User talk:Librorum Prohibitorum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, Librorum Prohibitorum! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig2.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Addhoc (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Arbitration case[edit]

You could be interested in this case Addhoc (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

BLOCK[edit]

The following notice was not added by User:Picaroon, who provided no explanation at all, not even a mere notice.

Pro-Jewish edits got me blocked indefinitely[edit]

Hi. I was User:Librorum Prohibitorum, who sent you a message some days ago. I had disputes mainly with two editors (Administrator Dbachmann, and Hornplease). Now the admin Picaroon (talk · contribs) has blocked me indefinitely, claiming I was a Hkelkar sock without any evidence at all. He has done this witout even leaving a message or explanation somewhere. If you look at [1], I don't edit the same articles. In my last edit I was writing something (positive) about Jews, and in another edit I was also commenting on Hornplease's biased anti-Jewish reasoning. This is the only reason that I can think of that someone would think that I am Hkelkar. Picaroon (or the editor who asked him to do this) thinks that every Hindu editor who says something positive about Jews must be a Hkelkar sock (Hkelkar was a Hindu/Jewish editor).

This is a grave Adminstrator abuse. Librorum Prohibitorum2 (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, on my first day, I was blocked, and the blocking admin said he thought it was probable that I was a sock of somebody who had founded a new religious movement. I wasn't indefinitely blocked, and kept the same account with the block log. In this context, I would suggest you don't worry about the previous account, and create a new account with a completely different user name. From there, I would advise you avoid conflict, and concentrate on improving articles. I found joining the Harmonious Editing Club useful for advice on resolving disputes through consensus. Addhoc (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
But I liked my Username, and I had some discussions open that weren't finished. Librorum Prohibitorum2 (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you TheTonyExpress (talk · contribs)? Picaroon (t) 21:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not Tony Express, and I am not Hkelkar. I have not edited a single article that this Tony Express edited. I have only commented on User:Hornplease and on the Neofascism and religion article, and in both cases I also had to comment on Antisemitism or Judaism. I have not edited any Israel related article. Nor have I edited any Palestina article. No Middle East-themed edits at all.
If I really were this Hkelkar sockpuppet, do you think that I would like to keep my account, instead of throwing it away. I like my Username, and would like to keep it. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
A checkuser says the relationship between you and TTE is  Confirmed. Picaroon (t) 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
What is TTE? But the better question, who is the checkuser who has said this nonsense? I have not seen any such request in your contributions. Please write this to me or email me this information as soon as possible, or I will take this to other admins. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Your answer. And to curtail the matter, any other checkuser will reach the same answer. Picaroon accurately reported the finding above. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I may have some shizophrenic tendencies, but it is not that worse. I have emailed you, please email me back. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
(unindent) I have made no judgement nor assessment on any issue other than the check I was asked to make, on 2 users I had no prior knowledge of, from checkuser data, described above. Whilst checkuser cannot confirm beyond doubt who uses a computer, is would be exceedingly unlikely for two unconnected users to 1/ act in a way that their identity as one person was suspected, and then 2/ to turn out to also use the same IPs. Not just one that's the same, but one the same and completely different others that are similar. Administrators are sadly not magicians. This is the standard we work to, where we generally say "beyond reasonable doubt". My regrets. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Either I have gone completely nuts that I have completely forgotten everything I ever was and did, or it is April Fools' day. I have emailed you again (two emails). Please also look closer at Picaroon's TheTonyExpress (talk · contribs) (I mentioned him in the email), his contributions and talkpage, and compare. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
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.

Librorum Prohibitorum (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

See my comments above

Decline reason:

checkuser indicates you are a sock of a blocked account.— Addhoc (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2007 (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 make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

L_P: At your request I have carried out an independent checkuser investigation. I agree there is some chance there may be a misidentification as to whose sock you are, but overall the results support a finding of a probable match, and it is very likely you are a sock of someone, acting to disrupt. I would support this block based on behaviour and characteristics even in the absence of my determination that it is probable that you and TTE are related. ++Lar: t/c 00:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In other words, yes, it was a joke, but it doesn't matter, since we don't like your edits anyway, so I won't unblock you. I have only asked you for a review of the CU, not for a review of the block. The person who does the CU should not be the same who decides on the block. But you imply that the conclusion of the CU is INCONCLUSIVE and not CONFIRMED. Can you then remove the Hkelkar sockupppet template from my page?
If the reason for the block was disruption, for which you give no proof, then I should have been warned at least ONCE, and I should have gone through the Dispute resolution process.
Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, even if I had one, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position).

