User talk:28bytes/Archive 37

Courtesy note
I have modified a block of yours. diff. You or any admin. is fully welcome to review the entire situation and make determinations of their own; and adjust the situation as they see fit. I apologize for any discomfort this may cause, but I feel my determinations are in the best interests of the project. Kind regards, — Ched : ?  08:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * per discussion and request on my talk page I have attempted to restore your original expiration of the aforementioned block. — Ched : ?  20:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the courtesy notes. Looks like Mark Arsten has put the AN/I thread out of its misery, so perhaps this particular episode is winding down. The outcome I was hoping for was a sincere commitment to avoid the problematic behavior in the future, followed by a prompt unblock, but for whatever reason it looks like that was not to be. Ah well. 28bytes (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

user rename
Hi, I wish to rename my profile, What am I to do? I've another profile and i want to pass my contributions to this..... (Sorry for my bad english)Indinur (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there. If you're interested in simply renaming your account, WP:CHU is the place to go. If you have any trouble, let me know. 28bytes (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

testing 123
I just did a copy/pasta in my preferences. If I goofed something up - feel free to smack me with a clue bat. :) — Ched : ?  20:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Lookin' good! 28bytes (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Protocol in an RFC when a user changes name
Hey 28bytes,

I noticed you helped Zaminamina change his name - he was participating in an active RFC at Talk:Karl Marx. I was wondering - what is the usual protocol when that happens? Does his vote still count?

(20:18, 19 March 2013 28bytes (talk | contribs) renamed user Zaminamina (553 edits) to LiquidWater (WP:CHU))

Let me know what you think, thanks!Patriot1010 (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As long as he or she doesn't give the false impression that Zaminamina and LiquidWater are separate editors, there shouldn't be a problem. Whatever comments they made should be considered on their own merit regardless of the rename. A slight correction to your comment on the talk page: User:Zaminamina does redirect to User:LiquidWater, which is the standard operating procedure for most types of renames. Hope this helps. 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It does, thanks! Patriot1010 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be a bother, but you seem to be knowledgable on the subject - I am expanding my Wikiknowledge - what does "usurp accounts" refer to? The only article I could find says its outdated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SUL/Consultation_on_renamesThanks! Patriot1010 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:USURP is the page where usurps are requested. It gives a basic overview of the process, but I can (try to) answer any questions you might have about it. 28bytes (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It was very informative! The question would be - if a Target is Ursurp'd to a user - and the target made about 10 edits in 2005 - would the target's edits still be out there as made by "Vanished" or would they be "Gone" "Gone" as in no record whatsoever? Patriot1010 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Those 10 edits which would previously have been attributed to "User:Whoever" would be now be attributed to "User:Whoever (usurped)" or whatever that account was renamed to; usually we just tack on "(usurped)" to the name. 28bytes (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Patriot1010 (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey 28bytes - found an interesting thing here and I think it may involve ursups. We have this fine Wikipedian here Materialscientist but I found what looks like a copy of the same name here: Materialscientist. Note on the latter one, there is no User:, its just the name. Was this an usurp gone bad, or one of those things called a false positive? I'm sure its just some weird glitch in the system.Patriot1010 (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's just vandals who thought it would be funny to make an article about Materialscientist. 28bytes (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well yeah but then it gets weird - it says 06:07, 23 June 2011 Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted page Materialscientist (Mass deletion of pages added by Ppged55567855jd) In the Log when on the exact same date, hour and minute we have this 06:07, 23 June 2011 Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) blocked Ppged55567855jd (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (Trolling)DIFF..ahh I see - (sorry a lil dense) it is Gogo deleting the crap on Materialscientist's page and simultainously cracking the whip on some dude named Ppged55567855jd!Patriot1010 (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm...Patriot1010 (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko
Why is he blocked? I don't see any block evasion. Just Hersfold and Sandstein being confrontational. And even if there was an indef block serves no purpose, certainly it does not reduce the chance of block evasion! Rich Farmbrough, 03:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC).


