Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ජපස (talk | contribs) at 01:10, 8 August 2013 (→On risk assessments and my unblock). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Standing invitation to unblock

This is a request that any administrator who wants to please unblock me in the spirit of WP:IAR and owing to the fact that this is not an arbcom block but merely a block by User:Timotheus Canens or User:Jpgordon, Wikipedians who seem to believe that indefinite blocks ought to be punitive instead of preventative since neither has submitted evidence that any of the claimed edits they wish to connect to my person were actually harmful to the encyclopedia. I quote from Misplaced Pages:Block#Evasion_of_blocks about when administrators are supposed to extend blocks. Apparently they "may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block." According to the wording, if there is no blockable offense committed while evading the block, the original block cannot be extended. I submit that there is no evidence that there has been any "blockable behavior while evading the block" done by any accounts or claimed IPs that checkusers are associating with my editing (of course, much of this evidence is private and on the basis of UA and IP evidence that the checkusers hold close to their chests, but even still, I find nothing wrong with any of the edits that have been made by any of the claimed "block evasion" accounts).

Thanks.

jps (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Can I utilize the Template:Second Chance option? I was never given this opportunity that I can recall. Just trying to see what my options could possibly be. Feels like I'm in a Joseph Heller novel. jps (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have the largest block log I have ever seen; 24 blocks, not counting variations, changes and extensions. You were told that the last block, after a number of last chances, was forever. And that's it.--Anthony Bradbury 21:46, 25 July 2013 (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.

• If the Eliminatesoapboxing account was SA's, the account edited for one day, and made one article edit and some talk page edits. That was 2 months ago. It appears SA has been indefinitely blocked for trying to circumvent a 3 month block 4 years ago, so what utility does this block have? If SA is unblocked, there is considerably more for him to lose if he does sock. So unblocking is more likely to reduce any potential socking. Note that I do not believe anyone has regarded any of SA's edits as problematic, and the most beneficial situation to the encyclopedia is if he is unblocked, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

One of our best editors when it comes to taking on entrenched fringe POV's on esoteric subjects. There should be an ARBCOM decision or at least a clear policy reason for blocking someone so dedicated and helpful to the encyclopedia. — kwami (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Anthony. SA is not community banned. An admin can not permanently ban an editor by stating he gets no more unblock requests. Any admin can overturn this block. Can you cite any reason, beyond being punitive, as to why your decline makes sense? (there are editors with much longer block logs by the way) IRWolfie- (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• SA and I have some history, but I'm not entirely opposed to allowing him another chance. At the same time, I hope that such chance would not be taken as a license to continue old habits. The idea is to really try to not approach Misplaced Pages as a battleground, use high-quality references whenever possible, and really try to follow WP:NPOV. II | (t - c) 06:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the support, II. Though I took issue with some of your advocacy and positions on issues related to water fluoridation and alternative health, I also noted that you were one of those advocates who was most open to looking at high-quality sources and considering that you could be wrong. I am generally a fan of high-quality sources, you may recall. Yes, Robert Todd Carroll is an excellent source on issues relating to pseudoscience.
  • The consideration of "old habits" in the context of Misplaced Pages has generally been one of personality clashes. These may or may not continue, but I haven't been active on Misplaced Pages for years and notice that many of my old nemeses on Misplaced Pages are either gone or neutered. It is unsurprising to me that you have remained since you were one of the fringe advocates who was most open to looking into the idea that your position might be wrong.
  • As to "NPOV", the main issue with the way that policy is (ab)used at Misplaced Pages is the contention that there is such a thing as "NPOV editors" and "non-NPOV editors". The fact is that everybody approaches Misplaced Pages with a bias or a hidden agenda. "Following WP:NPOV" means, primarily, that in the text of Misplaced Pages there is no attempt to assert opinions as fact NOR facts as opinion.
  • jps (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That's not really a promising response, and I hope admins who consider your request bear it in mind. (Bearing in mind that I still think there's a need for your type of work here and your return is likely a net positive.) It's theoretically true that people have agendas, but to go around imputing motives and hidden agendas to everyone around you is socially dysfunctional. And while your nemeses may seem to have disappeared, you'll likely find that they have simply been replaced. The prevailing mood around here is that the drama needs to be contained, not further inflamed. I advocate few strong or broad positions, but nuances are easily misunderstood and mischaracterized. II | (t - c) 01:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Aw, shucks, II. At the end of the day while people want to avoid "drama", what they really want is a reference work of which they can be proud. In 2006, that meant marginalizing creationists. In 2009, it meant marginalizing global warming denialists. In 2013, I assume it may mean marginalizing others. Mind you, this marginalization is not intentional. It's simply a matter of the fact that most people advocating for positions that are marginal aren't going to have very good sourcing or command of material. jps (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:RfArb

