Hi all. Please wp:agf, applying wp:IPHUMAN even to me. GreenPeasAndPotatoes ( talk) 06:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The smart thing and good-faith-affirming way to do would have been to acknowledge a mistake and to request a rename: instead you tried to justify your pointy choice of name and intention to confront TRPoD. You can't un-say what you said elsewhere about confronting other users by creating a new username.This isn't the way to act in good faith. Given that you were trying to justify the other account at the same time as this one was active (without acknowledging this one), this account is blocked too Acroterion (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Acroterion, half way through writing this I realised I had made a major mistake. Please excuse the abrasive tone of the first couple of points, but I am running out of time.
From WP:SOCK#LEGIT:
As I explained at my disclaimer at the RfC, as a publisher I have a vested interest in documenting the expansion of the Streisand Effect to the Charlie_Hebdo_shooting. As I indicated above and elsewhere, I have valid reasons for needing a special-purpose account for doing this. Is it too hard for you to imagine those reasons??? By now, that is no longer a rhetorical question. I.e. y/n?
As I have repeated a few times now, I have had zero prior dealings with TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, and have never even noticed him or her before. Is is too hard to imagine that it only takes one look at TRPoD's contributions at Talk:Streisand_effect to see TRPoD as a significant problem??? If so, please examine that multi-par essay I wrote there as TGPoH.
You blocked my first special-purpose account with the explanation: "[1]abusing multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, [2]appears to have been created to target a specific user". Re-reading what I had written, I can't fault you for [1], in fact, it was completely necessary given that I failed to adequately explain my intentions on my user page. My profound apologies - I thought I had. I had written "I created a special wp account to get this reverted, because I wanted tight anonymity" in my first edit at talk:SE, and expanded on this in the RfC, but it is unreasonable to have expected you to notice this, so again, my apologies. (I was soooo cross with you.) Re [2], agreed, as conceded and apologised for in my previous reply to you.
Further, I just noticed on User:GreenPeasAndPotatoes that I had only written:
without adding the obvious:
Sorry again. I probably made that mistake because I sought to correct my error of having used TGPoH, and I was only thinking of my own account, but it is a hell of a mistake to make for a "promise".
Look, could we please try again from the start.
So, if you want to unblock me, that would be great - I could then continue the RfC on what is arguably a very very important issue. I hereby undertake to never again use TGPoD, and I hereby undertake to only use this current account re the Streisand Effect. I will even refrain from ever again using this account to make comments re individuals' editing style and declining numbers of wp editors, if only because a) I now could not possibly do so with any effectiveness, b) I am not quite stupid enough not to be embarrassed by this fiasco - in that sense I would be quite happy to actually do what you have so often falsely accused me of, i.e. evade scrutiny by never again referring to these two accounts. If you can't unblock me, hmmmm, guess there is nothing I can do; I'm not used to that, but I can see that you might be obliged to assume conspiracy even if it merely a cock-up. If you can't unblock me, then could you please review the contents of my RfC and see it through yourself - I think it really does server consideration.
I will finish with a copy and paste from Talk:Streisand_effect#RfC:_Is_the_Streisand_Effect_defined_by_usage.3F_Should_wp_include_Charlie_Hebdo.3F:
[btw, I hope everyone is well-behaved re WP:OUTING ]
regards & thanks, and (if kept blocked) over & out,
GreenPeasAndPotatoes ( talk) 06:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. Please wp:agf, applying wp:IPHUMAN even to me. GreenPeasAndPotatoes ( talk) 06:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The smart thing and good-faith-affirming way to do would have been to acknowledge a mistake and to request a rename: instead you tried to justify your pointy choice of name and intention to confront TRPoD. You can't un-say what you said elsewhere about confronting other users by creating a new username.This isn't the way to act in good faith. Given that you were trying to justify the other account at the same time as this one was active (without acknowledging this one), this account is blocked too Acroterion (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Acroterion, half way through writing this I realised I had made a major mistake. Please excuse the abrasive tone of the first couple of points, but I am running out of time.
From WP:SOCK#LEGIT:
As I explained at my disclaimer at the RfC, as a publisher I have a vested interest in documenting the expansion of the Streisand Effect to the Charlie_Hebdo_shooting. As I indicated above and elsewhere, I have valid reasons for needing a special-purpose account for doing this. Is it too hard for you to imagine those reasons??? By now, that is no longer a rhetorical question. I.e. y/n?
As I have repeated a few times now, I have had zero prior dealings with TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom, and have never even noticed him or her before. Is is too hard to imagine that it only takes one look at TRPoD's contributions at Talk:Streisand_effect to see TRPoD as a significant problem??? If so, please examine that multi-par essay I wrote there as TGPoH.
You blocked my first special-purpose account with the explanation: "[1]abusing multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, [2]appears to have been created to target a specific user". Re-reading what I had written, I can't fault you for [1], in fact, it was completely necessary given that I failed to adequately explain my intentions on my user page. My profound apologies - I thought I had. I had written "I created a special wp account to get this reverted, because I wanted tight anonymity" in my first edit at talk:SE, and expanded on this in the RfC, but it is unreasonable to have expected you to notice this, so again, my apologies. (I was soooo cross with you.) Re [2], agreed, as conceded and apologised for in my previous reply to you.
Further, I just noticed on User:GreenPeasAndPotatoes that I had only written:
without adding the obvious:
Sorry again. I probably made that mistake because I sought to correct my error of having used TGPoH, and I was only thinking of my own account, but it is a hell of a mistake to make for a "promise".
Look, could we please try again from the start.
So, if you want to unblock me, that would be great - I could then continue the RfC on what is arguably a very very important issue. I hereby undertake to never again use TGPoD, and I hereby undertake to only use this current account re the Streisand Effect. I will even refrain from ever again using this account to make comments re individuals' editing style and declining numbers of wp editors, if only because a) I now could not possibly do so with any effectiveness, b) I am not quite stupid enough not to be embarrassed by this fiasco - in that sense I would be quite happy to actually do what you have so often falsely accused me of, i.e. evade scrutiny by never again referring to these two accounts. If you can't unblock me, hmmmm, guess there is nothing I can do; I'm not used to that, but I can see that you might be obliged to assume conspiracy even if it merely a cock-up. If you can't unblock me, then could you please review the contents of my RfC and see it through yourself - I think it really does server consideration.
I will finish with a copy and paste from Talk:Streisand_effect#RfC:_Is_the_Streisand_Effect_defined_by_usage.3F_Should_wp_include_Charlie_Hebdo.3F:
[btw, I hope everyone is well-behaved re WP:OUTING ]
regards & thanks, and (if kept blocked) over & out,
GreenPeasAndPotatoes ( talk) 06:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)