 * The background is here and here, but the short version is, he kept editing projectspace pages as an IP without identifying himself, after being asked again and again not to do that. I made it clear that if he agreed not to do that anymore, I would lift the block, but by that point he was so fed up with Wikipedia that he got the stewards to globally lock his account. 28bytes (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no reason that anyone cannot edit as an IP. Indeed I determined to do so myself at one point, rather than deal with the dramah, but SUL kept signing me back in.  Kumioko never made a secret of his identity, and it was very sad to see people attacking him for "socking".  Moreover I have always believed, and I think this is part of Wiki culture too, that the validity of arguments does not depend on who is advancing them. If Kumioko wishes to leave the project and to be blocked, that is one thing.  To block him for something perfectly innocent is very much another.  And as a consequence of this block one or more of his (acknowledged) IPs have been abusively blocked by, I think AGK.  Rich Farmbrough, 04:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC).


 * I agree there's a lot to be said for the idea that the validity of arguments does not depend on who is advancing them, but there are times where that's not the case, and showing up to an arbitration case [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=539146161 pushing for the desysop of someone] is one of those cases, I believe. Let me pose it to you this way: if, during your arbitration case, you found out that you had been desysopped due largely to the evidence or comments presented by User:192.168.2.1, and you later found out that User:192.168.2.1 was Fram logged out, you'd probably be quite annoyed by that, wouldn't you? I think the same principle applies to people who were reading User:108.28.162.125's comment calling for desysopping Sarek, and not realizing it was Kumioko, whom Sarek had previously blocked. As I told Kumioko (and I apologize for repeating myself here), if he agreed not to do that anymore, I was quite willing to unblock him.


 * All that said, I've got no objection if an admin wishes to unblock to allow Kumioko to clean-start, or to come back as User:Kumioko returned, or what have you. Judging from his comments, I'd be surprised if he was in a hurry to do that – he seems quite burned and burned out by Wikipedia, and could probably do with a break from it – but of course that's up to him to decide. 28bytes (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm not denying it was annoying - but that IP was already well known to be Kumioko, and he was not blocked when he made that edit. Therefore the edit was neither block evasion, nor illegitimate socking. Rich Farmbrough, 08:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC).


 * I think we're going to have to disagree on that point. 28bytes (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Greetings all, I saw a lot of traffic with my name on it today so I just wanted to make a couple passing comments. First, thanks Rich for the kind words in the various venues. I appreciate it but there's no need to spend time defending my actions. This place isn't worth it to me anymore. If they would prefer to give the tools to users like Sandstein, Fram, Sarek and others that want to block everyone and open up months long Arbcom cases against every editor they don't agree with, then manipulate policy so they are even more powerful and can do even more they don't need contributors like me who want to build an encyclopedia. 28bytes is right, I am fed up with this place, the toxic culture, the us and them admin to editor attitudes and with the politics of it all. I wanted to contribute but the power elite just want to insult and bully so I don't have time for that crap.


 * next I want to clarify a couple other things. Clean start is an ineffective crap policy and should be deleted since the culture here doesn't support it. You can't do a clean start without being dishonest and you certainly can't do it with the same user name. Eventually someone will call you out for socking. People edit what they are interested in so the only way to make a "clean start" is to edit stuff outside your interests (because presumably you were editing within your interests prior) and that's unrealistic. Most of the time you have to say on your page I used to be X and now I am Y. That's not a clean start, that's a name change and is pointless. Its a hypocritical nonsense policy.


 * I also want to clarify that I did not suggest Sarek be desysopped, Arbcom did that, I just supported it and I still do. Sarek used to be a great admin, over the years he has become callous and no longer listens to the story. He levees severe blocks without hesitation. That is not the type of Admin we need here. Sandstein is a powermonger and Fram is an idiot and there are plenty more bad ones out there as well just like these three. If we get rid of some of these bad admins maybe some of the 640+ others will start participating if some of the jerks are moved out of the way. Right now there isn't any room to get past the big ego's. Anyway, I expect this to be deleted as atacks or whatever. It doesn't matter, I just wanted to explain some things and set the record straight. Not that I beleive for a second anyone cares. As you can see I am still a little pissed off. Kumioko 138.162.0.41 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Uhm…?
I don't know if you're the person I need to ask, but I'm still waiting on a Usurpation which says should have been "addressed on or before March 20, 2013"

