Cernelmustard
July 2019 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)- @TonyBallioni: What evidence is there that I'm using an undisclosed account, or socking? I usually just ip edit to fix typos and stuff which I don't think is socking. How can I even appeal this? None of the pages seem to be helpful in any way other than to say basically this is un-appealable and I'm basically in a catch-22. Was this the result of a sockpuppet investigation? No? Admins can block anyone they want with basically no reason and there's no way to appeal? Isn't there some policy about not biting new accounts or something? "Users confirmed or believed to have engaged in the practice must request unblock at their main account."... so anyone banned for socking? This is the only account I have. "Reviewing admins will usually defer to the blocking admin in a sockpuppetry-based block, especially if the sock account has minimal edits."... So basically appealing is pointless? " If you are improperly blocked for sockpuppetry, you should realize that it may not always be easy or even possible to correct the situation." That's not helpful in any way... "Before opening an investigation, you need good reason to suspect sock puppetry." has there even been an investigation? Why is there no simple guide to this? Information about this in one place. How do I appeal this? I say I'm not a sock, the reviewing admin is SUPPOSED to then defer to the blocking admin? That's crazy. That's a catch-22.Cernelmustard (talk) 01:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you wish to appeal your block, you can and I won't step in the way of anyone passing by from unblocking you. I'd prefer they talk to me first, but this is obvious and I'm not going to search through weeds trying to find which blocked account you are (most likely) or which regular contributor evading scrutiny you are. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: I don't understand. ""User:Example" is engaged in a heated dispute with someone else, and gets blocked because of it. Immediately after" Have a lot of people arguing that arbcoms open letter is a bad letter been banned? Is that why you think I'm a sock? You think I'm a sock of someone banned arguing about the open letter or fram or something? "Saying the same things" and using the "same tone"? "If consensus appears to be approaching one direction, aside from a handful of accounts that are using the same bad arguments (often "I like it" or "It's just not notable"), it might be reasonable to conclude that, even if direct sockpuppetry is not occurring, the accounts may have still ganged up together."... OK... are you arguing this is a sock I'm using to make it seem like my argument has more support than it actually does? Is this even a consensus issue? I'm supposed to be someones sock? Whose argument am I amplifying? What am I supposed to say in an appeal? That I'm not a sock of people that have been banned arguing about the arbcom open letter? That I'm not a sock being used to amplify someone elses argument about the open letter?Cernelmustard (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're free to appeal your block, I'm not commenting any further, but if you prefer the blocking admin can change the rationale to WP:NOTHERE. Creating a new account to whichever your old one is solely for the purpose of commenting in project space is a violation of the socking policy. We are not required to identify the master if it is this obvious. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Well that looks like it would help because I don't see how I violated WP:NOTHERE and I guess it would be easier to appeal than a sock block? What part of not here did I violate? In fact, wouldn't what I'm doing fall under "Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions in a non-disruptive manner" which is explicitly called out as not being a violation of nothere?Cernelmustard (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- As I said, you're free to appeal. I won't be responding further to you, but any reviewing admin is free to contact me. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: OK. "but if you prefer the blocking admin can change the rationale to WP:NOTHERE." So you're the blocking admin? Could you change the rationale to WP:NOTHERE?Cernelmustard (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was a typo. I meant the reviewing admin could read it as that. I'm not changing it: you're an obvious sock/troll account, and we don't have to play games. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: OK. "but if you prefer the blocking admin can change the rationale to WP:NOTHERE." So you're the blocking admin? Could you change the rationale to WP:NOTHERE?Cernelmustard (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- As I said, you're free to appeal. I won't be responding further to you, but any reviewing admin is free to contact me. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Well that looks like it would help because I don't see how I violated WP:NOTHERE and I guess it would be easier to appeal than a sock block? What part of not here did I violate? In fact, wouldn't what I'm doing fall under "Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions in a non-disruptive manner" which is explicitly called out as not being a violation of nothere?Cernelmustard (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're free to appeal your block, I'm not commenting any further, but if you prefer the blocking admin can change the rationale to WP:NOTHERE. Creating a new account to whichever your old one is solely for the purpose of commenting in project space is a violation of the socking policy. We are not required to identify the master if it is this obvious. