User talk:MalikPeters

Welcome to my talk page. Howdy partners! MalikPeters (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Creating an undisclosed sock account for the sole purpose of harassing another editor over what they meant by their comment is far from appropriate - and hardly something that could be construed as OK under the legitimate uses of sock accounts. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:36, 26 November 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).

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

Request reason:

As is clear from the content of my questions, I did not create this account to harass another user, that's an extremely bad faith accusation, if not just an outrageous attack on me personally frankly. Asking polite questions is not harassment, pure and simple. I repeatedly said that if Malleus was not comfortable with my questions, I would stop. He said no such thing. I am therefore at a loss to explain why ErrantX has chosen to smear me this way off his own back. I don't want to cast any aspersion here, but if I were to find in ErrantX's history evidence that he and Malleus were close, well, I'd not be happy. As it is, even if he can't extend it to me, I'll extend good faith to him and merely assume this is just an over-zealous approach to WP:SOCK. I am extremely dissappointed to see him claim that it's "wimpish" to wish to protect ones privacy while also trying to smooth out what is clearly an issue for community cohesion. I am baffled by his labelling of this account as a "bad hand" one, I think he's confused that whole concept totally. This site is supposed to run on polite discussion, it's a core pillar in fact, but that's hardly possible with blocks like this. If anyone is feeling harassed, it's me, with ErrantX's threat to autoblock my IP as some sort of revenge or attempt to humiliate me. If I were to disclose my main account now (which is rightfully my choice, not ErrantX's), an account with a pristene record of good faith and quality contributions, it would forever be tainted by what is his serious accusation of "harassing another editor", for having done nothing more threatening than asking Malleus perfectly politely why he made a particular comment, which I and others found to be problematic. Does ErrantX see his role here as preventing polite discussion of such incidents? Does he have a better suggestion for how to avoid what MONGO threatened over the issue, an arbitration case? I hesitate to use the cliche, but this is admin abuse frankly. I have not violated the sock policy with the creation of this account, and regarding the legitimate uses, it should be perfectly obvious to any experienced admin why an experienced editor might choose to create another account before embarking on the unenviable task I did. Perhaps it's ErrantX's wish that the only people who can do this are people like the arbitrators, who have no choice but to perform full disclosure before undertaking such tasks. Perhaps he feels anonymous editing is wrong, period, who knows. As an admin he should know that it's not, and he should know that WP:SOCK exists to stop things like vote stacking/consensus distorting, block evasion or actual harassment, none of which I was engaged in with this account. If he wants to allege otherwise, fine, but I'd like to see him provide some actual evidence of such before he starts wielding his block powers. Not an onerous task, surely? I have no other nefarious reason to hide my main account, I have no history of conflict with Malleus, so this block achieves nothing except to stifle legitimate constructive discourse. I will repeat, I was not posting on Malleus' talk page against his wishes, and never would have. But there's no way in hell I would have been prepared to put my main account at risk by doing what I was doing with this one. Not the way the site currently works in practice, despite the lofty aspirations laid down in the Foundation principles etc. ErrantX might want to label that cowardice or sheepishness, I call it common sense. MalikPeters (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Common sense says that when you have a question or concern about someone's actions or statements, you do not hide behind an alternate persona to address those concerns with the person. Creating or using an account to do so is a clear "good hand/band hand" situation, and is thus a clear and obvious violation of WP:SOCK. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:21, 26 November 2011 (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.

