I award me one for being conscripted into a lifetime ban since repealing it would cause "drama", despite the fact multiple admins have agreed it was "excessive." Felixhonecker (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2008 (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).
(1) I have never made 3+ reverts to any entry within a 24-hour period in the entirety of my time on Wikipedia. In fact, since being cautioned by the admin in question regarding a separate issue (for which another editor was also cautioned), I only made one edit (in whole, it took several attempts to make the appropriate reversions) to any entry and that edit was to undo another edit that had been made without discussion and without consensus by an unregistered user and in an entirely separate section of the active entry in question.
(2) I am distraught Admin blocked me and then started a Noticeboard discussion about me so that I could not defend myself.
(It is to be expected that current events entries will receive a large number of edits and I would appreciate not being blocked in the absence of a clear description and identification of the specific actions I took that violated WP guidelines, versus simply a vague stamp of what guideline I am alleged to have violated. It is unfortunate I have been charged and punished without being allowed to know the specific edit or edits I made that were questionable.)
I appreciate admin has a passionate opinion about a topic in the news and is being lobbied to block me because I have an alternate opinion, however, I believe NPOV constitutes best practice when assigning blocks. It is regretful when one's ability to freely express oneself on one's Talk page - when done within the rules and guidelines of wikipedia - must be restrained or hidden to avoid arising the anger of users who have had their opinions aroused by inflammatory reporting on the pop culture topic du jour regardless of how sentimental or heartfelt those opinions might be. Felixhonecker (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Toddst's 3RR block has been superceded by an indef block with a much stronger reason and current consensus on ANI. You will need to respond to the reasons for the second block if you want it lifted. Fut.Perf.☼16:24, 25 February 2011 (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 have extended your block length to indefinite in light of the possible implications of this edit[1]. This issue would have to be resolved satisfactorily before you can return to editing.·Maunus·ƛ·16:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note my own userboxes are being actively modified by other users involved in this edit war in such a way so as to make their content seem more inflammatory. No sanction is being taken against them. I have no ability to explain or defend any questions as I was blocked moments before the blocker filed complaints against me. It is regretful the admin made the choice to remove my ability to defend myself prior to running charges up against me. Felixhonecker (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have protected your talk page dso that non-admin users cannot edit your userboxes any further. This protection will last for a week. Another editor has reverted the page to its pre-vandalism state. Now what you need to do is appeal (on this page) against the block which was extended for your breaching of WP:NLT. You do appear to have meade a very concrete threat to report a fellow editor to INTERPOL - in fact you say you have done so. You need to explain that you understand why this was wrong, and that you will not do so again. You can do that here. you do not need access to AN/I to do so. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)16:34, 25 February 2011 (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).
The "concrete legal threat" made by me was the result of errant and fast typing on my part. This is the reason I, almost immediately, undid it. I was editing both my userbox and the Talk page simultaneously (note that it was already decided there is no issue with content on my Talk page). As soon as I noticed what I had done I deleted it which the record shows unambiguously. If I had a true intention of threatening another user I most certainly, logically, would not have almost immediately deleted that edit so that they likely would never see it. There is no grand conspiracy at work in which I'm hiding threats buried under pages of deleted edits. It was a simple and honest mistake and the edit history - in which the "threat" was almost immediately deleted unilaterally by me and prior to any complaint being made - supports that. I should not be permanently banned for an edit which, by any reasonable and objective analysis of the edit record, could - at worst - been the result of hasty and impassioned words that were voluntarily taken back without any complaint being filed but which, even less so, was actually an honest edit mistake.
Decline reason:
{{Sorry, that's even less convincing than 'the dog ate my homework.' That edit wasn't text for your userbox, that was aimed specifically at an editor that you were also personally attacking. And you didn't immediately revert it, you edited it first [2] before removing it. Not good enough, I'm afraid.}} Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2011 (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.
