User talk:AndroidCat

As a courtesy, please: open identities

Since I have used the same Wikipedia identity for the last six years, which connects to my ultra-Wiki identity, even my True Name, I politely request that anyone commenting here fill in the details if you've changed names in the last few years. Might as well fill in your wikipediareview id too, 'cause I'll look for that and your comment history. AndroidCat (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This is your only WP:ARBSCI Topic Ban Violation Warning

Please Watch it or its back to WP:AE, Edits like this are ok because its not Scientology Related edits like this this and this are under WP:ARBSCI. Do your best to avoid any scholar, activist, affiliated movements, persons, who has a significant tie to Scientology. This is my only warning or its back to WP:AE The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of your opinion on how wide reaching you feel that WP:ARBSCI covers, and you're probably aware of my opinion of that opinion. I see that you've knee-jerk reinstated the fluff. AndroidCat (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Feb 2010 topic ban violation

^^ It's 2011 AndroidCat (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked you for a week for violating your topic ban on James R. Lewis (scholar), as well as for editing while logged out to continue to edit war. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I edited James R. Lewis (scholar) once, which I question is within my topic ban. I don't edit while logged out, and I certainly don't use proxies to make it look like I'm coming from Australia rather than Canada. I suggest you recheck that, because if it was a sock puppet, it wasn't mine. AndroidCat (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume that you know my current actual IP address since you blocked it. (173.206.66.113 dsl-173-206-66-113.tor.primus.ca) How do you reconcile that with 118.208.147.244, which geo-locates to Canberra, on the other side of the planet? Also, since you know that I've never used that IP, did you check to see if anyone else has used it? (I would check that whole address range to see who uses that ISP, but that's probably beyond CheckUser's mandate.)

I'm trying to Assume Good Faith here, but I feel that you're being gamed by ResidentAnthropologist, who seems to suffer from a very bad case of OWN on those articles, and seems willing to resort to any means possible to insure that. His/her claim that I am topic-blocked from articles on religious scholars because they have some connection to Scientology is spurious. He/she raised that during a WP:ARBSCI that he/she submitted, and it was dismissed, closed, and scrolled off before I could even comment on it. ResidentAnthropologist was stretching the truth somewhat to claim that as if it was decided fact. If ARBSCI ever actually decides such a thing, I assume that I would be likewise blocked from editing Supreme Court of the United States in any way since they have tried many cases involving Scientology.

Since those articles come under the strict editing rules of WP:BLP, I do wonder why ResidentAnthropologist feels the need to use a hammer when discussion has never been tried. (And I wouldn't be human if I didn't think those Australian edits smell a lot like a set up.) I also wonder why ResidentAnthropologist makes no objection to Jayen466 editing a number of those scholar articles when he/she would also be blocked on the same grounds? (I can't raise this with ARBSCI because that does fall within my topic block.)

I will abide to the block. As a gesture of good faith, I point out that my IP address is dynamic and it would be the work of minutes to pop up from somewhere else within Primus' sprawling IP blocks. (To paraphrase Scotty: "Another IP address is easy. A different continent, now that's hard!") I am a little (more) insulted that anyone would think that I'd do anything so crude if I ever went over to the Dark Side. AndroidCat (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, why does the CheckUser page have a section for "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims" when I was never informed until it was all over and closed? Kafka would die with envy! AndroidCat (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that Resident Anthropologist, on receiving the negative results, said he/she was going to take up with ARBCOM but never did, and deleted that entry. Very poorly done, old chap. AndroidCat (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

AndroidCat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

ResidentAnthropologist used a false claim that I am blocked from editing religious scholar pages during a checkuser request, which returned no positive match Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndroidCat, and then there's the matter of an IP on the other side of the planet. See here for further comment: User_talk:AndroidCat#Feb_2010_topic_ban_violation

Decline reason:

Per clarification below. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you abuse this procedure by making too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page as long as you are blocked.

Comment The CheckUser Clerked declined the request and did not run it. You are allowed to edit religious scholar articles except ones who have done significant works on Scientology as your topic banned is broadly defined. James R. Lewis and J. Gordon Melton are definitely well within the topic area as both have done significant works on Scientology. HelloAnnonging blocked you before any WP:AE request could be filed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you saying that the clerk never even bothered to run the CheckUser, or what? Never bothered to actually check the IP addresses, logs, possibly the browser strings, the geo locations, side of the planet, certainly never bothered asking for Accused parties comments? What kind of dying popsicle stand operation is this? (Admins are leaving faster than they are being created, what does that suggest about the number of editors?)

Well, be advised that Jayen466 is also broadly blocked from any scholar who has ever commented on Rick Ross. I expect you to enforce that ARBCOM topic ban likewise. AndroidCat (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Clerk declined - CU won't connect an IP to an account." looks like a CU done, but negative results to me, in other words, you seem to be lying. How do you hold a moral position that requires acts like that? AndroidCat (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)