Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Becksguy (talk | contribs) at 05:42, 20 May 2009 (→Do tell me: Cmt on Caden; Duck test proves nothing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

To suffer woes which Hope thinks infinite;
To forgive wrongs darker than death or night;
To defy Power, which seems omnipotent;
To love, and bear; to hope till Hope creates
From its own wreck the thing it contemplates;
Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent;
This, like thy glory, Titan, is to be
Good, great and joyous, beautiful and free;
This is alone Life, Joy, Empire, and Victory.
-Shelley: from Prometheus Unbound

Oh dear.

It is a great pity to see you retire; you were well on your way to becoming a valued contributor. I hope that you shall return someday. //roux   03:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Now come back and prove your worth, ok? //roux   05:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes sir. Caden 03:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know if you would be watching here. But I agree that you should get your self back here and edit. Especially since your topicban has expired as of today. Congratulations, Caden, for completing it. — Becksguy (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit man! It's over isn't it? That's super cool! Thanks Becks and yeah I think I'm back here again sort of. Does this mean I'm free to edit as I please? Caden 06:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe you can now edit the topics you were banned from. I will check to make sure that there are no remaining effects from the ban. However, I would strongly caution you to not "edit as you please", as that is what got you in trouble before. Please remember to count to 100 million before responding in anger to anyone (even if they deserve it). I will write up some hints that should help you keep yourself out of trouble. Good luck Caden, and welcome back. I believe you will be a much better editor. — Becksguy (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks man and please look into the possibility of any effects (if there are any) concerning my former ban. And yes sir, I will be cautious regarding future edits. Your suggestion for a list of hints is a good idea. If you can help me to stay away from any trouble with other editors, I'd appreciate that. Thanks for believing in me and for your positive support. Caden 08:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Please hold on before editing any topicban areas, I may have spoken too soon. See: — Becksguy (talk) 09:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no, not another ANI please. I don't stand a chance man. Can't we request a RfC instead? At least this way I feel I will have a fair chance. If more editors from all over the project who never interacted with me personally before get involved, then a more neutral and unbiased view can help. I want to be treated fairly. It's all I ask. I followed my topic ban, I stayed away from certain articles and my ban expired. Why must I go through more punishment? ANI's are horrible. My ban ended so why can't I be free? Caden 10:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for another ANI. See the note on your topic ban page. Black Kite 10:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, relax Caden. It's official now, the topicban is over. But forgive me for making sure as the last thing I wanted was to give you bad advice. All is cool now. Later. — Becksguy (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries Becks. Your advice was excellent and I can't thank you enough man. Caden 12:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Caden. However, please listen to this advice. I suggest you disengage from Bugs, or tone down the comments, as it's borderline uncivil, and dollars to donuts, someone will see it as more than borderline and report it as a WP:CIVIL violation. Ricky has already issued a warning. Please don't get into trouble again. It took a lot to get through the ban, and neither of us wants to travel that road again, or even think about it. Go back to the articles you love to work on. You can send me an email if you want. — Becksguy (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes sir, will do. Advice taken. I don't want any trouble. I'm sorry for disappointing you. I promise you Becks that I will work extra hard to not let you down. Can we please talk off wiki about something? Caden 22:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

KeltieMartinFan and Wikiquette

87.69.176.81 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you for your input. Please see the latest issue I've been having with them – some people are trying to close down this discussion and move it into the piles of the previous discussion (although the issues are somewhat different) here. I'll appreciate your positive interference. 87.69.176.81 (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I love cookies! And you're welcome for my input. I just posted my thoughts on the ANI thread. I hope that helps. Good luck. Caden 12:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I replied at my talk page

–Juliancolton |  14:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes sir I saw that. However, you still could have posted that you fixed a typo instead of making me look like a fool. By you failing to do so was unacceptable. Don't do that again okay? Caden 09:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's my fault that you didn't check the most recent post? I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you're mistaken. Regards, –Juliancolton |  13:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My two cents

