Jump to content

User talk:General reasonableness

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, General reasonableness, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! 125.162.150.88 (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Hi Bsadowski1 and others! I am not abusing any accounts. This is a previously undisclosed alternate account of user:Tim Shuba, which I would like to keep as a 'soft' alternate account. I created it when logged in, see here, as I never intended it to be impossible to link the accounts. As of now I seem to be blocked from my main account as well.

Decline reason:

All the edits from this account have been negative in character. In addition, you have not given any good reason for wanting two accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 22 June 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.

You created this account in 2009, but did not use it until this year, whyen you made a small number of edits which, while perhaps not definable as disruptive, were certainly on the edge of violating AGF. I would like you to explain why you suddenly started using this account and, indeed, why you did not disclose on this page the fact that it was an alternate account. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 09:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My first edit with this account was made to the talk page of an editor I was fairly sure would enjoy seeing this particular user name, due to previous interaction. I didn't disclose it because I had no intention of ever using it in connection with my main account. Originally, I thought I'd use it in a area of the encyclopedia where my main account would never edit, but I later decided against that.

Respectfully, I disagree that my edits showed a lack of good faith, indeed I am the one being stereotyped as a vandal and getting blocked for giving an honest opinion. Contrary to assertions stated elsewhere, I don't have a negative view of ArbCom and generally respect the members of the committee. Not that it's terribly important to say that, but this is yet another bit of bad-faith presumption about which I'd like to set the record straight. While I am slightly perplexed at this block, I do understand the amount of trolling accounts created and certainly don't hold any grudge against the blocking admin for making it, even without attempting to contact me first.

In any event, I'd like this account unblocked, after which I will link it to my main account from the user page. You can also be confident that I will never again post on the user talk page which directly led to this block. Posting there was a miscalculation on my part. General reasonableness (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be unblocked; see teh user name, too. nb: not me, sentiment was appreciated, and reference was recalled ;) 114.79.62.225 (talk) Jack 12:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and there's a neat little backstory which you don't know. Nothing too exciting nor unpleasant for anyone, but I won't go into it here. Suffice it to say it would put a smile on your face.

I'm going skip reading the guide mentioned above, in part because I don't see this as an appealing block, but mostly because I'm not inclined to waste people's time with another unblock template. I wonder if the inability to edit from my main account will remain as part of my punishment; I do the vast majority of viewing and contributing from a single DSL line.

I simply don't agree with the declining administrator that all edits from this account were negative. Well there were only three in total, and I already mentioned that the one precipitating the block was ill-considered. The first edit was friendly and supportive, though it did make reference of some negative things. The second edit was a very lighthearted introduction of a great picture which the user enjoyed. It was a reference to this: "Well, yes, but I plead sloth". And as long as I am coming clean about such things, I'm very much "pro" Volunteer Marek, but this is due to his serious contributions and not any drama.

So really, I mean it's clear that "abusing multiple accounts" is often a catch-all block rationale, but is there any benefit in leaving this in place? I would have told the original blocking admin my other account or provided a link, had I just been asked. Little wonder some people go ballistic and seek out ways to be truly disruptive. That's not my style, and I wouldn't do so even if I were particularly upset about this, which I am not. General reasonableness (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

Ah, I've figured it out on my own. My main account is caught in something called an autoblock. Strange that none of the administrators involved here pointed that out to me, no? My punishment is due to expire at 02:21, 25 June 2011. Are you sure this is correct? I mean, there's no telling what an "obvious" "abuser" of "multiple" accounts might do if the autoblock is allowed to expire.

Here's another thing I noticed: Bsadowski1 is something called a steward. Now in my personal life, the only stewards I've dealt with are representatives of labor unions. They're supposed to communicate, listen, and facilitate fairness to the best of their abilities, subject to details of particular contracts. As I've said, the original block of this account was understandable, if perhaps overly hasty. But Bsadowski1 never gave a warning, never gave notification afterward, hasn't bothered commenting on this page, yet is happy to entertain speculation about my main account on his own talk page.

This account name wasn't chosen for the purpose of irony, but it has for sure turned out that way. General reasonableness (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you'll keep re-triggering the autoblock by posting as general reasonableness (irony alert;) 114.79.62.132 (talk) Jack 05:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, I didn't realize that it worked like that. My last post added three hours forty minutes to the autoblock. Not much. General reasonableness (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and another six hours fourteen minutes for the previous edit. Weird, seems there is a random function in the software or something. By the way, this stub isn't very useful at present. General reasonableness (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your "previously undisclosed alternate account" is better defined as a... sock. This account does not seem to meet WP:SOCK#LEGIT. How does it, if I am mistaken? I'm not sure why you're making a fuss about this; but you should just edit from one account and stop playing around with throwaway accounts. Cheers... Doc talk 05:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am not making a fuss. I am not even officially requesting administrator involvement at this time. Second, lectures from you about what I should or should not do are meaningless to me. Third, and I don't know how to say this without sounding rude, I am not interested in gamesmanship thinly disguised as policy discussion. Look, you "won", right? I am blocked. Raise your glass to the mirror, hoot and holler, pump your fists, whatever turns you on. Just don't expect my ethical decisions to based on some crap on a website policy page.

Let me take this opportunity to clarify something. I mentioned that the post which precipitated the block, this one here, was ill-considered. The problem with it was 1) how it was worded and 2) where it was posted. The substance and sentiment of it stands, though certainly others need not agree in whole or in part. General reasonableness (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

have i called you an asshole, lately? jack ;>

sorry, doc9871 is a troll who followed me here. he's part of the future of this failed project ;> 114.79.62.132 (talk) Jack 05:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought IP accounts (especially throwaway ones) couldn't have watchlists. Guess I heard wrong, noob and all. How do you keep abreast of things as well as you do? And yes, you have called me an asshole lately: while you cling to the fifth pillar you ignore a few others. Doc talk 05:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
with clue ;> 114.79.62.132 (talk) Jack 06:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some insight about ArbCom and the Wikimedia Foundation

[edit]
--quote by user:Shell Kinney
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:General_reasonableness&oldid=1078387778"