User talk:Tyciol

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2006[edit]

Spam blacklist[edit]

I used the back arrow on my browser and I did not lose my edits. I replaced the offending domain (makeashorterlink\.com) with the target URL. (See diff for details.) --jwalling 21:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, what's this refer to and why here? Not spamming user pages are you? Tyciol 15:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

2010[edit]

Dear Ty[edit]

Thanks very much for your encouragement. I appreciate all the support I can get. I never thought a few pictures would generate such a storm. Thanks again. Take care. Midnight68 05:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Policy and effects[edit]

Please note that this message and the accompanying actions are the result of a number of complaints regarding activities both here on Meta and on other Wikimedia projects. You're of course already familiar with the complaints and likely the complainants, being as you're blocked on most of the projects you've edited due to the position you hold and your self-identification.

As you're well aware, Jimbo Wales had a thread on his English Wikipedia user talkpage where it was stated that pro-pedophilia actions and self-identification as a pedophile is forbidden. A similar policy was enacted on Meta, and it can be reasonably assumed that between the Meta policy and Jimbo's statement, a Wikimedia-wide ban on such activities and identifications are implied.

If you would like to I somehow suspect that the Board of Trustees isn't going to take a position against these policies, as it would likely be read as approval of such activities. Of course, in the event that they do, you would have the right to appeal any actions taken.

Due to the issues raised above, the number of complaints received, and the general concept of banning based on "exhausts the patience of the community", the accounts Tyciol and PseudoAnoNym have been locked, and are linked to this note. Kylu 01:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Response from Tyciol[edit]

  • (From Tyciol, Sun 8/8/10 @ 4:24AM)

Thank you for having the courtesy to leave a notification message on the talk page. I realize it says you are on a Wikibreak at the moment so I may have to wait a while for a response, nevertheless you seem to be the only obvious person to contact about this.

The reason I am blocked on the other projects is not due to any position I hold or any identification. My position has been continually misrepresented by several groups of trolls operating in tandem on Review, ED & PJ. I have never referred to myself as a pedophile or as someone with pedophilia. This is a false allegation. Ryan Postlethwaite, the user who initially banned me on EnWiki, made a statement accusing me of that and the Arbcom removed it seeing as how they knew it was unsourced and that I could fight it in court.

I have no intention to convince any of the Wikimedia projects to alter their policies, my request all along is that they enforce them literally and truthfully, and they are not in this case because I am being falsely accused of having a mental condition I do not and have never had.

Great damage is being done to my character. Initially, Wikipedia stood up against these trolls and banned them when they would harass and misrepresent Wikipedians/Wikimedians. What has changed here?

You speak of exhausted patience, yet nobody has had to be more patient than myself in hoping and trying to convince people to drop their ridiculous assumptions.

You speak of 'approval of activities'. In co-operating with these lying terrorists, you are approving of the lies and malignation of my character and mental competence which they have engaged in for years. Why is this not something to be worried about?

Anyway, I do not know how to contact the board of trustees in relation to having my account unlocked. All I know is clearly people are jumping to conclusions and believing a bunch of charlatans.

(Response to email) Please let me know if I may post your email here and my (as yet unwritten) response to it. Thanks. Kylu 02:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Permission granted by Tyciol via email, 08/10/2010 @ 8:33AM.
I generally don't post emails without permission, Tyciol, so please specify if you'd like a specific mail posted or not in that mail, or offer a blanket "Sure, post all of it"
As far as reviews of my actions goes, I'd probably suggest either sending an email that I can forward to the stewards list (or you can ask another steward to do the same, of course. Remember to include permission for reproduction please,) or you could write a statement that can be included in the steward confirmations, or alternatively you can contact the Foundation Board of Trustees.
There hasn't been any on-wiki outcry against the action, nor have I seen such on the mailing list, though there was someone on IRC who warned against this being the catalyst for an "anti-Pedophile Witch Hunt" - a somewhat distasteful phrasing as it makes negative assumptions about both sides of the conflict. I rather withhold judgment on who is accused of doing what, as I signed up for a technical role, not a judicial or arbitrative one. Kylu 14:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • (From Tyciol, 8/10/10 @ 8:33am)

That's fine either way, glad I enabled e-mail updates. I am unsure how long a public talk page conversation will be tolerated as I've seen some take steps to wipe talk pages of such communications in the past, makes sense to try a bit though.

