User talk:Naleksuh

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, Naleksuh. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

You don't have a userpage yet...

Hey Naleksuh, and one more thing I have to say... I wanted to tell you that having your own userpage has some kind of benefit to it. Happy editing, Naleksuh! 114.149.109.20 00:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I just saw that your group is IP Block Exempt, Naleksuh. 2604:3D08:627D:A00:998D:15CC:F596:BD56 17:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Your RFC

In my experience and view of things, none of the proposals presented are likely to pass. There is only the smallest window of time to convince people to sanction editors, and it has likely closed in this case. If you would like advice for the future, please let me know. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Thank you for your message. I have been keeping an eye on proposal 3. However, that said, I do not find it largely problematic if my proposals do not pass. The world will not end from it. In addition, I expect to see more proposals or even a WMF ban in the coming months. I'll admit there are things I could have handled better in submitting and handling the RfC. I also know that there were people who were less-than-civil to me and I had to be civil to them anyway. So I do appreciate the kind message from you. If you do have more specifics advice for the future, let me know. Naleksuh (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"casting aspersions"

@Tks4Fish: Please review my comment at Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Block_for_Naleksuh. The "casting aspersions" is not true, as I provided multiple evidence for the claims on the talk page, and was even able to prove another users reply wrong. In addition, the filer made claims that I was "interacting with myself" etc when I wasn't, which further shows the case should have been completely thrown out. Naleksuh (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, the discussion was still ongoing as seen here. That comment requires a response from me, as it is continuing to accuse of invalid use, which I can prove false again. So this is at the very least premature and I would like to at least to participate in the discussion. Naleksuh (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Casting aspersions" is not correct. Block summary states that it was "without providing evidence, even after being asked to do so or to retract". This is false, both because evidence *was* provided here and because I actively addressed the response and proved multiple statements wrong. In addition the request Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Block_for_Naleksuh had multiple errors, citing that I did not provide proof even when I did provide proof, and making several claims which were proven false, such as claiming I was responding to myself when I wasn't. The filer later retracted this claim, but replaced it with a second, also false claim, which I am required to respond to that as well, which the block during an active conversation disrupts (in addition to being based on false information and claiming there was no proof provided when there was) Naleksuh (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, I have read the talk page multiple times, and, unlike what Tks4Fish's summary claims, nobody suggested that I retract the claim, yet another sign that this is a frivolous block. Naleksuh (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user has had their unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Request reason: See above Decline reason: I don't favour a removal of the block at this stage. This is based on the person who made the request and the quality of the people supporting the action. I would be willing to listen to the argument that we put the block in place until after the completion of the stewards' election in 2023, which would make it a ~13 month block.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC) বাংলা | English | español | français | magyar | italiano | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | українська | 中文 | edit

