User talk:Air Fortress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Air Fortress, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cunard (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for being a sockpuppet of banned user Sarsaparilla. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Section 31 / Frederick Day

Ah, Section 31. This has been a well-played chess match so far, and I would compare the situation to you being up a piece. Indeed, I made some critical mistakes due to not taking the game very seriously, which you capitalized on. While I was sidelined from the action (i.e. while I was blocked from commenting on ANI and my other talk page was protected, rendering me unable to rebut certain of your innuendos and untrue statements), you gained the initiative and wreaked havoc. I would compare it to being blocked in by my own pawns, so to speak, as it was my own actions that enabled you to gain the upper hand.

Now, you are well aware that my main purpose here is to make mainspace edits. And of course, in the wake of the Obuibo Mbstpo article, now you and others have the means by which to argue that I should not be allowed to edit the mainspace; and if I am not to edit mainspace, then it follows that I am not to edit any other areas either. After all, editing other namespaces is contingent on productive mainspace edits.

So then, you revert my mainspace edits, constructive though they may be, because you know you can successfully drive me away if those reversions are allowed to stay. I have proposed that Abd reinstate my edits, and if he is able and willing to successfully do so on an ongoing basis, then he has basically countered your attack. If not, then it is probably checkmate, as Sarcasticidealist has enough of my pages watchlisted that he can perpetually find them; and you need only watch his contributions, or the category of my suspected sockpuppets, to keep track of where the edits are that you need to revert. Abd can probably get away with reinstating the edits under Wikipedia:BAN#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users, but we'll see what happens.

It is, perhaps, not so much a game well played by you as poorly played by me, but it took a certain amount of intelligence to capitalize so effectively on my "mistakes," so to speak.

As for my other adversaries, I have some things to say about them as well:

  • Sarcasticidealist – Rather officious in fulfilling his admin role, he opposed my block but is nonetheless quite useful to you in that he watches the pages and blocks quicker than you might be able to easily arrange, now that you are blocked. Although you could also just as well watch my pages and make reports of your own; it would involve a bit more trouble, that's all.
  • Newyorkbrad – Like Sarcasticidealist, a reasonable guy. And probably for much the same reason – they've seen my work on WP:WPPP. However, he got taken in by the lies told about the Easter Bunny Hotline like everyone else. Mmm, did anyone think to actually call that number (215-475-5083) and do a bit of fact checking?
  • Equazcion – Along with you, perhaps one of Wikipedia's foremost skillful masters of the art of the provocative taunt. I often saw him jump to conclusions, usually incorrect, as when he said my contributions were a net negative. (That doesn't bother me too much, as I've been here for several years, written several featured articles, started successful WikiProjects, etc. and done many good things, which are now only tarnished by a few bad faith actions; and no one can take that away.) He was also one of the most likely people to respond to my posts, and I only recently realized that he was not bothering to read most of what I wrote before responding. I guess that does save time, while still letting you get your word in edgewise. But then, perhaps my choice of forums (i.e. Village Pump) were not the most conducive to thoughtful dialog, which Abd has pointed out. It's generally better to write an essay or something and solicit responses. So, the strategic error was on my part. No doubt, he'll have some remark to say about this as well.
  • TenOfAllTrades – I didn't like him before, but at least he's even-handed, since he blocked you as well.
  • Abd – His defenses were typically ineffective and often may have worsened things, but he meant well.
  • Yellowbeard – I never figured out who this guy is, but like you, I respect his clever playing of the Wikipedia game. It takes skill to be able to so successfully manipulate the system from an SPA like that, just as it takes skill to be able to manipulate the system using IPs as you have – normally such techniques are viewed with suspicion, but you managed to work it to your advantage.

What happened, of course, is that my bad-faith edits (canvassing for WP:PRX, creation of Obuibo Mbstpo, manufacture of a false source) it gave an excuse to get rid of me to those who may have wanted one. (Although those edits were designed to be easily detectable and revertible and more in the nature of pranks than serious attempts to damage the encyclopedia, most people don't look at it that way; and they are willing to sacrifice what good contributions I might make to get rid of the bad). Well, that's the community's prerogative, I suppose.

