| Revision as of 09:59, 2 December 2012 view sourceKudpung (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors109,127 edits →Herr Professor: reply to Zad68← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:43, 3 December 2012 view source 66.211.155.135 (talk) Request unblock, regret the unavoidable verbosityNext edit → | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
| Since we last checked in: the BLP final warning you left, replacing your warning text with "Wimpy whiny wimpy whiny" above your unchanged signature; ("Whine whine whine") to a warning left by a different user about adding unsourced content; followed shortly by well-sourced content without explanation; "bar fight antagonist known for big balls" and "Big Mike (big balls)", the Professor's fifth attempt to get large-testicle-related content into the ] article; plus, a handful of mildly productive edits. Is more still needed? <code>]]</code> 23:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC) | Since we last checked in: the BLP final warning you left, replacing your warning text with "Wimpy whiny wimpy whiny" above your unchanged signature; ("Whine whine whine") to a warning left by a different user about adding unsourced content; followed shortly by well-sourced content without explanation; "bar fight antagonist known for big balls" and "Big Mike (big balls)", the Professor's fifth attempt to get large-testicle-related content into the ] article; plus, a handful of mildly productive edits. Is more still needed? <code>]]</code> 23:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :Not really, but one more nonsense edit and I'll indef block. ] (]) 09:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC) | :Not really, but one more nonsense edit and I'll indef block. ] (]) 09:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Wrongly Blocked, Seeking Assistance == | |||
| This is Colton Cosmic. Hi Kudpung, I picked your name more or less randomly from the long list of admins (I first looked at some who were inactive, and then there was another whose talkpage seemed a bit incomprehensible to me). I have been blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. This very comment is block evasion (I assert that it is justified or, at a minimum, necessary). I am writing to ask that you consider my case and unblock me. You are not the first admin I've asked, but I do affirm to you that you are the only one currently and I will not "spam" random admins with unblock requests. | |||
| I see from the top of your page that you are a no-nonsense individual. If you see fit to look at my case, it's longwinded and tedious and I've acquired a surprising number of detractors, but this has really been against my will. I do not believe I have "wikilawyered." I have repeatedly asked for any evidence at all of the sockpuppeting (I never did it) and "abuse of multiple accounts" (I never did it, I cleanstarted because of an outing, never had more than one account at a time, I further). (As for "abuse," I own up to some incivility, some smart-assedness, and "talking back to an admin" if that's a policy violation. The other stuff I think I stand by.) You also have to be willing to entertain, if only for the sake of argument, the possibility that evasion of an uncommented, undiffed, and I assert unwarned and unjust and policy-free block, neither retroactively validates the block nor necessarily furnishes the basis for a new block. Finally I pledge to play it straight with you, whether or not you take my part in this. | |||
| If I haven't lost you yet, brace yourself for a lot of words. I was indefinitely blocked without discussion by "Timotheus Canens" on his sockpuppeting and "abuse of multiple accounts" charges. These are not true, and I don't want them on my user page for the next 500 years as if they were. I have come to realize that that I need an admin willing to take my part in this. If that's you, I promise to adhere better to WP:CIV, which I acknowledge as a past failing. I saw an editor wikihounding a vulnerable and upset fellow editor, and I saw a policy or guideline for admin behavior (I later found it was only "essay") premised on a suicide metaphor and I responded too sharply to both of those. | |||
| Now, if you look at my talk page, there's a bunch of longwinded quarreling there. I regret that you have to read any of it to make a determination. I can tell you I didn't want to read it either, or respond to it. Where do they come from, I don't know. An editor MastCell I don't know from Adam pops up at my talkpage to interrogate me about prior accounts, without explanation, and finishes by calling me a liar. There's plenty more catcalling there, I don't think I should be blamed for that, or having to respond to it. I don't want you to have to read it. I never wanted it. It's Usenet-style stuff I want to put behind me and be able to edit again. | |||
| The pertinent matter in my view, is evidence of sockpuppeting or "abuse of multiple accounts," this is what I was purportedly blocked for. I never sockpuppeted. I never had "multiple accounts." I had a single previous account that I abandoned because of an outing, and moved on to the current. This is WP:CLEANSTART, which has dual justifications last I checked, one of which is no-fault. I am not required to disclose the name of the previous account. That would defeat a major purpose of WP:CLEANSTART. In my view it would violate WP:FAITH as well, as I have stated I complied with WP:CLEANSTART. To belabor this necessarily a moment more, as my "interpretation" of that policy has been faulted without explanation or alternate interpretation, as well it was alleged that I should've been "low profile" in my cleanstart, I state that in my view I complied with letter and spirit of the policy, and never sought controversy. | |||
