User talk:Martin911

February 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for apparent block evasion, per WP:DUCK. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2013 (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).

Martin911 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Making a first edit to ANI is not a blockable offence. This may or may not be an alternate account, the blocking admin certainly doesn't know whether it is or isn't given this block notice is their first interaction with it, but it's clearly a bad faith jump to automatically assume the only explanation is block evasion. Juvenile references to ducks and quacking aside, this block frankly has no basis in policy, and is instead a perfect example of why the phrase 'cowboy admin' is invoked on Wikipedia so often. Infact I recognise the name Sarek as being someone who is often so charged. Martin911 (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM and WP:NPA. The least advisable response to being blocked by a "cowboy admin" is a cowboy unblock request. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2013 (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.

Post review explanations by Daniel Case

The least advisable way to deal with an unblock request that points out the block has no basis in policy, is to ignore it. The least advisable way to deal with an unblock request that cites the bad faith inherent in the original block, is to point them to a page that says assume good faith on the part of the blocking admin. The least advisable way to invoke NOTTHEM is where the only dispute is between the blocking admin and the blocked user based on the block rationale alone. The least advisable way to invoke NPA is to deliberately misquote the person or attempt to bait them. I could go on, but I am in no doubt I'm wasting my time, so I'll catch up with both of you next time in the appropriate fora, where both of you are sure to end up if this is anything to go by. Martin911 (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the least advisable way to do all those things is to phrase your unblock request so tendentiously that any reviewing admin need not take a look at your contributions to know that letting you out of the penalty box is a baaaad idea.

Everything you said basically boils down to: everything I said is right, not subject to argument. Some of it reflects such a clumsy grasp of policy as to even further justify the block: "The least advisable way to deal with an unblock request that cites the bad faith inherent in the original block, is to point them to a page that says assume good faith on the part of the blocking admin." Well, uh, yeah ... you don't get to assume bad faith just because you're pissed off, anymore than in the real world you get to punch someone in the face if you're angry with them. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't assume bad faith, I stated categorically that the bare facts of this case and the clear wording of policy show that Sarek's block was an inherently bad faith act, as well as being an incompetent abuse of the tools. I'm glad you picked up on the general thrust though - I'm right and I know I am right. Anytime you want to offer a rebuttal, you go right ahead. Martin911 (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't assume bad faith, I stated categorically that the bare facts of this case and the clear wording of policy show that Sarek's block was an inherently bad faith act" O-kaaaay. I'm still trying to imagine the state of mind you must have been in when you wrote that to believe that you were making some sort of genuine distinction and then saving it, having done so. You have alleged an admin acted in bad faith. That does not necessarily mean he did. It's for the rest of us to decide if it comes to that. (And speaking of bad faith, what's the deal with "I could go on, but I am in no doubt I'm wasting my time" and then continuing to do so? If you're going to do the "Screw you guys; I'm going home!" thing, then actually do it. Methinks you like the attention more than the principle asserted. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only responding to you, you can leave anytime you like if it makes you feel any better - the finer points of who's right and who's wrong became moot the moment you applied the decline. I doubt even Jimbo would go through the farce of appealling a bad block twice. As for my state of mind, it's called not being a fucking idiot. I accept that a block that flies in the face of policy could at least be explained away as genuinely good faith incompetence (although I think we both know what Sarek would say if you put that to him). But the basic tenet of AGF is that you don't assume the worst in anyone when you're not in full possession of the facts. Only an idiot could look at what Sarek did here, given what he did and did not know about me, and still claim it was anything but an inherently bad faith act on his part. Martin911 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I admit, I've seen some dubiously quick blocks like this, and when I've read the unblock requests from a new editor very quickly blocked as a sock despite no indicated sockmaster, or anything in the edit history that indicates who that might be, I've often contacted the blocking admin for some clarification. I do have a beef myself with the apparent adminitis displayed, but at the same time I'm aware the blocking admin might know more than is apparent, and may have a good reason when I ask for clarification (See here for one example where that turned out to be the case).

However, when you get as contentious and incivil as you have, I cannot give you good faith to pursue that angle. Look at it this way—you've just shown us a lot about you handle adverse outcomes. What if you are what you say you are, and we unblock you ... only for you to act like this again when a content dispute doesn't go your way? That wouldn't be good.

Speaking of which, I can understand the perspective of finding it suspicious that your first edit was a very knowledgeable edit to an ongoing AN/I thread. I've reviewed thousands of unblock requests; quite a few were from new users accused of being someone's sockpuppet. Maybe some of them genuinely were new users caught in the wrong place at the wrong time—I think that actually did turn out to be the case on occasion. But most of them were editing in the main namespace, and usually were very polite about requesting an unblock. Even some of the ones who turned out to be socks.

