User talk:FAMASFREENODE

Hi FAMASFREENODE. Your RFA is clearly mistimed. You are a new editor here and should gain experience across Wikipedia before you attempt an RFA. Please read

What Xender says is good advice. I've closed the RFA; for some reason, people get angry about premature RFA's, and start saying mean things. In addition to the link to

WP:NOTNOW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Xender Lourdes and Floquenbeam:this user was familiar with the RFA candidate advices prior to submittal. the submittal was done in an urge to fulfill both the need for increase of number of admins, if even by 1 (the need for reserves) and to showcase that old yet unregistered readers exist who are proficient in the matters of metapedianismFAMASFREENODE (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you cannot show such competence when your actual account has only 20-something edits. We would have to take your word for it. And since you're kind of making mistakes left and right, there is no reason for people to do that. I'm afraid there is zero chance - not "a small chance", but "zero chance" that this would pass. Just re-read the suggested pages, go slow and be patient. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to what Floquenbeam and Xender Lourdes have said above, I would suggest that you wait at least a year to request adminship, and during that time to pick up knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Use that time to do some meaningful work, take part in content creation - preferably up to Good Article level, clearing backlogs, ivoting in AfDs, etc, to avoid conflict, to avoid derogatory or combative personal remarks, and to reach out and help others. This will also give us the opportunity to see how you interact with others etc which is essential as an admin, I know this was a great influence when I ran for adminship. I would suggest that before you go for another nomination that you consult with an experienced admin, particularly one with experience at RfA, such as User:Worm That Turned, User:WereSpielChequers, User:Kudpung or myself. If you do this, you will be in a much stronger position for a future RFA. Best of luck.--5 albert square (talk)

@5 albert square:this user is aware of the rules and workings and may retry approximately 7 months in the futureFAMASFREENODE (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

no big deal, you've got plenty of time to become an admin, but it'd be really helpful to us all if you get stuck into some really important tasks, a lot of which don't require tools. Always here if you have any questions -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Just an example of something you could do right now - there are

biographies of living people! All these need is someone with skills such as yours to track down a single reference -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

If you're going to edit so you can

get more access to different functions you'll be very disappointed. the purpose of editing is to help build an accurate encyclopedia. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@VegasCasinoKid:this user was fully aware of the rules prior to notificationsFAMASFREENODE (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The

Adventure

Hi FAMASFREENODE!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there! Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply ]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to List of Masters of the Universe characters has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the
  introduction
  .
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: List of Masters of the Universe characters was changed by FAMASFREENODE (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.866463 on 2016-06-03T14:56:55+00:00 .

Thank you.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Masters of the Universe characters, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Samtar:this user advises looking into the change that has been made before hitting the undo buttonFAMASFREENODE (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be replying on the article talk, please look there. You state you're not new, but all this behavior is really indicative that you are - please slow down -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a second look, and your reasoning, I agree with your removal. Please try to fill in the edit summary in the future -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you talk about yourself in the third person? (Like saying "This user did this" instead of "I did this") Just asking. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Common year has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 22:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC) @

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Septic shock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sequestration. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Schrödinger's Rapist. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be undone.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. While a deletion discussion is proceeding, you should not take it on yourself to impose your own preferred outcome. It may be that the discussion will indeed conclude with a decision to merge the article. But it could also decide on deletion, or no change. The decision is one that should be made by a consensus of editors, not by one person acting unilaterally on the basis of their own opinion. RolandR (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating

Wikipedia editor TheDwellerCamp just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Remember, when you create a page, remember to put attribution on the talk page.

To reply, leave a comment on TheDwellerCamp's talk page.