| Before coming to you I appealed to ArbCom. It declined without explanation to unblock me and stated it would need me to disclose (to it) my pre-cleanstart account. Neither did it place conditions on me, except terms (no IP edits, wait six months) before I could apply to it again, but I am not going to apply to it again, thus its terms are not violated. This is not wikilawyering (it might sound like it) but look at what it said, it's matter of fact. So, you may be inclined to be deferential to ArbCom *but I tell you* it did *not* block me, it only *declined to lift* my block. Any admin can unblock me, entirely in accordance with policy, as far as I can tell. You're not going to risk the ire of ArbCom in my view, you may find yourself at odds with "Timotheus Canens." | |||
| Now, I never want to write longwinded detail, but the problem is I've found that admins rely on the allegations and arguments of others and find against me. So I have to address, I guess, the particulars of those that I suppose might work against me. Briefly: BWilkins never made me an offer, unless "give me $50 and I may give you my bicycle is an offer." Nomoskedacity's accusation of 3RR violation does not stand up to scrutiny, I reverted twice, just look at it. | |||
| Last, on my block-evading. I've asked you to separate your appraisal of that from the block. I think the way to decide such things is to decide the validity or invalidity of the block, the subsequent block evasion is exacerbated by a valid block, but mitigated by an invalid one, and I'd argue excused by an abusive one. I'm not going to write another novel here about my block evasion, which has been substantial, but I'll say I think it has fallen into two categories: A) seeking lifting of my block, and B) seeking removal of "outing" material at ] (the subject and his representative have asserted this disclosure, on the Internet generally not particularly at Misplaced Pages although that's where it's immediately found via websearch, places him and his family at risk of reprisals from criminals, the response from several other editors has been "the cat's out of the bag" which is a non-policy justification). I hope you do not get sidetracked on this, and that you are rather able to focus whether my block for sockpuppeting and "abuse of multiple accounts" is proper. | |||
| Kudpung, thank you for your consideration. You need more answers (about anything) unblock merely my page (or ask here, but then I've got to block evade) and we'll go from there. Colton Cosmic. | |||
Revision as of 13:43, 3 December 2012
Skip to the bottom Jump to the topStatus: Unknown 
 | Welcome to my talk page!
 On line now? It is 12:09 PM where this user lives near Udon Thani, Thailand |
 Archives |
|
2006-2009 2010 2011 2012 |
How come...
...the link does not show even when I access a page thru New pages? Signed: Basemetal00 (write to me here) 14:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be showing. For more information please see Misplaced Pages:Page Curation/Help and above all, WP:NPP. However, I do think you need more general experience with editing articles and using Wiki markup before even attempting to patrol new pages. happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. Actually I wasn't asking in order to patrol. I just wanted to know why. Thanks again. Signed: Basemetal00 (write to me here) 00:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: Multiple Accounts
I went through the rename process, but what exactly do you mean by more transparently? Fox Wilson (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't realise that you had gone through the rename process. That said, if I hadn't realised, some others might not either. Just a technical reality, that's all. Nothing to worry about - sorry if I caused you undue concern. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Herr Professor
Since we last checked in: Modified the BLP final warning you left, replacing your warning text with "Wimpy whiny wimpy whiny" above your unchanged signature; Same thing ("Whine whine whine") to a warning left by a different user about adding unsourced content; followed shortly by removing well-sourced content without explanation; added "bar fight antagonist known for big balls" and again "Big Mike (big balls)", the Professor's fifth attempt to get large-testicle-related content into the On Deadly Ground article; plus, a handful of mildly productive edits. Is more still needed? Zad68 23:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not really, but one more nonsense edit and I'll indef block. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Wrongly Blocked, Seeking Assistance
This is Colton Cosmic. Hi Kudpung, I picked your name more or less randomly from the long list of admins (I first looked at some who were inactive, and then there was another whose talkpage seemed a bit incomprehensible to me). I have been blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. This very comment is block evasion (I assert that it is justified or, at a minimum, necessary). I am writing to ask that you consider my case and unblock me. You are not the first admin I've asked, but I do affirm to you that you are the only one currently and I will not "spam" random admins with unblock requests.