{{help}}
I was blocked, then - 58 seconds after placing a block on my account - the admin in question filed separate complaints against me. The block removed my ability to explain or defend myself. In the absence of any explanation by me I have had my block made indefinite. If this isn't spurious I don't know what is but I have had all abilities to explain or defend myself permanently suppressed over a period of 90 seconds and am now voiceless. I was tried, convicted and sentenced but prevented from entering the courtroom during the entire proceeding. Felixhonecker (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can make any statement in your defense here, and people over at ANI will notice it, or somebody will copy it over if needed. First question you need to clarify is: did you actually report that other user to the police? (Not that I think it matters a lot practically, because they'd obviously ignore you anyway, but we need to make sure you understand why this is just completely unacceptable here.) Fut.Perf.☼16:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "concrete legal threat" made by me was the result of errant and fast typing on my part. This is the reason I, almost immediately, undid it. I was editing both my userbox and the Talk page simultaneously (note that it was already decided there is no issue with content on my Talk page). As soon as I noticed what I had done I deleted it which the record shows unambiguously. If I had a true intention of threatening another user I most certainly, logically, would not have almost immediately deleted that edit so that they likely would never see it. There is no grand conspiracy at work in which I'm hiding threats buried under pages of deleted edits. It was a simple and honest mistake and the edit history - in which the "threat" was almost immediately deleted unilaterally by me and prior to any complaint being made - supports that. I should not be permanently banned for an edit which, by any reasonable and objective analysis of the edit record, could - at worst - been the result of hasty and impassioned words that were voluntarily taken back without any complaint being filed but which, even less so, was actually an honest edit mistake.
That said, if someone does make violent threats against users or public officials in support of Al-Qaeda I will, unhesitatingly, report them to the police. I stand by that without apology, even though I have not yet seen it happen. Felixhonecker (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{help}}User:Dn9ahx is actively editing my userboxes to change the words. One of my userboxes is the subject of a complaint for which I am not able to defend myself as the person filing the complaint blocked me 58 seconds before filing it, then almost mockingly (knowing I couldn't defend myself while blocked) told me to "address the complaint." An overworked admin may quickly look at my userboxes and make a decision without seeing edits being made by NPOV users. I have reason to believe User:Dn9ahx will continue vandalizing my user page to game the system and make sure my indefinite blocks remain. I have no power to stop him or the rest of his gang. Please help. Felixhonecker (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User responded to warning by flippantly saying it was "just a bit o' fun." I believe I am still under threat of being targeted on repeated trumped up and frivolous charges for any slipped keystroke by users who have an agenda to have "a bit o' fun" with me. Editors should not have to, daily, defend themselves against volumes of accusations made against them in the hope that one eventually sticks just so other users can have "a bit 'o fun." I'm here to contribute to wikipedia, not pull "gotchas" on other editors. Felixhonecker (talk)
You can edit your userpage, defend yourself against the accusations here. It will be taken fully into account in relation to the ANI case and in relation to the block. Right now you should focus on explaining that you have not and will not report any user to any legal authority for questions regarding their editing behavior here on wikipedia. If you do not make a clear statement to that effect you will not be allowed to return to editing. This is all laid out in our policy on legal threats·Maunus·ƛ·16:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "concrete legal threat" made by me was the result of errant and fast typing on my part. This is the reason I, almost immediately, undid it. I was editing both my userbox and the Talk page simultaneously (note that it was already decided there is no issue with content on my Talk page). As soon as I noticed what I had done I deleted it which the record shows unambiguously. If I had a true intention of threatening another user I most certainly, logically, would not have almost immediately deleted that edit so that they likely would never see it. There is no grand conspiracy at work in which I'm hiding threats buried under pages of deleted edits. It was a simple and honest mistake and the edit history - in which the "threat" was almost immediately deleted unilaterally by me and prior to any complaint being made - supports that. I should not be permanently banned for an edit which, by any reasonable and objective analysis of the edit record, could - at worst - been the result of hasty and impassioned words that were voluntarily taken back without any complaint being filed but which, even less so, was actually an honest edit mistake.
