Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:12, 18 August 2012

too much stress, I can be contacted through email or thewik.net

Block review community consensus
I was blocked for this and see no reason to continue with a cloud hanging over my head or confusion over the issue. An apparent third party appeal to the admin here failed, so it's clear I should not continue if that is what everyone wants. If people want to add their names to this table, to show if this block is justified or not, that might change my mind, otherwise, good luck to the lot of you, and happy editing. Penyulap ☏ 12:53, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Unjustified	Thom2002 (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC) You will find that most admins are trigger happy, but most can count to three. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Justified	Mythpage88 (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Unclear	Don't understand the reason for the block.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Error: Image is invalid or non-existent.

Talk access

Penyulap, I've just removed your access to this talk page. I'm sorry to have had to do it, because I think you meant no harm with your comments, but if you need medical help and time away from Misplaced Pages, you can't get either of those by continuing to post here about your thoughts, what edits you'd like to see made, or what other editors are doing. "Time away from Misplaced Pages" means just that - time away, not time continuing to throw energy into your talk page when you ought to be devoting that energy to getting well. I really urge you to take Pesky's advice as far as moving heaven and earth to get whatever medical attention you need. Spend your energy there, spend your energy on real life, spend your energy on rebuilding your sense of peace. When you're recharged, healed, and ready to pick up the reins again, you can contact the Arbcom Ban Appeals Subcommittee and ask for the talk page lock and/or your block to be lifted. By contacting Arbcom, you'll get multiple people's full review, rather than one admin or "whoever shows up to a noticeboard" handling the request. I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that you eventually come back to us, but right now, you need to ease away. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not even access to his own talk page? Truly unbelievable, and very shocking.--andreasegde (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Contentious, maybe. Bold, certainly, but it isn't difficult to assume the best of faith here. While it might seem unorthodox, I am inclined to defer to Fluffernutter's judgement here, if only via WP:IAR, for the time being. Pen has a good heart, and we hope he makes it back, and we can revisit the talk page access in a few weeks. Indef doesn't mean forever, it just means "we don't know how long". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, how can being blocked from one's own talk page be construed as damaging Misplaced Pages? It's tantamount to forbidding him to speak freely about his improvement of health, how it is improving, his personal views about his previous editing, or if he wants to edit again. Here we are, talking on his talk page, and he's not allowed the basic right to answer. As said before, I find it very shocking. Is this the future of Misplaced Pages? This kind of block is exactly what WP-detractors love to write about.--andreasegde (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for removing talk page access. This editor needs to take a very long break from all of Misplaced Pages, ideally long enough for a major change in temperament. Penyulap should not return until building an encyclopedia is the major concern, not jousting with other editors and wasting their time. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

In my short interaction with Penyulap I have seen Penyulap as helpful and constructive in expanding wikipedia and improving the quality of the content here. I can not understand why Penyulap has been blocked, and why a user can't even edit its own user talk page. Banning someone from wikipedia and thereby wanting to force (as expressed above) them to get help (even if needed) is not a humane act, it is coercive. Tony Mach (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/ Tony Mach. Couldn't help but be reminded of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap and I are on good terms, and have emailed each other many times, before and after the block. He understands. When the time is right, I have no intention of ignoring his requests and will bring the issue up, so he isn't being forced into a bureaucratic hell of red tape. He trusts me, hopefully others do in this as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well said.--andreasegde (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Penyulap, after everything you have been through, you deserve one of these! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap has requested talk page access be restored

