User talk:DenisHume

Your block

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)[reply]

My thoughts on your block

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)[reply]

While your use of "piss off" and "fuck you" on the Virgin Killer image discussion page deservedly got you blocked in my opinion, I hope you come back after the block expires and continue to contribute - just without the incivility ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked indefinately

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)[reply]

My recommendation: Wait two weeks then petition for this talk page to be opened so you can have a meaningful discussion with the blocking administrators about your block. Why two weeks? It shows 1) contrition/penance and more importantly 2) it shows you may be here to edit articles other than those surrounding the recent Virgin Killer-block controversy, which will have died down by then. User talk:Rklawton#DenisHume's indef block - why was it extended?/version as of 11:12, 13 December 2008 has more information on why Rklawton gave you an extended block. He's getting some flack for it, but it's best for you if you stay out of that arguement.

How to appeal your block: Wait two weeks, then using an IP address, use the {{unblock}} template, which you already know how to use. Make it very clear in your unblock reason that you 1) want to have your block loosened enough so you can edit this talk page, 2) that you will not use comments or attack summaries that could be construed as personal attacks even by editors why may be emotionally sensitive, and most importantly 3) that you want to have a dialog with the blocking administrators to find out what, if anything, you need to do before being allowed to edit the rest of the encyclopedia. If this request to be allowed to edit this page granted, and it probably will be, then you should listen to any advice you get, and decide if you can follow it. If you can, then ask to be unblocked completely. If you cannot, then it would be pointless because in a few days or weeks you'll just wind up blocked again. You might consider asking SqueakBox (talk · contribs) to shepherd you around for a week or two, appearently you both share some of the same ideals and will likely be editing in the same areas. He's also had some year-plus-old blocks and has learned to edit within the rules of Wikipedia, and as a result, Wikipedia is a better place. I say it's a better place even though he and I disagree on the Virgin Killer issues. Wikipedia can be a better place with your input too, provided you learn and follow the rules of decorum and rules of content editing that have been built up and formalized over the years through consensus. By the way, the rules are constantly evolving as people come and go and decide the way the rules are written just isn't working, but that's a deliberately slow process. Oh, one more thing, In the next 2 weeks do not edit Wikipedia, not even this talk page, under any other account or under any IP address. It will be construed as block-evasion and will greatly reduce your chances of getting unblocked. Other than the one-time use of the unblock template after 2 weeks, do not edit this page under an IP address except to answer direct questions from administrators. Wait until you are given the right to edit this page using your logged-in name before making additional comments here. If you find the unblock request is ignored after a few days, you can log into Wikipedia using your regular account, go to the USER page of one of the two admins who blocked you, and click on the "email this user" link in the left panel. Both you and the person you are emailing must have configured their email addresses in the user preferences for this to work. Please also read Wikipedia:Contact_us/blocked for more information on blocks. By the way, if your block was anything less than a month, my advice would've been to simply wait it out. A month is too long but it's easier and looks better for you to wait that out than to go through the appeals process. I personally think 7 days is on the outside of what is appropriate. Unfortunately, at least one editor thinks indef is good. Indef usually translates into several weeks to several months before appeals are taken seriously, but as several editors are questioning him with that you should be able to at least get this talk page reopened after a couple weeks, providing you tread carefully. For the benefit of any administrators who may be watching: DenisHume (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · sockssuspected)

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: On second thought, after 2 weeks, try to mail User:Rklawton first, and if you don't get a reply within 2-3 days, mail User:Protonk, and if you don't get a reply within 2-3 days of that, use the {{unblock}} template. It's always better if you don't have to get other administrators involved who aren't involved already. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is extremely sound advice in my humble opinion. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to email me. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you now have permission to edit your talk page

Don't blow it. FOLLOW DAVIDWR'S ADVICE TO THE LETTER. Remember: Patience is a virtue.
--NBahn (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have been a member of WP:PAW for nearly 2 years now, particularly watching pro paedophile activists and generally ensuring that wikipedia avoids pedophile promotion. We will debate the VK image issue as soon as the controversy has died down. When I saw this just before logging off last night I thought, oh dear. Admins, I'd support the original week block and a civility parole for a few months and give him another chance under our don't bite the good faith (which is about intention) newbies policy. And do email me, Denis, you can enable and then then disable your email account 2 mins later if you want privacy and i am happy to let you know who I am but not the general public. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to give my real life name and occupation away (I use a university faculty email) so I won't be able to email you I'm afraid. Is there any method of sending private messages through the wikipedia system? DenisHume (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to give your anonymity away, set up a gmail account or similar and nobody including me will know who you are. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another point

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sometimes avoiding controversy can be good. Other times not.