I read over what I wrote a 2nd time and realized I got a little worked up while doing so, would like to apologize for my loose use of the ambiguous pronoun 'you'. I did not mean in particular yourself Kylu as I have no reason to assume you to be aware/approving of what I think some others are. That was impolite of me and was meant as more of a plural 'you' (sorts of like 'ils' as opposed to 'il') speaking in regards to a portion of the previous complainants I'll leave anonymous due to a combination of my interpersonal forgetfulness and lack of desire to begin engaging in an ad hominemous exchange.

Thank you for the polite notification of appeal rights and in making yourself available to hear them, it's one of the more courteous responses I've received.

  • (From Tyciol, 8/22/10 @ 2:16am)

I've been doing some further browsing and have some additional points I would like to address regarding the global block you confirmed at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2010-08#Global_lock_for_Tyciol

Firstly, I would like to be able to post a request to unblock at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steward_requests/Global but I do not seem to be able to do this. I get the error message "You cannot edit because your account is locked."

I am reading the policy on global blocks here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_blocking

It says "Global blocks do not apply on Meta, so they may be appealed at Steward requests/Global." Is this no longer true? If so, I hope you or someone else will remove that bullet as it is misleading and invokes false hope that we will be able to participate in an appeals process.

Another issue on there is "Global blocks should be placed with the lowest expiry possible, while still remaining effective. All global blocks should have an expiry."

I am wondering if there is an expiry date on this? I do not know where to locate it if there is based on http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=globalauth&user=&page=User:Tyciol%40global

Again if that is expired policy it would be good to remove it so as not to mislead the globally blocked into false hopes.

I am wondering, has my reply that you posted on my talk been submitted to the community for evaluation?

I am also wondering about the reasons justifying the block. "Complaints received" are clearly a cause for concern but complaining alone never justifies a block unless complaints themself are just and I do not believe any have been presented as justified. I am also vague as to what the "issues raised above" refer to.

As well as -the general concept of banning based on "exhausts the patience of the community"- I am unfamiliar with this concept, is there a place I may read about this policy to understand how it works? I am uncertain how I have exhausted patience seeing as how I have basically just gotten banned without warning or chance to appeal the ban so like... exhausting patience sounds more like a description of someone who's been given multiple warnings or chances to learn from mistakes. I am not aware of any mistakes, but regardless it doesn't seem like I've done anything that would warrant describing as exhausting.

You're conflating the concepts of "global block" and "global lock" - You're already familiar with the idea of blocking, though it should be noted that global blocks only apply to IP addresses - we have no mechanism in place to globally block usernames at this time, though it's certainly a feature we've requested.
Global locking is different and has effect only on unified accounts, setting a flag which prevents the locked user from editing. Previously it simply disabled the user from being able to login at all by forbidding the password match, but that gave a factually incorrect error message (that is, "Password incorrect" or however it's phrased). - Global blocking is set with an expiry, while global locking has no expiry available.
While uncommon, community bans are an inherent ability of any consensus-driven wiki: Communities create specific policies that are arrived at via discussion and compromise, and the block and ban policies of those projects are certainly part of this bailiwick. An example (but please don't mistake it for the policy in use) would be en:Wikipedia:Ban#Community bans and restrictions. While it's not totally applicable in this case, since the discussion period amongst other things is English Wikipedia specific, the section describes the concept well enough for reference.
I'll link to your talkpage from SRG after I post this. Please note that regardless of the outcome, it would be up to a different steward to reverse the action that I performed if the consensus results in your unlocking - It would seem to me to be an ethical breach for one steward (or admin, for local admin actions) to dictate the terms of an unblocking to someone. You're certainly free to contact other stewards or other members of the community, even the board directly (though I doubt that they would intervene, honestly.)
Hopefully the resulting discussion of the lock will stay somewhat professional. Kylu 06:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Actions so far[edit]

You've likely followed the lack of response at Srg#Global_unlock_for_Tyciol so far.

Do you want to continue to leave the request there?

Also, if you'd like, you can send commentary on my (mis?)handling of the situation that I can post at User_talk:Kylu/confirm for review during the next confirmation. Kylu 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Response from Tyciol, 9/3/10 @ 3:35am

I wasn't particularly following it, I guess I figured I'd find out eventually if replies were made or a decision was reached. Yes, if it is still an option I would prefer to keep the request up there as long as possible to increase the likelihood of another Steward taking notice of it.

As for how you've handled it, you've probably been the most cordial and attentive authority I've dealt with thus far, so I don't have any complaints. I don't understand policy intricacies well enough to know fully why the lock can't just be reversed or why the opinion of the locking admin can't hold any weight, unless of course I've got it wrong and a different person put it in place than who deals with the appeals process.

