters came along and busted your reality and replaced it with their own.

Ah f*** I can't be bothered to make the whole, long, sorry list of people who have tried to get a valid reason for the block, or appeal it, but you get the picture, they all tried to stop these people looking stupid in the eyes of the public and every single opportunity they wasted in the last six months. So now, they look stupid and are asking me why I don't save them from looking that way ? well, I can't say that people haven't tried, they have tried, lots of them. Oh, how they have tried. Tried and tried again to get some iota of sense out of these people. Penyulap ☏ 07:24, 18 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Work with us; with Worm. Give him the list; think of everything you can that went wrong, who was involved, who turned out to be socks, who turned out to be trolls, and all the rest. He's astute enough to be able to call for a quiet CU as and where needed; granted, some addies will have gone stale, but you never know where the socks have ended up now! I think Worm's capable enough to uncover even a high-level, mega-influence sockmaster if there's one lurking in there (and, just for the record, I know you do have a "nose" for socks.l Cheesy ones, the sort that stick to the wall if you throw them ....). He can check up on various people to see what else they've been involved with since The Troubles. He's good. Sorry if he's pink ... but he still has wings. Really. Go for it. Do it. I can't do more for you than just trying to steer you towards a way forwards. Pesky (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Take a rest and stop worrying about me Pesky, you have enough to worry over. I have nothing whatsoever to be concerned over, and I have no need whatsoever to do ANYTHING, ANYTHING at all, running about making some show to put on for the crowds any more than give some admin a handjob when they say 'oh tell me this this and this and love me longtime if you want to get unblocked' I wrote the article. They've had ample chances. I'm not sure I could save the project from it's own stupidity right now, some mistakes are built to last. Penyulap ☏ 07:51, 18 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Pen, let me put it this way: Yes, there are some serious whackjob admins out there, many of us have tangled with them, and there are also some real wonderful people out there who just have the occasional bad day. And there are people who are actually trying to help. It isn't always easy to tell them apart when you are in the headspace you appear to be in. So take a leap of faith here and just tell folks it's OK for them to look into matters. The universe shall then unfold as it will. Montanabw^(talk) 19:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I see clearly and my view hasn't exactly changed in six months, it's become clearer if anything. The contempt for consensus that has been shown for six months and the contempt for the editors who have taken time to look into the problem and make appeals is not acceptable. The attitude that those people should be ignored as if they were second class citizens is untenable. Penyulap ☏ 21:31, 18 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum, Pen. Let them take a whack at it, no matter what their motives are. I know there are some admins out there where I agree with you that working with them is just taking their bait, but you know Bish isn't one of them. I personally don't think Worm is, either, but we can peacefully disagree there if you wish. A lot of us would like to see you editing again, and if nothing else, the things that are running many other good editors off need to be given the WP:ROPE to provide the evidence needed for those of us who are trying to make things better. I'm amongst the dreamers, perhaps, but I'd like to see things improve. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Malleus is still editing (as of two or three days ago), so I don't see anyone being "run off". Penyulap is smart enough to have seen the most recent round of arbcom leaks, so would know very well that previous Malleus "retirements" have not exactly been what they were billed as. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw, I prefer running a competition for guessing what the block is for, with prizes for the most imaginative entries. If the morons can't work out why it was placed there, and the admins want to play 'guess what the block is for', then hey, Let's get some of that action. Let's all guess what the block is for. The most recent block was my Kidney, blocked by Elen, for buying NEW SOCKS at the supermarket. I can't recall, but I think the one before that was also Elen, blocking me for editing commons, where she has no sysop bit, for uploading poetry using a pseudonym, which is perfectly legitimate and welcome on commons. So hey, let's all guess what this current one is ok ? should it be an open or closed book exam ?

