Jump to content

User talk:Tim98Seven

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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).

Tim98Seven (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reaper Eternal has blocked me without warning. Having investigated it myself, it's apparently based on a belief that either I am a sock of Bunogo Huntsman (talk · contribs) due to our shared interest in the current Malleus Fatuorum clarification request, and/or that I am only here to troll. A cursory investigation should clear me on the sock charge (a checkuser has apparently already been run, so the fact I am not Bunogo Huntsman can be confirmed by any reviewing admin). As for the accusation of trolling, unless the definion of trolling has radically changed since I was last here, I can't see how that stands up to scrutiny either, once you examine what few edits I was allowed to make before this block. The only explanation I can see for this block is that Reaper Eternal holds strong feelings about the Malleus Fatuorum clarification request, to the point of using his admin tools against those simply who don't think the same way he does on the matter. Tim98Seven (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is obviously not your first account on Wikipedia. Max Semenik (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2012 (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).

Tim98Seven (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Being familiar with Wikipedia is not a blockable offence. I'd appreciate the next reviewer spending more than 5 seconds on this issue. Tim98Seven (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You state here, "I stopped editting [sic] Wikipedia regularly a while back". Seeing as how you are not referring to this account (because of its lack of an editing history), one can surmise this is an inappropriate alternate account of an established user. For the record, it took me six seconds to come to this conclusion, so your demands above are satisfied, I hope.Kinu t/c 17:18, 23 October 2012 (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).

Tim98Seven (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There's no policy that says that if an admin can't see a user's full edit history they can be blocked on sight and without warning. I may or may not have a legitimate reason for operating an alternate account, I may not have even been aware it was wrong, but seeing as nobody has even bothered to ask me about my past history before applying this block and these subsequent amateurish/insulting reviews, then not only is the block clearly an abusive over-reach of WP:SOCK, it's possibly in violation of the Foundation's Privacy Policy too (if, for example, I was operating a legitimate alternate account for reasons of privacy). Tim98Seven (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per WP:ILLEGIT, and I quote, Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:32, 23 October 2012 (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 accepted the request.

Tim98Seven (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well, I guess it depends how you define alternate account. In the English language at least, alternate is synonymous with substitute or proxy. And to the average user, if you call them a sock, you're implying they're operating two concurrent accounts. Nowhere on WP:SOCK does it say that retiring an account and then coming back as a different one months later is abusive sock-puppetry, not least when there's no topic overlap and you're not doing it for any other underhand purpose (although clearly the default assumption here was that it was being used for underhand purposes). According to the original blocker, I was either a sock of active user User:Bunogo Huntsman, or according to Kinu I was operating this account while also operating another unknown but active established account. Who knows what Max's problem was. So how was I to know (or rather, why should I really believe) that the original block was about editting Project Space without a fully disclosed edit history. It's taken 4 attempts to find out that all I've done is violate a clause that's presumably only designed to prevent concurrent contributions anyway. The reality is that I retired my past account, (removed), for the reasons stated. It was other people's choice to wrongly accuse me of claiming to be a new user. I've no doubt in my mind that Reaper Eternals' block was for one purpose, and one purpose only, to censor my contribution to that page. But, if the price I have to pay for being allowed to comment on an arbitration page without being harassed or censored and blocked, is ironically for everyone to know my last name and initial even though it belongs to an account I'll never be using again (I long ago forgot the password), then I guess I'll have to live with that. Tim98Seven (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

