User talk:Offender9000

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sustained and serious violations of the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I have recently been looking into your editing, and am highly concerned about what appear to be a long running series of deliberate violations of the core policy WP:BLP driven by your personal views. While I have not comprehensively checked all your editing, I note the following recent or particularly serious examples:

  • As part of these edits in October and November 2012 you added a claim that "An equally disturbing aspect of the case against the Red Devils was that police association president Greg O'Connor and Minister of Police, Anne Tolley categorically backed the police breaking the law". To the extent this was ever originally referenced, it was to an opinion article which does not even contain such a serious claim. Subsquent references added to this paragraph also don't support such an extraordinary claim, which may well be actionable libel (though I note that Tolley was dropped from this material).
  • These original edits also named a number of people as having engaged in forms of corruption based only on your personal definition of the term - for example, it included a section on police engaging in sexual misconduct, where none of the references state that the named people had actually been found guilty of anything called 'corruption' or similar. The material on NZ politics is also full of statements that named politicians have behaved in a manner which amounts to corruption, including an unreferenced claim that Michael Laws violated the "Local Government (Member's Interests) Act" - the Michael Laws article says he was never even prosecuted over the matter. The material also implied that Rick Barker had engaged in what amounted to corrupt behaviour supported only by a reference to a newspaper editorial, which was focused on a claim of "dishonesty" and another claim of a "grotesque lack of judgment" which was being investigated at the time - this is an obviously weak citation for such a strong claim.
  • In these edits in February you added material to the Judith Collins article which claimed that "Concerns were also raised about Ms Collins' judgement" in appointing Robert Kee to the position of Director of Human Rights Proceedings - the source provided does not note anybody raising concerns about Ms Collins' judgement, with the person who brought the link to the newspaper's attention actually saying that Kees is qualified for the role and he mainly wanted to bring the link into the public domain to help him do this job ("he said he believed his friend would do a good job" but "was concerned the lack of public knowledge about his connection to Mrs Collins through her husband would act as an unconscious inhibitor"). When another editor removed this material and started a talk page discussion at Talk:Judith Collins#Robert KEE, you re-added it on 10 May, and posted this talk page post in which you accused Ms Collins of cronyism, which you call "a form of political corruption". This is an incredibly serious claim, which is also probably libelous. This subsequent talk page post on the Collins article also indicates that you are not approaching this BLP article with a neutral perspective.
  • Also on 10 May you added a claim to the Judith Collins article that she had "raised even more controversy with her appointment of Susan Devoy as race relations conciliator a month after Devoy suggested Waitangi Day should be ditched as New Zealand's national holiday" directly after the above material, along with a sub-heading suggesting a history of "controversial appointments". The source provided does not state that this appointment had actually caused controversy, noting only that Ms Devoy's "views may raise eyebrows".
  • In this edit (and its edit summary) made on 19 April 2013 you essentially accused Garth McVicar of leading an "an extreme right wing" organisation only the basis of your interpretation of one of his recent comments. When another editor reverted this you restored the claim. The source you provided for the statement in question does not indicate that this represents any change in Mr McVicar or the organisation's views, or that he is the leader of an extremist organisation. I also note your earlier restoration of a statement that McVicar is "lambasted in chat forums" supported by a reference to a blog which was removed on the grounds that it violated WP:BLP, and your comment in the edit summary that "The blog accurately reflects how many people feel about him". The blog post (which is clearly not a reliable source) does not even support the claim that McVicar is criticized in chat forums.
  • In this talk page comment made on 1 May you accused Nigel Latta of making things up, and behaving in an unprofessional manner in no uncertain terms ("Latta made it up and Wikipedia does not validate pseudo psychological disorders on behalf of populist TV psychologists trying to make a buck out of other peoples misery."). I note that you have admitted having strong views on this case.