I haven't seen any leaks, what is not in front of me I don't care about. If you want to send me something be my guest, and stop accusing me of being smart, that's a clear personal attack ;) Penyulap ☏ 01:03, 19 Jan 2013 (UTC)

I've totally lost track of the various blocks and so on, what they're supposed to be for, and everything else. Let Worm do the research, we'll end up with a decent analysis of the block log, be able to do something about the shitty stuff I expect, and attempt to find out what the current block is actually for and then move forwards from there. We have to start somewhere, or we'll never be able to move. I don't see you finding any winners for working out what the current block is for, lol! And I can quite see that it's a bit darned difficult to address any issues if nobody can even tell you what they allegedly were. Like having an exam paper that just says "Question 1" and expects an answer without actually letting you know what the question is ;P Pesky (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Block - clarification required

TPS and so on, in order to be able to move forwards from this stalemate we (and Pen) need some real clarification on what the current indef block is actually for. No answers can be given until the question is clear.

So, please, pretty please, can someone lay out, clearly, with diffs, precisely what the current block is for, so that we can at least make some attempt to address the situation as it is, as of today. It should be clear that any unblock request which relies on an editor addressing (or at least discussing) the "issues involved in the block" cannot be done unless those issues are quite clear. At this stage (170+ days on) , it seems that nobody knows exactly what it is that needs to be addressed.

No progress can be made without this vital input. Pesky (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Was it this one? If so, it seems to have been done on the basis that Pen needed to take a break for a while, as health and stress issues were getting on top of him. Is that it? What exactly needs to happen now? The stuff which led up to that burnout is now old history. Pesky (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What a dogs breakfast. That contains a s*load of comments from the precise person I brought the SPI against, which means I can't discuss it, from the on-wiki comments alone, it's obvious why people don't want to investigate spaceflight-related socks, despite any moron being ABLE to spot it, if they were allowed to, or cared to. Basically any random passer-by could see the whole freaking thing. Putting my list of incredibly unusual blocks and blah blah blah what's the use. You just get blocked in the ass for making a complaint. Worm is the one who outright threatened me on my own talkpage not to say a word about obvious socks, and Courcelles is the one who blocked me for making a complaint to the ombudsman. You just get blocked in the ass for making any legitimate complaint about certain people. Penyulap ☏ 12:52, 19 Jan 2013 (UTC)

I did notice the comments from others ;P However, not everyone can put everything together as well as you would be able to, so get cracking with history, diffs, which of the other commenters have since been blocked / banned / TBanned, etc. I think you may possibly have misconstrued Worm's post about not commenting on socks, though I'm not sure (and please don;t pick me up on it - I'm quite happy to be wrong!) User:Mir Almaat 1 S1 (the one whose edits were primarily to your talk page, yes, that one ...) seems to have a rather odd contribs history. Stopped contributing 29 September, started again ... ... ... today. Maybe he will noticed that this has been noticed, but any input on this situation from Mir is going to look mighty suspicious if he's only started up again precisely because this situation may possibly be able to be resolved. I'm more than sure that Worm is astute enough to pick up on this if anything comes of it. It does, however, mean that Mir's current IP addy is no longer "stale" ;P Pesky (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding: Everybody (at least all those with some sense) will now be looking at the Mir account, and (bearing in mind what was pretty clear before) will probably be coming to the conclusion that it's more than likely you were absolutely right. An editor who posts more to your talk than anywhere else, disappears totally within a short time after you're indeffed, and then magically reappears and starts contributing again as soon as it appears we may be making some progress, isn't making themselves look very good. Of course, it may be pure coincidence. You know what I'm like with the think nicely thing. I don't think this is coincidence – and some folks may sit up and take a little more notice. As Jehochman once said: "We have some master baiters in here ...". ;P Pesky (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I've dropped a heads-up to this on Worm's talk page; it's not proof conclusive that Mir was gradually (and intentionally) baiting you to drive you round the bend and cause trouble, it's strong circumstantial evidence of same ... (and yes, even though everyone says we should never rise to the bait, all the intelligent of us also realise that a concerted campaign to make an editor "lose it" is definitely mitigating circumstances). It all helps the rest of us see a little more clearly into what you were seeing, and telling us about, months ago. At least we can see him now. And CU's have a nice fresh-smelling IP addy to sniff at. Who knows what may turn up? Pesky (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Artist's impression of The Block

The Block is believed to look something like this:

No-one knows what The Block is for, but it is believed to be some kind of tool used by, the "Lords of the Galaxy" — omniscient, immortal, and capable of travelling at great speeds. This encourages less intelligent beings to develop, providing that they can acknowledge their own short-comings for the satisfaction of others.