Creating a new account to avoid scrutiny whilst pursuing Malleus over a particular issue is most certainly one of the more egregious use of socks I've seen. If you have a discussion to have with Malleus of something you find problematic, grow a back bone and raise the issue without resorting to socks. To do as you did is the height of incivility --Errant ^(chat!) 13:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good hand / bad hand here, that's a total misuse of that concept, another attempt to smear me with no grounds whatsoever. This is not an "alternate persona", this is me talking the way I talk, trying to resolve an issue with another user the way I would do normally, a user I have no prior conflict with or any intention of alarming or harassing. In this case however, for sound common sense reasons that you two would do well not to feign ignorance of given neither of you are new admins, I just don't happen to want to make my other contributions available to all and sundry just because I happened to have decided to try and do that. ErrantX, if you want to continue to smear my actions in the most despicable way, by trying to paint what were civil, polite queries, as a "pursuit", and you want to continue to insult me by insinuating I'm a coward, then I guess there's nothing I can do stop you given you've been entrusted with the power to do so. But I'll take the fact that neither of you are prepared to detail what part of WP:SOCK I have actually violated, or indeed identify which part of WP:HARASS I am supposedly guilty of, as evidence that you can't. Not to mention neither of you seem prepared to present any evidence that Malleus himself felt threatened or alarmed by the conversation, or had asked me to leave and I had refused to do so. I guess you two can live with that I suppose, but mark my words, if or when there's an arbitration case concerning Malleus' conduct, then I'll be entering this experience into evidence, and adding User:ErrantX and User:Bwilkins as admin parties to it, with questions to answer as to why they chose to block off an attempt at civil discourse with the user, who neither requested the communication to stop, or said he felt threatened or harassed by it in any way. I did have half a mind to try and continue the conversation here if Malleus was willing, given that there's some simple concluding statements that arise from it that I'd have liked to have seen whether he was happy to sign off on or not, but I get the sense that you two would probably block talk page access for some spurious reason, whether he was interested in doing so or not. I sincerely hope there's nothing deeper than simple admin over-reaching going on here, but precedent says otherwise with these types of disputes. I'm sadly reminded by your actions of several other cases which ended up at arbitration simply because people were unwilling to follow some basic steps like AGF, indeed the steps outlined in policy. So, you just content yourselves that you've done something good here, and I'll just get back to my main account and do my thing there, and we'll see what the future holds for all of us. Happy trails. MalikPeters (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also noted for future reference that it took Bwilkins all of 19 minutes to process that unblock request. MalikPeters (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pretty slow for me actually. I actually had to click a few extra links here and there, and go through a gigantic wall'o'text. Sorry it took so long from when the unblock request appeared on my radar until when I actionned it. By the way, the more you post here, the more you actually do violate the whole concept of WP:SOCK...just sayin' (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

19 minutes is inordinately fast. You could not have read, investigated and digested this entire incident in that time, you could barely have even read all the diffs and the request even once, properly, even if we stretch good faith by assuming you saw the request instantly and that you would know the precise wordings of WP:SOCK and WP:HARASS off by heart so as not to need to refer back to them. You can continue to make vague assertions that I'm violating the spirit of WP:SOCK all you want, it is what it is, it's you "just sayin'". Nothing more than that. You can carry on ignoring my very simple questions about your & ErrantX's statements here, carry on being sarcastic and insulting to me, it's no skin off my nose, you aren't stopping me doing anything on Wikipedia by playing out this farce. But I'm considering a third request if only for my own satisfaction that this sort of disrespectful, evasive and sarcastic treatment isn't now standard practice among all admins. Hopefully I can find an admin who appreciates the very simple basic expectations that the community puts upon them. If you find long posts hard to read and evidently not worth putting any great thought into, certainly not enough to actually answer any of the points at all (and if anything you only seem moved to respond because I simply noted how long it took you to review) then perhaps you should reconsider whether you've chosen the best area to spend your time volunteering here. I see from your first failed Rfa, and even from your second successful one, that I'm not the only person to wonder if your attitude towards others is fitting for the responsibility for adminship. I also appear to have erred in assuming ErrantX was a long-serving admin, he was only given the bit in February, and people were clearly concerned at his apparent interest in being an admin for being an admins sake. If you both act like this as a norm in your admin activities, then you guys should be very grateful that recall is one of the most broken aspects of Wikipedia. Still, that's definitely a subject for arbcom, and arbcom alone. Unless you like the embarrassment of reading about yourselves on the review, I think 'wikis worst admins' was one of their more recent topics. MalikPeters (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway BWilkins, if that post was too long for you, here's a shorter one, just for a laugh. Let's hear your detailed explanation of how the concept of 'good hand / bad hand' accounts applies here, with detailed reference to anything I've actually said or done with this account, rather than what you simply might think/hope/claim I've done without evidence, or whatever bad faith reasons and unsubstantiated smears you or ErrantX wish to assign to why you think I created this account. A Wikipedia Admin should be able to answer this question quite easily. Certainly if they want to stand by the permanent record which was entered as "Undeclared sock account, created apparently for the sole purpose of harassment". Just sayin'. MalikPeters (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I'll just wait for your ArbComm report - I declined the unblock because it clearly failed the process under WP:GAB, but hey, go to town. I'll stop watching here now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, then why are you only mentioning it now? Given the fact I wholeheartedly reject the claimed reasoning for the block, and am still awaiting answers or anything by way of proof regarding it, then I've fulfilled WP:GAB to the best of my ability given your unwillingness, unless or until you show otherwise. And I won't hold my breath on that score, I am apparently using an invisible ink typewriter as far as you're concerned, the same one you presumably used when you referred to WP:GAB in your decline. MalikPeters (talk) 22:19, 26 November 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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for using a sock account for the "sole purpose of harassment", but both the blocking admin and first reviewing admin have both refused to provide any evidence of any harassment occurring (and refuse to cite any part of WP:HARASS that I've violated), and they also refuse to explain what it is about this account that violates either the spirit or the letter of WP:SOCK. All I have had by way of explanation from them, apart from insults, smears and sarcasm, is vague assertions that this is a 'bad hand' account, again, with absolutely nothing in the way of proof, or even an explanation as to what they think I am trying to do. I've given them more than enough actual explanation of my motives. Getting anything more out of them is apparently impossible. This is NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I want too see some proper explanations, I want to see some actual good faith extended here, and most of all, I want this matter reviewed by an admin who actually appreciates what the community expects of them in regards COMMUNICATION with others regarding their actions and decisions. MalikPeters (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your use of this sock account was not acceptable, and you won't get it unblocked by making demands. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2011 (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.