These BLP violations form part of a process of long running POV-pushing which was outlined at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Offender9000 last year, and has resumed after you returned to editing. I note that I commented briefly on this RFC/U, and have recently been involved in cleaning up blatantly biased material on New Zealand justice and law enforcement topics, including some of the above material in the Collins article (from memory, I've never worked in on the topic of NZ law and justice before). As such, this block is made under the provision for "involved" administrators to impose blocks in cases of clear BLP violations as explained at WP:BLPREMOVE. Given the seriousness of these violations (in particular, the explicit claims highly improper, and in some cases potentially criminal, actions by prominent people), their long-running nature and the fact that they're clearly motivated by your personal views, I have chosen to set the block duration to indefinite. Nick-D (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree with the points above by Nick-D, but in the interests of fairness, as the originator of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Offender9000, have to point out that Offender9000 appears to have stopping spamming references to "flying blind" and WP:OUTING other editors, both of which were components of the RfC. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the points listed above. He is still adding his self-published book "Flying Blind" as a reference himself and keeps restoring it when other editors remove it - see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crime_in_New_Zealand&action=history and the restore he performed at 10:41 13 April 2013. Clarke43 (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted the book and an opinion article by the same person being added, and readded when removed, at Department of Corrections (New Zealand). But that's not why I imposed this block. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. I've struck the part about the user stopping spamming the book. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D - In terms of other BLP issues - I'm not sure whether you saw this edit where Offender9000 inserted claims that Collins leaked details of the Binnie report, with the reference linking to an opinion piece (which looks to be very deliberately worded to avoid such a claim). It was subsequently removed with the reason stating "Have removed defamatory commentary about Judith Collins". Clarke43 (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but let this not carry on as a one-sided eulogy here so that we don't violate NPOV ourselves here. I'm the first to admit that this editor's behaviour was often problematic. But I for one have tried to work with him, tried to put him on the right path, put the other viewpoint to him in a non-confrontational manner, etc. I've done this because Offender9000 is clearly hugely knowledgeable in his area of expertise, and he has had a huge output. He's created many articles that we otherwise wouldn't have had, and has expanded others massively that in their original stubby state were little better than a redlink. My hope was that over time, the community would have ironed out any NPOV violations, and in the end, we would have had a better encyclopedia. So I'm asking myself - what could we as the WP community have done better to harness the skills and energy that Offender9000 quite obviously has? A little collective self-reflection wouldn't go amiss. Schwede66 09:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also attempted to work with Offender9000 and to provide him with constructive advice. I regret that this block proved necessary. Should Offender wish to have the block lifted, he is welcome to engage in discussion on this talk page. He will need to convince the community that the BLP problems identified above will not be repeated, and he will be able to collaborate on articles to a greater extent than previously. It is difficult for an editor to swallow their pride and engage in such a discussion after being blocked; far easier to walk away feeling like the aggrieved party. I hope he makes the effort.-gadfium 20:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A number of editors have bent over backwards to try to get Offender to edit neutrally, with very little success. It is probably a bit sudden for there to be an indefinite block (and I would suggest Offender lodge an unblock request) but any unblock should be accompanied by a topic ban from crime and the judicial system, broadly construed, which is where the BLP problems seem to spring from; and instead edit areas where there isn't a significant conflict of interest until such time as Offender gets the hang of editing neutrally.
Schwede66, if you have any ideas about how else the community could have solved these problems please state them, as so far mediation, a RFC and numerous polite and firm warnings have had little or no effect. Unfortunately the community wasn't able to iron out the NPOV violations because as soon as they were dealt with, Offender edit-warred to reinstate them. Offender may well be hugely knowledgeable in a chosen area (if unfortunately unable to achieve neutrality) but to be honest anybody over the age of 30 who isn't hugely knowledgeable in at least one area of expertise has probably been wasting his or her life. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What suggestions do I have for the community? These are more of general nature, rather than specific to this particular case. The community, or at least some members of the community, may well have acted along what I am about to describe.

