User talk:Kingwarren

July 2009

Please don't make that redirect again. The redirect was the result of an AfD discussion. Don't restore the article without consulting the closing administrator. Them From Space 04:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThemeFromSpace - Can you please direct me to the area in which I can challenge the improper decision someone made to redirect domaining and domainers to the "cybersquatting" Wikipedia page. This is not acceptable, and will not be tolerated. Domaining is not cybersquatters "rebranding" themselves as someone incorrectly alluded. Domaining and cybersquatting are not the same, and must not be represented here as such. Please advise further. Thank you for your assistance.

We have a forum called deletion review where editors can ask to have deletion discussions reviewed and potentially overturned. Before going here, you have to have addressed the closing adminitrator, which is Cirt. His talk page is here. I would advise you asking him nicely, as we have a policy on civility, about the redirection of the page; although I suspect he will explain that there wasn't any evidence displayed for why the two terms are different. After his response, if you are still unsatisfied with the closing, you can take it to deletion review. Deletion review discussions are strongly weighed towards the precedent that has already been set. One good way to get the article back up is to prepare a rewrite of it in your userspace, making sure it adheres to our policies and the issues brought up during the AfD. Note that neologisms, promotional language, and unsourced statements are looked down upon, so try to avoid those. Them From Space 04:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi, please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domaining. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Peter Symonds - URGENT

I have been blocked by a user (or admin) called CKatz from editing Wikipedia submission or participating in further dialogue. This is monumentally unjust as I have never abused this privilege and have done nothing but contribute meaningfully to the discussion on domaining. I have been falsely accused of submissions under different accounts. This is completely & utterly false. I am the original submitter of the new Domaining page and have never posted under any name, ever, except Kingwarren. My IP address is (removed).

I must defend myself and need to speak with someone in charge at Wikipedia. This is an incredible violation and the user who has successfully gotten me blocked is utterly wrong in initiating this action.

Make no mistake, I have no relation to the various other people who have joined the discussion in support of domaining. The Wikipedia article has been discussed thoroughly on internet mesaage boards, and consequently others have joined to contribute to the dicussion and to also rebut the many false allegations made here in regard to domaining.

The wikipedia page on "what to do" reads like an extensive set to steps to clear one's name of being blocked. I simply want to speak with a person. I reside in Greensboro, North Carolina, USA and my phone number is <redacted>. Please have someone contact me immediately from Wikipedia. My name is Max. Kingwarren (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Wikipedia Administrator Conversation

I have checked back here in an effort to communicate with Wikipedia about the false claim of being a "sock puppet" of user Trotline. I have no idea who Trotline is. It is incredible that an admin has arbitrarily blocked me from participating. I seem to have no voice, no recourse.

User CKatz has manufactured the sock puppet thing, and my account frozen by a PeterSymonds.

This is false, but apparently a source of amusement for someone. How do I reverse this finding and reclaim my status?

I am requesting an actual human being contact me at <redacted> or communicate with me through email. Kingwarren (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the phone numbers above as Wikipedia vandals may use them to harass you. Also, if the sockpuppetry report was frivolous it weould not have been acted upon. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 03:24, 14 August 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

False allegation of multiple user accounts

Decline reason:

If not sockpuppetry, then meatpuppetry, which is still actionable: [If] there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity. The SPI does not appear to be frivolous, and your edits appear to be the same in function to that of at least three other registered usernames. Declined. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 03:24, 14 August 2009 (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.

To Jéské Couriano: So that's it? I have engaged in no "puppetry" of any kind, but because some edits appear similar then I continue to be wrongly blocked? I have emailed PeterSymonds (who blocked my account) and received no response. I have emailed CKatz (who made false allegations of sock puppet) and received no response. I have made a genuine effort to communicate with these administrators on their error, and requested recourse and further discussion. And you, Couriano state that my edits "appear to be the same in function" and you support a wrong action based on appearance? Is the process here that accusers can get away with whatever they choose and have no accountability for their decisions? This appears to be exactly the case.

I am telling you definitively that my contributions, edits, and actions here at Wikiepdia have been completely above board, and honest. I have never enagaged in what I am being accused of. This is a fact. What is my next option?

I an reiterating that the action taken against me is in error. It is not justified. The "conclusions" being delivered are completely wrong. I want my editing privileges restored. What is the next step? Kingwarren (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the above via email. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jeremy for your response. Kingwarren (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

this block appears to have been made in error. no puppetry has occurred Kingwarren (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not substantially address the reason for the block, especially Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trotline/Archive. See WP:GAB. Sandstein 13:22, 16 August 2009 (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.

