Misplaced Pages

User talk:Cognition: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:05, 4 September 2009 editHersfold (talk | contribs)33,142 edits ban appeal declined; checkuser confirms you have been evading your block on eight other accounts← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:31, 19 September 2024 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,328 edits →Restore TPA: Replythanks. Still no response.Tag: Reply 
(71 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
]<center><code><small>''Eternal gratitude to a hero, peacemaker, and martyr </code></small></center>
{{Unblock reviewed|Please unblock my account. I apologize for past disturbances causes by my overly aggressive behavior. I want to start contributing to this website again; and I am prepared to use a more civil tone toward other editors. ] (])
|decline=Sorry for the delay in dealing with this; those on hold templates tend to get forgotten on occasion.<br>I am declining this for now, because it seems the general consensus at was that you can be unblocked if you agree to certain conditions (which I note you have below). These conditions (based on what was suggested there, and what you've agreed to below) will include:
#You are restricted to the use of a single account, which may be checked by Checkuser without notice
#You are subject to a civility restriction
#You will have a mentor for as long as the community considers it necessary; traditionally, mentorship programs last for about a year, so we'll go with that for now, although your mentor may start a discussion on AN if they feel it can be ended early or needs to be extended.
#You are expected to abide by the ] policy at all times. While the ban placed at ] is no longer in effect, you should take particular care in working in and around those articles.
#Violation of these terms, as determined by your mentor or an uninvolved administrator, may result in immediate reinstatement of your indefinite block, or a block of shorter length at the blocker's discretion.
Please confirm acceptance of these terms below; if you have comments about any of them, please let us know and we'll consider modifying them as appropriate. I would also ask you to look into finding a mentor via email; when you find one, please ask them to post to this page confirming their willingness to do so. If you are unable to find a mentor yourself, ] and I will start an AN discussion requesting one; failing that, I may ask ArbCom to assign one. I unfortunately am already serving as a mentor, and so am not available to do so here. Once you have completed all of the above (confirming acceptance/finding a mentor), please post a new unblock request below. ] <small>]</small><sup>(]/]/])</sup> 14:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)}}


]<center><code><small>'' '' Imagine facing the question respecting that mortal life, asking, "Was that life necessary in the total scheme of the universe and the existence of mankind, was it necessary that I be born in order to lead that life, the sum total of that number of years between birth and death? Did I do something, or did my living represent something, which was positively beneficial to present generations, and implicitly to future generations after me?" If so, then I should have walked through that life with joy, knowing that every moment was precious to all mankind, because what I was doing by living was something that was needed by all mankind, something beneficial to all mankind.' '' -- [https://larouchepac.com/ Lyndon H. LaRouche, economist, philosopher, statesman, scientific thinker</code></small></center>
:I have raised the issue at . Lets see where the discussion leads us. Please await community consensus. --].].] 05:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
::To respond to some of that discussion, I am very sorry about what happened in the past. I do believe that I "get" Misplaced Pages now. I will cooperate in returning under a civility probation and/or mentorship, as one of the contributors proposed. ] (]) 16:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


<center><code><small>MARTIN LUTHER KING AND LYNDON LAROUCHE</code></small></center>
{{unblock reviewed|Again, I highly apologize for my actions which led to this block. I would like to return as a constructive contributor; and I will be willing to go though a mentorship program or probation. Please unblock my account. ] (]) 23:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)|decline=This request is on hold; see my comments at the bottom of the page. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 05:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)}}
------------


]
:Such terms were offered above. Do you agree to these? Also, have you found a user willing to be your mentor? ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 01:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
::I agree to the terms. I will accept anyone in good standing who offers. I will appreciate it if you offer. ] (]) 02:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


