User talk:Starship.paint/Archive 18

June 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Cross-wiki harassment of WMF staffers after being warned on the inappropriateness of similar actions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  TonyBallioni (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• The reason talk page access has been revoked is that all of your inappropriate actions that led to this have been on user talk pages. Even if someone’s identity is known, linking to their personal (not work) social media accounts out of a fake concern about impersonation is not okay. You were warned by Nick and stwalkerster recently based off of similar inappropriate questions aimed at BU Rob13. This is a heated time, but you are crossing lines into private lives way too frequently. If you wish to appeal, you should do so via WP:UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

UTRS appeal #25751 was submitted on Jun 28, 2019 14:18:56. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Simple but possibly unfair option: Starship.paint, if you email me and assure me that you'll not ever again mention those users' twitter accounts, I'll unblock you without having to go thru the UTRS crapshoot. There are many other people who are continuing down that particular rabbit hole from here. I don't necessarily agree with the block, and if you feel you should be able to continue pursuing that particular line, I don't think you necessarily are morally obligated to drop it. But then UTRS is probably your only option. I'm too weary to argue about this right now; maybe after another cup of coffee I'll find my backbone again and at least restore your talk page access. To the extent that I and others egged you on last night, I'm sorry. There is one person here, at least, who does not believe you were pretending to be concerned about impersonation, but just misguided. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Floquenbeam, I object to you unblocking on those terms. Please let an admin who isn’t involved in the FRAM drama review. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

An admin who isn’t involved in the FRAM drama...an increasingly rare beast! ——SerialNumber54129 14:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I'm uninvolved, and silently watching FYI.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• • • If you object to unblocking on those terms, then you've been dishonest in the purpose of the block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict × 3) Floquenbeam, I also object to the unblock you propose. This is the second time in quick succession that this user has demonstrated a remarkable lack of judgement in the questions they have asked of people, and I for one would like to see a definitive understanding from the user why those questions are inappropriate more generally, and an agreement not to ask those sort of questions again, regardless of the subject or specific question asked. Simply asking them to not post the twitter accounts again does not show they have the understanding of the reasons for the block, and makes me think we'll be here again tomorrow with yet another inappropriate or plain dangerous question. Not to mention that the unblock you propose would be "behind closed doors" preventing other admins from reviewing it. stwalkerster (sock | talk) 15:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Blocks and unblocks behind closed doors is the new normal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Basically what Slatersteven said below. The wording of what you just said only encourages harassment of other users, and the wording of your comment here seems to me that you think it’d be fine for him to continue that in different ways. I respect you a lot Floq, but I also don’t think that you can act neutrally with anything related to the WMF at this point, which is why I prefer you not be the person to review this, and I think that’s a fair request. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
        • I don't believe you are uninvolved either; that didn't stop you from making a draconian block. I am just so demoralized and disillusioned; I give up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• I support an unblock on Floq's terms. And please restore TPA. Grossly overzealous tool-usage, this is. There are scores of users including admins and ex-arbs, who did all of the same stuff (in near-entirety) but have escaped Tony's watchful eyes. ∯WBG^converse 15:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe it is me, but if the issue is outing should it not be rather more then just promising not to out those two users again, but rather an agreement not to do this to any of user (board member or not)? Should it not be "you'll not ever again mention any users' twitter accounts"?Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  How could they be outed if they are WMF employees using their real names? - MrX 🖋 15:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Lets put it like this, if they were publicly acknowledged accounts why did he need to ask for confirmation?Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Unblock already, based on Floquenbeam' first statement and Starship's latest. ——SerialNumber54129 15:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• DuncanHill has expressed it well, almost quoting from the man himself, in fact: There is no way for volunteers to communicate with WMF or its staff. Unresponsive on-wiki, blockworthy off. ——SerialNumber54129 15:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• I am reviewing this. Please give me 3 hours to review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to say, an indef seems extreme, this is all related to once incident ("mymategotbannedgate"), and does not appear to be part of a long term pattern. The Block should be reduced.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Indefinite does not mean infinite. I agree that an infinite block is excessive, but an indefinite block until the problem is understood and agreed not to be repeated I don't think is anywhere near excessive. I do regret that so many have seemingly "gotten away" with incivil behaviour and harassment, especially in recent events. stwalkerster (sock | talk) 15:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but we do have a rising series of blocks, its just seemed odd to leap straight to the highest form of temporary block.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

For harassment blocks, the reasoning is that the conduct is severe enough that a discussion needs to take place before editing can be allowed again. Only an indefinite block can do that, and they’d already been warned for inappropriate questions. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

OK fair enough.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Slatersteven - you wrote, “mymategotbannedgate”, but Fram is not my mate. I hardly knew anything of Fram, only their name before this debacle. starship.paint (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not say he was, its joke reference to the controversy like Sanframfanbansfram.Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Starship.paint comment

(Starship.paint asked me to post this here. It doesn't contain any rude words or question the dominance of the WMF, so I assume it's OK to post it in spite of the revocation of talk page access. It's unsigned but sent to me thru WP email interface, so I know it's him. --Floquenbeam (talk))

Floq, if you can, please post this on my talk page.

I thank you, but I don't want you to take unilateral action.

I don't want your actions to be questioned.

I will not give assurance in exchange for an unblock - but, I may give such an assurance independently, if someone explains what went wrong and how I harassed people who have already openly said they are from Wikimedia.

I will take the honourable route, if that is UTRS, so be it.

I believe I am someone who is willing to improve and learn from mistakes. I am also willing to apologise over them. If you read the saga on BU Rob13's talk page, you can see that I struck my comments even though I did not fully understand what my opponents were saying, out of respect for their experience. After I understood with their further explanations, I apologised to Rob.

The project can judge the sum of my contributions, my 32,000 edits, my featured articles, my good articles, my DYKs, my created articles, my barnstars, my clean block log before today, my lack of interaction bans, topic bans, my lack of sanctions at AE, ANI and ArbCom. If this isn't enough to demonstrate I'm here in good faith, I will sadly depart.