I think we need to have an arbitration. If kwami and IRWolfie- still are willing to support my unblock what we have is a disconnect between community members and the administration class. Unfortunately, the arbitrators are not neutral in this matter either, but I don't think we have another choice.

Unfortunately, the arbitration committee is not returning my calls so I will have to ask someone to make this request for me.

Arbitration Request

I hereby request arbitration on the question as to whether it is possible for myself to ever be unblocked and under what conditions. Initially, then-arbtirator User:Coren and I reached an agreement that I would not return to Misplaced Pages for six months after which time I could apply for an unblock. Presumably, the block is under his aegis, though technically, I believe the block was first made indefinite by User:Jpgordon as a punishment for block evasion. I applied for an unblock only to have User:Timotheus Canens declare that checkuser information unequivocally established that I edited (presumably by means of UA and IP evidence) the encyclopedia using various unnamed (due to privacy concerns) IPs and the accounts User:Eliminatesoapboxing and User:Mj12hoaxwriter. I was rather surprised by this as I had no recollection of starting or using these user accounts, but I know that checkuser decisions tend to be treated as infallible and owing to the fact that evidence cannot be presented in public or even shown to me due to privacy concerns, no defense on my part is even possible. I am de facto guilty even though I protest my innocence. I accept that this fluke of Misplaced Pages's enforcement is this way.

The problem is, I have nowhere else to go and issues relating to this website that do demand some attention including some sites that continue to link to the user page as a means of external harassment that I'm happy to share in private with the arbitrators. While I reject the option of trying to identify the members of my institution who may have used the same user agents and IP addresses as myself and started these user accounts, I think there may be another way to pose this question. Let's assume that these accounts were mine and done the edits and made the user accounts in question, there is an even more troubling aspect to this case. A question ought to be considered, "Did the edits that these accounts made cause harm to the encyclopedia?" I looked through the edits and cannot find a one I find objectionable.

I ask the committee to consider whether there are any ways out of this morass other than the typical "stay away for six months" arbitrary punishment. I cannot appeal to WP:OFFER over and over again at the risk of people getting worn out by the continued accusations of block evasion. I have no way of stopping others from using the same IPs and UAs at my institution. On the other hand, there might be a random six-month period where, magically, no one uses the computing facilities where I live and work to make any more edits to Misplaced Pages and then, I suppose, I might be able to find a willing administrator. But how am I to tell when that has happened without access to checkuser data? I am in a real Catch-22 situation here.

I think that four years of being disciplined and maligned by the administrative class at this website is enough. I only would ask for a Template:second chance that is given to other users who may use private IPs and UAs that are not subject to this business. I submit that there is not enough evidence available to show that I am so awful an actor that I should be permanently blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for the rest of time. I ask for a probationary period where I am unblocked and allowed to continue to do things that aren't problematic (e.g. change a username, request deletion of subpages in my userspace that I created, change my userpage, post information to WP:FTN, perhaps edit some articles like Lambda-CDM that are now out of date compared to Britannica. You get the drift). I hereby request to be unblocked to prove to the community that there is something here worth saving.