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: I don't understand. ""User:Example" is engaged in a heated dispute with someone else, and gets blocked because of it. Immediately after" Have a lot of people arguing that arbcoms open letter is a bad letter been banned? Is that why you think I'm a sock? You think I'm a sock of someone banned arguing about the open letter or fram or something? "Saying the same things" and using the "same tone"? "If consensus appears to be approaching one direction, aside from a handful of accounts that are using the same bad arguments (often "I like it" or "It's just not notable"), it might be reasonable to conclude that, even if direct sockpuppetry is not occurring, the accounts may have still ganged up together."... OK... are you arguing this is a sock I'm using to make it seem like my argument has more support than it actually does? Is this even a consensus issue? I'm supposed to be someones sock? Whose argument am I amplifying? What am I supposed to say in an appeal? That I'm not a sock of people that have been banned arguing about the arbcom open letter? That I'm not a sock being used to amplify someone elses argument about the open letter?Cernelmustard (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you wish to appeal your block, you can and I won't step in the way of anyone passing by from unblocking you. I'd prefer they talk to me first, but this is obvious and I'm not going to search through weeds trying to find which blocked account you are (most likely) or which regular contributor evading scrutiny you are. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
header to make page more accessable edit
Cernelmustard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was originally blocked for socking TonyBallioni the blocking admin agreed to change the block rationale to WP:NOTHERE I think claiming that this account is the sock of some "master" account, but the most I could get out of Tony was that I'm in "obvious" violation and if it acts like a duck but refused to be any more specific. I've been editing wikipedia as an IP editor for a few years just doing minor edits, fixing typos or a sentence. I guess I should front-load this large block of text with a tldr, I'm an IP user, a few months ago I read something about IP users not having privacy which I ignored at the time because I was just fixing typos. I thought I was being paranoid about making this account even, but I made this account to post a comment in the discussion on the arbcom open letter about arbcom saying WMF wasn't transparent and that WMF had to abdicate behavior policing to arbcom and the community because of the wiki founding principles of openness and transparency, the point I wanted to make was that that was false and arbcom wouldn't have offered any more transparency than WMF. I was quite surprised when an hour or so later when I checked the discussion to find my comment gone, even more surprised to find that it had been removed for "trolling" by one editor and that I had been blocked by a separate admin. So Tony's agreed the block rationale can be NOTHERE though wouldn't say which part of NOTHERE I violated which puts me in a tricky spot. Luckily for me, I can argue that what I did is explicitly allowed by WP:NOTHERE "Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions in a non-disruptive manner." So that's one argument in my favor. Aside from that, I don't think anything I did violates any part of NOTHERE. Not promotion, not social networking, not a pattern, not brownie points, not battleground, specifically not "Excessive soapboxing, escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like." I'm not here to fight, I'd just like to clear up what the letter means and make the point arbcom doesn't offer any more transparency than WMF. Not "Dishonest and gaming behaviors", I'm not violating any trust, or gaming the system in any way, or being dishonest in any way. I'm trying to participate in a way that is conducive to collaboration and I'm not trying to undermind collaboration or collaborative behavior. I may be one of the few users able to maintain civility, so no conflict of attitude, which is oddly appropriate. I don't have an agenda. No long term or extreme history. I'm not trying to game the system for user privileges/rights, quite the opposite. And I'm not only interested in editing my own userspace or draft space. I don't watch any noticeboards or follow wikipedia drama, but the fram drama has been brought to my attention from offsite. I haven't been following it closely but this wasn't the first time I'd heard about it, so when I heard about the arbcom open letter I'd actually read I guess the draft signpost article about it I guess two days ago, and I'd gotten little bits and pieces about it from a few weeks ago from off site sources. When I heard about the arbcom open letter I was optimistic, but when I read it it was fine up until the end when, I still don't know if I didn't understand the letter correctly, but at the very end of the letter that started out a little fluffy but fine, but in my reading at the end of the letter arbcom threw everything out and basically told WMF "our way or the highway". I don't know how things got here but to me that was a very bad response, and then I read, presumably, all the fram supporters almost ecstatic that arbcom was taking the role of their hero... Now, the point I wanted to make the most was that arbcom wasn't fixing anything. Arbcoms letter was talking about transparency and foundational community principles of openness... but... as I understand it, and I just know what I read iirc in the signpost article, but arbcom isn't open. Arbcom isn't transparent... Their open letter was saying arbcoms great, wmf is terrible, but arbcom's putting forward a false dichotomy. That was the main point I wanted to make, mostly that people supporting it should recognize that it's not a win for transparency or openness, and that I felt the letter was misleading the community about that.