Yes, this was me above. starship.paint (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• @SP: re: how I harassed people who have already openly said they are from Wikimedia, FWIW I was also once confused about this exact thing, but I think it was Oshwah who explained to me that there is a difference between a Twitter account posting its Wikipedia account on Twitter (or saying they are a Wikimedian), and a Wikipedia account posting its Twitter account on-wiki. In the latter case, we know it's the editor who is making the disclosure; in the former case, we don't know if it's the editor or an imposter. So to protect privacy (and avoid Streisanding imposters, even if it's the same username both on- and off-wiki), we don't link Twitter accounts to WP accounts (including in the form of a good-faith question about whether it's the same account, or a good-faith but public on-wiki notification of potential imposters) unless the WP accounts have self-outed on wiki. That's my understanding of the WP:OUTING policy. – Levivich 15:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Levivich, this summary shall go to an information page or something similar. Nicely put. ∯WBG^converse 15:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Levivich is correct and explained it well, and with an excellent summary and example. I'll explain in more detail below in case anyone wants more information regarding this policy:

• It is not considered OUTING or a violation of Wikipedia's harassment policy to discuss or share links and information about a Wikipedia user if they posted it on Wikipedia, from their Wikipedia account, and about themselves that disclose other accounts, websites, web pages, social media, or information - even if the user deletes it later (so long as the revisions are not revdel'd or suppressed, but that can be a tricky area). A simple way to explain it: If it leads you from Wikipedia, using information that the user posted about themselves on Wikipedia, and to external sites or sources - it's fair game. This does not apply to situations that involve finding information about another user from the other direction...

• It's absolutely a violation of Wikipedia's harassment policy, and it's absolutely considered OUTING if you go the other direction - if you use external sources, search engines, or means to locate and find information about another Wikipedia user that's published or shared externally from Wikipedia - including other accounts, websites, web pages, social media, content, data, or other information - if they have not explicitly shared or disclosed it themselves on Wikipedia and using their account, and you attempt to disclose or share the links, websites, pages, content, data, or information you found about another editor anywhere on Wikipedia - even if the information you found and are trying to share on Wikipedia is false, inaccurate, old, incorrect, or is not the user's actual information, data, identity, social media, comments, accounts, etc; the attempt itself is a violation of Wikipedia policy. All attempts to engage in OUTING of another Wikipedia user (whether or not the information you share or disclose is actually true, accurate, or correct) will be treated, handled, and responded to with the exact same level of urgency, severity, and consequences.

I'm happy to answer any questions; please don't hesitate to ask them by either responding here (please ping me in your response so that I receive a notification), or by leaving a message on my user talk page. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah and Levivich: - thank you for the explanations. could we improve the writing WP:OUTING then, with what is already written here? If WP:OUTING was already sufficient, you wouldn't need to explain it. Thus, we need to take action to improve it. starship.paint (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm never against updating or improving a policy or guideline page in order to make it more clear and easier to read and understand... everyone who knows me well knows that. ;-) The issue here is that we can't just run over to the policy page and update it like that... not that easily. Aside from the fact that any such changes need to be discussed and approved by community consensus to be applied update the page and hence the policy, it may be that the policy page is left with these explicit explanation missing and such definitions broadly defined in order for the page to sufficiently reflect the spirit of the rule. If we start adding explicit definitions, details, and examples of outing someone on Wikipedia - a different method of outing someone's personal information that we previously had not thought of before might be argued to not be against the policy because the page was modified and expanded to explicitly detail what we thought was everything. I think that such attempts would ultimately be unsuccessful if that were to happen in the way that I hypothetically detailed, but I'm sure you understand the issue that I'm trying to explain here...

I of course could be wrong here, and the page might not be detailed this way simply because nobody has done so. But we need to make sure that we "cross our T's and dot our I's" when we talk about expanding or updating a policy page like this. We don't want to inadvertently open any doors for negative side effects or consequences as a result. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - I don't think we will leave loopholes if we use examples, instead of setting new rules. One example of OUTING is if you share information about Wikipedia users that are published or shared externally from Wikipedia. In this example, WP:OUTING applies even if the off-wiki content declares that this person is a Wikipedian. What do you think? starship.paint (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. :-) I think that if we do things carefully and diligently, that the results will benefit many editors who read that page looking for an understanding on exactly what outing constitutes. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, what about writing an essay page that explains the policy with examples and more depth, that should be less controversial. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

StudiesWorld - That would also work! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - I wrote another version in one sentence: Even in the case that a person claims on an external website to be a Wikipedia editor, sharing any external information not present on Wikipedia is still a form of outing. I think this would be a safe addition to the end of the second paragraph of WP:OUTING, as it is an example that shouldn't introduce any loopholes. starship.paint (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! I like it! Thanks for working to improve the explanation I gave and in order to make it easy for the community to understand and follow. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - I've made the proposal here, maybe it can be discussed for a week before asking for supports/opposes. starship.paint (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for taking the time to do all of this work and push these improvements and changes forward. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Allowing talk page access