Sandstein: Decline reason: "This does not substantially address the reason for the block --> I have sent you a detailed email that explains the reason for the block. Kingwarren (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingwarren, sorry for the delay in responding, as I've been off-line for a few weeks. Simply put, while I'm an admin, I'm not the one who blocked you. I have to say that, while I sympathize with your frustration, I do take issue with the spurious claims that I "manufactured" anything. I did feel that there was an apparent similarity between the various accounts, especially given the focus on specific content and the timing, and as such I requested a check to get an opinion from the folks who specialize in that sort of stuff. This is a straightforward process that is done frequently on Wikipedia when situations such as this arise. If you wish to take issue with their assessment, you'll need to take it up with them as I didn't actually block you. --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To CKatz (Wikipedia Administrator)

How about this CKatz? You write PeterSymonds and let him know I have emailed him twice requesting a reversal of the unjustified suspension of my account. And he hasn't bothered with the courtesy of a reply. I'll tell you something, that's low character. I reach out to clear my name and to solve this issue, and he ignores me. Unprofessional & inappropriate.

Very honestly and simply CKatz, you were wrong in your assessment. Your action has cost me an enormous amount of my time, not to mention a loss of privileges and rights here at Wikipedia. User Trotline (who was also suspended) I recently met online. His name is Steve Cheatem and he, like me, invested much time in contributing researched information to the Domaining page. We are totally separate individuals, with different IP addresses, and had never spoken before discovering that we were mistakenly labeled as sock puppets of one another by one or two overzealous Wiki admins. You guys screwed us over making a false allegation of puppetry that was completely baseless. You have erased volumes of diligent effort on my part and honest hard work in a sincere effort to educate others on domaining ... as well as to defend it from some rather mean-spirited, factually inaccurate comments and criticisms. Your action led to me being permanently blocked from ever contributing to Wikipedia.

Replying to my email is something which I do appreciate despite being angry with you. But a reply is not enough. Until my account is restored, you and PeterSymonds have commited a wrong against me. It is your responsibility to correct this wrong.

You wrote "that you feel there was an apparent similarity between various accounts". My gosh CKatz. Do you realize you grossly blocked my rights based on a hunch? An IP trace, or simply communicating with me, could have easily answered your hunch. Instead, you guys kicked us off the face of the earth. I have been participating in discussion forums, chat rooms, and blogs for years and never had anyone screw me over like this with no recourse, no process. I am not the type of individual who enages in "puppet" postings. If some other contributor had a similar ring to my posts, it's because we coincidentally happen to see an issue similarly, not because we conspired to hijack Wikipedia.

I have followed Wikipedia's process with no restoration of my account. PeterSymonds apparently has no working email or is specifically ignoring my request. You're an admin. So I'm turning to you to initiate the help that has been competely absent. I have been inconvenienced more than enough.

Last comment CKatz, and I want you to undertand this. I did not do ANY of the things I was accused of. That, in itself, should dictate exactly the next step, in a just world. Thank you. Kingwarren (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I can understand your concerns. However, you need to understand that your actions here and off-site are not helpful in resolving this matter. Simply put, you and your industry compatriots have repeatedly allowed frustrations with Wikipedia to colour your decisions, especially as demonstrated through the repeated posts, articles and comments slamming Wikipedia and its contributors. Using your personal site to toss around insults such as "anonymous goober", "the stench of envy filled the air", and "paranoid admin" is counterproductive, and serves only to illustrate that you are unwilling to take any personal responsibility for what has occurred. (I've been following some of the posts regarding the "domaining" article in industry newsletters and blogs, and it is readily apparent that domainers are very quick to label all editors and even the entire site in a derogatory manner for any instance where Wikipedia does not immediately fall into line with what your members would like to see.) You've speculated as to the anonymous nature of the editors here, and the effect that has on our attitude toward what we do. I would counter that by asking you this: given that you (as an example) have already demonstrated that you will use your personal site to post opinions knocking the people at Wikipedia who you have a disagreement with, why on earth would I want to entrust you with any personal details about myself? It seems very one-sided; I can post here, but I have to abide by the rules governing civility and good conduct. If I cross those lines, I can be disciplined for said actions (being an admin doesn't exempt you from that). You can also post your views, and request assessments from uninvolved editors. On the other hand, you can post whatever you like on your site, and I have no recourse whatsoever in terms of removing material or offering a counterpoint.