Learn more about

While I think this one might not be actionable - as you stopped after being warned - as an admin I have to say, getting blocked for edit warring over He-Man sounds like the worst possible thing to be blocked for. How about instead of making threats about ANI and the like, you discuss the changes you'd like to make on the talkpage with the other editors? It's clear at least a couple don't agree with your changes, and maybe everyone could come to a compromise if you talked to them. If I can be of any help, or offer any advice - please feel free to ping me. SQL^{Query me!} 03:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL:this user asserts the fact that the reporting at ANI has been performed after exhaustion of 3 revert limit with total awareness of the rules and possible consequences.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did report you to AN3. I didn't close it - but I imagine that it will JUST BARELY squeak thru without action. You're edit warring about he-man characters bud - knock it off. SQL^{Query me!} 05:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The report at the edit warring noticeboard has been closed with a warning to you. If you make further attempts to refactor pages related to Masters of the Universe without first getting consensus on a talk page, you may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:this user asserts the fact that the article split had gone unopposed and with consensus for it (refer to article talk page), the edit war began when user:TheDwellerCamp began to repeatedly undo the split with total disregard for wp:size (check page size in page information). in following the 3rr, this user reverted only 3 times, with addition of reason and warning in summary. failure to maintain the size-improved article, this user posted to ANI. it is upto the admins to give the final word.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The final word (from this admin} is that you need to get support from others for what you're trying to do. A concern about

WP:SIZE on a long-existing article is hardly an emergency that needs dramatic intervention by you, a brand-new editor. We have time to wait for a discussion. Such a delay is unlikely to harm the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

in reply to user EdJohnston, the size guideline states that articles in the >50 kiB zone should probably be split, with >100 kiB ones must be split. the size of the merged article and the problems it can cause are mentioned in the article talk page by this user.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say such articles "must" be split. Further, have you read the

WP:HASTE section of the guideline? —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, edit warring can occur even if you don't break the three revert rule. 3RR is not a rule which is set in stone, and you don't have to break it to edit war. Omni Flames (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was in fact, archived, but not in the right place. See this diff. Anyway, I've archived it properly now. Omni Flames (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FAMASFREENODE (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

this user performed the archiving of closed discussions in ANI due to them being done in and to reduce the size of ANI front-page, the warning provided by Omni Flames in the revert summary sufficed to stop this user from pre-emptive archiving. if the attempt was ground for a block, the first block with 48 hour length would suffice and not a block for indefinite period which would stop this user from ever participating in wikipedia FAMASFREENODE (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I appreciate this unblock request was made before the blocking admin posted the full rationale for that user's block. But the ANI archiving is clearly not the the sole reason for that user's block, and that user needs to make a new unblock request addressing the full block rationale. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(edit conflict) An uninvited comment I know, but personally I think your heart is in the right place and you're very enthusiasic - which is great! But diving head first into something is often not the best of ideas. If you were to be unblocked, I think the community would like to see some slow, careful content editing under the mentorship of another editor. To me, it's clear you're not here to hurt the 'pedia, but we expect a certain level of competence which currently you're not showing -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:39 am, Today (UTC+1)

^Pocketed 09:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't worry about it! -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If FAMASFREENODE, was in fact blocked, solely for the ANI archiving issue (@

Tokyogirl79: Was this the reason for the block? It's hard to tell from the block summary), I kind-of agree that an indef-block is unnecessary here. They were (in my opinion) acting in good faith and did stop promptly as soon as I asked them to. Of course, these comments are just from a non-admin and so carry little weight. If the block wasn't for the archiving, then ignore this comment. Omni Flames (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

(Non-administrator comment) Suggestion to the reviewing administrator: the use of the third person in this editor's speech suggests that somebody else is guiding him; but of course, unblock requests cannot be placed on behalf of others.

