Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Everyking (talk | contribs) at 20:22, 9 September 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:

1. You are restricted to the use of a single account, which may be checked by Checkuser without notice
2. You are subject to a civility restriction
3. 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.
4. 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 While the ban placed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 is no longer in effect, you should take particular care in working in and around those articles.
5. 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)

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.

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. Mangojuice 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. Mangojuice 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.

• "remove personal attack"
• "You are personally attacking me and not assuming good faith by calling me a "single purpose account." My motivation is to make Misplaced Pages a better encyclopedia and thus a more reliable source of balanced facts. "
• "Reinsert the dispute heading so that I do not have to report this issue to administrators. "
• "Please re-insert the dispute heading so that I do not have to report this violation to an admin. "
• "Under the terms of your sanctions by the arbitration committee for POV-editing ... "
• "posting threats and not assuming good faith are against Misplaced Pages policy"
• "plese see talk (and check out Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers!)"
• "I am a new editor, and have been subejct to lots of harassment and accusations of bad faith. Any help or advice you can offer me will be quite appreciated."
• "remove bad faith accusations from my talk page"
• "Stop your bad faith accusations against me. You allegations that I have had a previous account are hurtful and poison the cooperative spirt of a community-built encyclopedia. It is not suspicious that I would have known about an arbitration against a user dating back before my first edits. .. Please stop reverting my work and please start treating me with the civility expected of all of us as Misplaced Pages contributors."
• "again please avoid personal attacks and threats. why not engage in reasoned discussion?"
• "And I am no one’s "sockpuppet." Do an IP check. (I had some knowledge of the inner-workings from word of mouth and the media before I started editing.)"
• "I am a new user. A chance to discuss this will allow me to clear myself from these false accusations."
• "I am not a sockpuppet. This block is a terrible misunderstanding or mistake. "
• "You wrote on that page, Since I was familiar with Cognition it was obvious to me who the puppet master is. You're wrong! Please discuss and reason with people before making unfounded accusations and repressing them! From checking that user's history, I can see I share some of the same political opinions. Maybe that's the source of the accusation? But I cannot understand how any fair-minded person can conclude I have the same temperament as the person who used that account! In just a few days, I have articulated a sincere respect for the website's civility guidelines, assuming good faith, and the spirit of cooperative group editing. That person, however, strikes me as so rude and bad-tempered I'd support banning him/her, despite my agreement with the political views that user seemed to be endorsing. "
• "Like I said, that person has a lot of the same political views. But that's not me. "
• "This is a terrible misunderstanding. The resembalance is just a coincidence. We just have the same political views because, I gather, he/she is appears to be a supporter of the American economist Lyndon LaRouche, as I am."

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)

Are you entirely sure you've come clean, or is there something else you'd like to tell us? Hersfold 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. Cognition (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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:

1. Mrs. Breedlove (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. Throbbing Stallion (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. Donitapace (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. Tha-HGIsrqNA (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. Fidelismo (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. Ted H John (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
7. AlcockMarine (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
8. 172 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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 arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Hersfold 23:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

!!!!!!!!!I am not any of the above users. I think maybe other people are coming up because I have been using computers at the Sarasota County public library, the public library at New College of Florida, and place of work. I do NOT have anything to do with the above contributors. Cognition (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The checkuser information very firmly contradicts that. Hersfold 03:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please identify, by date and time (diff), your most recent edit made from the Sarasota County public library. Thatcher 12:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember User:172 claimed he is a scholar working at a university in Florida and being a resident of Saint Petersburg, Fl. Though my acquaintance with that particular user was not really pleasant, I am astonished at CU results. Though edits/edit summaries like this or that are similar to 172's contributions, I find it very hard to believe that those disputes between 172 on one hand and Cognition on the other are part of some sock puppet circus. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the first time an investigation has turned up a good hand/bad hand type operation (which is the only logical conclusion the CU data suggests), wherein an experienced editor will create an "archnemesis" account to, in some way, further their own ends or just have something to do when they get bored. This one is more elaborate than most, but that's what we're able to tell. Hersfold 18:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the amount of bad faith, disruption etc this must have caused and on the other hand the edit count of the main account and his reputation amongst many experienced users, this case almost warrants comparison with that Essjay affair - should the CU data be definite and waterproof :) --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There's been a long discussion on the Misplaced Pages Review forum about this strange block; no one seems to know quite what to make of it, although it appears most participants believe the sockpuppeting accusation is wrongful, at least with regard to 172. Many of us would be interested to hear your explanation of events. Everyking (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)