User talk:Flat.Cap
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of DeFacto (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, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. 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. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Darkwind (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC) |
Flat.Cap (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is an impossibility, an absurd, ridiculous, preposterous, outlandish, unbelievable, nonsensical, ludicrous (and unfounded) allegation. Support is one thing, being one and the same person is, err, another. Or do you believe that the probability that 2 people in the world realise that the UK primarily uses miles for distances, and can edit Wikipedia within a day of each other, as simply too small to be possible? I was going to suggest that this one needs CheckUser evidence at least, to help challenge the seriously prejudiced decision, but I see from the SPI that I was retrospectively added to, that mere CheckUser evidence is trivially dismissed when contradicted by naked bigotry. Flat.Cap (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have just checked your editing history, and compared it with the editing of other accounts of the same banned editor. Usually, such a task is somewhat tedious, but this time it was actually rather fun, because it was so amusing to see how many ways you give yourself away, while apparently being totally blind to the fact. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2014 (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 am disgusted that you claim to have derived pleasure from your attempt to humiliate me. That is nothing though compared to the revulsion engendered in me after you inadvertently revealed the way that you clearly abused the trust placed in you as an administrator. You proclaimed that your decision was made after you checked my "editing history, and compared it with the editing of other accounts of the same banned editor" and that you were amused to "see how many ways you give yourself away, while apparently being totally blind to the fact."
If you had actually checked my editing history, you might have noticed (and it is still visible for all with a reasonable grasp of the functionality of the "contributions" link to see) that I have only ever edited one article ("Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom"), and the one and only edit I made to it was to restore an edit which had been undone by the previous editor, an edit that I fully supported and could not see any reason for undoing. Similarly with the restoration of removed content to that article's talkpage.
So seeing as a quick review of the works of the "banned editor in question" showed no signs at all of similar activity, it is clear that your boilerplate reply to my unblock request has revealed itself to be a cynical attempt to deny editing rights and to deceive readers of your comments.
Oh what a fool you have made of yourself haven't you. I wonder if other readers will find it so amusing to see how many ways you give yourself away, while apparently being totally blind to the fact! You couldn't make it up!
Over to you Mr. JamesBWatson. Flat.Cap (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- I note that no attempt to justify that shockingly dishonest dismissal has been forthcoming from Mr. James B. Watson, the perpetrator. He clearly is totally blind to how transparent his attemp at deceit was. Flat.Cap (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- All he meant was that it is amusing that it's the same shtick each and every time you are blocked, not an amusement in humiliating you. How you perceive a denied unblock request as humiliation is beyond me anyway. You should be quite used to it by now.--Atlan (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- How do you know what he meant - are you another of his accounts? How can you say that taunting your victim from a position of power isn't an attempt to humiliate them? Flat.Cap (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know what he meant. I'm making an assumption just like you and just like you, I presented this assumption as fact. Except in my case it makes more sense and doesn't assume he is some kind of terrible person. It is also interesting that you would instantly ask if I am one of his accounts. As soon as you got blocked on the basis of your edits, you treated it with indignation, because according to you, no way was that evidence enough to assume sockpuppetry. Yet you assume me a sock of JamesBWatson on even less evidence, a single post. Surely if you think a single post agreeing with another editor is grounds for a sockpuppetry accusation, then you must feel you own block is justified?--Atlan (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
SsSsSsSsSsSsSs
[edit]Flat.Cap (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I haven't socked. What more can I say? Aren't there any honest administrators out there who are honourable enough to stand up and be counted? Flat.Cap (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This revert and this edit make it blatantly obvious that you are. Stop wasting both our time and yours. Kinu t/c 17:40, 17 May 2014 (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.
Kinu, Kinu, you got it so wrong, you missed the context. I objected to Darkwind converting all the distances to kilometres, so set them back to miles. Then, to support my work, I restored a comment on the talk page that Darkwind had also removed. However, to support the edit I made, I felt the talkpage comment I had restored should have my signature on it as explained in the help pages. I then removed a bit that was irrelevant to my edit too. Check the history, I had only made these 4 edits before I was blocked, you will see I'm telling the truth:
- 21:33, 14 May 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-596) . . Talk:Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom (→Distance measurements: Ah no, not that section)
- 21:32, 14 May 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11) . . Talk:Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom (→Distance measurements: Sign)
- 21:31, 14 May 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,418) . . Talk:Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom (Support)
- 21:27, 14 May 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1,465) . . Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom (Support)
Then please reconsider your dismissal of my request. Flat.Cap (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed that you haven't come back and checked this. Flat.Cap (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- I apologise for saying that it was amusing. I can see that it could be seen as taunting you, though that was it how it was intended. Looking at the editing history, I saw a number of similarities of which you were evidently unconscious, enough of them to convince me. It seems slightly funny to see things which look glaringly obvious to a third party, but which the person doing them is evidently unaware of: that is all I meant, but I can see that the way I expressed myself could be seen in a different light.