I have started by allowing talk page access. I imagine User:Starship.paint gets the seriousness of linking to outside accounts at this point in time so I do not see a significant concern of them linking to further private off Wikipedia accounts here. I will be providing a full analysis soon. I would appreciate people providing me some time to do this review. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don’t think that’s appropriate, especially considering that the comment Floq just posted was a refusal to take this seriously, I think there’s a very real danger they continue it here, but I’m obviously not going to wheel war over this. Re: the indef comments above: it’s indefinite until valid assurances are given that they understand the issues. Considering their recent statement, I don’t think they currently do. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Starship.paint edit history shows that they are a good faith editor. Our rules around outing are complicated and do not make logical sense so it is not surprising that even a long term editor can get confused. User:Levivich has provided a good explanation of our outing rules. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Its not necessarily the outing, it’s the targeting of people they view as opposed to them to make points. I’m sure they won’t link to Twitter again, but their comments and actions suggest that they’re going to do whatever it takes to expose whomever isn’t on their “side”. Not dealing with this type of behaviour is why the WMF stepped in to begin with. The block reason here is harassment, and they need to make a serious commitment to not continue doing so. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • (+1) to what James said. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict × 2) And yet you thought it was appropriate to restore without discussion despite the above objections of two other admins? I don't disagree that this user is a good-faith editor who has done some good editing work, but your actions are now yet another example of how the community as a whole is completely failing to take harassment seriously, however minor it may seem. stwalkerster (sock | talk) 15:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Per WP:BLOCK, "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of their user talk page." Revoking TPA should not be done on mere speculation that because they have done something on others' talk pages, they will continue on their own. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: who are the two other admins? ——SerialNumber54129 15:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you have lost me, were do I talk about two admins? Ahh I said users, not admins. He in fact posted the self same question (check his history) to two separate users.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies to you, Slatersteven, it was in fact Stwalkersock who mentioned two admins, and to whom y question should have been addressed. Sorry about that! ——SerialNumber54129 15:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 Tony and myself. stwalkerster (sock | talk) 15:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, Stwalkersock, I thought you meant "two other admins"  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I could have been clearer here - I should probably have worded it as "two admins apart from yourself". stwalkerster (sock | talk) 16:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• • • Starship.paint's activities on the Fram matter have been troublesome.nothing short of trolling. Any unblock might be best only if they can make others convinced they understand the errors made and I'd suggest a topic ban from the Fram related matters as well.--MONGO (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
      • You might mention your editorial disputes, for a fairer assessment of your stance.∯WBG^converse 15:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  That's cute. Considering this matter is independent of any other disputes this editor and I may have had(?) (I can't think of any really...we have disagreed on some issues) and I did not suggest he be topic banned from those matters, only from the Fran matter.--MONGO (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  • • • @MONGO: Diffs to trolling or please strike that comment, per WP:NPA? I have found Starship.paint's comments to be very helpful in shining light on WMF's overreach.- MrX 🖋 15:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
        • MONGO I'll re-iterate this - accusations without evidence are indeed personal attacks. Either strike your comment, or provide evidence. I expect this to be your next edit. stwalkerster (sock | talk) 15:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I am not seeing anything I would really consider trolling for Starship.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Any fool could see Starship's not been trolling, Framgate's just got him over passionate, as could be said about at least dozens of us. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: To say the least.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 16:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Posting questions about whether someone IDs with a a twitter account is harassment and sure appears to be an outing effort. But since so many here seem to think thats not a problem...as disgusting as that stance is, I have struck the trolling part.--MONGO (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No one has said outing (or harassment) are not a problem, its just not trolling.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC).

You're correct, outing and harassment are actually worse.--MONGO (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Doc James, thank you for allowing me talk page access and your time and effort in conducting this review. starship.paint (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

I’m fine with James reviewing this: I have a good relationship with him and even though we disagree on TPA, I trust his judgement. As both stwalkerster and I have said above, indef doesn’t mean infinite, it means blocked until assurances are given, and a discussion is had. I think UTRS would have been better, but here works as well. My big question: Starship.paint, do you realize why someone may feel that your asking them to verify their private accounts at work is an invasion of their privacy, even if their name is public? TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• (Oh, this is going to be fun. Lots of bickering and snideness worthy of ANI.) To the gist of the matter. I think I agree with Starship.paint in a lot of ways. However, I think we need to move on. I also think Starsip.paint went too far when he engaged at the real world level. So let's start fresh from this moment forward. I would be willing to unblock if Starship.paint will agree to drop the Fram issue and leave the WMF people alone, and just get on with racking up another 30,000 or so edits.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 16:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
• Indef block was appropriate; talk page access revocation too was appropriate, given the potential for uncontrolled invasion of privacy (more so, as I suspect the editor still doesn't understand where they went wrong). I've gone this path and corrected myself probably just in time, so can understand how easy it is to make a mistake here. Hope starship responds proactively to Tony's queries and gets unblocked and we all can move on. An unblock without a clear acceptance statement from starship should not be done. If any admin proceeds to unblock unilaterally, it would be against at least three admins who don't agree. Lourdes 16:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lourdes: As long as it's with the understanding that it's irrelevant whether the blocking admin is "fine" with a reviewer, or has a "good relationship" with them either. ——SerialNumber54129 17:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Please. Let's not wheelwar over this. It would just worsen an already terrible situation.   Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 16:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. @Dlohcierekim, Lourdes, and Doc James:, yes, I’d be fine unblocking once they acknowledge that targeting people real world is wrong. I’d prefer a formalized ban from WMF accounts so this doesn’t happen again in a week when the next controversy comes about. The Rob thing and then this shows bad judgement on where lines are, so I think having a formal line is needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Since I've opposed an unblock above, let me just state here for clarity that I'm fine with an unblock if Starship shows an understanding on a more general level of where acceptable behaviour lies (wording of that left intentionally vague). I'm not sure that a formal line is needed, but I'm unopposed to one. I'd prefer we can come to the understanding of what is and isn't appropriate and then just all move on from there. However, I do want to make sure we're not going to be back here in a few days with a slightly different scenario. I'll also echo Dlohcierekim above - I do want Starship to stick around and continue the work they've been doing and I'm sorry that it's come down to the level of blocks being issued. stwalkerster (sock | talk) 16:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

We are all in agreement that the block was justified and Starship.paint overstepped a bright line. We are also in agreement that we need assurances that this will never happen again (with "this" being links to off Wikipedia accounts posted on Wikipedia). I think Starship.paint clearly understands that if they were to WP:OUTTING anyone on this talkpage this appeal would be declined with no future possibility of appeal. I have requested a statement from Starship.paint on this page of their understanding of what went wrong and what there understanding going forwards is (one of course without links to the exact diffs in question).

