User talk:Mike D78

Blocked

I have blocked you indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Checkuser confirms that you have used a number of proxies while editing Wikipedia, which suggests that you are trying to conceal having previously edited this website. You early edit history is not one of someone new to this website and your history of tendentious editing to pedophilia related topics is unnaceptable. It seems clear to me that you are a user previously blocked for a pattern of pro-pedophilia activism. Wikipedia is not a forum for such editing and your disruptive editing will not be tolerated by this community. WjBscribe 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi WjBscribe. I am not sure what is the best way to get in contact with you; hopefully you are watching my talk page so I have some means to respond.

I have tried to conceal nothing; the occasional use of proxies on this website was a mistake. I have other responsibilities on the Internet that occasionally require my use of proxies for my own safety. I think you will see from my history that nearly every edit I have made has been from the same IP address (indeed, Wikipedia informed me when I was using a disallowed proxy, and I quickly corrected the mistake and disabled the proxy each time).

If you look at the IP addresses from which I have made the vast majority of my edits from, I think you will see that I have made no attempt to hid my IP address from this site. This username was my first username that I have used to edit Wikipedia, although I have used the site in the past and was fairly familiar with it when I registered.

WjBscribe, I think you will see that there are many users who have edited the pedophilia-related topics in a "tendentious" manner. Indeed, SqueakBox, a frequent editor of these articles, is under a 48 hour ban right now for such editing, and several users have had admin action taken against them in the past related to these articles. I don't think my actions regarding these articles have been more out of line than anyone else's, and at any rate, I always try to follow Wikipedia's editing rules. Considering that I have now adequately shown you (I hope) that I have not tried to hide my identity here, and considering that I don't believe my actions at Wikipedia have been any more disruptive than anyone else's (indeed, this is the first admin action of any kind that's ever been brought against me), I would respectfully ask if you could reconsider my indefinte block. I enjoy contributing to and improving Wikipedia, and if there is anything you would like me to take into consideration about my future editing, so that I can avoid this kind of controversy in the future, I would be happy to listen to your suggestions.

Again, given that there is no definitive proof that I am a previously blocked user (and I strongly deny this accusation), given that my editing has been no more "aggressive" than many others users', and given that an indefinite block is an awfully harsh punishment given that this is the first time an admin has ever taken any sort of action against me, I hope you might reconsider this indefinite block.

I hope you see this message, so we can begin a correspondence regarding my block. If not, I'll try e-mailing you, if that is appropriate.

Thank you.

Mike D78 18:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mike, I am convinced that you have edited this website before and were banned under a previous username. There is considerable behavioural evidence liking you to users indefinitely blocked for a pattern of pro-pedophilia activism. All your edits are to Pro-pedophilia activism and related pages. I am generally concerned by any editor who edits only a narrow collection of articles - it suggests pushing an agenda rather than a general commitment to developing encyclopedic content. All your contributions on review seem to aim towards advancing a particular POV which is supportive of pro-pedophilia activism. The pattern is such as to connect you to past accounts with the same agenda but given that their blocks were based on their behaviour, even were you (which I do not accept) unrelated, you should be subject to the same sanction. I am unwilling to be overly influenced by your politely in responding to your block, though it is appreciated, but by the effect of your contributions to this project. They narrow focus and single-mindedness leads me to conclude that your presence is here is disruptive rather than an asset to us. I accept that you have not edited solely from proxies, but I find your use of them highly suspicious in itself. I remain of the view that this account is a reincarnation of a banned user, but feel that the tenor of your contributions would justify a block in any event. If you would like an uninvolved administrator to review your block, you may post {{unblock|your reason}} on this page. WjBscribe 20:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Will, I believe you are in strong error here. Mike does not resemble any other previous editor. He is an honest, constructive and well-educated contributor. Your block is detrimental to the quality of the encyclopedia. Please show some understanding and allow him back in! Roman Czyborra 12:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Roman on this one. I think that if you honestly look at the situation, the only truly disruptive users who were recently reverting and editing without consensus were the self-admitted anti-ped activists. They are appealing to emotions in order to justify their disruptiveness and POV pushing. One of them recently reverted a couple of well-referenced constructive edits (based on discussion) on the Pro-Pedophile activism page before that page was blocked, threatening others with complaints about edit warring if they opposed the reverts. Equilibrist 14:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi WjBscribe. I thank you for your timely response. Now that I have a little more time to devote to this conversation, I would like to expand on what I said above.

