Proxy editing policy is silly

[Michaeldsuarez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Banned_user_suggesting_edits (permalinks)

Wikipedians: "OMG! A banned user that I dislike is suggesting improvements! And he is apparently viewing the publicly-accessible 'Special:Contributions' page and scrutinizing my actions! Banned users shouldn't be scrutinizing me! This is outrageous evil! Punish him even more! He needs to become even more banned!"

P.S. Perhaps the staff here should unban Mathsci's account and invite him back.

[EricBarbour]

Don't hold your breath.....

[enwikibadscience]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Banned_user_suggesting_edits (permalinks)

Wikipedians: "OMG! A banned user that I dislike is suggesting improvements! And he is apparently viewing the publicly-accessible 'Special:Contributions' page and scrutinizing my actions! Banned users shouldn't be scrutinizing me! This is outrageous evil! Punish him even more! He needs to become even more banned!"

P.S. Perhaps the staff here should unban Mathsci's account and invite him back.

Lol. I finally figured that blocks are for newbies and bans for friends, so they try not to really make them bans.

[Captain Occam]

You know, I was almost ready to forget he'd ever existed. I should have known it wouldn't be so easy...

Either banned users should be allowed to edit their user talk for something other than an appeal, or they shouldn't be. I don't feel strongly about which way it should be, but I don't think some banned users should be more privileged than others. I had my talk page access revoked last March for doing this, as a result of a request from Mathsci, so there's some hypocrisy in him thinking it's okay to do the same thing that he reported me for doing.

[Zoloft]

Mathsci never asked to come back, never asked us to reconsider.
We generally don't make people admit wrongdoing, subject them to show trials, or other Wikipedian crap. We just put them on hiatus. If they make a case that they should be back, we often do put them back. Ask The Devil's Advocate. That said, after he stopped posting here, Mathsci went on the offensive at WP against us, so I doubt he wants to return.

[enwikibadscience]

You know, I was almost ready to forget he'd ever existed. I should have known it wouldn't be so easy...

Either banned users should be allowed to edit their user talk for something other than an appeal, or they shouldn't be. I don't feel strongly about which way it should be, but I don't think some banned users should be more privileged than others. I had my talk page access revoked last March for doing this, as a result of a request from Mathsci, so there's some hypocrisy in him thinking it's okay to do the same thing that he reported me for doing.

Hypocrisy? In the application of rules? At en.Wikipedia?
No! It can't be.

[The Devil's Advocate]

I admit my first instinct on seeing this would be to argue that he should be allowed to make comments about mathematics articles, but then I noticed that this was a continuation of his dispute with Deltahedron. Mathsci appears to be incapable of letting go of his grudges and the fact he cannot seem to abstain from inserting himself into a dispute with a prior opponent even when banned suggests he probably should be denied the continued privilege of talk page access. He needs to get over his petty vendettas. The Arbs, no matter how much some may want to enable Mathsci, are unlikely to enable him that much. I suspect he just blew his chance of a favorable appeal a few months from now.

[Hipocrite]

Mathsci will not be participating on this site any more. I'm locking this topic, and expect you to not mention him much, if at all, because that wouldn't be fair, as he can no longer respond.

No longer operative, I guess.

viewtopic.php?p=42386#p42386

A blog post is different. He can comment and we would probably approve it.
If the powers that be wish, I can re-enable his posting privileges, but I suspect Mathsci wants nothing to do with us anyway.

No longer operative?

[EricBarbour]

No longer operative?

Still meatpuppeting for him, eh?

[Hipocrite]

Actually, I'd rather you just got rid of <redacted>, since I doubt MathSci gives two fucks about posting here.

[Vigilant]

I totally agree that Mathsci has broken his ban and his response to Ed Johnson does not suggest he is taking the hint. I have removed his talk page access but left his email on. Spartaz Humbug! 21:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Suck it, Antony.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Of course, Mathsci might have been able to avoid losing his talk page access if he had been straightforward. It is fairly obvious from the context that he decided to inject himself into a dispute with a previous opponent and hoped his vagaries would make it difficult to discern this fact, but when caught he responds with his typical irrelevant ramblings about his previous contributions and references to him being friendly with unnamed arbitrators in order to dodge the issue. Not sure if he is ever going to realize that such a tactic is not going to work for him when he is defying the most sacred edicts of the Wikiland.

[Captain Occam]

It's terribly ironic that Mathsci's talk page access was restored on the condition that he stop trying to influence other editors' behavior... yet in the thread directly below, ArtifexMayhem is obviously acting as a mouthpiece for Mathsci and his theories. His list of alleged sockpuppets is identical to the one Mathsci posted numerous places before he was banned, and two of the three are users who never interacted with ArtifexMayhem, whom he has no legitimate reason to be familiar with. ArtifexMayhem never had any contact with me, either, so it's rather mysterious how he managed to suddenly develop a grudge against me after I was already blocked.