Oh my God, it's full of shit

— Keir Dullwit, wackypedia, a spaced oddity

Thom2002 (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

:) Penyulap ☏ 00:07, 23 Jan 2013 (UTC)

another impression of the block Penyulap ☏ 18:10, 23 Mar 2013 (UTC)

Sweet dream

This one is for Little olive oil, but I haven't finished it I figure. There is a lot I could do besides remember to put the name in. I think I'll add extra chocolates into the spaces and maybe change the shape too, if it keeps my interest long enough. Penyulap ☏ 00:07, 23 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. I don't have a good reputation when it comes to leaving chocolate alone. Thank you Penyulap. What a tasty and amazing barnstar. Maybe if I hide it on my user page I won't be temped to eat it.(olive (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC))

Hehehe it might need higher security than gold. People aren't as tempted by gold compared to chocolate, which reminds me I have to go and get some chocolate. It's very hard to chocolate when you're talking about chocolate, it melts your concentration. Then you can't concernlate on what you're trying to do. Penyulap ☏ 22:05, 23 Jan 2013 (UTC)

For some reason I didn't see this message until now. :O( I've never let a lack of concentration get in the way of eating chocolate. We have to have our priorities straight, after all.(olive (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC))

Oooh, I always feel bad to catch myself eating chocolate without noticing, because it means getting all of the bad with none of the good. I do often eat dessert first, like it is often recommended in cartoons and such, because you never know. what will happen. Penyulap ☏ 02:59, 20 Mar 2013 (UTC)

Breaking news

In May 2012, for the first time ever in Wikipedia history, the article count went negative all thanks to me (moi) and my 8,250+ articles deleted... Penyulap, sorry I couldn't reply to your email, I don't know if it came to you, but I wanted to speak to you on here. I want to thank you so much for that award, it's an honour and it is the best award I ever had on here. I am off college with bronchitis so I can be on here any time, if you need me... ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

For what its worth I thought the decision was stupid and is pretty typical behavior of the user who suggested they be deleted. Its just an example of laziness. I think its also pretty stupid since all you have to do to find unreferenced and much more poorly written articles is hit the Random article link a couple times. Kumioko (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The link goes to a link that is wrong, I think the second degree link should be pointing here.

Personally it's not the mistake or whether the articles were right or wrong that matters. In aircraft investigation the kind of people who don't openly and honestly admit and talk about everything that happened end up killing hundreds more. People who can say so, and visibly learn from their mistakes are the only people who can be trusted. Companies that seek to cover-up are the most dangerous, like wikipedia and bullying.

The moment of my arrival on wikipedia is probably after it's demise really. I had been looking at the recent changes log a bit lately and have seen that there are pretty much no dark green contributors anymore, the overwhelming majority of edits are f-off edits. Telling everyone to F off basically. That's the sum total of the majority of edits here. reverts, don't do that templates, twinkling, and so on. Zero advice and helpful comments, at least I couldn't see any.

