User talk:Encyclopedist J

I've brought up the matter of your identity here within "WP:AN/I". -- Hoary (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of CentristFiasco (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing the Block by the Administrator

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello There: WP:DUCK nor WP:COMMONSENSE is not an official Wikipedia Guideline-it clearly says so on the article page, and this is obviously what "justified" the block against my account, sir. There was no evidence that I am, Centrist Fiasco or any other accounts that I was accused of being. I'd recommend that you re-look into my case thouroughly and read through the Occupy Wall Street Talk Page, and my actual contributions in its entirely including my summaries. You'll realize that the individuals who were accusing me were essentially trolls who merely disagreed with an edit to the extent, they just revert the entire thing. My contribution was up for two to three hours which signal that nobody had a problem with it, a matter of fact there were contributions after my main contribution with another individual in fixing the article. I've originally put templates to give readers and contributors notice that the article is filled wrongdoings, as in violations in WP:NPOV and Wikipedia Encyclopedic Standards. I hope that you get this message and realize that you've done wrong and I would like to confess, I may have something wrong too. This wrong that I have done was not reaching the typical but unreachable consensus amongst the masses on the Talk Page, even if I only provided a non-partisan source without any information tied to it. In all respect, I didn't break any rules at all if you look at the facts. Encyclopedist J (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below; this account is clearly being operated by the same editor. I'm not really interested in your crusade and your content dispute, but further unblock requests will need to come from your original account. Kuru (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2012 (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.

No evidence, except, you know, writing exactly like him, using his specific (dishonestly cropped) image for the Occupy Movement, and having a similar user name to one of your other sockpuppets. Do you really think people here are that stupid?

...

If you want to even pretend of having a chance of coming back, you need to admit you've screwed up, quit blaming others for your mistakes, and show that you're willing to learn how things work here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not trolling. Trolling is "Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia." If a dozen editors are citing guidelines against the edits you made, and countless others are not stopping them, they're not the trolls. If an editor comes back under a new account, edits and behaves almost identically to someone blocked for sockpuppetry and NPOV violations, the only reasonable conclusions are either sockpuppet (assuming good faith) or (not assuming good faith) a troll. When that "new" editor doesn't admit to making any mistakes, that pretty much kills any possibility of it being an honest mistake that the "new" editor will learn from.

Continuing to pretend that you did not make any mistakes will not help you.

Calling anyone who offers advice a troll just because they are not an admin will not help you.

The only thing that will help is admitting you've messed up, and showing that you want to repent. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning; if you remove this post again I will remove your ability to edit this page. Tiderolls 20:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

You're abusing your Power of Priviledge, pal, as an Administrator. This is an unjust call and it has been explictly stated that there is no evidence that I am this Centrist Fiasco nor any of the other aliases, some contributors accuse me of being. Kura, you're merely siding with the "trolls" on this matter because you have a grudge on me for some odd reason, and I never even met you before. What you're doing is abusing your Power by not abiding by the established Wikipedia Standards in attention to the Wikipedia Guidelines. I'm resubmitting this request because I demand a fair assessment from an administrator who abides by the Wikipedia Guidelines, and who doesn't insult the very people they block as well abusing my Right to control who posts on my Talk Page. The individual who posted on my Talk Page doesn't have the Right to be involved in any of my requests or affairs in regards to the Administrators, he ought to merely stay completely out of the picture of I'll simply have to contact the higher Authorities on Wikipedia through an email. I'm not threatening you, Kuru nor the individual in any way I just want a fair assessment in my investigation without the use of pity joke essays that clearly aren't the Wikipedia Guidelines. An administrator who first investigated the sockpoppet case said that there's no technical evidence; therefore, this leads to the given fact that I am not who you think I am. If I remotely did anything wrong on this site that would possibly be the fact that I didn't reach the "ideal" consensus in editing such a small portion of the Occupy Wall Street article, and possibly falling for a bait in almost violating the three-revert rule. I did not violate the WP:ORIGINAL Guideline by any means if you guys or girls actually looked at my edits, the context, and the references of those edits. In all respect, I still forgive you for what've done but if there are more Administrators like yourself behaving this way then I would rather contribute elsewhere. The reason why I didn't just accept the infinite block in the first place was because it was a unjust block from the getco without any evidence defining it. Every user deserves a fair assessment and every accusation deserves to be verficable; the individuals who accused have no evidence, simply put if you gather the facts. Please respect my wishes in not reverting any individual who accused me to post on my Talk Page during this process. Thank you. Encyclopedist J (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The only part of you request that is on point is a denial of engaging in sockpuppetry. Your denial is insufficient to grant unblock. The lack of technical evidence does not translate to lack of culpability. For your future reference, your block is "indefinite" not "infinite". Having said that, infinity is covered by the term indefinite. Please consider that before posting another off-point unblock request. Tiderolls 20:32, 17 March 2012 (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.

