Hello, Martinvl! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Stwalkerster (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at [[1]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Alex79818 (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop disrupting an SPI
Your actions here are unacceptable. You cannot simply rearrange views like you did here to suit your own agenda. Others have contributed in context, and you corrupted the whole sense of the discussion. It is not fair to all those others concerned. MeasureIT (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine. I was mostly annoyed at his edit summary, which is typical of this person. When I left the note on his page, I knew he'd come back and say that you had moved the comments in the first place so he was innocent etc, so I criticised you in the note as well. I don't have a problem with moving the comments, just with him spouting bad faith all the time. Now that I've left that note, he has specifically not got any permission to move my comments, so he can't do it again. Thanks for the ANI heads up, cheers :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you (Bretonbanquet) mean by "so he can't do it again"? I never moved any of your comments, that was Martinvl. I restored them to their original positions. MeasureIT (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, why are you even bothering to speak to him? What you're writing will have zero effect on the way the SPI case is handled. You're just wasting your time. You're free to do so if you wish, I just thought I'd point that out. (FYI in England if you think a kid is lying you might say "you're telling porkies" to him) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp14:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I notice that User:MeasureIT has requested that his block be lifted. May I draw to attention the following:
I did not actually make a fourth reversion during the 24 hour period.
MeasureIT failed to give me advance warning that he was placing a 3RR notice, just as
he failed to notify me that he was this issue on the Fringe Theory notice board,
he failed to notify me that he was raising the issue on the Original research notice board
he failed to notify me that he was the issue on the Conflict of interest notice board.
MeasureIT’s record on this article, such as the tone of language used in this edit had much to be desired, especially when he stated that he was restoring NPOV.
In short, since MeasureIT was doing all that he could to needle me, I was the victim and he the perpetrator. If you see fit to lift his ban I request that mine be lifted simulatanteously.}
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metrication in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chapel Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
If it is of sufficient importance to have a section, then the contents of that section should be summarised in the lead per WP:Lead. It is also of benefit to those readers who understand usage such as kph to see it in the lead. Removing it from the lead might be seen as a POV action, as though there was an attempt to suppress such usage. We need to ensure that our articles give a robust appearance that we are not being selective about which common expressions we approve of! SilkTork✔Tea time17:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Credit card! (sorry)
Hi, sorry - sarcasm doesn't travel well and I should have been clearer! Apologies. All I'm saying is that we probably shouldn't say it's a credit card when it isn't, if only because it will upset sad people with OCD, i.e. me! I agree that a fifteen-paragraph explanation might be a bit excessive, on the other hand ... oh, I really don't know. Do you think there is some concise form of words that makes it clear somehow but doesn't actually say it's a card. Does "plastic card" work?? Sorry - not good editing from me. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on reflection I think that your second version with quotes around it pretty much does that. I might just shut up now! :) Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies accepted. When I photgraphed it, I deliberately avoided having credit card (privacy and all that). It was only when I blew the picture up (and it was too late to retake it), than I realised that the text could be read. I didn't know that my camera was that good! Martinvl (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Rather than reverting, whinging and throwing about bad faith accusations please come to these talkpages and discuss your continual insistence of adding unencyclopaedic content to these metric system related articles:
By all means argue your opinion on the content, but please don't persist with these ad hominem personal attacks. You may get yourself into trouble with the administrators behaving like that. 212.183.128.202 (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3RR warning
Beware of the 3RR rule at International System of Units. There are discussions on the talkpage about that section, take the time to read, and digest, the opinions of others, and add ideas of your own. We should try to talk this one through, rather than attempt to impose our will. 212.183.140.4 (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I've issued a couple of rangeblocks for DeFacto and his obvious socks:
23:00, 19 February 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) blocked 212.183.140.0/26 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months (Block evasion: obvious socks of user:DeFacto) (unblock | change block)
22:54, 19 February 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 212.183.128.128/25 (talk) with an expiry time of 3 months (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Block evasion: obvious socks of user:DeFacto) (unblock | change block)
It's under 200 IP addresses. I'm tired of dicking around with those. I'm sure he'll pop up again somewhere else since he doesn't seem to have anything better to do. Sad. Toddst1 (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mcewan, No problems at all - in fact I am glad that you found the citations - wheh I looked for them on the .gov.uk a year or two ago, I coulkd not find them, so I used the UKMA site. User:DeFacto has been hassling me for two years now so now this is one less thing that he has with which to hassle me. Martinvl (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited M606 motorway, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hull and Halifax (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello Martin. In the spirit of WP:BRD, with your Bold edit to introduce italics into the mile column of UK road junction lists having been Reverted, you should not change it back again whilst there is an ongoing Discussion. Wait now to see if there is a consensus amongst editors for such a change to be introduced. 178.105.26.216 (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
M3 edit
This edit was made on an old version of the page and reintroduced errors and bad use of bold/capitals, ref placements etc. Please be careful to work on the most recent version of a page, or place an appropriate template telling other users that you're making large changes. Also, if you now believe a consensus exists to do this, are you going to remove the colour code key from the footer of every UK roads list? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the bit where you waited just five hours before starting your mission? Typically we allow discussions to go on a little longer than five hours before rolling out mass edits and modifications to the manual of style etc. What's the rush? Remember, there is no deadline here. Besides, the discussion continued after your declaration onto the possibility of using a template instead, which would have no ACCESS issues. Have you considered that? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this edit demonstrates that you are becoming disruptive. I notified you above that you had used an old version of a page to roll out your changes, and asked you nicely to be more careful. You weren't. If you continue to edit in this fashion, we'll need to discuss this disruption in more detail. And to think I defended you when Rschen7754 had mentioned Arbcom. Silly me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are the one who was being disruptive by removing a perfectly clear citation and then stating that a citation was needed. I use the word "clear" rather than "reliable" because the citation stated exactly how I came by that information, no more and no less. You have every right to question the reliability of the citation, but not its existance, especially when you deleted it. Martinvl (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're missing the point. Your edit removed a series of other edits by other editors. You need to be careful when you edit pages. Make sure you use the most recent edit. And I have no idea what you're talking about here by the way. What is this "clear" and "reliable" issue you have? You have made a number of disruptive edits, please stop doing it. By the way, if it helps, citations should be from reliable sources. Make sure you use reliable sources when you "reference" things. Although an editor of your experience surely must already know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me exactly which edits you are objecting to, and while you are about it, would you please also tell me why you reverted Gareth Griffith-Jones' work of 09:22?
I know that I removed the coloured blocks - the general consensus of WP:RJL was that they should go (you might not be privy to this posting that I made in connection with the coloured blocks).
I know that I corrected the destinations for the M3/M25 junction to reflect those currently displayed on Google Maps. Reverting this change is totally unjustified.
I know that I reinstated my citation of 2009 and removed your "citastion needed" flag - I believe that your action here was unjustfied and I am willing to submit this action to arbitration.
What on earth are you talking about? Do you actually read the posts you get? I showed you two edits you made which over-rode edits by others. The second was after a warning which you clearly disregarded. Stop doing it. Cheers. (FYI, I've reinstated the work that Gareth did (which you'd blown away in your first edit, as it happens), so bonus there, eh?!) Incidentally, with regard to your anecdotal "source", please do "submit this action to arbitration", it's nonsense, and I look forward to seeing how you could possibly defend it against our policies and guidelines. Obviously, it would be courteous of you to let me know when you instigate such arbitration. In the mean time, I'll start referencing everything I do with something like "sourced in situ" or whatever nonsense..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not blow away any of Gareth's changes. If you check the history of today's changes, you will notice that all of my changes were in the subsection "Junctions" while none of Gareth's were in that subsection. Martinvl (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, you just over-rode all the other edits, most of them mine, as I demonstrated to you twice in diffs in this very section of your talk page. Stop disrupting Wikipedia. Let me know when you start arbitration. In the mean time, stop disrupting Wikipedia with your incorrect self-belief, your rolling out of a "consensus" after five hours of discussion, your inability to understand we have no deadline. Calm down. Slow down. Relax. We'll get it sorted, but it doesn't have to happen in 20 seconds. 20 days, or so is fine. Get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're rolling out templates (without consensus I might add) with hidden notes. You are then not bothering to expose those notes on the pages in which you're rolling out the templates (for which you don't have any consensus). That means you have N1 etc, but no corresponding notes. This is very bad. Please fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please revisit every place you're implementing your non-consensual templates and ensure you expose the notes to the reader. If you don't understand how to do this, perhaps you shouldn't be meddling with templates and rolling them out when you have no consensus to do so. And actually, hiding these notes away in templates when editors then need to add a bunch of other wikicode at the end of the page is really a bad idea. Consider what would happen if they already have their own notes which aren't using the same notation.... terrible idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The templates are designed to automatically display notes that are relevant to distances only if the RJL has distance columns. Likewise, they are designed to automatically display notes if the carriageway letters are displayed. In this way, the reader is not exposed to notes that have no relevance to the RJL concerend. In addition, the editor concerned can add his own notes to the list of notes in the footer box if he so wishes. While applying the templates, I am checking for things such as other editor's notes - I have not come across any yet. I will cross that bridge when I see notes by another editor - whatever I do, rest assured, I will not destroy them.Martinvl
BTW, if editors wish to add their own notes to the structure, all that they need to do is to add the parameter notes = Y to the template RJLUKfooter, and if the RJL has incorporated distances, even that will not be neccessary.(talk) 18:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Well the least you can do as you roll out these templates which have no consensus whatsoever is to implement the notes yourself. It would be unfortunate if, in the rolling out of these templates without any consensus, you fall foul of your own advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly what I have been doing. While rolling them out (and deliberately choosing minor motorways such as the A308(M) which get 12 hits a day as opposed to the M25 which get 700 hits a day), I have been tuning the templates quite a bit. I have also been very careful to ensure that at all times, articles will read sensibly. Martinvl (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like this edit which was finally corrected by this kind edit? Hiding notes in templates is a very bad idea. And rolling them out without any consensus is worse. Please stop, find a consensus for your version of these templates before continuing on your one-man crusade. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you can show anyone the consensus you think you have to roll out these new templates? Note, if you can't, then I guess you won't mind me reverting all these edits back to the previous status quo? Also, you have a number of answers to comments of yours at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists. It would be useful to see you replying there. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently preparing a document to get some proper feedback based on the experience I have gained on rolling out over the smaller motorways. BTW, I have fixed the M67 problem. Martinvl (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On your "terminal"? How retro. No, there are no notes showing on that page. Once again, another example as to why you shouldn't be using hidden notes. Please reconsider. Alternatively, I'll undo all the RJL templates you've been implementing without any consensus. How about that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, I can see them. Obviously nowhere near where normal footnotes go! Brilliant idea. Not. I suggest you remove this half-baked idea entirely. Footnotes belong in a footnotes section, not special hidden notes from templates being displayed in a hidden style in another template. Overly complicated and in no way beneficial to our readers. By the way, plenty of comments waiting for you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding the UK RJL templates to articles, there is no consensus to do so. You have many, many comments to respond to at the MOS page. If you try to implement these templates again, I'll remove them. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Château de Beaumesnil, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Henry V and Beaumesnil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on M4 motorway. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Error on my part. I had copied it into my sandbox, corrected and tested the error, copied the corrected version back into main space and then in error blanked the corrected version, not the version in my sandbox. I have now reinstated my corrected version and double checked it against the article Pope Francis. Martinvl (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Your recent filing suggests that the main issues are editor conduct or behavior. If this is accurate, it may be best to close this filing and suggest formal arbitration. If you feel that there is predominantly a content dispute the filing may move forward. Thank you and happy editing.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(stalking) Martin, why do you insist on keeping this subject alive? It's not doing you any favours, and is just aggravating people. Your DRN thread was extremely problematic, in that it focused on contributors, not content, so it was never going to go anywhere. You can try arbitration if you really want, but if you do that, the drama level will explode, so can I please, please, please suggest you ignore this subject and go and edit something else? We could really do with reviewers for Articles for creation submissions if that sounds interesting to you. Anything will do, really, as long as it doesn't have junction boxes. Oh, and Rschen, stop rising to the bait. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm celebrating the end of the beginning of grant-writing season by getting back on wikipedia and putting my first-ever article up for peer review. Turnabout is fair play, so you're more than welcome to contribute if you find the topic at all interesting. If it's not your thing, no worries.
I read the article - I am not really competant to make any comments other than maybe a bit about the layout - I recognise that often you have to make compromises with what you have, so maybe what I have written is being a little over-pedandic.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited M25 motorway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M26 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Generally the article is decent. It is simpler to understand than the main article (and sensibly leaves out most of the minutiae about redefinitions of metric units), but not by all that much, because (to me) metric system is fairly accessible anyway. I'm not very familiar with introduction articles and don't know how distinct they are supposed to be from their more complicated parent articles, but I don't see a whole lot of distinctness in this one. The difference between the two articles that struck me most is the detail about the definition of the second changing after they used solar eclipses to determine that Earth's rotation is slowing down. That's not in the main metric system article, which strikes me as odd—I'd expect parent articles to be more detailed than introductions—but not necessarily "wrong".