I like being ignorant, and telling people how ignorant I am, just yesterday I was saying how much of a clueless noob I am, trying to work out how to get a python script to create a sql database. I installed sql database software on my computer and had no clue whatsoever how to talk to it, and didn't mind telling anyone who'd listen :D

I find the best way to suck in massive amounts of information into your skull is to work up a good solid vacuum first :) Like with my drawings you guys can see, I knew nothing of drawing when I started, now, I'm not too bad. If I went to a party where there were animators, I could even tell jokes like pointing at their face and saying 'Look! a triangle' or 'you have excellent topography' which no non-animator would laugh at. :) I think it is cool to learn new skills, and I figure it will be cool to make a project much larger than wikipedia where people can't interact on the base level they do here. It's so easy to do too. I see sites like deviantart where there is none of the nasty stuff going on. I haven't signed up there and experienced it, maybe I will study it too, but I know what makes this place broken and how to fix it but there seems little point to it. I think it is easier to work out all these tables and iterations and cursors and queries and so on, names that are already becoming familiar and it's only been a few hours learning so far. I figure it's easier to describe a new website by drawing it the same way as I can draw up anything visual as a description of the item.

I think it will be better and really choice to be able to say 'I think wikipedia should be like this' and point to the website, rather than just dream. Of course, I will not even need to point to the website, as I make no difference at all to the equation. The site itself will be designed to attract, and will do so, even if I turn around and bad-mouth it all the way :D so typically my sense of humour too.

I'm glad you like the award, I'm going to put it in again at the top of the section cause it makes me laugh just to look at it. I think it's hilarious really. Half the awards I make, I'd make them just to amuse myself even if nobody else liked them. Penyulap ☏ 00:07, 23 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Kumi, I agree with you, although in my new website (as soon as I can draw it) there won't be any articles for deletion, I'll delete it :D

The system will be a quality scale, the likes of which this place has never seen. The ISS article won't go to FA again for many years if ever, because they'd be able to delete a lot I have written, but find that there is a lot that I have written they'd have to choke on to get it through FA. FA itself is horrendous, because it is used as a mace to beat the newbies with, once it is FA, all discussion based on content stops and all queries are met with 'we can't change that(/update that/fix that) because it's FA'. It's the mantra of the morons. Although to write a FA is the simplest easiest thing in the whole wide world.

I shall replace it with a workable system.... on my website, and I'll design it in a way that people here would never agree to implement too :) I have a knack for weaving dynamics. Penyulap ☏ 00:28, 23 Jan 2013 (UTC)

If wikipedia is a dead loss, what else is there for a genius to do ?

Maybe Thomas Moore can edit

I think new horizons need to be looked at for finding new editors, surely we can dig something up to resurrect the falling number of editors. Penyulap ☏ 09:01, 24 Jan 2013 (UTC)

Your bot in the German Wikipedia

Please stop your bot de:User:PALZ9000 in the German Wikipedia. It does not own a bot flag there. Thanks. --TMg 19:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

already done, and commented in the forum. It's not in use there. Penyulap ☏ 19:57, 11 Feb 2013 (UTC)

Ombudsman Commission notice

Penyulap, how are you? I thought you might be interested in the notice at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Community consultation: Remit of the Ombudsman Commission. Best regards. 64.40.54.79 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Lolz, so they are too busy spending wikipedia donations on airline tickets to attend conferences on why their own commission doesn't work to actually do the work. That explains a lot. Like I should care, en.wiki is a joke. Penyulap ☏ 07:58, 26 Feb 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

For MontanaBW, for all the horsing around.

or editing really, don't think I haven't noticed your brilliant editing. It's been so in my face for a year or so, but it took me a while to get around to making a suitable award. Hope you like it. Penyulap ☏ 22:13, 18 Mar 2013 (UTC)

EXCELLENT! And wonderful pun! Montanabw^(talk) 03:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Two smiles at least, who is it that speaks like that ? 'oh betty the cat's done a whoopsie in my beret ?' they'd say Penny that way. The country-club way. I had both in my mind at the time. :)

I should brush it up too, cause their is a tiny error I didn't catch. (maybe you can suggest your favourite colours or some other small changes if you like) Penyulap ☏ 04:09, 19 Mar 2013 (UTC)