That is all.

jps (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#ScienceApologist unblock request and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

RFAR request declined

ScienceApologist,

Just a quick courtesy notice to say that the committee declined the recent RFAr regarding the unblock of yourself. The general recommendation would seem to be an appeal to the community at WP:AN. Although Salvio suggested possibly going through WP:BASC, I would say that given two of the current members of BASC both suggested going through the community, this latter suggestion holds more weight.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon 13:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This may be the nicest formal communication I have ever received on this website. I mean this with all sincerity, Seddon. You should be set-up as an example on how to treat people with civility. jps (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I do my best. Seddon 15:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request:Daryl Bem

I mentioned this a few weeks ago, and the article text still remains rather sheepish, though perhaps that's on the basis of (justifiable) BLP-fear. Could someone post a comment to WP:FTN on my behalf on this matter?

Daryl Bem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does somebody want to mention that the journal in which Bem published is now publishing a null results paper that followed Bem's procedures and found no evidence for psi? .

Perhaps this should be spun out owing to the BLP-ness of this particular setting. The "controversy" ought to be discussed somewhere in this reference work, doncha think? No?

jps (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, User:LuckyLouie. It looks good, I think. jps (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hi, "jps" (what?). I expect you're aware of the discussion about your block on WP:AN. If you want to comment there, please put your text here with an indication of where exactly it should go, and I'll be glad to move it for you. I' m sure there are others, too, who'll do it in case you've got something urgent while I'm asleep. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC).

I don't think any of this deserves posting at WP:AN, it will just muddy the waters, likely. If people want to discuss these matters with me, maybe we should have a discussion here?

Thanks, Bish. I'm not sure any posting on my behalf is wise at this point. I will say, from here, "Thanks to all who are supporting my unblock." But I guess that's not exactly furthering the discussion. I'm not sure what can be written to convince the users who are either dead-set against my unblock or strongly committed to imposing the essentially arbitrary timeframe that User:Durova invented for use in her laudable essay that she composed back in 2009. This whole experience has convinced me that it would be useful for the law-and-order types to see exactly what it is like to be blackballed at this website. In any case, I now have a lot more sympathy for prisoners who appear before parole boards. Is this mooning the jury? I can't tell any more. jps (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I get it. I understand why Misplaced Pages functions in this rather punitive way. To be sure (ha!), I'm not at all sure what should be done about me. I'm in a weird position that any contribution that is attributed to me without an unblock is considered bad regardless of merits. I sorta get why. Since Misplaced Pages has no content standards, it can only enforce behavioral standards and that's the only way that things can be clear-cut. I was blocked a half a decade ago for violating a topic ban by correcting spelling errors at cold fusion. The claim was that these spelling corrections were WP:POINTy. I guess that makes sense if you follow the model that Misplaced Pages can only function on the basis of the rules that are set-up around social networking. That's, indeed, from whence most of the behavioral guidelines are derived.

I was blocked on the basis of a decision made by an administrator some four years ago. The block was designed to get me to stop editing. At that time, I did not stop editing. So that's set up the current cascade. Some may wish for me to throw myself on the mercy of the court for the edits of Eliminatesoapboxing. I don't exactly know what to do about this. Those edits reset the clock and set a precedent for future edits that might reset the clock in the same way. If I could guarantee that no one is using my IP and UAs, I'd take my lumps and come back in October. But I'm not sure what the alternative is supposed to be here. Is it really so hard for someone to put themselves in my shoes? Maybe no one else who is using my user agent or IP address will start a user account or edit Misplaced Pages in the next four months. In which case, I'll go again for WP:OFFER and bob's your uncle. But what if someone does do that and the checkuser declares another round of "you were bad because we don't want you editing and you did anyway"? At some point the community gets exhausted (read the response to the last half dozen unblock requests I made to see evidence of this). I'm a baddy and I will continue to be one until I'm unblocked. I will say this, that discussion at WP:AN is the closest thing I've seen on wiki to a reasonable discussion of the parameters of my current situation in years.

jps (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC) ("jps" are my initials. Signatures ought to confer identity, I think.)

OK. I sort of agree that it's better to keep the AN discussion as concise as possible; the very long back-and-forth threads tend to scare off anybody truly uninvolved. And people can indeed damn well come here to talk with you. I wish you luck. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC).