{{unblock reviewed | 1=Now that LaRouche has passed, Misplaced Pages's punitive arbitration rulings against him should be null and void. My account was banned due to disputes stemming from those rulings. Please unblock my account. My first order of business would be helping to improve the Lyndon LaRouche article to give a more balanced accounting of his legacy. ] (]) 16:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC) | decline = You were blocked for "disruption, harassment, personal attacks, multiple violation of arbcom rulings, no or very few useful contributions" but haven't really addressed most of that. Note that you are also banned, not blocked, so any unban discussion would have to go to the community. Please keep that in mind; your unblock request will be copied over to an admin noticeboard for community discussion, so needs to fully address the reasons for your block. For future reviewers, note that this is mostly a procedural decline. I'm declining on the basis this is a ban, not a block, and there's not enough justification for unbanning here, to consider copying it over to an admin noticeboard. It's not a ruling on the merits of unbanning. ] (]) 16:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)}}
*The thread at ] seemed to have a variety of opinions. One editor said that if the user is unblocked then there should be a topic ban to cover the problem issues. Another asked for evidence that the user now "gets it". Is there any such evidence? Does the user realize which behaviors led to his block and why they were wrong? Is Herfold willing to add a topic ban to these unblock terms? (if so, I'd suggest that it include articles related to LaRouche and his critics.) &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 22:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
**Again, I understand that my behavior on this site was uncivil, disruptive, and inappropriate. Further, I apologize for having been rude to you in particular in the past. I "get it now"; and I will appreciate any guidance or 'mentorship' from a more senior contributor. ] (]) 06:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
**:And you will, of course, stay away from all LaRouche-related topics, and you will resist the urge to insert LaRouchia POV into articles? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
**::Yes, I will follow the arbcom rulings and work in good faith to follow the encyclopedia's editorial guidelines. ] (]) 01:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


*And I seriously doubt that Mr. LaRouche's death will have a salutary effect on your editing and interactions. On the contrary, the subtext is that you now feel it grants you a ''carte blanche'' because you believe BLP and your sanctions no longer apply. I might consider an unblock w/ a ] on LaRouche in particular and post-1932 US politics in general. You also in no way have given any meaningful assurance that problems will not recur and you have not described what constructive edits you might make. ] ] 16:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
**::I've no aversion to a topic ban being placed; I think a previous one has already expired, though.
**::Cognition, as I said above, I'm not currently available to be your mentor, sorry. You should try finding one and contacting them via email before you are unblocked. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
**:::I hope to establish a dialogue with anyone montitoring this discussion. This is the only page I can edit, and thus discuss the conditions of an unblock. That being said, this is at least the only page I can edit without, of course, creating multiple accounts, which is a bad practice from which I will refrain. ] (]) 01:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


{{unblock reviewed |1=I sincerely apologise for all the disruption I've caused, and those usernames that were reported as confirmed in 2009 were all operated by me. I've been struggling with stress and mental health issues which impaired my judgment. It has been a long time since I last edited here. I promise to stick to this and one account only, and my focus will be on adding information and copy-editing, and staying away from contentious areas, including LaRouche and politics. ] (]) 15:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC) |decline = We will not consider an unblock request from a sockpuppet. Please sign in with your original account, or make a request on your own talk page. I will go block your account in a moment. ] (]) 15:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)}}
***In the interests of moving things forward, I'm going to post an open request on ] to see if anyone is willing to mentor you. Normally I might try to use ] but in this case, you need a mentor with admin powers. ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Ok, there is an editor who has volunteered to be a mentor, provided you agree to an indefinite ] from editing about Lyndon LaRouche, broadly construed (that is, any topics remotely related to Lyndon LaRouche), including talk pages. Hersfold was, in good faith, rather more lenient than the community: I don't feel that you're going to be able to find a mentor under the conditions he proposed. So you should let us know if you are willing to accept Hersfold's terms plus the indefinite Lyndon LaRouche & related topics topic ban. ]]<sup>]</sup> 14:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::I believe the arbcom decision already included a permanent topic ban on my edits to articles in the LaRouche Movement category and associated talk pages. I will obey that decision; therefore, I will not edit those articles or the talk pages. In order words, yes, I will follow the indefinite ban on my editing pages on the LaRouche Movement. ] (]) 03:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Also, I will refrain from posting my negative opinions about living people on my user page, as I did on the old gallery on my user page. (Though I may not be a fan of Dick Cheney or the others!) I respect the fact that the site has "living persons" policy now protecting it from liable suits. I will respect that policy in all pages—talk pages, user pages, and articles. ] (]) 04:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


