User talk:Naleksuh: Difference between revisions
Billinghurst (talk | contribs) [re-adding deleted component] |
Billinghurst (talk | contribs) →"casting aspersions": collapse |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
{{unblock declined|See above |
{{unblock declined|See above |
||
|2=I don't favour a removal of the block at this stage. This is based on the person who made the request and the quality of the people supporting the action. I would be willing to listen to the argument that we put the block in place until after the completion of the stewards' election in 2023, which would make it a ~13 month block. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 14:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|2=I don't favour a removal of the block at this stage. This is based on the person who made the request and the quality of the people supporting the action. I would be willing to listen to the argument that we put the block in place until after the completion of the stewards' election in 2023, which would make it a ~13 month block. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 14:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
||
{{collapse top|discussion re declined request for unblock}} |
|||
::{{ping|Billinghurst}} Thanks for the review. I recognize your name, I remember you have attempted to get me blocked in the past before ([[Special:Diff/20498149|ex]]), so, if possible, I would appreciate it if you would remove [[Special:Diff/22629822|your review]] and allow a fully [[:w:WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] [[Special:ListUsers/sysop|sysop]] to review [[Special:Diff/22625458|my request]]. However, I also recognize that [[Special:Diff/20498149|this]] was 16 months ago (a lot can change then, and one of the problems on my end is people digging up stuff from 6+ years ago) and it does seem like you are less angered at me now, so let me know if that makes sense to you, or not. I'm also a bit confused as to the meaning of the message (i.e. {{tq|the quality of the people supporting the action}} How do people have "quality levels"? Do some people have "more quality" than others?) [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]]) 16:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC) |
::{{ping|Billinghurst}} Thanks for the review. I recognize your name, I remember you have attempted to get me blocked in the past before ([[Special:Diff/20498149|ex]]), so, if possible, I would appreciate it if you would remove [[Special:Diff/22629822|your review]] and allow a fully [[:w:WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] [[Special:ListUsers/sysop|sysop]] to review [[Special:Diff/22625458|my request]]. However, I also recognize that [[Special:Diff/20498149|this]] was 16 months ago (a lot can change then, and one of the problems on my end is people digging up stuff from 6+ years ago) and it does seem like you are less angered at me now, so let me know if that makes sense to you, or not. I'm also a bit confused as to the meaning of the message (i.e. {{tq|the quality of the people supporting the action}} How do people have "quality levels"? Do some people have "more quality" than others?) [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]]) 16:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::: To clarify, I remember that [[User:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]] had previously requested that I be blocked from editing about 16 months ago in [[Special:Diff/20498149|this edit]], which I remembered immediately upon recognizing your name. At the time, I assumed this was a request and not a direct threat to block as [[User:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]] must not be a [[Meta:Administrators|sysop]] on [[:meta:Main Page|Meta]]. However, I have since realized that [[Special:ListUsers/sysop|they actually are]], and [[Special:UserRights/Billinghurst|have been for a while]]. I would assume this means that Billinghurst felt they are too involved to block directly (after all, they did oppose the RFC in question) or did not want to appear threatening (which certainly helped at least some, there was a lot of stress and drama around the entire thing, even in discussions that I did not participate in). However, I see [[User:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]] has now [[Special:Diff/22629822|reviewed]] my [[Special:Diff/22625458|request]], directly. Maybe Billinghurst feels they are no longer involved as it has been a while or simply forgot that (I probably would have if I were them, although I certainly remember it as the recipient and the name has stuck out to me ever since). However, I recognize that [[User:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]]'s approach here is civil and offers another extended branch. I do not think the 13 month block here proposed in [[Special:Diff/22629822|the review]] would make sense, for several reasons, but I would first like to hear from [[User:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]] as to whether or not they believe they are [[:w:Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins|sufficiently involved]] or may have a [[:w:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]]. Maybe they are willing to remove it themself, or, if not, we can go from there and I can try to either explain my case against the [[Special:Diff/22629822|proposed offer]] or create a second request. [[User:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]], any comments? Please let me know, I am trying to be as civil as possible, especially when trying to disprove accusations about incivility. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]]) 19:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC) |
