User talk:CometEncke

File:Tunguska.png

Trees knocked over by the Tunguska blast. Photograph from the Soviet Academy of Science 1927 expedition led by Leonid Kulik

No, not this user, just proof of a warped sense of humour and a desire to keep the page visually interesting

The Tunguska event of 1908, probably caused by the impact of a cometary body, has also been postulated by Czechoslovakian astronomer Ľubor Kresák as a fragment of Comet Encke.^[1]

^ Kresak, L'. (1978). "The Tunguska object - A fragment of Comet Encke". Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia. 29. Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia: 129. Bibcode:1978BAICz..29..129K.

A sock?

By the way, your account was just created on 27 December 2015 but you don't sound like a new user; do I know you? STSC (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you presenting any evidence? Or are you just presenting a hanging question? If the latter, why? And is the sudden concern perchance related to the ANI thread that Citobun started[1] and to which I contributed repeatedly? [2] [3] and other diffs? Prior to stumbling across this ANI thread, has my account shown the slightest interest in Hong Kong politics? CometEncke (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is only 6 weeks old but obviously you're not a newcomer. Whatever, I don't have the time to investigate; for the time being I'd just leave it to other interested parties. Happy Lunar New Year to you. STSC (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly, this question came not from the numerous Western hot-button topics which I edit, but rather from my look at an unrelated ANI thread. An excellent summary of the tactic of which the above question is a part can be found here: [4]CometEncke (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Socking to create consensus is a fraud. STSC (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

I also find it kind of interesting how you are even aware of this warning template, for a two-month old account that has never edited eastern european topics before. Can you explain? Because it does look a little strange, know what I mean? Athenean (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing that all this stuff comes from my forays into Hong Kong and Russia issues, as opposed to my usual US hot button topic areas. My compliments to User:Stephan Schulz, User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris and other perennial opponents on their senses of comity and fair play. And I mean that genuinely; it's not one of those back-handed "compliments" one sees so frequently around here.CometEncke (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense. Athenean (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK; to me it is blindingly obvious.CometEncke (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question though. Athenean (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what you mean. That said, I'm not going to go through a Q&A session here.CometEncke (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "Q&A session", I just asked you a simple question. Evasiveness is always a red flag. Athenean (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there were two questions. I answered one aboved. I've had enough of this and request you to refrain from further posting on my talk page. Thanks.CometEncke (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and some advice

Congrats on finding your way around so well that you are now able to drop DS warnings on people. That's great progress for barely a two-month old account. However don't forget to drop these equitably to those on the other side of the POV, not only to a single editor, lest it be considered one-sided harassment. Anyway, happy editing! Dr. K. 17:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any third party who is sufficiently disturbed by my placing a single template on the talk page of a single user is someone I don't need to deal with and who needs to be templated themselves. I hereby request you not to post on my talk page any more. CometEncke (talk) 07:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

I'm looking for your discussion in Talk:Donald_Trump on your WP:BRD revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frequently the person doing the initial bold edit starts said discussion. Feel more than free.CometEncke (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD specifically says "Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia" and "BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal changes based on your best effort. Your change might involve re-writing, rearranging, adding or removing information"

Regarding reverts, it says "Consider reverting only when necessary" See Also: WP:ROWN. "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing."

I'm certainly interested to hear any particular concern you have based on wp policy, however if the only reason for the revert is because it wasn't discussed, then I will restore my edits per WP:BOLD Yourmanstan (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A split that large should be discussed at the article's talk page before it is done. There are a lot of people involved with the article, and they are going to have opinions. You can check my account history; I don't do a lot of reverting. Even on controversial issues, my usual approach is to talk first. In this case, I felt it was necessary because of the large amount of material involved and the large number of people who are going to be interested. If I leave the split there, and people edit based on it, then a discussion decides against it, going back could be a lot of work. Lastly, a friendly suggestion. It feels like you're burning to get this done. Don't. You will find that you are much more effective as an editor in controversial articles if you take a laid-back approach to this sort of thing. Start the discussion and let it run for a while. See here [5] for an example of a discussion I started after a change I made was partially reverted. That particular discussion turned out to be short and simple, because the issue itself was simple and everyone who came to the discussion agreed with me. Your issue is going to be a lot more complicated than that, and you should expect the discussion to be considerably more involved and to take longer. But if you try to "force" it through by re-reverting, you're starting down a different path, and it's one that tends to piss people around here off, not just me.CometEncke (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention is required....