I'm not sure what you mean by "whether it is worth developing", but in terms of quality the article is a solid start, and the main thing I wonder about is whether it's distinct enough from the main article to justify the effort. A. Parrot (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A. Parrot
Thank you for your comments. I think that at the moment the "Introduction to" articles are still developing - my rationale abpout including the earth slowing down in the "Introduction to the metric system", but not the main article is that this is a concept that could be understood by the non-scientific readersip - using that level of detail in the main article about all the base units woudl result in a huge article. Martinvl (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy- Thank you for reviewing my nomination for Washington to become a good article. I wasn't sure with your decision- are you placing the article on hold or quick failing it? If you are placing it on hold, could you be a little more particular with the problems. Thanks again! PrairieKid (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Prairie Kid
I have had to fail the article. May I suggest that once you have fixed the problems that I have identified (too many lists) and dead links, that you resubmit for peer review and wait for a review before you submit for GA status. I saw the article in the peer review section a few weeks ago but real life prevented me from reviewing it. Martinvl (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't want to create a stub for du Toit (if someone else wants to: Have a look at the sitelinks of Wikidata item Q1401026), like I don't want to create a stub for any of the other key people of the Genootskap (the article counts eight founding members plus one "spiritual father", du Toit just being one of the founding members). But the current linking is incorrect: VIAF does not have an entry for this organisation (or at least what I had removed was not this entry), it just has an entry for this person. We do not have any personal information about du Toit in this article, and there's no reason to link his personal entry here rather than the entry of anyone else. --YMS (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, I just asked a question over on WP:RED about personal names. As an editor of this guideline if you could help me find an answer I would much appreciate it. Thanks. --MisterShiney✉18:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of information on Fleet, Hampshire page
Please refrain from calling references advertising if they are certifying that 'Stephanie Weller' the teenage model and beauty brand owner is actually from Fleet. Many editors are fed up of your constant reverting and you will be blocked and reported if it is to carry on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashikotchneva (talk • contribs) 17:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am her agent but I'm no fool. I'm in the middle of writing her article at the moment actually and once I have, I intend to put her back on the list but if it makes you happy then I wont use her business website as a link :)
Under Wikipedia rules, people (or their agents) should not write their own articles, the rationale being that if they are notable enough somebody else will write the article in a neutral manner, if they are not sufficiently notable, Wikipedia does not want the article. Before spending more time on the article, may I respectfully suggest that you read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Autobiography. The latter also applies to an agent writing an article. I also suggest that you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today to see the sort of grilling that articles get. You should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, in particular the section highlighted by the shortcut WP:NOPAY. Martinvl (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also suggest that you search for her name on Google - ignore anything in Facebook, LinkedIn and You-tube. Also ignore her own website. Check to see what is left. That is the material from which you can build an article. I did a trial run and I found no relevant material. Martinvl (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the discussion at GAN
Hi, re this edit, I apologise if my recent proposals have caused you undue stress or paranoia - that was not at all my intention. I'm not actually a newbie - I have been operating as a mere IP address for many years and only decided to create an account because certain functions, such as nominating articles for GA, are unavailable to unregistered users (which is also why I have jumped right in to proposing stuff despite my apparent lack of article space edits). I'd be happy to go through the check user procedure if it would put you at ease (if this is something I am even allowed to request). CurlyLoop (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CurlyLoop,
Thank you for your posting. There is no need for anybody to request a Check User procedure - it is time consuming and the now-banned editor who is behind the trouble seems to have found a way of IP-hopping thereby making a Check-User irrelevant. Martinvl (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There were 10 supports and 2 opposes. I'm not exactly sure where you're getting "no consensus" from... can you enlighten me? --Rschen775406:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proposed redefinition of SI base units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Martin, this wasn't a neutral notice. Please don't do anything else like that, because it risks compromising the RfC.
I'm trying to understand your strength of feeling about this, but failing so far. To my eyes (admittedly, completely unfamiliar with these issues), the table for the M5 in the current version seems clear enough. Or is that not the main issue?
It's worth noting that the page says (bold added): "When creating or editing junction lists for a particular country or state, check with an appropriate road-related WikiProject for that region. The various projects may have adopted practices or preferences regarding some of the optional provisions presented below." And the MoS main page says: "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."
This means that, if the style changes were to cause inaccuracies on any article you had written, you could object to having them imposed on that page. SlimVirgin(talk)17:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlimVirgin
Thanks for your posting. Please look at:
this version dated 27 April 2007. The comment was "(moved Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Exit list guide to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Exit lists): moved out of WikiProject space per User talk:Northenglish#WP:USRD/ELG) (thank)"
No - I disagree with the sentence "Summarizations based on statistical methods, however, are original research by synthesis, as they involve the reinterpretation of data." Statistical methods do not, in my view, always involve reinterpretation of data. That sentence is therefore misleading. Without the bit on how to handle statistical data, the entire addition loses its core. Martinvl (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the metric system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quadrant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
For the record, I disagree with this block, given the fact he was reverting an obvious ban-evading sockpuppet and had previously taken all the appropriate steps to have the socks identified. Wasn't his fault if no admin could be bothered to process the SPI for several days. Fut.Perf.☼09:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I unblocked you, but, given that this is not your first block for edit warring, in the future, please discuss rather than edit war. Even if you are completely convinced you are edit warring with a sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Imperial and US customary measurement systems
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great northern tilefish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article International System of Units you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of FishGF -- FishGF(talk)08:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kilometres per hour - External Links
Hello, I've added an External references section in the article Kilometres per hour, that you considered could be spam. This was not the desired effect as it can be useful to readers of that topic, it adds value and it has been clearly added under the External Links section. Having an External links section or External Reference section is a common practice in other articles that It had also been positive to my browsing experience on previous occasions in different articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.9.124 (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conversion packages such as the one that you added are two-a-penny on the internet - why should your particular package be preferred above anybody else's? Martinvl (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Martinvl, I see that you are making sterling progress with the points I raised in my review. However, I thought, after reading the message sent on my behalf above, I had better point out that, regardless of what that auto-generated message above implies, I put the review on hold prior to completing it because of the poor and incomprehensible state of the section about the United States. When that section is fixed I will continue the review - there is no promise of a pass yet - I have yet to complete that review and a review in respect of all the other criteria. FishGF (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article History of the metric system you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of FishGF -- FishGF(talk)19:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the easiest way to avoid non-free images being deleted from userspace articles is simply to comment them out by placing a colon in from of "File" whilst they are not in article space. Otherwise they will be deleted; a bot creates a list of non-free usages outside articlespace every day and someone will usually come round a fix the problem. Having said that, I don't think that particular image passes the criteria anyway; we don't really need the cover of a book to tell us the book exists (it would be reasonable in an article about the book, but here it fails NFCC#3a and NFCC#8). Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it, but if you see it there again, it is because I am working on the article and am making a set of related changes in various parts of the article. I would rather do have a dozen edits in my own space than in article space, so do not ever edit my user pages without my express permission. If in doubt, ask an Admin to do it. Martinvl (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt work that way, if you need to use an image for formatting you can use File:Example.jpg for formatting purposes. I often go in large removal sweeps without paying attention to who's user space Im removing it from. NFCC#9 isnt something that can be ignored, When I see violations I remove them, Period. Werieth (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International System of Units, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meridian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello Martinvl, excuse the intrusion, but I couldn't help noticing that you seem to have an obsession with articles and topics associated with or related to the metric system. Your relentless, even ruthless, quest to promote that system at every opportunity, even in defiance of sound and logical argument, leaves me wondering if you have a conflict of interest here. Would you mind putting the record straight and confirming in unequivocal terms whether you are, or have recently been, a member of a group or an organisation (such as USMA or UKMA) that campaigns in aid of introducing the metric system into the US or UK. Before you answer, note the contents of the section entitled "Campaigning" in the above mentioned WP:COI, which states that 'activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest.' R.stickler (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to have a look at my latest suggestion to use in Falklands-related articles the WP:UNITS as per non-science UK-related articles. Just to say although I would still support my original metric then imperial stance I can also see that this thing will keep going round in circles hence my compromise suggestion. Would appreciate your comments and understand at some point we need an agreement but this would align the article with UK use and remove discussion to a more general forum. Also please forgive some of my ignorance on the players in the game and the history of the dispute. MilborneOne (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
COI statement request - September 2013
Hello, Martinvl. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Your relentless, even ruthless, quest to promote the metric system at every opportunity, even in defiance of sound and logical argument, followed by you ignoring my gentler approach above, led me to place this template. R.stickler (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please put the record straight on this request as your actions and contributions very closely mirror the agenda of at least one campaigning organisation. R.stickler (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the talk page for the article and retract your edit to the article. I though we had settled it, as three of us have worked it out and agree that it is exactly 2 ppm less. If you don't get that answer, you are not using a correct method. note that 1/0.999998 is not 1.000002 so the direction of the comparison is critical to it being exact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillHart93 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
M/KM
It appears that you seem to have some sort of metric above imperial measurement thing going on. That is up to you however that doesn't mean that you have a right to revert miles first to km first especially when it goes against WP:MOSNUM, which at United Kingdom it clearly does. Also your attitude at Talk:United Kingdom quite frankly is poor and has only elicited a similar attitude from myself in response to your attempts at being a smart-ass. I will desist from responding anymore in like if you would be kind enough to stop as well. Try to argue your point without trying to be condescending. In regards to square miles first, at the talk page I pointed out one highly notable, and you'd expect to be credible source that does it so: Encylopedia Britannica. Mabuska(talk)22:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problems. I guessed it when he put the first message on my talk page, but is seems to me that DeFacto has sussed out that CheckUser returns negatives if the sockpuppet only works on pages that have not previously been worked on by the sockmaster which is why I did not file a SPI complaint. Martinvl (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not edit my comments on talk pages without permission. If you want me to move my comments, go to my talk page and ask. I believe that this edit substantially altered the meaning of the comment, something that you are not allowed to do. Kahastoktalk19:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe your statement closing this RFC is an accurate reflection of the consensus, and I do not believe that you are an appropriate person to close it as you were the one who opened the RFC. Could I ask you to reconsider the close? The alternative is to ask for review as per WP:CLOSE. Thanks, Kahastoktalk06:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ANI
Please do not re-open closed discussions/sections - that's not how ANI works, you do not get to specify sections where only you can post. GiantSnowman11:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for repeated disruption at ANI. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
An accusation of misconduct was made against me by User:Wee Curry Monster (WCM) at here. WCM went on to enter into vote-stacking to back his case. I made a perfectly reasonable request that the ANI request be closed without further comment to his actions. Since the so-called community discussion was turning into a Ochlocracy, it needed some structure to it, otherwise in would be extremely difficult for an Admin to make a fair assessment of the situation and there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice against me. I therefore put a structure in place to ensure that my defence was not lost in a WP:wall of text.
Please look at my complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Defence by Martinvl. Please also note that I made this request yesterday, but to date no Admin has seen fit to action it, in particular my allegation against User:Wee Curry Monster of vote stacking. Please note that without the structure that I was proposing, this perfectly legitimate request would have been even hidden from a casual check by an Admin.
Please compare the ease of navigating around the ANI from an administrator's point of view with and without the heading that I added.
I am sure that you will find that the headings make it much easier for your to find your way around and to ensure that the accusations made against me could be handled in a fair manner. This is explained further in the response that I made in the section “Defence by Martinvl”.
I look forward to:
The ANI in question being closed without further comment on account of vote stacking by Wee Curry Monster
The 48 hour ban on me being lifted.
A reminder being sent to User:NE Ent, User:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User:Beyond My Ken that in future they should not take matters into their own hands so quickly. In this instance they have unwittingly been aiding and abetting vote stacking.
Finally, you wrote "It won't have made any difference, he made his final revert after I told him I was an admin." For the record your posting was made at 11:12, mine at 11:13. I had not read your posting stating that you were an Admin before I posted. Had I realised that, I would have changed track immediately. In practice, the one minute difference between posting times can mean anything between 1 second (1st posting at 11:12:59, 2nd posting at 11:13:00) and 119 seconds (1st posting at 11:12:00, 2nd posting at 11:13:59). Therefore, this was a case of "letters crossing in the post". Martinvl (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
It doesn't really matter - your behaviour at ANI, as well as your comment that "Had I realised that [you were an admin], I would have changed track immediately", implies that you would have continued to edit war with non-admins. GiantSnowman13:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, "the person reverting me was not an admin" does not appear to be one of the valid exemptions from being blocked for edit-warring. Is it a new addition that I am previously unaware of? ES&L11:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't try to archive it - they did - and rightly so. It was not an attempt to censor you; it was done because comment such as "if anybody else posts here, I will delete their posts" were entirely innappropriate. And none of these diffs - 1, 2, 3 count as canvassing - in actual fact notifying people about ANI discussion they are involved in is a requirement. GiantSnowman13:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact that Wee Curry Monster informed some people connected with the accusation and not others is not canvassing? Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification has the text "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).". If Wee Curry Monster's actions were not canvassing, what were they? Martinvl (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time, no. Firstly, giving anyone a neutral message about anything is not canvassing - he did not say "hey, come help me get Martinvl in trouble!" or similar. Secondly, ANI requires notifications to be given to interested parties. GiantSnowman14:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I draw to your attention extracts from WP:CANVASS:
Appropriate notification is defined as "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: ... ". The definition merely states "drawing attention to".
The definition of Inappropriate Canvassing includes "Canvassing normally involves the posting of messages". Again this definition makes no mention as to the content of the message.
In short, it is the existence of a message that constitutes canvassing, not the contents. I ask you to please revisit my request. Martinvl (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look, there is a giant red notice at the top of ANI which says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" and provides a template to use - {{ANI-notice}} - which is in fact the exact same template WCM has used. That notice applies to anybody and everybody who is mentioned or interested or involved in the situation. Please just let this go. GiantSnowman15:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the red number next to your username increment when I posted the above test message. If you look at the postings that I made, you will see quite clearly that I spelt Wee Curry Monster's name out in full and that as a result the number popped up on his screen when he next logged onto Wikipedia. Martinvl (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I received a notification - and everyone else will have as well. FYI, pinging editors while you are blocked is generally frowned upon, as it can get quite annoying. GiantSnowman16:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the message that I posted (here) every name in the diff box will be notified - ie just GiantSnowman. If I am incorrect in my analysis, will you please explain the algorithm by editors are selected for notification. Martinvl (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... and so I linked to Wee Curry Monster when I requested that he inform all users, thereby satisfying the demand that he was notified that I had lodged the complaint. Now that we have established that the complaint was properly made, will you please investigate it? Martinvl (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to the user, thus activating the Echo function is NOT equivalent to using the {{ANI-notice}} template on their page. It is held to NOT be the proper way to notify a user, and the top of ANI is quite clear on the method you must use to notify someone ES&L20:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I will...wait, what? In your unblock request, you're accusing me and others of "unwittingly been aiding and abetting vote stacking" ... have you even READ WP:GAB? Have you ever actually understood the concept of "community"? Have you even read WP:NOTTHEM? Your block is about YOUR behaviour - with was pathetic. It should not have taken 1 editor (who might as well be an admin) and 2 admins to tell you to stop screwing around on ANI or else you'd be blocked in order to ACTUALLY get blocked. Edit-warring is NEVER permitted, and you know better than than. You need to address your ridiculous activity in the unblock, or it's on the fast-track to being declined. Some degree of competence is required to edit this project, and your ability to read the clear instructions and warnings ARE signs of competence ES&L23:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read WP:GAB. I have also read Natural justice. Natural justice applies to any civilised society that maintains the right to investigate misconduct by its members, be it a nation state, a club, an employer or Wikipedia. There are two tenants to natural justice:
Wikipedia has two type of tribunal where conduct of its members are investigated - the WP:ARBCOM process and the WP:ANI process. By and large, natural justice is applied in the WP:ARBCOM process, but the total lack of structure in the WP:ANI process which jeopardises the right to be heard means that natural justice cannot be guaranteed in the WP:ANI process. If you look at item 28 on this this ANI page you will see a babble in which it is impossible for the accused (ie me) to be heard in what was rapidly degenerating into mob rule. No reasonable person could, in the cold light of day, assert that I could defend myself in that situation. If the ANI system is be observe the principals of natural justice, then the accused must have the right to be heard above what in this case, had become a mob.
