If you can't treat your own with justice, how can you expect the rest of the world to trust you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.230.139 (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
My IP address is about to be hard-blocked, so its "goodbye". Canterberry 00:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
{
Canterberry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I think that an indefinite block was quite unwarranted. This was a first offence, and a warning or a short block would have sufficed to allow a "cooling off" period. This was an edit war that got out of hand (which I admitted), and that was all. I do not consider that I was being "abusive". I came clean and openly admitted that I had been using some old accounts of mine to "annoy" SouthernElectric, but that was all. The accounts that I used against SE had been dormant (you can check that), and I had not been operating in the fashion of a "sock-puppet" in terms of trying to manipulate or subvert an article towards my own view. I had been a productive editor, and until this incident, I had tried to behave. A warning and a short block was more appropriate. I admitted to being a multiple account user, and I explained why this was (in order to walk away from an edit war, perhaps I should have followed my past tactic, and done that before this got out of hand. I think you should reconsider your punishment of me, as an indefinite block for a first time offence, when I openly held up my hands is a bit OTT. As I said, a short block, to serve as a warning and to allow some "cooling off" was more what I would have expected. I can confirm that I am nothing whatsoever to do with Lucy-marie, and I have not tampered or interfered with any line templates. I promise to behave from now on.
Decline reason:
Your request indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of our sockpuppetry policy. It does not matter whether the socks were actively in use, or whether you were using them to manipulate the article - the point is that you did use them to actively disrupt and harass a user you were in dispute with. It also indicates a certain confusion about our blocking policy. A block is not a punishment - really, we have got better things to do than to attempt to induce contrition or embarrass you. It is a preventative measure, in order to stop or postpone disruption to our processes - something which you admit to doing. The fact that you "openly held up [your] hands" also factors little in the decision to block you, as even after that we have no assurance that you will discontinue use of multiple accounts, or breaching civility, or edit warring. When you disrupt the way the encyclopedia works, you get blocked; it's a fairly simple concept. You may request unblock again, but I believe the block was entirely justified, given the lack of a promise to stop. ~ Riana ⁂ 06:43, 26 October 2007 (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.
{{
Canterberry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did promise to behave. Please re-read the final sentence of my original unblock request.
Decline reason:
You admit that you had been using some old accounts of mine to "annoy" SouthernElectric which is blatant harassment and wanton sockpupptery. Denied. — IrishGuy talk 08:25, 26 October 2007 (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.
Reviewer, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Second pair of eyes please... for prior discussion. GRBerry 22:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Please also read my 'character assessment' at the same place. While I agree that disciplinary action is necessary, an indefinite block is very harsh and deprives WP of a valuable contributor who happened to 'have a bad day' and allowed things to get seriously out-of-hand. A short-term block should suffice, with a longer block if further incidents occur. (Note - I have no connection with this user except as a fellow editor.) -- EdJogg 09:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
As the recipient of his sock puppetry and his truly personal attacks (publicly questioning my state of mind, purely on my contribution history) I would like to remind people that this was not just a 'bad day' but one that started on 16 October and resumed when I restored my user/talk pages after having walked away from that page and others (I even cleared my watched pages and lodged-out for a time) for over a week. At the time of his personal attack on me (using his sock puppets) I had not made any substantive edit or talk page contribution (and still haven't) to the article were the disagreement started or indeed pages were he had (to our knowledge) involvement, I would also point out that this whole issue came from his use of WP:BOLD despite a slowly forming consensus on the relevant talk page. SouthernElectric 10:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
{{unblock|I am only going to ask once more to be unblocked. Unless WP:UKT has a real surplus of editors, then I see no purpose in banning me (which is what has been done). I sincerely apologise to SouthernElectric, and I promise not to go near any page that this person edits. Over the last week I have had time to reflect, and I have also been looking at the block logs of some other editors. To ban me as being disruptive is quite the most inconsistent and unjustifiable act that have seen on WP. Until this time, I had zero blocks, and had never even had a warning from an admin, yet I get an indefinite block (a ban, to all intents and purposes). Yet other editors with a long history of disruptive behaviour get short bans or warnings. I shall give Lucy-marie as an example, as I think that some people think that I am one and the same. Anyone with half a brain should be able to detect that our styles and behaviours are of opposite polarity. But consider Pigsonthewing for comparison. I have had run ins with this editor over the use of GIS coordinates, I will admit. Currently, this user is blocked for one year, not banned as I am. Yet look at the block log and you will see a long history of disruptive behaviour, whereas I have nothing. So can the Admins please reconcile these differences, and give an explanation. Pigsonthewing must have wasted so much of the time of other editors and the admins, yet will still be allowed back to WP. I have nothing like this, yet I will never be allowed back. I guess I must be missing the point about what "disruption" consists of. I have a record of positive contributions. Yes, I accept that I need to apply more restraint when dealing with other editors, but this episode has given me a sharp warning. I am not going to push it any more after this. I have my own website and that keeps me quite busy enough. I have enjoyed contributing to WP, as it has a much wider audience than my rather specialist website. For the benefit of an reviewing Admin, please disregard the "character" comments given below, as I think that such things are not relevant to my case.}}
