User talk:Karla Lindstrom

ACS

I read your ("one") message regarding the Adult-child sex article and all it's incarnations. I would like to bring to your attention that an effort to rerite this article back into a thorough, referenced, and NPOV (truly NPOV, not PAW-POV) has been undertaken recently. The hope is to take information and references from past versions that were somewhat stable (or at least good-quality) and piece them together, reference and re-reference them, and expand upon the article in general.

You can see that effort here.

Further, I would invite you to join in it's rewriting effort. Any assistance in expanding and referencing would be quite appreciated.

With any luck (editor help), this can be completed before February and completely replace the ACS article through superior content (and somehow fight off the "Big Three" that irradicated the original article).

Thoughts and comment welcome. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not really my intention to associate my profile or identity with this subject at all, but as you can see, I will make an effort during the crucial period in which these articles should be initially restructured, after what I see as an unfair bout of censorship. There is also the issue of my expertise being in the area of paraphilia rather than intimate acts brought about by those paraphilic urges (e.g. adult child sex). Nevertheless, I will help you out as far as I am willing to.

Is it possible for me to register a new account only for use on these tricky subjects? kl 14:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, yes. Careful, though, for there's tomes of "guidance" for second and later registrations to avoid the whole "sockpuppet" issue. (As for me, I can't coordinate more than one!) I'm only involved after somehow getting pulled into it and I continue because of what I see as a concerted effort by a small few to drive out anyone who doesn't blindly accept their removal-ist intentions. By now it's a matter of WikiPrinciple. I don't have the study background, so I'm stuck to internet researching. (Hence the help needs.) Either way, best of luck. You're welcome to contribute (and the article needs the assistance). VigilancePrime (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:"Is it possible for me to register a new account only for use on these tricky subjects?". See WP:SOCK. Also see WP:CANVASS as to all the posts about support for TlatoSMD. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:TlatoSMD

Hi: Per your email to me, how am I involved with this editor? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 10:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I observed you editing an article that attracted much controversy for his edits. Please accept my apologies if you did not interact with the user, or were not there for long enough to judge his character. kl 10:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um yeah, I've got no idea who this dude is, sorry. In future, please communicate with me on-wiki, I like a paper trail unless it's clearly private. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 11:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy. I don't know if I necessarily remember this user by name, but I've certainly observed problems similar to those he discussed with WP:PAW. I'm not quite sure what you were looking for when you directed me towards his talk page though. What did you have in mind? -DevOhm ^Talk 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I have no idea what the message you posted on my userpage could possibly relate to. I cannot recall having even come across the username "TlatoSMD" before now, and have no particular interest in reading her/his userpage or participating in any consideration of her/his presence on Wikipedia. Although I have not found myself free of the occasional squabble with other users, I really attempt to focus entirely on the edits themselves, and to avoid a consideration of the "hurt self-hoods" of other editors, especially when those don't involve me personally. (I often feel that if editors spent more time editing and less time concerned about their "status" or "persona" on Wikipedia that the place would prove more congenial ... I also make it a habit not to open Wikipedia for periods of a week or so, which removes that sense of "I'm overly involved" and "This is my own sandbox," a practice I would recommend to many of those who take Wikipedia far too seriously. For god's sake, it is an encyclopedia, not life!) So, thanks for thinking I might prove helpful in some way ... but I simply, to be blunt, don't and won't care about this issue (whatever it is). Cheers, Welland R (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

This is the first and only account that I have had on Wikipedia. Why have I been blocked for being Digital Emotion when there was no evidence?

Decline reason:

You were clearly editing on behalf of a blocked user in violation of WP:SOCK. — Yamla (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2008 (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.

Excuse Me?