The whole thing's pretty confusing I guess, I don't understand the policy for determining who is locked or why that can't be presented.

If you'd like to post my praise on that talk page subsection that's cool, I certainly can't make the change myself =P

Appreciated. I'll leave the request up, then. Also...3:35am? Go to bed earlier, it's healthier for you. Kylu 00:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Response to email: Bypassing blocks and locks is considered block evasion and has two primary drawbacks:
  1. It allows the administrators there to reset the time on your block (if not indefinite) as well as block the new account, and,
  2. It gives evidence of your unwillingness to follow community procedures and policies, which by extension, gives the community less reason to trust that you will do so in the future and, it follows, less reason to "allow" you back into that community by lifting the locks and blocks.
I imagine your best bet would be to ask the arbitration committee there to allow you a single, known account to edit with there and a limitation against editing those articles which they feel you're unsuited to edit (I would imagine, then, children's subjects and sexuality subjects?). If the Wikisposure information on you is incorrect, explain this to them and ask for a chance to prove yourself.
Further ban evasion will simply cement any proof in their minds that you're as bad as they think you are, and soon you'll have to look forward to targeted restrictions meant for such folk as put pictures of diseased penises in Pokemon articles. Frankly, at that point, there's little to no chance ever that your restrictions would be voluntarily lifted. Kylu 17:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Response from Tyciol, 9/5/10 4:53pm:

Well since I get stuff like 'infinite' or 'indefinite' even though there's no supporting policy for that, the time reset seems like a non-factor. I've shown my willingness to follow procedure and policy, I think I went about 6 months without editing Wikipedia. That's about the length where things are supposed to be 'bygones be bygones' or in the very least, deserve further review. I was accused of being disruptive so I wanted to demonstrate the potential to make constructive edits in a way I knew could be linked by admins-only to review.

I have already requested that of the arbitration committee. I'm fine with editing under a new name, they can even choose it, and I have no intention of linking it to this one. I don't even mind if they disable e-mail user (even though I don't deserve that) and limit my ability to communicate to user page public archives. I have already explained the information there is incorrect, and have already asked for chances to prove myself, on several occasions. There is no 'proof' in their minds, and I suppose to me their minds already seem cemented. I guess I just didn't see how it could get any worse. All I've demonstrated is my willingness to make constructive edits since I've had no opportunity to do otherwise. I could continue to do so anonymously, but then my name would never be cleared, and I think that's their intention.

I could understand this concern if I were evading a ban to make disruptive edits, but at this point, policy is being completely ignored, and conclusions are being drawn completely inappropriately. So anyway, I'll continue to hope that the application here is heard, I suppose. I hope the reasons for the global (b?)lock are reviewed in the collective wikis. I don't intend to contact the ArbCom any more until there is some kind of 'changing of the guard' so to speak and fresh minds are at the posts. I was told that if I continued to mail them (even though I only do so once every couple months are so) that my e-mail would be blocked. Something like that is suited for spammers, something I could only understand were I mailing the list more than once a week or perhaps month.

I suspect, from the absolute lack of commentary of any sort on your unlock request, that the folks involved seem perfectly happy to leave it the way it is, honestly. As I said, I'll leave the unlock request up until someone else eventually removes it. Kylu 21:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mail dated Wed, October 20, 2010 12:18:28 PM Subj: Meta e-mail[edit]

Kylu, while none have spoken up on behalf if having the global ban removed, it was still your choice (if I am understanding events correctly) to instate it. You mentioned before "it would be up to a different steward to reverse the action that I performed if the consensus results in your unlocking - It would seem to me to be an ethical breach for one steward (or admin, for local admin actions) to dictate the terms of an unblocking to someone."

(I think possibly you had a typo as you went on to point out the difference between block/lock which I wasn't aware of until then)

This concept confuses me, why would it be wrong to dictate the terms of unlocking yet right to dictate the terms of the initial lock? I'm not even sure what 'terms of unlocking' means, I thought that both blocks and locks were removed either based on meeting the terms they instate, or by being nullified.

I guess I am thinking like the difference between a divorce and nullifying a marriage. In this case: I think the lock should be nullified because I have not broken any rules. There was not any democratic vote to remove me by all members, so to say the 'community' or whatever wants it, I do not see the support. There's been plenty of people who have exhausted my patience over my years of contributing to these wikiProjects and I've never moved to lock or block them. Instead, I just take some time off, maybe play an MMO or something.

