User talk:FrequentIntenseMatureSuggestiveThemes

Post me messages below.

 Hello FrequentIntenseMatureSuggestiveThemes, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may


 * Take a guided tour and learn to edit.
 * Visit a (kind of) random project.
 * Browse Wikiversity, or visit a portal corresponding to your educational level: pre-school, primary, secondary, tertiary, non-formal education.
 * Find out about research activities on Wikiversity.
 * Explore Wikiversity with the links to your left.


 * Read an introduction for teachers and find out how to write an educational resource for Wikiversity.
 * Give feedback about your initial observations
 * Discuss Wikiversity issues or ask questions at the colloquium.
 * Chat with other Wikiversitans on #wikiversity-en.
 * Follow Wikiversity on twitter (http://twitter.com/Wikiversity) and identi.ca (http://identi.ca/group/wikiversity).

You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! Jtneill - Talk - c 08:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

 Hello , you can call me Jacob Frank. I'd like to be your mascot and welcome you to Wikiversity. Even though I was a plain and untutored man back in 18th-century Europe, that still didn't stop me from contributing my ideas to the world. Neither should it stop you. As a religious leader who developed the doctrine of "purification through transgression," my advice to you is to be bold and to ignore all rules&mdash;yes, these are two of Wikiversity's official policies! Happy editing.

Custodian nomination
Thanks for your edits. FYI, I've speedy deleted your self-nomination for full custodianship, assuming it was in jest. Happy to discuss. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you delete my request for custodianship? I am 8 years old, about as mature enough to become a custodian. I also changed my signature. --FIMST (talk 2 me or contributions) 16:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted it because I interpreted it as a jestful/facetious nomination not a serious nomination. Feel free to self-nominate it again and let the community discuss and decide. I imagine the community would like to see more evidence of experience with contributing to Wikiversity. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 19:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, given his disruption across Wikimedia, that's a no-no.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

User rights request for confirmed
Since I'm 1 day old and I've made over 17 edits, I want to bypass the wait for 3 days and become confirmed. --FIMST (talk 2 me or contributions) 17:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Globally locked
This account is globally locked. It shows only contributions at Wikiversity, but it is possible that other contributions have been deleted or revision deleted. plus there are many socks. See CentralAuth. This user is certainly Brandon Sky, per the email address above and [].

Brandon, if you want to contribute to Wikiversity, register an account for that purpose, and use it properly. You may verify your identity with me by email. (This FIMST account should still have email access here.) —Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Locked accounts cannot use Special:EmailUser. I can say that he has emailed me before and confirmed that he is abusing multiple accounts as in the page you linked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've heard differently, from locked users, but this stuff changes sometimes. The user can email me, one way or another. I'll be able to identify him by the mail address, if he uses that gmail account. The mail doesn't have to come from this FIMST account. Thanks for the note. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Those users probably already had your email address, locked users can't access their accounts at all.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I was told the exact behavior they saw, but I'm not going to look back. It's quite possible that the behavior has been changed. It is trivial for a locked user to bypass the restriction to gain access to email, and no locked user who has any clue at all would be unable to do it. In any case, Jasper, how you know that the behavior is actually as you say? Is there a MediaWiki documentation page on this? I did search and found nothing, so far. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The only way a locked user can do that is to make a sockpuppet. After his account was locked he posted at the local custodians' noticeboard, even giving out his password. This is something of mw:Extension:CentralAuth and is also mentioned at Global locks - login attempts across all Wikimedia projects fail with the error "Incorrect password entered" (even if the password is correct). They can email you if they know your address, but you have to login to use Special:EmailUser, so a lock prevents that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but he might be starting a new start, I believe in new starts. --Goldenburg111 21:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, he first must appeal the existing sanctions, evading them is sockpuppetry and not allowed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. Understood. --Goldenburg111 22:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, Jasper, this is the problem, and some sophisticated users know it. We cannot stop him from doing that. We had a user here who was globally locked, and he had an unlinked account here. He was not disruptive *here* and was active here with positive editing. This user, however, had serious enemies elsewhere. (He'd done some disruptive stuff years earlier.) As long as he had an active account here, any steward could pull up his IP and user agent data and could see if he was editing elsewhere. I argued for allowing him to continue editing here, partly on this basis.


 * I was actually desysopped here because he was locally blocked without local disruption, violating long-standing policy here, and I unblocked him, and there was not an adequate consensus here to maintain this.