When I encounter an editor, I try to have a positive attitude (along the lines of "great - here's somebody else who is keen to improve WP"). I remind myself that we are all having different strengths and abilities, and I try to focus on the value of contributions, as opposed to their shortcomings. That is sometimes hard and sometimes, it's easier to look away when obvious shortcomings exist. For example, it took me a huge amount of patience and tongue biting to get one of my fellow editors to start using inline citations, rather than just copy and paste the same ref straight into the references section. That person has created thousands of stub articles and I remind myself of that valuable contribution when I get frustrated. Another fellow editor cites extensively from PapersPast, but for some unexplicable reason appears to be unable or unwilling to include the URL with the references. I've made a few attempts to address that, but to no avail, so I simply enjoy the biographies that the editor writes and when I feel like it, I take one and add the URLs myself. With all of that, I try to create a positive mindset and when I interact with problematic editors, I treat them with as much understanding and kindness as I can. Interacting with people on that basis gives you better results, I believe, even if it doesn't always work. But in a general sense, I suggest that it's useful and beneficial to try and interact with our fellow editors in a way that you yourself like to be interacted with.

This, obviously, applies to real life as much as WP. Is this useful for my fellow editors? Schwede66 20:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments by gadfium and Schwede66. About 12 months ago, I tried to engage in constructive dialogue with SimonLyall through a mediator. It went on for months and at the end of it SimonLyall refused to accept a compromise offer made by the mediator. After wasting months of my time, he walked away from the process. Then other editors blamed me for the lack of progress. I have no intention of wasting any more precious time in endless discussions with other editors - which would no doubt turn out to be just as fruitless. Nick-D has now acted as judge, jury and executioner - by his own admission without bothering to examine all the evidence. My take on all this is that wikipedia processes for solving such issues are far from democratic and are more akin to "group think". I wish you all well - but I have better things to do with my life. Apart from this comment I will not be engaging any further discussion on this Talk page.Offender9000 (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't seen that - as I noted above, I haven't checked all of Offender9000's edits. I agree with your interpretation of the material though - referencing what are presented as facts to an opinion article written by an advocate of one position is totally unacceptable in BLP articles (and other articles as well), and that opinion article does not actually support the statement that Collins "leaked details of Fisher's criticisms of it to the media - but refused to give a copy to Bain's legal team." as is referenced to it anyway. The subsequent reference also does not appear to support the claim that the supposed "leaks" "led to an embarrassing media spat between Collins and Judge Binnie", as is referenced to it, as it refers only to reports officially released by Collins and does not refer to anyone being "embarrassed" or similar. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this move is justified. I made repeated attempts to work with Offender9000 to improve the neutrality of several pages, including the Judith Collins, Novopay and Lundy Murders pages, but found it deeply frustrating to have improvements made in good faith summarily and arbitrarily removed because they did not fit with his POV. I am personally open to Offender9000 returning in the future as an editor because he clearly has an interest and a degree of knowledge in a range of subjects but I think he needs to express a commitment to working constructively with other editors to improve the quality of pages, to refrain from reverting other people's edits, and to accept others' advice on NPOV, BLP and undue weight issues. Sadly his comment above suggests that he isn't yet prepared to accept that he's done anything wrong. VNTrav (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

Talk page blanking[edit]

I've just restored the thread concerning the block I imposed for BLP evasion per WP:BLANKING which requires that notes regarding active sanctions can't be removed. I've included the discussion which followed the block to provide context for any other editors or reviewing admins, but you may delete everything after the note where I explained the rationale for the block if you wish. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Offwiki conversations[edit]