Before today, as far as I know Mathsci was the only user who thought it was some sort of problem that I was discussing race articles with other people at this forum. Before today he also was the only user who claimed that Mors Martell (T-C-L) was someone's sock. Are AE admins not perceptive enough to be aware of who's feeding ArtifexMayhem these ideas?

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/02/23/islands-of-sanity/:

I [Peter Damian] could go on. Why don’t I fix it? As it happens I can’t, as I was banned from Wikipedia five years ago, for a disagreement that had nothing to do with article content. The person who made the original ‘islands of sanity’ objection was also banned more recently (again, for nothing to do with the quality of contributions). And this user [Mathsci], a mathematician who has made many contributions to the project, is not allowed even to ask other people to make corrections to articles. As reported here, he resorted to sending emails to suggest edits to the article Mutation (algebra). This is the horrible crime known as ‘proxying for a banned user’, and he should have known better.

The language on WP:PROXYING prevents anyone from adding material at the direction of a banned editor. So if you posted any advice, people would be forbidden to act on it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This also means that anyone reading this post, and then trying to correct the mistakes identified, will be forbidden to do so by Mr Johnston, and perhaps end up banned themselves! It really, really is absurd, particularly given that the quality of articles – even in the islands of sanity – is so poor, but this is Wikipedia. The idea of it being a project to bring human knowledge to the world has long been abandoned.

+1

[Michaeldsuarez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mathsci&diff=605345198&oldid=605219746:

I think conversations like this should be done over email rather then on your talkpage. Its a bit close to the areas we agreed you would stay away from. Thanks. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] ^{''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''} 20:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Mathsci isn't even allowed to post useful, harmless comments on his talk page. The law is a means to an end, not an end in itself. If the law isn't fulfilling an useful purpose, then they shouldn't be so strict on enforcing that law. Wikipedia sysops need to be more lenient and forgiving. Mathsci using his talk page doesn't harm Wikipedia.

[Vigilant]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mathsci&diff=605345198&oldid=605219746:

I think conversations like this should be done over email rather then on your talkpage. Its a bit close to the areas we agreed you would stay away from. Thanks. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] ^{''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''} 20:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Mathsci isn't even allowed to post useful, harmless comments on his talk page. The law is a means to an end, not an end in itself. If the law isn't fulfilling an useful purpose, then they shouldn't be so strict on enforcing that law. Wikipedia sysops need to be more lenient and forgiving. Mathsci using his talk page doesn't harm Wikipedia.

Naw. He should be held at arm's length and never let onto the site again.
He outed someone to further his own petty goals.

[Kumioko]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mathsci&diff=605345198&oldid=605219746:

I think conversations like this should be done over email rather then on your talkpage. Its a bit close to the areas we agreed you would stay away from. Thanks. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] ^{''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''} 20:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Mathsci isn't even allowed to post useful, harmless comments on his talk page. The law is a means to an end, not an end in itself. If the law isn't fulfilling an useful purpose, then they shouldn't be so strict on enforcing that law. Wikipedia sysops need to be more lenient and forgiving. Mathsci using his talk page doesn't harm Wikipedia.

Naw. He should be held at arm's length and never let onto the site again.
He outed someone to further his own petty goals.

Its not often I find myself in Agreement with Vigilant but this is one of those cases. Mathsci acted pretty poorly and in bad form and should have been banned.

[Vigilant]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mathsci&diff=605345198&oldid=605219746:

I think conversations like this should be done over email rather then on your talkpage. Its a bit close to the areas we agreed you would stay away from. Thanks. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] ^{''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''} 20:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Mathsci isn't even allowed to post useful, harmless comments on his talk page. The law is a means to an end, not an end in itself. If the law isn't fulfilling an useful purpose, then they shouldn't be so strict on enforcing that law. Wikipedia sysops need to be more lenient and forgiving. Mathsci using his talk page doesn't harm Wikipedia.

Naw. He should be held at arm's length and never let onto the site again.
He outed someone to further his own petty goals.

Its not often I find myself in Agreement with Vigilant but this is one of those cases. Mathsci acted pretty poorly and in bad form and should have been banned.

You have come far, young padawan...

[Kumioko]

Question is am I a padawan for the Jedi or the Sith? That is the question!

[Zoloft]

Question is am I a padawan for the Jedi or the Sith? That is the question!

Well, this is an official Sith site, so we only allow two practioners at a time.