Would it be possible for you to nullify the lock after how I have explained to you that I did not make these statements I'm accused of making? There's no evidence to support that, I know there can't be since I did not state anything near what was summarized.

Obviously even if you have the ability to do so, it's your choice in the end, but I want to know if you have that choice or not. Surely if you were to remove the lock, you could announce it on the Steward board and leave it up to someone else to move to instate it. In the very least, I think I should be unlocked until there is a thorough discussion supporting why I should be locked or however it is that locks get determined, I'm not sure. It just pains me to lose the memberships I have cherished just because some bullies want to lie about me.

I still need to deal with the problems with the individual projects, but being globally locked seems like the most prominent issue to address first. (from Tyciol, via email)

I'll ask for evidence to support the lock on the existing request.
While I have the technical ability to unlock you, I also have the technical ability to deal with users causing me personal upset by checkusering them, globally blocking the IP range of the ISP they use, locking their account and the accounts of their friends, etc... so obviously technical ability isn't really the heart of the matter.
My refusal of unlocking the account has nothing to do with the merits of the case as presented, any issues I have with you personally, or your behavior during our interactions (you've been quite understanding for someone who's been locked, frankly) — Honestly, I've seen some edits that the people have linked to, and base the lock on our Executive Director's statement regarding the matter, which is reasonably a fiat policy for Wikimedia sites. I wouldn't know, I'm a good button pusher but not very successful at getting policies implemented, in my opinion.
Basically, it boils down to leverage. If I can lock you at will (rather like this) and state that I'm able to unlock you also, then it's a very short leap from there to my being able to demand that all your edits conform to some criteria that I state, or otherwise impose whatever restrictions I'd like on your behavior.
Now, while I'm sure that this is going to be good for a laugh to my "friends" on WR, various IRC regulars, and sundry folks that I've managed to piss off on various occasions, I actually do have a firm belief that people in positions of technical power need to avoid potential abuses of that power. In refusing to be the one who performs an unlock, I can make sure that I'm in no position to actually make your unlock contingent on obeying directives that I implement myself: I merely try to gauge consensus (whatever that is) and try to action the outcome in light of those few inviolable policies and board resolutions that are "beyond" mere community determination: Regardless of how many people vote for someone in an election, for instance, and how much they threaten to de-steward me, I'll refuse to grant checkuser, steward, or oversight to someone who has not identified to the Foundation. The demand of the Foundation to restrict those rights on the servers its owns outweighs public opinion in that matter. Now, if the Board decides to lift that restriction first, that's another story there (not that I'd agree with it, but...)
I suppose that whole mess is a ramble, but I do hope you take away some understanding of why I stated what I did, and why I intend to stand by that decision. Feel free to deny my logic if you'd like, but there are 31 stewards by my count, 30 of which can perform the unlock if they feel that's what the community and policy demand.
To make it clear for anyone just "tuning in", here:
I'm stating, for the record, that any Steward, Staff member, Sysadmin, Founder, or other member of a usergroup with the technical ability to do so may reverse the global lock on Tyciol that I initiated under any of these conditions:
  1. The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has decided that Tyciol is to be unlocked.
  2. The Executive Director has decided that Tyciol is to be unlocked.
  3. The Meta community, collectively, has publicly developed either a consensus or popular vote with the outcome that Tyciol may be unlocked.
  4. The global Wikimedia community, collectively, has publicly developed either a consensus or popular vote with the outcome that Tyciol may be unlocked.
  5. The person unlocking the account really, really wants to unlock you, and they agree to take responsibility for the action themselves.
I only ask that any combination of the above not request that I personally perform the action. Thanks. Kylu 01:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Email: Sun, November 14, 2010 10:44:28 AM[edit]

Thank you for requesting on my behalf input on the Steward requests. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global#Global_unlock_for_Tyciol I have had a chance to review the comments in late October and will add my input to the discussion, if possible, as it seems to have stalled once more.

Very good intuition to ask if diffs can be provided: I expect not, I have never expressed such views nor used Wikipedia (or any other Wikimedia project) as vehicle for any kind of activism, grooming, predation, or whatever else has been asserted by others that I am overlooking.

I still hope perhaps you will cancel the universal freeze, as you can't rightly be accused of dictating terms of an unlock if there aren't any terms to the unlock. Again with the marriage analogy, I am asking for the decision to be annulled for lack of evidence, not to be unlocked as if the lock were valid to begin with (like a divorce of a valid marriage).