That said, if someone does make violent threats against users or public officials in support of Al-Qaeda I will, unhesitatingly, report them to the police. This is permitted per legal threats. I stand by that without apology, even though I have not yet seen it happen. Felixhonecker (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation. I will await the formation of a consensus at the ANI page before I decide whether to lift the indefinite block and return to the original 24-hr block for editwarring.·Maunus·ƛ·16:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate an explanation as to what exactly my original 24-hour block for edit warring was for? As I previously noted, there is no record of me edit warring. Please also note the editor who was vandalizing my User page is now making wholesale, cut and paste edits to the Libya entry without discussion. He explained his previous edits as having "a bit o' fun." User:Orange_Mike has questioned him about it and he brushed him off. Felixhonecker (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have trouble believing your edits were merely a technical error – done in the heat of the moment, perhaps, but done without intention, no. [3]. If it was merely about being willing to report Al Qaeda supporters, that would be a different matter, but what enrages people is that you were using the "Al Qaeda" bogeyman to bludgeon opponents in a legitimate dispute, indiscriminately accusing anybody who didn't agree with you on the insurgency in Libya to be either "pro-racist", "pro-CIA", or "pro-Al Qaeda" (or all of these together?). This just shows an unacceptable attitude to collaborative editing. I would support a lifting or shortening of the block only on condition that you stay away from all editing of Libyan topics for at least a couple of weeks (hopefully, until the political situation there becomes less volatile than it is now). Fut.Perf.☼16:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are ample other editors working to combat the vandalism occurring on the Libya entry I have no problem with self-restraining for 2 weeks. I only wish that NPOV could be actively used in admining so that unpopular opinions expressed on User pages were not coloring decisions to suppress the ability of people with minority opinions to participate in collaborating in Wikipedia by removing edits that have been consensus-established as vandalism. I believe we all should celebrate our ability to freely express our different opinions in a free and open marketplace of ideas. I hope others share this view. Felixhonecker (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realize that editing with a userbox that states a general willingness to report other users to the FBI, is not conducive to such an environment of freely exchanged ideas. Nor is the quickness with which you paint those who disagree with you as being motivated by incriminating political agendas. I would encourage you to remove the userbox that makes that statement. Afterall I think that any editor is expected to report perceived threats against the public safety to the relevant authorities, but this should not be the framework within which we share ideas and opinions in wikipedia.·Maunus·ƛ·17:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"That said, if someone does make violent threats against users or public officials in support of Al-Qaeda I will, unhesitatingly, report them to the police. This is permitted per legal threats. I stand by that without apology, even though I have not yet seen it happen. " Then it needs not be even stated. Your repeating this continues to poison the well, especially when not remotely relevant. Would it make sense if I prefaced my comments on every article with, "And if you make violent threats, I will report you!"? No. Also, why specify only violent threats in support of Al Qaida? Hm. Finally, you have not stated that you did not, in fact, report the editor to any authorities, despite having said you did in the past-tense. I agree with Fut.Perf, you have been resorting to very tendentious editing and need a break, enforced or not, from the topic. --Golbez (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was already established the self-deleted statement in question was an editing error by me I didn't feel it was necessary to note that I had not reported editor in question to Interpol. In fact, individuals cannot be reported to Interpol; individual persons can report broad trends to Interpol but not "specific threats." So it should be objectively clear that I did not report individual to Interpol as much as it would be objectively clear I did not user a magic potion to send the individual in question to Pluto. In the absence of a technical ability to do something it must be presumed that that something did not occur. I cannot, however, apologize for any edits I have made. I have only made 2 edits to this entry and both were consensus supported. How can I apologize for edits that are consensus-supported? Am I expected to? Felixhonecker (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You ignored the meat of my comment, which was to say, stop making any kind of appeal to fear of authority. No one cares if you're going to report an editor for any kind of edits, and to continue to state that you will do so poisons the well. If someone makes an edit making a threat of force, rest assured that if someone finds it credible, they will report it to the proper authorities; we get enough non-credible threats of suicide and school shootings that someone inevitably feels the need to bring the police into it. Remove the statement in your userbox, retract your statement about how you will report anyone making threats "in support of al Qaida", whyever you have that distinction I don't know, and then I will support an unblock. As it is, your behavior continues to tell me that your priority is to make people fear editing around you. --Golbez (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as merely another editor, not an admin, I'll be a bit more blunt: Until the editor authorizes removal of that userbox AND recants ANY AND ALL threats to "report" editors that he doesn't agree with politically, he has no business editing here. Such threats are an outrageous abuse of editing privileges and must not be tolerated. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Admin User:Toddst1 says he reports threats of violence to "the authorities" on his User Page. Can you advise me on the specific wording that I'm allowed to use? I apologize if I offended anyone by denegrating Al-Qaeda and would be willing to use admin Toddst1 verbiage instead of my current verbiage if mentioning Al-Qaeda by name is offensive to other editors. Unfortunately, I cannot edit any userboxes as long as I am blocked, as I have previously noted. Felixhonecker (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That userbox has nothing to do with reporting "threats of violence", it's a political statement threatening people you disagree with. Any of us here can delete that userbox if you ask us to. But that's just the beginning. If you continue to claim you will report editors who make edits you disagree with, you will stay blocked, and dat's dat. An overt "threat of violence" can be reported. Making edits that "support" al-quaeda do not magically become reportable "threats of violence". P.S. If you actually support Qadafi's regime, maybe YOU should be reported to somebody, as he's been an enemy of the USA. Intended only as irony, not as any kind of threat. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC) ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{help}} I was subjected to Legal Threats by the above user - he said I was "being reported" for my opinion of someone because ""he's been an enemy of the USA." I'm absolutely at my wits end right now and am frightened and scared about what might happen to me. Is it possible I will be arrested for my contributions to Wikipedia? Can they track down where I live from my edits? Please help, I don't want my family jailed. Is there anything I can do to protect myself from Baseball Bugs - does he have a way to access my personal info via Wikipedia to pursue legal action against me? Help please - I'm very concerned about my family's safety and well-being. Felixhonecker (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider legal threats funny. Please leave me alone. You've succeeded into scaring me into silence. I'll do whatever you say and agree to whatever, just please don't report me to the authorities like you said. I'm very frightened right now. I promise to agree with you and support any edits you make, just please don't pursue legal action against me. Please. Felixhonecker (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's tone it down, shall we Bugs. I also find Toddst1's statement problematic, but in this case the question is about you. I also think a general statement about being willing to act about general threats of criminal intent is somewhat different from singling out a specific political domain against which you will take action. I can't help you more than that.·Maunus·ƛ·17:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have the feeling this is crossing the line into pure trolling. I have a lot of trouble taking Felixhonecker's professed alarm seriously. I'll consider blanking and protecting this talk page if this continues. To other editors: PDFTT. Fut.Perf.☼17:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone told you they were thinking about "reporting you to the authorities" because you had an opinion that was "anti-USA" you would see the chilling effect this has. It may appear fun and games when you're not the one being threatened with legal action but it's not so fun when, like me, you're on the receiving end. Can anyone please at least let me know what kind of personally identifiable info Bugs can access in pursuing his threatened legal action against me? I need to know if there's anything I can do to protect myself. I don't need opinions right now, I need facts to protect myself from legal action over my "anti-USA edits." Please don't remove the Help tag right now. I really need help. Please, someone help. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock|I request immediate unblock. Note the blocking admin has offered to unblock me provided I make 3 statements of public contrition. Blocking admin acknowledges I have already made two. Since making a third statement of public contrition serves no purpose other than humiliation and "punishment" the continuance of this block is unwarranted as blocks exist to serve the stability and good order of Wikipedia. Requiring an editor repeat a statement of apology he has already made twice (note: this is not in dispute, please reference the blocking admin acknowledges the statement of apology has already been made twice [below]) means removal of this block, de facto, becomes conditional on my acceptance of public chastising. I have apologized twice, the first time without even being asked, and that should be sufficient. Wikipedia is not Roman Catholic confessional; an arbitrary number of apologies, Hail Mary's or other contrition should not be encumbered upon an editor. Editors should assume good faith and treat each other like adults, not children. Thank you.}}
Note to reviewing admin: From the discussion below it should be clear that I am not asking Felixhonecker to apologize or to undertake any acts of public humiliation. On the contrary I have asked him to assure me that he will not repeat the action that got him blocked (previous statements from him have been wooly on this point), and that his interaction relating to Libya (the topic in regards to which he has now been blocked twice) will be watched closely (topic probation).12:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)·Maunus·ƛ·