As to the mess, I'll just say this (and forgive me for being cliche): blocks are preventative, not punitive and in theory during the last year he's been here, nobody else has told him to stop. Although I agree he's a bully and a jerk, others have officially taken to warning him on his page, so it would be wheel-warring for me to roughshod them with further threats and even a block. I don't know why people want to act like because he's fighting vandals he gets to say whatever he wants (and we get to assume good faith) but that's typical around here. The last idiot I was arguing with was saying he was just joking with his insults and he should be allowed to rant wherever he wants. I told him to knock it off and another admin tells me to be nice to him, so I just say I won't deal with him anymore (even if he doesn't look like he will). That's typical. I'm watching his page, told the IP he can tell me if he starts again and will tell you the same (even via email). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes sir, they claim blocks are not punitive, but let's be honest, they are and so are bans. I should know. In regards to Keltie, yup he's a bully alright but so is Baseball Bugs. Why is Bugs allowed to continue harassing the IP? Why does Bugs get away with so much on wiki? When will his abuse stop? What he does is a form of abuse. Anyways, I'm happy to see that your watching Keltie. You're a good man Ricky and there should be more honest and fair admins like you. You've treated the IP editor with good faith and respect which others have failed to do. Caden 11:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As to most points, it's because, regardless of the claims against it, there is still a second-class of citizenry here. As for me, when you work in the Eastern European articles for a few months, you get used to dealing with lots of new users, and that's one thing we need to get back to helping. I think it comes from focusing more on content (and images actually) rather than on playing with the vandals. When I started (wow, almost 5 years now), the problem was getting content and organizing this place, not nonsensical drama. We needed all the content we could get. How much has changed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Correction: he used to treat me OK, but unfortunately, he happened to give me the friendly advice to let go about half a second after I completely lost it. Needless to say, I wasn't in the condition to take the advice so now Ricky hates me as well. As you can see, I'm frequently changing IP's until I can figure out how I survive here.

Thank you again. Seriously. I just wish more people could look at situations as adequately as you do.

One more thought: regarding Ricky's "second-class citizenry" remark, I'm glad someone's not afraid to openly admit it. While Misplaced Pages claims to be a civil and respectful community, it is in fact a double-standarded bureaucratic zoo that runs on politics. I see no solution for now, do you? 87.69.57.241 (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No dude, Ricky does not hate you. He's one of the very few good admins on wikipedia and his history shows that. It's a bloody shame man that you didn't take his advice and it's a pity to see the situation you're currently in. I still believe you can be a productive editor. I also believe in second and third chances, but you must listen man to good guys like Ricky who want and can help. I don't know if it's too late for you or not. But yes, Misplaced Pages runs on politics but so does the real world. Although it's not fair, it's just a fact of life. Maybe you should talk to Ricky off wiki? I don't know what else to tell you. Sorry. Caden 13:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

My "second-class" remark was about reality here, not about my beliefs here. Base what you think of me on my conduct, not what you think I'm saying. To the anonymous editors, feel free to email me if you wish. As to the other individual, I probably annoyed him more by simply questioning him about the other article (I actually didn't put two and two together, it really was somewhat random) than anything else, but what can you do about it. My edits are completely over the place most of the time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I know it was about reality here and thank you again for "telling it like it is." By the way, how do I get around to e-mailing you? 87.69.176.215 (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

On the left side of the user or talk page, you may see a link that says "E-mail this user" if the user's email address is set. I see CadenS has his as do I. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an account so I don't have this option. I'm blocked so I can't create an account (technically I can, but I don't wish to keep violating it although you seem to believe otherwise). Again, I am sincerely asking for your help here. I'm not a vandal, just a misguided and hot-tempered contributor. 87.69.176.215 (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please help

Dude, this is a new record. Not only have they caused two accounts that are completely unrelated to me to get indefinitely blocked, they talk trash and keep bringing up fake "evidence," but when I prove them wrong they shut me up, thus making it seem "true." Which century is it??? 87.69.176.215 (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I say WP:RBI and move on. For someone who claims to want to prove them wrong, he's sure doing a good job of proving them right. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on Talk:Carrie Prejean

