I just wanted to say I think the administrator who blocked you went overboard. The edit to my user page, while abrasive, did not rise to the level of harassment and I'm disappointed that it was used as evidence in a block. Had I been the administrator and had I seen all of the edits he used as evidence, I would have assumed your less-than-civil tone was due to inexperience at Wikipedia and worked with you to help you say what you want to say in a way that wouldn't be construed as an attack. If that failed, I would've blocked you for a day or so the first time.
You have some important things to say - namely, that you and presumably many others hold the view that this image is child pornography. This view, like all views on the matter, should not be silenced: Silencing such views distorts the consensus view on the matter. On the other hand, if you repeatedly use a tone that is less than civil, you will be blocked and this will be a fair block.
When your block expires, please consider how you can say what you want to say in a way that does not leave you open to accusations of being un-civil or using attack postings. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 22:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
My dear sir--
Having only perused your
diffs, I cannot claim to be expertly informed of your situation; however, I must say that as much as I disagree with your position, I respect it (And vice versa, of course!). I know that it's hard to remain calm when a position that you feel passionately about is denigrated by most others, (Believe me, I've been there.) but it doesn't help your credibility if you "act out", as it were, against others.
Wishing you the best,
--NBahn ( talk) 00:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your comments, and after this calming down period, hopefully I will return. However, I have been blocked indefinately quite sneakily, with no announcement on my talk page, by User:Rklawton. I can only assume this is an ideological block, since he made no mention of procedure, and looking at my talk page, one would assume I was only blocked for a week, while in fact I have been blocked indefinately, arbitrarily, by one user who appears to have an ideological disagreement with me. I think I have learned two things, things which appear much clearer now I have allowed a little dust to settle over my rage:
1) The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia users are good natured and good intentioned folk, but a few bad apples who are obsessed with a couple of their pet articles form mini-dictatorships all over the website, with their henchmen in tow.
2) The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia users do not engage in this activity, but seem to do nothing when this blatant abuse of power takes place.
I am a newbie, and a regular and avid wikipedia reader. I really think this is a larger issue. My opinions on child abuse, while clearly not popular, do not deserve for me to be blocked. And again, as the dust has settled, I have realised I have persued my ends in the wrong manner, and with distasteful levels of civility.
I would like to have a chance to redeem myself here, but I don't believe any here who may sympathise would be willing to over-rule a senior sysop who initiated this block. I hope I'm proven wrong.
Regards. Denis Hume. 86.45.222.9 ( talk) 13:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't blow it. FOLLOW
DAVIDWR'S ADVICE TO THE LETTER. Remember: Patience is a virtue.
--NBahn (
talk)
21:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, and I will. However, I don't intend to stop protesting the inclusion of the virgin killer image, but will do so within the paramaters of Wiki decency. DenisHume ( talk) 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Having followed some of the discussions some users have done on my behalf, and their tireless efforts to see my best side, I must say I am humbled and flattered. I hope, that in the new year, I will come back and contribute positively here. I have some experience in history, specifically Irish history, and have always thought I could add something to these articles if I ever got round to it. My initial cyncism for this place is been challenged time and time again, and I must say that I am glad that it has. To all those users who have done their best to see my best qualities I say thank you. You are nipping away at an old mans cynicism. DenisHume ( talk) 00:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, could someone blank my user-page? I don't feel that way anymore. The events since my IP last edited have changed my views somewhat. DenisHume ( talk) 00:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, it helps me maintain my sanity to stay away from controversial issues that I feel passionately about. Both my blood pressure and the blood pressure of my fellow editors is more important than participating in endless debates. This has its upsides and downsides: The upsides are to my and other editor's mental and physical health, the downsides are articles that may be slanted in a direction slightly away from where the consensus would be if I participated in those articles. It's up to you to choose which you value more, expressing your thoughts in an intellectual back-and-forth that may never end to prevent an article or articles from being edited with a "false consensus" - i.e. an apparent consensus that doesn't include your input, or maintaining your sanity. It also saves me the risk of editing while hot-headed, which could result in a block, which also results in articles that reflect a false consensus on controversial issues. In your particular case, because you will be coming off of a block, I would recommend spending at least a month and at least a few hundred edits on non-controversial topics, and wait to edit controversial ones until after you've gotten some more experience as an editor. Even then, consider what I said above about health issues. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 06:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
DenisHume ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I would like to request being unblocked. Give me a one week trial period and if I do not live up to standards than ban me by all means. I won't be editing until after the New Year but would appreciate the show of good faith. PS - I emailed you on Dec. 16 Squeekbox.
Decline reason:
Checkuser indicates that "I was unaware of that edit. I have the use of a public proxy and share with many other users. DenisHume (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)" is not correct. How do you expect to be trusted if you are willing to engage in prevarication on the unblock request? — Avi ( talk) 04:16, 24 December 2008 (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.
