User talk:The cows want their milk back

This page is currently protected from editing to prevent The cows want their milk back (talk · contribs · block log · arb · SPI) from using it to make disruptive edits, such as abusing the {{unblock}} template.
If you cannot edit this user talk page and you need to make a change or leave a message, you can request an edit, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

Please stop

Please stop making so many single-purpose changes and start using article talkpages to propose and discuss beforehand. Your behaviour is disruptive and will make it much harder for other editors to take your contributions seriously. You were given a welcome box with many useful links to pages advising how to edit constructively, but do not appear to have taken advantage of it. Editors have repeatedly come to this page to ask you to engage in debate rather than attempting to impose your own preferred version. Stop, and reconsider the course you are taking. 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry I must have typed the wrong number of tildes (by the way, you can see who has edited this page by clicking the "history" tab at the top), this is DuncanHill (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you happen to come across this page unamed user, perhaps you could firstly tell me who you are and what I have edited in order to upset you. Then maybe we'll talk. The cows want their milk back (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Thanks for asking. You have been following a course of adding "England" or "English" to many articles without having first established any need or consensus for this.

You have repeatedly either not used an edit summary, or used an inaccurate one.

You have repeatedly failed to communicate when asked to, and have edit-warred to try to maintain your own preferred version.

You have claimed unfamiliarity with wiki-processes as explanation, yet blanked from your talk page the welcome box which gave many very useful links intended to help you learn how to contribute in a constructive and collaborative way.

Youir edits taken as a whole suggest that you have come to Wikipedia with an agenda to promote you interpretation of what is or isn't a "country", "nation", etc. Wikipedians generally frown upon editors with such a single-purpose agenda.

I urge you to step away from contentious areas, including ones of nationality, the status of Cornwall, etc and concentrate on learning how Wikipedia works and how to engage in constructive debate. If you do not do this it is very likely that you will soon find yourself re-blocked for a much more substantial period. DuncanHill (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You have been advised that there is consensus that articles relating to Cornwall should have the phrase "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" included - this was agreed to stop the edit wars between Cornish and English nationalists. To change this, without addressing the outstanding consensus, is to risk re-igniting the dispute and this is disruptive to the encyclopedia - and to continue making such edits after being blocked for same previously is extremely disruptive. I have therefore removed the editing privileges of this account until you have taken the opportunity to review both Wikipedia:Consensus and the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall regarding how Cornwall's relationship to the rest of the United Kingdom is to be accommodated. I suggest you appeal this sanction when you are able to indicate you understand why your edits were misguided. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall/England problem

Please take the time to read through Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline and the discussions linked from it. I hope this will help you reach a deeper understnading of the problems associated with some of your edits, and thus begin to contribute more constructively and effectively. DuncanHill (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|I was not told that "Cornwall, England, United Kingdom" was unacceptable, I was told that to use England alone could cause edit wars. I was told by Users who had agreed in other discussions that a simple solution to this problem was to use both the constituent country and UK, which would please both types of nationalists, and so I did - After a discussion on the subject, which eventually people stopped replying to (Therefore I tried this technique as opposed to the England alone technique). It has been used on many other British articles and has worked fine, the fact that it displeases Cornish nationalists is not a matter that can be resolved on Wikipedia, only by the British Government - As for now however, it is a well known FACT that Cornwall is part of England, and the United Kingdom. As a factual website, I cannot understand why this has been treated as vandalism, and led to the blocking of my account, for it is purely truth. If anyone should be blocked, it should be people who delete this information I have written due to their POV. I have been unfairly mistreated, and blocked due to other people disliking the truth, and thoroughly believe that I do not deserve to be blocked. Thanks for your time, The cows want their milk back (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