How then can the accused be assured that his defence is heard? Must one rely on an Administrator wading through the a wall of text. That is not a satisfactory solution, which is why I constructed the solution to which certain people objected. Those people who objected to me making myself heard above the mob were if fact exhibiting the worst traits of mob behaviour. I recognise that you might have been trying to act to present disruption on the ANI page and in the heat of the moment, maybe you (and User:GiantSnowman are excused for have taking, what with hindsight was to deprive me of a fundamental right. However, in the cold light of day it is incumbent to look at the bigger picture and in this case, while blindly applying the rules of edit warring gave the appearance of establishing order, you were in fact giving in to the mob and denying me natural justice . In light of this I ask you (or User:GiantSnowman (yes, I am pinging him because he was the administrator who blocked me) to:
Acknowledge that in this particular case, the ANI process had degenerated into mob rule
Agree to take what reasonable steps are necessary to restore confidence in the ANI process (which includes revoking the block that was imposed on me).
Finally, if you have not studied politics or law or are unfamiliar with the legal principles on which natural justice are based, then may I suggest that you seek an opinion from somebody who has a legal background .
Martinvl (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not even attempting to address the reason for your block. Wikipedia does NOT have a formal justice system - we have WP:CONSENSUS. Nobody here needs to understand anything about Natural law - YOU need to understand that edit-warring is never permitted, and it was your edit-warring - on an admin noticeboard of all places - that led to your block. No - you do NOT get to create your own format on a noticeboard, that would be granting you additional privileges that nobody else on the project has, and violates the equal community nature of the project. So, talk about natural justice, YOU were trying to be elite - and that doesn't fly. Maybe "mob rule" does equal WP:CONSENSUS ... but hey, you AGREED to that when you signed up. You also agreed to follow the community processes. You don't get to weasel out of them when you suddenly think things are not going your way ES&L09:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So now we are a "mob"? Martinvl, everyone else including myself has had to put up with a wall of text when defending ourselves, it's part and package of Wikipedia. Mabuska(talk)11:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@EatsShootsAndLeaves
The Concise English Dictionary describes "Justice" as "exercise of authority in the maintenance of right". That make administrators, ANI and Arbcom part of the Wikipedia justice system. Will you now please read the principles of Natural justice and try to implement it in your actions as an administrator. In particular, what did you do when I was a trying to exercise my right as the accused to have a fair hearing. You assists the mob in silencing me. At the time you might have had to act without knowing all the facts. Now that I have explained the facts to you , please undo the actions taken against me. Martinvl (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ensuring that you AND EVERYONE have access to the same style of "hearing" on ANI means that every single editor uses the same format. Legalese and wikilawyering is not permitted - not here on this talkpage, nor on ANI. It's not a court of law, or justice. Indeed, blocks are preventative not punitive. ANI is intentionally NOT a court, nor does it accept evidence in "protected" formats - it's not intended to mete out justice. So, stop acting all amateur-lawyerish and address YOUR BEHAVIOUR...the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is becoming deafening...you agreed to the processes in place when you signed up to this private website, and if you don't like those processes, it's easy enough to stop editing here ES&L13:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a privately owned website subject to US law, so Natural justice does not apply. No justice applies. The info page tells us ANI has been around since 2003 and has seven hundred thousand edits to it, expecting an established culture to change its practices to meet your personal preferences is unrealistically egocentric. NE Ent10:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you look here where it says ...the California Corporations Code (ss. 5341 and 7341) provides that, except in the case of a religious corporation, any disciplinary action undertaken by a corporation must be done "in good faith and in a fair and reasonable manner". Is Wikipedia a "corporation" under Californian Law? Unless you are a specialist in Californian Law, I suggest that you don't try and make it up as you go along. Martinvl (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I request that some administrator, preferably the one who issued the block, fix the unblock request? The template is broken, for some reason. It makes it hard to read for archival records. RGloucester — ☎19:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note. My block should have expired an hour after you posted. I will certainly try to follow this up. We are of course bedeviled by the BLP clause - does it really apply when there the actual events are so far removed from the Duchess. Martinvl (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Martinvl. As DrKiernan pointed out, the sources in question are not about Catherine per se so WP:BLPSPS does not apply to them (not saying the sources are SPS though, just that that particular rule does not apply). HelenOnline11:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One useful indocator as to what constitutes privacy regarding living people is that British census data is made public after 100 years - obviously a few people who were on the census are still alive, but the British Government has obviously deemed that anything that is 100 years old is no longer an invasion of privacy. In other cases, such as The Kings Speech were only made into films after all the major character (especially the Queen Mother) had died. Martinvl (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have determined that a consensus exists to topic ban you from all articles, talk pages, and any namespace page related to measurements. Appeals may be made to the administrator's noticeboard or Arbcom but otherwise any mention of measurements or editing involving measurements may be treated with blocks of escalating lengths. The only exception being explicit source quotations in article-space.--v/r - TP17:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will consider the request for relaxation for the purposes of the GA review once I've reviewed the area to determine whether the dispute has crossed over there or not. If it has, I'm likely going to say no. If it has not, I'll allow you to finish the GA process on those two articles only. I'll let you know later today. I'm unable to relax the topic ban with respect to this other user, however.--v/r - TP17:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed both pages and I don't see recent overlap with the specific dispute that led to your topic ban. I'll allow you to finish the GA reviews provided that no disputes erupt on those pages with other editors, you remain civil, no wiki lawyering, and that they are wrapped up in a reasonable amount of time. Please limit your interactions to the GA reviewer unless a direct question is asked of you. If a dispute erupts on these pages during the GA review, I will rescind this exception prior to any block. I am also copying this to your talk page for easier retrieval from other sysops.--v/r - TP17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I am flabbergasted. I received a topic ban due in part to my ignorance of a particular Wikipedia policy which can be traced to cultural differences between United States tradition and British tradition. These differences are enumerated in WP:NOJUSTICE. I acknowledged these faults and asked for mitigation, but instead the ban was increased from a topic ban to a total ban. I acknowledge that I repeated an appeal within 24 hour of the last appeal having been turned down, but it was in that period that I learnt about that particular policy – my ignorance of it having been the central plank in the stance that I was taking concerning procedural matters. I strongly protest the increased ban, especially as the original request from User:Wee Curry Monster was serviced by User:TParis and User:Drmies has not cited any action that has not already been addressed by User:TParis. My Wikipedia-related actions, since the rejection of my original appeal were: *Sorting out a red link at Falkland Islands *Removing spam from International Bank Account Number *Assisting at this Wikipedia educational event. I do not believe that these actions constitute disruptive action. I request further information from User:Drmies and if this is not forthcoming, I request that the additional restriction placed on me by User:Drmies be removed in total.
Decline reason:
You've been editing here for four and a half years, have been blocked seven numerous times, and you are now claiming "cultural differences" as the reason you seem unable to comprehend your topic ban? You are hardly the first to try and play that card to try and win sympathy when blocked. It rarely works and it isn't going to cut in this case. You show no recognition whatsoever that your problems were caused by your own actions and not others. I think the standard offer is your best path to being unblocked at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Martin, do me a favour and slow down. I've re-opened the thread at AN, I've asked User:Drmies the precise "disruptive edit(s)" for which you've been indef blocked, staying cool right now is something you need to do... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, it follows the two threads still up at WP:AN. It is deemed disruptive by a clear consensus of editors that the persistent requests for removal of the topic ban only recently instated is not just disruptive in its own right, but that they show a complete lack of understanding on the part of the editor to realize what the problem with their edits is. Undoing this block can be done after what seems to me a relatively easy admission on the editor's part: that their edits leading to the topic ban (hashed out at length in Wikipedia:Ani#User:Martinvl_and_long_term_disruption_of_WT:MOSNUM, closed only a few days ago) were indeed deemed disruptive, and that asking for relaxation of the topic ban is untimely especially if recognition is lacking. In Wikipedia:AN#Topic_ban_appeal_by_Martinvl, for instance, the closer, The Bushranger, clearly warned of the boomerang, which the editor could have expected when launching Wikipedia:AN#Topic_Appeal_Ban_.282.29_by_Martinvl. In that first AN thread, the accusations leveled at Wee Curry Monster are an indication of WP:NOTTHEM, as is the (aborted?) section "Misrepresentation of fact by other editors": please note the responses by Cullen328, Nilfanion, and Guy Macon, which show exasperation with what is considered wikilawyering.
Rambling Man, I have great respect for you as an editor and an admin, and I saw your AN comment: as I said, I have no objection to an unblock (accompanied by a 1RR restriction, for instance?), but it should probably come with an assurance that the behavior (not just in the measurement business) will cease. I (personally) will not stand in the way of an unblock, but I'm sure you realize that there's a crowd of people at AN who feel strongly about this issue, and I am quite confident that I acted on consensus. You don't need my advice, follow your own judgment; and if more editors like chime in with you and Garamond Lethe you will be strengthened in that judgment.
One more thing: I do not accept that the appeal to only-just acquired knowledge of Wikipedia:There is no justice (which is not a policy, of course) is a reason to just forget the disruption ever happened, especially since it suggests that the editor didn't read the long, long ANI thread that led to the topic ban. The responses following the editor's unblock request of 18 October speak clearly to the disruption as well--and, at any rate, a longtime editor can be expected to be aware of the need for consensus. NOTJUSTICE, or lack of knowledge of that essay, has no bearing on that matter; it simply points at a (perceived) behavioral aspect. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Drmies, thanks for that, I appreciate the time you've taken to fill me in. I'm hoping that Martin will also gain an understanding, on this specific occasion, as to how to become unblocked and how to stay unblocked. I'm not advocating anyone's behaviour (or misbehaviour), I'm just double checking we've ensured that all parties know exactly what's going on and why. Once again, thanks for your time. Martin, perhaps some advice here to digest and follow, if not then let us know. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I should correct myself on the 1R remark: that's a proposal by Garamond Lethe for relaxing the topic ban and should have no bearing on the unblock. My apologies for conflating the two. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will Beeblebrox please list the seven times that I have been blocked? An analysis of this page shows six entries, two of which are irrelevant - they were a block issued at 19:10 for edit-warring which was revoked 30 minutes later when it was realised that the other party was a sock-puppet. Martinvl (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. If it makes you feel better we'll just call it "numerous" times. The exact number is hardly the point. You're not going to wiki-lawyer your way out of this on a technicality, that's another thing that makes this different than a court of law. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Beeblebrox - You obviously did not get it. You should not have counted these two entries:
09:40, 21 July 2013 Ymblanter (talk | contribs) unblocked Martinvl (talk | contribs) (discussion at ANI; was edit warring with a sock)
09:12, 21 July 2013 Ymblanter (talk | contribs) blocked Martinvl (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring)
tell you what I will do for you, I will re-post my last two remarks with emphasis added on the most important parts, hopefully that will clarify what my point was.
You've been editing here for four and a half years, have been blocked seven numerous times, and you are now claiming "cultural differences" as the reason you seem unable to comprehend your topic ban? You are hardly the first to try and play that card to try and win sympathy when blocked. It rarely works and it isn't going to cut in this case. You show no recognition whatsoever that your problems were caused by your own actions and not others. I think the standard offer is your best path to being unblocked at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]
Whatever. If it makes you feel better we'll just call it "numerous" times. The exact number is hardly the point. You're not going to wiki-lawyer your way out of this on a technicality, that's another thing that makes this different than a court of law. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope this helps you to see what is most important in these two comments and you will be able to post a new unblock request which shows some understanding of these issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and especially to User:Pyrotec who set a high but fair standard. Wikiproject Measurement has become a Cinderella project which makes it difficult to get people to review articles. Martinvl (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About Reversion of 28 October 2013 International_Bank_Account_Number
Hello Martinvl,
About Reversion of 28 October 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Bank_Account_Number, We have removed the whois privacy and added a privacy policy page which describes our non-logging policy for data sent through our website. The website www.reverseiban.com is an open source project designed to provide easy way of validating and reverse-lookup of IBANs.
No information is logged in our website and it is entirely free to use. In the process of gathering verification algorithms and reverse IBAN information for our website, we found out many details which are not widely available on the internet. For example Ukraine does not have a publicly available record for accurate IBAN validation since the country itself has not joined the IBAN standard. Ukraine however has four banks which issue IBAN numbers and we developed the validation algorithm and reverse information for all Ukrainian banks. We will also be happy to contribute to Wikipedia and update many of the IBAN related pages in wikipedia ( Similar to the Ukraine example ) .
I hope you can reconsider your reversal of our publication since we had not intent of commercial advertising for our website, but rather sharing a useful and unique technique of understanding IBAN structuring.
My reasons for reverting your changes are detailed on the article talk page. That reasoning stands. Will you please address any correspondence regarding that article to the article talk page and not to me personally. Martinvl (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that the above parties should read WP:SOAP. It is generally not viewed positively for anyone involved with an organisation to edit pertaining to that organisation, especially if the edits appear promotional. Furthermore, I'd like to point to WP:NOSHARE. It is considered wrong for multiple people to edit under the same identity, even with regards to an IP address. RGloucester — ☎16:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed — You've been cleared at SPI, as I thought you'd be. It seems EzEdit is certainly DeFacto, so you were right about that. Just thought I'd just give you notice, as I think you deserve it. The SPI for EzEdit is here. RGloucester — ☎17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I may ask, what exactly happened that caused DeFacto to become an incessant menace to you? He seems to have been doing this for years, targeting you specifically, and it really makes very little sense. RGloucester — ☎19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not speaking for Martin (really!), but that's probably a question best asked and answered offline. Cataloging the frailties of other editors in public rarely places the cataloger in a good light. Garamond Lethet c21:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester,
Hi, Thank you for your interest in the origin of the clash between DeFacto and myself. As suggested by Garamond Lethe, drop me an e-mail outlining exactly what you would like to know and I will reply.