While I favor unblocking this editor he is very new and very likely to get into trouble without meaning to. I highly recommend having at least 2 editors including least 1 administrator keep a close eye on him for at least a week and at least 50 edits, whichever is longer, and aggressively revert any new-user-type mistakes and provide coaching when necessary. I'm willing to do it, but I also recommend User:SqueakBox if he is willing, as he is much more familiar with the content area this editor wishes to edit than I am. I will notify Squeakbox of this request. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware of that edit. I have the use of a public proxy and share with many other users. DenisHume ( talk) 13:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea what any of that means. I am by no means technically savvy. Though I have noticed that I have appeared under different IPs when I've edited anon here. DenisHume ( talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I had a look at their findings and must say that its chinese to me. I couldn't make any sense of it whatsoever. Could you please put into laymans terms? DenisHume ( talk) 22:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed Technical evidence indicates that this user made the edit in question. --
Avi (
talk)
04:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, I am confused. If you check some of the IPs I have contributed under in this account they are some distinct different IPs. And they are all shared. I have already told you this. I highly doubt the legitimacy of that evidence, or its ability to account for my editing history. Frankly, this boggles my mind. No-one has made an effort to explain the findings other than say 'it is proven'. It clearly is not as I did not make that edit.
And again, if I wanted to edit wikipedia I could do so very easily under a different username and ip. Instead I want to be upfront and legitimate with you all. I have told you I was unaware of that edit and this is the truth. Hell, its christmas eve anyway, so there is no point in me getting worked up about this. DenisHume ( talk) 13:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to bear with the less technically minded of us. I think you mistook when I said 'public proxy' for something else entirely which I cannot get my head around. Is it not the same a shared IP adress? As in, my IP is shared by a multitude of users and is dynamic and changes? Your checkuser evidence should prove this... DenisHume ( talk) 13:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
This is Denis Hume, and I'm clearly using a different IP adress. Ipso Facto, I am innocent of these charges and the evidence appears to be circumstantional. 86.45.195.56 ( talk) 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Tis the season to be jolly. I'll come back in the new year, under a different account and a new name. This battle is a uphill one and not worth my time to fight. I tried to do the honourable thing and come back legitimately but it is simple to simply create a new account and start over.
86.45.195.56 (
talk)
17:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
For the IP in question, no one else has used it besides this user and the IP itself, and they share other technical information as well. The fact that DenisHume account uses other IPs does not change the fact that the IP checked had not been used by anyone else for at least three months. This is pretty clear-cut that the same PC made the edits under the IP and under DenisHume. -- Avi ( talk) 19:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to say I think the administrator who blocked you went overboard. The edit to my user page, while abrasive, did not rise to the level of harassment and I'm disappointed that it was used as evidence in a block. Had I been the administrator and had I seen all of the edits he used as evidence, I would have assumed your less-than-civil tone was due to inexperience at Wikipedia and worked with you to help you say what you want to say in a way that wouldn't be construed as an attack. If that failed, I would've blocked you for a day or so the first time.
You have some important things to say - namely, that you and presumably many others hold the view that this image is child pornography. This view, like all views on the matter, should not be silenced: Silencing such views distorts the consensus view on the matter. On the other hand, if you repeatedly use a tone that is less than civil, you will be blocked and this will be a fair block.
When your block expires, please consider how you can say what you want to say in a way that does not leave you open to accusations of being un-civil or using attack postings. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 22:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
My dear sir--
Having only perused your
diffs, I cannot claim to be expertly informed of your situation; however, I must say that as much as I disagree with your position, I respect it (And vice versa, of course!). I know that it's hard to remain calm when a position that you feel passionately about is denigrated by most others, (Believe me, I've been there.) but it doesn't help your credibility if you "act out", as it were, against others.
Wishing you the best,
--NBahn ( talk) 00:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your comments, and after this calming down period, hopefully I will return. However, I have been blocked indefinately quite sneakily, with no announcement on my talk page, by User:Rklawton. I can only assume this is an ideological block, since he made no mention of procedure, and looking at my talk page, one would assume I was only blocked for a week, while in fact I have been blocked indefinately, arbitrarily, by one user who appears to have an ideological disagreement with me. I think I have learned two things, things which appear much clearer now I have allowed a little dust to settle over my rage:
1) The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia users are good natured and good intentioned folk, but a few bad apples who are obsessed with a couple of their pet articles form mini-dictatorships all over the website, with their henchmen in tow.
2) The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia users do not engage in this activity, but seem to do nothing when this blatant abuse of power takes place.
I am a newbie, and a regular and avid wikipedia reader. I really think this is a larger issue. My opinions on child abuse, while clearly not popular, do not deserve for me to be blocked. And again, as the dust has settled, I have realised I have persued my ends in the wrong manner, and with distasteful levels of civility.
I would like to have a chance to redeem myself here, but I don't believe any here who may sympathise would be willing to over-rule a senior sysop who initiated this block. I hope I'm proven wrong.