Fine. So that's three administrators who seem to think that giving explanations is outside their remit, despite their very clear instructions. So be it, I've already said where that will go in future. MalikPeters (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* Do you really want to keep pursuing this? Because contrary to the rather lengthy screed you have laid out on this talk page the only logical outcome I can see of this going "further" is the community finding out what your real account is. I've avoided pursuing that up to now because I've assumed, in good faith, your story is true - which makes you misguided and a bit rude rather than disruptive. My explanation for the block was explicit and clear. But to set it out again in another form; I blocked you for created a sock account with the express purpose of bothering another editor whilst avoiding scrutiny. I'm not sure what you hoped to achieve by bothering Malleus with a throwaway account, but I suspect you've never come across him much before if you thought it was a) appreciated or b) going anywhere. As a user you have the privilege of editing (no right, so demanding things never gets anyone far), a privilege you have abused. As an admin (a situation I take very seriously) my role is to help protect Wikipedia content and editors. A job I have done. Your response to that has been an ever increasing series of threats, as well as attempts to cast aspersions of mine and Bwilkins motives. As editors go, you have been one of the most rude and uncivil ones I have ever come across. What do you want? To be unblocked so you can... go and "question" Malleus some more? I seriously doubt he cares one jot --Errant ^(chat!) 23:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as you are concerned, I want a paragraph and line number from WP:HARASS that you think I've violated. You might now be trying to downgrade the charge to "bothering" 'without a permit', but it's not going to wash, although it's still noted that you aren't prepared to put any evidence behind even that mild charge, not least a statement from Malleus that I was not welcome or that he had no interest in continuing the discussion. Then I want some actual explanations which an outside observer could actually understand by clicking the diff links and policy wordings you provide to support it, as to how you think I've violated the letter or spirit of WP:SOCK, not just these vague insinuations that you think I created it to 'abuse the privelage of editing', therefore of course it must be true. I also want apologies for your subsequent smears, your characterisations of me as a coward, spineless etc etc, which continue even now. It's amazing that in this whole equation, my explanation of what my motives are seems to be an irrelevance to you, never mind the ACTUAL CONTENT OF MY POSTINGS. It probably all just merges in your head to fit the story you've concocted, in that highly suspicious place where you probably think that I was always "one of the most rude and uncivil" editors you "have ever come across" (the irony being I'd say the same about you now), and that your unannounced block and subsequent behaviour has had nothing to do with my change of mood. I want some general appreciation of just how badly you've treated me in this incident, in your misguided mission to "protect" Malleus in the absence of any reason to think he was under attack from me. Infact, it's only just dawned on me that your first interaction with me was to block me. I wonder who is going to protect me from you? Where in WP:ADMIN does it give you the "privelage" to approach use of the blocking tool in that way? You can think whatever you like about what I thought the discussion would achieve, absent ANY EVIDENCE of actual actionable disruption, harassment, etc it's got absolutely nothing to do with you in the capacity of being an admin. I'd check WP:ADMIN again very carefully if you really think you've been given the responsibility of choosing who can and cannot have polite discourse with each other in this manner. And if you've been given personal permission by Malleus over and above WP:ADMIN to either speak for him, or choose who can and cannot enter into discussion with him, just say so. MalikPeters (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User has socked again[1] New sock has been blocked by Elockid.[2] (thanks a heck of a lot for that Elockid! I'd just finished the SPI report, previewed and was saving when I noticed you'd just completed the block!! ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another one: Morning Prime. Favonian (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And another Seven Fortune --Errant ^(chat!) 12:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The downside to this is that because blocks are directed at the person, then his original account - even if they have never done anything wrong - will now need to be blocked. Such persistence to flaunt a rule now makes them a sockmaster. How sad. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Seven too. I think it's time for an SPI to find the real sockmaster, as we need some action taken against that account -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MalikPeters for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No go on finding the master then. From the start I've been fairly certain who this is; I guess we've just got to wait till an Arbcom case comes up and they try to use this as evidence or whatever the threat was to prove it one way or another. Just to dot the i's and cross the t's I'll send an email to arbcom with details. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]