I just can't imagine a new editor deciding that their first edit would be the one you made. Even assuming any new editor had been devoutly following AN/I threads (an area of the site not widely publicized outside Wikipedia) instead of making experimental edits to actual articles, I can't imagine such an editor wouldn't be familiar with the very real possibility that a first edit to one would be under suspicion as a sock from the get-go ... because that's happened so many other times. Especially when it shows an extensive knowledge of the past history. Especially when there's already been allegations of socking higher up on the thread. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3 of those 4 paragraphs were just a waste of typing. I'll come back to para 1, but para 2 is irrelevant as being an admin doesn't give you any right to pre-judge what I would or wouldn't do to content (such an approach is just another example of inherent bad faith). Paras 3 & 4 are also irrelevant because I never claimed to be a new user - as you really should know, there are a number of legitimate non-block worthy reasons why this account could be familiar with the story of HighKing and want to jump in at ANI in an attempt to inform any admins still interested in upholding NPOV about why his conduct should be seen as an issue. Now for para 1 - HighKing has 'POVitis' - he thinks everyone who objects to him is a sock. He's running around reverting this imaginary nemesis as we speak, even though apparently I'm here talking to you (and myself, the original ANI poster of course!). HighKing is just the non-admin side of the Sarek admin coin, both are ultimately clueless about policy and even reality, and they only ever act on impulse, either out of self-interest or just ignorance. Take it from me, Sarek didn't do any due diligence or have any undisclosed knowledge prior to making this block, he's not even interested in the dispute as far as I can recall - he's just another in a long line of cowboys who've failed to take any action against the real problem user in the area. Martin911 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" para 2 is irrelevant as being an admin doesn't give you any right to pre-judge what I would or wouldn't do to content (such an approach is just another example of inherent bad faith)" No, being an admin, doesn't, but your actions would.

Anyhow, this whole conversation is now irrelevant. After talking with Sarek and looking into the history here, I think I can safely say that I believe you're a sock of the Hackneyhound family. You want your due diligence? You'll get it.

If I were to go to SPI and ask that you and BlackPrinceDave (talk · contribs) be checkusered, and point out that the two of you have never been online at the same time, and the other similarities between your accounts, and ask that the Checkuser also consider IPs known to have been used by Hackneyhound socks in the past (if possible), how would that come back? If you think the answer might be "related", it's probably better to come clean now. Save us both the time, and save you some sliver of credibility. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what you're on about with the first sentence - it all sounds very Minority Report to me, and nothing like any policy I know of. As for your supposed due diligence and checkuser, I can only tell you what I know for a fact - I am not BlackPrinceDave or Hackneyhound (or indeed the IP user 212.183.128.83, who is also Hackneyhound according to HighKing). Therefore a check will only expose what is already known - the original block rested on only two things - the fact that Sarek is a cowboy admin who wouldn't know the finer points of the blocking or socking policies from his own arsehole, and the fact that HighKing wants you lot to believe there's only one person in the world who could possibly object to his edits and therefore you should block them all on sight using nothing but juvenile references to ducks and quacking as a justification. Up up to this point he seems to be succeeding in getting you to do his bidding, in the process making you look more like a bunch of Kool Aid drinking Flat-Earthers rather than rational evidence based investigators who do any due diligence at all, let alone after the block! Martin911 (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that answer means "go ahead, make my day" since subsequent activity by both accounts has done even more to persuade me there's a relationship. And should the SPI reach the same conclusion, I probably won't stop there. Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can tell you now it will be come back negative, excepting some coincidence which is very unlikely. If (when) it comes back negative will you agree to look at my original complaint? BlackPrinceDave (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it wasn't, I was quite happy chatting away here with you, but if you insist I'll pop over and give my opinion of your report. Martin911 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

View from Lukeno94

As a non-admin, uninvolved-party, I cannot buy your story. Making a first edit to an AN/I is bad enough, but the way you've written that AN/I post suggests you've been here before with at least one account (otherwise, how do you know those things?) - be it an IP or a standard user. The block makes sense, because your post is highly suspicious. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The block doesn't make sense. It's a knee-jerk reaction. The guy might have been a long time IP editor. I was, until I signed up last year. I still don't edit much, but I use Wikipedia extensively as an information resouce. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policies say different. And I never said I was a new user. Other than that, you were spot on! Martin911 (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly weren't a new user, it seemed like you'd been around the block a few times. Writing a post like that was always going to attract negative attention. I said the block makes sense, I did not say that it was necessarily the right move. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Blocking anyone who makes a non-constructive edit immediately on the basis that they're obviously a vandal might make sense to some people, but for some very good reasons it isn't actually policy and an admin who operated on that basis would rightly not last very long. Same with this situation - people like Sarek probably think cowboy blocks like this make sense, they're just not supported by policy. Maybe that matters to you, maybe it doesn't. That's not really relevant given your non-admin status, what's more disturbing is it doesn't apparently matter to the admin who chose to review the block. Martin911 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try again?

Martin, why not have another go at an unblock? You probably know the type of stuff that will get you unblocked. I think you've got a good case. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I've got a better idea (even better than trying to arrange with you a time that we could both simultaneously edit, just to blow his mind). Martin911 (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]