I am glad you appreciate my politeness in this matter, but somewhat bothered that you seem to imply that it is only intended to "overly influence" you in your decision. I believe the facts speak for themselves in this matter, regardless of my level of politeness.

I think you will find, however, that I have maintained a level of politeness and civility throughout the time I have edited, even as it was made known to me, in subtle and not so subtle ways, by both users and administrators, that I was not welcome here. Perhaps I have lost some of this civility in the past few weeks, or under certain extraordinary circumstances in which I was badgered to the limit, but I believe I have always demonstrated conduct here, as much as possible, that has been in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Furthermore, if you took more time to examine my contributions here, I think you would find that I have demonstrated far more civility than have many other users who have interacted with me here. Take this incident from back in July, for instance. I was subject to harassment, multiple personal attacks (including some that were quite vulgar and disturbing), and an apparent legal threat. It seems to me that this kind of conduct would typically be handled in an appropriate manner by an administrator, and yet nothing ever happened. One claimed he was reluctant to take any action, yet noted that the attacks on me were certainly out of line and suggested that an adminstrator step in and take action. And yet still nothing was ever done.

I repeatedly tried to make peace with this particular editor, stating my wish to get along with him and my desire to attempt to cooperate, despite his increasingly hostile attacks toward me. I think you will see that this kind of treatment toward me was often the norm, with this user (and others) increasingly baiting me, calling me a pervert, suggesting that I am a pedophile, etc., etc. Other users also noted that this user's conduct toward me was particularly hostile and uncivil. I continued to remain polite in this coversation, even after the point where most people would've lashed out and responded in a similarly hostile manner.

This is merely one example of the constant attacks I have faced since I began editing here. And for what, exactly? What is it that makes me an unwelcome editor here? Because I have shown an interest in pedophilia-related articles? Please direct me to Wikipedia's policy that states that accounts that primarily edit a single topic are subject to indefinite blocks simply for this kind of editing. The closest thing I can find to this on the non-policy essay that describes Wikipedia's stance on single-purpose accounts is that they should sometimes "warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny." Nowhere do I see it stated that simply possessing a single-purpose account is grounds for disciplinary action in and of itself; this essay makes it clear that it is necessary to take into account the actions of the editor in question. And I hope I have shown that my actions here have not been of the kind to typically warrant such a harsh punishment as an indefinte block.

As I have said, I have nothing to hide here. Yes, this subject is something I know a good deal about, and I have chosen to spend most of my time at Wikipedia editing this group of articles. I am sure there are many other users who have specific areas of expertise who choose to edit a small number of articles. In many situations, a user with knowledge about a specific topic and a focus on a limited set of articles would be welcomed for the expertise that he or she might bring to the project. For some reason, though, you have chosen to dismiss me as possessing "narrow focus and single-mindedness" for my contributions. What is disruptive about simply being devoted to a limited group of articles? I would much rather contribute to articles I have some knowledge about rather than risking a poor edit related to a subject I know little about.

I have a limited amount of time to devote to Wikipedia, and my time spent defending myself against petty accusations and outright attacks such as the one by SqueakBox described above has often been so great that I have found it difficult to devote much time to other articles (although I would like to). I don't feel that my edits have demonstrated an attempt to push any particular viewpoint; in fact, this is the first time an administrator has ever accused my contributions of not conforming to a neutral point-of-view. Where is the evidence of me pushing any agenda in defiance of other users? I have always worked in consensus with the majority of other editors on any article, which is more than can be said for a great deal of other editors that have often butted heads with me. Concerns about the neutrality of my edits have never been brought up before by other administrators, and I think you will find that there are several users who can vouch for me as always seeking proper consensus in my editing.