I've restored the section you blanked, if you don't mind- it seemed relevant to your request. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: So far, you seem to be at Wikipedia primarily to add the word 'England' to various articles about Cornwall. If you were unblocked, would you be likely to make any other kinds of edits, or is that your only interest? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my only interest, but it was something I thought needed changing. The cows want their milk back (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So- and I just want to clarify here- if you were unblocked right now, you would go back to adding 'England' to articles about Cornwall, just as you were doing before this block and the block before it? Your request for unblock is based on the idea that your edits were appropriate, and the people who have warned you, asked you to stop, directed you to previous discussion of the subject, and blocked you twice are incorrect? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you read the paragraph I have wrote above, you will see that I have (or at least attempted to) make my edit justified. In my defense, I only changed the article once before I was blocked, but if you have a problem with this editing, I will stop. The cows want their milk back (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the only article you've edited between your blocks though, was it? You edited a large number of articles to read "England/English" instead of "UK/British", made a fair number of edits on Cornish-related articles to read "England" or "English", yet you added "UK" to some Welsh-related articles. Why were you removing "UK" from English-related articles and adding it to Welsh ones? You barely made a single edit concerned with anything else at all. I have no opinion on any socking that might be going on, but you're just a single-purpose account editing across random articles, regardless of any consensus anywhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was before I was previously blocked Bretonbanquet. It has not been repeated, I assure you, and is not needed on this page. The cows want their milk back (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribs [1] say you were doing it all afternoon right up to the point at which you were blocked for the second time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But for those edits I included edit summaries stating why my changes were justified. If you have a problem with these edits, then instead of reverting them and claiming I am a vandal, you could start a discussion as you have so often told me to do. The cows want their milk back (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the block reviewing administrator: Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FootballPhil before unblocking. Thank you. Auntie E. (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt Enthropy, your request was declined by a clerk, and is not useful on thise page The cows want their milk back (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite accurate. What has happened is that the requester and the clerk have both agreed that a CU is not necessary because the behavioural evidence is so great. See WP:DUCK. Nancy ^talk 08:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps at all, and this is assuming good faith on your part, and totally agnostic as to any socking allegations. To my mind - and I consider myself neutral more or less on this point - WP pages have a tendency to bend too far when it comes to Cornish "nationalism", or indeed any other sort of nationalism. This is an unfortunate consequence of the principle that pages should be written by consensus as to what a rather small number of random editors happen to think at any one point in time, rather than according to what "is" in the real world (for example that Cornwall is a county in England, which in turn is part of the United Kingdom). However, your attempt to edit across multiple articles as you are doing is not helpful. It just creates drama, and most of what you do will be reverted anyway. You do need to genuinely discuss what you are doing, and accept the point if others disagree. Or, of course, you will end up blocked. As you know.--Nickhh (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it my fault that people disagree with the facts? If it creates drama, it is the fault of those who do not like it, not my own. The cows want their milk back (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly how Wikipedia does not work. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, Wikipedia should aim to be accurate rather than being bothered about upsetting people's fringey opinions, if such they are, but, first I'd be wary of asserting that you alone have access to the truth, and secondly, I'd argue that your habit of switching "British" to "English" somewhat undermines any suggestion that your actions are impartial in any way. --Nickhh (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this conversation, I'd oppose unblocking. This person seems to have been clearly sockpuppeting, and to be here only to spread his particular flavor of nationalism across Wikipedia; I don't see him showing any interest in working in consensus with other users, and I don't see that Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia because of his participation. All we'd lose is more of the usual changes between "UK" and "England" that always get changed back by the next nationalist warrior on the other side anyway, which seems to be no great loss to the encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FisherQueen, I have not been sockpuppetting. This was a claim made by a person with no evidense or reason to claim it. The request was denied. The cows want their milk back (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you understand the response when you said this above? The request wasn't denied because you aren't sockpuppeting. The request was denied because it's so obvious that you've been sockpuppeting that it isn't worth wasting a checkuser's time on the technical stuff. If you saw that it was declined, you cannot have missed the rest of the sentence, in which the checkuser recommended your block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if we could have an admin wrap up the case, so we can end the "no evidence" denials. Auntie E. (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I havn't been sockpuppetting. My IP address is different to the person I have been accused of sockpuppetting, and there is no evidense supporting the claim. I don't see why you think I have been, as you have no evidense and the person whom I was accused by had no evidense. What would I achieve in sockpuppetting anyway? The cows want their milk back (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter, as the rest of my comment explained the other reasons why I don't think unblocking you would be useful to the encyclopedia. This is your only account but it would still be blocked for the various reasons explained above. If you don't have anything to contribute but nationalist quibbling, and you aren't willing to follow Wikipedia's rules, I don't see the benefit to the encyclopedia in inviting you to edit. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm going to ignore your accusations about me sockpuppetting, but as for the reasons above, I had stopped making supposedly unnessarry edits after I was previously blocked. I was blocked again after making a single edit, of which I had been discussing possibilities on the discusion page (Flag of saint Piran). I made an edit which had been advised by another user (The England, UK idea). It was an edit which was correct and I did not believe would offend anyone. It was one edit, everyone makes mistakes. The cows want their milk back (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I already raised with you on this page (& which you chose to remove[2]) your "discussion of possibilities" on Talk:Saint Piran's Flag consisted of you placing an ultimatum stating that if no-one responded within the next few minutes you would proceed with your changes regardless.[3] That is not discussion. That is not an attempt to reach consensus. So please don't present it as evidence of you in any way modifying your behaviour. Nancy ^talk 16:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by that was that if no one replied, I would change it. And the term 'few minutes' was a slight exaggeration. I continued to contribute to that discussion, and so it is a slight modification of behavior. The cows want their milk back (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as to your questioning of how I know their IP, i was not saying I have seen it, I just assumed that there must be some way of finding it out, and if you did you would see they are different. The cows want their milk back (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2010 (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).