- I did not give a "your boilerplate reply", but wrote one out from scratch.
- I am not sure why you think that only your editing of an article can be taken into consideration. You have also edited an article talk page and this page.
- Whether I have "made a fool of myself" is, of course, not for me to judge.
- A word of advice. Whatever you may believe to be true, you are more likely to get support from other Wikipedia editors if they see you assuming good faith. Accusing me of "cynical attempt to deny editing rights", "attemp [sic] at deceit", and of being "shockingly dishonest", even if you are convinced you are justified, may give others a negative impression of your approach. Unfortunately, a small but by no means negligible minority of people who come to edit Wikipedia come with a battleground approach, assuming bad faith and throwing out attacks whenever anyone does anything they disagree with, rather than civilly saying that they think another editor is mistaken. Seeing your comments about me, it is possible that other editors who have been around long enough to have frequently seen that sort of thing may assume, rightly or wrongly, that you are taking that attitude, and that will make them less likely to be sympathetic to your case. I also think that anyone who has had past experience of my work is likely to see it as more likely that I was acting in good faith than that I was acting maliciously, whether they think I was right or whether they think I was mistaken. Also, if you have followed the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks before submitting an unblock request, you will be aware that an unblock request in which you imply that the administrators who have so far dealt with your case are not being "honest" and "honourable" is unlikely to succeed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks James B. Watson, I accept your apology, and that you did not intend to taunt me.
- But look at my contributions again, and you will see why I do not accept that you could possibly have fairly judged my character as you suggested from the "contributions" I made, as the only edits I had ever made before I was blocked were to restore content that Cousin Bluey had actually created and that Darkwind had deleted. I had not added any original content of my own. Here is my complete contribution history up until I was blocked:
- 21:33, 14 May 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-596) . . Talk:Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom (→Distance measurements: Ah no, not that section)
- 21:32, 14 May 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11) . . Talk:Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom (→Distance measurements: Sign)
- 21:31, 14 May 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,418) . . Talk:Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom (Support)
- 21:27, 14 May 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1,465) . . Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom (Support)
- If, as you say, your comments were written from scratch, then you have perhaps made the mistake of assuming that the content I restored was from my own pen, rather than from Cousin Bluey, its actual creator. Please give me a good reason to apologise for the remarks I made about you, by confirming that you were indeed mistaken, and that something like that happened. Flat.Cap (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm disappointed in you that you haven't yet conceded that you made a mistake. Flat.Cap (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Flat.Cap (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My last-ditch attempt to get my account unblocked as my edits have been mistakenly interpreted as being my own work, and thus, as they are similar (identical in fact) to the edits of a previous editor, we have apparently been assumed to be the same person. Let me explain (and I hope the links work)... I am a walker and rambler in the UK who came across the "Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom" article, and found it useful, so bookmarked it. When I came back to it recently (last weekend I think) all the distances had been converted to give kilometres first, which rankled with me. I had, some time previously, registered an account (which I had never used) and thought about trying to restore the units myself. However, in the meantime, and before I had attempted to try it, another editor (Cousin Bluey) had stepped in and fixed for me, like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-distance_footpaths_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=608339362&oldid=607247505. I relaxed. However, when I looked again, at work later in the day, it had been changed back again (by Darkwind) like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-distance_footpaths_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=next&oldid=608339362, so I took a stand the next evening when I got home and copied and pasted Cousin Bluey's edit back in, like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Long-distance_footpaths_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=next&oldid=608342986. In my prep work, figuring out how to do it, I found a justification from Cousin Bluey to keep miles first here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALong-distance_footpaths_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=607810263&oldid=607766583, and which Darkwind had removed here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Long-distance_footpaths_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=next&oldid=607811522. I again stepped in, and copied and pasted the article from how it was before Darkwind's change like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Long-distance_footpaths_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=next&oldid=608343005. I thought I was obliged to "sign" content I added, rather than "forge" the previous editor's sig, so did this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Long-distance_footpaths_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=next&oldid=608602701. Then looking back at my change though, I had restored more than I realised, so removed the irrelevant stuff here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Long-distance_footpaths_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=next&oldid=608602850. I hope too that is clear it is clear that I have spent many hours studying how to do this and doing my best to conform with the rules. Restoring miles I felt proud and thought I was a valuable part of the community! Thanks you for your understanding here. Flat.Cap (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per Atlan's comment before and previous decline's, your case is not convincing at all. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:59, 19 May 2014 (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.
