User talk:Hardicanute

Hello, Hardicanute. You have new messages at Talk:Carbon monoxide poisoning#Nazis and CO.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pyrotec (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Hardicanute! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Please stop edit warring in the Kindertransport article as well as other articles

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for editing with a battlefield mentality. You've recently started a series of content disputes on articles relating to Nazi-era Germany. Various editors have responded to your edits and comments with an appropriate degree of politeness at Talk:Holocaust denial, Talk:Kindertransport, Talk:SS-Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptamt and elsewhere. Despite this, you have construed these responses as being a coordinated attack on yourself, and are now escalating the disputes (as demonstrated by comments such as [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]). This edit is also troubling as it seems to be an attempt at point scoring. As such, I have blocked you for an indefinite period - please note that this is not a permanent block, but rather a block which will remain in force until you can demonstrate that you intend to edit productively and in good natured cooperation with other editors. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

I regard it as an absolute badge of honour to be blocked from editing Wikipedia in these crcumstances. I consider I stood out against some extremely illiberal attitudes in regard to Holocaust related article, was harassed as a consequence and blocked for protesting against this. If Wikipedia permits such articles as 'Holocaust Denial' and 'David Irving' then it truly is not a place for people committed to intellectual freedom. If Jimmy Wales, Slim Virgin and all cannot get a grip on the kind of attitudes displayed in those articles then the project truly deserves to fail. I would be right onside with them if they show such commitment. I know all I need to know about how Wiki operates at lower levels and will be able to inform others accordingly. Thanks Nick D for freeing up my time, I do have a rich and fulfilling life away from the computer screen and this was taking up too much of my time anyway. Hardicanute (talk) 13:17, 18 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I request an unblock. I was blocked because responding to provocation. I profoundly disagree with some of the attitudes reflected in the article on Holocaust Denial. It was not fruitful for me to get into an argument. As a consequence a 'recent changes reviewer' appeared and undid many of my recent edits. I think this was just a form of harassment designed to provoke me into doing something for which I could be blocked. I would confess to multiple accounts, although never simultanously. I set up Hardicanute simply because I had forgotten the password to my previous account Sceptic1954. As Sceptic1954 I made many edits on 'Denis Avey' without complaint. A year after the block I made a single edit with the name 'Mornamont' which has not been reverted, and more recently several with the username 'SherlockHolmes249' including one to the lead which also were not reverted. I also previously did edits under the names 'Lockstone' and 'Dr E.P. Lockstone' principally on the BLP 'Nicholas Kollerstrom' This article is closely watched by SlimVirgin and I worked cooperatively with her on improving it. Again changing name was not wanting to evade. I didn't want to give my email, which contains my personal name, and am one of those people who don't write down passwords. SherlockHolmes249 has been blocked for block evasion. I gave the game away by logging in to Hardicanture from the same IP address to enquire about unblocking. I do disagree profoundly of some of the attitudes reflected on Holocaust-related articles. I am not a Denier in any sense but I believe in the rights of Deniers/Revisionsist to put their case without being abused or subjected to ad hominem attacks. I think there is a lack of neutrality of tone in some of these articles which lets Wikipedia down. I have discussed this with Jimbo in person. However I'm not going to change that and there are areas of Wikipedia where I am sure can be constructive. In the Denis Avey article for example I can at least contribute the links I have discovered and let other editors decide what to do with it. I feel the blocking was unjust in that I was provoked - it would be interesting to see who put the 'recent changes reviewer' onto Hardicanute, I think there was something of a conspiracy and I'd ask you to look at it if you think it important although I don't need to know the results of your enquiry. I really don't want to get into multiple accounts, sock-puppets, meat-puppets, VPNs and the like - I like to think I'm a straightforward person, my fault is more to speak my mind than to deceive. I can see the advanatge of building up a record as a wikipedia editor, and if unblocked I will request clean start, take one username, record my password, and build from there.Hardicanute (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Hardicanute[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked because of your own actions, not because there is a vast conspiracy against you. If you can't understand and accept that then there is no reason to even consider unblocking you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Any admins reviewing this can see a longer statement by the editor now known as Hardicanute over at Talk:Denis Avey#2nd Reply. He offers some details about his past accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I was putting forward the mitigation for what I did. If it's relevant to my unblock request look into it, otherwise ignore it. I really don't intend to get involved in controversies again, or edit war or edit with a battlefield mentality. I have constructive things to add that is all. I've got reliable sources to put forward on Denis Avey for example. There's a lot I disagree with on Wikipedia but there is absolutely no point in trying to edit an article where a majority of editors hold different views. I may seek to express my views on the talk page, but there is no point in getting into a protracted argument, which is what I consider led to previous problems. I'll puit forward suggestions but if there is a mojority against them I have to accept that Wikpedia is democratic and just move on. I have had a year to think about it and decide that I have to accept certain things if I wish to contribute 86.169.82.134 (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Hardicanute[reply]

