Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, nor is trolling or other disruptive behavior ever tolerated. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on your user talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I argue unequivocally that the concept of a flatulent member of species Felis domesticus, the only possible interpretation of the username "CATFARTS" is neither "obviously profane," nor does it "threaten, attack or impersonate another person," nor should it suggest my "intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia." While I am not a prolific contributor, I stand behind every edit I have made as being in good faith and for the betterment of the community. Further, my conduct within Wikipedia should be apparent in its conformity with the code of conduct to any reasonable observer. My username is meant to invoke a sense of light-heartedness, or even bring about a smile; it has never been my intent to offend anybody. I offer that having used the same handle on multiple forums outside of Wikipedia for over four years, I have never received a single complaint from anyone. To the contrary, I have received compliments and generally cordial remarks if anything at all. In further support of my argument I direct attention to the Wikipedia article Fart, which posits that "The word fart is often considered unsuitable in formal situations as it may be considered vulgar or offensive." Personally, I have a problem reconciling the concepts of "unsuitable in formal situations" and/or "may be considered vulgar or offensive" with "obviously profane" as claimed. (But then again, what do I know? I've only worked a bit over a decade earning my BS and doctoral degree so that I can make a positive impact on the lives of sick children. I haven't had the luxury of time to consider every nuance of the word Fart.) I further protest that the blocking of my account based upon a entirely subjective interpretation of the word violates my rights to fair use. Referring back to my contributions on Wikipedia: I have never made edits, communicated with other users, or performed any actions with intent to badger, harass, misinform or mislead, nor to limit or restrict free expression or good faith contributions from other users. Such actions are unconscionable, and I (for one) am aware that making voluminous contributions to Wikipedia does not grant me the right to treat other users in such a negative and discriminatory fashion. At the end of the day, I hope that all users can be aware of and reflect upon their actions, particularly in regard to the treatment of others (who are real living people, having careers, families, hopes, dreams, and fears). For myself, among my personal interests outside of my profession and family life, I make a point of correcting inaccurate information posted within Wikipedia that has potential to contribute to the harming of persons so misinformed. As a perfect example, I have just tonight discovered that my account was blocked as I was logging in to correct an error contained in the article chromyl chloride, an acutely toxic oxidizer. It is a very minor error - the boiling point is stated to be 117° C rather than the correct 11.7° C. The article is just missing a single decimal place; however were someone to handle this chemical using the Wikipedia article for reference, they could be severely injured or killed along with anybody close by. In my opinion, blocking positively-contributing, well-intentioned members of Wikipedia over a word like Fart, which I maintain is not "clearly profane," does not support the common good, nor does it protect others in the community. Efforts to block other Wikipedia users, apparently without making inquiry into the nature of their contributions or their disposition, only serves to harass and suppress others on the basis of personal prejudice, and is in itself detrimental to Wikipedia as a website and as a community. Concluding my appeal of this apparent violation of Wikipedia's code of conduct, I invite The Anome to participate in a civil discussion of personal behavior, accountability, and the associated concepts of due diligence and due process. Thank you for your time.CATFARTS (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the great question Tropicalkitty. The answer to which is that I was not given a choice. The blocking editor appears to have fixed the terms of appeal to require selection of a new username. Following an example in the above referenced guide to appealing blocks, I removed the "user=" portion of the command block to avoid changing my username. Although the syntax was correct, when previewing my appeal I was presented with a BIG, RED, BOLD message at the top informing me that I must choose a new username in order to proceed. In fact, there was another message right below indicating that this particular user was "requesting a new username so that (I) can appeal a block." Have a good evening! CATFARTS (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...I apologize. I had that last bit backwards, as it actually stated that I am requesting to be unblocked so that i can request a new username. Sigh, I do wish that I didn't have to change my username. Considering that real profanity occurs within actual Wikipedia articles, and I don't even use, nor do I allow my children to use minced epithets. I value and strive to foster a culture of mutual respect. I guess I now know not to expect the same from editors of Wikipedia. It is situations like this, however small, that gradually chip away at ones hope for a better future. The knowledge that you can try to do everything for the right reasons, yet may still fall victim to false accusations for which you are publicly shamed and punished without benefit of due process, is a bit depressing. CATFARTS (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fancy talk. But chromyl chloride's boiling point? Really? Sigma-Aldritch say its BP is 117 °C. [1], page 31 of ISBN 9780471856436 says it's 116 °C (search for "isbn:9780471856436 chloride" in Google Book Search). NIOSH says it's 243 °F [2] which is roughly 117 °C. And then there's you, CATFARTS, who says it's 11.7 °C, which makes it a gas at STP. Which is strange, because all the sources I've looked at describe it as a red liquid at STP. Can you please tell us why we should believe you instead of them, particularly when you state that this is a safety issue? Otherwise, given the above, I think we can simply decide that you're WP:NOTHERE to build the encyclopedia, and be done with it. -- The Anome (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