Most merry-go-round horses are of different colors, I think a bay, a gray, a chestnut (you already have that) and a palomino might be nice! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 14:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

argh! you tie me in a knot. I can do the little video that goes with it in a rainbow of colours with ease, and that is a trifle. The smaller version gif can have any colour horses so long as the horses are all the same, so all tails or all heads or all diamonds is ok, but each one different means that it would exceed the capabilities of the server to hold and display. It is trickery now, because it is an illusion where each horse stops and returns to the start as soon as the next horse is up to almost the starting point. This gives the seamless impression that each horse travels round the carousel forever, although they only travel through almost 72 degrees of the carousel before snapping back to their starting place, so quickly that you don't even notice. Penyulap ☏ 02:59, 20 Mar 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps simply make each horse white, and have rotating coloured spot-lights in the carousel? Rich Farmbrough, 12:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

All white is easy, I'll have to think of the math to make the spots work as suggested. I look at a bay horse but it doesn't seem so much a colour than as if a horse walked through paint up to it's knees, is it like that ? Penyulap ☏ 12:54, 20 Mar 2013 (UTC)

No, a bay is a reddish horse with point coloration, most noticeably a black mane and tail. White markings are irrelevant, any color horse can have white markings. Legs, if no white markings are present, are black. (See lead image of article) But all white with pretty colored lights would be cool also! Montanabw^(talk) 18:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is awesome. I had no idea you had such talent. I only found this because I was looking at the Tabasco sauce SVG on Commons and saw that that was your work as well. Hope you're doing OK these days. —Soap— 23:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The new carousel has passed animal testing.

Why thank you ! I'm glad it pleases you. :)

There should be a Tabasco Fiasco really, the image is PD so who cares, but I fixed up the image upon the request from Canoe1967 who had an urgent request from the company. Someone who is into deleting doubles killed the first image already, so I'll never know who did it. Someone who can see the original can fix it I guess, if it matters at all, but it should be a tasty mess I've gotten myself into. Ah yes, I recall the malaise with the bolognese, the truffle kerfuffle, the coup with the roo and much ado about the stew with a waiver on the flavou... oh I'll stop there I think. Penyulap ☏ 06:14, 22 Mar 2013 (UTC)

Block

Hi Penyulap, why are you blocked here? Lotje (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

hehe...that is something many people have been unable to find since 238 days! TheStrikeΣagle 16:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well each of the few people doing it have different reasons, but from the on en.wiki comments alone, it's easy to see that I'm good at spotting sockpuppets, so naturally people who think the world revolves around them would think I have some interest in their misdeeds, whereas it's closer to the truth to say I don't think of such people at all.

It's pure speculation as to why that would be a problem, but I note that the average run of the mill request for adminship has a few dozen voters, but the secret ballot for arbs attracts about 600 votes or so(or is it more?). It is widely advertised though, as to why it's secret is anyone's guess, or you know, not. Of course these things are not connected and out of 600 voters we can be sure there are zero socks (or not) still, that would explain a sh*tload of the block antics.

Or it could just be a whimsical contempt for consensus, or people want to gain favour with the 'me too' groupthink, who knows, who cares. My work spreads virally, like file:pengreen.gif to the last thing I uploaded today, something to help people learn about the natural world and watch pornography at the same time which is what wikipedia is all about, so it's not as if I can up and disappear like a fart in the wind. Though when I see what it has done to other people who have seen what was done to me, and the damage THAT causes those people, I am saddened. Looking at this this and Pesky's last edit especially, and many more, it all makes my heart break because these are such good people.

Then, there are a lot of 'owners' of the block, everyone wants a veto, claiming it's an arbcom block, a checkuser block, an ausc or however you spell it block, it all boils down to exactly the same thing. contempt for consensus and contempt for what used to be policy. Plenty of people have done what is perfectly allowable according to a big discussion on one of the blocking policy pages, and that is to make a 3rd party request for unblocking, those discussions are quickly quenched by the 'mob' that hang out on the drama boards.

