User talk:67.135.49.177
I am not a sockpuppet. I fully admit that I am Jinxmchue. I am no longer logging in because I am no longer editing WP regularly (and I have altered my password and deleted my email address). I am not doing so and have NEVER done so to avoid any policies or blocks, or to disassociate my edits from my username. Since I am not logged in, WP associates my IP address with my edits. My IP address is not static and the last three digits change from time to time. I DO NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THAT. If they change, they change. In the future, when I notice that the IP has changed, I will post a note about my identity on the new IP user page.
IPs that I have edited under over the past few months (with no intention of sockpuppeting):
Blocked
For consistent disruption. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
67.135.49.177 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
False accusations of disruption and sockpuppeting. As I have already explained countless times, the IP changes are out of my control and FeloniousMonk's accusations are baseless. I have been targeted for this treatment because I disagree with the POV agenda of FM, Guettarda, and many others. I would really appreciate a NEUTRAL admin reviewing this block.
Decline reason:
You can remain blocked forever as far as I'm concerned. The issue isn't your disagreement with POV, it's with your continued disruption. — Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:06, 4 December 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.
Yeah, I "disrupted" the POV warriors
My edits weren't "disruptive." They were in good faith and perfectly in line with the Wikipedia POLICY of verifiability. You POV warriors can't accept or admit that, however, and simply gang up on someone who threatens your strangle-hold on articles. And surprise, surprise, other people are noticing this, too:
Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain
And undoubtedly, this was involved, too:
Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia
Is it any wonder that no educator worth anything will accept Wikipedia as a source on things like term papers? The whole lie of "there really is no cabal" is starting to come to light. "A cabal works in secret and avoids claiming responsibility." No shit, Sherlock. Sure sounds to me like administrators have been working in secret to stifle editors that don't agree with their POV agenda. What a frickin' joke! The "conspiracy theory" has been proven and Wikipedia stands embarrassed, guilty and discredited.
Wikipedia is FUBAR and I, for one, will not miss it. 67.135.49.177 (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Removal of material from my userpage
Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.
If an editor removes a comment from their talk page, whether the comment is legitimate or not, do not add the comment back again. Respect their wishes. It's counter-productive to force the issue.
Note that users who repeatedly restore comments to a user's talk page more than three times in a 24 hour period may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule.
ESAD
Admin FeloniousMonk
FM has been violating WP:AGF and making baseless accusations against me. This started when he "discovered" that I had not been logging in to my user account to edit. (The story behind that is a long one, but to be brief, I am no longer regularly editing and have retired my username.) In not logging in, my IP address was used and, like many IP addresses, it is not static - the last three digits change from time to time - something completely out of my control. FM immediately started accusing me of sockpuppeting, ignoring AGF (which is strongly encouraged for admins here and for handling possible sockpuppets here). I have never denied I was still editing and never hid my identity for any reason. I readily admitted that I was Jinxmchue. This information, however, did not stop FM from continuing to make his accusation and claiming I was doing it do disrupt, avoid blocks, and to disassociate my edits with my username. I asked him to provide proof of his accusations, but he simply ignored my request and described it as "trolling." Of course, his sockpuppeting accusations were never officially made on WP:SSP (and it's not in the November archive, either), likely due to him knowing that the accusation lacked merit. Evidence for FM's behavior can be seen in the following links:
- [1] - smearing me (note the Wikilawyering)
- [2] - smearing both me and Crockspot (and ignoring the edit-warring of others)
- [3] - more smearing
- [4] - I've never denied my identity
Furthermore, when admin Guettarda wrongly re-blocked me for supposedly violating an edit block (see here), I requested a block removal. FM (along with Guettarda) has been intimately involved in the issues involving editing an article which led to my initial block. Despite this gross conflict of interest, FM handled the block removal request (denying it, of course). Admins with the same agendas and POV working together like this to prevent their admin actions from being questioned and possibly reversed is simply astounding and should not be allowed. A neutral admin should have handled the block removal request.
FM's hostile attitude towards me is unacceptable (and I admit my hostile reactions towards his behavior were also unacceptable, but I don't have admin powers to abuse).
Still not a sockpuppet
"A sock puppet is an alternate account used deceptively. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is forbidden."
I am not using accounts deceptively and I did not circumvent any policies.
"Although not common, some Wikipedians also create alternate accounts."
I have not created any alternate accounts. I ceased logging in to my regular username because I am no longer editing regularly. That the last three numbers of my IP address change is something that is completely out of my hands.
"using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny, to mislead others by making disruptive edits with one account and normal ones with another, or otherwise artificially stir up controversy is not permitted."
I am not avoiding scrutiny, misleading anyone, making disruptive edits (unless, of course, you count having an opinion that doesn't agree with your POV agenda as "being disruptive"), or artificially stirring up controversy.
"If someone uses alternate accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts in most cases to make it easy to determine that one individual shares them and to avoid any appearance or suspicion of sockpuppetry (see alternate account identification)."
I did this. Imagine that...
* persistent vandalism;
Nope.
* persistent gross incivility;
I have not been incivil with my edits (the same cannot be said for certain editors and admins, however). And as outlined above, removing material from my userpage is not automatically assumed to be incivil.
* persistent harassment;
Again, I have done no such thing (and again, the same cannot be said for certain editors and admins).
* persistently posting material contrary to the biographies of living persons policy;
Nope.
* persistent spamming;
Nope.
* edit warring or revert warring;
The only "edit warring" I did was in defending good faith edits that were in line with Wikipedia policies. I laid out my reasons for my edits, but they were simply mindlessly reverted by the true POV edit warriors with such solid reasons such as, "Yeah it is."
* breaching the sock puppetry policy;
As outlined above, I have not done this at all.
* persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive.
Absolutely no uninvolved users were allowed to review the situation due to involved, like-minded, chummy editors and admins backing each other up (such as FeloniousMonk responding to my unblock request against Guettarda's block).
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |