User talk:TheGreenPenOfHope

Welcome

Hello, TheGreenPenOfHope, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your name

If you are looking for a WP:FRESHSTART you may wish to select a different name. Over the years many account variations of my name have been created by vandals in attempts to spoof or get back at me. The similarities between your name and mine may bring you unwanted scrutiny. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Red Pen, but the choice is deliberate. I shortly plan to contribute to the Streisand Effect, and my choice of name is meant to signal two things:

firstly that there are times when I think it is highly damaging to wp to be rigidly applying conservative editing conventions re topics that by definition don't have secondary sources etc
secondly, I do think your name sounds offensive, and suggests a heavy-handed stifleing of debate. This is magnified by your colouring your signature, which suggests determination and omnipotence. The fact that you wrote to me within just a few minutes of me creating this account also suggests that some determination will be required on my part, given that I have decided to argue against propositions that you already seem to have made up your mind on and that you are such an active editor. With this in mind, I thought it appropriate to indicate to other editors my own determination. I think this is necessary because there are falling numbers of wp editors, and I suspect that this is because the many sometimes feel overwhelmed by a few.

btw, thanks, but I am not looking for a fresh start. I do, however, promise never to use this account as a sock puppet - I won't overlap its use with any other articles I have worked on.

cheers, best wishes, and AGFing,

TheGreenPenOfHope 02:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well, then,

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "TheGreenPenOfHope", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because because it has been chosen purely to be disruptive and make a point about another user. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That "it has been chosen purely to be disruptive and make a point about another user" is short of the AGF I think my reply above deserves. It is important to read the actual policy you are quoting (rather than your own interpretation of that policy), because I think you are interpreting it in a way that is beyond what its authors meant. Indeed, reading that policy now suggests that more attention should be given to changing "TheRedPenOfDoom" to something less offensive (see above where I detailed why I found your name to be offensive). I certainly deny that I will be any more disruptive than you yourself. Indeed my usual account is similar to most editors who have written in Talk:Streisand_effect#Charlie_Hebdo in that it shows a history of contribution predominated by positive greens, as distinct from the negative reds that dominate your own account. I deny that "TheGreenPenOfHope" makes harmonious editing difficult; it is certainly more harmonious than "TheRedPenOfDoom". "TheGreenPenOfHope" is not a "personal attack" in the sense that I think the policy's authors meant; I agree that if you have invested your personhood into being a red pen of doom then you could feel threatened by a green pen of hope, but if you actually feel attacked in that way, then, well, ... get help, in all seriousness. It really should be possible for me to use my name without it "provoking emotional reaction" (or at least, no more reaction than one usually encounters in an edit war).

Dear RedPen (ouch, that sort of feels like saying 'Dear Adolf' - sorry. Is this why you now go as TRPoD?), I do sincerely assume your good faith, and certainly wp needs guardians. Please accept my good faith in feeling that wp needs more green than red. You have chosen a name that reflects your censorious editing, a name which makes libertines like myself quail and 'all hope abandon'. I think I should have the same freedom of name choice that you have exercised yourself. If it is any consolation, I don't plan to use the name except for this topic.

TheGreenPenOfHope 04:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

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, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. 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. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The clearly-stated intention of targeting TRPoD with the chosen name and editing pattern and the personal attacks under the guise of explanation are cause for concern. The Godwin leap to "Dear Adolf" makes it clear that this account means to attack another editor. Blocked for illegitimate evasion of scrutiny, personal attacks and clearly-pointy username. Acroterion (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

My account is not a sock puppet for the reasons given above in User_talk:TheGreenPenOfHope. Which you have read, or at least scanned until you got to my apologetic incautious Godwin reference. Could you please read it again, plus what I have written below. Sigh. TheGreenPenOfHope (talk) 4:49 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Whilst I'm willing to accept that this, on the surface at least, appears to be intended as a legitimate cleanstart account, the choice of username, resumption of hostilities with TRPoD and blatant personal attack are all valid reasons for blocking. Equally concerning is the pedantic, almost pointed refusal to admit that you see anything wrong with your actions. I'm on the cusp of believing that this account was named with full knowledge of the problems it would cause, and was a deliberate attempt to create disruption. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:26, 20 February 2015 (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.

Ouch. I can see how it looks bad, especially the apparent Godwin leap. But please read User_talk:TheGreenPenOfHope re my choice of name. I don't mind using a different name, or I could undertake to only use it re this article - whatever is least confusing. And please read my careful work in Talk:Streisand_effect#Charlie_Hebdo - sorry it is so long, but the knee-jerk incorrect reactions of most of the previous editors were so wrong that lengthy rebuttal was required. If you do actually read it, you will notice I am espousing ideas which I think most WPians will agree with if they stop to consider them. In good faith I have done an enormous amount of mostly competent work to support a necessary fix to a very very important topic, and I would appreciate it if we could now get the Discuss phase of wp:BRD.