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)[reply]

section break - unblock request

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).

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)[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.

3rd party request re: unblock

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)[reply]

I am more than happy to monitor Denis. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional notes:

Given the discussion above, it would have been better two wait two weeks or even longer rather than one for reinstatement. An admin may look at the discussion and decide to unblock you now on the grounds that blocks are not punitive, or he may ask you to convince you that you understand WP:CIVIL and other behavior guidelines better before unblocking you.
A checkuser will need to be made to see if you logged in from User_talk:86.45.222.9 after this bad edit and this immediate self-revert. If you did log in from 86.45.222.9 after those edits, then we can fairly assume it was your computer that made the edit and your request to unblock will need to be denied until at least 2 weeks if not much longer after the 19th.

I think you can be a good editor, but you'll need some hand-holding until you get the hang of things.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That crude edit (and reversion) was undoubtedly from this editor. He'll need to explain just why we should waste our time holding his hands when he can't make his typing fingers behave. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please help us identify the public proxies so they can be blocked under the no-public-proxy rule. In general, public proxies are either blocked entirely or they are blocked if you aren't logged in, depending on the particulars of the proxy. In rare cases, such as when a large ISP funnels everyone through one or a handful of proxies. Do you know the IP addresses that your proxy provider uses? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK. I'll have a person with checkuser rights look at the IPs you are using and check if they are "open proxies" which should be blocked or if they are "closed proxies" which do not need to be blocked. See WP:PROXY for more info. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a verification on the open-proxy status of 86.45.222.9. If it is an open proxy, it will likely be favorable for your unblock, but it will also likely result in that IP being blocked as well as other IPs that you use being blocked. If they are blocked, someone will figure out a way to let you get past the blocks so you can continue editing this page and, eventually, if your account is unblocked, the rest of the project. If you do find yourself blocked try logging in from a public computer such as a library computer and leave a note here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There haven't been any findings yet on 86.45.222.9, give it a few days. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The report on 86.45.222.9 is complete, no open proxies were found. That doesn't mean there weren't any at the time you were editing or on 19 December, only that there aren't any now. I am not going to pursue checking the other IP addresses you use, as I see no reason to think they are currently open proxies. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed Technical evidence indicates that this user made the edit in question. -- Avi (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sad part is even if the technical evidence is wrong, the editor will have to live with the outcome. Now he'll have to wait at least several more weeks of not editing at all, under any IP, and hope nobody else spoofs him, before anyone will unblock him. "Oh well." By the way, it's my very strong guess that such technical evidence is right much more often than it's wrong. If that were not the case, it wouldn't be relied on for issuing or declining blocks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think I understand

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)[reply]

I'm not privy to the highly-confidential "checkuser" information, but in general: If you logged in with a given IP address on a certain day, then a few days later someone did something bad from that IP address, and a few days later you logged in with that same IP address, and nobody else logged in with that IP address in the meantime, you are going to get stuck with the blame for the bad edit unless someone is familiar enough with that IP address to know that it always changes more rapidly than the interval between the edits. Most Internet providers let you keep the same IP address up for weeks at a time or longer if the person's computer stays turned on and connected. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unfortunately, while this is evidentiary it's far from conclusive. My ISP changes my IP every few weeks or months involuntarily, and I assume could voluntarily change it any time if I asked them to or if I stayed offline for a week or two. Most ISPs are similar. If you look at my comments above you will see why your using a different ISP now is far from conclusive. It would take someone familiar with the policies of the ISP behind 86.45.222.9 to actually clear you. Under the circumstances, you are far better off waiting a month and not making any edits except to this page under any IP address whatsoever then asking to come back. I know it's painful to be asked to plead "no contest" to something you may or may not have done, but fighting this will cost you goodwill and because of the nature of the evidence, clearing you will be nearly impossible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Actually, it's not "that simple," unless you totally change your editing style and the articles you work on. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am inclined to take people at their word. Assuming this editor is being honest, it's very unfortunate that someone managed to make that edit in such a way as it fingered him very well. It will cost him some goodwill and several months of waiting, should he come back under this userid, or all goodwill and lead to persistent blocking should he be caught editing under a different account. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure no-one minds if you edit constructively on another account as long as you stay away from the pedophilia part of this project; if you want to edit the pedophilia articles you should wait and then get this account unblocked in due time - its a sensitive part of wikipedia and we PAW folk need to not use compromised accounts et al; editing the pedophilia articles as a blocked editor would be counter-productive. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]