User talk:Jeh/Archives/2016/09

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Electronic Harassment NPOV". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 September 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

{{Done}}

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Electronic Harassment NPOV, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

{{Done}}

Can You Help Me Unlocked?

Respectful and Strongest Computer Expert Jeh,

I know you are the best and most perfect person all over the world. I am so sorry that I made that stupid quarrel on .net framework with you two years ago. Thanks to your best effort, my user account has been blocked for indefinite period. And later, your people assist you to lock my user account globally! I guess that might be the happiest thing for you to see my user account has been locked. Time flies so fast, now, would please help me to unlock my user account. If you do so, I promise I would never quarrel with you anymore. Do please guide your steer to the correct direction, to take me on a-very-gain!

Aaron Janagewen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.90.203.53 (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not block your account; I am not an admin. In fact, I don't believe I ever asked for your account to be blocked (though I may well have opined in support of someone else's proposal); I merely reported some of your problematic behavior. But much of it was reported by others. In all cases of you being blocked, it was an admin who looked at what you'd done and decided a block was appropriate. I repeat: I am not an admin. I can't block anybody.

According to your block log,[1] you were blocked (at various times) for: Edit-warring; personal attacks; disruptive requests; and sixty confirmed reports of sockpuppetry while blocked.[2]

As I said to you at least once before, I didn't block your account, nor request that you be blocked, nor "get your account blocked." Nor did anyone else. You did that by your disruptive, uncivil, etc., behavior. That is a lot of disruption you caused. And a lot of editors' time wasted.

And I had less than nothing to do with blocking your account on other-language wikipedias. I don't even have accounts on any of them; I've never posted to any of them.

Now... if you want your account unlocked... I am not an admin, but as I understand it, you should carefully review your behavior leading up to each of your blocks so as to understand thoroughly why you were blocked. Then, try to write an WP:APPEAL that indicates that you understand why each of your rules violations was wrong. Your appeal should also give some reasons why the reviewing admin should believe that you won't break the rules again.

Since you are blocked from editing your own talk page you will have to use the WP:Unblock Ticket Request System.

Note also WP:OFFER, which seems applicable. It does require that you remain "clean" for six months. And that means not editing, not under an IP nor under any other username. I see that your last sockpuppet was found and blocked (note, NOT reported by me) on 16 August 2016. So to qualify under WP:OFFER, not that this is a guarantee of anything, you need to not edit Wikipedia at all for five more months - until mid February 2017.

If a normal appeal fails, then perhaps WP:CLEANSTART would be applicable. Note that creating a new account and then continuing to post in the same manner to the same topics as before is not a "clean start." That's sockpuppetry and it will merely reset the six month clock to zero.

You will need to read all of those pages and the pages they link to carefully and thoroughly.

I must say that I don't think your behavior so far of serial sockpuppetry - which is a form of "long-term abuse" - will help your case. But, I say again, I am not an admin. I can't make any promises about how any of this will go (nor would I make any promises if I were an admin).

I'll extend this much of an "olive branch": I will not report your edit here as sockpuppetry (if I did, you would have to not edit at all for SIX months from now, i.e. no editing from you until mid-March). (But I can make no promises that no one else will see this and report you.)

Also: if, after your six months are up, I see notice of your request to be unblocked, then if I see reason in your appeal to expect good behavior from you, I won't argue against your appeal. (I don't promise to argue for it, though.)

"Quarrels" are not a problem, by the way. There are editing disputes on Wikipedia all the time. What matters is how you conduct yourself in them.

Please do not reply here again, except perhaps to acknowledge that you've read it... if you care to do that. For anything more... honestly, I've spent as much time on this (and on you) as I intend to, and frankly, more time than I needed to - it would have been much faster to just report you as a sockpuppet again. If you are serious about wanting to be unblocked you will read the pages I have linked here and not edit Wikipedia at all for five months. Then write an WP:APPEAL and submit it through WP:Unblock Ticket Request System. That advice is all the help that I or anybody else can give you with respect to getting your block removed.

I will have this archived soon. Jeh (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

{{Done}}

"Multiple accounts?"

Please go troll someone else, OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poponuro (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please try to do a bit better at WP:AGF. Jeh (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_the_assumption_of_good_faith Poponuro (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

What "Bad Faith" Is NOT

Thus, any edit that is not deliberately unconstructive was not in "bad faith", even if it turns out to be unconstructive. The following things are not "bad faith":

Honest mistakes ; Errors ; Poor judgement or lapse in judgement ; Misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy ; Misunderstanding another editor's comments ; Getting too emotionally involved in an article or discussion ; Incredibly poor grammar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poponuro (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks like this isn't Poponuro's first rodeo account, though I don't know why they think it's trolling to ask about it. clpo13_(talk) 22:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

So Poponuro: you made, in good faith, an assumption that I was trolling you in good faith. Got it. Jeh (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I assummed, and sadly you proved me right, a personal bias on your part - resorting to ad personam when you had no evidence to back up up your claim. IMO that's exactly what the verb "trolling" means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poponuro (talk • contribs) 22:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

*shrug* I'm disengaging. You've had the last word. Jeh (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

{{Done}}

Learn Something on Computer Science, Not Fool Around Any More

Hey, Jeh,

I give you some suggestions, do please learn something on computer science, do not fool around! I just wish you improve the articles you messed up, rather than track other's trace, ok?