First of all, let me apologise for forgetting the courtesy notice for the SPI check. That was really inexcusable of me. Secondly, I would hope you would realise that I didn't believe there was anything to it. Wee Curry Monstertalk20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, you are not banned: you are blocked. Huge difference. I outlined, above, what an admin would probably want to consider in an unblock request. Note that this is not the same as an appeal, which probably refers to a ban. You are blocked for violating your topic ban; you aren't banned. If I were you I'd look back at that ANI discussion to see what other editors probably expect. Thank you, and good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please reconsider the "topic ban" allegation. The allegation that I breached the ban was probably made in respect of the SPA posting that I made at 17:37 on 25 October 2013 (now deleted). The policy WP:BANEX allows discussions regarding the topic in respect of appeals discussing the ban itself. Since Wee Curry Monsters posting timed at 17:00 on 25 October 2013 (now deleted) citing edit-warring between EzEdit and myself was the immediate trigger to my topic ban, it was highly appropriate that my views about EzEdit being a SPA be a significant part of any discussion process regarding such a ban. I request that you take this into account and review my block. EzEdit's pedigree as a sockpuppet and my associated interaction can be seen in context at DeFacto's sockpuppet record. Martinvl (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: blocked for disruptive editing. Plenty of detail above. Your block is obviously to be reviewed by someone who is not me. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Will an administrator please demand an explanation of violations of WP:BLP by User:Mabuska:
Mabuska wrote "The fact they ... continued lying ...". I object to the word "lying".
Mabuska wrote "They haven't even apologised for their false accusations ...". I object to the term "false accusations".
Neither are WP:BLP violations. You also cannot be serious that you want to address something that was said on October 28? I will advise them to ensure they keep the rhetoric down in the future, but otherwise there is no action needed here ES&L12:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you beg to differ? Do you believe this is actually a WP:BLP issue? If so, how. Do you believe that anyone needs to ask him to justify comments from 2 weeks ago? Do you believe this is actually a beneficial use of your or anyone's time? Do you not feel the notification I left on his page was sufficient? ES&L12:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer all the questions - especially the WP:BLP part. He was not requested to respond; he was requested to refrain from rhetoric in the future. As we do not do punishment, we do prevention ... and we also do not beat dead horses, that should be more than enough. You also may not "demand an answer" from anyone - not even ArbComm can "demand an answer" - so again, refrain in the future is the best we can do, and then respond accordingly if that does not occur ES&L13:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@EatsShootsAndLeaves: The "In a nutshell" banner on the WP:BLP page states "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research". I am a living person. That is sufficient for the policy to apply.
WP:BLP does not apply to editors - you're not an identifiable living person, as per WP:BLP. WP:NPA does apply to editors, and Mabuska's comments have been appropriately dealt with from a preventative perspective. Nothing further will be done ES&L15:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The best way forward for you, Martin, is to cool off for a while and come back with clear head, appeal the block and make it clear that you understand why you were blocked. As was said before, contesting the block on procedural matters is not likely to come of anything. RGloucester — ☎15:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making it up. The COMMUNITY has said BLP is for articles and their subjects, NOT editors. NPA is the only policy that therefore applies, and based on community-sanctioned remedies based on the severity and nature of the "potential" NPA, this situation has been appropriately dealt with. If you want to be a wikilaywer, fill your boots - it doesn't change the fact that another editor's comments about you are not nor will they be subject to BLP. ES&L18:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FFS, you cannot simply pull things out of policies to suit your needs. The policy clearly states "this policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article" - you are not identifialy mentioned in any biography of a living person. I was trying to put the wording into English that you might actually understand, but apparently failed. Your wikilawyering is simply porving that your block IS protective in nature - well done ES&L21:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Compare these two comments by Martinvl: this and this. So where did I imply DDStretch was a hypocrite? And despite your denials about it, DDStretch saw your comment as a personal attack.
The fact you use the word "accusing" towards me and the fact you lied about me implying DDStetch was a hypocrite, means that you made a "false accusation" in the clearest meaning of the term and means that you lied. Oh yes and I suppossedly "twisted" what DDStretch said which was also a lie.
@Mabuska, your explanation does not hold water and I refuse to accept your explanation. I am not going to waste my time arguing with you because given the way that Wikipedia works, it will accomplish nothing. Martinvl (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, nobody gives a shit whether you accept it or not. He was in no way required to provide one, yet he did. Your refusal to accept it is your problem and nobody else's. Now, drop the stick if you have any intention of returning to this project as an editor ES&L15:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl : Your implication that I somehow saw a comment *you* claim was made by Mabuska as a personal attack on me from him is a gross distortion of the facts. You have done this before to others. If you continue like this I will ask an uninvolved admin to see if there are sufficient grounds for blocking you from your own talk page. DDStretch (talk)01:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I spotted a non-contentious change that was made about 30 hours ago that needs reverting. How best should I go about ensuring that this is done without breaking my block? Martinvl (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot. Being blocked means you are not permitted to edit. The only reason you have access to this talkpage is to formulate unblock requests, and respond to concerns from your fellow editors. Editing by proxy could still be considered to be editing. Although not recommended, if you have a "friendly" fellow editor who currently edits in that article, you could advise them by e-mail. Don't e-mail someone who has never edited it ES&L12:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the ANI history file - the edits that were shown as suppressed are no longer in the history file, but the following edits that I made are not there either, even though they exist in the appropriate archive:
16:36, 17 October 2013
17:16, 25 October 2013
It is very difficult for me to prepare an appeal if I cannot supply diffs to enable Arbcom members to find the actual text.
Martin, I am not going to edit on your behalf. If you like you can post things here on this talk page and see if the community a. lets them stand and b. is willing to act on them. If you wish to have Wikipedia edited, you should file an unblock request so you can do it yourself. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
British Weights and Measures Association
Martin, I received your email regarding Michael Barry / Michael Bukht - thank you.
It makes sense that he would be the person referenced in the article, but the BWMA journal you quoted doesn't appear to mark his passing, and I can't quite connect the person to the organization. Is there anything else that can make the connection, or can you point out what I am missing? Thanks again.....PKT(alk)13:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PKT
Just to double-check please visit the August 2013 Issue of the Yardstick. The current patron are listed on page 1 and the deceased patrons at the bottom of page 8. Michael Bukht was certainly awarded an OBE which shows up in the BWMA journal. It also confusingly shows him with a CBE, but if we go back to the November 2012issue, we see him listed as being alive with just an OBE. Since he died in August 2011, I must assume that the editor of the journal was being sloppy in keeping his list of patrons up to date. Martinvl (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite block and topic ban appeals
Appeals suspended while I consider withdrawn as per EatsShootsAndLeaves' comment (below)
I wish to appeal the following sanctions against me:
An indefinite block imposed by User:Drmies on 28 October 2013 for disruptive editing.[2]
A one year topic ban imposed by User:TParis on 25 October 2013. This ban was imposed in response to an WP:ANI posted by User:Wee Curry Monster (WCM).[3] In particular, I would like this ban to be reassessed in light of new evidence.
Indefinite block appeal
When WCM canvassed[Note 1] support for an ANI that he published requesting that I be banned from any and all discussions relating to WP:MOSNUM, I responded in an unorthodox way. My actions were misinterpreted and when I tried to explain myself, I used language that was again misinterpreted.
As Wikipedia currently stands, the only policy in existence that expressly targets canvassing is the banning of an editor who persists in such activity – Wikipedia policy does not offer a formal method redress to undo the harm caused by a single episode of canvassing. It should be noted however that the essay WP:False consensus proposes a method of redress. At the time I was unaware of this essay, otherwise I would have quoted it.
My intention was to get the ANI annulled without necessarily asking for sanctions against WCM. In order to ensure that my request for annulment of the ANI was seen, I tried to emulate the structure used in Arbcom hearings of each participant having their own area.[Note 2] Other editors did not see it that way – User:Beyond my Ken saw it as taking ownership of the ANI. I made the mistake of losing my cool and reverting User:Beyond My Ken's changes.
Looking back at the episode, I can see that I made a number of errors:
I used an unorthodox approach to counter WCM's canvassing – I should have followed the principal of Least Surprise and used the approach outlined in WP:CANVASS, even if it meant me being more heavy-handed than I would have liked.
When my approach was challenged I should have used standard Wikipedia jargon and observed the principal of WP:NPLT. In particular I should have used the term WP:False consensus rather than Natural Justice. I should have realised that a number of editors (including administrators) shout WP:NLT the moment that they see the word "justice", "libel" or "legal" even when the use of such terminology is fully justified.
I should have planned my approach to countering the canvassing around the principal of WP:OBVIOUS. This will ensure that everybody understands exactly what I was trying to prove and will save me getting stressed when they do not see what appear to me to be obvious. This means, amongst other things not responding immediately, but to take a deep breath and ask myself "Who has mis-interpreted the situation and how can I ensure that they do not again mis-interpret it?"
Even when I have been badly wronged I need to keep my cool.
Unlike the indefinite block for which I accept responsibility, I believe that the principal force behind the topic ban was a WP:DEPE campaign on the part on the part of WCM to silence me before launching the RFC. When he first published the ANI he asked that "a community sanction be considered banning User:Martinvl from any and all discussions related to WP:MOSNUM."[3] Incidents that led me to believe that this was a malicious request include:
Three days after the topic ban and a few hours after the indefinite block were put into place, WCM published an RFC requesting views on changes to WP:MOSNUM in respect of units of measure in articles related to the United Kingdom[4] The speed with which he published his RFC suggest that the ANI was part of a campaign by WCM rather than an isolated incident.
Within minutes of posting the ANI, WCM engaged in a campaign of improper canvassing[Note 1] for support of his ANI,[5] an action which WP:Canvassing describes as "disruptive behavior".[Note 3] My complaints about this particular action have been discussed earlier. Although I have been advised to WP:DROPTHESTICK in respect of this action, I believe that WCM's other actions warrant revisiting this particular action.
Two week before placing the ANI, WCM changed the order of units of measure in the article United Kingdom.[6] Since a discussion about the use of imperial/metric units of measure within UK-related articles was in progress at the time[7] I believe these changes to be an act of deliberate provocation.
A month before placing the ANI, WCM had supported a motion by User:Kahastok's move to get me topic-banned - here and here. The result of User:Kahastok's ANI was the withdrawal of the original text of WP:FALKLANDUNITS. WCM had previously used WP:BULLYING tactics[8]to support User:Kahastok's original text. I believe that the failure of User:Kahastok's ANI led to WCM taking matters into his own hands.
When the ANI discussion appeared to be petering out, he resurrected discussion by misrepresenting my battle with a sock-puppet as edit warring.[9] I was in fact gathering evidence for a second WP:SPI against User:EzEdit, an earlier attempt dated 31 July 2013 failed on grounds of being inconclusive.[10] The tone of urgency in his posting triggered User:TParis into serving a topic ban 16 minutes later. Comments made by WCM four months later suggest that he should have suspected that User:EzEdit was a sockpuppet of the banned user User:DeFacto.[11] The speed with which User:TParis reacted prevented me from filing the WP:SPI that I was preparing, making the topic ban, from this point of view, a "Blue on blue" incident.
In his appeal for the lifting of an unrelated topic ban, WCM admitted to suffering from PTSD as a result of active service with the British Army in the Balkans. This might explain some of his excesses. However the approach taken by certain administrators who dealt with incidents during the early part of the topic ban discussion exasperated rather than resolved the issues. I do not plan to enlarge on these issues or to name the administrators concerned, but rather, should the opportunity arise, work towards reforming the underlying Wikipedia procedures.
Mitigating circumstances
I would like a number of mitigating circumstances into be taken into account. I believe these to show me as a valuable member of the Wikipedia community.
Wikimedia training
I have attended the Wikimedia trainers course and have assisted at a number of training events including one on 28 October 2013 - the day that I was served with in indefinite block.[12]
I have also been invited by Katie Chan (WMF:London) signify whether or not I would be interested in at-tending a one day refresher course on training editors.
I was invited to help lead a training session for microbiology on 19 June 2014. On account of the sanctions in force against me, I felt it politic to decline that invitation.
English Wikipedia achievements
Summary of editing history
I have taken four articles to Good Article status in the English Wikipedia. My contribution to the article as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets:
I have been principal editor in the following articles that have been rated "B class" by at least one Wikiproject. My contribution to the article as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets:
My photo of a room-temperature thermometer showing both kelvins and degrees Celsius. Image is used on German, Russian, Italian, Japanese and many other language articles, but not the English language article.
I tutor 17 and 18-year old students in physics and maths on a one-to-one basis. I often use Wikipedia articles to illustrate points, especially those articles on which I have worked.
Other language Wikipedias
In the last few months I have been active on the Afrikaans Wikipedia. Most recently I have been copying weather tables from the Dutch Wikipedia to the Afrikaans Wikipedia, making translations as needed and, should I see any errors, correcting the Dutch version.
While in the Netherlands, I saw a photo opportunity to illustrate the article Kelvin. This article appears in 98 languages, but none of the articles had a suitable photo. I have now loaded the image into Wikimedia Commons (see image to the right) and included it in 44 language variants of Wikipedia. However, due to my indefinite block, I am unable to add this image to any English-language articles.[13]
Future plans
If these sanctions are lifted, my plans are:
Ensuring that developments ahead of the November 2014 meeting of the CGPM are reflected in the article Proposed redefinition of SI base units. The principal item of interest at this meeting is a proposal that the 125-year old International Prototype Kilogram be phased out in favour of a set of scientific experiments.
Request the lifting of sanctions on SIMPLE Wikipedia. These sanctions were imposed when a DeFacto sockpuppet[14] attacked the article SIMPLE:Metric system while I was trying to get it to GA status. (I was complimented on the initial draft of the article here).
Ensuring that articles that I recommend to my students are of a suitable quality, making any necessary changes myself.