It appears that the initial block was incorrect, and for that I sincerely apologize. The problem with your edits is that your one to ThatPesktCommoner's talk page was rather disruptive, which, when combined with your other edits related to Bonogo Huntsman (talk · contribs), led I and the admins above to believe that you two were one and the same user and were not here to . It is apparent now that this account has not been used for abusive sockpuppetry and is unrelated to Bonogo, so I am unblocking it. As an aside, I could hide the revisions on this page containing your prior account's username, and you may wish to indicate on your userpage that this account is a reincarnation of an old and retired account. (You don't need to name your prior account, but it should be sufficient to prevent misunderstandings of this nature from happening again.) I'm sorry that I made your return to Wikipedia this rough, but I was not attempting to "censor" opinions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With no due respect at all, I think if you analyse the situation from my end, have a look at what I've been put through today, and consider how this sock/troll block would have looked had you sought outside opinions first, then you probably know what you can do with your sincere apology. I think I'll leave the revisions, it seems the safest path given the apparent confusion between all of you as to what I supposedly did to warrant an instant and unexplained block. So, 5 hours after it was removed I'm off to restore my comment and have a word with the admin that removed it and reverted another perfectly valid edit of mine as "vandalism" off the back of this block. I leave it up to you to decide whether you restore my 'rather disruptive' comment you removed from Pesky's page, given the untouched status of the bileous post that it was in response to. Tim98Seven (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please contact

[edit]

Please email me Special:EmailUser/Nobody_Ent or activate your email this user link Special:Preferences. Nobody Ent 01:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't have an email address (well that's not true, I don't have one that I'd be happy distributing in the wikiverse). Can you not tell me whatever it is here? Tim98Seven (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. However, if you activate the link to your address via Special:Preferences, I won't see it when I use the "send this user an email" form. You'll see mine when you get the email, but unless you reply via email I won't ever know yours. Nobody Ent 02:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't think I can be bothered with it, I've never used the feature in the past and I'm not minded to start now, unless you insist it's something really really important (bearing in mind I consider 99% of wikipolitics to be unimportant) Tim98Seven (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you care if editors know what your old account name was? Nobody Ent 02:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right. No, I thought I'd said that above. Infact I thought it was necessary, or I'd be blocked as a sock again. Who knows really. Tim98Seven (talk) 02:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you can easily create a free gmail or yahoo or hotmail or any other number of services solely for the purpose of receiving wikipedia e-mails and not have any connection to any other portion of your life.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know. I really can't see the need though, it appears to have been a non-issue (as far as I was concerned, and it had actually been referred to by Reaper above, but I appreciate Ent thinking of it anyway). Tim98Seven (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful

[edit]

As your edit here removed most of WP:AN. SilverserenC 03:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I didn't even notice either! No idea how that happened. Tim98Seven (talk) 03:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for illegitimate use of an alternate account. Your story of lost access to an earlier account is not credible. Since that account has its e-mail address enabled, you can restore access to the G.Clark account using that e-mail if you are indeed him. Reviewing the tone and style of your edits, it seems highly unlikely that your claim to be him is true. One way or the other, this account is not permitted to edit Arbcom pages, RFCs, or any other project discussion pages. 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.