I'm not sure what the correct procedure is, but User:Offender9000 recently posted this blog post about his block. A previous post about wikipedia has been removed but is still in archive.org. See this edit for User:Offender9000's self-outing as Roger Brooking, author of Flying Blind, as discussed in some detail here. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also one other post (which I won't link to given it contains material which violates WP:BLP). Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It looks like someone is trying to shut me up" says the blog piece. Offender9000 was indefinitely blocked for repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT about BLP and NPOV. Claims that other editors are somehow linked to Judith Collins fail to assume good faith, and are a further example of why Offender9000 should stick to writing blogs rather than encyclopedia articles. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just arrived here as a result of the blog post mentioned above. I would be interested to understand a little more about the actions of Stuartyeatesthe revisions to the Legal Aid page in particular seem to be extreme as do edits previously to the NCEA page which are referenced on talk . I appreciate that you have your own way of doing things here on Wikipedia and that I am a newbie. However I am a experienced journalist and the issues raised by User:Offender9000 seem to me - on the face of things - to be valid. Legal Aid reform in New Zealand has been hugely controversial. The edits made by Stuartyeates also seem extreme and unwarranted. In seeking to undo the work of User:Offender9000 Stuartyeates appears to have vandalised the page. Althecat (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion which lead to an agreement to reduce this material to a 'stub' (short summary) at Talk:Legal aid in New Zealand. Note that the two editors advocating keeping the material (Mainjane and JaggerAgain) were actually Offender9000 evading his block and pretending to be two different people. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nub of the problem is not the correctness or validity of the material that Offender9000 added, but the systematic breaches of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (often shortened to WP:NPOV), which is a core wikipedia policy. Early in Offender9000's editing career there were other issues (mainly WP:COI and WP:OUTTING), but these appear to have diminished over time. Note also that around the time of his most recent blog post, Offender9000 removed a great deal of material from this page (it's in the view history link above) in which the issues were explained to him in great detail over a multi-year period. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit I linked to the off-wiki conversation. My understanding is that adding the Press template to the BLP was the best place for it, if someone else has a better idea, go for it. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone comes here via the news stories or various blog posts and is wondering about the original block, I'm Australian and live in Australia, and have no connection with Ms Collins or her staff, or anyone in the NZ government or National Party in any shape or form. I'd never even heard of Ms Collins before following up on the edits from this account. Mr Brookings was blocked for violating core Wikipedia policies, and the material he added has been removed from various articles (in many cases by me) because much of it was unsourced or poorly sourced personal attacks on various people (which is a violation of the core policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) or blatant attempts to push his personal views. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I'm Zimbabwean, never even been to NZ and have no connection with anyone in NZ government or politics. I looked into it as a volunteer when the Conflict of Interest matter came up with respect to Offender9000 e.g. here and this analysis. There are quite a lot of editors who have worked on this problem, and some of us may even have sympathy with Mr. Brooking's views but it's neither here or there. He got sanctioned and ultimately blocked for introducing bias, unsourced personal attacks, and eventually, for creating accounts to get around the block. Whether one symapthises with NZ prison reform movement or not, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a forum for campaigning. Articles need to be factual, and written from a neutral point of view. Babakathy (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Global Economic Map[edit]

Thanks for your support signature for the Global Economic Map at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map

Would you be interested to write an endorsement for the project?

Thanks,

Mcnabber091 (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roger Brooking concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roger Brooking, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 06:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ray Smith (New Zealand) concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ray Smith (New Zealand), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Roger Brooking[edit]

Hello Offender9000. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Roger Brooking.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Roger Brooking}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ray Smith (New Zealand)[edit]

Hello Offender9000. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Ray Smith (New Zealand)".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ray Smith (New Zealand)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Magellan32[edit]

Since Offender9000 has indicated they wish to use the account Magellan32, I transclude the talk page here for completeness. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magellan32, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

The
Adventure
The Wikipedia Adventure guide

Hi Magellan32!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for from your contribution history it appears that you are Offender9000 (talk · contribs). If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This 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).

Offender9000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand the reason I was blocked. I believe the edits that I have made as Magellan32 are all contructive and I will endeavour to avoid repeating the mistakes I made as Offender9000 Magellan32 (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You will need to request unblock from your original account; block evasion is not well thought of here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 08:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This 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).

Offender9000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not able to request unblock from my original account as the talk page is blocked. Besides which I don't want to use that account any more. I need a fresh start. Magellan32 (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Given that you've continued to use Wikipedia to pursue your personal views, I still don't think that you really are here to contribute to neutral encyclopaedia articles. I note that your reaction to being blocked last time was to use this as a further weapon in your campaign against one of the people I blocked you for attacking ([1]) with real-life negative consequences for that person ([2]) and stress for a Wikipedia editor you argued was working for them [3]. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This 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).

