| Revision as of 00:30, 4 July 2011 view sourceEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,224 edits →A statement: IP socks of this editor have made a complaint at WP:ANI#Daniel Case← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:22, 23 July 2011 view source DoRD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers22,865 edits here's your notificationNext edit → | ||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
| I did? Are you the user from the ANI thread? ] (]) 16:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC) | I did? Are you the user from the ANI thread? ] (]) 16:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :IP socks of this editor have made a complaint at ]. Perhaps he thinks he can make a case for unblock if he just keeps on using more IPs while his main account is blocked. ] (]) 00:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | :IP socks of this editor have made a complaint at ]. Perhaps he thinks he can make a case for unblock if he just keeps on using more IPs while his main account is blocked. ] (]) 00:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:AN-notice--> —] (]) 16:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:22, 23 July 2011
Block evasion
You only have yourself to blame for all this. You must know you don't have a leg to stand on. Your persistent refusal to engage in rational debate and your offensive behaviour to myself and other people has resulted in several library terminals in North London being blocked for periods of up a year, depriving not just you but any other library user of the ability to edit WP. I cut you some slack when you took out a handle, but what the block really means is that you are not supposed to contribute to WP at all, until the block is lifted.
So why are you wasting so much time and energy on this? You obviously care deeply about calendars so why don't you spend the time learning some more about them? I've pointed you at several sources about the Roman calendar that you could profit from -- why not read them just on the off-chance that I actually do know what I'm talking about? If nothing else it might give you more sticks to beat me over the head with.
They may not be available in Hackney or Islington library but they are surely available in various college libraries. Just to take one example, Michels' book on the Republican calendar is certainly available in the library of University College London, I just checked. --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect attribution
I have no involvement in this issue at all, so "per Chris Bennett" is entirely inaccurate. --Chris Bennett (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
March 2010
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Proposed community ban
I have demanded a community ban at WP:ANI#Demand community ban for Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
April 2011
Vote (X) for Change (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wish to make the following edit to Maundy money: After "The 2011 service was televised live for the first time" add "It was also the first time in its 800 - year history that it took place on the Sovereign's birthday".
Decline reason:
You're blocked, you don't get to make edits anymore. Closedmouth (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2011 (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.
Application for community ban was unsuccessful (see last section). Is it in order for me to make the WP:Standard offer and re - apply after six months? During this time I promise to avoid the behaviour which led to the ban (i.e. make no contributions other than suitable responses to any matters which may be raised on this talk page).
Vote (X) for Change (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Sorry to trouble you again so soon, but the Chairman has just put out an appeal for more volunteers. Also, following the end of the "pending changes" trial, a large number of articles have been protected indefinitely. In the Mardis Gras source text there is an error - the date for 2018 is entered as February 12, when it should be February 13. I would like to correct this.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Sandstein 18:45, 12 May 2011 (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.
Vote (X) for Change (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thank you for your message. Last year, when I was new, I did not know what socking was. Since then, as I have found out more about Misplaced Pages, I have come to realise that it is wrong and will not do it again.
Decline reason:
(1) What do you mean by "did not know what socking was"? if you mean you were not acquainted with the word "socking", then that is irrelevant. If you mean that you did not know there was anything wrong with using multiple accounts in an attempt to deceive other editors, then of course you did. (2) After the amount of sockpuppetry you have engaged in, we need more of a reassurance than that. (3) Using multiple accounts was only part of the problem The contentious and disruptive editing you used the accounts for will have to be addressed too, if you ever want an administrator to consider unblocking you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2011 (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.
Vote (X) for Change (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
During my Wikibreak I have had time to reflect on my behaviour and I can now see where I went wrong. Administrators do give contributors a second chance in the knowledge that they can be blocked if they reoffend (cf. the discussion on User talk:Jacob Peters).
Decline reason:
Request was made by an IP, not by the logged in user of this account (Procedural decline only, as we can't tell who's making the request - if you want to make another request, please log in) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2011 (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've reverted your refactoring of the above unblock request and my response - make a new one please -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Vote (X) for Change (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
During my Wikibreak I have had time to reflect on my behaviour and I can now see where I went wrong. Administrators do give contributors a second chance in the knowledge that they can be blocked if they reoffend (cf. the discussion on User talk:Jacob Peters).
Decline reason:
Could you be troubled to respond to what the declining administrators are asking? If you simply keep posting the same unblock request, this page will be disabled. Kuru (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2011 (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.
A statement
Sorry, I didn't want to go into too great detail because the guidance says requests should be kept short. I will answer each point in turn.
To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, or...
I will not cause damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages.
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- Understand what you have been blocked for,
I have been told that I have been blocked for using multiple accounts in an attempt to deceive other editors, contentious and disruptive editing.
I understand this. As I do not own a computer I edited from the public library. I generally edited without logging in. When I registered this account in connection with a ballot I was promoting I began using it for promotional material. As I did not always edit from the same public library, editors noticed that my IP address would change. This was done for convenience and not with the ulterior motive of deceiving editors into thinking I was more than one person.
