User talk:Destroyerbigenough
Destroyerbigenough (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Published as execution of the requests made by the English Wikipedia Administrators (#24906) (#24915) (#24918). I have been advised by one administrator and some other users to make a request for unblock. I have prepared several articles, doing every edit (series of edits) from a newly created account, abandoning a previous account(s) and as a rule forgetting password(s) seeing any need to remember or write them down at all. I did not utterly know that it was a preference that editors may have only one account. Such a requirement is nowhere stated at the page on which one logs in or creates accounts, as well as I was not informed about such a requirement during editing. These accounts have been all blocked after some time because of this and perhaps other reasons. I have not left any abusive or substantially incorrect (misleading) content anyhow. [text redacted per WP:BLP] I may correct the legal syllogism so as it will not be erroneous and misleading any longer. I may prepare legal reasoning or try to ask someone else who is competent enough to do that. There is plenty of literature on this topic and there is no need to be restricted here only to one or several authors in this case. Destroyerbigenough (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nobody's going to read an unblock request this long. Come on, we are all volunteers here. Looking at Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Lawmander, I see you may be considered banned rather than blocked, under WP:3X. I can not give you any specific suggestions for writing an appropriate unblock except to point you to WP:GAB and to remember nobody's going to read a wall of text like that. Yamla (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2019 (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.
I'll also note your violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE last month, if not more recently, mean you have no chance, none at all, of being unblocked in the near future. Your best hope, though it's extremely faint, is to apply under WP:SO after six months of zero edits. That timer starts today. --Yamla (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Destroyerbigenough (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reasons for unblock:
1) I have been advised by one administrator and some others to make a request for unblock.
2) I did not utterly know that it was a preference that editors may have only one account. Such a requirement is nowhere stated at the page on which one logs in or creates accounts, as well as I was not informed about such a requirement during editing.
3) I was abandoning a previous account(s) and as a rule I was forgetting password(s) seeing any need to remember or write them down at all, i.e. acting with no aim to use these accounts abusively
4) I have not left any abusive or substantially incorrect (misleading) content, anyhow. In one place, users: 7&6=thirteen and Cosmic Sans who introduce themselves as Doctor of Laws and a former Professor of Law respectively acknowledged the high-quality of the content I have provided.
5) Many edits which I have made form new accounts only master the current content (they introduced a very small linguistic changes; some users thanked for them) and their evident aim was to incrementally perfect the articles (part of them) like adding lacking dots and commas or correcting spelling mistakes, for instance.
Reasons for me being blocked:
1) Perhaps creating a great number of accounts – without caring about that fact and not knowing that it is or potentially can be ever perceived as anything wrong.
2) Perhaps trying to post disclaimer to the untrue information intended to harm reputation of [text redacted per WP:BLP] and most probably many other legal international scholarly journals.
The former was claimed to “not even appear to have any current academic affiliation other than as a graduate of a law school” and be “an undergraduate degree” as well as that there is “no evidence of citation of his work by others”.
The latter is claimed to be “predatory”, “dubious” and “crappy”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lawmander/Archive
[links redacted per WP:BLP]
https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish - the programme by using which one can check whether a given scholar is cited or not.
3. Perhaps being suspected of being a Pole or citing a Pole
Personal attack on me and the author cited has been called by some users “ad hominen”, “fallacious irrelevancy”, “almost surreal” and “kafkaesque”. Words: “Polish guy”, “wibble”, “dream up” used in order to ridicule or/and discredit, while he who used them had not faintest idea on the subject matter which fact he admitted later (“The article was therefore unfixable by me without engaging in my own original research. It took about four goes of Googling before I even worked out how old the term is”), etc.
The one who launched this attack and blocked me has been eventually chased away be the ingenious allusion to the Gambler song performed by Kenny Rogers made by the user: 7&6=thirteen because he tired publicly to defend what he is doing.
His behavior has been also noted as – apart from being a form of utterly irrelevant personal attack and violation of a zero tolerance activities list – overt violation of WP outing policy, whatever this means.
Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?
I think that you may ask one who blocked my account:
1) why he uses one’s nationality it in order to discredit one’s edits, as an argument in discussion which should be centered only on the content. Is he biased towards Polish people and what are reasons for that?
2) why he called “crappy”, “predatory”, “dubious” the following legal journals:
[links redacted per WP:BLP]
I do not remember the password to the account: Lawmander. I have never thought that I would need it for any purpose. That is why I cannot place a template on the talk page there.
If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?
I will edit the article: analogy since its current parts – at present - violate copyrights of the author concerned and the following legal journals to which footnoted have been removed although these parts were in fact created upon the articles published in these journals.
[text redacted per WP:BLP]
I cannot add other literature in English here because it most probably does not exist. The aforementioned works are the most representative, succinct, comprehensive and to the point here – according to my best knowledge.
I may restore the content of other article in which have been made changes which violated copyrights or which have been vandalized, i.e. non liquet, loophole, metaphor, law, statutory interpretation, a fortiori, a contrario.
I may improve the legal syllogism so as it will not be erroneous and misleading in any inch.
Decline reason:
If you want your request reviewed, it needs to be much shorter. I would say it should be a brief paragraph. 331dot (talk)
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.
You are not permitted to remove declined unblock requests for currently active blocks. Do not do so again. I'll also note you refused to follow my advice. You may wish to reconsider the above unblock request, but that's up to you. --Yamla (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)