User talk:Kaletony

Some welcome kale for you!

Welcome Kaletony! I'm sure you know all the rules already, so instead of blocking you straight away, have some kale. It's very fashionable at the moment. And leafy greens like kale are very important in a healthy diet. --Shirt58 (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's rich in iron. Kaletony (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaletony, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Kaletony! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're pretty dumb for a robot. Kaletony (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have to block Kaletony as obviously an alternate account of a seasoned Wikipedia editor (at least now Shirt58 doesn't have to do it). Your point on Jimbo's talk page was well taken, but I can't let you continue making such points under this account. Yes, kale is rich in iron, and perhaps you are rich in irony; my favorite kale is Lacinato kale. Listen, I wouldn't be surprised if you had invited CU already with your highly-visible edits, and hope this doesn't come back to bite you in the ass. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

The use of alternative accounts for privacy and safety reasons is entirely within policy (WP:VALIDALT). The "men's rights" area seems to attract an assortment of unsavoury types. In particular, there have been warnings posted on Jimbo's talk page not to accept emails from User:Tutelary because they may contain viruses. Under the circumstances, use of an alternate account would only be smart. Kaletony (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not making any sense. Wikipedia emails are plain text only, and therefore virus free. PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2014 (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.

That's not bad, Kaletony! If my sock had a tool, they might consider this. PS I just sent you an email: the Nigerian business opportunit|y is legit, I swear. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

The use of alternative accounts for privacy and safety reasons is entirely within policy (WP:VALIDALT). The "men's rights" area seems to attract an assortment of unsavoury types. In particular, there have been warnings posted on Jimbo's talk page not to accept emails from User:Tutelary because they may contain viruses. Under the circumstances, use of an alternate account would only be smart. The fact that Wikipedia emails are plaintext is not relevant to policy nor is it any protection if the account holder's identity is known. Kaletony (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please re-read the entire policy at WP:SOCK. It prominently notes in the WP:ILLEGIT section that editing project space with an alternate account is prohibited - "Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project." Irrespective of your intentions or your need, then, your using this account to edit pages like WP:ANI means this account is being used in violation of our sock policy. Any successful unblock request is going to have to address that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2014 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

My first unblock request was denied for a completely specious reason. My second unblock request was denied due to an obvious misreading of the relevant policy. The intention of the policy is not to prohibit the use of alternate accounts in ANI discussions. Alternate accounts may not be used for policy discussion or votes. The wording of the relevant section was only very recently changed (with no discussion or consensus to make this change). Let's be clear, though - I have been blocked simply because I know Wikipedia syntax and policy. Any allegation that I have another account or am "abusing multiple accounts" has been made without any evidence. There's an SPI case open, but it is a pure fishing expedition. Feel free to checkuser me before unblocking. Kaletony (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your block was well deserved. Clearly you are not a newbie, and it's highly doubtful that you have edited in the past only as an IP. It's also clear to me that you're evading scrutiny with this new account, whether or not that fact is every "proven". In addition to the canned warning just below, I will emphasize that further unblock requests along the lines of your previous requests will result in your talk page access being revoked. Bbb23 (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2014 (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.

Undisclosed alternate accounts have been prohibited by Arbcom from editing "discussions internal to the project" since at least 2007. The sockpuppetry policy has stated that undisclosed sock accounts may not edit "project space" since at least 2009. This is not a new thing, and I doubt you'll find an admin who believes ANI is neither project space nor a place where we conduct discussion internal to the project. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and here's what it said in 2009 - "Alternate accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections". You should not be blocking alternate accounts at ANI anymore than you should be blocking IPs at ANI. But that's a bit of a moot point since I've been blocked as a sockpuppet with no evidence at all. Please unblock me. Kaletony (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Memills needs a time out

User:Memills has accused me of being the sockpuppet of Sonicyouth86 and Kaldari ([1] & [2]). He has offered no evidence and has not added either user to the SPI case. I think he should be reminded that accusing people of sockpuppetry without evidence is a personal attack. Perhaps a little time in the corner will help him remember that? Kaletony (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, you deny an alternate account (or, at least deny by refusal to respond to the question). Then you admit an alternative account(s). Now you claim a "personal attack" because I noted two folks for the SPI team to look into who also have previously been involved in using Wikipediaocracy as a RS. I have no idea what alternative accounts you have.

But you do. And, you could put the mystery and SPI to rest by just listing them on your User page. Easy. Memills (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not admitted having an alternate account and no evidence has been presented to back up the assertion that I have another account here. I have simply argued that my edits would be an acceptable (and wise) use of an alternate account under the WP:SOCK policy. I'm still waiting to be unblocked. Kaletony (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about this evidence: The SPI concluded that you are a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary. Diff. Any other accounts you might like to deny or disclose? Memills (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I created that Doxelary II account but decided that the name was only going to cause problems. If you want to call me the sockpuppet of an account that didn't make any edits, you go right ahead. If a checkuser couldn't tell if I was the original Doxelary account, why would you assume I was? Hey, when did you delete your Reddit account? Kaletony (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI concluded:

"I ran a check and found that it is

Possible bordering on

Likely that Doxelary (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is the same as the two above."