Decline reason:
This all boils down to 2 problems. Firstly, it is strong behaviorlal evidence of socking for an editor's first two edits to be in the Wikipedia talk space, especially about the FRAM affair. Which brings us to the next problem. Certainly, the whole purpose of this account is to opine on the FRAM affair. That's close enough to NOTHERE for me, and it probably trips over WP:POINT as well. On future appeals, no other reviewing admin need concern themselves about unblocking if they disagree with my rationale in this decline. This is just another sad chapter in the whole SanFranJanbansFram affair. God help us all. (Pro tip-- turning unblock request into another chapter of a manifesto is not a good strategy by which to achieve unblock.) Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 04:50, 1 July 2019 (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.
Cernelmustard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't see what's strange about creating an account to edit Wikipedia talk space. I didn't really have a reason to make an account to fix typos and stuff. Why would I have made an account before? I've made serveral edits as an IP editor before making this account and the purpose of this account is not just to opine on the "fram affair". I intend to use this account any time I do anything more than fixing a typo or fixing a sentence. Maybe I'll try to vote or whatever for anyone running for arbcom, well, I guess I should take the advice. I wish I could think of something else I'd use this account for but it's not like I have any grand plans. Maybe I'll use it to try to get people to write simple guides like how to appeal a nothere ban, but I probably won't. I just can't predictthe next thing I'll do with this account. Are there any queens or princesses that need to be rescued somehow by someone using a wikipedia account? Isn't this social networking? Anyway, I don't really know what to do. I was originally blocked for socking TonyBallioni the blocking admin agreed to change the block rationale to WP:NOTHERE I think claiming that this account is the sock of some "master" account, but the most I could get out of Tony was that I'm in "obvious" violation and if it acts like a duck but refused to be any more specific. I've been editing wikipedia as an IP editor for a few years just doing minor edits, fixing typos or a sentence. I guess I should front-load this large block of text with a tldr, I'm an IP user, a few months ago I read something about IP users not having privacy which I ignored at the time because I was just fixing typos. Tony's agreed the block rationale can be NOTHERE though wouldn't say which part of NOTHERE I violated which puts me in a tricky spot. Luckily for me, I can argue that what I did is explicitly allowed by WP:NOTHERE "Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions in a non-disruptive manner." So that's one argument in my favor. Aside from that, I don't think anything I did violates any part of NOTHERE. Not promotion, not social networking, not a pattern, not brownie points, not battleground, specifically not "Excessive soapboxing, escalation of disputes, repeated hostile aggressiveness, and the like." I'm not here to fight, I'd just like to clear up what the letter means and make the point arbcom doesn't offer any more transparency than WMF. Not "Dishonest and gaming behaviors", I'm not violating any trust, or gaming the system in any way, or being dishonest in any way. I'm trying to participate in a way that is conducive to collaboration and I'm not trying to undermind collaboration or collaborative behavior. I may be one of the few users able to maintain civility, so no conflict of attitude, which is oddly appropriate. I don't have an agenda. No long term or extreme history. I'm not trying to game the system for user privileges/rights, quite the opposite. And I'm not only interested in editing my own userspace or draft space. And again I'm not trying to disrupt anything to make any kind of point. I really don't see how anything I did warranted such a ridiculously proactive radical extreme response...Cernelmustard (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No. You appear to be an account created to stir trouble. Your response on that page shows that you don't know what you are talking about and shows as a net negative. An account with no credibility has no voice in the matter. Looks like trolling to me.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2019 (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.