Allow me to chime in here. The impression that I get from the AN discussion so far is that people value your edits but are worried that you will not follow the various behavioural policies and guidelines. And the impression that I get from reading your talk page here is that you are willing to follow those guidelines, but that you're not sure whether you can persuade people of that. But actually, it's not so hard. All you need to do is the following. First, admit to any recent socking that you've done. It's better to admit to it, as that will help to show people that you're serious about following the guidelines. If there are socks attributed to you that weren't really you, don't be afraid to say so. If you can, give a good reason why a checkuser check might have produced a match. If people don't believe you, though, don't worry too much about it - it's in the past, and you will have more chances.

Next, if there are reasons that people might be sharing computers and/or IP addresses with you in the future, then let us know. If we know more about your real-life situation, it will help you in the event of future checkuser checks. This is the best way to protect yourself against that "resetting of the clock" that you mention above.

Finally, we need to know that you're serious about following our behavioural rules or guidelines. So it's best to post a convincing reason, one that addresses the issues that have been brought up at AN. If you do this now, you might just be unblocked now. If you also state that you are willing to follow the standard offer, and you actually do follow it, then you have quite a good chance of being unblocked come December. In a lot of your posts above, you say that it is up to the community to decide whether to unblock you or not, but actually I think it is mostly up to you. Have a think about what you can do right now to show people that you're serious, and you may well be unblocked sooner than you think. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 10:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I would add that a plausible statement about how tendentious FRINGE pushers will be handled would be desirable. Also, there will be trolls who attempt to exploit the situation by provoking SA—how will they be handled? Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Stradivarius, here's my reply:

1. I haven't done any recent socking of which I'm aware. I work out of an academic community who pools computing and internet resources and am allowed to, on my downtime, use these resources. That others share my IP and UA is known. Whether this explains the CU matches I cannot say, but I'm not willing to go into greater detail than this because, frankly, I have had issues in the past with people contacting colleagues and employers and I'm not in the mood for that to happen again. Others have pointed to "behavioral evidence" that shows that these two accounts and other unnamed IPs are mine. I'm not sure what that means. Most of my colleagues are likeminded individuals who share similar editorial beliefs as me. I suppose that's why I don't object to being labeled as a "sock" of the two accounts I'm accused of running. Additionally, the User:Junjunone account is not mine, even though I admitted it was in order to get the deal from Coren in January. User:Redshiftimprove was an account I created to improve the redshift article and I am proud of its contributions, per WP:IAR.

   TCanens is claiming that there are residential overlaps between the accounts now. I do live with a number of my coworkers, incidentally. Not that that's any of his business. And no, I'm in no mood to go asking around who is who on the internet. As for the behavioural evidence, well, I'm not sure I understand. It would be nice if TCanens commented here where we could actually have a discussion, but having had rather icy relations with that fellow for a bit now I'm not too optimistic that he'd be willing to do so. jps (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

2. The behavioural rules and guidelines are, in fact, rather straightforward for me to follow. Although the reputation is that I am liable to be "uncivil", I haven't seen evidence that this is the case. For years I had a standing notice that anyone who found anything to be uncivil should explain to me what it was that they found uncivil and why and I would remove or rephrase it. I never had a single person take me up on the matter. I believe this means that I've been civil on this website and if you can point to instances where this has risen to blockable offenses since that notice was posted, I'll gladly express contrition. In short, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to follow behavioural guidelines and, in fact, think that the reputation that I cannot is due more to the offended sensibilities of those who have had their contributions criticized by me (content not contributors, right?). In fact, the "content not contributors" maxim is a double-edged sword that not many people realize works two ways. One way is that one shouldn't personally insult others. The other is that one should not take personal offense when one's contributions are criticized. The problem is that certain noise-makers mix this up and accuse people who are strict on content as being uncivil or personal attackers. When I say that a "contribution is poor" that is no reflection on the personal character of the contributor, but this is mixed up in the minds of those whose contributions are being criticized, especially when those contributors are promoting ideas and poor sourcing that may not pass the sniff test for critical thinking. That's the civility treadmill on Misplaced Pages. The easiest way to avoid such messes is to avoid interaction with the less-than helpful contributors. This can be done through adding sunshine as a disinfectant. WP:FTN is a useful means for that, for example.
3. Finally, I take some umbrage to the claim that I am responsible for my own unblock. If I could unblock myself, I would have already done it by now. Please understand how condescending it appears to write something like that. I mean this as a means to suggest an improvement in future interactions you may have with other personas-non-grata.