In your first unblock request you show advanced knowledge of Wikipedia processes by claiming this needs Checkuser evidence and mentioning SPI, an acronym certainly unknown to newbie editors, yet now you claim complete ignorance of Wikipedia editing to explain why you restored Bluey's post in the way that you did. And wow, all the planets must have been aligned for this amazing coincidence to occur. Just when you wanted to step in and edit Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom, an infrequently edited article with only 3 edits in 2014 prior to Cousin Bluey, Cousin Bluey made exactly the edits you wanted and you didn't have to anymore. No one will buy it.--Atlan (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Responded too late because of some "automated filter" not accepting my explanation
[edit]Oh damn, I've been trying for an hour to save my response to Atlan's naive interpretation, but each and every attempt was blocked, with the message "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error.". Of course I couldn't report the error, because I am blocked! And now it is too late anyway. Flat.Cap (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Try one sentence at a time
[edit]I'm not sure what your role is here Atlan, but let me satisfy your curiosity about my "advanced knowledge of Wikipedia processes". I don't know what you'd have done differently if you were blocked out of the blue, and based on a vague charge and even vaguer evidence, but what I did was read everything thrown at me and clicked all the links and read everything at the end of them all too. It was straightforward. CheckUser could be a tool or a person, but involves reading the IP address and user agent string from the editor's web browser. SPI is short for sockpuppet investigation, as revealed in several of the linked pages, including in the first heading in "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations". I haven't had much experience of editing Wikipedia per se, as you can see from my contribution history, but I have plenty of experience with html and text editing, copy-paste, and the like, and didn't have much trouble restoring lost content, and even adding my own signature to what I restored, using the four tildes code, to comply with the talkpage guidelines. Cousin Bluey restored the content that I had seen, yes. He was probably surprised when it had disappeared, as I was. If you look at the page view statistics of that page, you will see that it was viewed more than 2600 times in the last 30 days. That is an average of about 90 views per day, so it isn't that unlikely that if he hadn't done, someone else would have, as indeed I did in the end. Does that help you rationalise my actions Atlan? Let me know if you need any of the other advanced concepts of Wikipedia explaining to you. Flat.Cap (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Why was that last paragraph accepted in that order, but not as one single edit? Ah well, it's too late now I suppose. It seems that not only is the the table tilted against me, but fate has conspired against me too. Is that the end of my Wiki career then? Flat.Cap (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Constructive suggestions
[edit]As a victim of a crap process, may I make the following observations and suggestions for how it could be improved.
- Require any administrator commenting to support their opinions with enough evidence and detailed explanation for the accused to have a chance of defending themselves. Not as appears to be the norm, allowing them to be vague and evasive.
- If there is a particular action or "giveaway" behaviour, require the administrator to detail it - there might, as in my case, be an innocent explanation.
- If an action appears incredible or unlikely, then dig deeper and ask the accused for their side of the story, it may be a language, cultural or other type of misinterpretation. What might be an unusual word or phrase in one culture, and possibly used as evidence of being a sockpuppet, may be a common word or phrase in the tradition or culture of the accused and the "sockmaster", and not raise suspicion in someone familiar with that.
- Not apply any block until the accused has been allowed to at least respond to the accusation.
- Require the accused to be represented by an administrator fully aware of the policies and facts, and able to question the opinions of the blocking administrator.
- Require all evidence and research used in convicting a suspect to be saved alongside the judgement, so as to be available for scrutiny, and not allow administrators to conceal material information from the accused. Flat.Cap (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Flat.Cap (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Might I just, in the light of Atlan's misrepresentation/misunderstanding of my actions and the weight the last refusing administrator gave to it, ask for my previous unblock appeal to be reviewed afresh, and for the reviewer to consider my explanation above, which a fault in some "automated filter" prevented from being taken into account last time. Thank you, I really want to make a positive difference to Wikipedia. Flat.Cap (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per below. And since you have continued to make these arguments after three declined unblock requests, I am revoking your talk page access so you won't further waste our time, at least online. — Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2014 (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.
- Comment If you're only here to argue about metric/Imperial units, I fail to see how that's going to make any sort of positive difference. We have enough bickering as it is. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
(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 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.