User talk:Underpants of Doom

January 2012

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. 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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Elen of the Roads blocked me before I could respond to Hasteur's question. As disturbing as it is to see that posting to her talk page is an instantly blockable offence, I don't like to see people's questions go unanswered, so will continue here until she goes one step further and decides to shut me out of my own wikihouse.

Mr. Hasteur. I understand that SOCK bars me from having multiple accounts at the same time. I have had past accounts. I possibly first registered in 2007, and edited pretty much constantly until 2010 in and around the areas of The Troubles. In 2010 I suddenly realised that my username contained my first name, which of course represented a grave risk to my real world identity being found out, so I retired the account and registered a new one. Then yesterday I did the same, as I foolishly realised I had included the name of my pet cat in the second account. So this is now my third account. Please don't ask me to reveal the name of the previous accounts, because that would be an attempt to OUT me and I would have to see to it that you were blocked. It's my understanding of FRESHSTART that I am allowed to do this, that it's not an example of evading scrutiny, and Elen agrees. My understanding of MEAT is that I am allowed to renew my old wiki-friendships as before while denying them in public, and continue our pattern of mutually beneficial editing in our areas of shared interest, even on the pages where my old comments to them & reverts with them are still visible. As you can see from Wikipedia:Request for comment/Underpants of Doom, there's absolutely nothing the matter with me or my edits here.

P.S. To answer Mo ainm, yes, of course you don't force people to violate policy with any edit you make. Nobody does, not even the worst vandal. I know you can now avoid excesses like gross personal attacks and 4th reverts, so no, I wouldn't expect to see a single blockable edit any more. None of that is evidence of reform though. What would be useful is a breakdown of how many of those 7,000 edits were not tag team reverts or tit for tat reports or other gaming or stonewalling or evasion, and how many related to the 39 ANI reports you are mentioned in (1 report every 179 edits you make). I'd also like to know how many were actually civil discourse on content, or genuine responses to queries, or consensus building with strangers. If you're a bona fide clean start editor, I'd expect an analysis of how many were not intentional repeats of reverts or points you'd made with your old account, and a run down of how many of those 3,000 pages you managed to get to a recognised peer reviewed level of neutrality & balance, with or without the help of your regular associates. Underpants of Doom (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Appeal: Posting to Elen's page is not a blockable offense. Jumping into the middle of a conversation that is already well formed and knowing all the lingo is grounds for suspicion of SOCKING. I'm sorry, but if revealing the name of a pet cat is revealing enough to determine your identity, the WP community really should question your competence to edit especially after retiring a previous account for having personally identifying information in the username. It's not outing if you reveal the information yourself, and therefore not a cause to lobby for blocking me. You can elect to decline to reveal previous accounts, however the community can take you revelation that this is your 3rd account and edits in the context of The Troubles to question if you are evading sanction. Cannot you see the irony in wanting to use FRESHSTART to disassociate your edits with this new account yet wanting to pierce the veil to explicitly link Mo anim's supposed previous account to this one? Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy on Wikipedia?

So, Mo ainm's first name is 'personally identifying information', enough to cover up his immediate return to conflict in one of the most contentious topic areas on this site where he had racked up many blocks, returning to his seat as a prolific and effective member of a gang of hugely experienced POV pushing (or rather at this stage of the game, sustaining) meat puppets, even though he freely displayed this name for years all over the site, and isn't the least bit bothered about having it removed from view via the available technical means, even though he does practically nothing to avoid having the link to his new account just guessed based on the fact that it really is the shittest attempt at a clean start ever; yet my IP is fair game to be requested based on 1 edit, as long as the person who wants it can have a good enough guess at who I am based on the rather long list of people who Mo ainm has had conflicts with in the past. That's good to know. You're surpassing your usually low levels of logic today Wikipedia. Underpants of Doom (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me more because I too have noticed the tendancy for gangs of editors to gather to prevent editing on two troubles articles I have been involved with. There is a link to my private e-mail address on my profile. I would like to learn how I can draw Wikipedia's attention to this and lobby for changes to policy. SonofSetanta (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I never ran a usercheck. Your gob is identifiable enough. And socks of banned editors don't get to carry on campaigns from their talkpages, talkpage access revoked and talkpage protected. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]