Penyulap emailed me two days ago and asked for his talk page access to be restored. I wanted to think on it for a couple of days, decided to bring the issue up here. I feel a discussion on the topic is worthwhile by those who know him. I would ask people be pithy, constructive and to the point, as others comments will be trimmed or removed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• My first question is what was Penyulap's rationale? Ryan Vesey 12:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Ryan's question is basically mine as well. Why does Penyulap want his talk page access restored? If it is so he can request unblocking (or work toward requesting unblocking, by asking for help), that's one thing. If it's so he can request people proxy edits for him, or so he can comment on what he likes or dislikes about Misplaced Pages, etc, then it's another. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• (1) I feel the talk page should not be used for more stream-of-consciousness posts of the type we saw here in the past. Example, example. A different venue such as a blog would be a better venue for most of that material; user talk pages are intended to be used for discussions about editing the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not a social media site; Misplaced Pages is not therapy. (2) Use of the user talk page while blocked is supposed to be restricted to posting unblock requests, so my opinion is no, they should not have access for quite some time, until it's time to post an unblock request, and it's far too soon for that. -- Dianna (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • • Technically, that is incorrect. Unless a restriction has been put in place by the blocking admin (it hasn't), blocked users may use the page for Misplaced Pages related discussions as well, since that is often helpful in getting them to understand the nature of the problem, and because they are still a full member of the community. Not as a forum or soapbox, but related. There is no policy restricting use this way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Okay, thanks, Dennis; always room to learn something new, what with all the stuff I have forgotten. -- Dianna (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Why not throw a bit of that old AGF around? We're generous enough towards the kid vandals, so why not an editor who has (despite recent events) been a good contributor in the past? What's the worst that can happen? - they fill their own talk page with transcribed versions of the Book of Revelations, then in a week's time we remove access again and blank it. That's less effort than arguing the toss over whether to grant it. Nor are any uninvolved editors inconvenienced by it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  I've got to say, I agree with Andy. It seems that a large part of Penyulap's recent indef block was due to ranting at me. I don't condone his edits, but I've never been bothered by what people say about me. To this day, I've not seen anything which states talk pages are only to be used for requesting unblock requests. As long as he follows the norms of the encyclopedia... specifically not making accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence, no personal attacks, I don't see the problem here. Worm(talk) 16:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Well, the "norms of Misplaced Pages" are that when you're blocked, you use your talk page to work toward unblocking, not as a diary or an edit request system. Giving him talk page access if he doesn't intend to work toward unblocking with it would be a waste of both Penyulap's time and the community's. Particularly because Penyulap has indicated that he's struggling to find the energy get help in real-life areas, opening his talk page back up may cause more harm than good by turning into an energy sink (which is why I removed his talk access in the first place - not because I'm an ABF monster, but because he had said that he needed to focus elsewhere, but it was obvious that he was having a hard time stepping away from Misplaced Pages to do that). I would be more than happy to give Penyulap talk access back if he intends to, say, have someone mentor him here, or if he intends to post an unblock request, or if he intends to try to explain what went wrong and reach understanding with the community. But I do not think we should be giving him access back if he intends to post here about things that won't help him rejoin the community - as Dianaa says, blogs are more suited for that than Misplaced Pages talk pages. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've asked him to provide a rationale that I will copy paste. Pardon if I'm a little slow, I'm doing some construction around here, so on and off, but making this a higher priority, to be fair to Pen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• No problems with the delay. If the request is to provide the editor with the option of discussing circumstances which would lead to the indefinite block being lifted, I think restoring talk page access would be very reasonable. And, otherwise, as per Andy Dingley above, I don't see that much damage that could really happen even given the worst-case scenario. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, because who comes to talk pages? People that want to communicate with the person, or people who disagree with them, which is trolling anyway. The fact that we are all here talking about Penyulap's comments and him not being allowed to comment about our comments about him is very strange indeed.--andreasegde (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If Penyulap would like his talk page access restored, then I think it would be entirely right and proper for that to take place. Thom2002 (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable w/ justification to remove user Talk access based on admin belief it's "best" for said user in their real life. There's no way one could know that to be true or false, and it's fundamentally "I-know-what's-best-for-you-better-than-you-do" disrespectful to any adult. Even if said admin is the user's doctor, it still smacks of totalitarianism. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment As others have mentioned, we are here to build an encyclopedia. This happens in many ways. Some people correct spelling errors, others copyedit and some reference articles. The point is, the encyclopedia is built in many different ways. Communicating with others helps facilitate the work. That communication happens in many diffeent ways. Some people like the communication, others don't. As long as the communication does not violate our policies (BLP, NPA, COPYVIO, etc.), then it is acceptable communication. We have 27 million pages on Misplaced Pages, but only 4 miilion are articles. That is because talking helps build the encyclopedia. I ask Fluffernutter to please restore talk page access because I think it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. Thanks. 64.40.54.58 (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  I believe we're still waiting for Penyulap's reasoning behind his request for restored page access. That will be important to determining what's going to happen here. Dennis Brown, any idea when Penyulap's rationale will be coming? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for a rationale (an explanation of the basis or fundamental reasons for something/a justification or rationalization for something). That is asking Penyulap to explain why he would like to exist on this page. Apart from somebody being indefinitely blocked for being a vandal, I have never heard of somebody being blocked from their own talk page. Has this ever happened before? Please advise.--andreasegde (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing yet, but Pen has always been on and off with mail. Yes Andresegde, many people get blocked from access to the talk page every day for a variety of reasons. It is an exceedingly common thing. It wasn't done here out of hate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