== please post your arguments ==
::::Before we go any further with this, I have a question in relation to unblock term 1 above. Are you ''absolutely certain'' that you are not currently using any alternate accounts to evade your block? If you are, what are they, and are they currently blocked? Additionally, can we have a listing of all accounts you have previously used prior to your current block? ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::No, I am not currently using alternate accounts. At one point I did create an alternate account in the past couple of years; and I regret doing so. Will Beback blocked that account a while back. ] (]) 03:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


for unbanning below so they may be carried over to ]. ] ] 16:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
::::::Two questions: What was the name of alternate account? Are you willing to observe a topic ban on articles about LaRouche's heroes, opponents, critics, or targets? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 04:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Noosphere. ... I will try in good faith to not participate in articles on the LaRouche Movement. Now anyone LaRouche has ever commented written about is quite broad. I'd worry about editing an article, having no idea LaRouche wrote on the subject, then finding myself violating my commitments here. A think a more enforceable guideline would be refraining from making any reverts on any article. ] (]) 04:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC) :I pledge to follow all Misplaced Pages policies. My arguments consist of my pledge, plus the fact that Mr. LaRouche has passed away, and that more than a decade has passed since my ban. I have learned my lesson after nearly 13 years. ] (]) 02:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
::{{ping|yamla}} Would you care to carry the request to ]. I'm just plain out of time. ] ] 04:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::::LaRouche crtics are easy to define, though. I will not edit pages like ] or ]. Basically, I will not touch any article where Lyndon LaRouche could possibly be mentioned. Nor will I use any sources from publications associated with the LaRouche Movement. I have matured; and I have no interest in "disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point." ] (]) 05:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Cognition, there's zero chance the community will sanction an unblock given the above statement. It's nowhere near sufficient and doesn't come close to addressing your violations. Are you absolutely sure this is what you want to use for your unban appeal? I'm afraid if I copy this across, I'll be sanctioned for wasting people's time. --] (]) 11:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
::::What do you suggest? I'm not sure how to address my violations other than to acknowledge and apologize. Yes, I used to relish in antagonizing Mr. LaRouche's political opponents on this site. Misplaced Pages is not the proper arena for that; and, again, yes, I do understand that for moving forward. Despite that, I did make a number of useful contributions, of which I am quite proud, especially my contributions on the Martin Luther King article. ] (]) 11:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::You were blocked for "disruption, harassment, personal attacks, multiple violation of arbcom rulings, no or very few useful contributions". You need to address '''all''' of those points. You also need to address the concerns that, just because Mr. LaRouche has passed away, we don't believe this will meaningfully change your edits. Finally, are you willing to abide by a topic ban on Mr. LaRouche and on post-1932 US politics? --] (]) 12:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
::::::Yes, I will meaningfully change my edits, especially being careful to avoid BLP violations on public figures I oppose. I would like to return to editing topics related to Mr. LaRouche and contemporary U.S. politics, but understand I may have to go through a period where I prove myself before editing any potentially contentious subject matter. ] (]) 12:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::::That's nowhere near close to addressing your problematic edits and I'm unwilling to copy that request to the admin noticeboard because of ]. You are welcome to step back, think through your previous behaviour, and write a new paragraph addressing each of the points in turn. --] (]) 14:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
::::::::Okay, will do. ] (]) 14:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::Here is my point by point response to everything cited in the ban.
:::::::::*I am aware of my past disruptive behavior. I felt that there were a number of anti-LaRouche editors and administrators who used their positions of power and influence to push their political agendas. I wanted to protest their influence. Even though I strongly feel I was right in principle, what I did to ] impeded improvement of the encyclopedia, and did nothing to help. I apologize.


:::::::::Cognition, thank you for your honesty at this time. Reviewing ]'s contributions, you edited articles related to global warming, a topic of interest to LaRouche, as well as articles like Robert Mugabe, Felix Rohatyn, José López Portillo, Augusto Pinochet, Vladimir Putin, Mahathir bin Mohamad, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Alexander Lukashenko, and Rafael Correa, which are also related to LaRouche. I'd feel more confortable if you avoided editing any topic on which LaRouche has expressed strong opinions. I also see that you edit warred over several of those articles, and joined a sock of Herschelkrustofsky in editing the Mugabe article, in what could be considered "team editing". I also see that you were very aggressive in your talk page postings, including expressing outrage when you were identified, by several different users, as a returning editor or sock. May I ask just what it is that you are hoping to do if you return to editing here? &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 05:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::All those topics mentioned above are not subjects of current LaRouche Movement campaigns. I hope to avoid accusations of "team editing" by limiting myself to not even just one revert, but to ''any'' revert. To be honest I want to focus first on copyediting and style. A lot of articles are informative, but not composed in the best of ways. ] (]) 12:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
::I'm not sure I understand your reply. Were those topics the subject of LaRouche Movment campaigns at the time? What about the current LaRouche Movement campaigns, like health care and Obama?
::Also, I have to say that after reading The Noosphere repeatedly deny being a sock puppet and especialy deny being you, it's harder to extend trust.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
::In these comments you threaten other editors yet say you are being threatened when a 3RR warning is placed on your talk page. You accuse other people of assuming bad faith for asking if you've had a previous account while exhibiting bad faith by using a sock puppet and lying about it. Despite the fact that it was obvious that this was your sock, and that you'd been edit warring across several topics, you suggest that you were being blocked just for your political views. All of that drama. And now you say you want to come back just to do copyediting? In 2008 you even wrote that you supported your own ban, which is unusual but perhaps insightful.
::Many editors who are banned take the opportunity to prove that they've changed their disruptive behaviors by working on a sister project, such as ] or ]. I suggest that would be a good route if you are sincere about wanting to help the project. &nbsp; <b>]&nbsp; ]&nbsp; </b> 18:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