Note to reviewing admin: From the discussion below and all linked diffs it should be clear that (1) the "assurances" have already been repeated twice and the blocking admin has acknowledged this - I am being requested to publicly announce them a third time (this point is not in dispute as noted by the below conversation) which serves no purpose other than my humiliation - this is the first time the blocking admin has mentioned or insinuated my previous assurances have been "wooly" [sic] and occurred only in the filing of this unblock which, itself, is "wooly", (2) I wholly reject condition #3; I believe I should be returned to status as an editor in good-standing as an equal among equals, not a second-class editor subject to a "guilty until proven innocent" assumption in the event of a future transgression - particularly considering this is my first offense and a co-offender (Bugs) escaped with no penalty at all for the same offense; treatment that admin James Heilman described as "your treatment was a little too aggressive and Bugs not aggressive enough" - among many other admins input (please contact me directly for a summary of those findings). To continue to perpetrate this "too aggressive" treatment upon me would be compounding an error just for the sake of administratorship unity. I respect the "no drama" mantra but do not believe I should be sacrificed on its altar. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A simple repeated "yes" to points (1) and (2) is not "public humiliation". In addition, the legal threat box was not removed until the userpage was blanked by an admin here; note that your last edit to your userpage before your block was, in fact, reconfirming the threat. #1 does not appear to have been done twice; looking over the discussion above the only thing I see you saying about it is your offering to genericise the words, phrased in a fashion that shows no contriteness for the actual threat itself, and, indeed, gives the impression of having missed the point. As for point #3, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, there is no such thing as a "first offence" when it comes to the legal threat policy. Regardless of the treatment of any other editor in this matter, the fact is that your actions on the Libya pages were disruptive, and condition 3 is, indeed, light compared to other possible sanctions (e.g. topic banning). As my father says, trust is not given, it is earned; while assuming good faith is a policy, it is not a straightjacket, and your "wholly reject[ing]" the ability to re-earn the community trust that allows for AGF, instead insisting that you be given it fully and immediately following this matter on the very pages that led to this, is concerning. - The BushrangerOne ping only17:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The userbox was never a question, only what I wrote in Talk and deleted four minutes later without being asked. The userbox was ruled acceptable by admin consensus after it was noted the admin who issued the original 24-hour block had a userbox that also provided advance notification that criminal threats would be reported to authorities. If you want to reopen this case this is not the place to do it; ANI is - we are only dealing with already-decided issues here. (2) Do not muddy the waters by saying my "actions" were disruptive when it is "action" (singular) and it was not disruptive as no one saw the one action until an admin sludged through deleted diffs to notice it and submit an ANI and this was decided long ago. You should exhibit greater community trust that issues decided by other admins were decided on a sound and judicious basis and not presume it is necessary for you to readjudicate decided matters. (3) I'm sorry you're concerned. However, since multiple admins have told me I was treated overly aggressively I do not feel it is incumbent on me to accept "overly aggressive" treatment in the interest of community trust. Community trust is couched on equality of intercourse and is not a synonym for "agree with whatever the blocking admin says." Multiple admins have said this was an aggregiously handled case; "community trust" means "trust in the community." If I have been treated aggregiously and no - not even the slightest - attempt to rectify that treatment has been proferred, there is a serious gap of justice at play. I am simply asking it be evaluated and handled in an adult and proactive way. Not unreasonable. (BTW - I appreciate you just received your adminship two days ago but, please, this is a complex issue and I would prefer you not use it as the place to "establish your mark." You have already had a hasty sock complaint against me quashed and I think it would be best to defer to the sound judgment of other admins at this time. "Piling on" by shotgunning frivolous sock complaints, etc., at me only serves to confuse and muddy this already confusing situation and heightens the injustice of this matter. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.) Felixhonecker (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I would prefer you do not assign motives to people. The sock investigation was based on a genuine concern, and I was quite pleased to discover it was unfounded. I am not attempting to "establish [my] mark" or "[pile] on", I was attempting to help you get unblocked. But, as you have said you do not desire my assistiance, I am bowing out of this matter at this time. - The BushrangerOne ping only18:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree to unblock you if you accept the following conditions - 1. you remove your userbox regarding Al Qaeda and Interpol. 2. You state clearly that you have not and will not report, or threaten to report, users to any authority for edits they make unless they openly state that they have criminal intentions. 3. you accept that you will be under editing probabtion in editing articles relating to Libya untill further notice, and that any misconduct related to editing in the topic area of Libya will be viewed with greater than normal severity.