All the time, for a variety of reasons. Ok. But I've never seen *this* reason before. I don't think anyone's suggested it was applied out of hate. But that doesn't mean it was a good or right thing to do, either. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on now folks this really shouldn't surprise anyone. This is what has become of Misplaced Pages. We block for minor infractions, indef ban for disagreeing. Its common. Its sad really, I thought Penyulap was a good contributor but all good things must end I suppose. Kumioko (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've been away on holiday without computer access, and the first thing I see on returning is that Penyulap is still blocked from posting on his own talkpage, for no good reason that I can see. The myth that blocked users aren't supposed to use their talkpage for anything other than (humbly, apologetically) requesting unblock seems to be still dogging this case, no matter how many times it's cogently refuted. I, too, believe Penyulap might be better advised, for his own sake, not to post any more.. uh.. reflexions of a general nature.. on this page, but we should simply let him be the judge of that. There's too much paternalism and top-down thinking in the admin corps. I think I'll write an essay about how Misplaced Pages is not for protecting people from themselves. Or else just go away for a bit longer. This kind of thing is deeply frustrating. :-( Bishonen | talk 11:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC).

  Bish, you can always request your tools back you know Egg Centric 15:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear at this point that this blocking of the users talk page was contentious and should be undone by someone if not the admin that did the block in the first place. It seems like there is quite a few folks that think the block was a bad one and should be undone. I agree. Fluffernutter is normally a good admin but everyonen makes mistakes sometimes and I think this could be counted as one of those times. Kumioko (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• All: Please reach a decision on Penyulap's request to have talkpage access restored. If you cannot do so, please move the request to a noticeboard for more attention. AGK 11:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

With respect restoring talk page access shouldn't be worthy of discussion nor should it need a voting forum on the a major forum or discussion board. It seems like the majority here are in favor of restoring talk page access. In fact reading through and after watching it for several days most don't think talk page access should have been blocked in the first place. Several even seem to think the block in general was rather stupid including me. Kumioko (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• AGK, as I've already said, I'm waiting to hear Penyulap's actual request and reasoning. Without those, we're playing a game of telephone about what, why, and when, and I'm not prepared to make this decision without actual information. Obviously it's possible for another admin to step in and do it in my place, before we have those, if they wish. I myself am inclined toward caution, which is why I want to hear from Penyulap first about how he intends to use his talk page if he's returned access. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• If I haven't made it clear, I support the block and the talk page revocation, Penyulap also knows this. He isn't brooding about how unfair anything is, at least not to me. I prefer Fluffernutter being part of the process, even though it isn't mandatory. This is about more than rules, some of us actually like Penyulap and are concerned that when he comes back, it is on good footing, with a clear understanding, so he can do what he enjoys without hassles, and the community can look forward to him being a net asset. There is no need to move it to ANI or anywhere else. Penyulap is fully capable of emailing anyone else here, but hasn't, so I suggest we just work this situation the way it is being worked, individually and personally. There is no deadline. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Penyulap and I are still chatting every couple of days, I've recommended taking it slow, and he has responded positively to my constructive criticisms and other observations. I have made several suggestions that he is mulling over as well. All and all, good communications. I will update again when needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Penyulap still wants his talk page access restored, but he no longer wishes to communicate with me about it. I leave it to the community to decide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support talk page access being restored - not even close. Egg Centric 19:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support restoration of talk page access - I am not an administrator myself, but if I was one, I would allow Penyulap to be given a second chance to use the talk page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The fact that he no longer wishes to communicate with Dennis about this says much. I see no valid reason for Penyulap to have access restored. Ryan Vesey 20:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  You don't need a valid reason to restore it. You need a valid reason to keep this unjust state of affairs going. You can certainly call his lack of wanting to communicate with someone who actively disagrees with reinstating his access to instead concentrate on those who are disposed more friendlily towards him a valid reason though, even though I will laugh at you, so I have no problem with your !vote per se - just the way that you have put the burden of showing reason on Penyulap's side rather than the pro-page ban side. Or put more succintly...