Well, are you a single lady? I want to be your friend, if you are a single lady, young or old.

Aaron Janagewen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.9.16.71 (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. That's what I get for extending an olive branch. Very well... your "standard offer" clock is now counting down from the full six months. Jeh (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah, you behaved just like those annoy Chinese, full of shits. Another lie to make, or just to fool around?

Aaron Janagewen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.9.16.71 (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, I have to say thank you very much, Jeh. You are the only one who makes me feel I am really existing on earth. I was a given-up guy here, I wake up, so please never relate me with the region where this IP locates. Or in other words, please do not call me as Chinese. I am so sorry to bring you so much trouble on wiki. But nothing seems meaningful. I go, I would not come back to wiki again. Sorry! Do correct the incorrect information on those articles which we were once involved before...thank you in advance... Aaron Janagewen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.9.16.71 (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I ever called you Chinese. I only said that most of your IPs geolocated to a city in China.

Please stop asking me to make changes to articles per your requests. If I was agrIf I haven't changed things in various articles to your specification, it's because either a) I disagree with the changes you think should be done, or b) I'm unaware of what you think needs to be changed (but, if I knew I would probably disagree with them); or c) I don't really care. These will likely continue to be the case, so please stop asking. Note that point b) is not as flippant as it probably sounds. You have a very long history here of disagreeing not just with me but with consensus from many other editors - the "one against many" pattern. It is very unlikely, especially for long-standing content, that you're correct while everyone else is wrong.

You were indef blocked for, among other things, being completely unwilling to listen to people who disagreed with you, even when they had solid references for their positions and you did not. You don't just disagree, you call people "shits", among other very nasty things. You also decided (based on extremely flimsy evidence) that I must be Chinese and then used that as if you thought it was an insult. In this country we consider such attitudes to be racist. My gender is completely irrelevant to you.

In your message immediately preceding, though, you come across as very reasonable. I wonder sometimes if there aren't actually two of you with opposite personalities? As I wrote previously you may be able to return if you don't edit for six months and then write an WP:APPEAL. And I promise you, if in the appeal you reference all of the things you did wrong, explain that you now understand that they were wrong, and give admins reason to think you really won't do them again... it is possible that you might get your block lifted. But I have nothing to do with any of that. I'm not an admin.

"With reasonable men, I will reason." I think you will find almost all admins on Wikipedia reasonable as long as you yourself are reasonable. Your problem, expressed very generally, is that you are all too often a perfect example of not being reasonable. If you can fix that you may be able to get your block lifted. Jeh (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

{{Done}}

Each word you said to me is just like a nothing

Again, and again, please learn something on computer science, please do not mislead our innocent readers from all over the world! The following items you messed up for such a long time, please just stop!

{{PAE}}

{{x86}}

{{x86-64}}

maybe more, welcome to figure out by others rather than me!

{{Done}}

How can you shut your pussy up?

Well, you are definitely a lady? or Something else rather than a male! How can you do something useful to improve articles rather than always trouble others too much! I am badly tired of fucking you, since 2009, with your stupid and slut words! I wanted let you know, you are just shit rather than some a computer science learner! For all of your stupid words on PAE/x64 and so forth, you have already told the world you knowledge is limited and faked! And definitely, you are not American at all! I suggest you turn off your computer, and have a nice sleep to rest yourself, and learn some on computer science, ok? Please do not stall all the improvements towards Wikipedia.org, alright?

Tell you one thing, I never want to respect you. I just wanted let you do something like a man rather than a pussy! But I have no ways! So I do not care what you would do! You can block this IP too, but I wonder how can you block all the IPs in this city? If you could manage that, I would praise you very much and travel to another city, and you can do that shit thing again. Let me see how can you block all the IPs from all over the world? Can you? --- Aaron Janagewen

I don't block anything, I merely report. Jeh (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

{{Done}}

Stop Messing Up Ariticl x86

Do please stop messing up x86, alright! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.53.104.217 (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

{{Done}}

NEMA

I see "NEMA" isn't Wikipedia-notable. Thanks for preserving the page, but it would be nice to get it back in article space again. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Someone supposedly from NEMA said here [3] that they worked for NEMA and would ask their PR dept for help finding non-NEMA sources. Haven't heard from them and I see they haven't written anything at all on WP since, so... I do have an alternate plan but I haven't had time to do anything with it. Jeh (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

NEMA

I see "NEMA" isn't Wikipedia-notable. Thanks for preserving the page, but it would be nice to get it back in article space again. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Someone supposedly from NEMA said here [4] that they worked for NEMA and would ask their PR dept for help finding non-NEMA sources. Haven't heard from them and I see they haven't written anything at all on WP since, so... I do have an alternate plan but I haven't had time to do anything with it. Jeh (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)