So, there is nothing left to do except for en.wiki to look pretty stupid really. Not just with my block, but with that whole picture of the day thing. There is nobody left caring for the ISS page that knows the difference between a space station module and a space ship, and an incorrectly captioned image that was left on the ISS talkpage for a long time went onto the main page of wikipedia. 20,000 people clicked through to the article after reading the caption.

It's pretty much what any model of mob rule would show towards the end, a system that can be so easily manipulated is attractive to certain kinds of people, and those people don't create an attractive environment to work in, so the project has been in decline since 2006-7 and now, well, it's like those boxes full of 7 year old encyclopaedias you used to see at garage sales for next to nothing, sure the spaces and punctuation are robotically freshened daily and some churn goes on where people run the gauntlet and manage to make an improvement despite all opposition, but the ISS article for example has 3 or 4 dozen things wrong with it already, it is so totally out of date, lots of articles are. Whatever, I'm more interested in starting a new set of websites than putting so much effort into fighting the people trying to stop me improving this one. Penyulap ☏ 17:27, 26 Mar 2013 (UTC)

It's the old, old story: Boy meets Hypocrisy; Boy falls in love with Hypocrisy. Boy exposes Hypocrisy for being Hypocritical; Hypocrisy bans Boy. Hypocrisy challenges Boy as to what he is going to do to improve the project; Boy baulks at obviously loaded challenge. Boy's friends depart hypocrisy more in sadness than anger; Hypocrisy gets a bit precious and circles the wagons. Thom2002 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

and people find my ranting hard to understand :D no, but seriously you're talking to like 5% of the audience here I think. Still, that's probably double what my tldr yapping gets. I am SO jealous of Bish's getting that Ostrich userbox on her userpage. hmph. Penyulap ☏ 22:17, 26 Mar 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand what you are saying, however I think you over-estimate the hypocrisy. It's just a few small minded people and a few who use this place as therapy. A simple screening process by professional psychiatrists would weed the problem out, but it's not like anyone is going to speak openly about that at the wmf. On the whole, the people who have wanted to help in the past, and continue to arrive and leave, are just fine. So the project grinds to a halt. I think the worst part is it poisons most Internet users against the concept of an open encyclopaedia in general. I'll have to completely revamp the format to bring them back (onto a non-wmf site) but I'm having too much fun drawing at the moment. (I haven't uploaded the works that are inspiring me the most at the moment) Penyulap ☏ 11:41, 28 Mar 2013 (UTC) 11:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap is blocked today for the same reason why User:Likebox, User:JanDeFietser, User:Cla68, etc. are blocked today. Count Iblis (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your friend's behaviour

Regarding User talk:Eddaido#Speed Six: I came here to ask you to instruct your friend on the guidelines WP:OR, WP:DE, and WP:CIVIL, but it seems as if you are having your own trouble with the system.

I am indeed sorry that you have been blocked. I can think of at least one user who deserves it a lot more than you do.

However, if you can communicate with him, could you please try to convince him to abide by the guidelines? If this is not possible, could you please try to convince him to leave before he exceeds the tolerance of the system?

I thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am glad you ask my help and I'm glad to see you again, I always had wished I could have helped more before to make things easier, so I'm glad to work with both of you again ! Writegeist sure looks like a fun person to chat with by the looks of their userpage :D so I look forward to that. The image talkpage is here and I've started off the chat by asking for more information. Would you be so kind as to invite the Eddaido and Writegeist to join the conversation there, and please stop by yourself! The link code to the talkpage is '''[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Bentley_Speed_Six.JPG here]'''

I look forward to helping if I can. Penyulap ☏ 07:21, 27 Mar 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I have informed both of them and I will now let it work. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't work by itself :) you'll need to have your say of you won't be heard ! Please, I invite you to give your views on that page. Penyulap ☏ 13:48, 27 Mar 2013 (UTC) 13:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Y all finished, all good. Penyulap ☏ 15:02, 3 Apr 2013 (UTC)