User talk:OnceTheFish
Blocked
[edit]Oh, come on, you're not even trying. "Newbie"? "Lurker who has spent a lot of time observing policy and talk page behavior"? Who just happens to show up on Talk:Acupuncture? No, we're stupid, but we're not quite that stupid. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
OnceTheFish (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Somehow I can't get the appropriate appeal format to work, sorry about that. It seems I'm just guilty of being a new editor who had the audacity to write on the talk page and be familiar with the contents of a controversial subject. I will willingly volunteer information to an admin, and additionally there is an individual who encouraged me to create an account who is a prolific contributor who can vouch for me and my story. He has said in an email today he can vouch if I get "sockpuppeted" although it's a shame people are so quick to bury new editors. Looking forward to reinstatement and active contribution. I guess if this has been a common occurrence I can understand the knee jerk reaction to label me a sock-puppet. However my familiarity with a specific page's talk discussion is hardly incriminating evidence, talk pages are available to public eyes, and this is the internet, we have a lot of them. Thanks for your time.
Decline reason:
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.
OnceTheFish (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So I have been given no recourse. I have never edited or discussed in the acupuncture, TCM, or related subject matters prior to making this account. I have been given no means or ability to challenge the spurious charge. If I were to create a new account, it would be a sockpuppet, the very accusation now mounted against me. It seems I am already blackballed for having the nerve to discuss a subject that interests me on a talk page for the first time. When did WP:DUCK become a more essential feature of WP than the pillar "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility: Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. If a conflict arises, discuss it calmly on the nearest talk pages, follow dispute resolution, and remember that there are 4,588,840 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss." This has been the complete opposite of my initial experience here. I have done nothing disruptive, but my very presence is somehow seen as a threat. Within the first day of writing on a talk page, I was met with personal attacks (accusations of fringe pushing, sock-puppetry, and advocacy), and a ban from a moderator who exhibited nothing but contempt and arbitrary assumptions. It has been educational however. I get to see a bit of how the real wikipedia works behind closed doors, closed doors suddenly shut in my face. WP:DUCK is particularly concerning as it allows for witchhunts and censorship at a whim. There is no requirement that the accused even have edited disruptively. If I can leave you with anything since I have launched my last appeal here, remember, the rest of the world is watching, talk pages are not behind closed doors, and my familiarity with content disputes is probably not as uncommon as you would think. Personally I learn more from talk pages than I do the articles most of the time. That is both fascinating and sad. OnceTheFish (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per this edit, it's hard to escape the conclusion that you are just Neuraxis once more.—Kww(talk) 01:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
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.
OnceTheFish (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I realize that further editing on the talk page has probably not helped my case. However I figure since I seem to have been blackballed in any case, I want my official opposition to what I view as gross misuse of sources and POV pushing officially archived. I have no idea how to "not appear" as neuraxis whoever that is. I am willing to offer information if someone would stop stonewalling me and actually give me a legitimate way out of this maze of "guilty until we decide otherwise". I have already stated what I am prepared to accept as proper measures under User DangerousPanda's comment, and will refrain from contributing in the acupuncture talk page until my case has been fully arbitrated. If I am somehow breaking etiquette, or otherwise "vandalising", disrupting, or hurting the project, no one has told me how or why this is the case and how to correct my behaviour. If I am ignorant, please enlighten me, Thanks.OnceTheFish (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm declining your unblock in light of your recent block evasion. If we were going to take a WP:STANDARD OFFER approach in your case, an unblock would only happen after 6 months without block evasion. PhilKnight (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
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.
- So, with 4,588,840 articles, you'd have no problem with a topic ban as a restriction for unblocking? the panda ₯’ 23:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Like I initially stated, I am particularly interested in this subject matter and if possible would like to contribute in this space as it suits my abilities and knowledge well. I don't believe a topic ban is appropriate in light of the fact I maintain a position of strict innocence from the charges I am accused of, I believe it amounts to censorship and witch-hunting, but I will accept a temporary topic ban until I have established myself as a pro-active and worthwhile contributor. I understand how the initial perception of me may have been coloured in a certain light if "sock-puppetry" is really as big a problem as everyone has made it out to be. If a temporary topic ban is what everyone require from me before I continue to participate in areas of interest, so be it. I understand how editors with more weight and effort in this project can be expected to be treated more seriously, however I don't think it should make them unimpeachable. If it must be done, please reinstate my account with a permanent topic ban if that's what it requires, in which case my focus will be strictly wiki policy and meta wiki topics. With a temporary ban I'm sure I can find other articles to be useful to in the meanwhile.OnceTheFish (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock}}
- According to this comment a longtime contributor who encouraged you to register an account will vouch for you. So who encouraged you to register an account?