Also, do not remove posts by any editor, administrator or otherwise, that administrators might consider germaine to the review of your situation. Tiderolls 20:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any Individual Who's Not an Administrator Comments Shall Be Removed, Every Time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopedist J (talk • contribs)

To edit on Wikipedia, you'll have to edit collaboratively with other editors—and not all of them are administrators. Your unwillingness to take advice and input from a user here does not reflect well on what would happen were you to be unblocked. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user that you're referring to was essentially trolling me this entire time, and the one who put these accusations with no evidence on me. I've tried to reason with people like him hours ago and they continue to snark, so I'm just going to completely ignore their posts/delete them from my Talk Page since this is my Talk Page. Nothing wrong with that. I'm open to witnesses of other contributors expect the ones who's constantly baited me, trolled me and consistently tried to break me by these accusations. Encyclopedist J (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per this report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco/Archive, it is quite possible that this is a sockpuppet account and if you cannot prove that you are not the same person being the confirmed sockpuppet accounts, it is very unlikely that you will be unblocked. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The General, I've provided my defense numerous times during the investigation and it has not been thoroughly read nor has the proper evidence. This is why I'm repealing my block, pal, I'm just asking for a fair assessment and I've provided the defense I need to defend myself on a relevant issue, and to add an administrator who first investigateed explictly stated there's no technical evidence. When it comes to socketpuppeting, this is the key to finding the evidence and since there's no technical evidence there is essentially no evidence at all. The only arguments against me was pity arguments attempting to compare my writing to Centrist Fiasco's writing which isn't that significant nor is it relevant to even compare... The individuals who presented this argument have to got to be under the age of thirteen if this is all they got to accuse somebody, including the absurd summary comparisons. By the way, this Ian individual is a backseat moderator, he didn't even notify me when he accused me of such things. Encyclopedist J (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's all too easy to circumvent the technical side, so admins often rely on behavioral evidence. If they couldn't, the rule against socking to evade a block would be all but unenforceable. This appears to be one of the many things you steadfastly disagree with regarding the way Wikipedia works, but as you've been told, that doesn't change the way Wikipedia works. You'd do well to accept that rather than grudging forward insisting that your ideas are better. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:32, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

It is standard operating procedure in evaluating whether two accounts are used by the same person to look at editing patterns: common subject areas and ideosyncracies in spelling, typing, edit summary style, etc. In some cases, the request for a checkuser search is declined because the editing patterns leave so little doubt that there's common control over the accounts that there's no need to run it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Equazcion, did you even fucking read through my fucking contributions and summaries of those contributions? I've opened myself to changes, imbecile! Goodness, you're lack of comprehension and logic is astounding, my gosh. I've provided the necessary tools for other to contribute further on the matter of the Classical Marxist influence on Occupy Wall Street, I even took the opportunity to provide an explicit source that talks Occupy Wall Street and Marxism on the matter! It was the first and second sourced reference of my fucking contribution! Don't tell me you didn't give a damn about reading it? You probably didn't give a damn because based upon what you've said on the Talk Page, which was in completely agreement with another user that explicitly stated, "We're obliged to portray OWS the way it is portrayed in mainstream discourse. If you've got an argument that the mainstream presents OWS as primarily a Marxist movement, let's hear it. Otherwise, you've got some WP policy to study up on" and "Like it or hate it, we can only report what gets reported first by reliable sources such as Nytimes. If you want to portray the truth then get a job in the New York Times or CNN. Until then, we have to trust that their journalists are portraying the movement accurately, fairly, and truthfully", this tells me that you and others don't pay fucking attention on who you fucking source.All you care about is getting what ever thoughts you may have out there, silencing anyone who gives acredible sourced material and puts together a encyclopedic structure for an article. You guys just want things your own damn way, this is fucking against the rules and by seeing the many essays this fucking site has that even the Owners of Wikipedia explicitly stated that it's not the official policy. You guys treat it as a fucking actual policy! This is absurd! I'm sick of this bullshit, I'm not going to appeal my block anymore because apparently as I found out, the administrators are chosen by popularity or some sort of contribution rank system, this is beyond bullshit. Encyclopedist J (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, your talk page access will be revoked. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

User:C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]