User talk:Guyfire 5

Welcome!

Hello, Guyfire 5, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Guyfire 5 (talk)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Susan Sontag. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Sontag

Hello, Guyfire5. In your edit summary here at Susan Sontag, you state, "Edits require no explanation. And they don't even need to be an improvement, so long as they don't make the article any worse." Would you mind my asking where you got this information? Explaining edits in edit summaries is considered at least highly desirable on Wikipedia, and I am also quite confident that edits do, indeed, need to be improvements. If you are not confident that an edit improves an article, you should not make it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where, in Wikipedia policy, it states that every edit must be an improvement, rather than simply non-detrimental.

You can not show me such a policy, because it does not exist.

Furthermore, you did not give explanations for your edits that reverted mine ("Unexplained edit" is not an explanation for one's own edit), much less did you explain how your reversions are improvements, so you are being hypocritical on two counts (and that's not even counting your hypocritical act of accusing me of edit-warring, which makes hypocrisy on three counts). Such blatant hypocrisy is a form of flame-baiting, flame-baiting being a violation of the civility policy. Guyfire 5 (talk) 04:533 September 2016 (UTC)

It is interesting that as a brand new user you should be so confident about what policies Wikipedia does or does not have. You might want to see WP:POLICY, which states, "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia." Making edits that do not improve articles does not contribute to "creating a free, reliable encyclopedia", and you can expect any such edits to be reverted. The edit summary "Unexplained edit" was certainly an explanation for the edit I gave: you should have explained your reason for making the edit, and I reverted it in part because you gave no explanation. If you think your change improves the article, it is up to you to explain why. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are making-up a Wikipedia policy that does not exist, by trying to [poorly] spin-doctor the words of an existing policy. That is a type of lying, lying being a violation of Wikipedia's civility policy. You lie yet again by saying that "Unexplained edit" constitutes an explanation for your own edit (it is not; it only refers to my edit). And you perpetrate flame-baiting hypocrisy yet again by saying that I must explain why my edit is an improvement (which is yet another lie anyway), while you yourself refuse to state why your own edit is an improvement. In conclusion, cease your flame-baiting harassment of me. Harassment, like flame-baiting, is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Guyfire 5 (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am calmly explaining to you that making edits that do not improve articles is not part of Wikipedia's purpose. If you insist on ignoring that, then I suggest that you are unlikely to find editing Wikipedia a very agreeable experience. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing- I looked at the recent changes page, and at least half of the edits lack edit summaries. So then according to your logic, at least half of the edits on Wikipedia should be reverted. Guyfire 5 (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate to give a detailed explanation of edits when they alter the meaning of an article's content, as yours did. It is not necessary when more minor changes are being made. Please note that nonsense such as this, restoring a personal attack, is likely to lead a block if you persist in it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that your act of repeatedly lying (which is a violation of the civility policy) by falsely calling my accurate and informative section title a "personal attack", and then furthermore lying by saying that I will likely be blocked for it, is likely to lead to you being blocked if you persist in it. Guyfire 5 (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you accuse me of lying, Guyfire 5? Why do we not instead simply have a difference of opinion about the issue? I can assure that I am not "lying" when I claim that you are likely to be blocked for such behavior if you persist in it: I am telling you what I honestly believe to be true, based on my experience of Wikipedia. Time will tell whether I am right or not, but no lie is involved. I think it is you, rather than me, who needs to review WP:CIV. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you are already well aware, there is of course a limit to the scope of what can be an honest opinion (as opposed to a lie), and you have of course gone far outside of that scope.

I would prefer that this conflict between us not go on further, as it is an unwanted expense of my time and focus, so I must ask you one question: Do you intend to continue to harass me by reverting my benign edit to Susan Sontag, after the 24 hours is up? (I hope not.) Guyfire 5 (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is little reason for me to discuss this with you. You should review the civility policy you directed me to. If you persist in violating it by accusing other editors of "lying" when there is no justification for such behavior, you can potentially be blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please cease your repetitive lying. If you continue to lie (lying being one of the listed violations of the civility policy), such as by saying that my responsible acts of pointing out your lies are instead unjustified "accusations" (and thus uncivil), and then lying on top of that by saying that such responsible actions are a blockable offense, then you yourself are subject to being blocked for your habitual uncivil deceptiveness. Guyfire 5 (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try getting me blocked for what you refer to as my "lying" and see what happens? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: [1] _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request

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).