I think the problem for your and your industry lies in a fundamental misunderstanding of what this site is about, and how it operates. Wikipedia is intended as a collaborative encyclopedia project, built upon contributions from millions of editors. It is not (under any circumstance) intended to be a PR site for an industry, or a site for industry representatives to post only that information which they have approved. You (and your compatriots in your business) may have one perspective on what you do, but it is not the only perspective nor is it necessarily the correct perspective. You are welcome to contribute your ideas, as you did on the talk page and with your initial draft of an article. However, that article is not yours or your industry's, and all claims to the content cease the instant it is posted (per the terms of the licensing agreement). If other contributors can provide sourced, reliable information that presents a different perspective on the legal or moral aspects of domaining, it is also fair game for the article. (Note that this does not mean those with an axe to grind can rewrite the article as they see fit; it refers instead to commentary from sources such as industry representative, legislators, public opinion polls, and so on.) I think everyone here would appreciate a resolution that addresses as many concerns from the parties involved as is possible. As such, I would strongly encourage you and you fellow domainers to adopt a less aggressive approach to the site, and resist the urge to use your exclusive resources (newsletters, forums, websites and the like) as anti-Wikipedia sites. I think you will find that you will get a far better reception if you do. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Ckatz: You initiated a wrongful action against me having my account suspended. And you're refusing to acknowledge your false allegation of puppetry or to accept responsibility for your actions. So now again I reach out to you asking for justice. Simply reactivate my account. The negative tone, CKatz, is what results when you take it upon yourself to faciliatate the suspension of someone's account & deny other people's rights. All the external blogs and newsletters you mentioned would have never happened if you and PeterSymonds had never done me wrong in the first place, or simply reversed the unjust decision to block my account. Look at what I have been through trying to communicate with you and others who abused their Wiki admin authority. If your aim is to punish me or shape my behavior, then you have won by inconveniencing me beyond anything that is reasonable. You and PeterSymonds needlessly took action against myself and user Trotline. Let's get past this. Please unblock my account, and allow us all to move on. Kingwarren (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PeterSymonds (Wikipedia Administrator)

Have emailed PeterSymonds three times asking for communication with him/her over the suspension of my account. Still waiting. Kingwarren (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to Public

For those of you who have been indefinitely blocked at Wikipedia through abuse of authority by a Wikipedia administrator, there is an Arbitration Committee with members to whom you can direct a formal complaint. I had to do some searching to locate this page, but there are a number of individuals that can assess your unique situation & any admin action taken against you.

Here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee

This link lists "Active" arbitrators who can analyze any action taken to suspend your account.

Wikipedia administrator, PeterSymonds at the faciliatation of user Ckatz, indefinitely blocked my account on August 12, 2009. The justification was cited as "abusing multiple accounts" which is totally and completely false.

I have emailed PeterSymonds (per Wikipedia site instructions) a total of 4 times as of August 20, 2009 regarding his false allegation against me of "sock puppetry" and unjustified permanent block of my account. He has never responded to any of my emails or attempts to communciate with him on my Wikipedia talk page. Admin, PeterSymonds, appears to have have experienced a major blow out and suspension of his Wikipedia Administrator privileges (see below) less than a year ago. My conclusion is that his failure to engage me in civil discussion of the blocking of my account is evidence of further abuse of Wikipedia administrator authority.

I have attempted to engage the original facilitator of the blocking of my account, Ckatz, in a discussion of why and how this occurred, and more importantly how to get this wrongful decision reversed. Mr. Ckatz has thus far refused to assist me in this regard or to acknowledge that his allegations leading to my account suspension were in fact false. I have nothing against Mr. Ckatz other than him initiating the action which led to my unjustified account suspension. I continue to request that Mr. Ckatz assist me in having my account privileges restored. His false suspicions of "puppetry" and "multiple accounts" are the root cause of my account suspension.

Kingwarren, I suggest you stop making yourself out to be Vanzetti. Even if it's not sockpuppetry the SPI case makes a strong enough case for meatpuppetry (which is just as bad an offense) that there's not much defense you *can* put up; at this point you're starting to go off on a tangent. I suggest you stop insulting administrators (Boldfacing and adding "Mr." drips of cruel sarcasm) and stop shouting "Fire!" in the crowded theatre. Just remember this: If you use this talk page as your high horse, us administrators have every right to block you from it as well. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 05:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation of Wikipedia Admin PeterSymonds loss of administrator privileges (from PeterSymonds Wikipedia page)

