User talk:CheerfulKnight
|
December 2017
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Acroterion (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
Hi User:Doug Weller,
I'm unsure as to how to go about proceedings, but as we exchanged via email, and further to your instructions to edit my page to begin any proceedings, I would like to bring your attention to this case, and the issue of proportionality, focusing on the actions of a few select users such as Acroterion. I believe both my case and the wider sockpuppet case at large here seems to have been dealt with improperly. I hope we can get to the bottom of this.
Cheerfulknight
PS. AH silly me, I missed the unblock box.
CheerfulKnight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Email forwarded to Doug Weller which he notified me to paste here
I believe I have enough evidence of bullying through inappropriate use of administrator privileges by User:Acroterion.
I created an account to edit the European School, Luxembourg I article back in November, which was promptly mistaken for another user who had been suspected of sock puppetry. During my edits, I was accused, and subsequently labelled as a sock of another user for bringing back edits as a template for moving forward. I attempted to defend myself against the accusation, but found myself under a barrage of WP:Deny and admins misusing "WP:" clauses to evade answering a question. Finally, my IP, and the IP range of the University of Oxford, from where I am based, was banned for "wikilawyering" after I claimed I had not had the chance to defend myself against accusations - ironically, proving my point, since I was unable to respond to that charge. After checking the page for wikilawyering, my impression is that is specifically for people trying to use legal terminology or processes to muddy or confuse arbitration, not for people asking for a fair process altogether.
I decided to have another go earlier this month at simply contributing to the articles I wished to improve, by firstly adding citations, and making general improvements. I managed until I was again accosted by MarnetteD, who on reflection decided to reinstate the edits and assume good faith. On this same edit, the user Sro23 reversed Marnette's decision, citing WP:Quack - a policy that has no need of evidence. I repeatedly asked for more clarity on what had changed between the assumption of good faith and bad faith to no avail; exposing the near total arbitrariness and whimsical nature of the decisions, which are later talked of as if they were cast in stone. Finally my account was banned by the User:Acroterion, who had back in November, revealed himself to be EXTREMELY hostile, rude and unprofessional to me, by inserting comments into edits referring to me as the sock.
Lastly, and perhaps most deservedly of severe action by the Wikipedia community, User:Acroterion gave an indefinite ban to an entire range of IPs from the University of Oxford, a university of some 24,000 students.
I expect immediate and swift action to be taken regarding User:Acroterion and this last point, no matter what the outcome of the investigation. This is a flagrant abuse of powers.
The articles I edited have also been reverted in such a way to cause deliberate annoyance to me I believe. Not to the last version, before my account, but including mistakes (such as the listing of a school in Parma Italy, as a European School, when it is only of an accredited status as is obvious from the sources on the page.
I don't know much about the user I'm accused of being only that I assume that if their experience of this select group of admins is anything that I've seen, I expect the case has been greatly misportrayed by them, and particularly the vindictive nature of the select admins involved.
I hope that this case can be resolved swiftly, even in the holiday season, via the arbitration committee and wish to emphasis very much that I would like to know if any person already involved in my case is on the panel.
Yours,
CheerfullKnight
Decline reason:
As this is an unblock request, I will only consider the parts that are actually an unblock request. Acroterion's analysis strikes me as correct; the results of the SPI strike me as correct as well. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:56, 20 December 2017 (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.
- Reviewing admin: see 129.67.118.193 (talk · contribs), blocked for harassing MarnetteD, and subsequent block evasion by 129.67.116.144 (talk · contribs), 129.67.117.98 (talk · contribs), none of which were blocked for more than 31 hours, and, of course, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euexperttime. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- You are outright misrepresenting the case, as you have always done, and ignoring the fact that this "harassment" was nothing more than asking for the ability to defend myself, and pointing out the truly absurd nature of how certain administrators, such as yourself, may operate with absolute impunity. I do think you should see that as a critical reflection on how you operate. The very fact that the reviewing admin agreed with you on purely circumstantial evidence, based merely on your position within the Wikipedia hierarchy goes to the heart of my complaint.
- I think the wider point about the overall sock investigation I'm being wrapped up in is interesting in well. It is a case of a user who admitted to using socks, am I correct? But who did not agree to being one of the socks he was subsequently accused of, stating that was partner, who lived at his address and used his computer and that they worked at the same computer. What evidence would be available to you to contradict that? How would such a user overcome the refusal to accept that information? Did not that user have their right to comment on their page revoked, after a reviewing editor described an emotional confession of the situation as "irrelevant", to which they were rightly angry. The system is flawed and critically. It punishes users for minor infractions and then forces them into a corner, to reveal information about themselves to anonymous online users halfway across the world, in a totally asymmetric position of power over them, who might still spit in their face after such a humiliating position. Your own conduct through this has been venomous - and increasingly so, the more I suggest that certain elements of the administrative system as they have evolved, are not fit for purpose. Most revealing is the way the system procedurally paints anyone in such a poisiton as myself, as a "vandal" or "troll". WP:Deny, as awful as it is, I think most accurately describes the mind set of users such as yourself; you believe anyone in my situation suffers from, and I quote WP:DENY "chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness and seek recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project and community. Such users experience exceptional attention as empowerment, reward, and encouragement". I think you should reflect upon how totally disgusting, absurd and ridiculous the ascription of such motivations are on people like me, and how that might feel.
- That for example WP:DENY needs an overhaul is I think almost self-evident. That WP:wikilayering is missed by administrative staff and experienced editors to essentially bully those asking for a fair defence is also undeniable. (It was used on me in that manner when it is clear that it is actually intended to be used for those who use real world legal terminology and processes to obfuscate administrative work). The refusal to engage on these points is nearly incredible. CheerfulKnight (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I also want to make clear that I have repeatedly made clear that I wish to progress to a stage where I may contribute freely within the rules, only to be told by users to go through such and such process, only to find those same users presiding over these same processes, and then blocking me. It's like a dark comedy. What is the point of using official processes, if there is no clearly laid down way to navigate through them. The most recent case of MarnetteD reinstating my edits and assuming good faith and Sro23 undoing them on the same available information reveals the totally arbitrary nature of it. It's also the case that any sense of proportionality is truly missing. Did you protect an article with the only editor being me, where any normal person would say they were constructive edits for a 6 month period? How can you argue you are being proportional. CheerfulKnight (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
CheerfulKnight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
See above
Decline reason:
I don't see anything in the above that actually constitutes a legitimate unblock request. Please read the guide to appeals before posting another request, otherwise you are likely to lose your access to this page as well. Yunshui 雲水 14:50, 20 December 2017 (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.