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki

This has been brought to my attention with a request to act given the cross-wiki nature of the incident. Starship.paint should be aware that this behaviour is not acceptable on the Wikimedia network, and if it continues then global action may be taken. I've consulted another steward and we have agreed to not take any action at this time, and let this local process resolve itself. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I would believe it's good form to not leave such statements of global actions covering the English Wikipedia, at least not right now. Lourdes 17:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It seemed directly relevant to communicate with this user on their home project and the place I was directed for information. But I would be happy to direct future communication on Meta if necessary. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I think that's sensible. Thanks, Lourdes 17:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: - hello, sorry, it's taken me some time to go through the myriad of comments on this page. Are you saying that my question [1] for GVarnum-WMF is not acceptable? (If yes, please revert, or suppress, my question). Can I ask why, given that GVarnum did link to their Twitter on meta.wiki? It would be good if you would link me to some policy, or guideline, on this matter. starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Starship.paint, sorry for the delay in responding. The complaint that was forwarded to me was essentially the same as Tony's rationale below, with the added fact that disputes are best kept on one project rather than continued across multiple sites on the network. At the global level there are no policies on this, so the realm of acceptable behaviour is based more around best practices and case-by-case determinations of what behaviour is disruptive or unacceptable. When I looked over your contributions both here and on Meta I saw someone that was trying to get to the bottom of comments issued off-wiki by accounts clearly connected to their wiki accounts or real names, and I suspected that you left a message for GVarnum on Meta because that's where he is most active. Assuming good faith, I didn't think that any global actions or actions on Meta were required, but I did think it was worth leaving you a note that that type of behaviour was generally discouraged. Even when people edit using their real name, one of the best practices for wiki interactions is to keep things on-wiki and not reference or tie-in real life identities. To directly answer your question, I personally don't take issue with commenting on-wiki about something that a userpage-linked twitter account had done, but it could be perceived as harassing behaviour especially when considered with other behaviour here and previously. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: - don't be sorry, it's not much of a delay. I can say that I left a message at meta because I think GV has no en.wiki page, if GV had had a en.wiki page, I think I would have left the message here. By now, I am sure making references to off-wiki behaviour is generally discouraged - and I am also sure, you definitely saw my comments at Katherine's page, by which you would have seen several other similar comments to Katherine by en.wiki users in much higher standing than I am. starship.paint (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen any by you, but I have seen others commenting at Katherine's talk page. And that clearly falls into the "holding the WMF ED accountable" category rather than harassment :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: As you can see from [2], I'm the third person to comment on WP:FRAM at Katherine's talk page (after SilkTork and Rschen7754), and the first to refer to her tweet. Let's look at a hypothetical situation. Assuming I was previously aware of how not to violate WP:OUTING, I would not have outed the two WMF staffers on en.wiki - I would not have communicated with them at all on any project. But I still might have asked the same question to GVarnum-WMF, because (1) he had already revealed his connection to Twitter and (2) his work is communications with the community on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, and (3) GV's potential explanation of the situation might possibly have contributed to information regarding the "holding the WMF ED accountable" category. starship.paint (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not Ajraddatz, but I'll comment from how I see it locally here: the WMF executive director is a public person, has disclosed it, and uses her Twitter as part of her official duties. GVarnum-WMF, no offense meant to him, is a random staffer. Ordinarily, going up to someone who discloses isn't a big deal in itself. Like Ajraddatz said, in context, however, it can look like harassment when you are going around to multiple WMF staffers asking them to verify their social media in the context of their boss getting crucified for her comments (justly or otherwise), could be perceived as harassment, even if it isn't outing in itself. I hope that makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: - you would say the same if I had not at all approached the 2 WMF staffers on en.wiki? Just Katherine, then GV? starship.paint (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. It's hard to look at counterfactuals and see how I would have reacted. I'll say this though: approaching one person who has disclosed isn't nearly as chilling as approaching multiple people from the same group asking the same question. I hope that makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to take it as a counterfactual. You could pretend this just happened right now. Having approached Katherine earlier, I right now approached GV. The thing is, I have openly alerted both you, TonyBallioni, and Ajraddatz to my post at GV's page. Since I apparently wasn't reverted, I therefore conclude it is acceptable to the point that it does not rise to the level of requiring removal. Also, Tony, since I had outed the two WMF staffers on en.wiki, I suggest the 2 outings be suppressed or revdeled. I don't think that was done? starship.paint (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It'd ordinarily be suppressed, but I contacted them and discussed it and for various reasons decided suppression wouldn't be ideal here because among other reasons it could make it more obvious. A lot of this stuff is handled case-by-case. The important thing to remember is whether or not someone could legitimately feel harassed or violated by your actions. If the answer is possibly yes, it's best not to do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Request as an inexperienced user

I have been encountering/interacting-with Starship.paint everywhere these past few days. I was generally impressed by the quality of their contributions on other places; as well as the amount of work they seem to have put into streamlining information on the Fram case (looked Herculean for a single person). I was shocked to see their name struck-through today. Then, when I went to Fram page, I saw big contrasts: things like pinging all arbitrators (and them finding that useful) and things like a comprehensive look on the twitter incident including listing accounts (which made me think,"maybe this is what got them blocked"). Only finally coming back to this page, I see the issues were on talk pages I have not seen.