Pocketed 09:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

If that's true, then this should be blocked as a shared account as he's been speaking in third-person since he joined. Omni Flames (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've posted my block rationale below, which I hadn't finished before this user posted an unblock notice. To be perfectly honest, this seems like a situation where the user is evading a prior block and at the very least, a situation where the user is editing in areas where they really, really shouldn't - despite clear indication that their edits were seen as inappropriate. It's kind of a case where they've had every indication that what they're doing is wrong, but they don't seem to really be responding to attempts to help guide them. My decision was made for a fairly wide range of editing problems and to be honest, I don't see them really responding to a shorter block - especially since there are concerns of sockpuppetry. There are far too many concerns here to be comfortable allowing them to freely edit at this point in time.
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @
  Tokyogirl79: I just read your block rationale, and I agree that was the right action to take. If FAMASFREENODE is not a new editor (and it's pretty obvious that he isn't) then he's clearly here to disrupt Wikipedia and not to contribute constructively. About the ANI archiving: I think it's possible, although unlikely that he didn't see my first revert. However even if he didn't, it's true that he shouldn't have been attempting to archive threads in the first place. Omni Flames (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• We both posted at the same time, so I went ahead and posted the below content anyway. Just wanted to let you know I saw this!
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. Attempt 1, 7:38, 14 June 2016‎ . This was reverted by SpacemanSpiff
2. Attempt 2, 7:50, 14 June 2016. This was reverted by Omni Flames. This was followed by a mass removal of content here.
3. Attempt 3, between 7:50 and 8:03, 14 June 2016‎. This was reverted by Omni Flames.
4. Attempt 4, 8:11, 14 June 2016‎. This was reverted by John from Idegon.

That's one too many reverts, especially given that they all happened within a very short amount of time and the user has already been warned about edit warring. That shows that they're not listening or paying attention to what other people are doing.

(｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

in reply to Omni Flames, this user performed the archiving without looking into the page history, as the wikipedia framework does not send notifications for reverts regardless of summaries, this user missed the reverts with notice until the very last archiving by this user, which is when this user stopped the archiving drive, as noticed by this user not archiving any still-remaining closed discussions.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

Tokyogirl79: The first two attempts were good faith attempts to fix a thread which had been improperly archived (it was in the archives of the wrong noticeboard, see the section above). The other two however, I agree, should not have been made. Omni Flames (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

1. You opened an RfA only days after opening your account in May 2016. This is not a suitable amount of time to show that you understand policy and claiming that you understand policy is not going to cut it. There are people who have had RfAs declined after years of experience, so adminship is not something you can get easily. Nor should it.
2. You've tried to close an ANI thread despite the fact that you are not an admin and you appear to lack the experience necessary to close a discussion like this one.
3. You were engaged in an edit war that resulted in you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=725218423#User:FAMASFREENODE_reported_by_User:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi_.28Result:_Warned.29 getting reported to AN3. You were let off with a warning, but a harsh one. There were also concerns that you might be a previous editor editing under a new account. If this is the case, you need to divulge the prior account - especially if the older account is blocked.
4. You have been reported to ANI for the same edit war, where the concerns of sockpuppetry were raised.
5. Your responses to people trying to help have been fairly lackluster, to say the least. You've been extremely terse and continually refer to yourself in the third person. Not only does this make it rather difficult to properly communicate, but it can actually be seen as rude, which can lead to further disruption. I'm also fairly concerned about the fact that several editors such as samtar have tried to offer you suggestions (like about RfAs) and your reactions have suggested that you know better - despite evidence to the contrary in most of these situations.

Now the problem here is that your edits clearly suggest that you're not a new editor and you've caused enough problems to where you've been reported far more than the average new editor. I have to share in the concerns that you're not new here and may be someone who may have been previously blocked from editing. Your edits have been disruptive enough to where I have to assume that if left to your own devices, you'd likely just continue in your editing pattern.

You might be able to be unblocked, but here's what we need from you:

1. You need to promise that you will communicate better with people. Short one line missives aren't going to cut it and you need to discuss things on article talk pages when you're involved with an edit war. It doesn't matter who is wrong or right in those situations - you need to keep open lines of discussion. You also need to post in a way that shows that you are open to communication, especially if you ever hope to become an admin.
2. You need to stop archiving and closing discussions at ANI. You can weigh in on things, but you cannot close anything there until you have at the very least a year's experience with editing. This is not negotiable. Your actions have been seen as controversial and reverted, which should be enough to suggest that you should stop rather than continue on.
3. You need to state your prior account. I think that it's very unlikely that you're a completely new editor. There is such as thing as a
   WP:CLEANSTART
   , however you cannot open a new account if your old one was blocked. (There are a few exceptions but by large the blocks forbid new account creation.) Your actions also give off the impression that if there is a prior account, it was likely one blocked for disruptive editing so letting us know about your past accounts is very important - especially if you ever hope to run for adminship. You do not necessarily have to post this info here - you can submit this information to an admin via e-mail or to OTRS.
4. You need to show that you understand the reasons for the block and give examples. Note: This portion was added after the user's responses showed an inability or unwillingness to fully understand the reasons for the block and the requirements for unblock.