Well, Johnuinq:

1. FRINGE promoters should be handled by report to WP:FTN. I think that noticeboard works very well.
2. I haven't seen intolerable trolling on Misplaced Pages for some half-a-decade and I am of the opinion that it isn't going to be an issue because most of the would-be trolls have moved on. Many of the fringe-areas have been cleared out of vested trolls and all that's left are fly-by-nighters who get caught up in other issues related to Misplaced Pages. But maybe I'm missing the point of your question. Perhaps you can be more specific. Can you point to an instance where a troll was mishandled by myself in the past?

   I stand corrected. There is a troll actually active right now in the WP:AN thread and it's a rather dangerous one. However, I will be dealing with it off-wiki, and I am hopeful you won't even notice. jps (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

jps (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me explain where I'm from. Years ago I saw and greatly admired the work you did to keep science and fringe topics under reasonable control—Misplaced Pages is a sitting duck for cranks to push their wares, and combating them is both important and difficult, and you did that with great skill and dedication. I saw you get shot down, but I did not follow the details because, frankly, it was just too depressing. Regardless of whether there has been trolling in the past, it is certain that on resumption of editing there will be cranks who look for ways to yank your chain—from their point of view, getting rid of you will be #1 priority, and since they cannot win any debate on the issues, they will use the standard techniques of poking and goading, hoping that you can be emotionally drawn into a dispute and will act in haste. If that were to happen, the chorus at ANI would chant "omg, SA was uncivil ... SA did X number of reverts". Few in the chorus would even be capable of noticing the actual problem (that Misplaced Pages is a sitting duck for crankery, and that there is no humanly tolerable mechanism for repelling it). If you get even one edit warring or civility block, the curtains will close. I believe that the best defense would be for you to rehearse the scenario I am describing in your mind—have you ever been emotionally involved in a dispute at Misplaced Pages? how would you avoid that in the future? Please do not try to answer those rhetorical questions here: I'm suggesting that some serious thinking about them would be very helpful. I feel silly offering advice to you, but while I don't know anything like the amount of science that you do, I may have other knowledge. I'm talking about the future, and don't know whether you mishandled a troll in the past, but you are indeffed, so something went wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a great comment and I appreciate it. To answer your last comment first, what went wrong was a misjudgment on my part of how the culture at this collaborative website was changing. In 2006 things were a lot different here. The changes are essentially ones that happened when gamers and social network administrators became vested interests. Now that the site is older still, there is a certain level of inertia that keeps a lot of the bigger problems down to a dull roar. The goading and the trolling cannot be as effective any more simply because there are fewer opportunities to effect the sort of dramatic change that many of the internet amateurs were hoping Misplaced Pages could enact. While I fought tooth and nail to keep creationists from generating ridiculous swathes of content here, today that would never pass the muster.

The question is, can I avoid getting that game-ending block? I think I can simply by not caring as much (and, indeed, I don't care as much as I used to because, thankfully, students seem finally to be moving on and taking Misplaced Pages less seriously than even a few years ago). As for whether there is a way to rehearse an emotionally involved dispute with Misplaced Pages, it turns out that there is something of an emotionally involved dispute happening even as we type -- a dispute of the sort that pales in comparison to your typical trolling. If it comes out well, then you probably will never know what I'm talking about, and that is the current hope. So I guess I'm saying that this has turned out to be good practice in any case. I'm sorry I can't be more concrete than that. I know it's not in vogue to trust me, but there it is. If you're truly curious, send me an e-mail and we'll talk a bit in private.

jps (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear, User:A Quest For Knowledge. My answer to your question is in the first paragraph above. jps (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

On risk assessments and my unblock

For those concerned,

The question is whether my proposed unblock is a risk and whether there should be restrictions on my unblock. I think in situations such as this it is difficult to decide what the risk is going to be.