• tldr; would it be possible to directly link to incidents (only those which wouldn't make the violations that Starship.paint committed have a worse impact) which were so serious to garner the attention of stewards, admins, arbs, board members, alike? I get the general gist of what happened from the discussion here. So, it's really ok if there are no relatively minor infractions that I can benefit from (without harming anyone else)? Feel free to remove this, if I have no business commenting here at all? Thanks!Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  It’s quite simple. Loyalist users like Tony and AJ don’t appreciate starships excellent work at the Fram page. So unfortunately they have the power to make Starships wikilife difficult. Both Tony and AJ have been outspoken that the WMF wields supreme power and is not to be criticized, and that it was totally correct to unperson Fram the way it happened. Most everyone else disagrees that this was the best way to operate. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  That is not my position, and my opinion here is that no global action is needed. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  You have been unfailing in your support of the WMF’s atrocious treatment of the community in this sad affair. Wikipedia is such a special thing, almost due entirely to the community, and in spite of the WMF. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  I disagree with how the WMF and the community have handled this. And if your logic is that I am taking action against people I disagree with, I have just done the exact opposite of that by declining a request to lock. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Indeed, Ajraddatz. You and I clearly hold different positions on this unfortunate conflict, but any accusation that you have acted anything other than completely impartially in your Steward role is entirely without merit and is, in my view, shameful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks Boing. My philosophy has always been that opinions are fine so long as actions are done according to policy and community consensus. But if I am perceived to have a conflict of interest here, then I will recuse myself from further action. (and in hindsight, from an avoiding the dramahz perspective this was a bad time and place for that note/warning) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• You are entirely unjustified in those slurs, Mr Ernie (and if you care to look, I am not a supporter of the WMF over this issue). The dispute does not mean it is open season for any method of attack, and in my view the block is entirely justified and well within the usual parameters of Wikipedia Community processes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Then better uninvolved admins had taken action. Tony and AJ have supported an opposing POV of Starship. I do not view these actions as legitimate. SSP should be unblocked immediately, given their excellent contributions to the project. This comes from someone who has disagreed with them on content, but can still appreciate a net positive. Reading what AJ and Tony have written about the Fram situation gives me no confidence in their ability to administer or steward the project. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Excellent contributions to the project do not excuse an editor from having to comply with WP:OUTING policy, and if one wishes to remain unblocked one *does not* link to editors' private off-wiki accounts unless they have already been revealed on-wiki. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  I've actually been fairly critical of the way the WMF has handled this in private, and I think in public I've said that I do not think the WMF should be handing out time-limited project specific blocks. It only creates distrust between them and local projects, especially when local projects have ArbComs that should be able to handle it. The Fram situation raises a lot of questions, and I'm hoping that Doc James will be able to provide answers. I was critical of WJBscribe resysoping Fram, but I don't see that as related to the harassment of Wikimedia Foundation Staff. I don't think someone calling for calm and waiting to see how things play out, and being critical of those who violate policy instead of waiting, makes me involved when it comes to a harassment block. If you want to compare me to Ajr, I'd say he is significantly more "pro-WMF" on this than I am. I'm also just not "anti-WMF". TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  Mr Ernie: Starship, I think was doing effectively investigative journalism for us, and slipped. I understand their desire to make sure that the Twitter accounts in question correspond to users - however, on-wiki was not the place to do so. Sending an email would have been acceptable.

  This is a somewhat unusual situation, given that the WMF are effectively public figures here. In my opinion, it would be poor form for them to hide their Twitter accounts from scrutiny by refusing to acknowledge the account. However, that is their choice so to do, according to current policy. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for being concerned Usedtobecool. I doubt directly linking to the incidents would help, as good Starship did nothing that most new users would see as especially bad, especially in comparison to many harsh remarks that have been posted on the Fram page. All Starship did was make posts that connected twitter accounts to WMF staff accounts in the same name. Technically though, that could be interpreted as WP:OUTING so there is a policy based reason for an indeff. Even if many would see it as heavy handed, especially after his 8 years of fine content creation and good collaboration with other editors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

We are currently just waiting for Starship to acknowledge that they understand WP:OUTTING and that this will not happen again. Once this is provided I am going to unblock. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: so asking you, on-wiki, if your GScholar profile is actually yours would constitute outing (since you don't link to it from your user page)? That seems like a very broad interpretation of the policy. Guettarda (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The policy is broad. If he wanted to link it from his user page he could do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the edit. I never intended to post from that acct. Guettarda (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes that is how the policy is currently interpreted. Which is why I understand how it is easy to make a misstep here. You can email me through the Wikipedia interface if I have email on otherwise be very careful / consider it off bounds. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The applicable portion of the policy is:

The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. Threats to out an editor will be treated as a personal attack and are prohibited.

The issue isn't that their names are known. It's that digging through off-wiki accounts for opposition research is not allowed. I've suppressed edits to Wikipediocracy to protect the identity of editors who are clearly the same person but haven't linked. This isn't a we protect the WMF thing. This is a we don't let editors dig into the other internet accounts of others and use it as opposition research without the consent of the parties thing. Starship.paint has been around long enough to know that.

By phrasing the question the way that they did, it could easily have been interpreted as a Catch-22 where people felt compelled to respond even though they don't have to so they don't receive more harassment for "refusing to communicate" or something like that. Our harassment policy is designed with protecting people and not having it be so they feel their private life is going to be weeded through by people they've never met. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Guettarda, you added back the comment that includes Doc James info in the other edit where you say u didn't want to "post from that account". (Just a heads up if this was a mistake) (My mistake) Irrelevant. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for your replies and education. Those are not things I would ever do (without even needing to find out about policies) but my own preferences could not be the metrics to evaluate someone else's conduct. It probably gives me a bias on what I think about what they did. I trust the community to do the right thing. I also genuinely believe Starship to be a good faith contributor and so I have no reason to doubt that this will end with anything but the best outcome. So, I'll just stand on the sidelines and watch intently now. Thanks again, everyone! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 19:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: I just outed myself, that's all. It was actually pretty funny. Guettarda (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I wasn't looking at it as an example of protecting a WMF staffer. I'm just surprised that it's so broad - it seems at odds with my experience of how these things operate. I like to operate well short of bright-line rules like this, so it's a little disconcerting to know that my perception of where the line was is so far off. Guettarda (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I was more saying that generally than to you :) TonyBallioni (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

An unblock without asking for assurances but with some advice

Yeah don’t do that again. No that isn’t a condition just an observation that there aren’t going to be a bunch of admins queuing up to unblock you if you do get blocked again.

As for the justification of the rather ah extensive outing policy its because its an area were people will attempt to take advantage of any small amount of leeway so bright line is the only practical way to keep things in check (and to be clear we have had people with serious mental issues stalk our editors in meatspace). Yes this can (and has been) abused in the other direction but we aren’t really at the point of needing to worry about that yet in this case (and if we do reach that point its going to be private contact to arbcom).

