User talk:Cynical Apathy

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cynical Apathy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am new to Wikipedia, but have been a long time user for my workplace as wiki contains a great deal of useful information. I recently created a login to access more of the features as a certified user. I do not deny that I am also a member of another site which is admittedly arguing and engaging in edit warring of a particular article. However, my record will show that even when able to edit, I did not engage in this edit warring as the others did, but I did voice my opinion on the talk page. My understanding of the talk page is that is it's intended purpose. I was immediately banned from editing and labeled a "meatpuppet". I believe the user who blocked me had what we call a "knee-jerk" reaction. I do not feel I should have been blocked and I am requesting that my block be lifted immediately.

Decline reason:

User does appear to be editing on Murphy's behalf; feel free to request an unblock again if a time comes when you'd like to edit Wikipedia for yourself; you may be asked to refrain from edits related to Murphy to demonstrate that you are not editing on his behalf.— FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I don't really know who Don Murphy is, but he and his readers have wasted a lot of time for a lot of administrators and editors lately. Are you interested in making any edits that are not related to the topic of Don Murphy? What kinds of editing, other than that, are you hoping to do? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may never edit anything... it's the pricipal of the action. Suppose, for sake of argument, that I stumbled across a page by chance that has a history, not unlike that of the Murphy page, and added an opinion. I get blocked for being a "meatpuppet" just because I wrote an opposing view. I have no interest in editing the Murphy page, nor vandalizing it. Which, might I add, I have had ample opportunity to do if I truly were a "meatpuppet". As I said before, it is the principle of the action. I feel it was a knee jerk reaction and unfair to label me immediately because I voice my opinion.Cynical Apathy (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 'meatpuppet' isn't a very complimentary word, I know. It means a proxy editor, someone who edits on behalf of a blocked editor. When an editor who is blocked sends other people to do the edits he'd like to do himself, those people are called 'meatpuppets' here. Murphy has sent many people as 'meatpuppets' to make the edits he can't make himself. It's not a nice thing to do to someone else, to turn them into a meatpuppet. Your edit history and comments indicate that you have gotten used in this way, and unfortunately for you, the rules don't allow Murphy to edit while he's blocked, even if he does his editing by asking other people to edit for him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree... my edit history shows no malicious editing of ANY page including the Murphey page and my comments are based on my personal opinions not those of Mr. Murphy. But, I see where this is headed. I am to remain blocked because I oppose the views of others... I appreciate your time in this matter and will cease from using my wikipedia account.Cynical Apathy (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood. The question isn't whether or not your edits were malicious. The question is whether you are editing on your own behalf, or on Murphy's behalf. Murphy is blocked, so he isn't allowed to edit, or to ask other people to edit on his behalf. That means that people who edit on his behalf are blocked as part of the block on his edits. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see the ultimate decision was exactly what I expected it to be. Unjust. I would like to state for the record that #1 - I was neither asked, nor encouraged by Mr. Murphy to make the statement I made. #2 - My statement is of my own opinion based on a review of previous deletion requests and the constant bickering between the two sites. And #3 - there seems to be a system set up where any opposing view is met with the most severe punishment possible. What ever happened to progressive discipline... how about a warning, I am, after all, a first time user, a request to not edit this particular article, etc... No, the administration dishes out a complete block for the entire wiki. I find it amusing that other users who have made blatant crude edits tp the article itself are dealt a block for a day or two... I voice my own personal opinion on the discussion page WITHOUT encouragement and I am blocked from all wiki indefinitely. Bigtimepeace made the comment that I was tilting at windmills, I'm sure he is right. As I stated, I have no desire to edit his article, nor have I EVER edited his article... I merely created a topic for discussion... for that, I was punished. Lastly, what gives an admin sole discretion to decide whether someone edits on their own behalf or someone else's? I was in total control of my edit, which by the way, ONLY occurs on the discussion page... which was apparently created for the purpose of DISCUSSION!Cynical Apathy (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the Wikipedia policy on blocking and on Meatpuppet. As defined in Wikipedia - Meatpuppet is a Wikipedia term of art meaning one who edits on behalf of or as proxy for another editor. While Wikipedia assumes good faith especially for new users, the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is strongly discouraged. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, shall be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.[1] The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used only with care. I am new, and my entry was the first I have ever made, I was branded without care. Per the Wikipedia Blocking Policy, it clearly states... "a persistant disruption." My entry was the first of it's kind on the discussion page and I did not "persistantly disrupt" the article. A warning should have been given to me if I edited in err versus an immediate ban.Cynical Apathy (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, and that's why I tried engaging you in conversation instead of immediately declining your unblock request. I'll still be happy to unblock you on your request, if you want to edit Wikipedia on your own behalf and not for Murphy. I only declined because, after some conversation, it didn't seem that you had any interest right now in editing Wikipedia yourself. That's fine; lots of people don't edit Wikipedia, and if a time comes when you'd like to, just put the unblock request back up. You're still welcome to use Wikipedia; it's Don Murphy who isn't allowed to, either by editing himself or by asking others to edit for him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to a few of your points- Murphy's advocates get blocked immediately because he has sent so many of them that it's been very disruptive. You did not spontaneously decide to come here and make that particular edit; you came here as part of Murphy's dispute with Wikipedia, like so many others have done. You have quoted the rule under which you were blocked- you are new, and engaging in the same behavior as Murphy in the same context, which means that you are subject to the remedy applied to Murphy- you share his block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... I see your point... It was just the principle of the block that irked me. Since I really don't edit and frankly am not quite sure how to edit properly even if I wanted to, I will drop it. It was just getting slapped with a label like "meatpuppet" automatically seemed a bit harsh and uncalled for. I'm sure you all have your hands full with the others who are actually out to cause a problem. I truly was not. Thank you for your consideration on this matter.Cynical Apathy (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing before I let it go... I find it amusing that I create a discussion topic and get banned, yet others get to continue discussing the issue without any recourse to their accounts... amazing! Cynical Apathy (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are experienced users discussing the policy, aren't they? One of them I think could be blocked under the rule that got you blocked... I wouldn't necessarily have blocked you, though, so I'm not going to block him just to keep things even, though some other admin might. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]