Extended content
| ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Extended content
| |||
---|---|---|---|
Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Deor ( talk) 20:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() Academic Editor ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: First, in the interest of full disclosure and honesty, yes, I have edited here in the past as User:Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend?. Deor suggested I post a request to be unblocked, so what the heck, may as well. My edits are always with the intention of improving Wikipedia. A checkuser on the IP I am using comfirmed that " nothing interesting" was on it. Indeed, I do not presently have any other alternate accounts. Yes, over the past couple years I have made numerous IP edits, but it is because I cannot respect what has largely be an ideological witch hunt against me. I have been falsely lumped together with sock accounts of somebody similar or ones by deletionists impersonating me so as to present a false impression of my activities. Any so-called consensus against me was built by dishonest deletionist sock farms associated with such long-term vandal accounts as User:Jack Merridew, User:Eyrian, and literally dozens of others. If I seem harsh to them, calling them dishonest, and such, it is because yes, as far as I am concerned they are indeed electronic book burners and as such aren't worthy of being treated and dealt with in a respectful manner. I do not use my accounts to disrupt anything, but rather to ignore and avoid those who actually are trying to ruin this project. If my actions frustrate those trying to ignorantly stifle human knowledge, so be it. I cannot possibly feel bad about that. I do not disrespect or treat ill those who are here to improve this website. No one should feel bound by the actions of those who are the opponents of cataloging human knowledge. If you do not want to unblock me now, so be it (after all, it is not as I cannot just keep creating new accounts or making IP edits at will, but rather than continue on that path, I am going to see if we can move forward without having to play games), but it is a shame to diminish this project by also deleting edits to certain articles made by me such as to Vincent Liberto who was a great man that serves as an inspirational figure for many. It should be far more important to any neutral admin that knowledge and the articles that are of value be respected more than some technicality to punish a particular editor. Thank you for your time and consideration. And also, Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there! :) Academic Editor ( talk) 20:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: You are a banned user; you must request unblock through ArbCom. However, even if you were not a banned user, I'd decline this based upon your insistence that you have a right to be disrespectful of editors you disagree with. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 21:55, 13 May 2012 (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.
![]() Academic Editor ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: per WP:Fresh start and due to constructive edits that only improve Wikipedia. No one who actually wants to build an encyclopedia has any issues with me and nor would they. Bad faith and disruptive deletionist account Kww has an obvious conflict of interest (see his RfAs) and should have nothing to do administratively with regards to me. If this request needs to be forwarded to arbitrators, please do so. Thank you for your time and help! -- Academic Editor ( talk) 21:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: There appears to be an ArbCom decision regarding this, so this unblock request goes beyond what a normal admin can do. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Nobody says at the bottom that you are to be unblocked if and when you return to face the case. To pursue this further, please contact the Ban Appeals Subcommittee by email. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:49, 6 June 2012 (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.
Would someone kindly forward an unblock request per WP:FRESHSTART to arbcom on my behalf? I have tried sending an email, but it was bounced back for some reason. As a recent checkuser has shown, this account is the only one I currently have and I do not want to create others. I am willing to accept mentorship or something from trustworthy editors and avoid AfDs per past precedent if necessary. I primarily want to return just to create some articles on notable subjects from literary history and the like. Academic Editor ( talk) 16:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
|
The Arbitration Committee have received an unblock request from this user which has not yet been considered. In the meantime, having noted the personal attacks above, I have hatted the talkpage and removed email and talkpage rights from this user. The Committee's decision regarding the freshstart application will be posted shortly. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the user's appeal and has declined to unblock or to allow a fresh start.
For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Extended content
| |||
---|---|---|---|
Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Deor ( talk) 20:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() Academic Editor ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: First, in the interest of full disclosure and honesty, yes, I have edited here in the past as User:Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend?. Deor suggested I post a request to be unblocked, so what the heck, may as well. My edits are always with the intention of improving Wikipedia. A checkuser on the IP I am using comfirmed that " nothing interesting" was on it. Indeed, I do not presently have any other alternate accounts. Yes, over the past couple years I have made numerous IP edits, but it is because I cannot respect what has largely be an ideological witch hunt against me. I have been falsely lumped together with sock accounts of somebody similar or ones by deletionists impersonating me so as to present a false impression of my activities. Any so-called consensus against me was built by dishonest deletionist sock farms associated with such long-term vandal accounts as User:Jack Merridew, User:Eyrian, and literally dozens of others. If I seem harsh to them, calling them dishonest, and such, it is because yes, as far as I am concerned they are indeed electronic book burners and as such aren't worthy of being treated and dealt with in a respectful manner. I do not use my accounts to disrupt anything, but rather to ignore and avoid those who actually are trying to ruin this project. If my actions frustrate those trying to ignorantly stifle human knowledge, so be it. I cannot possibly feel bad about that. I do not disrespect or treat ill those who are here to improve this website. No one should feel bound by the actions of those who are the opponents of cataloging human knowledge. If you do not want to unblock me now, so be it (after all, it is not as I cannot just keep creating new accounts or making IP edits at will, but rather than continue on that path, I am going to see if we can move forward without having to play games), but it is a shame to diminish this project by also deleting edits to certain articles made by me such as to Vincent Liberto who was a great man that serves as an inspirational figure for many. It should be far more important to any neutral admin that knowledge and the articles that are of value be respected more than some technicality to punish a particular editor. Thank you for your time and consideration. And also, Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there! :) Academic Editor ( talk) 20:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: You are a banned user; you must request unblock through ArbCom. However, even if you were not a banned user, I'd decline this based upon your insistence that you have a right to be disrespectful of editors you disagree with. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 21:55, 13 May 2012 (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.
![]() Academic Editor ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log)) Request reason: per WP:Fresh start and due to constructive edits that only improve Wikipedia. No one who actually wants to build an encyclopedia has any issues with me and nor would they. Bad faith and disruptive deletionist account Kww has an obvious conflict of interest (see his RfAs) and should have nothing to do administratively with regards to me. If this request needs to be forwarded to arbitrators, please do so. Thank you for your time and help! -- Academic Editor ( talk) 21:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: There appears to be an ArbCom decision regarding this, so this unblock request goes beyond what a normal admin can do. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Nobody says at the bottom that you are to be unblocked if and when you return to face the case. To pursue this further, please contact the Ban Appeals Subcommittee by email. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:49, 6 June 2012 (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.
Would someone kindly forward an unblock request per WP:FRESHSTART to arbcom on my behalf? I have tried sending an email, but it was bounced back for some reason. As a recent checkuser has shown, this account is the only one I currently have and I do not want to create others. I am willing to accept mentorship or something from trustworthy editors and avoid AfDs per past precedent if necessary. I primarily want to return just to create some articles on notable subjects from literary history and the like. Academic Editor ( talk) 16:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
|
The Arbitration Committee have received an unblock request from this user which has not yet been considered. In the meantime, having noted the personal attacks above, I have hatted the talkpage and removed email and talkpage rights from this user. The Committee's decision regarding the freshstart application will be posted shortly. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the user's appeal and has declined to unblock or to allow a fresh start.
For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)