If you are alleging that I was acting on behalf of a banned editor, that would be TlatoSMD, who I know not much about. I left messages on some neutral editors' pages as to help raise the issue of his banning. Before that, my edits were February 5, which was a long time before the Digital Emotion blocking. kl 16:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the user they allege is inaccurate and the reason is inaccurate. I have looked through policy on sock and meatpupetting and there is nothing to condemn asking some other editors to look at an issue (without leading them to an opinion). I would dislike being associated with TlatoSMD or any of the articles he edited, but I thought it needed looking at, OK. Please unblock, and warn me next time. kl 16:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think everyone would like to know how this user was deemed to be a sock or meat puppet. If the allegation is that she's somehow associated with TlatoSMD, it would pay to look at the contribution history of each, and the interaction of the two in the past. If that is done, it becomes hard to substantiate the connection being asserted to exist between these editors. Truth be told, it's getting a bit tiring to see editor after editor blocked for horribly justified reasons. Please either provide a legitimate reason for a block, or unblock this editor. ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

If you are alleging that I was acting on behalf of a banned editor, that would be TlatoSMD, who I know not much about. I left messages on some neutral editors' pages as to help raise the issue of his banning. Before that, my edits were February 5, which was a long time before the Digital Emotion blocking.

So the user they allege is inaccurate and the reason is inaccurate. I have looked through policy on sock and meatpupetting and there is nothing to condemn asking some other editors to look at an issue (without leading them to an opinion). I would dislike being associated with TlatoSMD or any of the articles he edited, but I thought it needed looking at, OK. Please unblock, and warn me next time. I have not done anything wrong, and the accusations people make at me are inconsistent.

Decline reason:

The blocking admin has confirmed that there was checkuser evidence used in their determination of your sockpuppetry. No ordinary admin can undo this block. If you still wish to dispute this, you will need to contact the arbitration committee directly. — Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 22 February 2008 (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.

Perhaps people would take you more seriously if you didn't edit through a series of proxies, in a similar manner to other people that edit pages like Pro-pedophile activism. --Deskana (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you know, there's nothing in Wikipedia against editing using proxies. And what does that have to do with the accusation that this individual is a sock or meat puppet? ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. My comment is as it reads; people would take this user more seriously were they to not edit from proxies. That's a hallmark of someone trying to avoid scrutiny... or a block. --Deskana (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this qualifies as meatpuppetry - s/he's acting on her/his own advocating for the blocked editor. Canvassing maybe, but not meatpuppetry. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 19:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary of the situation. Definitely not meat puppetry - editors are encouraged to look this concept up, if they don't know what it means - and most likely doesn't even fall under canvassing. The comments made by this user were neutrally-worded and informative in nature, thus they were not disruptive, and did not aim to bias the situation one way or another. ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're jumping to conclusions, guys. The block reason was that [the user] is a sockpuppet of User:Digital Emotion, who was indefinitely blocked about a week ago. The block was placed by User:Dmcdevit, who has checkuser access. I've asked Dmcdevit to clarify if this is based on checkuser evidence. My own guess here: Dmcdevit became aware of the canvassing/advocacy for TlatoMSD, and on that basis ran a checkuser and this block is based on the result of that check. But we definitely need to hear from Dmcdevit before anyone even considers unblocking. Mango juice^talk 20:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No

This is just hideous. How could this "hard" evidence show this in any other way than that it was fabricated? I heard that this happened with two editors on Pro-Pedophile Activism before, but can't find the link anymore. I can only think of one other way, and I would not even want to forward it as a possibility in fear of being seen as a justification. I have always used proxies on controversial editing for security purposes. If they block the proxy, I get a new one. That is allowed.

I do not want my name associated with this pedophile campaign in any way. When I asked if I could edit the articles under a different name, but the answers were inconclusive. Being banned for this is very distressing, as it is basically a digital signature against my name forevermore on the web. kl 23:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My email sounds partially like digitalemotion's name. Is this it? kl 23:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think checkusers can see your e-mail address. Ordinary admins are not allowed to see checkuser information. Therefore, if you wish to challenge the block, you need to go to a group of admins who can. i.e. The arbitration committee. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KL - I tried to send you email in response to your above post but I'm not sure you go it. In the email, I explained what the evidence is (which I'd rather not do on here without a good reason), but I also mentioned Wikipedia:Right to vanish. If you wanted to invoke that I would support your request, but I won't guarantee that it would be granted. Mango juice^talk 17:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual

Since you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Anthrosexual, which is currently up for deletion.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play party (BDSM) (2nd nomination)

Since you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Play party (BDSM), which is currently up for deletion. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]