block log gblock log blocklist stalktoy guc unblock gunblock contribs: +/-

discussion re declined request for unblock
@Billinghurst: Thanks for the review. I recognize your name, I remember you have attempted to get me blocked in the past before (ex), so, if possible, I would appreciate it if you would remove your review and allow a fully uninvolved sysop to review my request. However, I also recognize that this was 16 months ago (a lot can change then, and one of the problems on my end is people digging up stuff from 6+ years ago) and it does seem like you are less angered at me now, so let me know if that makes sense to you, or not. I'm also a bit confused as to the meaning of the message (i.e. the quality of the people supporting the action How do people have "quality levels"? Do some people have "more quality" than others?) Naleksuh (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC) To clarify, I remember that Billinghurst had previously requested that I be blocked from editing about 16 months ago in this edit, which I remembered immediately upon recognizing your name. At the time, I assumed this was a request and not a direct threat to block as Billinghurst must not be a sysop on Meta. However, I have since realized that they actually are, and have been for a while. I would assume this means that Billinghurst felt they are too involved to block directly (after all, they did oppose the RFC in question) or did not want to appear threatening (which certainly helped at least some, there was a lot of stress and drama around the entire thing, even in discussions that I did not participate in). However, I see Billinghurst has now reviewed my request, directly. Maybe Billinghurst feels they are no longer involved as it has been a while or simply forgot that (I probably would have if I were them, although I certainly remember it as the recipient and the name has stuck out to me ever since). However, I recognize that Billinghurst's approach here is civil and offers another extended branch. I do not think the 13 month block here proposed in the review would make sense, for several reasons, but I would first like to hear from Billinghurst as to whether or not they believe they are sufficiently involved or may have a conflict of interest. Maybe they are willing to remove it themself, or, if not, we can go from there and I can try to either explain my case against the proposed offer or create a second request. Billinghurst, any comments? Please let me know, I am trying to be as civil as possible, especially when trying to disprove accusations about incivility. Naleksuh (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC) ​ I've read through the comments about people "requesting a sysop" look at something. Most of the comments were written before I eventually posted the comments I was referencing. However, the block reason claims I was [not] providing evidence, even after being asked to do which is not true. I did post the evidence after there were concerns about it. I did not post it upfront, yes, and maybe I should have put it upfront, but it is not like I refused to post it even after being asked to. I received a request, and acted upon it. It is possible that it needs to be more upfront, but I did not cast aspersions, nor were there any unsourced claims active at the time of the block. In addition, the block summary also says or to retract. even though you can read the talk page and see that nobody asked me to retract the claim, further hinting at the block summary differing from reality. Naleksuh (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC) @Naleksuh: Can I just say that is a really dumb approach. Do not start to blame me for your predicament. Do not start saying that I hold a grudge or have anything against about you; that is a fail. Do not start accusing me of things that I did not do. Do not misrepresent what I have said and do. Take responsibility for your actions. Manage your ego. My assessment is based on the case presented above, nothing more, nothing less. The people involved hold positions of trust and you have disregarded their commentary as not valid, and continue with the same behaviours. There was a proposal to block put before the community and it was evaluated by an administrator not involved in the process. Nothing put by you shows an error in process or a pertinent reason to unblock, hence why declined the unblock request. That you don't like is evident, though not a reason to unblock. The best that I can see that you can do is argue to the blocking administrator that you do not think a due process was awarded and get them to reopen that discussion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC) ​ Do not misrepresent what I have said and do. I did not mean to misrepresent what you have said; I asked for clarification on what you meant and your beliefs to avoid accidentally misrepresenting your beliefs. Thank you for the response here. There was a proposal to block put before the community I am a bit confused here. Before the community? The proposal to block me was at Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Block_for_Naleksuh, and the only comment was from me before Tks4Fish marked it as done 14 minutes after the filing. I would expect a proposal before the community to be at a more central place such as Meta:Babel. The best that I can see that you can do is argue to the blocking administrator that you do not think a due process was awarded and get them to reopen that discussion. Yes, I did exactly this. In this edit I mention that the discussion was still ongoing, and in addition a problem had been found in the filer's case. Of course, I recognize that WP:FULLY applies here- however, it should be at the very least an opportunity to step back as clearly the report does not have 100% merit and should be taken a bit more cautiously. I refuted the arguments and found error, and Operator873 admitted error before Tks4Fish marked it as done ignoring all of that. And I mentioned to the blocking sysop that I believe the request was closed prematurely, and when Operator873 admitted error, that same edit introduced another also false claim, which I was about to refute as well but was interrupted by a block. I've asked Tks4Fish here to remove said block and allow a proper discussion on the issue, they have been pinged multiple times but no reply. They have never edited this talk page either. Tks4Fish, if you are reading this, why don't you consider what myself (and Billinghurst, another sysop) have suggested? Does it make sense? Please communicate. Naleksuh (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC) ​ Also, I notice that Martin Urbanec has marked the post for archival, although per above Billinghurst suggests I claim the discussion should be reopened for premature closure, which I've done so initially and again. Martin Urbanec, any thoughts? Naleksuh (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC) RFH serves as a place for users to request an action is taken by an administrator/bureaucrat/similar. An action was requested, a Meta wiki administrator decided an action needs to be taken and implemented the decision. There's nothing else that would be in-scope for RFH at this point, as appeals are handled on user talk pages (and in your case, it was denied). Martin Urbanec (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Naleksuh asked me to comment here. This is tough because I'm on friendly terms with both Naleksuh and Operator and with one of the other editors against whom Naleksuh is said to have cast aspersions. Here's what I think is going on here. Naleksuh and Operator don't get along. I haven't known either of them very long to say for sure who's at fault or if they just rub each other the wrong way. Naleksuh is accused of casting aspersions without proof. The block thread shows two posts by Naleksuh, made eleven months apart (a third link is to a discussion of the second post). It's seems weird that a block request based on making accusations without proof only shows two diffs as proof. If Naleksuh really has exhibited a pattern, not just two posts but a pattern, and bad enough to merit not only a block but a non-expiring block, then there should be a whole lot of diffs of Naleksuh doing that. Such proof may exist, but it is not shown in the block request thread. Naleksuh also says that they did provide proof when asked, and we can see they provided something. I did not check the links to assess their quality, but there's no point. It's likely that Naleksuh thinks they provided adequate proof and Operator thinks they did not, and we'd have to get deep, deep into that. I will say that I've had far worse things said about me with no proof. I didn't notice anyone actually asking Naleksuh, "Would you please withdraw what you said about V" in that thread. So I'll do it: Naleksuh, will you here withdraw the accusation that said V "lacks basic decency"? Because we all know proving that is not something any person can do. I observe that Naleksuh's unblock request does not address the second accusation Op made, which is that Naleksuh used more than one account at a time, in violation of CLEANSTART. I reread CLEANSTART and it does say that it's not okay to use two accounts at the same time, with an inferrable "even if they don't interact." Naleksuh, would you please acknowledge that you used two accounts at the same time in a way that broke the rules and will you promise not to do so going forward? Operator has acknowledged that they did not interact with each other, as originally claimed. It is possible that this is the sole reason Fish blocked you, not the claims that you failed to provide any evidence. Many people prefer to keep to the bright line rules. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC) @Darkfrog24:​Hey Darkfrog24, thanks for the comment. I'm really glad to hear that I am not the only person who agrees with this. I've read through the comment and it seems there is some confusion on what the block is for. The reason says "Continued personal attacks, casting aspersions on users without providing evidence, even after being asked to do so or retract" (which has been addressed above) but no one is really sure as the blocking sysop has not said a single word despite being pinged multiple times. Naleksuh is accused of casting aspersions without proof. The block thread shows two posts by Naleksuh, made eleven months apart (a third link is to a discussion of the second post). Yes, there were only two links, neither of which actually depict me casting aspersions, however Darkfrog24 later explains I did not check the links to assess their quality. But even aside from that, it is very concerning that there is only one recent such thing. I observe that Naleksuh's unblock request does not address the second accusation Op made The block was for casting aspersions only, so I addressed that. However, the second accusation by Operator873 has been addressed here: Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Block_for_Naleksuh. In fact, Operator873 actually withdrew the second claim (they did replace it with another claim that was also false, and I was about to debunk that one as well but was interrupted by the block). I reread CLEANSTART and it does say that it's not okay to use two accounts at the same time In this particular case, WP:CLEANSTART was not being used, as Krett12's user page clearly declared that Krett12 and Computer Fizz were the same person. So, there was not a clean start violation given that there was no clean start at all. But even if there was a violation, that "violation" was six years ago and I wouldn't see a need to block for it now, especially when Operator873 has known about this all along but is just now mentioning it. It is possible that this is the sole reason Fish blocked you, not the claims that you failed to provide any evidence. If it was, I would have expected User:Tks4Fish to have used a clearer block reason. The block reason was Continued personal attacks, casting aspersions on users without providing evidence, even after being asked to do so or to retract. which appears to be centered around the "casting aspersions" (which provably did not happen), not the "abusing clean start" (which also did not happen). In conclusion it sounds like there is some confusion based on the second accusation by Operator873, however, as for the "casting aspersions" as originally mentioned in the block message, there does appear to be a (marginal, only one user other than me has commented so far) consensus that this was a bad block. User:Tks4Fish, I would encourage you to consider removing it yourself and save face rather than allowing another sysop to get involved. Otherwise, I hope you have a great day to all involved. Thank you again for the comment, User:Darkfrog24. Naleksuh (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Casting aspersions did provably happen, your question to Vermont was clearly casting aspersions. Consensus in a discussion about the question even affirmed that everyone felt that it was casting aspersions. You are just trying to wikilaywer at this point. As for the cleanstart comments, Operator clearly used the wrong account name, the bad cleanstart was between your