Original WP:AN discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive107#Second pair of eyes please.... I originally said "since this is outside my comfort zone, should the admitted puppetteer have an indefinite block? I accept any change to that duration, provided the changer has first investigated the possibility of a Lucy-marie relationship." I think the L-m relationship question has been resolved as "not related" in that discussion, at least sufficiently for my concern. GRBerry 23:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As the 'victim' I have no problems with an unblock but would like some form of long-term civility monitoring of Canterberry, not as some form of vengeance but because I think Canterberry needs to learn to stop shooting from the hip. I don't see any point in anyone promising not to go near any article I edit, as part of any condition of an unblock, that would just open the door to me being accused to 'banning the user by my presence' should we both end up in the same article! All I ask for is that WP:BOLD should not be used in place of WP:ROAD-ROLLER when discussion is taking place but consensus is still forming. SouthernElectric 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Forget it everyone. I came here for the wrong reason. I love contributing to WP, but the sense of opposition is overwhelming. I can see where SouthernElectric is coming from when he says that an unblock, that would just open the door to me being accused to 'banning the user by my presence' should we both end up in the same article! For the opposite reason, I can see that I would have to walk away from edits because another editor objected and to argue my case would lead to my being automatically banned. That argument is a double-edged sword. Also, if other editors knew my history, then I could be open to being "baited", and led into an argument, which would lead to my being automatically banned. It is all a "lose lose" situation for my viewpoint even if I were to be unblocked (which is highly unlikely).
Its best all round that I stay banned, but my views on 'sentencing' still apply. Canterberry 01:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Canterberry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Can I return to the Community, please. As I have stated above, I think that I have been treated exceptionally harshly. I was a productive editor, and a positive one. Yes, I am a bit hot-headed, but I will control that from now on, I promise. I came clean about using multiple accounts, but that does not make me a sock. With hindsight, I see that my admission made it too easy for the Admins to condemn me (something that I shall not forget). I have a lot to offer, and when you compare me against pigsonthewing, I think you will see that I have not wasted the admins time, nor caused as much disruption, as would merit a ban. This user has a history of disruption as long as the Great Wall of China, yet will be back within a year, yet I do one stupid act and get a spell on death row. I honestly ask any reviewing admin to "square the circle" on this. For one more time, I did a bad thing, I came clean, I have apologised to the user that I offended, I have promised to behave (many times), what more does the Community want from me. And if I am considered the "Charles Manson" of Wikipedia, then I expect others to be 'sentenced' accordingly.
Decline reason:
per GRBerry below.— — Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 13 November 2007 (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.
I submit. The view of the Community is quite clearly against me. I shall not venture here again. By the way, please no not block User:Beechgrove, it is not another sock of mine. I have declared all my other accounts, and the last one User:Catlows Cat was meant to show that I could edit responsibly ... so much for that idea! I do not want innocent users to be punished for the merest thought in some admins head, that it is me. I shall not darken the doorstep anymore. I still think that you have used a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and that editors that vandalise this place (and whom I thought were considered a more serious crime) get treated more fairly than I was. -- Canterberry (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought I would return once last time to see what has happened. You will be glad to hear that my period of "cold turkey" has passed, and I no longer feel any need to edit. In fact I have been reading about the decline of Wikipedia in terms of edits [1] due to various factors. There are numerous other websites that document this decline. I have to admit that when I first read the stories about the decline, that it made me want to get involved, but now I see that I simply "missed the boat", and that I am grateful to have been banned, as it means that I am no longer wasting my time on something whose time has come and gone. Fare thee well, but don't work too hard, this place is going downhill.
By the way, check out the amount of "disruption" that this event has caused Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_Jehochman/Workshop ... I guess you really have to be a committed person to want to volunteer for this stuff Canterberry (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
One last thing. I shall be contributing to this website [2], and using a few new socks to modiy/alter/remove information from Wikipedia. If only you had given me a more considered punishment, this could have been avoided.Canterberry (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The actions of this admin --> GRBerry will come home to roost, I am going to use every sock I can muster to ensure thta this place continues its decline. I shall ... ... well thats for me to know ... and you to find out!! But I make no bones about it ... this place must suffer, in order to allow other websites to flourish. Mr Wales might yet wish to reconsider whether to allow anyone to edit pages ... hence inviting all and sundry ... and thus requiring admins to voluntarily clear up the mess. I call for registration.