:::::::::*Yes, I stalked and harassed a number of those anti-LaRouche users as well, and was wrong. Following and reverting their contributions to get them riled up did nothing to improve the encyclopedia in the short or long run. I apologize.
:::I am very, very sorry for what I have done in the past. Therefore, I chose to come clean. Please, let me have another chance. I will prove myself to the community. And if anyone has his doubts, it just takes seconds to block me again anyway. ] (]) 01:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::*Yes, I attacked users like SlimVirgin, Chip Berlet, Adam Carr, 172, etc. because I felt they used their influence in Misplaced Pages to promote their POV. Misplaced Pages is not the venue for such battles. I did feel they were attacking me with impunity. Rather than attacking back, I should have sought proper dispute resolution channels. I was wrong and apologize.
:::::::::*Yes, I knowingly disregarded various arbcom rulings. Again, I felt those rulings were politically motivated and hurt Misplaced Pages's mission to report on the sum of all human knowledge. Rather than ignoring the rulings, I should have followed proper channels for appealing them. I apologize.
:::::::::*Regarding the 'no or very few useful contributions' point, I disagree. I feel I made quite a few excellent edits. But I can see why the community felt that way, since I did frankly make a lot of disruptive edits I knew very well would just get quickly reverted. I apologize.
:::::::::In sum I ask the community to accept my apologies and give me another chance to improve the encyclopedia. 13 years is a long time; and I feel I have already served my time of punishment! ] (]) 21:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
::::@] I don't know if there was a discussion at AN about this yet. But I have to mention that not giving someone a second chance after 13 YEARS sounds completely unreasonable to me. <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">]</span> ] 19:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I am not available to work on this till Tuesday. If no one beats me to it, I'll work on it then. ] ] 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
:Sigh. Have you edited while not logged in over the last 6 months? If so, you might wish to try again in 6 months (without editing while logged out or socking in the interim). ] ] 05:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


::::Are you entirely sure you've come clean, or is there something else you'd like to tell us? ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 03:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::That's it. With Noosphere I attempted to return in a dishonest manner and, again, I regret that. Hence, I am trying to return here using the proper process, despite having to deal with the baggage from the past. ] (]) 18:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


==Unblock request==
::::::No, that's not it. A few days ago I ran a checkuser on your account to double-check for any alternate accounts - standard procedure for ban appeals from those accused of socking. Noosphere was too old to show up on that, however I did come across several other accounts.

::::::It is {{confirmed}} through technical evidence that you have been using the following accounts in evasion of your site ban. This has been double-checked and confirmed by several other checkusers:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I just found out that the admin who unilaterally blocked me is ]. No one notified me the entire time. May God spare her soul. With that said, it's now past due to reconsider the ban against me. My ban was previously rendered irrelevant by the passing of Lyndon LaRouche, who tragically left us back in 2019. While I was an editor, the arbitration committee sanctioned the use of sources from any scientific, journalistic, and scholarly organizations to which Mr. LaRouche contributed. Though my edits to LaRouche-related articles were minimal, I was targeted by the admin in question because I posted one or two comments on my userpage favorable to Mr. LaRouche , amid a plethora of other content. Yes, I made some mistakes (for which I have already apologized publicly), but I am ready to resume my outstanding contributions, such as my work on the Martin Luther King article. While long overdue, now that Mr. LaRouche and the blocking admin in question are gone, I ask the community to move on and lift the ban against me. Please lift my ban. Respectfully, ] (]) 17:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC) |decline = As per {{Diff||diff=1147990916}}, your unban request was declined unanimously and with ]. I'm sorry to say, this is the end of the line for you on en.wikipedia. ] (]) 12:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)}}
::::::#{{checkuser|Mrs. Breedlove}}
You still need to address the specific points of the block; it appears you tried to do so above. Is this the statement you would like copied to ](perhaps combined with your point-by-point comments above)? ] (]) 20:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::#{{checkuser|Throbbing Stallion}}
:Yes, please and thank you for your assistance with this request. I am eager to get back, finally. ] (]) 17:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::#{{checkuser|Donitapace}}
::I have transferred it. ] (]) 21:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
::::::#{{checkuser|Tha-HGIsrqNA}}