I wonder, Section 31, what your motives were? I suppose I'll never know. Air Fortress (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Air Fortress (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Our concern with you is that because you are jumping from account to account that you are creating the illusion of dialogue about policy and other matters when in fact it's just you - we consider that a danger to the project. If you return to a single account and get unblocked, then you can do what you like on the policy pages and the like. As for our wider motivations - let me get back to you on that one - it might take a while to write and this isn't the only "front" we are currently engaged on. section31 --87.112.22.139 (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Who's "we"? As Jpgordan noted, I was always rather "blatant" about the new accounts. It never would have stood up to scrutiny if I had tried to claim consensus existed for something. But it's irrelevant anyway; with WP:PRX, the attempt Abd and I made was to begin implementing a test regardless of consensus, pursuant to WP:EXPERIMENT, but we were stopped. Well, WP:WPPP will suffer from collateral damage if you succeed in driving me away (Abd hasn't gotten back to me on whether he's going to undo your reverts). Interesting – an indefinitely blocked user reverting a banned user. So, by the "project," do you mean "Wikipedia"? I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it would be difficult, to say the least, for me to get unbanned. As mentioned, you engineered it rather effectively, and there's not much room to breathe. The only reason my access isn't totally cut off is that I happen to attend a university, but you've sealed that off as well with your reverts. It appears my only recourse at this time is the arbcom, unless I'm going to start randomly asking admins for help. Air Fortress (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I assume you're watching WP:ANI as well (it was inevitable this would end up there). We can take it off-wiki if you want. You pick the forum. Air Fortress (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Bit of an edit conflict - I'll get to your point there but a bit of an aside about abd (following your comment) that you might want to take on board if you want to try and influence policy here.


Abd has a number of problems but let's tackle the two main ones - poor tactical vision and dissemination.

Let's deal with the tactical first - look at his recent edits, he will leap in and defend anyone and anything even hoax articles. First, he clearly doesn't research the history of the editors and things he is trying to defend. This means that editors who are familiar with the history of an article or an editor, dismiss him as an "enabler/wikilawyer". Over a period of time,you are tagged as a wikilawyer by more and more "respected" editors and then, slowly, people who've never interacted with you but keep seeing your name mentioned in negative terms automatically perceive you as one of the "badguys". Your other defender Kurt is even worse at this - his posts are uniformly ignored, when they are not ignored, people assume that if Kurt is defending an editor, that they must be bad for the project!

The two of them defending you in tandem meant you were sunk.


Moving onto Dissemination, he needs to learn the lesson that Marcus Aurelius learnt - that people want you to get to the point. His lengthy essay style responses will lose 99% of the editors by the second paragraph - and since he's a guy who needs ten to get to the point that's a problem. Worse, his tone is one of someone's got something awfully important to tell the children - that doesn't come across well in written communication or the demographic who make up the majority of this project. Section31 --87.112.87.215 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points! Yeah, I knew the length was a problem, I didn't know he was defending people who shouldn't be. Kurt, I suppose, lost credibility primarily through his RFA postings. You can also email me at sarsaparilla123@yahoo.com, by the way, if you want.
Interestingly, there were certain people who would defend me under any circumstances, and certain people who would attack me under any circumstances. And then there were the swing voters, so to speak, and I still think the Obuibo Mbstpo article and subsequent denials pretty much clinched their opinion in favor of banning me. By the way, have you seen my SpiritWorldWiki proposal yet? m:User:The Unknown Rebel/SpiritWorldWiki My thought is that implementing some technical workarounds/solutions will be more effective than trying to change policy here, and accomplish many of the same goals, perhaps even more effectively (I don't really have the patience for the prolonged campaigns that would be necessary to effectively change policy here, and I think prevailing sentiment is and was against me anyway). It looks like my work here may be about to be forcibly wrapped up anyway, and it might not take much to push me in the direction of just focusing on that project.
Constructive criticism is welcome. As they say on Wikitruth (sorry, I just love quoting them because they're so eloquent sometimes, and it's a breath of fresh air to read like-minded commentary sometimes) "Make no mistake, we wouldn't be bitching this much about Wikipedia and Wikipedian failings if we didn't, at the core, love the whole concept." Air Fortress (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(editconflict)

I've re-added your edits to the parliamentary articles, because let's face it are they negative to the project (the project being wikipedia)? no.

Kurt, I suppose, lost credibility primarily through his RFA postings.

partly but there is a wider issue here and again it related to tactical vision and Dissemination. Kurt is basically saying something that nobody wants to hear (that pretty much everything should be on wikipedia) - that on it's own is not the problem, First, Kurt will literally defend anything - this instantly means that any sensible message he has is lost in the flurry of posts he makes defending the (in wikipedian terms) the indefensible. His second problem is actually the opposite of Abd, he's actually got nothing particular interesting to say beyond a rather simplistic blunt point, but he seems to thinks that if he repeats it over and over and over and over and over again like a woodpecker pecking a tree, that people will eventually get it. What actually happens is that people tune him out, they see the name and think "oh I know what's he'll say" and then they skim right past the post. His RFA posting are just one example of this.

I'll check out your spiritworld proposal.