·Maunus·ƛ·03:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already done #1 and #2 twice, the first time without even being asked. Am I expected to engage in a third round of public contrition for the unblock? As for #3, I don't know what "greater than normal severity" means other than "guilty until proven innocent." In that case I wholeheartedly reject this offer. After having been told by numerous admins in private email correspondence that this episode was handled atrociously but they don't want to get involved in drama, I do not feel I should be required to participate in additional rounds of public contrition or future presumptions of guilt when the other individual involved got off with one half-hearted apology that he then, immediately, turned around and started joking about. I still don't understand why I have been given a life ban for a first offense and another person, guilty of the same offense, got off with being required to make a joking apology. At this point I suggest a bureaucrat reviews this episode. Nationalism and Patriotism should not be used to stifle dissent on Wikipedia and allow favors. This is Wikipedia, not Ameripedia. This episode speaks to a much larger transgression and issue at work that impacts the entire Wikipedia community beyond just me. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a yes or a no? Do you accept those conditions? (I realize the some of them have already been fulfilled, I ask you to confirm that you will abide by your previous statements, a simple yes I accept will do). As for Probation that means that further editwarring, uncivil editing or anything that vaguely resembles a threat will be dealt with with the same severity that you have already experienced. I need to know if you accept those conditions.·Maunus·ƛ·00:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I have never EVER previously been found guilty of edit warring or WP:CIVIL violations. As you know, my only transgression in my entire Wikipedia history was the "Legal Threat" for which you issued a lifetime ban (even though I - of my own volition - deleted it four minutes after posting it and apologized, both without being asked or without the person to whom it was directed even knowing it was made [he still to this day does not know it occurred]). (2) Will Bugs also be required to accept these conditions applied to him? Also, please note - for purpose of full disclosure - I erroneously added a comment in the Sockpuppet investigation page that concerns me under an IP edit (I thought I was logged in)- see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.22.210.27. I assume this hasty-editing error by me withdraws any previous offers for leniency and will solidify my life ban that was given for a first-time transgression? Felixhonecker (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant whether restrictions will be imposed on any other users. I am being very reasonable here I think, I just need to know that you accept. And no, your editing mishap is unlikely to have any consequences - and the offer still stands.·Maunus·ƛ·01:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like have my editing privileges restored as an equal among equals, not a second-class editor. Among the many admins I have communicated with on the Legal Threat issue, James Heilman put it best when he said "your treatment was a little too aggressive and Bugs not aggressive enough." I would like to have my editing privileges restored in a way that does not require me to first accept status as a second-class editor, which is implicit if a condition of restoration is continuance of overly aggressive treatment of me that many admins acknowledge has, and is, occurring. I have already met - without even being asked - conditions one and two. I am not interested in "jumping" on command by engaging in a third round of public contrition. Requiring editors to accept humiliation - which, when you require them to apologize three successive times for the same act is what you are doing - as a condition of restoration of editing privileges does not serve any practical purpose that I can understand and is, forgive me if I'm frank, an abusive exercise of authority. Felixhonecker (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I regret you have made the choice to continue "too aggressive" [sic] treatment of me. I will be gone for the next week, however, will file the ArbCon appeal upon my return when I have time to collate the appropriate material and supporting opinions but will file a routine unblock request in the interim (I anticipate that will be rejected but it can't hurt). Felixhonecker (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Felix if you wish to edit again just say "yes" that you will follow the conditions above. These are conditions all editors should follow. Admins editing activity is under greater scrutiny than others but this does not make them second class editors. Remember we are all volunteers here to write an encyclopedia. Lets move on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have always stated I will follow all conditions under which all editors are expected to operate. I have stated this repeatedly and, the history of my involvement on Wikipedia, with the exception of a 4-minute lapse in judgment occurring once in a 6-month period, supports that. But, I will not restate this three times (twice should be sufficient) since assigning an artificial number of public contrition serves no rational purpose and can only be motivated by a desire to "flex muscle" which is wholly contrary to WP:AGF. I also cannot agree to special conditions permanently placed upon me as a condition of my ability to participate in Wikipedia, including future "enhanced punishments" or automatic presumptions of guilt as those, implicitly, lower me to the standard of a second-class citizen. I believe I should have the right to participate, collaboratively, in Wikipedia under the same terms and conditions and with the same level of civil treatment as all editors expect. Justice is about balance, not revenge. Moving on is sound advise but difficult to accept when you're the one in the oubliet and everyone is moving on past you, regretting putting you there but shrugging and sighing what's done is done. Felixhonecker (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having suffered numerous instance of police harassment due to my involvement in the anti-war movement I do take it as a threat when you say you will report me to the police for "un-American" activities. I can't accept your apology, though, as it is obviously not legitimate - as soon as you posted this you went off and joked about it on individual admin pages and accused me of trolling (obviously I created and operated a wikipedia account that proferred many well-received and contributive edits for over 6 months as part of a master plant to ultimately troll over a period of 2 days). If you want to offer a real apology I'd be happy to forgive and forget. I'm glad you have some kind of privilege here where you are above the rules and can do whatever you want, including opt-out of punishment. Must be nice. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not socked, nor have I threatened to sock again. Do not post on this talk page again unless it is to offer an apology for Legal Threats. Also, please post my below note in the sock investigation thread to the relevant page. I tried to do it but only could under my IP so I deleted it. Though I note you are now grandstanding your happiness that you have more personally identifiable information on me. I can hardly wait until the FBI shows up because Wikipedia let an editor file slanderous accusations against me.Felixhonecker (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Multiple admins have upheld the status of your legal threat against me. Case closed. (2) I already admitted I accidentally socked - note link in my conversation with Manus above. I also explained it was unintentional, which logical analysis of the facts would support (if I were trying to intentionally sock I obviously wouldn't put my Userid in the socking message). The fact you are trying to blow it up to more than it is speaks to your irrational agenda against me. I don't know what I did to you (other than being "un American") but I would appreciate it if you would stop coming after me. This is my second request for you to stop posting on my wall. I don't understand why you have a blanket exemption from the rules here but I will continue making requests that you be obliged to follow them, regardless of how futile those requests - it seems - will be, due to your privileged status. Felixhonecker (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is my fourth request for Bugs to stop posting on my Talk page, each of which has been ignored without acknowledgment. I know Bugs has a blanket exemption from being compelled by Admins to obey rules and etiquette, but, I feel a record of these transgressions needs to be maintained anyway so I will continue noting them (and anticipate they will continue to be disregarded owing to his, apparently, privileged status here - such as having no punishment for Legal Threats after I'm given a lifetime ban for Legal Threats on a first offense in my Wikipedia history). Felixhonecker (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He has posted on my Talk page repeatedly, after being asked by me 5 times to stop. He continues to do this with no repercussion. Are there words other than "blanket exemption" I should use to describe this status quo? If there are please advise me and I will gladly substitute them. Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HUSH - I have made it clear I do not wish to interact with him here; he is continuing to flood-post my userspace. WP:HUSH
"Maybe someone should report you somewhere" is a threat and as such is inappropriate. Crossing this out would be a good idea especially if you did not mean to make a threat as may reasonable people including myself would take it as such. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God. You should expect to get many sockpuppet complaints from this geolocation as it is to the Libyan community in the US as Miami is to the Cuban community. FYI - I tried to post this in the relevant sockpuppet investigation page but I can't under my registry, only under IP, so deleted it. I would appreciate it if someone brought this point up there, though, as I cannot due to my unjust block (note: I say "unjust block" only because that is what other admins have called it in personal email correspondence ... before noting that, while it was unjust, they don't want to get involved). (I assume no one will as I imagine the reason for this block, as was with my own block, is to shuffle anyone remotely anti-insurgency off Ameripedia as quickly as possible. Congrats, neocons. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not odd when one considers that, after a lifetime edit history without so much as a warning, I was given a permanent ban for a first-time offense ("Legal Threats") while another user (Bugs) was only required to make an apology for the same offense ("Legal Threats") ... and simply opted out of it without consequence. The admin involved agreed he was culpable of that offense, but just decided his punishment should not be as severe for reasons never explained. The admin involved even said my punishment was unusually harsh but refused to amend it. I find THAT odd ... could you explain it to me? I have emailed 7 different admins so far and heard back from 5, all of whom agreed that it is most unusual the admins behavior in this instance but deferred involvement because they don't want to be involved "in drama." I assume you might have the same POV, and I will be resigned to accept it. Felixhonecker (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither I nor the multiple admins who agree are mistaken. In the ANI discussion on this it was upheld as a "possible" legal threat. In my email correspondence with admins on this topic 5 of 7 construed it as a Legal Threat. Those are the genesis of my "insistence." To recap: (1) I made a hasty edit that I deleted without being asked, I deleted it within 4 minutes, then I apologize for it without being asked ... AND the person for whom it was intended never saw it. I agreed, of my own volition, I violated Legal Threats. (2) I was then given a lifetime ban. (3) Bugs said I should "be reported" for my views. (4) He was ordered to apologize and refused. He did not edit or delete his statement. He has ignored my requests not to post on my Talk page, even though I have made 5 of them. And I'm the troublemaker? Felixhonecker (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple admins have upheld the status of your legal threat against me. Case closed. This