Minor note: re what I submitted, I would like to change 'described' in the last sentence to 'referred to'. Thus it should read:

On 7 January 2015, two Islamist gunmen attacked the Paris headquarters of the magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people. This attack was the most deadly of [Charlie_Hebdo#Muhammad_cartoons_and_aftermath|several attacks on the magazine following its publication of cartoons of Muhammad]]. The following week’s edition of Charlie Hebdo sold 7 million copies, 100 times more than had previously been sold; the front cover was a cartoon of Muhammad. Commentators^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] referred to this as being an example of the Streisand Effect.

TheGreenPenOfHope 04:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

I read it all several times. It contains a number of direct attacks on another user, culminating with a comparison of TRPoD to the customary Austrian fascist. I don't see a reason to indefinitely extend an assumption of good faith in this case. Acroterion (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Dear RedPen (ouch, that sort of feels like saying 'Dear Adolf' - sorry" = "a comparison of TRPoD to the customary Austrian fascist"??! Oh dear. And none of my complaints re the name "The Red Pen Of Doom" are valid?? Wow, but one battle at a time, eh. And how can you continue to accuse me of sock puppetry, when my only alleged crime is my choice of name, which afaik does actually conform to policy. (Care to explain how it actually breaches it? Let's not bother.) Nor my concerns re declining numbers of wp editors??? wp is an institution I love dearly, but...

Re best ways forward, how about this:

I create an account like "GreenHope"
At Talk:Streisand_effect#Charlie_Hebdo I delete what I wrote and re-post it as GreenHope.
I resubmit my proposed change, along with the hope that this time it gets judged on its actual merits (wp:IPHUMAN), rather than editors intuitively confusing me with what I am not.

Really hoping for some clear thinking here.

TheGreenPenOfHope (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

btw, re

04:16, 20 February 2015 Acroterion (talk | contribs) blocked TheGreenPenOfHope (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (abusing multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, appears to have been created to target a specific user)

"abusing multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny" is a false accusation which would be obvious to anyone who actually bothered to read the available trail.

TheGreenPenOfHope (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, I read everything in some detail, and it is clear that you have another account, that you are using this account to avoid scrutiny of your main account's edits, that you have an axe to grind with TRPoD, and that you consciously chose your username as a means of confrontation. As you've stated yourself "the choice is deliberate." It is therefore an illegitimate alternate account, created for harassment. If this was intended as an attempt at WP:CLEANSTART, it has failed, as it goes to some lengths to advertise that it intends to seek specific conflicts with a specific user in mind. Acroterion (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Above you repeat that you "read everything in some detail". I guess when you wrote "If this was intended as an attempt at WP:CLEANSTART, it has failed", you must have missed above where I wrote "thanks, but I am not looking for a fresh start" (in response to TRPoD's suggestion re WP:FRESHSTART). Similarly my user page has one line, i.e.

Hi, although I do have an existing wp account with years of good contributions, it is not entirely anonymous, which I would now prefer.

and above I explained that I created this account for editing the one article, and gave my proposed text, which was re Charlie Hebdo. . . . So if you join the dots, you might want to rethink your assertion that:

it is clear that ... you are using this account to avoid scrutiny of your main account's edits

and rethink your conclusion that I created this account "for harassment". Personally I find it instructive when I learn when I am wrong, and if you do too then you might enjoy re-reading everything I wrote with the assumption that everything I wrote has been completely honest and as transparent as practical. I guess in your admin role you encounter deception so often that you come to expect it, but it is nice to keep one's mind open to the possibility of good will and unalloyed honesty. If you are doing a lot of admin it is important to notice that you have made a few such mistakes, because of the issues raised in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-09-24/Recent_research. But no great harm done - we can probably fix up the problems I caused with the RcF already in place.

Thanks for all your efforts,

TheGreenPenOfHope (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui summed it up well: you're making pedantic attempt to avoid the real issue, that you intentionally named an account to cause trouble. You're trying to hide behind words to say that you're not making a clean start, yet that is what this account is doing. This account violates the letter and spirit of WP:SOCK and WP:CLEANSTART, the username is an obvious problem, regardless of what you assert, and this account and will remain blocked. Acroterion (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.thejournal.co.uk/opinion/keith-hann-satire-should-make-8495172

[2] ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/free-speech-charlie-hebdo_b_6464214.html

[3] ttp://www.terrafemina.com/culture/medias/articles/52635-charlie-hebdo-le-plus-bel-effet-streisand-du-monde.html

[4] ttp://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/01/14/direct-ruee-chez-les-kiosquiers-pour-charlie-hebdo_1180281

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]