To address some of the wrongs (I'll not bother with words like lie/error, as I do not know what is at the root of the inaccuracy and do not want to unfairly condemn people on the wrong criteria) made: Ottava Rima:

  • "he posted he is willing to pursue sexual activity with those as young as 13"
That is false. I have never stated that. I look forward to seeing OR attempting to supply proof for it. While clarifying my views or standards should not be necessary or relevant to the dismissal of these unsupported claims, I'll do so to provide contrast and clarification to this malicious lie. I am only willing to have legal sex. In Canada, that would be a consensual act with someone over 18, is my guideline. That's half a decade away from 13. I am not willing to engage a minor, I will only engage legal adults who give informed consent and are mentally capable. I believe this assertion violates a lot of policies (albeit perhaps they only apply to Wikipedia and not to Meta, I am unsure) such as Assume Good Faith, Civility, and No Personal Attacks. I respect these standards, this is why I do not accuse Ottava or other guilty parties of being liars, because I assume enough good faith that they may simply be misinformed. Misinformation does not reflect stupidity on their behalf, I have been ignorant of reality and details many times in spite of intellect. I am able to forgive them when they become aware of and acknowledge these mistakes they have alleged about my views and statements.
  • "he has no problem with those who pursue sexual activity with those younger."
Also incorrect. I can usually find a problem with pretty much anyone in the world, but I especially have a problem with criminals who violate the law, especially so in the case of vulnerable members of society with fewer rights, such as minors. This statement is a polar opposite of my views, and I hope OR realizes he's making a presumption in time (at least I hope that's the case, I hope for good faith).
  • "A website that I cannot link to (encyclopedia dramatica) has a lot of the evidence on their Tyciol page."
Odd, could have sworn some administrators on Wikipedia link there... anyway I have consulted that page and the text added to it repeatedly after it was brought to my attention. There is nothing there I would deem 'evidence'. In exploring the site further, I realize it is a parody site where unlike Wikimedia projects, users are allowed (nay, encouraged) to input falsehoods for the purpose of entertainment. One only need to consult their page on Jimbo Wales which disparages him as "a notorious con artist" and "a self-loving faggot, who suffers from advanced megalomania". Horrible statements like this and the lack of regulation such as what we experience here are reason enough to not consider the site a reliable resource for making important decisions about Wikimedia users.

Kylu, I would not be averse to the request having its own page (so long as it were linked to from the primary Global stewards request one it is currently on), it sounds like a good idea to avoid cluttering it if the conversation becomes lengthly.

Contacting the Arbcom is certainly one group to consult. Another is Gmaxwell, whom I dealt with in regards to my Wikimedia Commons account. Certainly I would consider both a better source than the aforementioned. However in spite of this: I believe the ArbCOM is either jumping to conclusions or being dishonest. I have thoroughly read the policy (conveniently written months after my indefinite block, but nonetheless) and I am completely sure I have not violated a single statute. I wish for the opportunity to face these assertions in public, because clearly they have the ability to exert power without accountability, a power I believe which has been abused to get rid of someone at the behest of terrorizing trolls.

Tiptoety is not being honest: I was not blocked for editing certain topics. Looking at what he actually links to, I do not see any trolling either. In regard to enwiki policy on the matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks

"An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block": this would mean ignoring served time and starting from the beginning. Such vocabulary is clearly not applicable to 'indefinite'. "may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block.": Which of the behaviour is blockable? Regardless of that, I am unsure if 'indefinite' could be extended. It's been phrased as 'infinite' by some of the zealous punishing admins.

SP supports the same idea as BP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts

"Circumventing policies or sanctions: Policies apply per person, not per account. Using a second account to violate policy will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account, and in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart." Evasion causes the timer to restart. There is no timer. Maybe new policy should be drafted? Legitimate uses include clean start, privacy, security.

What's being ignored here is the invalidity of the consequences in the first place, and that all proper steps have been taken to appeal. Also ignored is the misuse of locking:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Locked_global_account "done to stop abuse such as spamming, vandalizing, or creating malicious account names". I've never spammed, vandalized or engaged in maliciousness. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_blocks_and_locks#Global_locks "generally applied to vandalism-only accounts" "Accounts that have been used only for vandalism or abuse on multiple wikis and are actively vandalizing now" "whose names are offensive or abusive" "legal threats, advocating for child pornography, or posting private personal information about others". http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/SH#lock "Accounts should never be locked except in cases of certain bad faith"

None of these examples are applicable in this case, the lock is not supported by the guidelines and my argument's that it should be declared null and void for lack of just support for its enactment. I have acted in very good faith, attempting to co-operate and communicate and these have been rejected with unproven assertions instated.