Computer Fizz account and Naleksuh. Looking at your edit contributions you can see clear as day you were editing as Naleksuh while still editing as ComputerFizz. Could Tks4Fishs block message have been clearer? Maybe. But it was very clear you were attacking Vermont, and had done essentially the same thing last to Operator. You have a history of doing so to people you don't like who are functionaries. Just because a block message wasn't to you liking it doesn't negate the fact you very clearly violated proper personal conduct. -Djsasso (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Oh and looking at your edit contributions on Krett I just noticed you made some edits in May 2020, which was after your cleanstart request with ComputerFizz, so yes, you also had a bad cleanstart by also edting as Krett12 while clean starting ComputerFizz and also editing at Naleksuh. So you were editing as all three while you were supposed to be on a cleanstart (and socking with Naleksuh before you asked for the cleanstart). -Djsasso (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Casting aspersions did provably happen, your question to Vermont was clearly casting aspersions. Simply just claiming it did happen does not "prove" much of anything. (and ironically, just stating it as a fact with no link or quote or any proof is doing the thing you are accusing me of doing w:Wikipedia:Casting aspersions) As for the cleanstart comments, Operator clearly used the wrong account name Not really. Operator873 initially tried to claim that this edit depicted me talking to myself. When it was pointed out that it did not contain that, Operator873 acknowledged this, but still claimed it depicted the two accounts being used at the same time and a clean start violation....somehow. This is wrong as well, but for different reasons. But if it was, I definitely don't think he meant to bring up the Naleksuh account at that point, given that that diff is dated 12 June 2016, and the Naleksuh account is dated 8 March 2020. Also, even if there was some huge abuse of multiple accounts six years ago (which, again, there wasn't), that was not the reason for the block, and not what is being discussed. I'm not actually sure why it was brought up in the first place, the filer was likely just trying to include as much negative information about me as they could think of. But I will be ignoring any further comments about the alleged abuse of multiple accounts, given that they are both not true and not relevant. Naleksuh (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC) [re-adding deleted component] Simply just claiming it did happen does not "prove" much of anything. Surely, with that comment, you finally understand why what you did was, in fact, casting aspersions. Furthermore, putting fancy words in a {{tq}} template without any actual proof via submitted logs is literally just asking people to take your word for it. Accusations should be made with proof which is pointedly not a {{tq}} template. And since it seems you have gone to lengths (ie using {{no ping}} when mentioning me) tends to lend credence to you not wanting to notify you're mentioning me so unable to respond. So I will respond here, publicly. I made the request on RFH because you made a grievous personal attack against a community member (decency comment), cast aspersions in the same diff (implied they had broken rules or otherwise betrayed the community trust), failed to provide actual proof when asked (again, {{tq}} doesn't make what you say proof), and finally demanded to be unblocked because I mentioned you were Krett12, which was community banned on the Simple English Wikipedia for this same conduct, and Computer Fizz which you abandoned, while Naleksuh was active, after a failed RfA in which you were publicly connected to Krett12. Believing a meta sysop blocked you and another sysop upheld the block and other sysops and community members agreed with the need for you to be blocked just because I asked for it on RFH is absolutely ridiculous. Operator873 connect 02:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Comment Not impressed with the level of argument that the requester of unblock puts out. The commentary is still focusing on looking at other people's actions and not looking at their own behaviour and actions. No focus or consideration of Meta:Civility. There has been sufficient eyes of stewards and administrators . It is my view that this block be left as infinite and that the user can reapply for an unblock from 28 February 2023.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment Reverted their continued reorganisation of user talk page, and continued argument. If they cannot understand that they were blocked until 28 February 2023 at the earliest and continue to make comment and continue to argue and reorganise, then it is a pretty good case to reblock without editing rights at meta.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:, perhaps you did not see, but Naleksuh was posting a formal unblock request. To be fair, your "In my view ...2023" statement looks like you're only stating a preference. I don't think the fact that Naleksuh didn't know you were issuing a formal order says anything about them one way or the other. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Yes, I saw, and that had been formally rejected, see my decline statement in the unblock request. That they also continued to reorganise the page, change statements, and still make no acceptance of the problems, nor retract their statements or change their approach is a clear indication of inability to stop protesting and pretty much confirm the points made about them. They basically continued the same behaviour and now expect a different result? I mean ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As the reviewing admin to the unblock request I do not see any benefit to reverse the block made by the admin, nor anything contrary to the stewards' statements, and that the editor is in anyway bringing usefulness to metawiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: You saw and declined the unblock request that Naleksuh posted on January 18. But he posted another one on January 31, which you'll see if you scroll to the bottom here: [1]. N withdraws one of the incivil things they said about another user. After your edits, it was no longer visible. I've never seen an admin on any project erase or revert someone's unblock request without formally responding to it before. That's why I thought perhaps you just didn't see it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: My comment on 26 January