Beyond that (and as someone who has been involved in clashes with bits of the foundation for longer than many people have been editing) the foundation is a reasonably sized fairly wealthy organisation with a public image most organisations would burn cities for. This conflict isn’t going to be decided by finding them saying something foolish on twitter, reddit, facebook, discord or wherever the cool kids hang out these days (They’ve certainly got away with some pretty questionable stuff in the past).©Geni (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey All. Lets just drop this. I am sure Starship understands things. I have an email indicating that they do. Geni the unblock was not cool but everyone lets just move forwards. We do not need this. I have requested here for more time. I have requested that people also cool it just a bit. Starship.paint you may resume editing but please be more careful. As a general rule do NOT link to any outside accounts regardless of if you see others doing the same. Reach out to admins personally if you are thinking of doing so and have questions regarding what is appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I am really sick of being told I need to move on every time a sysop breaks policy because they're outraged about what's happening here. I am outraged. But those policies are in place to protect people like me who are not unblockable. Who are not sysops or crats and cannot press buttons themselves. I think I'm a pretty good faith editor and I hope that I amm civil with everyone I interact with on Wikipedia because that matters to me. But every time someone in a trust position goes rogue like this and the response is "let's move on" my concern that someone will go rogue on me increases. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

For the record, User:Geni hasn't made an unblock in seven years ([3]). A bizarre return to the tools. ——SerialNumber54129 22:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• Enough everyone. I think the way the unblock was done wasn't the best, and I appreciate others saying that as well, but this isn't fair to Starship.paint as it isn't their fault how he got unblocked. Starship.paint, welcome back. I'll save you the lecture, I'm tired after this and I'm sure you are too. I'll ask this though: please remember you're dealing with real people here.
  These staffers are private persons, many of whom have had Twitters since they were minors. They don't need to have to worry about strangers stalking them on social media and finding things they said a decade ago and using it to embarrass them. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I have decided to (mostly) stay off mainspace until Doc James’ review is completed. I will take the time to read the posts here and reflect (I’ve never seen 99+ notifications before). When I have thought things through, I will be in a better position to offer assurances. starship.paint (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I hope you continue editing in the mainspace. You're the best editor we have in U.S. politics right now, your mainspace edits have nothing to do with the Fram mess, and we need you as much as ever. R2 (bleep) 00:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the praise, @Ahrtoodeetoo:, that is appreciated. I’m afraid, in addition to wanting to respect Doc James’ review, I have my own personal issues as well that are also totally unrelated to WP:FRAM which require my attention. That said, I was shaken by the block, but I’m better now. starship.paint (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

To everyone watching: I can definitely give you the assurance that I have (and had) no intention at all for harassing anyone. I unreservedly apologise, and take responsibility for any harassment caused by me, even if it was unknowingly done. starship.paint (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I came here to express that despite my reaction to DocJames here and some comments at Gini that I personally bear you no ill will and didn't want you to interpret my statements otherwise. Being able to reply to this comment only reinforces that. I hope we have the chance to collaborate on an article one day. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I mean it. Welcome back to editing :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Hold on, @TonyBallioni: - can you inform me if this is [4] this block-worthy or not, given that this person’s Twitter is already disclosed on meta.wiki. I want to disclose this to make sure this doesn’t come back to haunt me later. starship.paint (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, Starship.paint, so I said this a few times above, but the reason I blocked wasn't specifically because of the outing part, but because it contributed to a pattern of harassment of individuals. Even if a Twitter is disclosed going up and asking someone to verify when you're asking a bunch of their co-workers to do so in the middle of a controversy about their boss using Twitter is going to come off as I'm watching your every move.
    While that specific instance wasn't outing per se, the totality of it came off to me and a few others as targeting WMF staffers in a way that could legitimately make them feel unsafe. I know you felt that the warning you received from Nick was different, but in my mind, it was similar: passion for a topic that crossed the line into being inappropriate. Again, imagine someone coming around to your workplace asking a bunch of your coworkers with name tags to verify that the person you think they are on social media is them. It creates an intimidating and chilling atmosphere, even if they are public about who they are. I hope that makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Starship.paint I am happy for you to return to editing. Asking people about there actions off of Wikipedia on Wikipedia is typically not appropriate and I would advise to generally avoid it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

      @Doc James: - it may be typically not appropriate, but I'm sure you know what times we are in. On en.wiki, we had 5 Arbs, 1 bureaucrat, 3 admins, and 1 former admin asking Katherine about on-wiki Twitter stuff. Meanwhile, on WP:FRAM, a former steward confirmed the connection between Sutherland's WMF account and his Twitter account. I hope you can see how the overall situation may have led me to mistakenly believe that what I had done was acceptable. starship.paint (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I know. And thus why I am fine to see you unblocked as you now know to be more careful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Response to Doc James

I have received your request to review Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information. I will be reading it. starship.paint (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I have read the relevant section. Doc James, could you clarify: when they say unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia, how does this apply between wikis? Say, information is self-stated on Meta / Commons / Spanish Wikipedia. Is that taken as 'transferable' to English Wikipedia? starship.paint (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yah that is complicated. The community is currently discussing this exact point HERE. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay Doc James, so I assume there is currently some leeway there. I posted a request for the closer to post on my talk page for the result of that RfC, so that I may know the updated boundaries. So, based on the current status as mentioned, and in response to your second email, I will absolutely do my best not to link to any off-wiki accounts that have not been mentioned on some wiki. Is that satisfactory? starship.paint (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Best advice if you are not sure, is simple not to link on Wikipedia anything that has not been mentioned on that wiki, correct. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: - if I'm not sure (pending the RfC result, I think it should be clear, once that resolves one way or the other), I can commit to asking an admin about any actions related to cross-wiki information before I take that action. starship.paint (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: You’re not in the wrong here. Please don’t get offended. We’re just trying to figure out what happened and why. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 05:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not offended Oshawott 12, don't worry. starship.paint (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

An invisible barnstar for you!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Yes, you might have crossed the line in pursuit of establishing the fact-base and the block was fair – however, you are clearly a very good Wikipedian and with lessons learned, well deserving of having the block lifted. The excellent and selfless job you have done of establishing and maintaining the fact-base on the Fram affair is recognized and appreciated by many. I hope you will return to doing this as I find your WP:FRAMSUM essential reading on keeping up to speed on the affair. Britishfinance (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Britishfinance: - thank you for the appreciation. I’m not sure if I can continue. It might be a conflict of interest? I hereby relinquish the right to edit any part of the summary that mentions me, or any part involving TonyB or Geni. Also, I commit that I will not touch the summary for a week at least, baring some huge issue or error. Clearly, I need to step away for at least a while, and until my mood is right to return. starship.paint (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not have any concerns with you continuing whenever you feel ready. But please just use on Wikipedia links / diffs as evidence in the timeline. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: - sorry, I missed this post of yours. I can commit that I will not add any further off-wiki links to the timeline. Is that good enough? Also, the thing with me and WiR, is there no action needed from you? starship.paint (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