I am hopeful that this steward request receives further review, hopefully by some fresh names with an open mind and good sense of policy and right and wrong.

Comment not a comment: Posted as received without commentary. Kylu 02:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tyciol, please note that I never said you were blocked from editing a particular area of the wiki. Instead, I stated that you went back to editing areas that got you blocked in the first place. What I am saying is that, with your sock account, you returned to editing areas of controversy for you. Areas that got the ball rolling towards the block you are currently serving. I hope that clarifies things. Tiptoety talk 18:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Reply to Tiptoety, Sun, November 21, 2010 5:46:47 PM from Tyciol:
Hello, thank you for replying here http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyciol&diff=next&oldid=2208810
If you wish you may post my reply on either of our pages at your discretion (I'm unable to do so). I'm wondering if I should ask Kylu if he'd open an RFC as Lestaty suggested, since it's not something I could open myself.
I responded "I was not blocked for editing certain topics." to your comment that I was "editing similar topic matters that got him blocked in the first place".
You replied "I never said you were blocked from editing a particular area of the wiki. Instead, I stated that you went back to editing areas that got you blocked in the first place."
This confuses me, because I do not think you said I was blocked from editing a particular area and I don't think my comment conveyed that.
I was disputing what you reiterated, I was NOT blocked for editing any areas of the wiki. That would be like the issue someone like a sole-purpose editor would face. I am not anything near that, I've been editing for many years on a very wide variety of topics.
I understand the impression as I believe some people may try to paint it that way, but it is not the case. The edits I have made on the topic areas of controversy have been relatively minuscule and not controversial. The simple fact is that controversial topic areas exist, and some people do need to edit them. If I see a page that covers the laws of various issues on a topic and see a nation is not covered, I don't see the problem with linking to one of that nation's newspapers and relating an incidence.
I'd very much like to hear the Arb Com's final reasoning on why I was blocked. My correspondence with their leader Roger was not very consistent and I was not left very clear with what he thought justified it.
Comment No commentary, email dated "Sun, November 21, 2010 5:46:47 PM" Kylu 13:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Unlock request closed [1]. I don't object to an RFC, though you'll have to find another user (one whom you trust!) to represent you there. You may want to contact Wikimedia-using friends via email, or, if you have a small list of people you would like me to leave talk-page messages requesting their assistance, I'm willing to do this (given a reasonable number of users and reasonable message, of course). Also, again, any other steward could unlock you without needing to consult me on the matter; Another steward could conceivably unlock you with the restriction that you only edit your RFC until its conclusion, for instance. Either way, I do hope I've been fair about the whole matter: If not, you can mail myself (or another steward) a complaint to be posted to the next steward confirmation, though I can't guarantee how much weight it will be given, of course. Kylu 21:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Email: Fri, December 3, 2010 2:04:55 AM[edit]

Ah well, it was up there almost a couple months, I suppose I understand why requests might not stay up indefinitely. Is it possible rather than a 'request to unlock' it could be something like 'request to maintain lock'? As I've pointed out, there does not seem to be any Wikimedia policy presented that actually supports initiating the lock in the first place. Ideally if someone is unfairly locked, other users will step up to bat for them, but that's not guaranteed to be the case and I don't think policy-distant locks should remain in place solely for lack of supporters of an individual user.

User:Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt did bring up a good point about a request for comment. Unfortunately, as I am not a pro canvasser, I wouldn't know the first thing about starting an RFC. If anyone does take an interest, that would be wonderful to start. I would like to identify to anyone interested: starting an RFC does not mean you endorse me or endorse lifting a global lock, it can simply be an interest in the issues involved in a case and wanting to hear a greater deal of feedback on it.

Due to my diverse editing and focus on article quality over socializing, I admit I don't have many friends who would come to the top of my head. Honestly, I think anyone claiming, or even suspecting that kind of relationship would come under harassment from people who want this lock to stay on. As I've pointed out, this snowball started from WReview manipulators who don't have scruples about unethical behaviour.

If an admin could unlock me on the condition of only being able to edit the RFC until conclusion (how long do those usually stay open?) that would be wonderful. It would certainly save a lot of middle management. I'm even warming to the idea of being unlocked under editing restrictions of avoiding certain topics, just so long as it is clear that I would eventually like that lifted and that I retain the right to speak on policy talk pages to argue for it to be lifted.