Here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PeterSymonds/Apology

I've never been good at this so I will keep this as short as possible. For the errors I have committed on this project, I humbly, formally, unreservedly and sincerely apologise. It is difficult to promise the community that such will not happen again, so shortly after the incident, but this is what I mean. Regarding my absence from the discussions that inevitably ensued, I've never been fond of drama, and with the off-wiki priorities that I had coming up, "sticking it out" would not have sat well with me. Regarding the loss of my adminship, I will not be re-applying, either through RfA or ArbCom. I fully deserve to have those tools removed indefinitely. Adminship itself was never a concern for me, it was the loss of the community trust that has kept me here for nearly three years. Plus the drama that such a request would be an unnecessary waste of time for the editors that I value. I hope to get back to editing articles; I have 5 FAs I need to write. :) Again, I sincerely apologise. --PeterSymonds (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I have posted the above information on PeterSymonds for other Wikipedia Administrators as this wrongful suspension issue is explored and uncovered. I intend to exonerate my name and to specifically identity, using Wikipedia processes, who suspended my account and why they refused to interact with me or to constructively work with me on the proper restoration of my account. Despite repeatedly reaching out to them, I have been stonewalled and my rights denied based on false allegations & obvious personal dislike. This is not the Wikipedia way, and illustrates what can go wrong when Wiki Admins begin injecting personal feelings into administrative decisions, and exercising personal vendetta against those with which they disagree. Kingwarren (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, you are aware that that page is well over half-a-year old? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 05:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do. That's irrelevant Jeremy. The admin was wrong in suspending my account. Please don't crash this page unless you're willing to help. I've put up with enough abuse. This page is my platform for defending myself from false allegations, obtaining the proper outcome, and exposing mistreatment by Wikipedia administators. Please do not post miscellaneous comments here. Thank you. Kingwarren (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above is not miscellaneous. It's starting to sound like you're trying to fancy yourself a martyr and are using this talk page as a soapbox; that is a big no-no. I suggest you stop trying to call PeterSymonds out; it's starting to sound like a very unhealthy obsession with the guy. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 06:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy, you are trying to provoke confrontation here, and I have no beef with you. If you want to be constructive, then you are welcome to post here. PeterSymonds wrongfully blocked my account so he will need to correct his mistake. The focus now is simply to address the inappropriateness of Wiki administrators misusing their authority to block contributors they personally dislike. Very simple. Kingwarren (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again you mention his name and the charge against him, as if that's all you can say. You are starting to sound very obsessed with him; keep it up and I'll have no recourse but to talkblock you, leaving contact with the ArbComm your only recourse. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - - - - - -

This page has evolved into a revealing & beneficial discussion of the rights of new members and their proper use of the recourses available to them. I am am very much looking forward to utilizing the various processes at Wikipedia, and am actually learning much about Wikipedia and the way it was designed to operate.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, envisioned and articulated several overriding principles that would govern the site and its users. Of particular interest to me are ...

2. Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elite, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers.

7. Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. A person with a complaint should be encouraged constantly to present problems in a constructive way ...

These values are reaffirming, and I intend to identify and communicate with those who share these values. For the record, I have contacted members of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee to give that process a try, and to discover what assistance will be made available regarding the concerns I have documented on this talk page. Kingwarren (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After you sent me an email ("Request For Administrator Assistance") I started looking into your case to see if I can be of any help despite not being an administrator. Your email must have been a reaction to this comment. Please note that while you are blocked, you are not allowed to edit logged out. This is known as "sockpuppeting" (see WP:SOCK) and will get you into trouble.

The way you are approaching this, i.e. by proving that the admin who blocked you made a mistake in the past and apologised for it, instead of arguing your case convincingly and without any ad hominems, makes it appear very likely that I would only waste my time trying to help you since you may not have the kind of community spirit that is needed for constructive contributions to this project.

Moreover, the Arbitration Committee is of course much more competent to deal with you. You should really have told me that you have contacted them as well. Hans Adler 08:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Hans. It did not occur to me that those would be mutually exclusive options. I feel that I have exhibited a constructive community spirit, but was suddenly excluded from participation at Wikipedia based on the false accusation of "multiple accounts". When the blocking admin repeatedy ignored all attempts to communciate with me, I felt a serious wrong was commited. I do not understand what you meant by posting without logging in. I am typically logged in from my home PC during the past 3-4 weeks when I began originally submitting content and when participating in Wikipedia discussions. There was this allegation of posting from multiple accounts. I do not know how to address this other than to assure you and other admins that this has never been the case.