is my third request for Bugs to stop posting on my Talk page, each of which has been ignored without acknowledgment. I know Bugs has a blanket exemption from being compelled by Admins to obey rules and etiquette, but, I feel a record of these transgressions needs to be maintained anyway so I will continue noting them (and anticipate they will continue to be disregarded owing to his, apparently, privileged status here - such as having no punishment for Legal Threats after I'm given a lifetime ban for Legal Threats on a first offense in my Wikipedia history). Felixhonecker (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you made a Legal Threat that has been upheld as such. However, you - apparently - enjoy a privileged status on Wikipedia, and I do not. Ergo, you are allowed to make Legal Threats and you are allowed to violate WP:HUSH by repeated flooding of my userspace after 6 requests to stop, all without consequence. Unfortunately, I do not have the carte blanche that you do on Wikipedia and have been given a lifetime ban for doing the same things you did with impunity. Felixhonecker (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) As per above I would take this as a legal threat "Maybe someone should report you somewhere"[4]. Everyone here needs to drop the rhetoric a few notches. In the effort to decrease drama I shall not pursue any admin actions at this time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Text that does not work in the collapse box moved here
After discussion with the blocking admin and in light of the agreement by Felix not to repeat the behavior that resulted in the block we have agreed that unblocking at this point in time is reasonable. All are reminded that legal threats are taken seriously. I have collapsed the above discussion as hopefully these issues are resolved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that article talk pages are not the place for you to discuss your opinions or theories about article subjects, as you did at Talk:Libya. Rather, they may only be used to discuss improvements to the article. The section you're commenting in now started out okay, but you've lapsed into producing your theories about the what is or is not occurring in Libya. Please focus just on discussions about what should be included or not included in the article. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested, on 6 separate occasions, you not post on my Discussion page. This is your 7th transgression. Following your 8th transgression a noticeboard complaint will be filed for violating WP:HUSH 8 times. If you do not like the contents of my Discussion page you should empower yourself not to read it. Any reply to this comment, regardless of content, will be construed as an eighth WP:HUSH violation. Felixhonecker (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General note for historical reference - following this comment, user was instructed - in ANI - not to edit this userspace anymore. This is a quick note for my reference/personal reminder so I can refer to the appropriate thread in the event it becomes necessary in the future. Felixhonecker (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Due to a level of aggression which I am not equipped to handle, I will be - regrettably - leaving Wikipedia at the end of this week. Please see here for explanation:
I would like to collaboratively participate in Wikipedia without Drama or Politics as I did for many months. I would like to do it without multiple complaints being filed against me each day, often in ways that I won't be "tipped off" [sic] to them, all by the same user and in reference to the same single transgression. Is that unreasonable? I need some help. Not much. Just a little help to get someone to leave me alone. It's just not reasonable to expect any editor - no matter who they are - to have to defend and re-defend themselves against an onslaught of the same complaint from the same editor every single day. Do you truly believe Bugs is treating me in a fair, civil manner that is representative of the spirit of Wikipedia? Do you truly believe I'm being treated like any average editor should expect to be treated by fellow contributors? What's happening to me is not right. I didn't do anything to deserve this. Felixhonecker (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the caps above are off putting to say the least. You do not need to defend yourself. You need to simple head off and edit non controversial content. If you do so all this will end. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not edited any entry except Drakkar Noir since the lifting of my block. Is cologne controversial? Because I've now been told I'm being run-up on socking for a third time in 4 days, but this time the complaint will be handled "offline" so I won't be "tipped off" [sic]. I know how this ends - with me blocked for life because another user just didn't like me. Is this a rationale mode of operation? What's happening to me is not right. I didn't do anything to deserve this. I apologize if I'm making a lot of noise but I'm standing in up against a noise machine. When you're being hit with multiple, daily complaints - all the same one - by the same user your wits start to fail. At any moment, if I step away for more than a few seconds from the keyboard, I could find myself blocked because I didn't defend myself against that latest complaint (again, they're all for the same thing!) he shopped around to a new admin. I don't want this. No one should have to go through this. It is not rationale or fair to expect me to accept this as status quo. It is not rationale or fair to fail to compel this user to leave me in peace when the ability to compel him to that course of action exists, as it does. Felixhonecker (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re your message on my talkpage - both of you have been advised to leave it. Neither of you is going to convince the other. The full "record" remains, not just Bugs comments. No admin is (or should) rush to block without looking into the history.Fainitesbarleyscribs09:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