:::: To clarify, I remember that [[User:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]] had previously requested that I be blocked from editing about 16 months ago in [[Special:Diff/20498149|this edit]], which I remembered immediately upon recognizing your name. At the time, I assumed this was a request and not a direct threat to block as [[User:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]] must not be a [[Meta:Administrators|sysop]] on [[:meta:Main Page|Meta]]. However, I have since realized that [[Special:ListUsers/sysop|they actually are]], and [[Special:UserRights/Billinghurst|have been for a while]]. I would assume this means that Billinghurst felt they are too involved to block directly (after all, they did oppose the RFC in question) or did not want to appear threatening (which certainly helped at least some, there was a lot of stress and drama around the entire thing, even in discussions that I did not participate in). However, I see [[User:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]] has now [[Special:Diff/22629822|reviewed]] my [[Special:Diff/22625458|request]], directly. Maybe Billinghurst feels they are no longer involved as it has been a while or simply forgot that (I probably would have if I were them, although I certainly remember it as the recipient and the name has stuck out to me ever since). However, I recognize that [[User:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]]'s approach here is civil and offers another extended branch. I do not think the 13 month block here proposed in [[Special:Diff/22629822|the review]] would make sense, for several reasons, but I would first like to hear from [[User:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]] as to whether or not they believe they are [[:w:Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins|sufficiently involved]] or may have a [[:w:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]]. Maybe they are willing to remove it themself, or, if not, we can go from there and I can try to either explain my case against the [[Special:Diff/22629822|proposed offer]] or create a second request. [[User:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]], any comments? Please let me know, I am trying to be as civil as possible, especially when trying to disprove accusations about incivility. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]]) 19:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
Line 68: | Line 69: | ||
::::::{{tq|Simply just claiming it did happen does not "prove" much of anything.}} Surely, with that comment, you finally understand why what you did '''was''', in fact, casting aspersions. Furthermore, putting fancy words in a {{tl|tq}} template without any actual proof via submitted logs is literally just asking people to take your word for it. Accusations should be made ''with proof'' which is pointedly '''not''' a {{tl|tq}} template. And since it seems you have gone to [[Special:Diff/22639139|lengths]] (ie using {{tl|no ping}} when mentioning me) tends to lend credence to you not wanting to notify you're mentioning me so unable to respond. So I will respond here, publicly. I made the request on RFH because you made a [[Special:Diff/22623982|grievous personal attack]] against a community member (decency comment), cast aspersions in the same diff (implied they had broken rules or otherwise betrayed the community trust), [[Talk:Stewards/Elections_2022/Coordination|failed to provide actual proof]] when asked (again, {{tl|tq}} doesn't make what you say proof), and finally demanded to be unblocked because I mentioned you were Krett12, which was community banned on the Simple English Wikipedia for this same conduct, and Computer Fizz which you abandoned, while Naleksuh was active, after a failed RfA in which you were publicly connected to Krett12. Believing a meta sysop blocked you and another sysop upheld the block and other sysops and community members agreed with the need for you to be blocked just because I asked for it on RFH is absolutely ridiculous. <b>[[User:Operator873|<span style="color: blue">Operator873 </span>]]<sup>''[[:m:User:Operator873/Connect|<span style="color:#029b00">connect</span>]]''</sup></b> 02:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
::::::{{tq|Simply just claiming it did happen does not "prove" much of anything.}} Surely, with that comment, you finally understand why what you did '''was''', in fact, casting aspersions. Furthermore, putting fancy words in a {{tl|tq}} template without any actual proof via submitted logs is literally just asking people to take your word for it. Accusations should be made ''with proof'' which is pointedly '''not''' a {{tl|tq}} template. And since it seems you have gone to [[Special:Diff/22639139|lengths]] (ie using {{tl|no ping}} when mentioning me) tends to lend credence to you not wanting to notify you're mentioning me so unable to respond. So I will respond here, publicly. I made the request on RFH because you made a [[Special:Diff/22623982|grievous personal attack]] against a community member (decency comment), cast aspersions in the same diff (implied they had broken rules or otherwise betrayed the community trust), [[Talk:Stewards/Elections_2022/Coordination|failed to provide actual proof]] when asked (again, {{tl|tq}} doesn't make what you say proof), and finally demanded to be unblocked because I mentioned you were Krett12, which was community banned on the Simple English Wikipedia for this same conduct, and Computer Fizz which you abandoned, while Naleksuh was active, after a failed RfA in which you were publicly connected to Krett12. Believing a meta sysop blocked you and another sysop upheld the block and other sysops and community members agreed with the need for you to be blocked just because I asked for it on RFH is absolutely ridiculous. <b>[[User:Operator873|<span style="color: blue">Operator873 </span>]]<sup>''[[:m:User:Operator873/Connect|<span style="color:#029b00">connect</span>]]''</sup></b> 02:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
{{comment}} Not impressed with the level of argument that the requester of unblock puts out. The commentary is still focusing on looking at other people's actions and not looking at their own behaviour and actions. No focus or consideration of [[Meta:Civility]]. There has been sufficient eyes of stewards and administrators . It is my view that this block be left as infinite and that the user can reapply for an unblock from 28 February 2023. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 04:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
Revision as of 04:59, 26 January 2022
Welcome to Meta!
Hello, Naleksuh. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!
You don't have a userpage yet...