Is there a problem? Who should I discuss this with? Thank you. — Temporary to usurp Loverobin (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC) (also User:Love Robin)


 * Hi there. I don't think I've ever seen two simultaneous requests to usurp accounts from one editor, so I'm leaving that one for a 'crat who's been around longer to handle. 28bytes (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thank you for the heads up. Of course, both are for the purpose of preventing impersonation. I would imagine an editor could request a dozen such actions if it would secure them against impersonation. I'll wait on a 'Crat. Any idea how long that might take? — Temporary to usurp Loverobin (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd give it a week or so. Requests don't get archived automatically, so a 'crat will follow up on it one way or another before too long. Since you talked to Avi about it previously, you may want to check with him if you'd like a quicker answer. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Thanks, and you're welcome! 28bytes (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

KumiokoCleanStart
Hi, you recently indefinitely blocked for block evasion. They are now editing as. Should that account be blocked also, pending agreement to the unblock conditions you mentioned above (i.e., no unidentified projectspace IP editing?)  Sandstein   10:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd be inclined to let him be until/unless he starts in with the IP posts again, but that's just one admin's opinion. 28bytes (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to comment. That's why I created this account. The Kumioko account is permalocked, someone would find a reason to block me for socking if my "new" username doesn't contain Kumioko in it and clean start is a garbage unsupported policy so that's why I named the account the way I did. If there is some other caveat that I need to follow that I am missing let me know. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Will you commit to editing solely from User:KumiokoCleanStart and not any other accounts or IPs? If the answer is yes, I'll note that in the User:Kumioko block log so there's not any confusion about whether you can edit. 28bytes (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes that is my intention. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. 28bytes (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixing a template
Hi, 28bytes ! I just want you to help me on fixing a template in Malay Wikipedia called "User Wikipedian for". This template does not shows the right calculation in date when I want to use it in my user page. I have tried to fix it but everything went to failure since this template is so complicated. Irfanshaharuddin (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Irfanshaharuddin. Unfortunately that template is way too confusing for me to make sense of. (I would not have expected it to be 3 kilobytes in size!) You may have better luck at the help desk, or perhaps User:Rich Farmbrough might be able to help. Good luck! 28bytes (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright. I will figure it out. Irfanshaharuddin (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocking of Kumioko.
Hi. I see you have not provided good reason to your block of Kumoku to admin Rich F. above. Please be advised that your actions are under scrutiny, I have contacted Jimbo by email. The reason I am appalled by your actions is, A)you seem to have not blocked a user for similar socking issues that were made public by Arbcom (Malleus, but you already knew that though, huh?)B)you seem to have not explained your actions and have given attitude to Rich F. above ("I think were going to have to disagree on that one"). I have alerted Rich F./Kum. via their talkpages of this notice. Please be advised that actions such as this will only get you bought into negative spotlight in the future. Please seek advice before acting hostily such as. Lastly, do treat all users equally as you do with Malleus. As I note, you nearly retired last year when Arbcom were leaning to topic ban Malleus. Maybe you are too emotionally connected/too young to/for the project to be editing in this capacity. I have a feeling you maybe letting Malleus secretly use your admin account, checkuser maybe of necessary recourse. Please take needed time off. Mr. barbers773 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * LOL. First, you're a bit behind the curve: I unblocked Kumioko several days ago. (See the section just above.) Second, I did not "nearly retire" over any ArbCom discussions; you are perhaps confusing me with another editor. Thirdly, any arrangements I have with Malleus to borrow my admin account are between me and him. That last bit is a joke, which any checkuser can easily confirm . But tell Jimbo I said "hi." 28bytes (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Jimbo here saying "right back at ya, 28bytes". I can't be bothered logging out of this account & into my real one just for a quick note, sorry ;) Disclaimer as per above 28bytes reply. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, I thought I was Jimbo? Or was Jimbo Malleus? It's all so confusing. 28bytes (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)