—Kww(talk) 05:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the behavioural evidence that it's claimed shows I'm not who I say I am, and it's pretty ridiculous, but also quite conveniently, it's not anything I can actually disprove. It's a purely speculative block built on people's own confirmation bias, much like the last one was. Ie, Bbb23 is confidently claiming we're not the same person because we don't edit the same areas, based on the massive body of evidence that is my two day's worth of edits under this name, which comprises in full: one article edit, and a wish to comment on the latest Malleus drama. This is the sort of rigourous proof that I presumably could have negated had I made a single disambiguation edit with this account, or if my old account had also commented on a Malleus incident. Hopefully that sounds as ridiculous to dispassionate experienced observers without any pre-conceived notions that I'm a liar, as it does to me. It's also apparently based on other rigorous metrics like how well Bbb23's friends and family were educated or not, or more accurately, whatever Bbb23 says about language differences that he wants others to believe to be true. Ironically he already mentioned the reason why I alternate between the two, but he dismissed it of course because it's already his view that it's not possible that we're the same person.
It's ironic that the one edit that got me forever labelled by some as a troll, was a critique of Pesky's view that Wikipedia's 'courts and justice systems' don't follow 'due process' or employ rigorous and fair 'standards of evidence'. That's not to say people haven't actually objected to this analysis, but they're ignored just like the people who objected to the last block were too, which many uninvolved admins were sure was not a mistake, right up until the point the original involved admin Reaper Eternal finally came back to admit it was a mistake. The only difference here of course is that Bbb23 isn't likely to say his analysis could be mistaken, as the ends justify the means, whatever the truth is.
Dennis Brown claims that at least three people agree the behaviour is "180 degrees out of sync", whatever that's supposed to mean (I suppose it means my past account never criticized him I guess, which is of course also cast iron proof we're not the same person) so this block must be sound. That's the same Dennis Brown who was claiming several people agreed that I was Bunogo Huntsman (talk · contribs), a total figment of his imagination, but based on the same 'solid' evidence as this block. He's they guy who'd happily let others think an abuse like that was actually based on checkuser evidence, a lie he's yet to even acknowledge let alone apologise for.
As for the one other piece of evidence used to corroborate this otherwise flimsy body of proof, in all truthfulness I cannot explain the email link. I have no memory of even activating it let alone what the address might be (can you tell if it was ever used? would you even care?), so I of course cannot use it to reactivate that account.
My only crime was to criticize Malleus and a few of the admins like Bbb23 and Dennis, who want to see him unmolested by any form of sanction whatsoever, and who now seem to exclusively spend their time harassing people like me for doing nothing more disruptive than pointing out just how many people leave this site precisely because of the unpleasant atmosphere they do nothing to stop (infact, which some are now openly mimicking, as some form of protest).
So you've acheived what you wanted, I've been censored at the clarification page, Dennis Brown is off the hook as far as answering why he reverts productive edits as vandalism as a matter of course, and Drmies/Bbb23 et al are free to go abuse someone else while presumably still claiming that it was disruptive and trolling of me to make perfectly valid points like the stats show just how many people are leaving every month due to the unpleasant atmosphere here (in the hundreds). This was a point so disruptive it apparently needs complete censure, along with the observation that only a "professional dramatist and POV warrior" would make of course: that an evidence based arbitration case on Malleus is the only way the Malleus-centric drama they seem to revel in, will ever cease. They're happy to continue to live in a world where the creation of Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian is not disruptive; rather as one supporter claims, it's simply an innocent tool for bringing together editors who are not here to "control and ban anyone who don't conform to their own agendas". Yes, you heard it right, it's me who's the disruptive troll who must be stopped. They're happy to live in a world where that's perfectly valid free speech, while I get repeatedly and openly labelled on WP:AN by them as a troll, for making this single post, in response to a stream of vile invective from that user on the clarification page that nobody, not least they, batted an eyelid to. They'll continue to live in their world where it's simply a truism that the potential population totals of user categories like Category:Wikipedians who have been stereotyped by Malleus Fatuorum or Category:Wikipedians who have been demeaned by Malleus Fatuorum or Category:Wikipedians who have had their intelligence questioned by Malleus Fatuorum are completely irrelevant, or at least negated by the fact Mallues is a good copyeditor, which means he deserves preferential treatment as regards one of the pillars, over and above the 3,000+ other editors who made 100 or more edits to Wikipedia last month. This, if it isn't already true, is their intended future for Wikipedia, where the only true yardstick as to whether that kind of prima facie incivil behaviour is actually incivil or not, is whether the intended target ever left Wikipedia or not (yet they saw no irony in the fact Malleus never left as a result of being 'unpersoned' by Jclemens).
Ultimately, the people who make those kinds of points and want free reign to continue that war and continue to spread the poison and sow the seeds of division and continue into perpetuity the who was rude to who first game, couldn't eliminate my inconvenient views from the Malleus clarfication page by making false sock claims or by attempting to provoke me into descending to their level of incivility, so this pseudo-scientific sock block is the next best thing for him, and it seems you Kww are only too happy to play along (in truth I cannot see where you might be sympathetic to Malleus so I won't level that accusation, but let's just say based on my own experience, I wouldn't be surprised if you too turned out to be someone who held strong views about his entitlements).
The irony being of course that, just like the last block, it's a 100 times easier for the victims of such abuses to just go create a sock if they wanted to return to editting, rather than deal with this the proper way and continue to play along with the fiction that admins like Dennis Brown don't make mistakes and are fully aware of basic site policies (disproven on a daily basis it seems, in between other admin colleagues having to pull him up for telling complete whoppers like that). At least what you've taught everyone today is that if you want to comment on matter of arbitration, ensure that all your socks have a good few edits behind them first. I'm still amazed at the idea that supposedly blocks like this have ensured that every single account that's editted that clarification page has a full and transarent edit history right back to their first edit, and therefore everyone commenting there is one unique person. That's one thing at least I know can be disproven by evidence, as it's been seen in a few cases before, a long edit history is no guarantee that someone like Drmies is not a sock-master artificially inflating support for their stances over how to interpret something that still is, in name at least, one of the 5 pillars of this project.
As my experience shows though, it long ago ceased to be a pillar, and for a good number of admins now it isn't even a basic consideration while they go about their daily activities of creating protest cats and generally harassing people like me who do nothing more disruptive than politely and calmly offer differing evidence based views. Still, when you can't even get a single admin at WP:AN to even admit that one of their own asbusing Twinkle to not only label a non-vandalistic edit as vandalism, but also deliberately and blindly degrade the quality of an article, was simply wrong and not supported by any policy or guideline that ever did or ever would be written, what can any ordinary editor on this site actually do anymore?
There's your 'justice system' in action Pesky, I hope you enjoy it for many years to come, because it's the one that was inevitably created once all the screaming and the bile and the naked factionalism became the accepted method of dispute resolution here even amongst admins, who seem quite happy to let you exist in the state of ignorance about even basic things like what the arbitration committee is and is not entitled to do in cases of intractible dispute like the 'Malleus War', which is the name so aptly coined for it now by some of the combatants. It's just a shame the 'casualty lists' being thrown about now only ever list people from the good army not the bad one, never mind any of the innocent civilian casualties. Tim98Seven (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I've never claimed that I knew who the puppetmaster was, only that your behavior was consistent with that of a sockpuppet, and my opinion hasn't wavered. I didn't try to hide the fact that I requested the CU for you, and in fact disclosed it in full public view. I have no idea who you really are, and I haven't examined the account you claim to be, but instead trust the judgement of the experienced SPI clerks and other admins who are specifically charged to make these determinations. I don't really care what your political views are, I consider half the people that disagree with me at Arb to be trusted compatriots, the kind of people that don't take disagreeing so personal. The rest isn't worth defending. But you aren't who you say you are, and I will leave it to others to determine if you are a troll or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would anyone be interested in who you do or don't trust, when you appear to count the likes of Drmies and Bbb23 as friends? They're over there commenting on this block as if their partizan views on Malleus were completely irrelevant to the issue of whether not I'm a disruptive trolling sock. From that alone it's pretty obvious that no, you really don't care what my views are, but not in the good impartial way, rather the bad and incompetent way. Your opinions about whether or not I am a sock should be seen in light of your rather silly use of air quotes here. You really don't get an admin medal for spotting a 'sock' if the only definition of sock you're using is a non-new account, and especially not if they didn't make any effort to hide that fact, and especially if you're not really bothered about discovering whether it's simply a mistake or a justiifable alternate, instead just conflating 'sock' with 'abusive sock'. Still, that's not all your fault, the whole review farce above shows just how bad many admins are at telling abusive sock-puppetry from legitimate socks or simple mistakes. They asked me as much questions in that regard as you did, ie none. But I digress. So, it's clear from those air quotes how you then get to a stage where you're letting Reaper Eternal apologise for your collective mistakes once your checkuser comes up blank and you're initial behavioural match turns out to be nonsense (or do you really disavow yourself of that part of the backroom discussion?). And so even if it wasn't already clear to outsiders that by then you're in no position to be offering opinions about me regarding socking, everything after that is irrelevant anyway considering my complaint about your subsequent abuse of Twinkle. Your only role after that should have been restricted to expediently explaining this finger slip that lets you label non-vandalism as vandalism, and giving a plausible reason why you seem to really believe that an essay that only talks about denying vandals recognition for their vandalism, justifies your automatic reversion of sock edits even if they're contructive and even if it damages article quality (you really don't get out responsibliity for that by simply hoping someone else notices your damage and reinstates the edit), which is in violation of at least one policy that I'm aware of, and certainly not supported by any guideline or policy that either I, or apparently you, even know of either. This isn't something that isn't 'worth defending' as you claim (although with me blocked and your friend Bbb23 having archived the report already for you it's certainly something you no longer have to worry about I guess), it's quite the opposite, it's a basic issue of admin competence, just like a few other judgement calls you seem to be involved in right now. Tim98Seven (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2012 (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).