Is wholly inappropriate, Caden. I know you had an adopter/mentor before; perhaps you should consult that person again. As we've discussed at great length before, article talk pages are not the place for personal remarks. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No sir, I'm sorry but you are incorrect. I made no personal remarks. I reminded you of our NPOV policy and that I agreed with the other editor. You continue to remove content by User:InaMaka, content that is reliably sourced and NPOV. I completely agree with that editor's posts on the Carrie Prejean talk page concerning your behavior. It's inappropriate so please stop. Furthermore, I support the good mainspace edits that InaMaka has made to the article. Please focus on the content and not on other editors. Caden 22:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking you to consider your statements and actions in view of your recent topic ban. Similarly, edit summaries clearly aimed at other editors such as "No, "lover" implies that O'Dare was his personal whore and she was not. O'Dare was Hamilton's girlfriend" are incivil, as you well know. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As God as my witness, I swear I was not being incivil with the edit summary on Raymond Hamilton's page. Your judgement of me is personally offensive and assumes bad faith. Caden 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of offending you but come on, since when has "lover" equaled "personal whore"? Exploding Boy (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You have assumed bad faith, you have made incivil comments and now you threaten me? Your behavior is unacceptable. I do not take kindly to your threat sir, such as the statement you made above concerning my former topic ban. Please stop. Focus on content and not on other editors. Please also remember to read WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. Once again, stop removing content from the Carrie Prejean article that is reliably sourced and NPOV. Stop reverting and please stop being distruptive. Furthermore, I do not wish to hear from you again. Your comments in regards to me are highly offensive and I consider them to be personal attacks. I will not tolerate that kind of behavior from you. Caden 00:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving the same comment on both your talk pages. Stop the drama. I'm not taking a position on content about Carrie Prejean, or on who's right and who's wrong at this point, but this overreacting behavior is unacceptable. If you both can't discuss content in a civil way, then just leave each other alone. Enough said. — Becksguy (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Becks please listen. I swear I was not being incivil whatsoever and I'm sorry you thought that. I'm concerned about sourced content that's being removed again and again. I'm concerned about POV issues possibly getting out of hand as the article builds. Please take a look at the article, the edit history and the talk page. You will see what I'm talking about. I will stay far away from this article if that's what you think I should do. But please sir, at least take a look at the article. Caden 03:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course Caden was not being uncivil. Exploding Boy simply calls anyone that does not agree with him "uncivil." Don't take his hysterical comments to heart.--InaMaka (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ina. Don't worry I don't have time for him or his offensive posts. Caden 03:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying to head off what looked like an escalation into incivility, but I don't think it was there yet. And maybe it wouldn't have escalated that far in any case. Also, I was not making any judgments as to who was right or who was wrong. In other words, I was just attempting to keep the peace, nothing more. Now I have time to look at the edits and talk pages and will respond. Later, Caden. — Becksguy (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay cool I understand. Thanks Becks. Caden 03:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you add an inappropriate image to a page, you will be blocked from editing. Sceptre 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me sir? Since when is adding a picture of the female breasts to my talk page considered distruptive? I love women. What's wrong with that? My page was vandalised sir. Can you explain why? Can you explain to me why you are threatening me with a block and why you are saying that I'm being distruptive? Thanks for assuming such bad faith and for being incivil. Caden 19:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, that message was far too combative, Sceptre. Caden, have a look at the discussion mentioned below. Personally, I'm not too bothered either way. Black Kite 19:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

His message was an attack. Period. Unacceptable! I'm sorry Kite but I'm too pissed off to comment on that thread . Caden 19:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

CadenS should know what is disruptive and what is not. Starting with {{uw-image1}} is silly. Sceptre 19:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Get off my back man. Leave me alone. Caden 19:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just so you'll know, the relevant discussion is here . Dayewalker (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Caden, I know you get upset easily, so I'm just going to quote policy. From WP:Vandalism:

Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit images on pages, or simply using any image in a way that is disruptive. Please note though that Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of minors and that explicit images may be uploaded and/or placed on pages for legitimate reasons (that is, if they have encyclopedic value).

Arguably, the use of the breasts picture on this and other user pages was inappropriate and didn't have encyclopedic value. That is why they were removed, not to vandalize your page and not to harass you. I hope you understand, and I'm sorry you're upset. AniMate 19:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Caden, I'm not going to press the issue, but please consider your fellow editors, some of whom are women. How do you think they will feel if they come to your talk page and are presented with gratuitous images such as the one that appear here before? I tried to just put this issue to rest quietly and hoped it would've just been acceptable. best regards, –xeno 19:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to put on record here my comment in the breasts picture thread at the admin noticeboard: The breasts photograph is beautiful, graceful and non-pornographic -- hardly wanking material, compared with other easily accessible images on the Internet. Displaying this image communicates the user's appreciation of the female form, which seems a pleasant enough piece of personal information to impart on a user page. I doubt there'd be all this angst if the image were a painting and not a photograph. E.g. Goya's La maja desnuda? The officious warning that was slapped on this page (if it refers only to this image) is inappropriate and unacceptable in a virtual world that isn't ruled by the Taliban. (Yet.) The prudish warning should be removed. Not the image. Writegeist (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