“ Comment Not impressed with the level of argument that the requester of unblock puts out. The commentary is still focusing on looking at other people's actions and not looking at their own behaviour and actions. No focus or consideration of Meta:Civility. There has been sufficient eyes of stewards and administrators . It is my view that this block be left as infinite and that the user can reapply for an unblock from 28 February 2023. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC) ”

There are about 20 edits and reorgs and an unblock appeal after that date by this editor. Too late, they had had plenty of opportunity up until that time. They should have left it and walked away and come back sometime later, but no. Any post after that was irrelevant, though can be viewed in the history. They had a chance and blew it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Billinghurst, Naleksuh has contacted me on IRC recently—we chatted a little about the situation here, and I agreed to ask you if you would consider re-allowing talk page access so that they may calmly and concisely appeal their block. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 20:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime:How many times is one allowed to appeal a block? [We have heard another for the while.] How many times is one able to not take responsibility for their actions, and still continue to blame others which was exactly the behaviour that got the request from a steward and the block by an administrator in the first place. How many times is an editor thinking that rearranging conversation contributions by others? I had left the page open so that the appellant could return in February 2023 and ask for an unblock, not so that they could continue their behaviour. They can contact an admin at that time and we can unblock the page at that time to hear an appeal. Hopefully they will be changed and understand the purpose of metawiki and about neta:civility.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Just a note and for transparency, I had received mails as well as some commentary on my commons talkpage from this user. Here is the link. They seemed to want an unblock. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Camouflaged Mirage: I'd strongly recommend requesting the user stops contacting you. They should be reminded that behaviour like this is harassment—I personally don't want to see them returning to the projects ever. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 22:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Noted @TheresNoTime. Did so in my final message to them on Commons there and I hope my explanation there is something they can accept. I will state also clearly I will not be seen neutral in this issue, hence, I cannot give any opinion favouring any course of actions here. This is due to my extensive interactions with all parties in this case. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I wonder, for such banned users' talk pages, should these discussions be archived, or just keep here? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)