Decline reason:

Log in to appeal your block; as a precautionary note, keep in mind that editing other pages while logged out while your main account(s) are blocked may be considered block evasion. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hersfold. I used another account to clarify matters with two editors on the talk page of Denis Avey. Technically block evasion but I've been quite open about the reaons, it was only to inform them of the situation regarding accounts. Hardicanute (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Hardicanute[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

your reason here I was putting forward the mitigation for what I did. If it's relevant to my unblock request look into it, otherwise ignore it. I really don't intend to get involved in controversies again, or edit war or edit with a battlefield mentality. I have constructive things to add that is all. I've got reliable sources to put forward on Denis Avey for example. There's a lot I disagree with on Wikipedia but there is absolutely no point in trying to edit an article where a majority of editors hold different views. I may seek to express my views on the talk page, but there is no point in getting into a protracted argument, which is what I consider led to previous problems. I'll put forward suggestions but if there is a mojority against them I have to accept that Wikpedia is democratic and just move on. I have had a year to think about it and decide that I have to accept certain things if I wish to contribute. Re comment from Hersfold. I used another account to clarify matters with two editors on the talk page of Denis Avey. Technically block evasion but I've been quite open about the reaons, it was only to inform them of the situation regarding accounts.HardicnauteHardicanute (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

OK, I've unblocked the Sceptic1954 (talk · contribs) account per the below discussion (for the record, I don't think that Denis Avey is within the scope of Holocaust Denial). This account will remain blocked. Happy editing. Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note for Nick-D who is Hardicanute's original blocking admin from June 2011, to see if he wants to comment here. It is good that Hardicanute wants to come clean, but the very recent socking is a concern. If it were up to me to grant or deny this unblock I'd probably want to check what Hardicanute was doing while evading his block to see if the June 2011 type of problems were still continuing. The original June 2011 block notice of Hardicanute can still be seen higher up on this page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the contributions to the Denis Avey article, and they seem OK, and I note the commitment above to avoid disputes and dramas, which is positive. However, the use of alternate accounts for no good reason is concerning; it's not that hard to reset your password. However, assuming that all the accounts are accounted for in the various disclosures, these only started up again recently so the spirit of WP:STANDARDOFFER applies. Hardicanute, if you're willing to commit to only using a single account and staying away from topics relating to Holocaust Denial I'd be willing to unblock you. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick D. I have learnt some lessons about how Wikipedia operates and hope I can be a small, if constructive, contributor in the future. I never saw any facility for resetting my password, I was of the understanding that if you forgot your password and hadn't given your email that was it. I will certainly use a single account, and would like this to be Sceptic1954 (for which I have correctly guessed the old password.) If possible I'd like to close all others and put a notice on them that they now relate to Sceptic1954. I assume that you don't consider 'Denis Avey' to relate to 'Holocaust Denial'. Would the unblock start now or in six months' time? Hardicanute (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Hardicanute[reply]

Hardicanute, did you know that it is easy to create an alternative email account that is used only for use on Wikipedia? For example you could request sceptic1954.wikipedia (at) gmail.com. You could set it up to forward to your regular email account. So the name of your regular email would not have to be revealed. This would allow a temporary password to be sent to you if you ever forget it in the future. In any case, your Wikipedia email address is never divulged to anyone (except our own officials) if you only use it to *receive* mail. EdJohnston (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Thanks for the tip, I'll keep it in mind I don't think I'll forget my wikipedia password anymore! Sceptic1954 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]