- According to this comment you've made some tentative edits on an account which you can't remember how to access. Do you remember the name of the account or the edits? QuackGuru (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- For number one, I will leave it up to the individuals discretion since I seem to have caused a metaphorical shitstorm, I don't know if he will be comfortable associating with me. If an admin would message me an email account or some way of directly contacting them I would prefer to deal with them in private, the same goes for personal information I am willing to offer. Although every policy explicitly writes to assume good faith on the part of others, this initial experience would dictate the literal inverse of that assumption. For number two, the first account I made was in 2008 or so and had maybe one or two edits in classical literature spaces. It was not particularly memorable.OnceTheFish (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere on Kww's talk page that you are associated with a Texas IP. You (as Neuraxis) are associated with a Canadian IP, both there and here.I don't see anywhere on Kww's talk page that Neuraxis is associated with a Texas IP. Both of you edit from Canada. We often have the same editor using IPs in that area which are hundreds of kilometers apart, and which use Rogers and Bell, so the distance means little, especially with CorticoSpinal/Neuraxis, who is very internet savvy. We even have socks who use IPs all over the world at the same time! In such cases we use WP:DUCK. Note that I only mentioned Neuraxis because you did. I haven't compared your edits closely enough to make such a judgment call. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC) (Comment redacted. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC))
- I was mistaken about Kww. Is there some wiki policy which prohibits more than one Canadian Ip from existing as a wikipedia editor at a time? Are the IP's of me and the user neuraxis from the same province? If they are, I can see how my presence might be misconstrued. If they are not, please strike your comments which unfairly and incorrectly imply that we are the same person by an easily verifiable localisation of our IP addresses. It would be a severe instance of bad faith if you were to ignore such an obvious and accessible piece of information to arbitrarily paint me as a sock. OnceTheFish (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Are you referring to 64.25.184.27 listed on the suspected socks of Cortico-Spinal (found by looking through the Neuraxis sock investigation)? If you are, I request you strike your comment immediately. You would be ignoring the fact 69.157.186.94, my personal IP, is roughly the same distance away from that area as Montreal is to Toronto. 550km. A separate province entirely. Your statement "You (as Neuraxis) are associated with a Canadian IP, both there and here." could be misconstrued as an attempt to conflate two separate users to further a mistaken pre-assumed opinion. Thanks. OnceTheFish (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're right that my comment is very awkwardly worded. I'll fix it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Based on what I saw from the listed IP's of suspected CorticoNeural sock puppets, they all centered around timmins ontario, and one in Toronto. I know nothing of his internet abilities, but based on the evidence, I am over 550km away from any of those places his IP was associated with, and those places seem very consistent with each other. I think this is evidence in favour of me not being a sock. Is there any way to request we open a sock investigation on myself personally? I am confident such an investigation could easily clear my name, and why not start with the evidence of IP association since user KWW brought up the association between our accounts?OnceTheFish (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Query
[edit]Can you explicitly state that you are not a banned user who is returning with a new account? Thanks. -A1candidate (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. I attest that I am not a banned user who is returning with a new account. I don't know how to otherwise verify this. If any admin whatsoever would tell me how I can assert this in stronger terms, I would be willing to skype call, telephone, etc.
- I would be willing to draft a legally binding document of some sort which makes this attestation, if that's somehow possible.
- I would be willing to offer personal information if that would help.OnceTheFish (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
WP DENY
[edit]Comments I made on the acupuncture page have been reverted via WP DENY. The policy stated talks about "Vandalism", it mentions not a single thing about editing with an IP if you have a blocked user account, which is the cited reason for the reversion. Could someone explain to me how expressing a dissenting opinion is "vandalism"? I believe the reversion is inappropriate, and would like it undone. OnceTheFish (talk) 04:05, August 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Further edit.