Tim98Seven (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't remember enabling email access on the past account, let alone remember what the address might have been, so I cannot prove my innocence of the abusive socking charge in the way Kww demands. If he wants to call that a lie then fair enough, block me to eternity and I'll just have to deal with it. But if not, then this block then only rests on his perception that there's a difference in tone/style between my two accounts. My first issue with that is that a big part of that analysis came from Bbb23 and Drmies, who both hold strong opposing views to mine regarding this Malleus issue, so their contribution was more than likely to have been looking at ways to fit the evidence to their predetermined conclusion that we're not the same person. My second issue is that the research was presented, reviewed and concluded, without any input from me at all. Yet it tries to draw conclusions based on things only I could know about, such as my linguistic background and heritage (which incidently, if this really had been a case of someone trying to use an alternate for genuine privacy reasons, I find really distasteful). There was at least one dissenting voice, but it seems to have been ignored by Kww. I can only conclude that he viewed Bbb23 and Drmies as independent observers when reviewing that research, otherwise he cannot really call the remaining 2-1 view as conclusive, especially given the other supporting view really was just a view - they didn't actually present any evidence for anyone else to look at, not least me. So if any reviewer wants to have an objective and fair discussion with me about the issues of style and tone and then draw their own conclusions, I'm open to it, but as it is, I can't see how this block stands up to scrutiny. Tim98Seven (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. Too many justifications of discrepancies about geolocation, email and style, too many wrongs about everyone else, too many rights about yourself. I've decided to go ahead and save everyone's time by revoking your right to make further appeals. Max Semenik (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2012 (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.