Conclusion
The above shows that the ANI that WCM filed against me which led to a topic ban being placed on me was filed with malice. I acknowledge however that my indefinite block was caused by disruption resulting from an unorthodox defence. I have now looked at my behaviour in detail and I realise how I should have behaved. I request that, in line with the WP:Standard Offer that my indefinite block be lifted forthwith.
I have also examined WCM's behaviour, the behaviour of administrators concerned and also the underlying Wikipedia processes. I accept that WCM's actions might be attributable to PTSD. I have chosen not to comment on any individual administrator but should I be unblocked, to direct my energies to improving any underlying Wikipedia processes. However, in recognition of the impact of WCM's actions on me, I request that the topic ban to be annulled (as it would have been had WP:False consensus been invoked), or if annulment is not possible, for it to be lifted forthwith.
If nothing else, removal of the topic ban will enable me keep the article Proposed redefinition of SI base units up to date in preparation for the CGPM meeting and possible redefinition of the kilogram.[1] in November 2014.
Notes
^ abSummary of canvassing by Wee Curry Monster When publishing the ANI, Wee Curry Monster identified three specific articles/talk pages that were of interest. They are catalogued below with then number of edits and distinct editors as they existed at the time the ANI was published (15:14 on 16 October 2013):
Apart from WCM and me, 26 distinct editors contributed to these three articles/talk pages (some to two of the articles). Initially WCM notified 3 editors and, after my first complaint, a further 4, all of whom supported his point of view. I rate this as "textbook canvassing".
^No threaded discussions in Arbcom hearings WP:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Responding to requests: If you must respond to some statement by another editor on the arbitration request, then you must do so in your own section. There may be no threaded discussion ...
^Improper canvassing is disruptive behaviour The policy document WP:Canvassing states that canvassing, if done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way ... is generally considered disruptive behavior.
As an involved party to backing the banning of Martinvl due to his poor behaviour when interacting with editors who didn't agree with him including myself I must say that this statement: "I believe that the principal force behind the topic ban was a WP:DEPE campaign on the part on the part of WCM to silence me before launching the RFC" and then much later on this "I have now looked at my behaviour in detail and I realise how I should have behaved." - only reinforces the fact that Martinvl still doesn't seem able in anyway to acknowledge and accept the fact that his behaviour caused the problems and that in the vast majority of the issues that got him banned, that he was the one at fault. Add in the fact that he proposes to work with admins on changing the underlying procedures of Wikipedia because they didn't work for him at the start? Same old pass the buck, not his fault.
In my view Martinvl still hasn't learned anything and I think the block should remain.
If the indef was to be lifted I;d strongly suggest keeping Martinvl indefinitely banned from editing anything to do with measurements as he most likely do as many others have and end up getting involved intentionally or not in yet another argument that somehow is never his fault.Mabuska(talk)21:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Martin is continuing to allege canvassing, despite neutral 3rd parties telling him there was none. A neutral template message notified involved members of the discussion at Talk:United Kingdom. At his insistence, everyone who simply contributed to the discussion was notified and a neutral message posted at WT:MOSNUM. WP:CANVAS states this is an appropriate notification. Instead of acknowledging his own behaviour lead to his block, he is continuing to pursue a course of blaming everyone else.
He also suggests that I acted out of malice at WP:ANI, whilst he was preparing an SPI against EzEdit. Perhaps Martin would explain how I should have been aware of it before it was filed? All I knew at the time he was edit warring less than a week after a 3RR block. I became aware of the sockpuppet issue regarding User:DeFacto when User: David Biddulph mentioned it in the WP:ANI thread [5]. His allegations of “deceit” and “malice” because I mention it after his block further demonstrate his inability to assume good faith.
Further, if you look at his contributions at the Afrikaans wikipedia you find this and this in which he alleges malice and deceit on my part and accuses GiantSnowman, EatsShootsAndLeaves, Drmies and TParis variously of conspiracy, wikilawyering and incompetence. Instead of recognising he was the author of his own misfortune, he accuses Beyond My Ken of being in the wrong for "misunderstanding" what he was trying to do. After progressively toning down the rhetoric over a month he still posts an appeal that alleges everyone else was wrong except Martin.
I also note above, that contrary to his topic ban, Martin has been emailing users about areas closely related to it. Of itself that would be grounds to refuse this objectionable appeal. Finally, I wish it to be noted, that the condescending manner in which Martin has referred to my mental health problems is grossly offensive. WCMemail21:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few responses to pre-empt any immediate problems. Other responses might well follow.
You are not doing yourself any favours, nor are you doing GiantSnowman, EatsShootsAndLeaves, Drmies and TParis any favours by digging up early drafts of my appeal. I removed certain material before I published the version on this page because I believed it counter-productive both to myself and to the person concerned to re-argue certain points. If they don't bring those points up, then neither will I.
You chose to use your mental health problems as a mitigating circumstance as regards earlier behaviour that did not affect me directly. I have accused you of WP:DEPE - behaviour that could earn you an indefinite ban. By recognising that you have problems, I was signalling to any Administrators that I was only seeking the removal of sanctions that have been imposed against me and that I was not seeking any retribution against you.
The reasons for block raised by uninvolved admin User:Beyond My Kenhere at Martin's first topic ban appeal (unaccountably missing from the above) were "tendentious editing, lack of collegiality and collaborative spirit, battleground attitude, IDHT, lack of understanding of the nature of the project and extreme Wikilawyering". I suggest that some of these issues are evident in the unblock request. For example, the supposed canvassing has been investigated over and over and over again, including in the original topic ban close. And it has been rejected every time.
It may be valuable, when considering the point on legal language, to note the section "Right to reply" in the above-referenced discussion (original diff here). Was this a case where editors "shout WP:NLT the moment that they see the word "justice", "libel" or "legal" even when the use of such terminology is fully justified"?
I note as WCM did that this is a clear topic ban violation, and that per WP:BAN, this would suggest that the timer be reset, so that the ban ends 26 June 2015 and not 25 October 2014 (assuming that it isn't just post-dated from any future unblock as a matter of course - I don't know how this works). Kahastoktalk22:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Kahastok's last comment, I was responding to a "Help needed" request in a potential WP:BLP situation. I was doing no more that supplying such help. (diff of initial request).
The page in British Weights and Measures Association lists "Michael Barry" as one of it's patrons. The page Michael Barry is a disambiguous page listing a number of different "Michael Barry's". Only one of them is/was a patron of the BWMA. By identifying the BWMA patron as having died, I was ensuring that none of the living "Michael Barry"'s were associated with the BWMA. Martinvl (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: Unblock templates may ONLY be used to deal with unblocks - not topic bans. After all, an admin cannot unlaterally remove a community-imposed topic-ban. Process is: deal with block, then deal with topic ban following its processes - not all together the panda ɛˢˡ”11:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under Construction
Friendly tip
Martinvl, would it not be more prudent and preferable to create and edit your appeal in a sandbox page such as User_talk:Martinvl/appeal? Especially considering your appeal is something "under construction", which is not what talk pages are for IIRC. Also stating "This user talk page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed." comes across as "don't edit my talk page until I say so", bolstered by the template saying to remove if no edit has been made for several hours, which going by your talk page history, means it could of been removed several times over the past few days. Using the {{Under construction}} template would be better. A sandbox appeal also allows you to edit it without everyone being able to view it unless they figure out what namespace you've given it, so you get some privacy that way until your ready to unveil it. Mabuska(talk)10:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your tip. Unfortunately, being blocked, I cannot edit any subpages. I have moved the text elsewhere to get some privacy. Martinvl (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Martinvl. Much thanks for enhancing this article. I've found errors in section Other physical constants introduced by you in, I suppose,
[6]
In particular, α fundamental constant is pretty ridiculous. Can you request unban for purposes of fixing article or ask competent contributors to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbst (talk • contribs) 11:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, WP:EVASION lays down the limit of what I can do - in particular "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits". Since you came to me for advice concerning a genuine concern, I believe that I am allowed to advise you as to what should be there. Provided that you use your own judgment, then you may edit the article using my advice for guidance. It will of course be up to you, if you are challenged, to show that the changes you make are verifiable and/or productive.
On to your main question. I do not understand what is "ridiculous" about the fine structure constant (α). Under the New SI definitions, the fine structure constant will become an exact quantity since all of its component parts will be defined exactly. Under the existing SI definition, neither h nor k are defined exactly, but are measured in a laboratory.
If I have missed the point, will you please explain what you mean? I will then try to help.
In the discussion regarding my indefinite block on WP:AN, a number of editors have questioned my suitability as a trainer. Training in the United Kingdom does not come within the remit of English Wikipedia, it comes within the remit of the [UK Wikimedia Foundation|https://wikimedia.org.uk/]]. As such, I respectfully remind editors that decisions made here regarding my suitability as a trainer might well be subject to the provisions of WP:CONEXCEPT. Martinvl (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud Martin, if you'd submitted a proper request for unblock that followed WP:GAB, you'd likely be unblocked by now. Instead, you keep claiming to have been wrongfully blocked, and claiming that both the en.Wikipedia and WMUK can't live without you as if that's supposed to count for something. Hint: it doesn't. the panda ɛˢˡ”12:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Wikipedia per this 'offer'. Many unban requests have been declined due to the banned user simply waiting the six months out, without making any contributions to other projects.".
I believe that this applies to blocked uses as well. I also believe that assisting in training (something that I have done before) is a "significant and useful contribution". What am I meant to do?
The problem, Martin, is that you need to demonstrate that you will not continue the behaviour that led to your block. At present, you've not done this, and have not been repentant. RGloucester — ☎13:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Other WMF projects" ... you know, like Simple Wikipedia, the Russian Wikipedia. Someone who is indef blocked from the English Wikipedia cannot represent the English Wikipedia in any forum either logically or ethically. It would be like saying "I'm banned from driving for speeding, dangerous driving, and drinking while driving, but I will be your driving lessons instructor today" the panda ɛˢˡ”13:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock request
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I wish to appeal the indefinite block imposed by User:Drmies on 28 October 2013 for disruptive editing.[1] The reasons for the block are outlined here (Note - this section has become convoluted due to two threads becoming inter-twined, one dated 28 October 2013 and the other 10/11 November 2013).
One of the underlying purposes of the Standard Offer is to allow all parties concerned to lay past conflicts aside. I will therefore not name any of the other parties involved, but in order to explain the context, I need to refer to the incidents.
This episode has highlighted my own mishandling of my allegation that the proposer of the original ANI had indulged in sharp practice. In particular I had wrongly assumed that in an ANI hearing were entitled to use their own sub-sections, a practice that is required in Arbcom hearings. Even if I thought that it should apply here, this was the wrong way to make the proposal. In order for the process of consensus to work, it is essential that all parties follow the established protocol. The consensus process requires self-policing - anything that causes disruption (as opposed to proper debate) or that undermines the process of ascertaining the view of the community as a whole is likely to cause the consensus process breaking down into chaos. I give my assurances that in future my conduct will be in line with the conduct expected by the Wikipedia community.
Mitigating circumstances
As per WP:Standard Offer, I request that my past contributions to the English language Wikipedias and my on-going contributions to Wikimedia Commons and foreign-language Wikpedias be taken into account. I believe that these, especially when coupled with my previous contributions to the English Wikipedia show me as a valuable member of the Wikimedia community.
Wikimedia training
I have attended the Wikimedia trainers' course and have assisted at a number of training events.
I was invited by Katie Chan (WMF:London) to signify whether or not I would be interested in attending a one day refresher course on training editors. Due to the sanctions against me, I felt it politic to decline.
I was invited to help lead a training session for microbiology on 19 June 2014. On account of the sanctions in force against me, I felt it politic to decline that invitation.
Wikipedia achievements
Contributions to English Wikipedia
I have taken four articles to Good Article status in the English Wikipedia. My contribution to the article as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets:
I have been principal editor in the following articles that have been rated "B class" by at least one Wikiproject. My contribution to the article as a percentage of bytes added is shown in brackets:
While in the Netherlands in May 2014, I saw a photo opportunity to illustrate the article Kelvin. This article appears in 98 languages, but none of the articles had a suitable photo. I have now loaded the image into Wikimedia Commons (see image to the right) and included it in 44 language variants of Wikipedia. However, due to my indefinite block, I am unable to add this image to any English-language articles. Another editor subsequently added it to the English Wikipedia.[3]
My contributions to Wikimedia Commons can be seen here.
For the record, at 12:15 on 24-Jul-2014 I loaded the five images that I took in 1982 that depict the area where Air Algérie Flight 5017 was lost.
The 20 images of 1970's vintage cameras that I loaded were part of a physics teaching exercise related to optics.
My photo of a room-temperature thermometer showing both kelvins and degrees Celsius. I added the image to the German, Russian, Italian, Japanese and many other language articles. Another editor added it to the English language article.
Miscellaneous
Other items that I would like taken into consideration include:
I tutor A-Level maths and physics on a one-to-one basis. My students are typically 16 to 18 years old. I often use Wikipedia articles to illustrate points, especially those articles on which I have worked.
Future plans
If these sanctions are lifted, my plans for the English Wikipedia are:
Ensuring that articles that I recommend to my students are of a suitable quality for their studies.
Make myself available for assisting at Wikipedia training events.
Ensuring that the article International Bank Account Number is kept up to date, especially when SWIFT publishes relevant changes such as this one. (This article records over a million hits a year).
Continue work on nineteenth century South African history, particularly articles related to the political situation in the Cape Colony and the Natal campaign of the Boer War.
