Viriditas
Joined 5 June 2006
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Cirt in topic January 2015 - Update - Talk page access restored
January 2015 - Update - Talk page access restored
edit
Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) restored talk page access for Viriditas on 19 January 2015, per rationale: "tentative restoration of talk page rights; it HAS been two years".
First of all, I agree with this loosening to allow talk page access.
There's precedent within our greater Wikimedia community of allowing a second chance, see example at: w:Template::2nd chance. There's also other precedent at w:Wikipedia:WikiPeace, w:Template:Peace dove, and w:Template:Olive Branch.
If Viriditas wishes to do so, I'd like to ask for him to post here on the talk page below, a draft of an article for Wikinews.
I can try to help review it and copy-edit it myself.
Hopefully once that goes smoothly I'd be willing to unblock.
-- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- How should I present the draft? Should I just copy it here? It might take me a few days to put it together. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you can just put it in a new subsection below, and I'll look it over and help you copy-edit it. -- Cirt (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a layout guide I made that might be helpful: User:Cirt/article layout. -- Cirt (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to me the process here was less than optimal; since the user was banned by the community, not just blocked, I would have thought a community discussion should have been required before partially lifting it. Realistically, had I been given an opportunity to comment beforehand, I would have expressed skepticism and asked some close questions. Moreover, I would have appreciated being consulted, and the entire process (if it did proceed) would have been started off on a smoother footing. --Pi zero (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Understood. On reflection, you are correct, Pi zero (t · c · b). However, please keep in mind it was not I that loosened the user talk page restriction, but Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs). No one has actually unblocked yet, and we can for sure bring that to the community for a discussion before doing so. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Heh. I'm not blaming anyone. --Pi zero (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay no worries! :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cirt, these recent comments contradict the terms you originally wrote in your initial comments. You said you would consider unblocking after reviewing a news article I proposed. Now, I see that you have changed this proposal to include some kind of "community discussion". I will have absolutely no part in such a discussion nor will I have any interaction with Pi zero, a person who I consider a pathological liar and malicious user. He personally invented fake evidence and made false accusations about me in order to create the block on the first place. I will not interact or communicate with people who lack basic morals and ethics. The sooner he is desysopped and blocked, the better. Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Viriditas, since it was a community ban discussion and not just one other admin that resulted in your block, I can't singlehandedly go against the will of the community ban alone by myself. I am sincerely quite sorry you are disappointed. My proposal stands, and I would strongly support your unblock if you accept it. I would perform the unblock myself if I have support to do so from the community -- or at the very least a lack of objection -- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- If Pi zero represents the community, then I want nothing to do with it. Again, I will have nothing to do with pathological liars like Pi zero. Please re-block this talk page until the time comes that Wikimedia figures out the situation and desysops and blocks Pi zero. Let me know when that happens. Until it does, I have no interest in having a discussion with liars. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Viriditas, what if I brought forth a proposal and I tried to get you unblocked myself without the w:Template:2nd chance, as an extension of good faith after the amount of time that's passed, to see how it goes? How would you feel about that? -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cirt, please give it a rest. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, once again I'm sorry you're disappointed. Perhaps we can revisit this idea at some point in the future. :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cirt, please give it a rest. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Viriditas, what if I brought forth a proposal and I tried to get you unblocked myself without the w:Template:2nd chance, as an extension of good faith after the amount of time that's passed, to see how it goes? How would you feel about that? -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- If Pi zero represents the community, then I want nothing to do with it. Again, I will have nothing to do with pathological liars like Pi zero. Please re-block this talk page until the time comes that Wikimedia figures out the situation and desysops and blocks Pi zero. Let me know when that happens. Until it does, I have no interest in having a discussion with liars. Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Viriditas, since it was a community ban discussion and not just one other admin that resulted in your block, I can't singlehandedly go against the will of the community ban alone by myself. I am sincerely quite sorry you are disappointed. My proposal stands, and I would strongly support your unblock if you accept it. I would perform the unblock myself if I have support to do so from the community -- or at the very least a lack of objection -- Cirt (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cirt, these recent comments contradict the terms you originally wrote in your initial comments. You said you would consider unblocking after reviewing a news article I proposed. Now, I see that you have changed this proposal to include some kind of "community discussion". I will have absolutely no part in such a discussion nor will I have any interaction with Pi zero, a person who I consider a pathological liar and malicious user. He personally invented fake evidence and made false accusations about me in order to create the block on the first place. I will not interact or communicate with people who lack basic morals and ethics. The sooner he is desysopped and blocked, the better. Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Okay no worries! :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Heh. I'm not blaming anyone. --Pi zero (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Understood. On reflection, you are correct, Pi zero (t · c · b). However, please keep in mind it was not I that loosened the user talk page restriction, but Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs). No one has actually unblocked yet, and we can for sure bring that to the community for a discussion before doing so. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to me the process here was less than optimal; since the user was banned by the community, not just blocked, I would have thought a community discussion should have been required before partially lifting it. Realistically, had I been given an opportunity to comment beforehand, I would have expressed skepticism and asked some close questions. Moreover, I would have appreciated being consulted, and the entire process (if it did proceed) would have been started off on a smoother footing. --Pi zero (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a layout guide I made that might be helpful: User:Cirt/article layout. -- Cirt (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you can just put it in a new subsection below, and I'll look it over and help you copy-edit it. -- Cirt (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)