As for your own situation, you are actually an excellent editor when it comes to the PP material and it would be a shame to lose that. Why not try to get the ban lifted under your original account (declaring any other socks) and stick to those edits for a bit? I don't think that you need to bother with arbcomm yet. section31 --87.112.87.215 (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I'm not really sure how to get it lifted at this point. I've never been in this deep a hole before. That is to say, I've never been indefinitely blocked or banned before the Sarsaparilla account.
What I may start doing with my spiritworldwiki idea is reducing it to pseudocode, which will help me notice flaws in it or possible enhancements to the idea. Plus, then it's just a matter of figuring out how to code it. It's kinda like how before computers existed, people were already writing programs. I haven't done much software engineering; usually I just draw it out on paper, but maybe for the sake of sharing ideas with others it would be good to do some stuff in Visio (flowcharts, etc.) Then again, I don't think most programmers use that stuff outside of the corporate world, do they? Air Fortress (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
not sure, I'll ask around - I've asked some admins to come over here, so you and they can try and work out a solution to your current block (that or everything goes to arbcom I guess). --87.114.5.176 (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the help, I realize it must be a pain having to keep driving around. :) You must be getting pretty good at it by now, though. Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if arbcom imposes a 1-year ban or something, or maybe a topic ban (if it goes to them). I suppose I don't mind too much, although you know how sometimes there's that itch to edit when you know a fact that's not yet on Wikipedia? On the other hand, I'm beginning to wonder if there might be more efficient ways to write these parliamentary procedure articles. A lot has been written on parliamentary procedure, much of it before 1923, and it seems like there must be some public domain stuff out there, and people willing to release more recent stuff into the public domain. Much of what I find is on Google Books; I'm not sure if there's a way to easily copy and paste from there. Sorry, just thinking out loud. Air Fortress (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Drive around? No need, when I want my edits to be visible (such as those - so it's IP based but still broadly identifiable as me), I use the same ISP, when I don't want them to be visible, I switch to a different one (I still have a pure editing account for example). I live in a flat in one of the most urban cities in the world, so when I want to become untraceable I just shift the aerial! --87.114.5.176 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK. So, what do you recommend at this point? Just wait awhile and see if anyone responds to your ANI post, I guess? And then if nothing happens in, say, a week, I suppose take it to arbcom? The formality and slow pace of arbcom is kinda like a double-edged sword. The slow pace makes it less susceptible to being affected so much by strong, momentary emotions but it's basically a de facto 4-week ban, unless they lift it pending the outcome of the case. And the formality makes the decision crystallized – as it is now, I think one admin can lift the ban, but I don't think they can do that when the arbcom has rendered a decision in favor of a ban. And any attempts to evade a ban with a set period (e.g. a year) specified automatically reset the timer. The upside to the formality is that there are procedural safeguards that theoretically give more protection against being railroaded than are present at ANI. Air Fortress (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

my little belated response to OM's comment from a while ago

As you eventually surmised, OM, I don't read most of what you say. But just so we're clear, I think the problem is the very fact that you consider this a game. See, that's one of the reasons I don't feel the need to read what you have to say. If I see you playing a game, I don't participate, as that's not what I'm here for. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:56, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Why do you respond to my posts, when you haven't read what you're responding to? I don't think it's very beneficial. Thing about Wikipedia is, in some senses, it's very important, and in other senses, it's not important. Some people have made it through school studying just Wikipedia because it provided a better explanation than their textbooks (I've done that before). Yet, some stuff just doesn't matter a whole lot (like the hate sex AFD) so I joke around a bit there. I have been cavalier with a few mainspace edits, thinking that the weight of my positive contributions would cause a few pranks to not matter. But, they became the primary rationale for a ban, as it turned out. Oh well, lesson learned. Air Fortress (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
After some initial complete read-throughs I've found most of it extraneous. I can get the gist of it from the first couple of sentences. Some people, such as you and Abd, tend to use discussions as a way of grandstanding, getting on your soapbox to deliver essays about everything that's wrong with Wikipedia. I'm really not interested. When I want to read an essay, I know where to go, as there's a place for that. I don't need to read endless repetitions of rhetoric. If you were once a productive editor you've since become a disruptive presence, which is why you're now banned. You could've voiced your concerns about the project via essays in the correct places, but you unfortunately chose to express your disapproval in other ways. Now it's nothing but a game of wits to you, and that's why you'll stay banned. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:12, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Representative

Would anyone care to assist with an unban? I was thinking it might help if an uninvolved person, more experienced/adept with negotiating/arguing this kind of thing were to intercede on my behalf. You don't have to if you don't want to; but if you wish, look at my edits under the other accounts and make your own assessments. If no one comes forward, well, perhaps the ban continues. Air Fortress (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest a promise not to create any further socks again, ever, as a possible first step? Equazcion •✗/C • 00:19, 26 Mar 2008 (UTC)