I see from the top of your page that you are a no-nonsense individual. If you see fit to look at my case, it's longwinded and tedious and I've acquired a surprising number of detractors, but this has really been against my will. I do not believe I have "wikilawyered." I have repeatedly asked for any evidence at all of the sockpuppeting (I never did it) and "abuse of multiple accounts" (I never did it, I cleanstarted because of an outing, never had more than one account at a time, I further). (As for "abuse," I own up to some incivility, some smart-assedness, and "talking back to an admin" if that's a policy violation. The other stuff I think I stand by.) You also have to be willing to entertain, if only for the sake of argument, the possibility that evasion of an uncommented, undiffed, and I assert unwarned and unjust and policy-free block, neither retroactively validates the block nor necessarily furnishes the basis for a new block. Finally I pledge to play it straight with you, whether or not you take my part in this.
If I haven't lost you yet, brace yourself for a lot of words. I was indefinitely blocked without discussion by "Timotheus Canens" on his sockpuppeting and "abuse of multiple accounts" charges. These are not true, and I don't want them on my user page for the next 500 years as if they were. I have come to realize that that I need an admin willing to take my part in this. If that's you, I promise to adhere better to WP:CIV, which I acknowledge as a past failing. I saw an editor wikihounding a vulnerable and upset fellow editor, and I saw a policy or guideline for admin behavior (I later found it was only "essay") premised on a suicide metaphor and I responded too sharply to both of those.
Now, if you look at my talk page, there's a bunch of longwinded quarreling there. I regret that you have to read any of it to make a determination. I can tell you I didn't want to read it either, or respond to it. Where do they come from, I don't know. An editor MastCell I don't know from Adam pops up at my talkpage to interrogate me about prior accounts, without explanation, and finishes by calling me a liar. There's plenty more catcalling there, I don't think I should be blamed for that, or having to respond to it. I don't want you to have to read it. I never wanted it. It's Usenet-style stuff I want to put behind me and be able to edit again.
The pertinent matter in my view, is evidence of sockpuppeting or "abuse of multiple accounts," this is what I was purportedly blocked for. I never sockpuppeted. I never had "multiple accounts." I had a single previous account that I abandoned because of an outing, and moved on to the current. This is WP:CLEANSTART, which has dual justifications last I checked, one of which is no-fault. I am not required to disclose the name of the previous account. That would defeat a major purpose of WP:CLEANSTART. In my view it would violate WP:FAITH as well, as I have stated I complied with WP:CLEANSTART. To belabor this necessarily a moment more, as my "interpretation" of that policy has been faulted without explanation or alternate interpretation, as well it was alleged that I should've been "low profile" in my cleanstart, I state that in my view I complied with letter and spirit of the policy, and never sought controversy.
Before coming to you I appealed to ArbCom. It declined without explanation to unblock me and stated it would need me to disclose (to it) my pre-cleanstart account. Neither did it place conditions on me, except terms (no IP edits, wait six months) before I could apply to it again, but I am not going to apply to it again, thus its terms are not violated. This is not wikilawyering (it might sound like it) but look at what it said, it's matter of fact. So, you may be inclined to be deferential to ArbCom *but I tell you* it did *not* block me, it only *declined to lift* my block. Any admin can unblock me, entirely in accordance with policy, as far as I can tell. You're not going to risk the ire of ArbCom in my view, you may find yourself at odds with "Timotheus Canens."
Now, I never want to write longwinded detail, but the problem is I've found that admins rely on the allegations and arguments of others and find against me. So I have to address, I guess, the particulars of those that I suppose might work against me. Briefly: BWilkins never made me an offer, unless "give me $50 and I may give you my bicycle is an offer." Nomoskedacity's accusation of 3RR violation does not stand up to scrutiny, I reverted twice, just look at it.
Last, on my block-evading. I've asked you to separate your appraisal of that from the block. I think the way to decide such things is to decide the validity or invalidity of the block, the subsequent block evasion is exacerbated by a valid block, but mitigated by an invalid one, and I'd argue excused by an abusive one. I'm not going to write another novel here about my block evasion, which has been substantial, but I'll say I think it has fallen into two categories: A) seeking lifting of my block, and B) seeking removal of "outing" material at Phoenix Jones (the subject and his representative have asserted this disclosure, on the Internet generally not particularly at Misplaced Pages although that's where it's immediately found via websearch, places him and his family at risk of reprisals from criminals, the response from several other editors has been "the cat's out of the bag" which is a non-policy justification). I hope you do not get sidetracked on this, and that you are rather able to focus whether my block for sockpuppeting and "abuse of multiple accounts" is proper.
Kudpung, thank you for your consideration. You need more answers (about anything) unblock merely my page (or ask here, but then I've got to block evade) and we'll go from there. Colton Cosmic.