  • Sorry, I may have missed it in these long walls of text and the manual edits you made to a previous unblock request--what was your previous account? Drmies (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never made any manual edits to a previous unblock request, you must be thnking of someone else, Reaper probably. If you want to know the account name, why don't you just look in the place where you were last pontificating that we're not the same person, amid your speculation about my education history. Or did you somehow manage to come to that conclusion without ever knowing the account name? You surely remember where this was? It only happened yesterday, and it's only a few paragraphs down from where you called me a "professional dramatist and POV warrior". It hasn't been dumped in the archive yet; although Bbb23 qas quick to shut it down to deflect from the orignal issue about Dennis Brown, it hasn't been archived yet. Tim98Seven (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have doubts regarding your statement that you are G Clark (talk · contribs). Granted I cannot checkuser that account, because it is stale — CU data are only stored for a limited period of time —; however, in this edit, which admittedly you cannot see because the page was deleted, Clark discloses that he comes from a continent and, yet, your IP geolocates to a different one... Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well it's not a shock to me that CU can apparently only be used to accuse me, but never aquit me. But, to the geolocation issue, so I can't have moved in that time? Are you actually asking me a question, or just making yet another accusation? Tim98Seven (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You certainly could have moved to another continent, but I doubt you could have had a personality transplant that turned you from the low key American editor G Clark who was happily editing for years without getting blocked, into the confrontational British editor Tim98Seven that managed to get himself blocked indef twice within 20 edits.--Atlan (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • All true. Except you're ignoring the reason why I got blocked. No doubt if I had made the same comment on the arbitration clarification with my old account, while I might not have been blocked instantly as an illegitimate sock (the two blocks are after all for the same offence, just with different evidence), I think that Drmies or Bbb23 would have found some other way to block even a low key editor, perhaps first by turning them into a confrontational one, not that I even am confrontational even now, I'm just trying to defend myself against false accusations. That's the only way I can really explain why an administrator like Drmies would start throwing around phrases like "professional dramatist and POV warrior" at me, when up until then, there's no actual evidence that I was anything of the sort. I'm just a guy who wants to see Malleus dealt with by an evidence led arbitration case, which if it happened would probably see me return as a regular, low ley, editor. But this is apparently a very dangerous and very disruptive viewpoint to hold, leading to terrible consequences for those who hold it, as you can see by the result. Tim98Seven (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point that I would like anyone reviewing this block to remember is that the block is valid whether Tim98Seven is G.Clark or not. If he isn't (which is what I believe to be true), he's an abusive sock of another editor that is attempting to deceive us. If he is G.Clark, he cannot use this account to edit Arbcom pages or RFCs (per WP:ILLEGIT), and that seems to be his only interest in using this account. If, indeed, G.Clark completely scuttled his account, losing his password and all tracks of the e-mail accounts associated with it, changing continents and English dialects along the way, we'll just have to live without his input. The requirement to be able to view the editing history of any editor that contributes to Arbcom discussions or RFCs about editors outweighs the benefit of allowing this one editor to edit.