Offender9000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is hard to respond to comments like this which contain absolutely no evidence and are based on assumptions and personal allegations. It is not dissimilar to the unfounded attacks Simon Lyall made only about a year ago which led to a lengthy mediation process. Unfortunately, Simon was entirely unwilling to compromise and the mediation went nowhere. Ever since Simon in effect 'lost' that discussion, other editors have ganged up on me. Eventually, Nick-D joined in and banned me as Offender9000 without giving me any prior warning of his intention to do so and without requesting further mediation. Now recent edits I have made have been deleted in their entirety without any consideration of their validity. All of this suggests that there is a group of editors who are more concerned with enforcing the rules against 'offenders' than working to improve the quality of Wikipedia pages. Given this personal animosity towards me (and do anything I contribute) I would like to request that whoever decides to review my request to be unblocked is allowed to make that decision based on their own analysis. Nick-D clearly has a personal agenda against anything I contribute and a number of editors have supported him, including StuartYeates. When three or four editors gang up on one person who is trying to make a contribution to the best of their ability, this constitutes bullying. I cannot compete with it. I request that you all leave me alone and let an editor who has not previously been involved bring fresh eyes to this situation. Magellan32 (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Reading through the commentary (from both sides of the aisle) and case history, I do not feel comfortable unblocking this account because of its abuse of multiple accounts and surrounding issues. I do not see how this account can be productive based on its history and what seems to be a contempt for this project (calling users bullies, a dictatorship, etc.). only (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

See what I mean. Daniel Case reads your comment and without knowing anything about the case at all, continues the ban. How fair or democratic is that? That's how dictatorships operate. Guilty as charged. The defendant doesn't even get to present their case...Magellan32 (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you / were you 122.62.39.72?[edit]

I notice that you appear to admit above to being User:Offender9000. Are you (or were you) also the 122.62.39.72 who created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stuartyeates/Archive? Stuartyeates (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation proceedings are privileged[edit]

As has been mentioned to you in the past, mediation proceedings are privileged. Dragging them up is unlikely to be productive to your case. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? With you lot lined up against me, I clearly don't have a case.Magellan32 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read above and assumed that you still want to be unblocked to edit. Sorry if I was wrong about that. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought I wanted to be unblocked, why do you post negative comments that prevent me from being unblocked. That's called hypocrisy.Magellan32 (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you started this account, I've posted three new sections on this talk page. One was a simple question I anticipated you could quickly answer 'no' to and the other two were suggestions to change behaviours that I suspect are likely to be barriers to getting unblocked since they appear to be against policy. I also transcluded this talk page into your old one (a step hopefully towards you being allowed keep this account rather than the original one) and replied to questions. None of these edits were intended to be negative, I'm sorry if they have been perceived negatively. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment[edit]

I would like to remind you that Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment says:

Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. [...]

You may wish to reflect on whether your latest blog post, which talks about the actions of specific editors, may be considered harassment by those editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? There is no dispute resolution, no arbitration and since I don't have a case, there is clearly no good faith. I'm afraid I have also totally lost faith in wikipedia as a potentially accurate source of information - at least on pages related to the NZ justice system. When you make petty wiki rules more important than developing accurate well-sourced information then it is hard to take anything you say seriously. You may wish to reflect on that.

And if you can't see that you are harrassing me not the other way round, then I feel sorry for you. You appear to have used Bugbear001 as a pseudonym to edit the Legal Aid in New Zealand page which from my perspective makes you a total hypocrite. Magellan32 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access removed[edit]

As you are using this talk page to attack other editors and your chances of being unblocked are about nil given your off-Wikipedia harassment I have removed your ability to edit this page. Should you wish to ask to be unblocked in the future you may use Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. It's a shame that you are portraying the removal of the material you added as part of a blatant campaign to use Wikipedia to advance your personal views and attack various people as being some form of political censorship: this is an encyclopaedia, and not your blog. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

This is just a note that since the last update accounts have been added to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Offender9000 and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Offender9000 and at least one article on wikipedia has appeared on the users' off-wiki blog. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Office of the Ombudsman (New Zealand)[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Office of the Ombudsman (New Zealand), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from Presumptive deletion over copyright concerns, please see: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Offender9000, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Office of the Ombudsman (New Zealand) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Penal populism[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Penal populism, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from Presumptive deletion over copyright concerns, please see: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Offender9000, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Penal populism saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Offender9000&oldid=1034317255"