Falsely accused of being a puppet, Banned indefinitely Options

Hi, I found your site while Googling for anti-Wikipedia stuff to read, as you can obviously understand. I was unjustly banned. Indefinitely. For being a "sock puppet."

This will be long, boring and convoluted, but I'll outline the events for you. I hope you'll read because my blood is still boiling and I need a hug. :-)

Full disclosure of account history: I made my account "CreepyCrawly" in November 2006. I used it once, to make a babbling comment on a talk page, then didn't log in again until yesterday. I did edit in the interim, as whatever IP I happened to have, mostly just random little fixes here and there, to whatever article I happened to be reading. I remember none of them, but it is irrelevant. I'm not a "Wikipedian," in other words. But the other day, March 9th, I did make another account, "Razor6." I was listening to "Metal Health" by Quiet Riot while reading an article, and when I heard the lyric "I'm like a laser, six-string razor," I thought Razor6 would be a cool username so I figured I'd snag it, just in case I ever did decide to become a Wikipedian (not bloody likely now). I made a couple edits and logged out. (I don't ever remember registering at Wikipedia before CreepyCrawly, but I have been using the site and making sporadic edits for several years. This is why I'm reasonably familiar with the policies, which apparently qualifies as "evidence" that I am some malicious multi-personality.)

So, yesterday I wanted to edit Global Warming, but it is semi-protected. When I tried to log in with Razor6, I realized I must have mistyped my intended password when I signed up, and I hadn't entered an email. Oh well, cool username lost, whatever. So I log in with CreepyCrawly and commence. I tried rewording something that was rather subjective and weaselly, but it didn't show up when I was done, so I reverted myself because I was afraid I'd broken something. (I later realized that I had deleted it from the citation rather than the body.) As I looked at the history, I noticed a user named "Spamsham" had made a weasel word edit, and that it had been reverted because "the intro is a carefully balanced (and highly discussed) item. Please take to talk before changing." I became incensed at this; editors are NOT required to beg for permission in talk pages before making good-faith edits that they believe will improve an article. I feel this was the case with Spamsham's edit. Yet here was this other person waltzing in and declaring otherwise. So I went to bat for Spamsham and reverted it back. I can now see that this is where my trouble started, because Raul654 later opened a discussion on his talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654#Halbut_returb), which has since been deleted or archived or otherwise hidden (big surprise), trying to figure out if I WAS Spamsham, as well as some other names. Let me state for the record here that I am not ANY of those other people. Although, "Raymond arritt" did call me "Obedium" as well, on my user page, so maybe they were thinking I was Obedium first, for whatever reason, and chatting about me behind the scenes somewhere, like a coffee clutch gossiping about the new single guy down the street. Anyway, I made a couple more changes, which were all instantly reverted by the article "ownership," along with discussion in the talk page and on user pages. Feel free to peruse them if you're bored; I am admittedly bold in asserting my equal editing privileges in the face of Wikibullys, but I'm not a troublemaker/flamer/vandal/etc. You'll find none of that from me. Note that user "Nonexistant User" in Global Warming history was named "Veritas" when he went to bat for me there. I'm not sure what the deal is with his name change; I visited his userpage a couple times and it kept changing, then he seems to have vanished. Very strange. Anyway, I do not know who Veritas is or was, other than a seemingly objective editor. He was later reverted as well, by another pompous asshat who explained himself by simply stating, "this is better." So at the end of it all, they kept "their" article "balanced" (i.e., stagnant and under iron-fisted lockdown).

At any rate, they seem to believe they're wrapped up their "case," and here I am permabanned. I am now accused of being a cabal of sock puppets, when I've never used a sock puppet in my life because I've never even been a regularly logged in editor! Raul654 even admits on his talk page, "There's no IP evidence linking them," but since he believes that "Scibaby" is a proxy user, and since his amazing gut feeling tells him that I am apparently this Scibaby as well as all his other phantom tormentors, the banhammer was dropped! I even went to Spamsham's page and asked him to tell them I am not him, which he quickly did (they didn't seem to notice or care that we were apparently logged in at the same time, which would seem to me to be an obvious mark against their "case"). From Scibaby's page, I checked the guy who banned him and he appears obsessed with Global Warming. I get the feeling this really is all about keeping the hooks into that article by quickly "determining" that any member of the proletariat who dare touch it is clearly a sock puppet of some past insurrectionist whom they've squashed.

I've read plenty of talk page squabbles over the years, but never got involved. I just laughed at how petty it all seemed. But I never thought I'd get caught up in it. Now I understand why emotions flare so easily at that place, because of jackasses like Raul654 who indefinitely ban people based on random "hunches," and who have no problem inflicting collateral damage in their inane witch hunts. Or, worse, who intentionally couch a banning under the guise of collateral damage, when their real motivation is that some "newbie" had the temerity to edit a page that he and his cronies "own." I don't know if my case comes down to administrative collusion or just idiocy, or both, but the end result is the same: I've been wronged. I've appealed my ban on my talk page and emailed Raul654, and even Jimmy Wales (hey, you never know!) and unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org (twice), but I get the feeling that they just want people like me, who are bold and will not tolerate bullying, to go away. And I'm sure they refresh sites like this all day, so I'll probably never get unbanned now that I've offended the gods by daring to speak with devils. Heh. What's funny is that all they've accomplished by banning me is to make me want to circumvent it and actually start causing trouble. I won't bother though; the encyclopedic quality is fairly atrocious so I'd just as soon stop visiting it altogether.

Anyway, thanks for indulging me. :-)

Your above long comment make it sound as if you know more about Wikipedia than an occasional editor. And I disagree with your rational, at least your justification for the deletions. is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations from the IPCC.