This is a bit of a steep reaction, but you've been disruptive enough to where I honestly don't think that you'd respond in any other manner - especially considering that you were actively trying to archive ANI even as you had people questioning whether or not you were a troll or sockpuppet. That doesn't really suggest that you're here to edit responsibly. I have to assume that anything else would likely get a short response that

(｡◕‿◕｡) 09:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to clarify my above, I'm not disputing your block

Tokyogirl79 Rather just hoping the editor stops and thinks - I'm all for second chances but I agree wholeheartedly with your blocking rationale -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

in reply to the concerns expressed by

Tokyogirl79

regarding concern 1:the RFA was opened due to this user, referring to the self, due to spur of the moment, noticing an apparent lack of active admins in ANI with the lampshading on the fact that adminship can be taken away upon noticing of abuse, by one click. regarding concern 2:the issue which was pre-emptively closed by this user was something that was caused by misperception on the accuser's part, the accused did not mean the expression in any tone of racism, which the accused later expressed by the self. regarding concern 3 and 4the ANI report was done by this user due to the two users, one of whom is now blocked for accusations of sockpuppetry, failing to understand the concerns of wp:size regarding the article and reverting the edits by this user. checking of the article history shows that the actions by this user went unoppossed until the two users began their reversions. this user, in keeping with the 3rr rule, reverted 3 times, followed by posting in ANI out of own behest for admin intervention in the issue. regarding concern 5 this user utilizes third persons with linguistic verbosities due to purposes pertaining to formality and clarity as to convey the thoughts in the most clarified method that is possible. it is not indicative of this account being operated by multiple person nor of any misdemeanor.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's my responses:

1. The RfA process specifically points out that you shouldn't open a request prior to a certain amount of editing. When you were told about this your responses were fairly dismissive, especially when several people - including at least one admin - told you to wait a year.
2. The problem with that close is that you were in no position to close this ANI thread - or any ANI thread. You don't have the experience or the tact to close an ANI thread, especially not one on a heated subject of that nature. Most new editors are already aware of this.
3. You lack the experience to really be able to know when to archive an ANI post. You had several actions reverted and you continued, despite clear indication that this was unacceptable.
4. The thing about 3RR is that 3 isn't exactly a magic number of times you can revert. What the guideline means is that if you revert three times without clear discussion and consensus, it can be reported. This should not be taken to mean that you have three attempts to revert other people's actions before you get blocked. That shows a severe misunderstanding of policy.
5. While there is no mandated way to post on Wikipedia, writing in third person is frankly confusing and does not really reflect well on you considering that you've made several problematic edits on Wikipedia. I would recommend that you use typical first person pronouns (or alternate pronouns) to refer to yourself. Considering that there's enough to suspect that sockpuppetry or possible multiple people editing an account, I would recommend against editing in third person. This is a recommendation and not a mandate, but I can honestly say that if you continue speaking in third person it's almost certainly going to result in more issues, confusion, and misunderstandings.

So far you don't really seem to be getting the point - that your edits have been disruptive and that part of the requirement for your unblock is that you stop editing in that fashion.

(｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This user understood the points with total clarification and also mentions the fact that not all edits by this user are disruptive, as displayed in the contrib log of this user. this user will refrain from archiving discussions in ANI until clear consensus and closing discussions are performed in the cases as well as refrain from disruptive editing.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should refrain from archiving or closing any ANI discussions, no matter how obvious the result may seem, until you have far more experience. Omni Flames (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

rope which I again hope you'd use constructively -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 10:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• (
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]