AniMate I got pissed off for a couple of reasons. First, I didn't use the image to cause shock or disruption. The female body is beautiful and that's why I used the image. The image of a female's breasts is not inappropriate. It really blows to see so many editors assuming the worst bad faith over me on AN. Second point, Sceptre attacked me with a warning block and called me a vandal in his edit summary. I was not vandalising anything so what's his problem? He owes me an apology because he was a jerk for harassing me with this crap in the first place. Third, nobody contacted me concerning any issues with the image on my talk page. It was just removed without my consent. That was so not cool. But thanks both for your kind thoughts and for explaining to me why it was removed from my page. I appreciate that. Xeno I understand now why you reverted the image. However, at the time I didn't know this because editors had failed to inform me that an issue existed. Writegeist, your post above is just awesome. It's cool to know that at least you understood me. But I still can't help but feel that the picture was not the true issue here. I feel it may have been more than that. We may never know dude. As for the prudish warning not being removed, well consider the source. Caden 10:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that particular image as inappropriate, nor is it a "shock" image. The human body is beautiful and I think the image itself tells us if the purpose is pornographic or appreciative. Although I don't disapprove of porn either. Nor would male nudity be inappropriate either, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, I think there are some images that would be inappropriate. And this should be taken on a case by case basis. — Becksguy (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Forcing others to see one's political and religious beliefs is completely inappropriate. Especially relating to such polarizing issues as abortion, same sex marriage, and evolution, for example. Shall we remove all American Flags, American Flag burnings, Swastikas, Star of Davids, Crucifixes, Satanism symbols, and all other advocacy and iconic symbols? I think some of those are potentially more offensive than nudity for some, if not for others. After all, we have pictures of naked dogs where one can see genitalia. How is that less inappropriate? — Becksguy (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point AniMate. I agree any such items should be on the User page rather than on the User talk page, if they are to be userspace at all. I was kinda smearing the essential difference between them. And yes, I've seen some of the userboxen wars. — Becksguy (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There is Hope

Caden I am moved, even a little humbled as I have criticized you earlier, by the spirit expressed in Shelley's verse that you have posted at the top of this page. That could be a good choice of banner for your front page too. Thank you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

New Name

Hey Caden - I see that your request for a user name change came through a few days ago. Congratulations. — Becksguy (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't change it. I only dropped the "S" but thanks. CADEN 13:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you...

Thank you for your support

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, , TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 —

Thank you...

Thank you for your support

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt, , TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 —

Followup

I've gotta ask...what made you change your mind? — BQZip01 —  18:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your mainspace work. CADEN 13:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Block notice

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

Request reason:

This block is bullshit. Do you feel like a big man now Travis? I was not in a edit war. Unblock me please.

Decline reason:

Your actions exactly fit with Misplaced Pages's definition of edit-warring. If you want to appeal again, please read the guide to appealing blocks - and please avoid further personal attacks or incivility. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:28, 19 May 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.

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

Request reason:

What personal attacks? What incivility? You make no sense Shef. I don't appreciate your bad faith and you're not welcome on my talk page. I want a neutral admin to review my block because you have always had it in for me. Could another admin unblock me please?

Decline reason:

Please read Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks. Assuming bad faith of the blocking admin will not get you unblocked. Rschen7754 (T C) 19:09, 19 May 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 believe he is referring to the mild profanity and the "Do you feel like a big man now?", which makes the allusion that you think he blocked you to embiggen his self-esteem. Perhaps you could explain why you feel you were not in an edit war? –xeno 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Further to Xeno's question, and looking at these two page histories, I have to say that looks to me pretty much like edit warring... – Luna Santin (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Caden, I suggest you take a deep breath and walk away for a bit. You're being combative, which is unproductive. Please don't make my statement here be in vain.//roux   19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding User:KeltieMartinFan

I am extremely concerned by the possibility that you may have been Wikihounding editor KeltieMartinFan. You apparently have not edited either of the articles under dispute ( Amy Robach and Jenna Wolfe ) previously to the edit war breaking out yesterday.