The cows want their milk back (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not been sockpuppetting. I understand that some of my previous edits were unnecessary.

Decline reason:

I have taken a long, hard look at this case. Initially, I felt the allegation of sockpuppetry to be thin, but deeper investigation shows it more than likely that it has been substantiated, as shown by the comments of multiple other editors. Even if that is not the case, however, your other behaviour gives cause for concern in that immediately after coming off a block for edit-warring, you continue with the same style of edits that led to that block. More recently, you have also refactored comments on this very page from another editor that sought to put your position in a more favourable light (here), and that in itself is unacceptable. I see no real commitment to reform here and edit collegially, so on balance, my view is that we cannot accept the detriment to the encyclopedia of allowing you to continue editing here. That's why I decline this request. Rodhull andemu 18:02, 23 January 2010 (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.

The reason I deleted some of the notes by other people was not lighten my case, it was that firstly, I had read them and I saw no use of them anymore, but also, some of the comments I felt were not relevant to the conversation, or were not true (e.g. The sockpuppet accusations). The cows want their milk back (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't accept that. Removing comments completely is acceptable and is taken as evidence that you have read and understood them. However, altering the wording to cast a different light is just dishonest, which is why it's unacceptable. Rodhull andemu 18:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did i alter other people's comments wording? The cows want their milk back (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here [4]. DuncanHill (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely venting my frustration. You may notice about 30 seconds later I cleared the whole page. The cows want their milk back (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be labouring under the impression that that makes it ok. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't see how it matters. The cows want their milk back (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You can't see why it's a problem to change what other people say on talk pages? I don't fancy your chances of being unblocked any time soon. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you clearly have not read what is right in front of you eyes. It says; "I was merely venting my frustration. You may notice about 30 seconds later I cleared the whole page." The cows want their milk back (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can read. What amazes me is that you still think clearing the page makes it ok. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2010 (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).

The cows want their milk back (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

For not sockpuppetting. For learning lesson.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2010 (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.

You are welcome to request unblocking again, but if you're still requesting unblocking, please don't blank the previous requests and discussion, since it is helpful for reviewing admins to be able to see them more easily. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok FQ, thanks for the advice. The cows want their milk back (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2010 (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).

The cows want their milk back (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't understand why I have been blocked. If it is to do with one user accusing me of sockpuppetry, it say's on the investigation page that the case is closed. What does this mean, and if it means they think I am a sockpuppet, how am I supposed to prove I am not one? I understand that some of the edits I have made in the past were unnecessary and ultra-nationalist, and therefore if unblocked I will stop making edits without either asking others on the discussion page, or using sandbox mode first. As for claims that I have been sockpuppetting, all are false, and so should not be used as a reason to keep me blocked. I believe unblocking my account would be a benefit, as I have a number of things I wish to add to articles (E.g a military section to the England article) which I think are needed (and if unblocked, I would consult other users before inserting this information).