It was a not an appropriate tweet. They removed it and officially apologized. Not sure what you mean by action? I think we can move on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: - oh no, I didn’t mean action against WiR. I meant action against me, because I think in the last email you wrote you were reviewing my incident with WiR. starship.paint (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yah I reviewed it. Please avoid personalizing stuff going forwards or pushing for personal details anywhere. Other than that nothing further for now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: - okay on personal details, but could you clarify on the personalizing stuff part? So when there is an anonymous problem, I should not be looking to identify the editor, something like that? starship.paint (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes exactly if someone is anonymous. Do not try to figure out who they are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thank you @Doc James:. So I've compiled the list of guidelines for me to adhere to: no outing, no adding more off-wiki statements to the summary, no attempts to seek the identity of anonymous editors, and no asking for personal details. starship.paint (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

clarification

Just to be clear, the thanks was for collapsing the less-relevant section, not for the stepping away! :) --valereee (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Naturally, Valereee. Thank you. starship.paint (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you, from Pine

	The Original Barnstar
	For your very extensive, and as far as I know, good faith participation in Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram and related discussions. --Pine (✉) 06:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Pine. I’m glad you found it useful. starship.paint (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Stepping away

It is with sadness that I will soon (UPDATE: that's now: July 2!) depart the project for an unspecified amount of time. First and foremost, I’m dealing with personal problems. Contributing here is no longer a positive use of my time, at this time. I need to focus on myself. Secondly, my recent block has affected me. Editing is no longer the same, not that the editing has gotten worse, but my mood has. Suggested reading: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Recent research, particularly the paragraph on The authors concluded that... With my recent DYK promoted, there’s nothing much pressing left. Maybe you can contribute to how exercise should be portrayed at Talk:Donald Trump. Maybe you can weigh in for my suggestion, the latest topic at Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Maybe you can help me update WP:FRAMSUM. Maybe you can create a quality article on a notable woman (or notable anything, really). But I can’t for now. I’m doing this for myself. starship.paint (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I understand. You have been very active. I hope that you have a restful vacation. If Wikipedia is still operating when you return, then you will be welcome back. I would appreciate a ping when you return so that I can greet you. --Pine (✉) 06:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Pine:, okay, I will. Thanks! starship.paint (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hi, did you change your mind regarding taking a break? That is okay, but if you need vacation please take it. I would rather have you go on vacation and then return well rested than have you burn out. --Pine (✉) 06:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Pine: - no, I didn't change my mind. I'm ... erm ... doing some stuff before I go. When I read things, I feel compelled to edit. I will do less reading during my break, so I won't feel compelled to edit. Rest assured, this is no burnout risk. Other than my article edits, you can see from some of my posts on talk pages that I'm gearing up to leave in peace. starship.paint (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• @Pine: .... right... that's that. I think that's all the content I wanted to add. No more reading of Fram stuff until I officially return, unless someone notifies me. I'd probably log in a few times in the next days to respond to notifications, but other than that... think you're right. It should be break time. starship.paint (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to hear that starship, since you were normally a nice person to me and did a good job all around. I always saw you being active end editing pages. Hopefully you can come back eventually and help out more . Bill Williams (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm sorry the block affected you, Starship.paint. Tempers are very high and people are on edge. I don't know if it helps to think of it as something that is in part about the situation we're in, and that it will be viewed by others in that light also. I hope that when your personal things are wrapped up, you'll feel like coming back. --valereee (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Valereee: - saw your message when I came to post on my own ArbCom case request. Turns out I already posted. Hahaha, it’s funny you mention viewing it in that way - because I actually do, and it doesn’t help. I put a quote somewhere, it’s on Britishfinace’s talk page, that hints to what I think. I don’t think the block wasn’t anything personal from TonyB, we have no feud, neither do I think that TonyB blocked me to silence me on WP:FRAM. I know you’ll be an admin soon, Valereee, so you definitely should read the Signpost link I linked above. Alright? :) starship.paint (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  I'm sorry it doesn't help. I had already read that signpost passage you linked, and it references a longer passage in the full report. I will read that, promise. And let's not count our chickens before they're hatched, lol. Best wishes to you. --valereee (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Valereee: - no need to be sorry, in fact, thank you for trying to help! I appreciate it. Best wishes to you too. starship.paint (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Take good care of yourself and your entourage. No worries: we'll keep the wheels turning around here. — JFG ^talk 05:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks JFG. Yeah, I'm sure the major stuff will be covered. I'm just one person - tiny in the overall scheme of things. However, I should keep away from the news to stay away XD starship.paint (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I know, I've been there.[5] you'll make it! — JFG ^talk 08:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: - thanks very much! starship.paint (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a Snoopy

and a *bonus*

These are trying times around WP and I was reading some of the contributions over at WP:ARC (including yours) and I thought you might appreciate one of my all-time favorite images from Commons. As an added bonus here's one of my very VERY favorite WP-articles: Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office. Better days are ahead, things just sort of suck at the moment... Shearonink (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Was posting this and then read your posts above. Take care of yourself, sorry to see you step away but I *get* it. Hope you feel that you can come back someday. Shearonink (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That’s so sweet Shearonink. Thank you! Ah yes, ARC, one of the last things for me to settle. But I think enough people have weighed in (and will continue to weigh in). starship.paint (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

ultimate warrior
... you were recipient no. 826 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

... and four --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

... and five --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

... and six --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

American politics discretionary sanctions notice

This happened on 27 June 2019. starship.paint (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines

... I've compiled the list of guidelines for me to adhere to: no outing, no adding more off-wiki statements to the summary, no attempts to seek the identity of anonymous editors, and no asking for personal details. starship.paint (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Before you go

What is the most popular color of starship paint? Jehochman ^Talk 11:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Jehochman: - that would be [6] moonlight. starship.paint (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism By All IPv6

Hi Starship.paint, I suggest all IPv6 to be permanently range blocked globally because all this IP's are wrecking havoc and attack on user Gundam, hope you can to rangeblock globally on all IPv6 permanently to prevent any attack on other users. 113.210.101.3 (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m no admin! Can’t help you there. Make a report at WP:ANI. Also, I’m not an expert on IPs, but it sounds like you’re asking the whole world’s IPv6 to be blocked? Surely that can’t happen. starship.paint (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A WP:semi-protection would block all IP editors, both V4 and v6. Not a big fan of protection myself, it's usually applied too soon, too liberally, and for too long. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC).