Following another editor you're in conflict with around and engaging in confrontational behavior on articles you previously have not been involved in is not ok. It's called Wikihounding. If you believe another editor has been acting contrary to policy, that's one thing - but following people around and provoking them, or getting into normal content disputes with them in this manner, is not ok.

Please do not do this again.

We require that editors assume good faith about each other and edit in a civil and collegial manner. You do not have to "make friends" with everyone - and disagreements are a natural part of any project and a healthy thing. But you have to cooperate with people and not get disruptive, combative, or harrassing.

A sterile edit war - simply repeatedly reversing someone else's changes without discussion on the article talk, their talk page, or at least in edit summaries, is not acceptable behavior on Misplaced Pages either.

If you believed that KeltieMartinFan was doing something wrong you owed them an explanation of what that was and why you felt otherwise. You failed to make any effort to do that.

Whatever your conflict with them is about, you need to act appropriately when editing here. We expect editors to treat each other as human beings and to respect each other. Sometimes people don't follow those expectations, but it's still the community standard.

I hope and expect that you will make a good effort to abide by the community standards here going forwards.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks man for kicking me when I'm down. I'm already blocked. I can't even defend myself on ANI. As if things couldn't be worse for me, you just had to drop by to make me feel even more bummed out by judging me so quickly as guilty. Mission accomplished. I didn't need that dude. And please tell me what is going on with this? I don't deserve such abuse. I was not even notified. Daedalus is personally attacking me by calling me a "suspected sock master" with not a shred of evidence to back it up. I'm no such thing! I'm innocent! I resent such allegations to destroy my good name! She filed that report in bad faith to cause me grief, stress and harm. I can't even defend myself on the investigation. Where's the justice in that? How am I to assume good faith with certain editors when the evidence shows me otherwise? I'm being singled out, attacked and punished harshly for what I see as retaliation. I expect editors to treat me as a human being and to respect my feelings but Daedalus and others have not. I'm sorry but I'm fed up, please understand okay? Because I've taken too much abuse on here when most of the time I didn't deserve it. Some people hate me so much and that's clear to me. No matter what I do or say I feel it's taken out of context by gamers and used against me to hurt me and it's not fair. I'm tired. I'm fed up. I'm so bummed out. I'm insulted too. And I'm frustrated with folks always painting me as the bad guy. CADEN 01:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

RE Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Caden

Post your defense between the comments in the section below - I'll transclude it into the above report. (Note: Defending yourself against claims) —Travis 02:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Defense of sockpuppetry charges - section for use by Caden only

I was not notified of this investigation. I don't deserve what I see as abuse. Daedalus is calling me a "suspected sock master" with not a shred of evidence to back it up. I'm no such thing! I'm innocent! I have done no wrong on wiki and I swear this is the truth. I have absolutely no clue what is going on here but I swear to God that I do not have any socks. I resent such allegations to destroy my good name. I believe this report was made in bad faith by an editor who I never met before. I demand that my name be cleared as soon as possible and I expect an apology. CADEN 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please post my above defense? Please? CADEN 02:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved your statement up a bit so it would show up on the SPI case page. However, you have apparently been cleared. —Travis 03:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, someone removed my transclusion, so I simply copied your statement over there. —Travis 03:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! CADEN 03:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Do tell me

Where does it hint at all on my userpage that I refer to myself as a she? I'm a guy damnit. Your rants sound just like an IP user who I got banned, who also referred to me as a she. Also, as to my evidence, I have it, did you not read the sock report?. In case you didn't, perhaps you would love to explain how a new user, who's account was created not four hours after your block, immediately finds your userpage and starts ranting in roughly the same style you have here, about how you were wronged. I would really love to know, as would the Checkusers, I'm sure. Besides that, since you are blocked, and you have absolutely no idea who I am, would mind explaining how you found the SPI in the first place?

