User talk:Artix Kreiger

Unblock

{{unblock|The block was related to a CFD that I attempted to carry out. Manually that is. ([[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_27#Category:Lists_of_railway_accidents_in_Australia|Link]]) Presumably, the discussion is automatically processed by a robot and needed automated processing. The rules in closure didn't seem it say it was so. Thus, I went full speed ahead with the processing, mass moved the category. It appeared the rules did not explicitly say a robot is to be the executor. I am deeply apologetic that I went full speed ahead with this. In the future, I will refrain from closing discussions in CFD since it requires admin closure. }}

Hi Artix Kreiger

I am now writing up an explanation of why I blocked you. I would have liked to post such an explanation last night, but after spending several hours reverting, I needed sleep.

There are several issues involved here, I want to set them out and hear your reply before considering the unlock request. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Block: What do you think I should do?

Hi Artix Kreiger

I'm sorry that I felt it necessary to block you. Here's why I did it:

It all stems from your closure[1] of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 27#Category:Lists_of_railway_accidents_in_Australia

This was not why I blocked you, but there were many reasons why you should not have done it:

1. WP:BADNAC#1 You lacked impartiality, because you had expressed an opinion in the discussion[2]
2. WP:BADNAC#3: you little previous experience of CfDs. When you close dthat CfD, you had made only 4 previous contrubutions to CfDs[3]
3. WP:BADNAC#4 the result requires action by an administrator, to instruct the bots via the protected page Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working. You were either unaware of this (which indicates that per WP:NACEXP you shouldn't have made the close), or you chose to ignore it (which is WP:RECKLESS)

So you simply shouldn't have closed it.

I would like to believe that sure you acted with good intent, and I do see that you were badly advised by @Carlossuarez46, who wrongly supported[4] your offer to close.

However, when you did close the discussion, you assessed it wrongly. Your closure said[5] There is unanimous consensus to rename all categories to proposed new names for category. This was wrong: there was a consensus, but not unanimous, because Peterkingiron had !voted Prefer to keep as "accidents".

I spotted this at about midnight UTC when I saw that you had posted[6] the category moves at WP:CFDS. That was clearly wrong. WP:CFDS is for scrutinising proposed speedy moves. It is not for processing moves which have already been agreed in full discussion.

So I reverted[7] your edit to WP:CFDS, and began investigating. I soon spotted that you had been manually moving category pages[8], which was when I decided to intervene and revert, for 3 reasons:

1. Manual moves can include errors, whereas the bots which do this have a zero error rate in millions of edits. With nearly 60 pages moved manually, the chances of human error were high.
2. the page moves did not seem to have a helpful edit summary, linking to the CFD discussion. They just said "Successful Discussion", without any clue of where that discussion was, or why it was being described as "successful". That leaves a poor audit trail: the summary should clearly link to the XfD discussion. This morning, in better light, I saw that the word "Discussion" was actually linked to the CFD ... but it was unhelpful to pipe the link. No benefit from piping it, and a risk that the link not be spotted. Much better that anyone reading the edit summary can see clearly where the discussion was.
3. You listed the categories at WP:CFDS after you had already moved the category pages. If acted on, that would have caused the {{category redirect}}s now at the old titles to be moved on top of the new category pages. That was a red light to me: this was clearly the work of an editor who was at best unaware of the effects of their actions.

So I thought best to revert: let the bots do this properly, with proper edit summaries and no risk of human error. Any such reverting needed to be done promptly, before the bots which monitor category redirects began moving pages ... possibly to the wrong category, and certainly with an edit summary which did not mention the CfD (so no audit trail). Another reason for speed was to act before other editors changed the pages, which would prevent the use of WP:ROLLBACK.

So I left a note on your talk asking you to stop moving pages, and promising a full explanation later[9]. After your brief reply[10], I went back to repeat "explanation later", only to find that you had deleted the discussion section with an edit summary go away. I don't care what you "want". I will be staying away from Categories for discussion.

Oh dear. Shutting down discussion is not a sign of an editor acting in good faith.

So I went back to reverting your moves of category pages. But as I did so, I found that the article pages had already been recategorised. But how? Too soon for the bots, and your contribs showed no page recategorisations.

When I checked the article pages, I saw that they had been recategorised using Cat-a-lot by User:Artix Kreiger 2, i.e your alt account. Two problems there:

1. Cat-a-lot leaves no explanation of why the page were recategorised, so no audit trail
2. Your use of an alternate account was a clear breach of WP:SCRUTINY, because its effect was, as the policy says, "to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions"

I could see no legitimate reason for you to use your doppelganger account in parallel with your main account, on the same task. That had confuse or deceived me ... and combined with your deletion of discussion, I could no longer assume that you were acting in good faith. So I blocked both accounts for 24hours, for disruption.

In the end, it took me exactly 2 hours to revert[11] all the work of you and your alt account. Along the way I spotted a few errors; you had tried to fix them, but I didn't have the energy to check how successful that was.

In summary, you

1. acted WP:RECKLESSly in closing a discussion which per WP:BADNAC you should clearly have not closed
2. misrepresented that discussion as unanimous[12]
3. acted WP:RECKLESSly in implementing that close, without knowledge of the processes involved (see WP:NACEXP)
4. Deleted discusion of your actions
5. used an alt account in a manner which was at best inappropriate, and at worst intentionally deceitful.

So I am currently unsure whether to:

• a) lift the block on one or both accounts
• b) let both blocks run their full 24 hours
• c) in view of the WP:SCRUTINY evasion, make both blocks indefinite, pending a block review at WP:AN.

What do you think I should do? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Now indeffed as sock of User:Winterysteppe Meters (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks, @Meters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I also observed that Artix Kreiger is a sysop at Test Wikipedia, Test2 Wikipedia and Test Wikidata. See [13]. I feel these sysop rights should be removed from this user. Would an admin at those Wikis be able to remove sysop rights for this user from these three wikis. I feel that users who have socked should not be a sysop on any Wiki including test wikis. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the context of Pkbwcgs's message. He wanted to test and toy with the admin tools on test2wiki so he asked me. I granted and later revoked the sysop tools for wrong idea and misuse of the test2wiki. Test2wiki is intended for developers to use the environment to test stuff. His logs show a clear lack of use. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Artix Kreiger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #21159 was submitted on Apr 10, 2018 12:40:50. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello admins, I would like to know under what reason I was block? specifically the route of measure. I am perplexed because I was initially blocked for disruptive editing because I botched a move. According to the lbock log, I am blocked for "abusing multiple accounts:Winterysteppe". ugh what? How is this? I'd like some proof. Otherwise, this block is illegitimate.

Decline reason:

This is now a CU block based on private evidence, and will be discussed privately. Alex Shih (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

Not going to decline this, but I'd like to note, for those unfamiliar with what this username refers to, that Winterysteppe had previous socks called User:AdventureQuester and User:MechQuester, which provides a pretty clear link via Artix Entertainment (along with User:TwillyMoglin and others referencing "Frogzard"). So, nice try. ansh666 00:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thats trivial, especially coming from a video designer (you). Artix Kreiger (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)