I am unsure how many people would be a reasonable amount to contact. I'd honestly prefer for a neutral initiator rather than a friend. Just so long as the person is professional and trustworthy. Off the top of my head, I wonder if Sir Lestaty would consider it since he closed it. User:BlackKite is someone I dealt with on previous issues who I found very helpful in teaching policy to me and seemed level-headed in comparison to some of the other more biased mods I dealt with. User:Alison also seems to be very level-headed, though I am unsure if she'd be willing to get involved. User:Nihonjoe went to bat against my initial ban, and I expect he'd prefer to remain distant from these issues but I would like to see if he'd have any interest in bringing it up. For the most part though, I'd almost rather someone who clearly wished to keep me locked would start the request for comment, as that would be the least biased. In which case, I request you ask User:Ottava Rima, User:Roger Davies, User:Ryan Postlethwaite and User:Tiptoety if they have the strength of character to open this issue to commentary.

The general appeal goes out to any steward: please unlock me and initiate a 'vote to lock' and only lock me if that passes supported by policy. I did not receive any vote or process to initiate this, I was simply locked without warning and without a rules explanation for the result. I hope in the process of doing so it would actually clarify to me what policy I've violated, because I've read extensively trying to figure out and am still drawing a blank. -Ty

--

Posted. Kylu 18:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

2011[edit]

I notice that this Kylu fellow following this case has this message on his talk:

I am no longer a Meta Admin, Bureaucrat, or Wikimedia Steward. Please contact an active one of these for assistance. I will not be responding for some time, so please don't leave messages, either. Thanks. Kylu 12:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As such, I think it would be valuable if someone else took over this case. I believe the user still wishes to have their account unlocked. What rule was violated? I thought global locks were reserved for vandals. Can evidences of vandalism deserving such punishment be supplied here? It's a confusing series of events where the user does not seem to be allowed to express their observations of the rules being ignored to block him.

It appears that past votes were archived so the links which were direct on the home page are no longer current. Here are the links to the archives and a repost of key comments individuals left on them at the time:

  • July 2010: Steward Laaknor rejects the request
    • X mark.svg Not done, locking isn't a way of globally banning people, and we have no policy allowing us to do so. He is obviously not a cross-wiki vandal with 15 000 edits on enwiki over 4 years before being blocked there. If the Office wants to do anything, that is up to them. Until such time as an office action is performed, or a global banning-policy is created, it's up to the communities on each wiki how they want to handle this. Laaknor 12:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • August 2010
  • November 2010
    • If the user wants to be unlocked, your best option is to request that users who agree with that initiate an RFC. Best regards - @lestaty discuţie 13:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Gmax, Black Kite, Rima, Fr33k and Diego's blocks for tyc, Bsad and Tiptoe's blocks for PAN
  • Rima's response
  • Kylu's confirmation
    • Tyciol, for instance... I was dubious about the lock and expected there to at least be some public discussion on if it were appropriate, and to an extent I tried to encourage it, but none was forthcoming. It bothered me that I could lock someone's account on my say-so that there were a number of complaints and nobody would actually question me on it other than the blockee, and that only in passing. That's not the sort of power I'm comfortable with anyone having, really. Trust is a wonderful thing, of course, but there needs to be some sort of verification and questioning that go along with it. User:Kylu 03:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
    • With regard to Tyciol, it's a tough topic; I didn't like much that lock and especially its reasons, and I said so (if I remember correctly) User:Nemo bis 09:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No request for comment was ever held. That the lock was rejected at first and only forced through a second re-polling shows dubious motivations here. What policy supports this lock? Clarifying this would be helpful. 174.115.130.115 19:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

defense and background[edit]