Any evasion of these questions will not help your case, so I suggest you answer them and stop accusing others of attacking you when the evidence suggests what you deny.— Dædαlus 02:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I assumed your name was female. I found your investigation through a link to my name in my tool box. I swear to God I'm innocent! I'm not a sock of nobody. Please, this is the truth man. I'm too upset to think clearly or to type right now. But I'm innocent and I don't desreve what you're doing to me. CADEN 02:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the report, and you will see that it isn't aimed at you, as there have been similar incidents in the past, when a quacking sock was found to not be a sock of the user it was linked to per the aforementioned DUCK test. Meaning, that someone is trying to get you blocked by trying to look like you. Another user contacted me privately relaying these same concerns. As said in the SPI, CU is required to see if the suspected sock is indeed linked to you, or to someone else, and if someone else, then who.— Dædαlus 02:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And the report came back negative. I'm surprised that there are people out there who just don't get that we can see through their lies using the tech we have available to us. But, that aside, and I do stress this: Please do not assume that, in the face of possible evidence, that something against you is an attack on your person. As I said at the SPI, evidence can appear conclusive per the DUCK test(re:WP:DUCK), but CU is required to make sure, and it shouldn't be assumed that an SPI is an attack, especially if you have never had any contact with the editor who filed it.— Dædαlus 02:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how CU work but what I see is a report made by you with no grounds whatsoever. I'm innocent and I do not appreciate your attacks. I can not assume good faith when your actions show me otherwise. CADEN 02:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser status gives a user the ability to see the IP addresses behind the usernames. How many times do I need to state it that The evidence suggested a sock. That's how it was, period. It isn't attack nor was it ever an attack, and it is wrong of you to continue to assume so. I don't care if you say you're innocent or not, the word of the accused is never trusted until the CU report comes back, positive or negative. Now, I could have sworn you would take the time to read all the available material, since I just stated the report came back negative. Do me a favor and take the time to read everything before coming back and continuing to personally attack myself with your baseless accusations of personal attacks. I suggest you read WP:NPA to find out what a personal attack is, now, as stated, at the time, The evidence was apparently conclusive. You simply cannot call a report made by someone you don't know an attack because you say so, it doesn't work like that. I had evidence to back up the report, and you have no reason to assume bad faith of me because you don't know me. So again, until you read all the relevant material.

But alas, per your inability to read all the relevant material, I feel the need to repeat myself. The Evidence, that I used at the time of filing the SPI, can be found below, as well as at the SPI:

• Caden Blocked on May 19th, 18:03
• User Corpiestre, created on May 19th, 21:58(roughly four hours after Caden was blocked)
• User account Corpiestre proceeds, to assault editors and admins who have had some contact with Caden, as seen here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Those are actually all of the user's only contributions, ones made in the defense of Caden. Although CU has already been endorsed, I wish to state again that this could be a case such as Axemann8's where the user's quacking socks were found to not be his.

I'll state this again, Caden, as I know you're reading this. This report was never meant to insult you, so you should stop assuming such bad faith, it was made per the evidence above, period. Nothing more, nothing less. So stop reading so far into everything and assuming everything is an insult, because it isn't.— Dædαlus 03:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The below was also said at the time of the filing of the SPI, please take the time to read it: CU is required as the block, or extention thereof, rests on these CU findings, in that, his block may remain the same, assuming this is just some random vandal that appears to have taken interest in him(I don't think this is likely, too many things don't add up), but to the point, if this suspected sock, is found to be a sock, further action needs to be taken in regards to the master account.

— Dædαlus 03:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm too upset to deal with you man. CADEN 03:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Caden, please calm down. Caden is direct and I just don't see him creating socks to make his points. Or being sneaky about his opinions. It's simply not his style. In my view, it's this directness of his that sometimes gets him in trouble. And I respect his honesty, if not always his tact. Although it sometimes upsets others, I would much rather know where he stands.

And a comment to everyone: This is not an accusation of bad faith, but I have recently seen a disturbing and increasing tendency on the part of some editors (in general) to assume that the duck test proves something. This is a gross misunderstanding, as it doesn't prove anything. The theory and it's validity was discredited during the McCarthy witch hunts in the 1950s. It's also a logical fallacy and a misapplication of inductive reasoning. It's just an indication of potential suspicion, nothing more. Saying that "evidence can appear conclusive per the DUCK test(re:WP:DUCK)" is wrong as there is no way the duck test can be considered conclusive. Not even on the same planet as conclusive.

— Becksguy (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)