..... At the enforcement request you left. I can see you editing but if you avoid the question I will have to draw the obvious conclusion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. I actually deliberately try not to look at such requests for a while after making them. Not doing so helps me keep space, as it were. But I'll look now.CometEncke (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, your choice, but if you refuse to reveal whether you are a returning blocked/banned user I have to assume the worst. Next time you come back read CLEANSTART and avoid editing controversially. Thanks. If you want to appeal I'm sure you know the drill. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For just how long does that apply? I did state, quite candidly, that I am a returning user. Would the period of the standard offer (6 months) be enough? And if so, from the start of this account, or from the time of this block? I really would prefer not to FS again. Nothing that has happened in the history of this account requires it -- and that includes this block. I do hope the same admin will come back. Yes, I know about the unblock template, but quite simply, using it feels a bit nasty. Part of the issue here is that I don't want to reveal my real name.CometEncke (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned it is until whenever we can be satisfied you are not a returning banned/blocked/santioned/restricted user. AGF only goes so far. If yoy wish, you can email arbcom who keep a register of returning accounts and if they accept your explanation they can unblock you. You don't get a clean start when you edit controversially, so its really down to you. Avoid controversy or expect to be in this position again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for returning and for your forthrightness. I guess part of where I must have screwed up is in what constitutes "controversially." If you look at my history, there is no question that I edited in controversial areas. But if you look the edits themselves -- there has been plenty of disagreement about content, but none about behavior. I drew a line at the multiple "sock" insinuations -- see above. Are you saying that drawing such a line was a mistake?CometEncke (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly? Throwing around DS warnings to users that clearly already know the drill and raising an AE on quite thin evidence is controversial on its own but the determined way in which you (rather expertly if I may say so) refused to engage with concerns with previous accounts was also quite a major red flag. Your editing interest appears to be exclusively areas already subject to discretionary sanctions (EE & US Politics) and I'd suggest that if you don't want to be challenged you need to avoid anywhere that has been subject to arbitration. Its hard enough weeding out the illigitimate socks in such areas to avoid taking very direct and abrupt action against potentially legitimate clean starts. I saw something in your edit history that also gave me pause for thought, but, if you don't mind, I'll keep what that was to myself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do appreciate that. Your mind is clearly made up. My best wishes. Really. CometEncke (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