The very desire to edit RFCs, Arbcom proceedings, and user talk pages is the reason it is apparent to me that this account isn't actually controlled by G.Clark. G.Clark rarely edited talk pages beyond placing "welcome" templates, never edited any political proceedings, and did not appear to have any run-ins with Malleus that would have caused this level of animosity to develop. What little discussion he did contribute is of a very different tone and style.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but no, I never scuttled any account, I retired it, then forgot the password. There was no email account that I can remember, so I cannot 'track down' what I don't recall even having. Can you remember every email account you've ever registered as far back as 2005, including the passwords? I doubt it. Your suggestion that forgetting an email address is just cause for a life-time exclusion from Wikipedia, is just offensive. I hope someone at the Foundation hears about this contemptible attitude. As for the idea that you would need to see evidence of prior disputes with Malleus before you'd allow me to comment on an arbitration proceeding about him, I find that to be an insane proposition, something that actual arbitrators would want to stomp all over if every they saw a clerk even think about doing that. Most regular editors have strong feelings about Malleus whether he's interacted with them or not - that's the nature of this dispute - it's unnacceptable that I should have to negotiate for the lifting of a block placed by an admin who could believe otherwise. Tim98Seven (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scuttled vs. "retired it, then forgot the password. There was no email account that I can remember" is a distinction without a difference. G.Clark proclaimed that people should contact him via e-mail, so your inability to remember the account is just one more bit of evidence that you are not G.Clark. You have no way of demonstrating that the account is yours. As I said above, if it was yours, you cannot edit with this one, and your inability to edit with the older account is a problem entirely of your own creation.. If it isn't yours, you still can't edit with this one. —Kww(talk) 20:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to jump in just for the benefit of the admin who reviews the latest unblock request. This editor is a troll. Therefore, he feeds on attention. The walls of text he provides accusing various people of various things, making distinctions when there are none, making things up as if they are already supported, occasionally injecting the truth, etc., are all part of troll-like activity. The more you respond (including this comment), the more he gets what he wants. My recommendation is to ignore him, decline his unblock request, and move on. At some point he will have his talk page access revoked for abuse, but this is all delaying the inevitable. I actually consider myself technically WP:UNINVOLVED (I have acted only administratively with respect to this user - any putative disagreement on the Malleus arbitration page is not something I believe makes me involved) such that I could decline the request myself, but given his many baseless accusations and the possibility that someone might think I'm involved because of the Malleus arbitration, I won't (even though he's clearly setting it up that way to look like I'm involved).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tim98Seven&oldid=1139342142"