Regards. Denis Hume. 86.45.222.9 ( talk) 13:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't blow it. FOLLOW
DAVIDWR'S ADVICE TO THE LETTER. Remember: Patience is a virtue.
--NBahn (
talk)
21:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, and I will. However, I don't intend to stop protesting the inclusion of the virgin killer image, but will do so within the paramaters of Wiki decency. DenisHume ( talk) 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Having followed some of the discussions some users have done on my behalf, and their tireless efforts to see my best side, I must say I am humbled and flattered. I hope, that in the new year, I will come back and contribute positively here. I have some experience in history, specifically Irish history, and have always thought I could add something to these articles if I ever got round to it. My initial cyncism for this place is been challenged time and time again, and I must say that I am glad that it has. To all those users who have done their best to see my best qualities I say thank you. You are nipping away at an old mans cynicism. DenisHume ( talk) 00:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, could someone blank my user-page? I don't feel that way anymore. The events since my IP last edited have changed my views somewhat. DenisHume ( talk) 00:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, it helps me maintain my sanity to stay away from controversial issues that I feel passionately about. Both my blood pressure and the blood pressure of my fellow editors is more important than participating in endless debates. This has its upsides and downsides: The upsides are to my and other editor's mental and physical health, the downsides are articles that may be slanted in a direction slightly away from where the consensus would be if I participated in those articles. It's up to you to choose which you value more, expressing your thoughts in an intellectual back-and-forth that may never end to prevent an article or articles from being edited with a "false consensus" - i.e. an apparent consensus that doesn't include your input, or maintaining your sanity. It also saves me the risk of editing while hot-headed, which could result in a block, which also results in articles that reflect a false consensus on controversial issues. In your particular case, because you will be coming off of a block, I would recommend spending at least a month and at least a few hundred edits on non-controversial topics, and wait to edit controversial ones until after you've gotten some more experience as an editor. Even then, consider what I said above about health issues. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 06:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
DenisHume ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I would like to request being unblocked. Give me a one week trial period and if I do not live up to standards than ban me by all means. I won't be editing until after the New Year but would appreciate the show of good faith. PS - I emailed you on Dec. 16 Squeekbox.
Decline reason:
Checkuser indicates that "I was unaware of that edit. I have the use of a public proxy and share with many other users. DenisHume (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)" is not correct. How do you expect to be trusted if you are willing to engage in prevarication on the unblock request? — Avi ( talk) 04:16, 24 December 2008 (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.
While I favor unblocking this editor he is very new and very likely to get into trouble without meaning to. I highly recommend having at least 2 editors including least 1 administrator keep a close eye on him for at least a week and at least 50 edits, whichever is longer, and aggressively revert any new-user-type mistakes and provide coaching when necessary. I'm willing to do it, but I also recommend User:SqueakBox if he is willing, as he is much more familiar with the content area this editor wishes to edit than I am. I will notify Squeakbox of this request. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware of that edit. I have the use of a public proxy and share with many other users. DenisHume ( talk) 13:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea what any of that means. I am by no means technically savvy. Though I have noticed that I have appeared under different IPs when I've edited anon here. DenisHume ( talk) 21:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I had a look at their findings and must say that its chinese to me. I couldn't make any sense of it whatsoever. Could you please put into laymans terms? DenisHume ( talk) 22:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed Technical evidence indicates that this user made the edit in question. --
Avi (
talk)
04:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, I am confused. If you check some of the IPs I have contributed under in this account they are some distinct different IPs. And they are all shared. I have already told you this. I highly doubt the legitimacy of that evidence, or its ability to account for my editing history. Frankly, this boggles my mind. No-one has made an effort to explain the findings other than say 'it is proven'. It clearly is not as I did not make that edit.
And again, if I wanted to edit wikipedia I could do so very easily under a different username and ip. Instead I want to be upfront and legitimate with you all. I have told you I was unaware of that edit and this is the truth. Hell, its christmas eve anyway, so there is no point in me getting worked up about this. DenisHume ( talk) 13:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to bear with the less technically minded of us. I think you mistook when I said 'public proxy' for something else entirely which I cannot get my head around. Is it not the same a shared IP adress? As in, my IP is shared by a multitude of users and is dynamic and changes? Your checkuser evidence should prove this... DenisHume ( talk) 13:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
This is Denis Hume, and I'm clearly using a different IP adress. Ipso Facto, I am innocent of these charges and the evidence appears to be circumstantional. 86.45.195.56 ( talk) 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Tis the season to be jolly. I'll come back in the new year, under a different account and a new name. This battle is a uphill one and not worth my time to fight. I tried to do the honourable thing and come back legitimately but it is simple to simply create a new account and start over.
86.45.195.56 (
talk)
17:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
For the IP in question, no one else has used it besides this user and the IP itself, and they share other technical information as well. The fact that DenisHume account uses other IPs does not change the fact that the IP checked had not been used by anyone else for at least three months. This is pretty clear-cut that the same PC made the edits under the IP and under DenisHume. -- Avi ( talk) 19:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)