Barnstar & reply

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to editor starship.paint for many years of fine article creation, and friendly colloration with other editors.FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

There's always a risk that when someone posts on my talk they might get a rather TLDR response.

I'm going to be a little blunt, but only as I think this might be helpful, as it looks like youre having trouble dis-engaging, even though you know it's what you need to do. (I'll also send a brief email with a point I don't want to make on wiki, that will be a bit softer)

I don't need your advice on Framgate, and the community as a whole needs it even less.

You've said you've got some personal problems going on that need your attention. That being the case, the last thing you should be doing is wasting your time trying to help with a complex situation like Framgate, with all the dark energy flowing about it. That is not to imply youre making things worse. I've reviewed your contribs to the matter and would say you've been a big net positive overall. All credit to you for that. But as you yourself have admitted, you are misreading many aspects of the situation. Your post on my talk was just another example. If you carefully read my statement, it suggests I already knew what Fram had written on meta. I was just saying that MLG actions were fine as at the time she would have had reason to think Fram had effectively cleared the article. And if I don't need your help on this, that's far more true of the community as a whole. Many editors older &/or much more experienced than myself are giving Framgate good attention. Folk like Kudpung , Jehocman, Stephan Schulz , Doc James, Iridescent, Risker, Dennis Brown, Swarm, Richie333, Aquillion , the Arbs, and many others not mentioned. These are serious editors. They don't need help from you or me to guide Framgate to the best possible resolution. Which won't be perfect, nothing can ever compensate for the loss of good editors like LH, but we should end up with a Wikipedia that is more inclusive & tolerant of mistakes, while also hopefully getting the WMF to revert its ban & desysop.

The complexities of Framgate could easily 100% consume any individuals time over the next few weeks. You've clearly signalled you need to spend that time on yourself. Time is so often critical , but we don't realise until its too late. Unless I'm misreading, there's quite a storm coming - of which the nonsense that's erupted across the world since 2016, now invading even the once rational safe have community that is Wikipedia – is but a foreshadowing. Now is the time for any young individuals to grow strong roots so they can sand against what is to come, and contribute for the good. On a more personal level, middle age can be quite sweet if you get well established when your young. It's much harder to compensate once your 50+, if such people have procrastinated on sorting their personal lives out for too long, then life can be full of bitterness & regret. So get going & sort out whatever these personal problems are!

But please do come back to Wikipedia once you have things sorted out. I see you've been quite shaken by the block. It might seem empty if I say that's no big deal considering I have a clean block log. So here's a short story. A few months back I was in a content dispute where the only honourable play was for me to take actions where from a harsh but still reasonable policy interpretation, I'd deserve a block. That didn't bother me. I'm not comparing myself to much more talented writers like Giano or Eric Corbett. But when I consider their block logs I sometimes commit the sin of envy, as it proves they are passionate. In various statements I made during the dispute to admins I openly said it would be fine if they wanted to block me. All this is not to say that its not best to be sanction free, just sharing the perspective that's its not really a big deal. Anyhow, if I may take the risk of speaking on behalf of the community, we very much want you to come back, but only once you've done what needs to be done in your personal life.

If you find this advise useful, no need to thank me. The best response would be just to log out, get a grip on the personal issues, and then come back in however many weeks or months it takes you to get things sorted. I'll leave a wiki kitten to guard your talk page in the meantime. And I know its easier said than done, but try not to worry about Framgate. Take it on faith that the community can handle it. We've got this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Replied by email. Some stuff for the watchers: I'm over my 'stained' block log, and I'm not worrying about FramGate. starship.paint (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

For the strawberries, but I actually was thinking more of many other editors who were far more productive than I was, & who served as shining examples until one day they were the subject of an WP:AN/I thread -- & then were gone. Just because they weren't at the very top of the pile, or distinguished themselves in some way (dying before her/his time seems to be the most common, I regret to observe), TPTB neglected to single them out for praise when it could have made a difference. But anyway, you take care of yourself & try to keep out of the Wikidrama: it's addictive, & too much is as bad for you as street drugs. -- llywrch (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Llywrch: - thank you for the well wishes. I wasn't aware of the examples you raised, so the least I can do is just pass some appreciation to you. starship.paint (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Starship.paint, I suspect you must feel rather beaten up after all the drama that has happened, and I just thought I should drop by and offer you my good wishes. I hope that you will be of good cheer! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: - thank you for your kind thoughts. I will be honest to you: in the immediate aftermath of my indef block, I confronted the harrowing possibility that my unblock request would be declined, and that I would not be able to return. I coped by mentally producing the epitaph of my Wikipedia career - I prepared to leave with my head held high. I’m afraid, as I have found out, that one does not simply return to Wikipedia the same after that. I’m not especially unhappy, it’s just that this has left a scar. starship.paint (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

  You may be interested to know that I, too, was indeffed once, by ArbCom no less (and that set off an immense s–t storm)! I can attest that there really is wiki-life after being blocked. After all, it's only a website. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: - wow. It seems like you extremely qualified to comment here. In your case, you felt that your block was something of a statement, or an somewhat of an example being made to satisfy something like 'tradition', or as other editors pointed out, procedure. I'm sorry you went through that, but I can see that you were better equipped to deal with it, as even then, you've already had the mindset that this was only a website (which is true). starship.paint (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

  ... and from your case, I read Jytdog's retirement ... and from that, a case request from Black Kite against BU Rob13 for comments about The Rambling Man. Funny how life works. starship.paint (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined

The request for arbitration User:TonyBallioni's block of User:Starship.paint and User:Geni's unblock has been declined by the committee. The arbitrators' comments about the request can be viewed here. – bradv🍁 03:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'M BACK, BUT NOT THE SAME

So, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Sometimes change is good for us even if it comes to us unwillingly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Liz: - I don't know at this point. I'm not saying that it is bad. starship.paint (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope it's a good thing. --valereee (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: - thanks :) perhaps it is neutral now, may it be good soon. starship.paint (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)