Ensuring that developments ahead of the November 2014 meeting of the CGPM are reflected in the article Proposed redefinition of SI base units. The principal item of interest at this meeting is a proposal that the 125-year old International Prototype Kilogram be phased out in favour of a set of scientific experiments.[4]
I am not entirely convinced that you understand why you were blocked in the first place, and hence I consider it likely that you will end up repeating the same mistakes. I appreciate that you have mentioned the block reason was 'disruptive editing', however beyond mentioning this, you have not explained in detail what led to your block. Your description of creating subsections on the admin noticeboard is curious, as this has little or nothing to do with your block. You have gone into great detail in regard to your achievements, however you seem reluctant to accept any failings on your part. From my perspective, your involvement with metric / imperial measurement articles was deeply problematic, and in this context, I am unconvinced that you should be unblocked to continue editing in this area. PhilKnight (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Admins reviewing this request may wish to read this AN thread from September, and also note that as of the expiry of his topic ban this morning, Martin is not under any active sanction on en.wiki other than his indefinite block. Kahastoktalk20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight, thanks for taking the time to do review, but I have to admit that Martin isn't the only editor who is confused about why he was blocked. I was participating in the ANI thread when it happened, and my recollection was that the block was due to edit-warring at ANI, not due to any tendentious editing elsewhere. That's the behavior Martin explains in detail, as that's what he (and I) thought caused the block. My memory may not be serving me correctly, so I'll see if I can dig up the specific diffs for you. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's more or less correct, as he had already been topic banned from units articles at the time of his blocking. He was trying to appeal that topic ban, if my memory serves me correctly. RGloucester — ☎12:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would comment that Martin's original unblock request was framed as if his behavior wasn't seriously problematic, and he was blocked for something approaching cultural differences, and in my opinion, his second unblock request isn't much better. He wasn't blocked for creating subsections on a noticeboard, he was blocked for being unable to edit in a collaborative manner. PhilKnight (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Martin provided a pointer to the discussion, so that was easier than I expected. The specific set of diffs is here. When the block occurred, Martin had already picked up the topic ban. Based on what Kahastok said above, Martin ultimately decided to sit that one out in the penalty box and only appeal the block after the ban expired. At some risk of trying your patience, here's what I'm reading in Drmies' explanation:
It is deemed disruptive by a clear consensus of editors that the persistent requests for removal of the topic ban only recently instated is not just disruptive in its own right, but that they show a complete lack of understanding on the part of the editor to realize what the problem with their edits is.
Undoing this block can be done after what seems to me a relatively easy admission on the editor's part: that their edits leading to the topic ban (hashed out at length in Wikipedia:Ani#User:Martinvl_and_long_term_disruption_of_WT:MOSNUM, closed only a few days ago) were indeed deemed disruptive, and that asking for relaxation of the topic ban is untimely especially if recognition is lacking.
Rambling Man, I have great respect for you as an editor and an admin, and I saw your AN comment: as I said, I have no objection to an unblock (accompanied by a 1RR restriction, for instance?), but it should probably come with an assurance that the behavior (not just in the measurement business) will cease. (emphasis added)
Oh, I should correct myself on the 1R remark: that's a proposal by Garamond Lethe for relaxing the topic ban and should have no bearing on the unblock. My apologies for conflating the two.
I think a reasonable reading (though not the only reasonable reading) was that if Martin was appealing the topic ban, the disruptive editing outside of ANI would have to be addressed, but addressing it in the block appeal (while a good idea) was not strictly necessary. Drmies, The Rambling Man, could you clarify? If I've misread this (and thus misled Martin in off-wiki correspondence), I owe him an apology. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If any of this can be put in a nutshell, the AN discussion (linked above, Archive 255) makes it clear (though not by some overwhelming margin) that Martin's behavior in these unblock requests and related threads was deemed excessively wikilawyerish with a high degree if IDNHT, which PhilKnight points out as well in their decline. I am still not convinced that Martin can say, in a sentence or less, what they were blocked for and what they will do to prevent future blocks. Then again, one might say that those matters were all related to the topic ban which has now run out (TParis's closure of the discussion that led to the ban is part of a series of suppressed edits, but it's here, so that those disruptions will have come to an end.
When you look at Martin's subsequent behavior leading up to the block, which starts with the immediate appeal (on the same day) at AN, plus the request copied by TParis to Martin's own talk page 9here), it's understandable that editors lost patience. Personally, I think that since the ban is over we can apply ROPE and maybe keep Martin on a 1RR leash, so to speak: I have no objection to it. But if you ask me whether I think that he totally gets it, I'd have to say no. Is not "getting it" enough reason to keep him out of mainspace and the area he cares so much about it? I can't answer that, but I wish him good luck. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, it is odd. I feel like it would be easy for anyone else to simply say "I understand what I did wrong, and I won't do it again". Martin, however, simply hasn't grasped it. These longs and endless unblock requests are really odd, especially considered what you said at the time of block a "relatively easy admission". However, I will support unblocking Martin if he is willing to submit to indefinite 1RR, in line with WP:ROPE. He isn't going to stop issuing these requests, so we might as well see what happens if he is unblocked with said editing restriction. If he continues disruption, it will be pretty clear. He has plenty of people watching his edits, so he'd be swiftly re-blocked in that instance. RGloucester — ☎15:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
☎, I agree completely, esp. on the oddness. Mind you, Martin has emailed me once or twice and I have suggested the "simple" unblock method every time. I thin it is obvious that each of these unblock requests, AN threads, etc. are also an attempt at justification/vindication. That's not helpful for us when we're having to decide on unblocking and conditions thereof; at the same time, yes, ROPE will rein in the lion of righteousness when it starts roaming too freely. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 1RR is the solution here - never have - because edit warring has never been the core problem with Martin's edits. The biggest problems have always been the extreme Wikilawyering, IDHT behaviour, battleground attitude etc. - most of which are exhibited on talk pages rather than reverts. We see evidence a-plenty for it in the above threads on this page and the AN/ANI threads. Martin's attitude in his topic ban appeals was what got him blocked, but that attitude was no different from the attitude that got him the topic ban in the first place.
When the topic ban was imposed, it was presumably not on the assumption that he would be indeffed three days later. Martin could have used the period under topic ban to demonstrate that he had in fact changed and that the issues identified were no longer a problem. To some extent he could still have done this on other wikis (in fact, he was indeffed on the Simple English Wikipedia for continuing the disruption that saw him blocked here.)
My suggestion, if we were going to unblock, would be to reinstate the topic ban indefinitely. Give Martin that time that was allowed in the original topic ban decision to demonstrate that he can edit within the rules, before allowing him into the areas where he has problems. But we should not unblock at all without some evidence that he understands the problems the issues that led to the topic ban and indefinite block caused, and how he intends to resolve those issues. In particular, given quite how extreme Martin's Wikilawyering has historically been, we should not let him back without some reason to assume that he will not continue Wikilawyering. Once we have that, we can then allow him to prove his words per WP:ROPE. Kahastoktalk18:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what you've said, I would say that Martin should be unblocked in exchange for a new measurement topic ban, say about three months. RGloucester — ☎18:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any time-limited ban gives us no chance to evaluate how he's doing against the ban before letting him back to cause all the problems he caused before. No, if he's unblocked (and IMO unblocking is a bad idea at this stage) it should be an indefinite topic ban with appeals no earlier than 3-6 months after the unblock date. Kahastoktalk19:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's fair. He has done nothing to warrant a new topic ban, since he has not been able to edit. If he were to accept a new topic ban in exchange for unblocking, that'd be voluntary on his part. In light of that, there is no need for an exorbitant sanction. If he renews his old disruptive trends, like I've said before, he'll be swiftly blocked in line with WP:ROPE. So many editors are watching his edits that there is no chance for any disruption to slip through the cracks. Leaving him blocked is not solving the problem. It has carried on long enough. We need to evaluate whether his actions have changed. If they haven't, like I've said, he's going to be blocked again. RGloucester — ☎19:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was fleshing my point out and edit conflicted. Truth is we have no reason whatsoever to assume that Martin even understands the basics of why he was blocked per WP:GAB. As recently as September at AN, it was all User:Wee Curry Monster's fault and nothing to do with Martin's own behaviour. It's not like he doesn't have reasons - the reason I quote this is because it lays it out quite clearly.
So, giving him a time-limited ban and then just letting him do what he wants is insufficient. He'll just wait it out and then we'll be exactly where we were before the unblock. No, wait until he actually understands why he was blocked before unblocking, then an indef topic ban until he can demonstrate that he can edit properly. Kahastoktalk19:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'd advocate an unblock and mentoring. I've seen it work well before. The mentoring would relate directly to the problematic areas of editing, e.g. around the units pages. I would happily adopt that role if the community agreed to unblocking Martin. I guess the deal would be that he'd be allowed to edit anywhere on anything, but if it came under the "guise" of units etc, he'd need to discuss the edits on the talk page and alert me to the fact he wants to propose changes, I can then sanction them, or otherwise. A probationary period of, say, three months would seem appropriate. It's not as if Martin is destroying the encyclopedia, he just needs help understanding why some of his edits and interactions aren't optimal. And we're all guilty of that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second The Rambling Man's suggestion. Kahastok, I do think we have evidence of Martin's change in attitude. The initial block and ban appeals admitted no fault on Martin's part, but over the course of a year (and it reading several of his draft appeals offline) I've seen his thinking evolve. This appeal identifies the disruptive behavior, takes responsibility for it, and provides assurances that it won't happen again. If the primary issue is that he didn't identify and discuss all of the behavior that resulted in his block, that's partially my fault and I'd like Martin to be given a chance to address that here without prejudice.
One last point: In working with Martin I've found him to be infinitely patient and collegial across dozens of articles. MOSNUM is a problem, and heading to ANI after things warmed up at MOSNUM is also a problem. (There may be article talk page problems independent of his interactions with DeFacto, but I don't have firsthand knowledge there.) Those are specific problems that I think would be fixable by mentoring. If we unblock Martin on condition of receiving that mentor, the downside is a handful of contentious posts before he is shut down permanently. The upside is continued solid contributions across a pretty wide swath of articles, and potentially he'll learn how to not only walk away from certain disputes but also how to resolve them amicably. On balance, I think the potential reward is well worth the minimal risk. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where Martin got the idea: Banned users seeking a return are well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects prior to requesting a return to English Wikipedia per this 'offer'. per WP:OFFER. I agree that brevity would have been more helpful. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are indeed. Note, however, that when Martin started editing simple.wiki, he was indeffed there for continuing the disruption there that led him to be indeffed here. Far from proving that he was reformed and changed, he proved that nothing had changed. He conveniently left that bit out of his request, of course. Kahastoktalk21:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've found the opposite. My experience is that in the topic of measurements, Martin will Wikilawyer continuously and to an extreme degree. For example, Martin will insist that large-scale changes can be made without consensus (rather, that consensus is needed to reverse them). For example, Martin will insist that he has the right to withdraw his assent to a consensus years after the consensus was formed, and that therefore that the original consensus never existed in the first place. For example, Martin will insist that the fact that an external site uses Wikipedia as a source makes Wikipedia a reliable source. It's nonsense on all three counts, but that's what you had to expect when dealing with Martin on the topic of measurements. Far from "infinitely patient and collegial", I have found Martin to be a bully who uses Wikilawyering, personal attacks and WP:IDHT-type behaviour to drive other editors from Wikipedia, and hence push his POV. That has been my experience.
Has he changed? I see no evidence from the above. You say, this appeal "identifies the disruptive behavior, takes responsibility for it". Where? The only thing he takes the blame for is "mishandling" the ANI. And even then, he still puts the underlying blame for his position on this repeatedly-rejected claim that the "proposer of the original ANI had indulged in sharp practice". The evidence from the drafts is that he removed the outright accusations against User:Wee Curry Monster, but the fact remains that does not accept that his behaviour was poor. There is nothing remotely close to the standard of WP:GAB or WP:STANDARDOFFER here. Kahastoktalk21:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kahastok, answering your question "Where?": This episode has highlighted my own mishandling of my allegation.... In particular I had wrongly assumed.... Even if I thought that it should apply here, this was the wrong way... it is essential that all parties follow the established protocol.... I give my assurances that in future my conduct will be in line with the conduct expected by the Wikipedia community. The blocking offense was not the accusation, but the handling of the accusation, and that's what the block appeal addresses. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right. He takes responsibility only for his handling of the topic ban request. He doesn't even accept that his accusation of "sharp practice" was wrong, even though uninvolved admin after uninvolved admin told him it was. Based on this, it's clear that he still thinks the whole thing was nothing more than his own mishandling of a frivolous complaint. He does not accept any responsibility for any wider issues whatsoever. He says "I give my assurances that in future my conduct will be in line with the conduct expected by the Wikipedia community" - what does that mean? So far as we can tell he thinks that everything he did outside that single ANI thread was in line with the conduct expected by the community. It most certainly wasn't.
No the block appeal doesn't address the reason why he was banned. In fact, he has gone round the houses through multiple appeals to avoid ever admitting the problems with the way he was editing. I've never seen any evidence that he has accepted he was blocked because of his behaviour, on the contrary he was claiming it was sharp practise on my part or admin incompetence. Every appeal since has displayed all the behaviour that lead to his block and fundamentally the gratuitously offensive reference to my mental health problems more than anything else demonstrates he just doesn't understand how to edit collaboratively.
If you want an example of just what the problem is here Martin states "Bad faith actions by User:Wee Curry Monster who, knowing that I had views that were contrary to his, tried to get me out of the way before launching this RFC". The thing is I don't fundamentally have different views on the metric system, were there a plebiscite tomorrow I would vote to end the anachronistic situation in the UK and go 100% metric. The problem with Martin is you're either for or against, with no room for the shades of grey where compromise lies and he approaches every situation with a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. Within a short few months of being blocked here, he was blocked on simple wikipedia for the same behaviour. I would suggest that he needs to show trouble free editing elsewhere and not to repeat the IP socking and other sock puppets that I've spotted but at this point refrained from reporting as it never became a problem. WCMemail22:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I think The Rambling Man's offer is a generous one, worth trying. I'd float a refinement and a warning. Clearly, Kahastok and Lesser Cartographies have very different experiences of Martin; I think this is partly because they worked on different types of articles. Lesser Cartographies sometimes worked with Martin on articles about units of measurement and systems of measurement. Kahastok and others were in conflict with Martin over the use of units of measurement in a wide range of articles, particularly Falklands articles at first but extending far more widely, in long and bitter conflicts fought in the articles themselves and their talk pages, in WP:MOSNUM and [[WT:MOSNUM}}, at WP:ANI, on project pages and template talk pages and probably more. Would unblocking Martin be less contentious if he remained banned from the choice of units of measurement in Wikipedia articles (and discussion of same), while free to work on articles about units of measurement? Martinvl, would you accept that?