  • As far as I can tell his indefinite block owes to a personal grudge by Ryan Postlethwaite to Tyciol's [partially legally-qualified and thus post-legislation backpedalled] subject-age statements on a bulletin board, along with a hate and misrepresentation campaign by Wp staff, piggybacking ("precedent" rather than "policy") on a de-facto position by Jimbo Wales about a forbidden userbox, most likely a calculated business and public relations move. The details are on Ryan's talk page at that time, late Oct 2009; he also links to the post where the Canadian age of consent is now obsolete. Ryan as a solicitor must grovel to the national laws despite justification or relation to the real world of mindful agents. If the law declared the earth were flat and any attempt to prove or publish otherwise were a felony, he would stop any dissenter whether on Wikipedia or independent sources all the same; the jurists would work with lobbyists who impose their improper definitions to pervert words' meanings and the laws' interests into the legislators instead of the citizens, such that these opponents are labelled/libelled harmful.
  • Clinicians and scientists are not lingvists, so they regularly steal foreign words and ignorantly twist their meanings in hope nobody shall scrutinize their rationale. One must dissect pedophilia (or pædofilia): pædo, kid (whose root I believe is cognate with father, the feeder, so a pædo is someone who is fed), and filia, friendship. Understand these are distinguished from child, born offspring (tecno), and love (eros). Everyone is a child as everyone has parents, and it is dumb and inappropriate for society to disregard the etýma of English or other words and believe in equivocations lest mis-understandings happen. Another perversion Commonwealth has done is switch the word order of stems, where the substantive in a compound goes first: pædofilo literally means kidfriend, a kid who is a friend. Note older terms like philosophy, Phillip, philately, etc. Moreover this friendship has nothing to do with love but a treatment or attitude; one can help someone as a friend without any love. Eros is contrasted with aghapè (like) and lagneia (lust); zeýgharòne (mate) is contrasted with viaze (rape). The love of kids, properly, is eròtopædia, and a lover of kids, erastopædia. (Again, not pederast as this would mean a kid who is a lover.) In both cultures however there isn't distinction between love of body and love of mind; they sometimes overlap.
  • It seems this campaign falls back on the clinical definition of pedophile, mentioned a few times in the PAW project talk pages. That anyone who self-identifies as one is to be indefinitely blocked. The DSM definition claims two criteria, but this is easily seen to be a fraud; the 0th criterion is someone at least 16 years of age (with no explanation of this constraint), and 5 years older (elder) than the child (kid). If this prevarication were excluded, the two criteria show that nearly everyone can be labelled a pedophile, even the officers who censor and prosecute the acts, not only clinically but legally qualify as a felony sex offender and abuser of a minor, under 1USC1 which states that any law in the singular applies in the plural and plural singular. One usually regularly (for more than half a year) plays with one's own genitals as antepubescent, mindfully: https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=age+average+first+masturbation. These officials can be prosecuted for their own laws should they admit the first time they masturbated.
  • Not everyone's brain develops at the same speed. One press release by the NIMH at fault for the perniciose lige that the brain isn't fully developed until age 25, and younger brains even more behind, came out of Giedd's work on brainscans over a decade or so. What the release didn't care to mention is the paper said the study group consists of college students with above-average IQs, and that there's inverse correlation between IQ and brain development, quantified as grey matter cortical depth loss. Not only is brain development, or growth, not a virtue, it comes with loss of brain plasticity and attendant stubbornness to unlearn societal brainwash. The average IQ's brain plateaus at about 21. However the same paper says kinds of brain development don't stop, and continue into the 40s; Giedd's older work has a chart (with caption forgeries) where brain development goes into the 60s.
  • Child prodigies are well-documented and range in specialties between William James Sidis and Kay Panabaker. I went to college at 11 and 12 and qualified for every entry level class. I understood the human æsthètic by kindergarten when I found my kindergarten teacher ugly; I then knew who was comely when I had a crush on my first grade teacher and students in the years after. It is a perniciose hateful ageist oppressive deluded sociopathic lige that a kid cannot understand something. It reflects how ignorant or retarded the accuser is who projects this delusion, and there are three main groups who are behind the ageist lobby: prudes, cretins, and breeders, each with their special interests to wipe out the natural human body (As they now frame laws, it is illegal to be a Homo sapiens. Clothing isn't Homo sapiens, isn't animal or alive, and isn't a citizen. But it's illegal to be naked in public.), to impose imaginary persecutors (Where if the so-called Kristians could look at the Gospels their goal was to end the family and end the world, which was promisede 2400 and 1950 years ago both failed, and four chapters discourage marriage and two say the married shall not be resurrected. All sexuality was opposed, and lines on prostitution were censored or mistranslated into same-sex prohibitions.), and to own children as property until they're no longer kids. But these ageist laws break the 1st, 13th, 14th, and 26th amendments and civil, human, and natural rights.
  • The ignorant cannot be helped by suppression or protection, where protection without consent is oppression, but by education and probation. The slack can defend themselves with knife training. The age of consent laws do not exist to protect kids but legislators, as the laws are exempted by marriage. Any like ageist protection act is done without this protected class's participation: No poll or consensus is drawn for kids. These lobbyists hate kids as much as they hate the nonageists or the underageds' lovers; they disparage the juvenile and the puerile, and they promote maturity even when it leads to compromise, slackness, decay, death, and dissolution. The vilified groups put up with their abuse; most of them are meek and ignorant by socialization. They don't realize the laws they are allegedly under are illegal, and that society has always been fickle and prone to flip beliefs every few hundred years. Commonwealth can collapse at any time. lysdexia (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)