User talk:Cognition: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:09, 3 September 2009 editWill Beback (talk \| contribs)112,162 edits issues← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:37, 4 September 2009 edit undoCognition (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users999 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 60:		Line 60:
	::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.		::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.   <b>]  ]  </b> 18:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)		::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.   <b>]  ]  </b> 18:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

			:::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)

	{{red\|'''Do not unblock this account without confirmation from a Checkuser.'''}} An investigation is currently underway to confirm that there is no abusive sockpuppetry continuing in evasion of Cognition's ban. Unfortunately, things are looking a little more complex than I'd hoped. Until the investigation is complete, this ban appeal is on hold pending further information from a checkuser. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 05:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)		{{red\|'''Do not unblock this account without confirmation from a Checkuser.'''}} An investigation is currently underway to confirm that there is no abusive sockpuppetry continuing in evasion of Cognition's ban. Unfortunately, things are looking a little more complex than I'd hoped. Until the investigation is complete, this ban appeal is on hold pending further information from a checkuser. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 05:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:37, 4 September 2009

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:

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. Cognition (talk)

Decline reason:

Sorry for the delay in dealing with this; those on hold templates tend to get forgotten on occasion.
I am declining this for now, because it seems the general consensus at the AN discussion 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 BLP policy at all times. While the ban placed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 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, email me 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. Hersfold non-admin 14:49, 22 July 2009 (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.

I have raised the issue at WP:AN. Lets see where the discussion leads us. Please await community consensus. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 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. Cognition (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

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. Cognition (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This request is on hold; see my comments at the bottom of the page. Hersfold 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? Hersfold 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. Cognition (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive198#User:Cognition requesting unblock 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.) Will Beback talk 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. Cognition (talk) 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? --jpgordon 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. Cognition (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2009 (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. Hersfold 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. Cognition (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

- - In the interests of moving things forward, I'm going to post an open request on WP:AN to see if anyone is willing to mentor you. Normally I might try to use WP:ADOPT but in this case, you need a mentor with admin powers. Mango juice 06:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, there is an editor who has volunteered to be a mentor, provided you agree to an indefinite topic ban 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. Mango juice 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. Cognition (talk) 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. Cognition (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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? Hersfold 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. Cognition (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2009 (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? Will Beback talk 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. Cognition (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche crtics are easy to define, though. I will not edit pages like Dennis King or Chip Berlet. 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." Cognition (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Cognition, thank you for your honesty at this time. Reviewing User:Noosphere'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? Will Beback talk 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. Cognition (talk) 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 Simple English Misplaced Pages or Misplaced Pages:Wikiquote. I suggest that would be a good route if you are sincere about wanting to help the project. Will Beback talk 18:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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. Cognition (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not unblock this account without confirmation from a Checkuser. An investigation is currently underway to confirm that there is no abusive sockpuppetry continuing in evasion of Cognition's ban. Unfortunately, things are looking a little more complex than I'd hoped. Until the investigation is complete, this ban appeal is on hold pending further information from a checkuser. Hersfold 05:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)