being tentative is not something I have ever been accused of but I am genuinely open to discussion if I make a mistake. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an idea what their previous account(s) might be, however this user probably has a very limited experience on-wiki, based on the following: (a) they are clearly unfamiliar with rules (according to WP:SOCK, an undisclosed secondary account can not take part in administrative discussions, but they openly admitted to be a secondary account on WP:AE), (b) the WP:AE complaint was very weak, in a style indicative of a strong desire to have another contributor sanctioned, but no experience in submitting such requests before. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016-02-21T17:00:11 Spartaz (talk | contribs) blocked CometEncke (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: Clearly an additional account and refusing to reveal previous history leaves one conclusion) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply not going to out myself to some committee.[6].CometEncke (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a conversation about you on my talk page [7]. My very best wishes (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused about definitions. Since I think that's part of how I got into trouble, I'd like to try to clarify. As I understand it, a sock puppet is someone with multiple accounts that have edited recently. That does not apply to me. A fresh start is someone who had an account in the past, but has not used it for some time, and currently edits from one account. Is that correct?CometEncke (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You was asked a question: do you currently have any active editing restrictions or bans for your previous account(s)? Yes or no, please. If you have them, then the fresh start is not allowed and you remain blocked. Here is second question: what was your previous edit history/accounts? You have right not answer this question, but then you are not allowed to participate in community discussions, including AfD and administrative noticeboards. If the answer to the first question is "no" and you promise do not participate in community discussions, then you may ask to unblock your account - on discretion by another admin. According to the summary by the blocking admin, he blocked you simply for "abusing multiple accounts" rather than as an WP:AE action. That simplifies things. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any bans. I have had some blocks. Going in detail about them frankly gets uncomfortable, and I'm not going to do it. It is fair to say that in no case did any admin feel I should no longer be allowed to edit, other than temporarily, for periods of time which would have expired in prior calendar years. Is that enough? I frankly do want to ask about community discussions, basically is there a statute of limitations on that. but that can wait.CometEncke (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify. I have had at least one topic ban. Again it expired in a prior calendar year.CometEncke (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have had any previous sanctions in a certain subject area (climate change, Eastern Europe, whatever), you should not return to editing in the same subject area after "fresh start", unless you can edit in this area without having any trouble (such as this episode). I think you could ask to unblock your account using Template:Unblock, but you must explain to another admin (who would review your request) what exactly you are going to do differently this time. I have no idea what they might decide. I noticed that your blocking admin did not make a record about you in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log/2016. That means he considers this to be an ordinary block, rather than a WP:AE sanction. That's important. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I assume that any admin who consider your request will review your AE filing that became a reason for your indefinite block. Note that another experienced admin commented on WP:AE "If there is no disclosure, this request should be declined." He did not suggest to block you at all. In my opinion, nothing in your current editing indicates any serious problems, and the user you complained about on AE was indeed in obvious violation of WP:NPA. My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the comment by admin below. There is nothing wrong with revealing your previous account to one of checkusers. This can be done by email. If they confirm that you do not have any editing restrictions, then your current account will be probably unblocked. Even if you have a privacy concern (your previous account was connected to your real life name), this will not reveal your identity. If you open yet another fresh start account, without confirming with checkuser that your current account was a legitimate one, you will be quickly blocked as a "sock" of your current account in the future. In addition, more informally speaking, there is no any privacy around here. Mr. P. knows who edited his BLP page. Such pages should be generally avoided. My very best wishes (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair to say that I have stayed clear of any area in which I had a topic ban which ended less than two years prior to the date at which I was posting in any area. I will continue with that. In other words, if for example my TB in a prior account on gadgets ended on 6/1/2014, then by 6/1/2016, I will consider myself in the clear in the area of gadgets, and certainly don't intend to screw up again. The above statements about my history are true. I am happy to agree to not go to any disciplinary noticeboards for the remainder of 2016, unless I receive a notice that another user has started a discussion involving me. I would ask the reviewing admin's advice on what I should do during that time if I see personal attacks. Lastly, I will say that this episode, in my opinion, was due to the fact that my definition of what constitutes a "personal attack" appears to be broader than the community's definition. The reviewing admin is invited to review the relevant talk page as I would have seen it ([8] and nearby times) and decide for themselves whether or not this is believable. This definitional difference frankly surprises me, but I will adjust. In light of this, I believe I can contribute usefully in the EE area. If the reviewing admin feels differently, I would really request that they review that Putin snapshot first, simply because an informed opinion is one I would find easier to respect. At that point, I will do so. I don't see any reason I should not be able to ask at community boards about non-disciplinary matters such as copyright.CometEncke (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please can any admin considering an unblock please discuss with me before making a decision. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My own comment, if I may. I certainly agree that Admins should be on the same page. From my point of view, what happened is that I got annoyed by a toxic environment. The fact that it bothered me as much as it did was likely a major part of my problem. I then dealt with that in a way that was inappropriate. I apologize for that. That said, it would be helpful if I could have some suggestions on positive ways I can deal with such, as opposed to what I cannot do. Thanks. CometEncke (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our difficulty is that while you have freely conceded that you have had a previous account, and that this account has been sanctioned, your unwillingness to divulge tha name of the previous account makes it impossible to confirm that there is no outstanding block or ban currently affecting you. To take up a point made some way up the page, an indefinite sanction does not go away on its own. To make a hypothetical illustration, if you received an indefinite block ten years ago which has not been removed by an admin then you are still blocked. You personally, not just via the account where the block was imposed. That may, of course, not be the case; but without knowing the previous account name we cannot proceed. A fresh start cannot be implemented to negate a previous block. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mistrust, like trust, runs both ways, sadly.CometEncke (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, however irrelevant. But we as admins here have a function, and it is important that we perform it correctly. Your continued evasiveness makes an unblock without an answer to our request very unlikely.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I get that. Really, I do. All of us are hamstrung here by the past. Because I like to end any conversation, however troubling, on a positive note, I will leave you with two suggestions. The second one, at least, is positive.

1. The software should warn a new user that if they use their real name, they can never get away from it on Wikipedia, ever. Arbcom will have it. Because that is, in fact, what you are saying. When I made that particular idiotic decision, it did warn me, but not in those terms.
2. The mistrust on my end is not of the verification itself. It is of the fact that the information would be kept, permanently. Encryption software can do amazing things. It ought to be able to create a "fresh start" token that is independent of the previous account. The account could be marked as having been FSed, but no one would actually need to know the connection. The token could be submitted with the new account.CometEncke (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- If you would prefer to keep the notification off wikipedia you are welcome to email me directly. My email is my username at gmail. If it reassures you, I have a real life security clearance that covers material far more sensitive than a user account name and I'm willing to delete the email once I have read it. I would also consider myself bound by the foundation's privacy policy for any email you sent me if that makes you feel better. (Personally, I'd be more reassured by my being a generally honest and straightforwardly trustworthy person but if it helps float your boat). Cheers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators noticeboard / incidents report

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yourmanstan (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, CometEncke. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Kresak, L'. (1978). "The Tunguska object - A fragment of Comet Encke". Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia. 29. Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia: 129. Bibcode:1978BAICz..29..129K.

[1]