- BullRangifer undid edits made from my personal IP address citing WP DENY and saying "Per WP:DENY edits by blocked user." I ask for dispute resolution in face of the fact that WP DENY says nothing about blocked users, and simply talks about vandalism, WP DENY explicitly says "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." My addition was made in good faith and is seemingly not under jurisdiction of WP DENY as I have read the policy. I ask that BullRangifer reverts his removal of my edits by reversion, because the policy he is citing does not correspond to the actions he has taken, and the fact he has mislabeled my edits as vandalism can be considered harmful and an abuse of the policy. OnceTheFish (talk) 04:31, August 26, 2014 (UTC)
- My edit summary ("WP:DENY edits by blocked user.") was probably not the best chosen link. The word "deny" is good enough. We don't allow blocked users to edit or comment at all, even when they are trying to be helpful. Blocked users simply are "denied" any existence here outside of their own talk page, and even then access is often removed. I've seen blocked editors indef banned for making too many (I think it was three) unblock requests. IDHT behavior is really bad at a time like that. It makes a very bad impression on admins who might unblock a blocked editor who showed repentance and understanding. Continued denials really seals the deal. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Repentance and understanding for what? I understand that a witch hunt has taken place. I am a new editor, I have no idea about the ramifications of being blocked. Could you please explain how I am being disruptive, vandalising, or otherwise hurting the wiki project? Would you please give me the contact information of an admin so that I can directly interact with someone who won't dismiss me by citing a one word policy guideline that basically amounts to "blocked because I feel like it". If you yourself would give me contact information, I would be very interested in discussing this whole ordeal through correspondence. I refuse to stop making requests when my silence means appearing guilty and accepting the label of "sockpuppet" has any legitimacy whatsoever. What happened to the policy "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users."? No one warned me or helped me understand what damage or disruption I have done before I was socked, or what I've done since I was socked. They simply used my ignorance against me to give the accusation a sense of false legitimacy. It seem people were waiting for me to do something further in order to confirm their bad faith assumptions, to reinforce the initial baseless block. OnceTheFish (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- That isn't remotely plausible. If I joined a gym / club / library or whatever, and I was banned for a week, and then I sneaked in through the fire escape to get in anyway, it would be perfectly obvious that I was breaking the rules. I couldn't then claim that the rules hadn't been explained to me, or I hadn't got round to reading them. You evaded a block on 26 August after you had made two unblock appeals. At this time you clearly knew that you had been blocked. Also, in your unblock appeal of 25 August, you make comments such as "When did WP:DUCK become a more essential feature of WP than the pillar...", so it seems that you had at least a cursory understanding of how Wikipedia functions. And now, you want to argue that you didn't know that evading your block would be problematic. From my perspective, it's getting to the stage where we should consider revoking talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- What isn't remotely plausible? If I walked into an establishment which said "we don't allow criminals here", and I said, "I am not a criminal, I have every recourse available to me to demonstrate this, please show me how to demonstrate this to whoever is in charge", and I was largely ignored/ assumed to be criminal. I would walk right back in until the police showed up, and could investigate the spurious charge . If I didn't say anything further, I would not have even had a voice beyond the first unjustified ban.
- My understanding is that the purpose of a block is to prevent damage and disruption to the quality of wikipedia articles. Not to punish users. Is this the case? Have I misread this? Would you care to explain how I have fulfilled the criterion of "damage, vandalism, etc?". From my perspective PhilKnight, if my talk page abilities are revoked due to asking for unblock requests then I will at least have chased down the rabbit hole as far as I can go. Could you explain the rationale for revoking talk page access? I also find the instance you cite bizarre. WP Duck was the rationale given for my ban, I looked at it immediately, (and was very disturbed to see such a policy), and perhaps I have a "cursory understanding" but I am certainly new to being banned and what that entails. I have refrained from further block evasion since, and you are right, I should have known better at the time. But the fact is I was incredibly frustrated with the reactions I got upon joining. Should my frustration that the application of wiki policy fly in face of its written word be grounds for revocation of my last venue of legitimate voice in this website? If so, could you explain why? Thanks OnceTheFish (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- If any admin is thinking about revoking talk page access per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I fully support it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Could you explain why please? The only point that people have been saying to me has been "you are a sockpuppet, confess". WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT requires that something tangible have been said to me in the first place. What point am I not understanding? Or is the point that administrators will do largely as they please without giving any rationale and that I should just accept the administrator's decisions without appealing them, no matter how unfounded they might be?OnceTheFish (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