Hey Naleksuh, and one more thing I have to say... I wanted to tell you that having your own userpage has some kind of benefit to it. Happy editing, Naleksuh! 114.149.109.20 00:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I just saw that your group is IP Block Exempt, Naleksuh. 2604:3D08:627D:A00:998D:15CC:F596:BD56 17:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Your RFC
In my experience and view of things, none of the proposals presented are likely to pass. There is only the smallest window of time to convince people to sanction editors, and it has likely closed in this case. If you would like advice for the future, please let me know. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- @MJL: Thank you for your message. I have been keeping an eye on proposal 3. However, that said, I do not find it largely problematic if my proposals do not pass. The world will not end from it. In addition, I expect to see more proposals or even a WMF ban in the coming months. I'll admit there are things I could have handled better in submitting and handling the RfC. I also know that there were people who were less-than-civil to me and I had to be civil to them anyway. So I do appreciate the kind message from you. If you do have more specifics advice for the future, let me know. Naleksuh (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
"casting aspersions"
@Tks4Fish: Please review my comment at Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Block_for_Naleksuh. The "casting aspersions" is not true, as I provided multiple evidence for the claims on the talk page, and was even able to prove another users reply wrong. In addition, the filer made claims that I was "interacting with myself" etc when I wasn't, which further shows the case should have been completely thrown out. Naleksuh (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also, the discussion was still ongoing as seen here. That comment requires a response from me, as it is continuing to accuse of invalid use, which I can prove false again. So this is at the very least premature and I would like to at least to participate in the discussion. Naleksuh (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Casting aspersions" is not correct. Block summary states that it was "without providing evidence, even after being asked to do so or to retract". This is false, both because evidence *was* provided here and because I actively addressed the response and proved multiple statements wrong. In addition the request Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Block_for_Naleksuh had multiple errors, citing that I did not provide proof even when I did provide proof, and making several claims which were proven false, such as claiming I was responding to myself when I wasn't. The filer later retracted this claim, but replaced it with a second, also false claim, which I am required to respond to that as well, which the block during an active conversation disrupts (in addition to being based on false information and claiming there was no proof provided when there was) Naleksuh (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also, I have read the talk page multiple times, and, unlike what Tks4Fish's summary claims, nobody suggested that I retract the claim, yet another sign that this is a frivolous block. Naleksuh (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Unblock request declined
This blocked user has had their unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request. Request reason: See above Decline reason: I don't favour a removal of the block at this stage. This is based on the person who made the request and the quality of the people supporting the action. I would be willing to listen to the argument that we put the block in place until after the completion of the stewards' election in 2023, which would make it a ~13 month block. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC) বাংলা | English | español | français | magyar | italiano | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | українська | 中文 | edit |
discussion re declined request for unblock |
---|
Naleksuh asked me to comment here. This is tough because I'm on friendly terms with both Naleksuh and Operator and with one of the other editors against whom Naleksuh is said to have cast aspersions. Here's what I think is going on here.
It's seems weird that a block request based on making accusations without proof only shows two diffs as proof. If Naleksuh really has exhibited a pattern, not just two posts but a pattern, and bad enough to merit not only a block but a non-expiring block, then there should be a whole lot of diffs of Naleksuh doing that. Such proof may exist, but it is not shown in the block request thread. Naleksuh also says that they did provide proof when asked, and we can see they provided something. I did not check the links to assess their quality, but there's no point. It's likely that Naleksuh thinks they provided adequate proof and Operator thinks they did not, and we'd have to get deep, deep into that. I will say that I've had far worse things said about me with no proof. I didn't notice anyone actually asking Naleksuh, "Would you please withdraw what you said about V" in that thread. So I'll do it: Naleksuh, will you here withdraw the accusation that said V "lacks basic decency"? Because we all know proving that is not something any person can do. I observe that Naleksuh's unblock request does not address the second accusation Op made, which is that Naleksuh used more than one account at a time, in violation of CLEANSTART. I reread CLEANSTART and it does say that it's not okay to use two accounts at the same time, with an inferrable "even if they don't interact." Naleksuh, would you please acknowledge that you used two accounts at the same time in a way that broke the rules and will you promise not to do so going forward? Operator has acknowledged that they did not interact with each other, as originally claimed. It is possible that this is the sole reason Fish blocked you, not the claims that you failed to provide any evidence. Many people prefer to keep to the bright line rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
[re-adding deleted component]
Comment Not impressed with the level of argument that the requester of unblock puts out. The commentary is still focusing on looking at other people's actions and not looking at their own behaviour and actions. No focus or consideration of Meta:Civility. There has been sufficient eyes of stewards and administrators . It is my view that this block be left as infinite and that the user can reapply for an unblock from 28 February 2023. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC) |