You could put an end to the speculation. Simply state that the original Doxelary account wasn't yours. Even better, why not categorically deny (rather than just state "no evidence has been presented") that you have, or have had, no other WP accounts? It would only take a few keystrokes. Memills (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you and Tutelary answer my questions, I will happily answer yours. When did you delete your Reddit account? Kaletony (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, that tone of voice does sound familiar.

Two questions:

~~When did you stop beating you wife?~~

What other WP accounts do you have (or have had)?

Far better to simply list them on your User page now than have more SPIs reveal more of them. Inquiring minds want to know, and, perhaps Shirt58 has some knowledge to share. Memills (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the wife-beating question, my question to you does not make an unfounded insinuation. You had a Reddit account which you used to contribute to the "men's rights" forum among others. You deleted that account in the last month, I am just curious when exactly you did that. My account has already been checkusered. Checkusering it again isn't going to find anything new. Shirt58 and Drmies were simply making asumptions from long experience as admins and know only what you know. I find it quite fascinating that Thibbs thinks the name Kaletony was chosen to implicate Kaldari, but it makes as much sense as the idea that Tutelary would create a sock called Doxelary to draw more attention to a blog post that calls him out as a POV pusher. Kaletony (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. It makes as much sense as the idea that you would create a sock called Doxelary to draw more attention to a blog post that calls Tutelary out as a POV pusher. My guess is that whoever you really are your MO in creating socks is to create ones with names similar to editors you are targeting. Tutelary did not create Doxelary and I have no reason to suspect that Kaldari created this Kaletony sock. Anyway I've responded here because you pinged me, but I have zero interest in getting drawn into this mess. I'm equally disgusted by the misogynistic POV-content-pushers as I am with the anti-misogynists who think that Wikipedia's rules only apply to lesser editors. -Thibbs (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is one person who does know without having to do any sockpuppet investigations. That's you.

At first you denied the sock(s), then you said there was "no evidence," you said go ahead and start an SPI, you were banned, you appealed, the SPI revealed your sock account(s)...

Your attempts to game WP has depleted others' willingness to extend you the "assumption of good faith." Now, if any other of your other WP socks are discovered, they will no doubt be blocked as well. It didn't have to go this way if, as I had requested, you simply linked all of your user accounts on your User page. Memills (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How have you been on Wikipedia so long yet learned so little about it? First of all, I'm not banned, I'm blocked. Second, my unblock requests were denied before the checkuser results. Third, my account has already been checkusered. It found I created another account (Doxelary II) that made no edits. Regardless of what you think, it didn't find that I had anything to do with the original Doxelary account. I don't know how you think more accounts are going to be found from the same data but you probably have no idea how checkuser works. Fourth, no one extended me good faith. Just look at the welcome message I got. Fifth, if you want answers from me all you have to do is answer my question and get Tutelary to do the same. At some point people here will figure out that you don't actually edit any articles and ban you. Kaletony (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow -- that sure doesn't sound like a newbie editor. Which, per Thibbs (talk) above, makes the thought that you are still gaming WP via other socks all the more disturbing. Memills (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me. I don't want to get drawn into this. -Thibbs (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Callanecc pasted a big ugly template on my userpage which says "This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the operator has abusively used multiple accounts." I'm all for admins pasting big ugly templates on the user pages of blocked accounts, but they should at least be factual. Checkuser evidence found that I had created one other account which made no edits, which is a very different thing from "abusively used multiple accounts". As I have argued above, even if this account were an alternate account, I have broken no policy. I don't expect to be unblocked, but do try not to distort the truth past the point of recognition. And please block Memills for repeated false sockpuppetry acusations against his Wikipedia "enemies". Thanks a bunch. Kaletony (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that, Callanecc! Kaletony (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So long and thanks for all the fish kale!

Thanks for everything, but I'll be going now. By the way, as much as I enjoyed seeing the crazy theories put forward by Memills (who is pretty much the definition of WP:NOTHERE), Thibbs and others, the name Kaletony is nothing to do with Kaldari and nothing to do with Anthonyhcole. The name came from the captcha that Wikipedia made me type - "kaletony". Stop looking for conspiracies where none exist. I'll see myself out. Kaletony (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of put out that you would use your parting words to misconstrue (or at least display your poor grasp of) what I said yet again. But I am cheered by your claim that you are leaving us. Hopefully that will put an end to your tiresome pings. Goodbye. -Thibbs (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Crazy theories"? That's the last straw. I foreshadowed that your on-WP time may be brief in the now somewhat controversial "Some welcome kale for you!" edit. Drmies was kind enough to let you write on your talk-page when they blocked you. You have continued to make Battle ground-ish assertions on your talk-page. While I disagree with Memills in about over 9000 things, they are right: you are obviously not being here to build an encyclopedia. Talk-page access revoked. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]