Decline reason:

Per SPI clerk's comment below and my own review of both users' contribs. Looks like your feet want their socks back </rimshot> Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2010 (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.

Comment from the (trainee) clerk at the SPI case: Hi, I just wanted to leave a message for whoever ends up reviewing this unblock request. What I want to do is just draw to your attention the reasons why I tagged the case as a duck.

Firstly, the obvious fact that FootballPhil's first edit after a long break was to make a comment in defense of The cows want their milk back on AN/I, which is pretty incriminating by itself.
Secondly, their tone is similar, as is their style, just look briefly through some of their edits and you can start to see this, pretty weak, but still...
Thirdly, and this is what really pushed me to recommend duck; if you review the history of the SPI case you can see that The cows want their milk back made their defence between 17:48 and 18:05, following which FootballPhil made their defence at 18:11, which was their first edit of the day.

Also, the fact that The cows want their milk back is contesting their block but FootballPhil is not, might go some way. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 06:32, 25 January 2010 (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).

The cows want their milk back (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am outraged at the response to my last request. I have not been sockpuppetting, and if you ask me I think another user created Footballphil and made him act the same way I do just to get me blocked. I made my defense statement at 17:51, about 20 minutes after the accusation was made. Footballphil made his statment at 18:11, 20 minutes after I did. The fact that it was his first comment of the day was quite obviously because he had signed in, seen the message he received, and then made his statement. You don't have to be a genious to figure that out. The reason he is not contesting this is probably because he has loads of sockpuppets and is too busy contesting them to care about the actual false accusation made. Isn't there some way that clerks etc can find out the truth? The cows want their milk back (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no need to carefully weigh the sock allegations given that you are already blocked indefinitely for another reason, i.e. disruptive editing. That block seems abundantly justified, and, in the recent discussion at WP:AN your response give no hint that you understand the gravity of the situation. So, based on 100% unhelpful edits to Wikipedia, and 100% unpromising responses at AN and in the unblock discussion, I don't see any reason to grant your unblock request. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2010 (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.

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).

The cows want their milk back (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The last user who declined my unblock request had not read my previous unblock request, which clearly stated I would cease my disruptive behaviour. Here it is; "I understand that some of the edits I have made in the past were unnecessary and ultra-nationalist, and therefore if unblocked I will stop making edits without either asking others on the discussion page, or using sandbox mode first. As for claims that I have been sockpuppetting, all are false, and so should not be used as a reason to keep me blocked. I believe unblocking my account would be a benefit, as I have a number of things I wish to add to articles (E.g a military section to the England article) which I think are needed (and if unblocked, I would consult other users before inserting this information)." As for the sockpuppet accusations; "I have not been sockpuppetting, and if you ask me I think another user created Footballphil and made him act the same way I do just to get me blocked. I made my defense statement at 17:51, about 20 minutes after the accusation was made. Footballphil made his statment at 18:11, 20 minutes after I did. The fact that it was his first comment of the day was quite obviously because he had signed in, seen the message he received, and then made his statement. You don't have to be a genious to figure that out. The reason he is not contesting this is probably because he has loads of sockpuppets and is too busy contesting them to care about the actual false accusation made. Isn't there some way that clerks etc can find out the truth?" I see no reason for my blockage. Please I'm practically begging you here.

Decline reason:

Per comment below, we have allowed way too many unblock requests here that get more frantic and less useful. Page to be protected from now on. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2010 (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.

Time to disable talk page access?

I see no forward progress in the series of unblock requests. I suggest that admins should reblock the user with talk page access disabled. Nothing of a positive nature has so far emerged, except for a scarcely-believable promise of better behavior in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well why not give me one last chance? If I am re-blocked you can block me from editing anything for good. The cows want their milk back (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]