Guyfire 5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason that Bbb23 gave for blocking me is that my account is a sockpuppet, and he blocked all of the other accounts that are presumably within the same IP range, including accounts that are not even mine. On my userpage and in the block summary, Bbb23 did not even allege that I had abused multiple accounts, and indeed I have not. I have never used multiple accounts for illegitimate purposes, such as editting on the same side of an edit war or debating on the same side of a debate. My edits have not even been of a controversial POV nature. The only reason that I have used multiple accounts (or "sockpuppets" as you call them) is as a prudent prophylactic defense against harassment, aka wikihounding, which I know to be a problem on Wikipedia. That is a legitimate use of multiple accounts, falling under the "clean start" reason (listed at Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry). Bbb23 has thus abused his administrative blocking power by blocking a user for the legitimate use of multiple accounts. Bbb23 has furthermore placed all of the accounts in my IP range that he blocked into their own new category, so as to facilitate wikihounding. Such abetting of wikihounding is a gross violation of the civility policy.

Furthermore, the reason that Bbb23 checkusered me and blocked me in the first place is because I gave a fellow user (Gerry1214) a Defender of the Wiki barnstar for having reverted the repeated insertion of libellous statements from an unreliable source into a biographical article of a living person. Bbb23 supports the inclusion of such libellous statements in the article, and had therefore blocked Gerry1214 for 48 hours for having removed them, under the guise that Gerry1214 was edit-warring, whereas Bbb23 did not block Tataral, 74.70.146.1 (presumably Tataral's bare IP), or FreeKnowledgeCreator, who were also edit-warring in the same edit war, but on the opposite side (the pro-libel side). Bbb23 was angered by the truthfulness of the text in my barnstar, so he checkusered me, indefinitely blocked me and all other accounts in my IP range, using the excuse of sockpuppetry, and then immidiately after that he deleted the barnstar that I added to Gerry1214's userpage. Also, when he deleted that barnstar, he used the edit summary "rv sock", which served to create the deception that I am a sockpuppet of Gerry1214.[2] All of that is a major conflict of interest and gross abuse of admin power by Bbb23, for which he should be de-sysopped and banned.

I request that this unblock request not be reviewed and decided by a personal ally of Bbb23 (e.g. Bishonen, Cameron11598), as that would likewise be a major conflict of interest. Bbb23 is a very intelligent person, and as such, I suspect that he has one or more allies who are monitoring the unblock requests, so as to reject any such request by me. I know that such conspiratorial unblock request monitoring has been a problem on Wikipedia, and I would rather not be a victim of it. Guyfire 5 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Launching personal attacks on the blocking admin will not get you unblocked. And if you continue making personal attacks, you are likely to lose the ability to edit this talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to add that reading this unblock request and looking at some of the contributions of some of your other accounts, I seriously doubt you are capable of taking part in a civil and collaborative project like this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2016 (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.

Are you or are you not Limacomb? What other accounts have you been using? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) After the colorful unblock request above, I decided to probe a little deeper. Based on that probe, I have blocked Some religion scholar (talk · contribs · count) as the master (I've also blocked Then I am (talk · contribs · count) as another sock). Guyfire 5's antipathy toward Bishonen and Cameron11598 (not an administrator) is easily understood if you look at the ANI topic brought by Some religion scholar here.

