User talk:Poetlister1

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I've blocked your alternate account pending consensus to allow you to bypass the global lock. --SB_Johnny talk 22:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I am opening up Poetlister1 for communication, changing the redirect. Poetlister1, being blocked, cannot now edit User talk:Poetlister. I will copy the comment here to that talk page. --Abd 22:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Abd. I hadn't thought of that! --SB_Johnny talk 22:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • On the topic here, SBJ, you once wrote, and I thought it was good sense:
    • There was a supermajority of just over 75% to unblock after 5 days, so I've de-linked the account and unblocked. In the future, I would hope we would want a supermajority to justify maintaining a block, rather than requiring one to overturn a block... "not blocked" should be the default, IMO. --SB_Johnny talk 21:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The only difference between that case and this is that there was an open discussion at meta in the recent case; whereas before there was only an obvious consensus of stewards to allow the lock to continue, and you once wrote that this was because the 'crat trick had been discovered. Otherwise, as Adrignola pointed out, local wikis may override any global decision, such as the global blacklist, and, in particular, global blocks, and it is only the lack of a global lock "whitelist" in the software that requires the renaming trick. Apparently now you think that it takes a local consensus to override a global lock. So a user may be blocked here without any local consensus to block or maintain a block. Has your opinion changed? --Abd 22:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit source]

(non-sysop comment) As far as I see it, you have not violated any specific policy here, but you are contravening your global ban via sockpuppetry - see [1]. If you would like to continue editing Wikimedia projects, you should appeal the decision to globally ban you over at meta. --Simone 18:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
This is not only a "non-sysop comment," it is a comment by a user who has stated that she is not interested in editing productively here. While she does have the right to comment, the position expressed is not representative of Wikiversity consensus. Poetlister1 cannot appeal at meta, it would involve creating a new account there which would be immediately blocked, since Poetlister is blocked at meta (and was thus unable to participate in that "global ban" discussion.) 'nuff said. The unblock template is for local sysop attention, and I'm hoping that a local sysop will attend to it and follow our proposed policy (WV:Blocking policy), which is clear. (It's a "proposal," as with many policies that reflect actual operating consensus, and the operative provisions have been standing without objection for years.)
"Sock puppetry" does not ordinarily include the use of an alternate account, disclosed as identical to the primary, where the primary account is not blocked, as User:Poetlister is not blocked. There is no local violation here, and there is no global policy that is relevant. Not yet, anyway. The real issue is whether or not a meta decision overrides local decisions, which would make meta into a government for the other wikis, a radical change from the status quo. All other meta processes (such as global blacklist, and global blocks), whether or not based on a meta consensus, may be over-ridden by local administrators, without question. In the absence of any actual harmful activity, causing real and present harm to other wikis, to reverse this tradition and precedent is dangerous. --Abd 18:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I have started a discussion in the colloquium to try to seek community consensus to unblock. Thenub314 01:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

WV:Assembly[edit source]

I wish to participate in WV:Assembly and request User:Abd to be my proxy until I am unblocked.--Poetlister 19:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your confidence, Poetlister. I have added the account Poetlister1 to the table. While I could have listed "Poetlister," because I know it to be you, though email, it doesn't really make any difference -- as long as both aren't listed! -- so I've gone with the public record here. --Abd 19:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Abd's nomination for full custodianship[edit source]

I don't know if I'm allowed to vote while blocked. However, I would like to record my support for Abd. He has made a few mistakes, but who hasn't? However, he has shown exceptional devotion to the spirit of the rules and more importantly the principles of Wikiversity. Everything he has done seems to be motivated by what is best for this project. Not having him as a custodian will harm Wikiversity very much more than any damage that could ever be done by him. Restoring his bit would be an almost unmitigated plus.--Poetlister 08:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)