To FT2: I have not implied that I will ask for the removal of CU rights to FT2. The policy says in case of abusive use of the tool, the Steward or the editor with the CheckUser privilege will immediately have their access removed. This will in particular happen if checks are done routinely on editors without a serious motive to do so (links and proofs of bad behavior should be provided). Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Use other methods first. If you do not follow the below format exactly, and do not provide the supporting evidence, your check will not be carried out By this policy, the fault lies on the part of Picaroon (or his friends) who asked for the CU, and not by FT2, who is innocent. Picaroon didn't and couldn't provide enough reasons to make the CU. FT2 should have at least told him to go to RCU.

If you look at [2], I don't edit the same articles as Hkelkar. In my last edit I was writing something positive about Jews, and in another edit I was also commenting on Hornplease's biased anti-Jewish reasoning. This is the only reason that I can think of that someone would think that I am Hkelkar. Picaroon (or the editor who asked him to do this) thinks that every Hindu editor who says something positive about Jews must be a Hkelkar sock (Hkelkar was a Jewish-Hindu editor). This is a grave Adminstrator abuse. I have not edited any Israel related article. Nor have I edited any Palestina article. No Middle East-themed edits at all. At least not yet, and after this experience never.

Picaroon does not edit India or Israel articles, so I don't believe that it was his idea to CU an innnocent user. I had disputes with Hornplease (who is inactive) and Dbachmann (who is in an RFA case). Wether it was one of them, or somebody else, who made the Hkelkar allegation to Picaroon I don't know. Checkuser exists to support what admins have already decided to do. If it comes back positive, the users are blocked. If it comes back with any other result, the results are dismissed as manipulating of the Checkuser system, and the users are still blocked. Only in the very rare cases where no admin has formed a preconcieved notion of the outcome or has a personal vendetta does the evidence actually matter. If it comes back with any other result, the editor who did the CheckUser is bullied into saying that it is evidence of sockpuppetry.

In case you think that I am TheTonyExpress, you fail to see that his edits are completely different from mine, and are also different from Hkelkar's, which makes TonyExpress another user wrongly accused to be Hkelkar. This is more proof that probably most of Hkelkars sockpuppets are not even his.

Just like Poetlister and Taxwoman, every Hindu and every Jew can be banned just with the cheap Hkelkar accusation. I begin to wonder how many if any of the suspected sockpuppets of Hkelkar are really his, or are just the convenient excuse to block unwanted editors from wikipedia. Just to keep the lines of responsibility clear, none of these people have been banned by "because of the actions of a sockpuppets." They have all been banned because of the actions of WP admins. The "sockpuppets" only served as pretext. Checkuser should not be used in power games by the wiki-elite to get the upper hand in disputes. All they have to do is put a little tag that says "sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser" and you're done.

CheckUser should not provide uber-Admins with McCarthy-esque "I hold here in my hands"-type "evidence" with which they can do whatever they want. Have not people been banned as sockpuppets for "living in Canada in a similar way" to some other banned editor? There were accounts banned for "sockpuppetry" when nothing abusive was done, and the involved accounts made obvious that they were related.

Since it is now admitted that there may be a misidentification, I should be unblocked, as the block was because of the Hkeklkar claim. If the editors who want me blocked still persist, they can open a dispute resolution process. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user.Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Request[edit]

I hope the general observations didn't sound too harsh. I have already said that I believe in FT2's neutrality, as I also do in Lar's, despite their wrong conclusions.

Since it is now acknowledged that there may be a misidentification, can I ask that the Hkelkar template be removed from my userpage. (It should now also be checked, if TonyExpress and the other suspected Hkelkar accounts are really Hkelkar, or were just used as excuses for rapid blocking).

TonyExpress himself had a similiar experience[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheTonyExpress]: Request reason: "I am not Hkelkar, and even a cursory examination of that user's edits shows no similarity to mine. The claim that all of my edits are reverts is false as well - see my edits to Hassan Bek Mosque where I have provided many requested references." Request reason: "could someone else please take a look at this? I am not Hkelkar, nor an associate of Hkelkar, and there is simply no similarity between the edits I've made and his - not the same articles, not the same topic area, not the same times. Neither the admin who blocked nor the reviewing admin have checkuser privileges, and if you are really concerned that IU am a sockpuppet of Hkelkar, you should run a proper checkuser on me. If the concern is 'reverting' - please complain at AN/I - but an indefinite block for reverting seems disproportionate."

My second request is that the  Confirmed posted by Picaroon is changed to Inconclusive.

I'll not ask for unblocking, because the Checkusers should not decide on blocking or unblocking and because I have lost interest in wikipedia after this incident. Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

...or perhaps revived another sock in the drawer? I have long ago lost interest in tracking who is who in the "Hkelkar cloud". If only people put as much energy into honest editing, Wikipedia would thrive. dab (𒁳) 19:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)