There is one fly in this ointment. DeFacto will be delighted to have hir old victim back and will pursue Martin; it seems no-one else is quite so satisfying. As we saw on SimpleWiki in the episode Kahastok mentions, DeFacto has a great advantage in this; if s/he can have them both banned for repeating their old enwiki conflict, DeFacto just loses another sock. TRM, this will make your work more interesting than it should be - but I don't doubt you can handle it. NebY (talk)
The reason for opposing this is outlined in one of the first lines of the appeal "This episode has highlighted my own mishandling of my allegation that the proposer of the original ANI had indulged in sharp practice." Emphasis added. He still hasn't dropped the WP:STICK and he is still blaming others. The issue isn't a case of being in conflict with Martin over the use of units of measurement, its a conflict only in the sense that other editors were prepared to compromise personal views to edit in line with a MOS to ensure a consistent look and feel to articles. Martin refused to make the slightest compromise and edited counter to MOS to the detriment of article quality and was prepared to wikilawyer and filibuster to impose his view. You could walk away and he would insist you were edit warring with him as he did at Talk:United Kingdomhere - I haven't edited that article since and he would still have it my one edit was "edit warring" with him. WCMemail23:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what's it worth, I'd be prepared to support an unblock which involved an indefinite topic ban from metric / imperial unit articles, combined with indefinite 1RR. PhilKnight (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your offer. I would however like clarification as to what you mean by "metric/imperial unit articles". Do you means any article that deals with metric or imperial units or do you mean any article that deals with metric and imperial units. How would this restriction affect articles such as Proposed redefinition of SI base units – a GA that needs updating in the very near future? (More details are in the appeal itself). Martinvl (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) PhilKnight, let me suggest a slight tweak to that as a possible compromise. As NebY pointed out, I've primarily interacted with Martin on measurement articles like Kilometers per hour and Stone (unit), and his behavior there has been fine. Kahastok and Wee Curry Monster have dealt with Martin mostly outside of measurement articles (MOSNUM and Falklands, to name two). Would you support inverting your condition: in addition to the 1RR, Martin would have an indefinite ban on discussing units of measurement outside of units-of-measurement articles. That keeps the peace at Falklands (which your original formulation didn't quite cover, I think) and lets us get the benefit of Martin's knowledge of obscure international standards. Kahastok, Wee Curry Monster: would that prevent the disruptive behavior you've seen? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(2 x ec) For clarity, the original topic ban was not just from unit articles, but from the topic of measurements. It included WP:MOSNUM, and the act of changing or adding units on non-unit related articles (or discussion of such changes). The issues I experienced rarely if ever arose on the actual unit articles (which I have rarely edited) - part of the reason it was a problem was that it could appear anywhere because measurements are so common. The article that immediately prompted the topic ban discussion was United Kingdom. Just a topic ban on the unit articles themselves leaves all the key areas where Martin caused problems out of scope. Kahastoktalk07:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for explaining. Looking at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community the previous wording was "Topic ban from all articles, talk pages, and any namespace page related to measurements. Appeals may be made to the administrator's noticeboard or Arbcom but otherwise any mention of measurements or editing involving measurements may be treated with blocks of escalating lengths. The only exception being explicit source quotations in article-space." which seems to be sensible enough wording. PhilKnight (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, may I expand on Lesser Cartographies' comment. If you look at the first eight articles that I catalogued in the [hidden] list of my contributions to the English Wikipedia, you will see that seven of them are covered by the topic ban given to me a year ago. Apart from harassment from DeFacto, there was no any edit-warring in any of these artciles. The topic ban, as worded, would also prevent me from updating articles to reflect changes in the SI Brochure (see here). Martinvl (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, I would not object to lifting the block if the topic ban was re-imposed and a 1RR restriction enacted as a condition of the unblock. Its not the edit warring alone that is the problem but the other behaviours including the relentless wikilawyering. Just look at the disruption caused at Talk:United Kingdom over a trivial edit. WCMemail08:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I find that this particular response demonstrates why, IMO, an unblock is unwise at this stage. Martin points out that seven of the first eight articles on his list would count and that he hasn't edit warred on any of them. There are two answers to that. Firstly, so what? Given the issues that have occurred in the past, if Martin wants to edit those articles he can wait until such a time as he proves that he can do so responsibly. We ultimately do not need Martin to edit: other editors can also work on these articles.
Secondly, while he hasn't edit warred on them much, that's not to say he hasn't Wikilawyered on them or disrupted them in other ways. Edit warring has never been the main issue, and the fact that Martin highlights it demonstrates either that he's trying to throw people off or that he has genuinely no idea why he was blocked - why things like Wikilawyering are a problem. At least one of those examples of Wikilawyering I cited earlier came from within that eight. That he might not have edit warred does not mean that he has not caused problems and we should reasonably expect him to know what those problems are before we unblock him. I've cited a convenient list from the original discussions a few times now, so I don't think they're not known or particularly unclear.
But yes, if there is to be an unblock, the original topic ban should be suitable. I would suggest that we clarify a few things: specifically, does it include articles and edits related to the process of metrication or organisations or individuals related to it? I would suggest that it does, but we should be clearer on this. Kahastoktalk19:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given this editor's propensity for extreme wikilawyering, of which there is no evidence of him withdrawing from doing, and some evidence that he is unchanged in this respect, any change in the topic ban needs to have really clear definitions with boundaries very clearly defined. This is necessary in order to both minimize disruption to wikipedia, and to protect the editor from himself. It is true that every person who has suffered some restriction should have the ability to reform and demonstrate that he or she has reformed, but I believe that giving too easy a return would just be too risky for both (wikipedia and Martin) at the moment. In a response to PhilKnight's suggestion, we already see the editor enquiring about whether an "and" or "or" interpretation is to be used at one point. The editor recognises an ambiguity, and wants to know the limits beyond which he must not go. I suggest we make these limits as broad as is reasonable, out of a desire to minimize disruption and continue to protect Martin, who is otherwise a good contributor. Until Martin clearly and explicitly addresses and acknowledges his own behaviour that led to the restrictions, I think it is reasonable for us to do that. DDStretch (talk)05:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster: At 22:17, 27 October 2014 you wrote "...not to repeat the IP socking and other sock puppets that I've spotted ...". Will you please catalogue the instances of IP socking to which you are referring and justify why you believe that I made them? Martinvl (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster: The SPI that you raised against me (See November 2014 (below) answers my request about "other sock puppets" but does not touch on your claim of "IP socking". I have responded to the SPI (See SPI response by Martinvl (below). I believe that my response shows beyond reasonable doubt that the accusation was a case of mistaken identity.
Will you please now catalogue the instances of IP socking to which you referred and justify why you believe that I made those postings? Martinvl (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are not really in a position to demand things like this. It is up to individual editors to judge whether to take things to SPI or any other board, not for you to tell them to. If WCM wants to file SPI, he'll file SPI. If he doesn't, you have no business trying to force him to. It is not as though there are plenty of other reasons not to unblock, such as your failure to acknowledge the reasons for your block in the first place. Kahastoktalk21:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[7] As a result of Martin chosing to go off-wiki and email a number of users, some of which has included unpleasant comments on myself, I am withdrawing my support from the suggestion that Martin is unblocked with restrictions. The off-wiki communications seem to demonstrate that Martin intends to continue to edit in the confrontational manner he did before and I am already tired of the time sink any dealing with Martin becomes. For the record I would oppose unblocking at this time. WCMemail13:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wee Curry Monster:, @Nick-D: can I please clarify things. I did not want to post the message that I am now posting. In my view, in this case your mentor Nick-D is the problem, not me.
I knew that you had some personal issues and that you had voluntarily taken yourself "off air". I did not want to publicise these issues, I did not want to contact you directly (that would have revealed my e-mail address to you) but I wanted to get on with my appeal, which would have resulted in my interacting with you. Taking your personal issues into account made things difficult for me so I asked Nick-D to pass on a message to you from me, explaining to him confidentially and in good faith why I had contacted him.
Nick-D let you down twice over – firstly he refused to acknowledge your personal issues (which he dismissed as "unpleasant comments") and secondly he did not pass on my message. He let me down by not telling me that he was not going to assist and he let himself and the Wikipedia Administratorship down by publicising the existence (albeit not the content) of what was meant to be a confidential communication. I have since written a very strongly worded e-mail to him explaining what your personal issues can mean, drawing on my own (second-hand) experience of such issues and sending him a number of references as to why he need to take these issues seriously. I think that he owes both of us an apology. Martinvl (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This nonsense about "personal issues" seems remarkably intrusive, out-of-line, and offensive. There is no way that I can support an unblock in these circumstances, and hence must now voice my opposition to any such unblocking at this time. RGloucester — ☎16:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And there we go. It was entirely Nick-D's fault that you sent him e-mails containing "unpleasant allusions" about WCM. Just as it was entirely User:Mabuska's fault that you accused User:Ddstretch of hypocrisy and indeed entirely Curry Monster's fault that you were topic banned and then indeffed for the issues that we are all aware of. Of course it was.
Nick-D can and should use his judgement in determining how to react to an e-mail such as yours. That you demand he apologise for doing so - along with all the patronising crap about "personal issues" (which despite your protestations you seem to bring up at every opportunity) - demonstrates amply why I believe you have not learnt from your period of block and why I think you would if unblocked now repeat the behaviour that saw you blocked in the first place. Kahastoktalk21:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with RGloucester and Kahastok here, including in regards to the tone and content of the emails strongly suggesting that Martin should not be unblocked for the reasons they both note. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've since had an email from Martin to my personal account. Suffice it to say, I have not and will not be replying but the contents have convinced me that Martin is utterly oblivious to the problems with his editing and is still blaming others. WCMemail13:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One step forwards, ten steps back. I don't think Martin can be unblocked at this stage. He needs to really confront his own behaviour here, and comment on just his own behaviour: no comments about other editors, or anything like that. But given what has happened recently, I think a break on the order of a few months must happen before he can claim he has done so by posting appropriate messages. DDStretch (talk)13:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed in the reasons for the refusal of the unblock request: "however you seem reluctant to accept any failings on your part" - it has been over a year since Martinvl was blocked and this was one of the main roots of his problems - the inability to accept they have done wrong in any way, and that any issues were everybody else's fault. Mabuska(talk)15:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add: If Martinvl was to be in future unblocked I would strongly suggest a permanent topic-ban on weights and measures. A topic-ban that will lapse would only mean that at some stage when back in the field that Martinvl will inevitably revert back to their normal behaviour. Mabuska(talk)15:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mabuska:, on the contrary, if Martin comes back he should be allowed to edit only weights and measures articles. He has a solid track record of problem-free collaborative editing there. Where he gets into trouble is articles outside of weights and measures such as United Kingdom and Falkland Islands. Keep him out of everything except weights and measures articles and we'll get all of the benefit of his expertise with none of the drama. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, the whole point Martin is that you can't edit collaboratively, you edit war relentlessly and then wikilawyer that its all someone else's fault. OK fine, lets go back to the first block in your block log. [9], [10] concerning 6RR on Metrication in the United Kingdom. The discussion in Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3 seems depressingly familiar to this one years later at Talk:United Kingdom/Archive 28#Units of measure dispute.. The point being that the articles Lesser Cartographies suggested you be allowed to edit and your WP:OWN issues are part of the problem. You still don't seem to get that WP:3RR doesn't give you 3 free reverts. You were constantly telling people I was edit warring with you [11], when I'd point blank refused to [12], you then edit-warred with a number of editors telling them that WP:BRD meant they had to revert to your favoured version whilst it was discussed. You have been blocked in the past for exactly the same behaviour that lead to your indefinite block and in your unblock appeal displaying the same behaviour. People are just tired of the time sink any dealings with you becomes. Now if its all the same, please do not send me one of those patronising emails again, I am removing your talk page from my watchlist and I would appreciate it if you didn't ping me again. I intend to go back to my transcription of the Bernhardt memo for wikisource and to content writing. WCMemail00:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any unblock. Martin, that "frivolous" crack finally convinced me that you'd much rather be Right than edit here. Ok, you're Right. I wish you the joy of whatever consolation that brings you. In case you're wondering, here's one version of the correct response. You're correct that I edit-warred at those articles, and I understand why you're concerned. I should not have done that, full stop. I expect similar situations will come up again, and when then do I will not revert DeFacto or anyone else I disagree with. Rather, I'll ask for assistance and leave the ultimate disposition of the article to other editors. I would prefer this be enforced with a formal 1RR restriction; if you would like this to be combined with a topic-ban or other restriction, I think that's reasonable as well. I'd like to discuss the specifics of what would allow you to be comfortable with my return to editing. Breaking that down: 1) Acknowledge the concern, 2) Take responsibility without rationalizing or offering excuses, 3) Outline what you'll do differently to guarantee the problem doesn't recur and 4) ask for feedback. In short: I fucked up. My bad. It won't happen again and here's why. I'd like your input. If you'd rather argue the fact that you weren't wrong, that's your choice. But I think you've run out of people who are interested in listening to that argument. When you're done with wanting to argue I'll be happy to support your next unblock. No, it's not fair. No, you don't get any vindication (other than the opportunity to rack up more FAs). When the FAs mean more to you than being Right, it's easy enough to say "whatever" (nicely) and avoid these dumpster fires. Looking forward to having you back. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many, many thanks for posting that message. I have been tempted to give explicit advice to Martin along those lines myself before now, but given I was involved at one point, I guessed it would have hardly any impact. I hope that this unsolicited advice from you might have some effect. DDStretch (talk)04:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that my use of the word "frivilous" caused some problems. The Oxford Concise Dictionary (1964) gives a number of meanings for the word "frivilous". The first of these is "paltry". The same dictionary gives a number of meanings for the word "paltry", the first of which is "worthless". This source describes a "frivolous claim" as one that is "motivated by an intent merely to harass, delay or embarrass the opposition". If we now look at a few crucial timings regarding the 24 hour block that I received on 6 January, we see:
21:12, 1 January 2013 - User:NebYraised an SPI against MeasureIT, alleging that he was a sockpuppet of DeFacto.
00:34, 6 January 2013 - Both MeasureIT and both I received a 24 hour block.
15:26, 9 January 2013 - MeasureIT blocked as a sockpuppet of DeFacto.