  The burdern should be on the pro-ban side to show a reason to keep it

  P.S. Bish you can still get your tools back you know. Egg Centric 20:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I definitely support the restoration of talk page access as a logical step towards the hopeful return of Penyulap to constructive editing. I also encourage this action to ensue in the timeliest fashion. I beseech Dennis Brown to expedite this action in the interest of propriety; notwithstanding the abundant regard accumulated by the esteemed editors before me, who have asserted their full measure of good faith to encourage the same. I submit these with the highest regard. 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Ryan Vesey. Dennis is likely one of the easiest and most lenient admins to work with and so I'm suspicious when an editor refuses to work with him. Further, though I might be missing it, I cannot seem to find the reasoning behind P's desire to have tp access restored. If it is to request unblock and work out his editing issues then that's fine, but not for any other reason as WP is not a forum for non-article related discussion, nor are blocked users supposed to be actively engaging in article discussion. Lastly, this is not the proper venue to determine whether access should be restored. I'm not sure if this was posted to AN or ANI but that's where it should be done. Sædon 20:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Regarding the comment above ("but he no longer wishes to communicate with me about it"), maybe I can explain... I have been talking to Penyulap (through e-mails) almost every day for the last few weeks, but I haven't had any message at all for three or four days. I don't think he doesn't want to communicate, I only think he's not available to comment. If he had had access to this page, we would have known that.--andreasegde (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Dennis specifically said that P doesn't wish to communicate with him anymore, not simply that he stopped communicating, and said that he still wishes to have tp access restored. It's unlikely Dennis would use that language if it were the case that he had simply not received a response as it attributes a positive statement. Sædon 21:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I appreciate your good intentions, Andreas, but you're not having any luck with your commentary in this section.;-) I've heard from Penyulap today. Please see below. Bishonen | talk 21:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC).

Appeal to AGK (or another respected admin)

Surely we don't need to provide a formal list of Support/Oppose restoration of talkpage access here, at this late stage? All a talkpage-unblocking admin needs to do is read all the support in this section for such an unblock, implied (such as for instance in my own post above) or explicit. I appeal to either AGK or some other respected admin to take stock of community opinion as expressed in this section, and then unlock Penyulap's access. There's no sense in insisting on "wider input", AGK. This is not a controversial unblock of an indeffed user we're talking about right now; it's merely an unlocking of the talkpage. There is nothing controversial about it; the action was dubious (trying to put it politely here, or I'd use other words) to begin with, and there is consensus here for undoing it. This over-long deference to Fluffernutter as the somehow hallowed performer of the original lock of the page should cease. Fluffernutter, please abdicate here, if that's what it takes (though it shouldn't be). You won't lose face by it, on the contrary. To insist that Penyulap provide a "rationale" for unblocking his talkpage access (=that he eat a smaller or larger portion of humble pie) is becoming.. oh, I don't know what to call it, I'll abandon that sentence. Anyway. I understand quite well why Penyulap won't provide the pound of flesh being requested. Even if he hadn't explained it to me in e-mail, which he has done, I'd understand it; it's not hard. Please don't insist on ritual humiliation. Just return his talkpage access, come on. Oh, and EggCentric, could you stop nagging me about resuming my own admin tools? Can you really think this case is improving my appetite for adminnery, when I see what has been wrought by it here? Bishonen | talk 21:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC).

Request

Can you edit File:Kyle Plante mullet 5th grade.jpg so it convincingly features Jimbo's face?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Y'know, I'm not sure that would be a good idea. I don't know if I've ever seen a real person who more clearly reminds me Alfred E. Newman before. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedians too apathetic to bother making categories