::::::#{{checkuser|Fidelismo}}
{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello all, I regret that my last request rubbed people the wrong way. Buy it has been almost a year; and I'd like to try again. This time I would like to make clear that I do not intend to resume the same tactics that triggered my ban nearly two decades ago. Please lift the ban so that I can get back to work making Misplaced Pages a better site for all involved. ] (]) 19:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC) |decline = Your request was declined with prejudice. The community will no longer hear your unblock request and no individual admin is free to lift your ban. I suppose you are free to appeal to ] if you wish. ] (]) 20:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::#{{checkuser|Ted H John}}
}}
::::::#{{checkuser|AlcockMarine}}

::::::#{{checkuser|172}}
Can you let it go to a vote? That was almost a year ago; and I said I regret that my last request rubbed people the wrong way. ] (]) 20:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::For this reason, your ban appeal is hereby declined, and I have blocked all of those accounts indefinitely. Any further attempts to appeal your ban should be addressed directly to the Arbitration Committee at {{NoSpamEmail|arbcom-l|lists.wikimedia.org}}. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 23:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
:No. It was closed with prejudice. The community will no longer hear your request. --] (]) 20:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::But now that I think about it, reading over the request I wrote last year, maybe I didn't help my cause brining up SlimVirgin, which might have triggered a sympathy vote against me. This time I won't mention her. Why after 18 years I'm still not given another chance is beyond me. ] (]) 21:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Your avenue of appeal is to go to ArbCom. ] (]) 21:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::(ec) The community decided, on your last request, that this was the end of the line for community discussion around your block. That's why that venue is not open to you now. Only ] is open to you now. --] (]) 21:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::How do I do that? I can only edit this page. 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::Email them according to the directions given at ]. ArbCom, if you are reading this, I see no evidence of recent block evasion based on CU data. --] (]) 21:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::Cognition, @], and @] Arbcom only hear CBAN appeals for when "there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure" (]); as far as I can tell there are no serious or raised concerns about the ban's validity, so an appeal is out of our scope. ]] 03:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I understand, though the user seems to feel that way(regardless of their accuracy). If ArbCom had determined there is nothing for them to resolve, this is the end of the line. ] (]) 07:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks for clarifying, Moneytrees. I concur with 331dot. Cognition, this is the end of the line. You have no further options. --] (]) 10:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|decline=Your request was declined with prejudice. The community will no longer hear your unblock request and no individual admin is free to lift your ban. I suppose you are free to appeal to WP:ARBCOM if you wish. Talk page access revoked. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)|1=no reason provided}} In light of the recent presidential debate here in America, which has led many to question their blind adherence to false mainstream media nostrum once considered unquestionable, I appeal once again to reverse my nearly two decade old block. It will just take one admin with the guts and courage. Please lift my block! The encyclopedia will be better for it. ] (]) 01:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
<div class="user-block blocked-talk-revoked" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px">
] '''Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an ] has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.'''
<span class="plainlinks" style="font-size:88%;">( • • • • ]<span class="sysop-show"> • ]</span> • • <span class="sysop-show"> • ] • </span><span class="checkuser-show"> • ], unblock request}}}} checkuser] ()</span>) </span>
{{clear}}
----
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the ], then contact administrators by submitting a request to the '']''. <br><small>Please note that there could be appeals to the ] that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.</small><p></p></div><!-- Template:Blocked talk-revoked-notice -->
_________
{{user Platonist Wikipedians}}
{{User:Xoloz/UBX/Template User Drug-free}}

== "CBAN with prejudice" ==

] (]) 15:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

== Restore TPA ==

{{ping|Jpgordon }} User wants me to carry latest UTRS to AN to request unbanning. Did not realize you removed talk page access in July. Thoughts? ] (]) 23:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