Thank you for your response and input. I do want to be a contributing member here. Please know that. But in good conscience, I cannot accept that an admin would block me on a false allegation. From my point of view, any objective outside party would see this as a clear wrong. As there was never any of the multiple account violation or puppetry violation that I was accused of. I am willing and capable of accepting responsibility for personal mistakes, but on principle would never concede to an admission of wrongdoing when I know that I am innocent of what has been claimed. That the blocking admin would have taken this action against me, but never participate in further discussion is something which I honestly cannot comprehend. Why has the blocking admin not come forward to address this with me? This I cannot understand. I could have easily walked away from this experience and just accepted the account suspension, but to be blocked on something which I have not done seems worth fighting for. This is the crux of my position, that it is wrong to be excluded on a false accusation and that Wiki leadership (admins) would agree. Your comments are appreciated. Kingwarren (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat what I said above: Even if it isn't sockpuppetry, it's demonstrable meatpuppetry, which is just as bad and just as sanctionable. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Hans: Hans, I was re-reading your comment and I noticed that you were explaining sock puppeting and made a reference with a link included. I followed that link and it appears to be an edit by a "Tristan Perry" to which you had responded. I'm unclear why that link was mentioned here. Could you elaborate for me on how that link connects to me? I'm not sure what to take from that. It seems to be in reference to your comment that I had attempted to make an edit, but was not logged in. I'm lost on this particular point and would appreciate if you could post for me here (or email me) what you are seeing on your end when you searched and found evidence of "sock puppeting". I should reiterate that I was in no way connected to user Trotline (who is/was incorrectly identified as being a sock poppet connection) and I also don't have a connection to the Tristan Perry mentioned in that link above. Thank you for helping me to understand what you are viewing. Kingwarren (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple: That edit by "Tristan Perry" was made about 1 1/2 days after you were blocked indefinitely. It makes a point that you have made before and that nobody else in this project seems particularly interested in. It made this point on a page that you never edited, and yet you must have found it, since it's the only explanation why you mailed me. We are not stupid here, and you are not the first who tries to game us. Per the duck test the anonymous edit was by you. There is no need to bother a checkuser, since it's a clear case.

Everybody here is aware that theoretically there are other explanations. E.g. you might be part of a mailing list or web forum where you and a number of others keep each other informed and coordinate your activities. Guess what? We don't care. We are not that interested in people. We are interested in editors. If you behave like a single editor, then you are a single editor as far as we are concerned. Hans Adler 11:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans: Your condescending tone is not unnecessary, and you are drawing inferences that do not add up. First, the way I located you was to search the talk page (of those administrators that have crashed this page and blocked me) in an attempt to learn something about their past actions. I found a post by you to another admin in which you seemed to challenge (in an honest & constructive way) his blocking of a new editor, and that suggested to me that you might have more objectivity and sense of fairness than those I have experienced here thus far. I was literally searching for an admin with common sense and the ability to decipher what had occurred with my suspension.

The Tristan Perry edit that you keep referring to is not me, has nothing to do with me, and is not the reason that I found you or contacted you. Secondly, I do not think you are stupid and would not even waste my time pursuing all this back and forth conversation unless I aimed to locate a truly impartial Wikipedia admin who would take the time to look carefully at the circumstances around my suspension. Yes, the whole domaining discussion made it to the internet and was addressed across several blogs and news sites, but not in the conspiracy minded (or coordinated effort) version that you have insinuated. A wealth of misinformed people crashed the domaining page and dominated it's direction for several days with bias and mean-spirited comments. Consequently, a number of other domainers joined the conversation on domaining and offered their unique input, content additions, and deletions. I did not coach them or conspire with them. They acted completely independently from me and that is a fact. Which is why I was so angry that the Symonds admin blocked me and said it was because I was a "sock puppet of user Trotline". This allegation was and is false.

I submitted the original article on domaining and then stepped back for several days to let the natural editing process take place among other contributors. I did post challenges to various individuals who made misstatements of fact. And just prior to my eventual suspension deleted only one misleading sentence & one heavily biased paragraph (in two separate edits) from the domaining article. That's it. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. What followed was all the innuendo, allegations, and nastiness you see above on this talk page. The overwhelming negative sentiment and rampant accusations here against me are mind blowing. I have painstakingly tried to discuss the situation in a constructive manner. My intentions are correct.

Lastly, I have received one response from an arbitrator who is away on vacation. He has suggested I contact another specific arbitrator to help in the interim until he returns. My goal for continuing to post here and to sustain this conversation is to have Wikipedia admins (if they are interested) to do more than scan the surface of this problem. The process which has unfolded here is unexpectedly bizarre, and my intuition tells me this is not the Wikipedia way. Kingwarren (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chummer, if you haven't noticed no admin is gonna unblock you here. Your behavior as of late does not help your case at all, and smacks a bit of obsession. As Hans said, if you act in a manner similar to other people who get busted, you're going down with them as a sock- or meatpuppet. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Jéské Couriano|Jeremy, I have asked you to discontinue your insulting and harassing posts on this page. As I have submitted a request to the Arbitration Committee, the matter will be left to their discretion. Kingwarren (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]