As you will note, it is not presented as a fact... but that it is very likelly (from their conclusion). So now you have removed the source claiming that it does not include neither overwhelming neither majority. OK, that's true, but were you really editing in good faith when you could have corrected the misattributed citation? I mean, up already in the title of the article you'll read the word ''concensus.'' Note that the IPCC conclusion is that it is very likelly, would be a weasel word had it been presented directly without attribution, but the fact that most do think it is very likelly is not.

As to the sockpuppetry issue, I have doubts on the good faith of your actions, but there is no sufficient evidence you are the sockuppet of that user. I was involved in a case where arbitrations claimed non demonstration of sockpuppetry for a user who justified all his edits in the articles he knew his actions will be considerated controversial even with edit summaries coupled with bunch of specific things from a particular user. (Including geographic location) So do use the impossible standard of sockuppet demonstrability and ask someone from here who is not banned to fill an arbitration case. But given that it is Raul who performed the block, and given that who believe who you are is important on Wikipedia. They may just as well reject.

You sound like them! I know as much about Wikipedia policy as anyone with half a brain who has read the help pages, and who has seen policy cited on a thousand talk pages and who bothered to click and read them.

I don't want to rehash my arguments for my edit here; my rationale is on the talk page. You can disagree if you like, but that is irrelevant to the issue at hand: that I was falsely banned as a sock puppet. None of my edits are relevant, nor is the subsequent discussion on my talk page. Even if I were to post there in an obscenity-laced fit of anger right now (which I've had to force myself not to do), it wouldn't make the initial accusation true.

I was ostensibly banned for sock puppetry, not for my edits (although I suspect that may be what this is really all about). Either way, the ban is unjust, as I hope you will agree.

This post has been edited by Likipenia:

It's not the policies I'm talking about, but your knowledge of the way things are or supposed to be on Wikipedia. I am not saying that you are that sock, just that you may have been another editor or may have been that sock.

My criticism on your edit was merely based on your doubtful removal under the pretext that those words were not contained there, when a more stronger word was as soon in the article as it's title. If you could have searched the non-presence of the word in the article, you could have read it's title to realise that it contained ''concensus'' which is even more stronger. So, like it or not, your edit was dishonest, you could not have ignored by removing that word by being technical, that that was what the article was basically saying. Had you acted in good faith you would have rather corrected the misattributed quotation rather than fighting on that making it as if that was not what the article was saying. (when that was what it was saying) Then, you played on both front, you were aware that that was what it was saying, because only then not only was the article not supporting the word (testified from your removal) but it was even not as good as a source to be included. (this was actually the only sound argument you have provided, as it is true that better sources should have been provided, considering that plenty of better source exist)

And no, not anyone half brained do that, in fact most real new editors don't know the fraction of what you have learned on Wikipedia under that account persona. Just reminding you that this was the edit summary of your second ever post under that account: Smells weaselly (see WP:AWW). "Majority" by itself would imply too few; "large majority" implies more than a simple majority, without overstating it.

Are you seriously thinking that for your second ever edit on Wikipedia you have read those policies? Then this: WP is not a democracy; there is no policy requiring prior consensus or collective permission before making an edit. Be bold!

Also this: Weasel words in source do not justify weasel words in article. Something is needed to denote more than a simple majority, but current source provides no alternative. (execellent knowledge, of what should I answer?)

Then THIS: I gave my reason for why the source is poor. Please respect it as legitimate and in line with policy. I realize I'm being baited into 3rr; hoping rv of self does not count. (you see, that is not only about the policy itself, but the actual fact of what you think is done..., a second level of knowledge about Wikipedia in general)

I will stop there.

You sound like them! I know as much about Wikipedia policy as anyone with half a brain who has read the help pages, and who has seen policy cited on a thousand talk pages and who bothered to click and read them.

I don't want to rehash my arguments for my edit here; my rationale is on the talk page. You can disagree if you like, but that is irrelevant to the issue at hand: that I was falsely banned as a sock puppet. None of my edits are relevant, nor is the subsequent discussion on my talk page. Even if I were to post there in an obscenity-laced fit of anger right now (which I've had to force myself not to do), it wouldn't make the initial accusation true.

You make the same mistake as Raul and the rest, in assuming that those were my only edits. As I said in my top post, I've been around for years, just not under usernames. It doesn't take long to catch on to how that place works. I know full well that "owners" travel in packs and do one revert each, to force someone like me into breaking 3RR. I learned as much by reading edit summaries, as anyone with half a brain could.

Again: you sound just like them, with their armchair Freudian analysis of my behavior. It evidences precisely nothing.

I'll ignore everything about the GW article specifically, as it is wholly irrelevant to whether or not I am a sock puppet.

This post has been edited by Likipenia:

You make the same mistake as Raul and the rest, in assuming that those were my only edits. As I said in my top post, I've been around for years, just not under usernames. It doesn't take long to catch on to how that place works. I know full well that "owners" travel in packs and do one revert each, to force someone like me into breaking 3RR. I learned as much by reading edit summaries, as anyone with half a brain could.

Again: you sound just like them, with their armchair Freudian analysis of my behavior. It evidences precisely nothing.

I'll ignore everything about the GW article specifically, as it is wholly irrelevant to whether or not I am a sock puppet.

OK, if you edited prior but not with usernames, then it explains things. In any case, they don't have enough evidence to block you. Ask someone to request Arbcom and make them taste their own medecine. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

OK, if you edited prior but not with usernames, then it explains things. In any case, they don't have enough evidence to block you. Ask someone to request Arbcom and make them taste their own medecine. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I have a champion now! (Thanks to this place!) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

This post has been edited by Likipenia:

Moderator's note: Moved to the Editors forum.