:I don't imagine much better response to any request than than the one you linked to above. "With prejudice" generally means STFU. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::DFO and I had a little discussion on IRC a few days ago about this and when El C's name popped up on my watchlist I thought it worth asking about his intent with the close, not having realized this conversation existed. Anyhow here's a ] but the bottomline of El C as closer wasn't to forbid any future appeals ever. I will also repeat, as I did there, that the last appeal I saw from this year did not inspire confidence or make me want to see them unblocked but as a matter of fairness (and precedent) want to be clear on what the intent of that close was. ] (]) 22:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
:::A sincere thanks, Barkeep49, for following up to clarify that statement. --] (]) 22:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Will likely carry their appeal over today. {{ping|Yamla|jpgordon}} ] (]) 16:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::per <span class="plainlinks"></span>, restoring talk page access in anticipation of carrying unblock request to the community and to request affirmation that the person at utrs is cognition. ] (]) 05:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Will need a check user once the appeal gets going ] (]) 05:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Awaiting response here or at UTRS. ] (]) 15:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Appellant unresponsive awaiting response here. Utrs ticket marked expired ] (]) 18:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Happy to do a CU to (hopefully) confirm no recent block evasion, if the user prepares their unban request. If another CU beats me to it, that's fine as well of course. --] (]) 22:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::thanks. Still no response. ] (]) 22:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:31, 19 September 2024

Martin Luther King: great man who followed in the imitation of Christ, to spend his mortal life wisely, for the sake of the betterment of future humanity
Martin Luther King: great man who followed in the imitation of Christ, to spend his mortal life wisely, for the sake of the betterment of future humanity
Eternal gratitude to a hero, peacemaker, and martyr
Martin Luther King: great man who followed in the imitation of Christ, to spend his mortal life wisely, for the sake of the betterment of future humanity
Martin Luther King: great man who followed in the imitation of Christ, to spend his mortal life wisely, for the sake of the betterment of future humanity
Imagine facing the question respecting that mortal life, asking, "Was that life necessary in the total scheme of the universe and the existence of mankind, was it necessary that I be born in order to lead that life, the sum total of that number of years between birth and death? Did I do something, or did my living represent something, which was positively beneficial to present generations, and implicitly to future generations after me?" If so, then I should have walked through that life with joy, knowing that every moment was precious to all mankind, because what I was doing by living was something that was needed by all mankind, something beneficial to all mankind.' -- [https://larouchepac.com/ Lyndon H. LaRouche, economist, philosopher, statesman, scientific thinker
MARTIN LUTHER KING AND LYNDON LAROUCHE
Lyndon LaRouche, the modern day Socrates, in memorium
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).

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

Request reason:

Now that LaRouche has passed, Misplaced Pages's punitive arbitration rulings against him should be null and void. My account was banned due to disputes stemming from those rulings. Please unblock my account. My first order of business would be helping to improve the Lyndon LaRouche article to give a more balanced accounting of his legacy. Cognition (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blocked for "disruption, harassment, personal attacks, multiple violation of arbcom rulings, no or very few useful contributions" but haven't really addressed most of that. Note that you are also banned, not blocked, so any unban discussion would have to go to the community. Please keep that in mind; your unblock request will be copied over to an admin noticeboard for community discussion, so needs to fully address the reasons for your block. For future reviewers, note that this is mostly a procedural decline. I'm declining on the basis this is a ban, not a block, and there's not enough justification for unbanning here, to consider copying it over to an admin noticeboard. It's not a ruling on the merits of unbanning. Yamla (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2019 (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.

  • And I seriously doubt that Mr. LaRouche's death will have a salutary effect on your editing and interactions. On the contrary, the subtext is that you now feel it grants you a carte blanche because you believe BLP and your sanctions no longer apply. I might consider an unblock w/ a TBAN on LaRouche in particular and post-1932 US politics in general. You also in no way have given any meaningful assurance that problems will not recur and you have not described what constructive edits you might make. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

I sincerely apologise for all the disruption I've caused, and those usernames that were reported as confirmed in 2009 were all operated by me. I've been struggling with stress and mental health issues which impaired my judgment. It has been a long time since I last edited here. I promise to stick to this and one account only, and my focus will be on adding information and copy-editing, and staying away from contentious areas, including LaRouche and politics. Cognition (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We will not consider an unblock request from a sockpuppet. Please sign in with your original account, or make a request on your own talk page. I will go block your account in a moment. Yamla (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2022 (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.

please post your arguments

for unbanning below so they may be carried over to WP:AN. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I pledge to follow all Misplaced Pages policies. My arguments consist of my pledge, plus the fact that Mr. LaRouche has passed away, and that more than a decade has passed since my ban. I have learned my lesson after nearly 13 years. Cognition (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yamla: Would you care to carry the request to WP:AN. I'm just plain out of time. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Cognition, there's zero chance the community will sanction an unblock given the above statement. It's nowhere near sufficient and doesn't come close to addressing your violations. Are you absolutely sure this is what you want to use for your unban appeal? I'm afraid if I copy this across, I'll be sanctioned for wasting people's time. --Yamla (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
What do you suggest? I'm not sure how to address my violations other than to acknowledge and apologize. Yes, I used to relish in antagonizing Mr. LaRouche's political opponents on this site. Misplaced Pages is not the proper arena for that; and, again, yes, I do understand that for moving forward. Despite that, I did make a number of useful contributions, of which I am quite proud, especially my contributions on the Martin Luther King article. Cognition (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
You were blocked for "disruption, harassment, personal attacks, multiple violation of arbcom rulings, no or very few useful contributions". You need to address all of those points. You also need to address the concerns that, just because Mr. LaRouche has passed away, we don't believe this will meaningfully change your edits. Finally, are you willing to abide by a topic ban on Mr. LaRouche and on post-1932 US politics? --Yamla (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I will meaningfully change my edits, especially being careful to avoid BLP violations on public figures I oppose. I would like to return to editing topics related to Mr. LaRouche and contemporary U.S. politics, but understand I may have to go through a period where I prove myself before editing any potentially contentious subject matter. Cognition (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
That's nowhere near close to addressing your problematic edits and I'm unwilling to copy that request to the admin noticeboard because of WP:SNOW. You are welcome to step back, think through your previous behaviour, and write a new paragraph addressing each of the points in turn. --Yamla (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, will do. Cognition (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Here is my point by point response to everything cited in the ban.
  • I am aware of my past disruptive behavior. I felt that there were a number of anti-LaRouche editors and administrators who used their positions of power and influence to push their political agendas. I wanted to protest their influence. Even though I strongly feel I was right in principle, what I did to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point impeded improvement of the encyclopedia, and did nothing to help. I apologize.


  • Yes, I stalked and harassed a number of those anti-LaRouche users as well, and was wrong. Following and reverting their contributions to get them riled up did nothing to improve the encyclopedia in the short or long run. I apologize.
  • Yes, I attacked users like SlimVirgin, Chip Berlet, Adam Carr, 172, etc. because I felt they used their influence in Misplaced Pages to promote their POV. Misplaced Pages is not the venue for such battles. I did feel they were attacking me with impunity. Rather than attacking back, I should have sought proper dispute resolution channels. I was wrong and apologize.
  • Yes, I knowingly disregarded various arbcom rulings. Again, I felt those rulings were politically motivated and hurt Misplaced Pages's mission to report on the sum of all human knowledge. Rather than ignoring the rulings, I should have followed proper channels for appealing them. I apologize.
  • Regarding the 'no or very few useful contributions' point, I disagree. I feel I made quite a few excellent edits. But I can see why the community felt that way, since I did frankly make a lot of disruptive edits I knew very well would just get quickly reverted. I apologize.
In sum I ask the community to accept my apologies and give me another chance to improve the encyclopedia. 13 years is a long time; and I feel I have already served my time of punishment! Cognition (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Yamla I don't know if there was a discussion at AN about this yet. But I have to mention that not giving someone a second chance after 13 YEARS sounds completely unreasonable to me. Thinker78 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I am not available to work on this till Tuesday. If no one beats me to it, I'll work on it then. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Have you edited while not logged in over the last 6 months? If so, you might wish to try again in 6 months (without editing while logged out or socking in the interim). Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I just found out that the admin who unilaterally blocked me is no longer active on Misplaced Pages. No one notified me the entire time. May God spare her soul. With that said, it's now past due to reconsider the ban against me. My ban was previously rendered irrelevant by the passing of Lyndon LaRouche, who tragically left us back in 2019. While I was an editor, the arbitration committee sanctioned the use of sources from any scientific, journalistic, and scholarly organizations to which Mr. LaRouche contributed. Though my edits to LaRouche-related articles were minimal, I was targeted by the admin in question because I posted one or two comments on my userpage favorable to Mr. LaRouche , amid a plethora of other content. Yes, I made some mistakes (for which I have already apologized publicly), but I am ready to resume my outstanding contributions, such as my work on the Martin Luther King article. While long overdue, now that Mr. LaRouche and the blocking admin in question are gone, I ask the community to move on and lift the ban against me. Please lift my ban. Respectfully, Cognition (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As per , your unban request was declined unanimously and with prejudice. I'm sorry to say, this is the end of the line for you on en.wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2023 (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.