@GeneralizationsAreBad: When you have a moment, please do me a favor. Please start a new SPI case with Some religion scholar as the master, list all the accounts I CU-blocked, and retag all of them as CU-confirmed to the correct master (although my guess is there's someone earlier).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a checkuser block and, as such, can only be overturned by a checkuser. Be aware that making a long unblock request which predominantly focusses on attacking the blocking admin is not going to get you unblocked. Also, even if we accept that your reason for creating multiple accounts is to avoid harassment, which is your given reason, why do you feel the need to have no less than twenty-five such accounts? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not Sure how I'm involved here but thanks for the informational ping Bbb23 --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Boing! said Zebedee is lying (in violation of the civility policy against lying) by calling my responsible acts of pointing out Bbb23's policy-violating abuses of power "personal attacks", and he follows that up by threateningly implying that any other abuses of power that I point out will likewise be deceptively called "personal attacks" by him, and that he (or perhaps one of his allies, like Bbb23) will use that lying pretense as an excuse to lock this page from editting. Nice try, Zebedee, but you can not intimidate me into refraining from pointing out the abuses of power by you or your allies. If you or an ally of yours locks this page under the lying pretense of "personal attacks" (and I'm sure that you will, shortly), then it will only serve as more damning evidence of your lying and abuse of administrator power.

I also note that you saying that I am not "capable of taking part in a civil and collaborative project like this" is itself a personal attack, and I note that you are projecting your own incivility (in particular, lying, and threatening to lock a user's talk page under a lying pretense) onto myself. You and your allies, who wield great power on Wikipedia, habitually act in an uncivil manner (as I have shown), so it is laughable to call Wikipedia a "civil" project. As we both know, you want me out of Wikipedia because I am too civil- in particular, because I am much too honest and socially responsible when it comes to pointing out people's aggressive and/or disruptive deceptive behaviors, and I therefore come into conflict with people who perpetrate such behaviors, such as yourself, Bbb23, and FreeKnowlegeCreator.

Zebedee made the same type of lie about "personal attacks" in this edit summary here: [3]. He probably got the idea for using that deceptive tactic from FreeKnowlegeCreator, who used it earlier when making the same edit, here: [4]. But I have also witnessed two other users- Bishonen (an ally of Bbb23) and Ian.thompson (an ally of Bishonen, if not also Bbb23), use that exact same deceptive tactic, and not just against me personally (in Ian's case it was against a different user, whose username I cannot remember). That suggests that the use of that particular deceptive tactic is part of something broader; in particular, it may indicate membership in a conspiratorial group of Wikipedia users who use that particular deceptive tactic (among others) as part of their modus operandi.

Boing! said Zebedee is an ally of Fortuna Imperiatrix Mundi and Bbb23. So what I suspected would happen (as I mentioned in the last paragraph of my unblock request) is exactly what happened: An ally of Bbb23, Boing! said Zebedee, was monitoring the unblock requests page and/or my talk page, checking for an unblock request by me, so that he could reject it, and he did exactly that. I wish that I had noticed Zebedee's affiliation earlier by noticing this edit that he made to my talk page: [5], prior to making my unblock request. If I had noticed that edit and then did some digging, then you would have seen the username Boing! said Zebedee listed alongside Bishonen and Cameron11598 as allies of Bbb23 in my unblock request. But it's too late for that now.

As for me saying that Bishonen and Cameron11598 are allies of Bbb23 (which Bbb23 deceptively portrayed as "antipathy"), I based that conclusion largely upon the repeated interactions of those two users with Bbb23 on Bbb23's talk page, though that ANI case is additional strong evidence. Nice job trying to cover up the fact that you are allies, Bbb23.

I find it funny how you, Bbb23, are using misdirection by focusing investigation upon me, as if to distract from the fact it is you and your allies who warrant investigation, for your systematic conspiratorial, power-abusing, and tactical deceptive behaviors.

And finally, you may have noticed that I have not continued to argue that I should be unblocked. There's just no point in doing so. Even if I were unblocked for my legitimate use of sockpuppets, then I would still have the gang of Bbb23, Zebedee, and FreeKnowlegeCreator harassing me, lying about my actions, and blocking me again under some false pretense. Guyfire 5 (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your persistent, lengthy and irrational attacks on a number of blameless admins, I have removed your ability to edit this page. If you choose to request an unblock, which can in any event only be performed by an admin, use WP:UTRS--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction; talk page access revoked by another admin while I was posting. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]