After the ballot closed I registered New calendar to promote a change in the leap year rule which would increase the accuracy of the calendar from one day in 3,323 years to one day in 44,000 years. I then moved on to promoting the Orthodox calendar, which is equally accurate, using the name Meletian, which was the name given to the calendar by the World Council of Churches. I believed the calendar to have been named after Milutin Milankovic, the scientist who devised it. I therefore changed the username to Miletian, believing the World Council of Churches name to be a misspelling. I subsequently found out that the calendar was named after the Patriarch who promoted it, Meletius IV, and the World Council of Churches was right. All the accounts were registered within a short period, at a time when I was unaware of the rule that a contributor was entitled to only one username. At no time did I register any of these accounts with the intention of deceiving other editors.
- 2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, and...
I will not damage or disrupt Misplaced Pages in any way.
- 3. will make useful contributions, instead.
I will only edit constructively.
(1) what do you mean by "did not know what socking was"? If you mean you were not acquainted with the word "socking", then that is irrelevant. If you mean that you did not know there was anything wrong with using multiple accounts in an attempt to deceive other editors, then of course you did.
I accept that it is wrong to use multiple accounts to deceive other editors and I will not request unblock of any other account.
(2) After the amount of sockpuppetry you have engaged in, we need more of a reassurance than that.
I hope the fact that I have not registered any accounts for over a year will convince you.
(3) Using multiple accounts was only part of the problem. The contentious and disruptive editing you used the accounts for will have to be addressed too, if you ever want an administrator to consider unblocking you.
An editor complained that points made by him in discussion went unanswered. In fact, points I made were never answered, or if they were the responses were fatuous, e.g.
"You... are a Morris dancer" or
"Well, this unexpected little walk down memory lane with you over the last week has certainly been interesting... We must do this again some day - say in about 50 years time?"
One point I made which particularly angered him was this one. The pre - Julian Roman calendar contained a month named mensis intercalaris. The point concerned the statement by Celsus mensis intercalaris constat ex diebus viginti octo. An attempt was made to link this with a preceding definition about bissextile birthdays in the work, Signification of Terms, "proving" that when Celsus referred to the mensis intercalaris he was talking about February. I pointed out that in a dictionary each definition stands alone, and bears no relation to either the preceding or following paragraph. Also, if Celsus had wanted to talk about February, he would have used the name February rather than mensis intercalaris, because since there was already a month by that name confusion would have resulted. I endeavoured to explain that the redactors who had compiled this part of Justinian's law digest arranged their extracts first according to the particular jurist they were quoting, then according to the title of the work, then according to the part (in numerical order) and finally (within each volume) in the same order as they appeared. This caused him to refer to me in discussions with other editors as "IF", which he explained was short for Intercalary Fool. An administrator cautioned him
"Today I came across several edit summaries by you that fail to assume good faith and are potentially personal attacks as well. Edit summaries such as this... this..., and... this... are not tolerated. Please consider this your first and only warning."
There was also a claim that an editor had been threatened with legal proceedings. To put the record straight, at no time have I ever contemplated legal proceedings against anyone, not now, nor in the past, nor at any time in the future.
I hope I have covered all points, but if there is anything I have not dealt with please let me know.
Vote (X) for Change (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Good morning. I am providing the additional information requested. It will be found directly above this request. A few hours ago an editor added a sentence to Revised Julian calendar giving his opinion that the failure to adopt the astronomical Easter had caused problems for Orthodox churches. I do not believe this opinion is correct. Orthodox may not celebrate the Pasch together with or before the Jews. This is a binding rule of the oecumenical council. If they were to change the rule this clash would frequently take place, so they cannot do it. I would like to open a discussion on the talk page about this. Thank you for your help.
Decline reason:
While you may not have registered any accounts in the past year (and I'm not totally certain on that point either, still looking), it is clear to me that you have evaded your block within the past year, as shown on your SPI archive page. That aside, it's quite obvious that you evaded your block two weeks ago on this very page, as you posted an unblock request while logged out. You clearly don't get the point about sockpuppeting, since you are continuing to do it. Hersfold 17:29, 29 May 2011 (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 have now officially lost your talk page access. How's that for voting for change? (Cute huh?) Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is A cute block. Thank you. Chzz ► 08:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Vote (X) for Change (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Daniel Case has asked me to post this request. There has only been one complaint since last summer, and that was four months ago.
Decline reason:
I'm declining this unblock request since it was filed by an IP. Since the talk page access for your registered account has been disabled since 29 May, your only unblock options now are to write to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2011 (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.
- Is Neilspratt (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) your account? Tiptoety 16:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I did? Are you the user from the ANI thread? Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
- IP socks of this editor have made a complaint at WP:ANI#Daniel Case. Perhaps he thinks he can make a case for unblock if he just keeps on using more IPs while his main account is blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —DoRD (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)