Under WP:NOT3RR, actions "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users" are not deemed to be countable under 3RR. It follows therefore that, with the benefit of hindsight, this block was unjustified and therefore that WCM's assertion that this was an example of edit-warring is worthless (or to use the term favoured in legal circle, "frivilous". Martinvl (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request revocation of Martin's talk page access. The fact that he is continuing this behaviour again is unacceptable. He has not learned anything. RGloucester — ☎14:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After being pinged and reading the recent downward spiral of faulty reasoning on Martin's part, I can't see any point in continuing this thread. For what it's worth, I still think TRM's offer of mentoring was generous but I no longer think it's worth trying now, even under a broad topic ban. Martin, please wait until the benefit of hindsight tells you, not that you made tactical errors or meant well, but that you were often in the wrong and could not return to Wikipedia without heeding the criticism and advice you received. NebY (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I had no intention of making an SPI report and would have happily let the matter drop. But noting the ping I got today and the fact that I really don't wish to see an extended period of wikilawyering over this, I've launched an SPI case. WCMemail15:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SPI response by Martinvl
Resolved
Will an admin please post the statement below on the above SPI page on my behalf? Since I am under an indefinite block I am unable to do so myself.
I checked my diary against the postings made by JJada. JJade mde three posting on 5 May 2014. At that time I was travelling in the Netherlands. I took the photograph for this Wikimedia Commons image on the previous day and posted it a few days later when I returned from my travels. I am willing to forward copies of the relevant e-mails confirming my travel arrangements for that period to a person who has Check User clearance. They can then compare the IP addresses for 5 May 2014 against the other IP addresses used by JJade.
Had I made the changes that JJada made here, I would have followed the convention used on Page 2 (Para 1.1) of this document and used the word "quantities", not "expressions".
JJade finished this sentence with a preposition. Although my writing style is far from perfect, I am always careful to avoid finishing sentences with prepositions.
I have read your email. You are very welcome to send me the evidence you refer to if you like, but at present I don't think that it would be relevant to any case that I am concerned with. I have no intention of taking action on the basis of innuendo, which at present is all there is. As for your block appeal, that is a case I have no plan to get involved in. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I posted the following to JamesBWatson:
Hi JamesBWatson,
Thank you for your e-mail.
In order that I can place on record that I was at a meeting organised by XXXX when User 94.196.214.34 posted the statements that were referred to in the DeFacto SPI, I am sending you the following information from the their website:
XXXX Calendar - (url hidden) confirms that meetings are held at 7:45 pm on the second Monday of each month, and in particular that there was a regular monthly meeting on 20 October 2014, starting at 7:45 [BST] (18:45 GMT).
Gallery 2013 - (url hidden) Click on caption introducing the guest speaker YYYY. I am on Frame 13 of the gallery where I am named.
Gallery 2014 - (url hidden) Click on the third picure (guest speaker ZZZZ). Using the information from the previous gallery, I can be picked out on frames 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10.
I am posting an edited version of this e-mail on my Talk Page.
OK, Martin. It seems likely that, if I were willing to spend my time dealing with the irritatingly gimmicky presentation on the pages you link to, I might be able to grab some of the photographs and keep them, and if I did so I might be able to compare different photographs and confirm that someone with a name related to your Wikipedia username was present in a place distant from the geolocation of an IP address that edited round about that time. If so, it might perhaps be taken as evidence in your defence against a charge which as far as I know has never yet been made. If, as seems likely, everything you have said about this case is true, then I can fully sympathise with the frustration you must be feeling, and I can understand why you have sent me the information that you have sent. At present, as I have already said, it does not help in anything that I am concerned with, but I will bear it in mind in case it ever becomes relevant. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JamesBWatson - I was filing the information with an uninvolved third party (you) and letting others know that this information exists. This should deflate any innuendo that I am the sockmaster concerned. At the moment other parties do not need to know who XXXX, YYYY and ZZZZ are, merely that they exist. As far as I am concerned the fact that you can access the information should the need arise is probably sufficient to put the matter to bed. Martinvl (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, the IP geolocates to a Three Mobile Broadband account, which (to the best of my knowledge) will continue to produce IP addresses in the same range even when the physical device is outside of that area. For whatever it's worth, those IPs are not part of your SPI. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lesser Cartographies:, I think that you are mixing up two unrelated, but otherwise fallacious SPI accusations.
In this case, where the IP addresses are known, I argued that I was at a meeting at the time that the postings were made. I have deposited internet links to photographic evidence showing my attendance with JamesBWatson.
In this case, I argued that I was in the Netherlands when some of the postings were made. Given the number of restaurants, railways stations, hotels and bars that offer free Wi-Fi, why would I pay to use broadband while roaming when I would walk into the nearest bar or coffee shop and use their free WiFi? BTW, we do not yet know the IP addresses from which these postings were made.
To answer your second question: I frequently use by cell phone hotspot over free local wifi for privacy, speed and convenience. To answer the first question, I get a lot of enWP editing done while at meetings, and I expect others do as well.
Let's assume that you have never used ThreeMBB. Let's further assume JJada's IP addresses all resolve to ThreeMBB. The closing admin then has a choice between two scenarios:
1. You bought a new hotspot device and used it in part to help cover your tracks with socking. You also made a few superficial changes to your sentence structure and use of prepositions and made a couple of "mistakes" in the contents of your edits (mistakes that would only be obvious as such to someone with your domain knowledge). Based on that behavior and the vocabulary used, this is a straightforward case of socking.
2. Someone else went to a great deal of trouble to make edits where the IP addresses would resolve to your general area. They carefully researched your vocabulary tells and included just enough Martinisms to not only tie the edits to you, but also to make it appear as if you were trying to hide your identity. Despite all that trouble, when the edits did not lead to an SPI they abandoned the effort rather than escalating.
If JJada isn't your sock, then I think it's time to just admit defeat and give up on the idea of editing enWP. Somebody out there can, when the mood strikes them, create edits that look exactly like what we would expect if you were socking—down to the level of making the IP addresses look plausible. Even if the socking is resolved in your favor this time, the adversary can create new "sock" accounts at will and there's nothing you can do about it.
@Oncenawhile: - Rather than making postings such as one, you should be contacting the NSW police directly on their crime-stoppers page. (I tried to add their site here, but it appears that the best way to get it is to Google it).
I have since contacted the NSW police regarding this posting. In the interests of justice, please do not touch anything - let the police draw their own conclusions. Martinvl (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing so. Whoever was behind the account certainly had some connection to this lunatic, so i'm sure the NSW police will appreciate the info. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the {{Admin help}} template appropriately. You used the {{Admin help}} template, but asked a question that doesn't require an admin to be answered. If you need help like this in the future, please add the {{Help me}} template instead. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join the #wikipedia-en-helpIRC help channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.
Wee Curry Monster has made a [[13]] against me on WP:ANI which contain a number of unfounded allegations . Since I am indefinitely blocked, what are my options to repudiate his claims? I need to ensure that whoever handles WCM's claims knows the full facts. Martinvl (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need an administrator for this specific question. What I might suggest doing is either requesting an unblock so that you may address the concerns on your own using the {{Unblock}} template, or post your comments and statements here and someone may copy your comment for you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)20:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "unfounded allegations". Everything stated in the edit you linked to is unambiguously true. You have also been warned before, and have had every opportunity to make constructive responses to the criticisms of your actions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, you have been blockedindefinitely from editing. Your abilities to edit your talk page and to send emails have also been revoked, for the reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. However, you should bear in mind that unblock requests which fail to show an appreciation of the reasons for the block (like your earlier unblock requests, and your comments immediately above) are unlikely to succeed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to draw attention to a proposal Martin made at Meta-Wiki [14]. Relevant points from this:
Persists in claims of WP:CANVAS He demanded I inform all users on the talk page, I complied with his request, he then claims this is "canvassing".
Describes the ANI which lead to his block as "mob justice".
Describes me as a "bully" and a "troll" and alleges I exploited the situation at ANI.
Still persisting with the quasi-legal justification.
Relevant discussions Removal of talk page & email access, 2nd Topic Ban appeal,First Topic Ban appeal,Original ANI discussion. There are several topic ban appeals and unblock requests on this page alone. He is also blocked permanently on simple.wiki for exactly the same disruptive behaviour after being blocked here [15]. The continuing theme in all of these is a complete lack of any appreciation for the disruptive nature of his editing that lead to his block, instead he is persisting with the theme that he was wronged and it was my fault. The recent proposal at Meta-Wiki shows that he still doesn't get it. WCMemail23:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So basically Martinvl has retained the exact same attitude and lack of respect for Wikipedia, its procedures, protocols and editors since the first time I bumped into him prior to that original AN/I discussion? If that is the case then they should remain indefinitely blocked. Mabuska(talk)11:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that nothing seems to have changed on the basis of the report, above (I am trying to see if I can access the actual appeal message, but without success so far), so that there is no real prospect of anything positive being achieved by unblocking him. DDStretch (talk)15:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The rules are that anyone can reform, and that includes Martin. Clearly, if we can't see what he's said, we can't say that he hasn't resolved all of the concerns that have been raised in the past. But on past form, I doubt it.
My advice to the person reviewing this would be, after reading the text of the appeal, to try to read the text of the appeal without inferring anything. Martin is an inveterate Wikilawyer and one of his tactics is write in such a way as to imply things that he doesn't mean, or that he is likely to later want to distance himself from. He will later hotly deny that he ever said them and even demand apologies for the suggestion that he might have done. We've seen it with personal attacks, we've seen it with legal threats and we've seen it with content disputes. And we've seen similar tactics attempted with previous unblock requests.
With Martin, if you don't demand and receive absolute clarity, if what is said is anything less than 100% unambiguous, 100% explicit and 100% impossible to reinterpret, you might as well ask him to take advantage of you. You can't assume that he will accept the spirit of any agreement, nor give any statement, in good faith. It has to be as tight as a legal document, because he will take advantage of any possible loophole, no matter how ridiculous or obviously outside the spirit of the text. Yes, this makes the whole process of getting anywhere at all on any issue very longwinded and frustrating. Martin wasn't indeffed for no reason.
It happened last time he appealed. Martin took responsibility for the behaviour that led to the block only in the narrowest possible terms (and the meta page makes it clear that he's since rowed back even on that). It rapidly became clear that this was because he took no responsibility for his wider behavioural issues at all, and continued to exhibit those issues in that very discussion.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
File copyright problem with File:Severn Estuary Crossings.svg
Thank you for uploading File:Severn Estuary Crossings.svg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.
UTRS Admin note: Due to repeated unsuccessful appeals that displayed the same exhaustive wiki-lawyering as presented here, UTRS access has been blocked for 3 months.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots17:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metrication of British transport (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!01:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Information relating to recent attempts to get round the block
I provide the following information in case it may ever be of help to any administrator if Martinvl should make further attempts either to get unblocked or to evade the effect of his block.
As can be seen above, two months ago Martinvl 3 times in short succession posted at UTRS requesting that his block be reviewed. I have read those UTRS appeals, and the replies given by the declining administrators. More recently he has emailed OTRS, requesting that the email be forwarded to me, which was done. I have also read his UTRS appeals from previous years, including the three made in rapid succession within a few days in April 2018, which led to UTRS access being temporarily removed. None of the recent UTRS appeals contains anything substantially new: they largely repeat things he has repeatedly said previously, including in the UTRS appeals made in previous years.
The post to OTRS was both an attempt to use OTRS to circumvent his removal of email access. It was also an attempt to get proxy editing done for him. As has been the case in the past, his UTRS appeals showed no understanding at all of the reasons which led to the block, nor any indication that he will not do the same again; on the contrary, two of the UTRS appeals explicitly stated that he was asking for email access to be restored so that he could abuse that email access to lobby and canvass editors. (In view of his persistent practice, commented on in the past, of ridiculous wikilawyering about the exact words used in statements, I will explicitly state that he did not use such words as "lobby", "abuse", and "canvass", but he did indicate that that was his purpose.) Such abuse of email was what led to his email access being removed in the first place, and the idea that it should be restored so that he can continue doing the same thing shows a truly astonishing inability to understand.
He has also more than once attempted to evade the effect of his block on English Wikipedia by posting about it to one or more other Wikimedia projects. (Fortunately, and unsurprisingly, he got nowhere by doing so.)
Every piece of evidence indicates that Martinvl either does not understand or chooses not to understand the reasons for his block and for his loss of talk page and email address, and that he thoroughly intends to return to doing exactly the same things again if his block is removed or if talk page and/or email access is returned. His practice of repeatedly posting appeals which say essentially the same, and which make no attempt whatever to address the reasons given for the decline of the previous appeals, is disruptive and a waste of other editors' time, and will not lead to his being unblocked. It is now more than six years since his current indefinite block was imposed, and in that time he has had ample opportunity to make a constructive unblock appeal, but he has instead persistently made numerous futile appeals which make no progress whatever towards either showing an understanding of the block nor indicating that he has any intention whatever of changing his ways. Either he has considerable difficulty in understanding what he is told, he understands but stubbornly refuses to accept consensus because he is "RIGHT" and sees no reason to collaborate, or he is trolling. Whichever of those possibilities is in fact the case, unfortunately I see no reason to think that after making no change in six years he is likely ever to do so. I therefore find it difficult to imagine any realistic possibility that unblocking will ever be appropriate.
I hope that my writing all this has been a waste of my time, because he has at last got the message and sill stop his time-wasting unblock requests and his abusive attempts to evade the effects of his block. However, if that turns out not to be the case, perhaps some or all of what I have written will be of help to another administrator who has to waste her or his time reviewing the situation.JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson12:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:OIML blue logo.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:OIML blue logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Metric system has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
I've seen this repeated a couple of times now at Meta, so it may be worthwhile to put the record straight here for the benefit of any future editor unfamiliar with what happened. Martin has been claiming his email and talk page access was removed because he attempted to use the talk page to alert people to information related to the Lindt Cafe siege. When he posted about the siege it had been over for 15 hrs and in any case this is simply untrue.
Revocation was for an entirely different incident on 4 January 2015. I noticed a message posted by an editor [18] responding to an email request from Martin to change the article en:International Bank Account Number, Martin immediately removed it [19]. I discussed this with my mentor Nick-D [20]. Nick suggested this was prima facie evidence of an attempt to recruit meat puppets with the email functionality and as this was not the first occasion advised I post at en:WP:AN asking for review by an uninvolved admin. I did so [21], it was reviewed and JBW as an uninvolved admin chose to revoke his talk page and email access [22]. WCMemail12:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed redefinition of SI base units.
Resolved
