User talk:Libertarianmoderate2

A heart to heart about something important.

@SelfieCity: As of today, I've been locked out of Wikivoyage for 81 days. But that hasn't been even close to the biggest wake up call for me recently. I recently cussed someone out in an email, leading to me being suspended from school for three days. This recent incident has finally taught me a lesson about my big mouth (or keyboard, in this case). I now realize the impact words have on other people, as I can no longer even see my former social worker because of how I mistreated her. I know ThunderingTyphoons said to come back in 6 months and they'd consider believing what I say, but this has taught me 6 decades worth of lessons. I was just wondering if it was possible you could shorten my ban to February 28 (about seven months from the day I was banned). I miss Wikivoyage, and I'll never stop kicking myself for the way I mistreated everyone from Wikitravel to SelfieCity to Holocaust victims. Even myself when I vandalized my own page under the name Wikiwrecker231 for sympathy points. Libertarianmoderate2 (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you can certainly ask for for block to be lifted on a talk page, however please stop editing articles with this account immediately. Special:Contributions/Libertarianmoderate2 If you continue to edit articles then it will be consider block evasion, thereby resulting in a longer block. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

What's longer than indefinite? Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this contributor's history, just that they indicated that their ban could be temporary (as per above). That said, if they do have good intentions then I would really suggest them to just start again with a different internet community. There are plenty to choose from. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Andrewssi2: Around mid-2018 he did some vandalism, and he has come back many times and asked for forgiveness, only to fall into the same things again; he got blocked for vandalism (seemingly politically-related) and then started creating sockpuppet accounts. Half of me says April would be a fair time to end the block, but I don't know. Remember, forgiving someone for their actions is one thing, but removing a block is another. After blocking you and your sockpuppets multiple times (generally indefinitely, maybe every time), we're not just going to say "punishment's over" and remove the block.

I don't really remember being mistreated; I remember many times, LM, when you treated me well. I think we should remove the block eventually, but do so around mid-2019, so LM learns his lesson. I don't support removing the block on February 28th, because I don't think that's right. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Andrewssi2: Oy, so I see. I'll let you draw your own conclusions on whether he's lying, but his ban is indefinite. See Wikivoyage:User ban nominations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Come on, Selfie. A repeat offender with several block evasions? Please. Let's stop wasting time! Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm torn here. I've checked and he was banned indefinitely on his original account. Why go back on that?

I've crossed out my opinion from earlier on, but I'm still torn. It's either mid-2019 or indefinite, that's my view. But I can't say which. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait, you mean he apologized above and then started editing articles as a sockpuppet? Okay, then let's leave him blocked indefinitely and maybe revisit this several months away. It's hard to trust him if he made this comment and then started editing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Although it is right to give everyone a fair chance, I would say that if WV has collectively decided on an infinite ban then the community should stick with an infinite ban. Otherwise the ban process is irrelevant. I say this as someone who has no formed opinion of Libertarianmoderate. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think I agree with that, and it's a good point. I think though, we ought to give TT a say in the matter. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no good reason to consider lifting a block and it is frankly a mistake to be considering this or engaging with the user. Any block lifting would have to be discussed, and I, for one, would absolutely vote "never." This is not his first apology. There is only one important factor to understand, and that is that the user's block evasion prior to today's actions have outweighed by many times the original infraction, and it is unreasonable to expect clemency. Can we agree, if a similar incident happens, to block without posting a sympathetic series of messages? ARR8 (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No. It depends on the situation. I don't know what others think, but personally I think that we must consider the situation, etc. But this isn't my wiki, and if everyone wants to block indefinitely I will go along with them. But I don't think the commentary above is harmful; in fact, if anything, quite the opposite. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Selfie, I'll spell it out: such a discussion is counterproductive. It encourages the user and gives him false hope. It incentivizes him to keep coming back. This is not a conversation that should happen in the open, and it should not be known that it happens at all. ARR8 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This conversation is not harmful "in the open", which it is only marginally. We're not revealing any vandal's methods. If he keeps coming back as a sockpuppet, we will block him indefinitely from now on and not debate anymore. I also don't want to boast, and maybe I have something wrong, but you have been on the site since August and I have been on the site since December 2017. You can't assume you know everything for sure about these matters. Nor can I; we're all learning. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Selfie, I'm frankly surprised by the direction you're taking the conversation. This is a generalizable situation that happens all over the internet. My wiki account is eight years old. "In the open" = where the vandal can see. You yourself have had trouble identifying the vandal - proof of that is on my talk page. We should be making every measure to discourage the user's unhealthy obsession with the site, which manifests sometimes in sometimes elaborate attempts at evasion. It should be made clear that there is no hope of lifting the ban, which is true, to try to convince him to bother some other community. ARR8 (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Removed a word ARR8 (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm just trying to be reasonable about this. I've said my point, we now must wait on ThunderingTyphoons to say what he thinks of the situation. I still don't understand how you can say "We should be", but I'll avoid it now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ User:SelfieCity - I don't know what ThunderingTyphoons offered this contributor but it is irrelevant. If the community agreed to apply an indefinite ban, then the contributor has an indefinite ban. You don't need to gauge people's feelings after the fact. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

This is why he is relevant. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:25, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You're undercutting me and everyone else who voted for an indefban and then dealt with several block-evading socks. It's IMO exactly this kind of behavior that caused some people to doubt your suitability to be an admin. If you can't conform to the consensus on basic matters of userbans and insist on wasting time and creating dissension about this, I have to say that your time as an admin will be very short, and properly so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That post by ThunderingTyphoons is actually not relevant at all. We should not give false hope to people with indefinite bans. That post should not have been written, regardless of how good the intention was.

If you REALLY feel strongly about all of this, then please go to Wikivoyage_talk:User_ban_nominations and discuss how you would like policy changed. Do take Ikan's advice and not prosecute this contributor's situation any further. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Must I say for the millionth time that I have no intention to undercut anyone and I have never resisted consensus? I'm sure I have said in this thread that I am willing to go along with consensus, and I even said I would go along with an indefinite ban for the user.

As usual for any situation where I could potentially have caused any problems, I apologize. I want what is best for this wiki and User:Libertarianmoderate. This, I promise, will be the last comment I will write in this discussion. Can we move on now? If this discussion is really a waste of time, then there is no reason to continue it.

Please also see User talk:Ikan Kekek#Confusion, which is relevant in this case. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The record at WV:User ban nominations is very clear. Consult that the next time you're considering giving a repeat offending block evader another chance. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sincere apologies if I've wasted anyone's time over this. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the offer, but I was just trying to show some compassion. The fact is that the user continued to block evade and vandalise after I made that comment, so as far as I'm concerned, the offer is null and void. Sorry once again for stepping out of line.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Though posterity has since proven it to be a miscalculation, I want to say that I knew about the message you'd sent to LibMod all along and, knowing what we knew then, I didn't see anything wrong with it at the time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I assumed from the information I had that the offer was provided after the indefinite ban. Apologies to ThunderingTyphoons! that I have suggested he made an offer after the indefinite ban. If anything it goes to show that the thread above has been too confusing to all concerned, and frankly unnecessary as well. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)