 * The result of his block, when his unblock template went unanswered for more than a year, may have been that he began socking again. (He hadn't actually socked for a long time, he did have a different account at another wiki, with permission from 'crats there, he'd done it right.) In any case, we had a probationary custodian here, candidate for 'crat, and it appears to have been a WMF office action that identified him as this globally banned user. They would not say what the evidence was. He claims, privately, that it wasn't him, but that it was indeed someone he knew, and that they may have shared a computer at one point. Bad Idea. This guy was known for shooting himself in the foot. How they identified him, I'm sure they don't want to say, because *legitimate checkuser* might not have been able to accomplish this. Checkusers are not supposed to keep old data, for example. This is what I've learned: what are stated as rules and policy are not necessarily what is actually followed, if nobody is watching. Democratic societies have learned the necessity of whistle-blowers and watchdogs, because power corrupts. And those in power always think that, surely, with their good intentions, they will be exceptions.


 * Global locks, by policy, are quite restricted in usage. I am *not* commenting about this particular user. However, I just saw a global lock that passed by with little notice. . I don't see, in the evidence presented, anything clear that establishes the kind of behavior normally required for a lock. It might be there, but ... it's not clear. Much is made of a Wikia ban, which should be totally irrelevant. And this is what is so remarkable: Central Auth. Take a look at the es.wikipedia edit count. 330,094. This is not your average vandal or ordinary disruptive sock master! I don't read Spanish, but it's looking to me like the user lost a political battle, was upset, and may have made a set of abusive edits at meta. So they are getting back. The *substance* of the report was entirely, AFAIK, with regard to one project, es.wikipedia. Meta is being abused, it appears to me. It used to be difficult to get a lock, for anything other than obvious global vandalizing and spamming accounts. It's become easy. Supposedly the accounts vandalized meta. However, the evidence appears to be, with the exception of one edit, abusive usernames. In spite of being hidden, they can be easily seen.


 * I wonder if you would be willing to look at the human story here, Japser. This es.wikipedia user did an *enormous* amount of work, and has been tossed on the trash heap, whether or not he "deserved it." Wouldn't you be angry? It used to be understood on Wikipedia that users, when blocked, would be angry, and so if they swore at the blocking administrator, it was to be disregarded. Of late, it seems that punishment is more in order. The wiki ideals are being lost. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, most of the Wikimedia Projects focus on harm than helping the wiki (adding pages, according to the project's scope). Well, an example is me, rights are not power, which most users, who I talk about this, usually say. Rights are for the benefit of a wiki, not disruption. Here's an example:


 * After being stalked for at least up at July, I hade to "not request user rights". So you can literally see the message here, they are actually pretending these rights are powers, not benefits for a wiki.


 * Here on Frequent, we are just making him feel bad, don't you think? Talking about his global lock. I recommend you to close this discussion, thus, it may be causing anger for this user. Believe me, I have been angered by many people across. --Goldenburg111 01:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Goldenburg, I appreciate your concern for the feelings of the user. However, this user is apparently quite sophisticated, and the purpose of the discussion here was to invite him to participate here, if he chooses to do that. Your experience was not unusual, my guess is that many like you encounter similar experiences.
 * I don't think you have yet understood it, not fully. The other wikis are focused on the content, and are not about helping the community. The concept of "educating" someone who looks like a vandal or POV-pusher is not on their mind, and they reject it when it's mentioned. "Not Therapy" is commonly asserted. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, and "learning community" is not what they are.
 * However, this is Wikiversity, and our goal is education, but not *only* educational materials, but also learning-buy-doing, and there was once some substantial interest in Wikiversity in resources and projects for children. We *are* a learning community.


 * The wiki community, in general and for the most part, isn't trained or experienced in the education of children, and what it takes, and *especially* what it takes in a wiki environment. For a beginning, it takes patience.
 * I know that some prominent users at Simple English Wikipedia had an attitude similar to mine. I don't see that this attitude is protected there, though.
 * I don't think FIMST is a child. I have not researched his history, how he came to be what he is known for and was apparently locked for. I don't really care, because I've seen many "disruptive users" from elsewhere become cooperative participants in Wikiversity. There is little reason to fight here, if a person is actually interested in developing educational materials and in learning. "Educational materials" can represent all kinds of points of view, they can be imbalanced and even misleading, but, here, we balance them by inclusion, with criticism, not with deleting them. At least that's the way it usually goes. People may debate issues here. That is theoretically prohibited on Wikipedia. Wikversity is a kind of haven, it's famous for that. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I, for one, know his real age (his mother allegedly did email me back in 2012). There is only a finite amount of w:en:WP:ROPE we can give to disruptive users. Our global locking policy isn't perfect and stewards aren't always down to do locks like this one, but it's the best we have in lieu of a proper global blocking policy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)