The concern is that activity on other accounts that I am accused of using are indicative that there is tremendous risk with unblocking me. I presume this is on the basis of past experience with vandals and the like who use scripts, IP hop, spoof, register serial accounts, and generally cause headaches for recent change patrol and the like. I understand that this is where the bias (in the statistical sense, not in the political sense) comes from in being concerned over those users who are accused of violating WP:SOCK. But I think most would agree that WP:SOCK was composed with something slightly different in mind than what this situation is. What makes this all the more difficult is that the accounts that I protest are not mine I think have made fine edits to this website. I find nothing wrong with those edits and if someone else were in this situation I would say basically that because the edits were good, there's nothing more to be seen here.

While I am frustrated now and have been frustrated in the past by situations where other accounts who were not me were associated with me, I cannot plead surprise that this has occurred. I have started other accounts and have acted in ways that contravene the way WP:SOCK is written and so this would quite naturally cast a pall. If a peace protestor commits civil disobedience and trespasses on a military installation when a case of mistaken identity also causes the prosecutor to charge that protestor with trespassing on the grounds of a nearby weapons manufacturing plant, it's going to be a tough sell to convince a jury that the first instance was true while the second was false. So it's not surprising that there would be some who would presume that I would be guilty of every accusation set forth against me. I understand this and am not even particularly upset by those who are rather stridently opposed to my unblocking on this basis.

But please. PLEASE. Assume for even a moment that I'm telling the truth. What advice would you give? Above, some advised me to be open and honest. While I tried this, I also realize that such will lead those who think I am not being honest to claim that I'm not only guilty of violating the WP:SOCK rules, I'm also guilty of being deceitful. The alternative is to lie and accept responsibility for the CU accusations. I have done this in the past. I don't particularly regret it, but it doesn't seem to be any better than the alternative that I can see. So here we are.

I am committed in the future to stick to a single account because I realize that this website is in a different era than when I was active. But like it or not, there is a history that has caused a weird symbiotic relationship to develop between myself and here. I have to respect that history and the structure at this website if I am to effect the certain amount of change I think is needed. This community, for all its problems, is the group with which I am bound on into the future and the way I am treated and the way I treat it have to be considered in relation to that.

Okay, then. That's the story. If you think that violations of WP:SOCK should be a non-starter, then I can see no recourse other than to lock me up and throw away the key. But if even a small part of you thinks that there might be more to this place than WP:SOCK, then it's to you who I am asking to think about what this situation entails. What advice would you give me to move forward?

I'm open to suggestions and have been for some time.

jps (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Advice? State which accounts were controlled by you. State which ones deceptively imitated you but were not you. Don't give excuses, reasons or rationales. Talk of weird symbiotic relationships does not inspire confidence. State what you intended to do, in terms of user-account use, if unblocked. "I am committed in the future to stick to a single account" is a contorted sentence. Is "committed" rhetoric? If not, what collateral is committed? Are you committed now, or does the commitment start at some future point? Weren't you committed previously? WP:SOCK is an understated, shadow-language policy. I advise that you to not wikilawyer WP:SOCK. I advise that promises should be made in very simple terms. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool, Smokey.

1. For the record> --> Redshiftimprove: mine. Other three mentioned here: not mine. If you want to go back further in history, please let me know. I'm not so interested in going down that road, if you don't mind.
2. Forgive me my indulgence of the "weird symbiotic relationship". I have found it desirable to be unblocked on account of this weirdness. Perhaps this doesn't inspire confidence, but it's the truth. It's not pleasant reading, but going through the talkpage history of this account may give you some indication of what I've been through. Then again, maybe not.
3. "Committed" was not chosen for its rhetorical flare. It is how I write. The single account is important because it is important to this website and is not an issue for me to do if unblocked. I guess some people prefer statements like "I will use one account". However, I was taught in my background not to speak of the future with certainty regardless like that. It's a phrase-choice and a cultural thing but I suspect it means the same thing. So, for your sake, I will say this: "In my unblocked, restricted or unrestricted future I will use one account."
4. I'm not wikilawyering WP:SOCK. I get why it's written the way it is and that's the way this website operates. I think that's clear. I'm just saying that according to WP:SOCK I'm guilty, guilty, guilty in the sense that CU confirmation is the strongest assessment that can be made (for good reason).

jps (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)