You still need to address the specific points of the block; it appears you tried to do so above. Is this the statement you would like copied to WP:AN(perhaps combined with your point-by-point comments above)? 331dot (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please and thank you for your assistance with this request. I am eager to get back, finally. Cognition (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I have transferred it. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

Hello all, I regret that my last request rubbed people the wrong way. Buy it has been almost a year; and I'd like to try again. This time I would like to make clear that I do not intend to resume the same tactics that triggered my ban nearly two decades ago. Please lift the ban so that I can get back to work making Misplaced Pages a better site for all involved. Cognition (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your request was declined with prejudice. The community will no longer hear your unblock request and no individual admin is free to lift your ban. I suppose you are free to appeal to WP:ARBCOM if you wish. Yamla (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2024 (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.

Can you let it go to a vote? That was almost a year ago; and I said I regret that my last request rubbed people the wrong way. Cognition (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No. It was closed with prejudice. The community will no longer hear your request. --Yamla (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
But now that I think about it, reading over the request I wrote last year, maybe I didn't help my cause brining up SlimVirgin, which might have triggered a sympathy vote against me. This time I won't mention her. Why after 18 years I'm still not given another chance is beyond me. Cognition (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Your avenue of appeal is to go to ArbCom. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
(ec) The community decided, on your last request, that this was the end of the line for community discussion around your block. That's why that venue is not open to you now. Only WP:ARBCOM is open to you now. --Yamla (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
How do I do that? I can only edit this page. 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC) Cognition (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Email them according to the directions given at WP:ARBCOM. ArbCom, if you are reading this, I see no evidence of recent block evasion based on CU data. --Yamla (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Cognition, @Yamla, and @331dot Arbcom only hear CBAN appeals for when "there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure" (WP:UNBAN); as far as I can tell there are no serious or raised concerns about the ban's validity, so an appeal is out of our scope. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand, though the user seems to feel that way(regardless of their accuracy). If ArbCom had determined there is nothing for them to resolve, this is the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, Moneytrees. I concur with 331dot. Cognition, this is the end of the line. You have no further options. --Yamla (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

no reason provided

Decline reason:

Your request was declined with prejudice. The community will no longer hear your unblock request and no individual admin is free to lift your ban. I suppose you are free to appeal to WP:ARBCOM if you wish. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon 01:39, 2 July 2024 (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.

In light of the recent presidential debate here in America, which has led many to question their blind adherence to false mainstream media nostrum once considered unquestionable, I appeal once again to reverse my nearly two decade old block. It will just take one admin with the guts and courage. Please lift my block! The encyclopedia will be better for it. Cognition (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

_________

This user is a Platonist.
Cannabis prohibited signThis user is drug-free.

"CBAN with prejudice"

Permalink to discussion. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Restore TPA

@Jpgordon: User wants me to carry latest UTRS to AN to request unbanning. Did not realize you removed talk page access in July. Thoughts? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't imagine much better response to any request than than the one you linked to above. "With prejudice" generally means STFU. --jpgordon 00:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
DFO and I had a little discussion on IRC a few days ago about this and when El C's name popped up on my watchlist I thought it worth asking about his intent with the close, not having realized this conversation existed. Anyhow here's a link to that conversation but the bottomline of El C as closer wasn't to forbid any future appeals ever. I will also repeat, as I did there, that the last appeal I saw from this year did not inspire confidence or make me want to see them unblocked but as a matter of fairness (and precedent) want to be clear on what the intent of that close was. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
A sincere thanks, Barkeep49, for following up to clarify that statement. --Yamla (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Will likely carry their appeal over today. @Yamla and Jpgordon: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
per UTRS appeal #92922 , restoring talk page access in anticipation of carrying unblock request to the community and to request affirmation that the person at utrs is cognition. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Will need a check user once the appeal gets going -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Awaiting response here or at UTRS. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Appellant unresponsive awaiting response here. Utrs ticket marked expired -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Happy to do a CU to (hopefully) confirm no recent block evasion, if the user prepares their unban request. If another CU beats me to it, that's fine as well of course. --Yamla (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
thanks. Still no response. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)