Given that I have always acted in the spirit of consensus and cooperation with other editors, I am curious what actions of mine you consider to be tantamount to "pro-pedophilia activism." The vast majority of my activity here has actually been related to defending myself against attacks and repeated, unwarrented accusations of sockpuppetry on talk pages. The edits I have made to actual articles have always been made in cooperation with other users, and I have yet to have an adminstrator who has suggested that they have had a problem with my edits. Though you may be understandably "concerned" about my editing activity, I am not aware of any Wikipedia policies that provide solid grounds for such a harsh punishment as an indefinite block under these circumstances. Again, if you feel that my edits have been inappropriate, I would hope you could provide me with a simple warning so that I could attempt to avoid such editing in the future. I am only human, and I confess to having my own opinions related to various topics, just as everyone else does. But I have striven to minimize the effect that my personal opinions have had on my editing, and I hope you understand this.

Frankly, I can only conclude that you are applying a different standard to me than is typically applied to most users. I hardly think that showing interests similar to those of previously banned users would be enough to get an editor permanently banned in most situations. Additionally, there is no firm evidence based on IP checks that I am a sockpuppet of a previously banned user (and I will continue to dispute the idea that I am becaue I know it is false). I have provided you my reason for occasionally mistakenly visiting with a proxy enabled, and I don't know what else I can say if you continue to consider the fact that some users may wish to use proxies outside of Wikipedia "suspicious." In searching for sources for the articles I edit, I very often feel more comfortable using a proxy to surf, and at times I simply forgot to disable this proxy. What purpose would using a proxy here serve, anyway, considering my edits have always been made under this username, and considering that the vast majority of my visits here have been made using my normal IP address?

Your reason for banning me seems to be based on a very tenuous, alleged connection to previous users who have acted disruptively. Given that I have shown you, as much as possible, that this connection does not exist, and given that my intentions in editing here are and have always been in accordance with Wikipedia's policies (as I hope I have also adequately shown you), I would strongly ask you again to reconsider this harsh administrator action you have taken against me.

In the meantime, I suppose appealing this decision to another administrator remains an option, although I am unsure how I feel about having to jump through yet more bureaucratic hoops to defend myself here. I can provide more examples of my civil conduct, even in the face of repeated attacks against me, and I could also compile evidence of users who have shown me good will while I have contributed to this project. There are instances of established users (who are still editing today) who have demonstrated appreciation for my attempted contributions, and for my civility and dedication to following the rules here even when other users' treatment of me has been particularly nasty. I may work on compiling a list of such instances that would be helpful in appealing my block.

But again, I hope that you reconsider this harsh action you have taken against me. I think you will see that an indefinite ban against me is an extremely harsh punishment given the infractions I am accused of and especially given the limited evidence of my offenses. I can actually think of several other users who, in the time that I have edited here, have recieved far less severe punishments for these kinds of alleged infractions.

Above all, I would like to continue contributing to this project, and I hope that I will be able to do so in the future. I also hope that, though the topic I have shown interest in editing here is certainly a controversial one, you will not let that sway you toward leveling a more severe punishment against me than is appropriate.

Thank you for your time.

Mike D78 01:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mike, I think that you should try a request for unblock. Maybe there are some neutral and fair administrators left on Wikipedia, after all. Perhaps you should mention that it is noteworthy that Pol64 was blocked for only 1 week (after it was confirmed that he was manipulating several socks, engaging in disruptive activities/rudeness toward other users, and having largely a "single purpose" account himself) Equilibrist 14:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe, from what I know of Mike D78 and his editing practices on Wikipedia, he is a clear-headed contributor who aims to promote the NPOV standard. However, he has faced multiple unfounded allegations and accusations, some of which have been quite vulgar and offensive. Despite this, he has remained civil throughout. The reasons he lists above for unblocking seem to be legitimate, and a closer look into his overall conduct will likely demostrate to anyone that he is a valuable asset to Wikipedia. Please see if you could reconsider the action that has been taken against him. If he has in fact done something inappropriate, I'm sure he will be willing to take advice on how to improve as a Wikipedia contributor. ~ Homologeo 22:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I find the proxy allegations disturbing, and think the block should remain, SqueakBox 00:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If the proxy use is the primary reason for my block, that is ridiculous. I think my explanation for this is more than adequate: I used a proxy in finding certain sources for the articles I was editing, and I simply accidentally left the proxy enabled a few times when I visited here. I fail to see what is so "suspicious" about this; I think most people who actually attempted to do the work I did in finding sources for these articles centered around this controversial topic would probably admit that they'd feel more comfortable using proxies. And as I said, the vast majority of my visits here were made with my actual IP address. I think any administrator who took a fair look at my IP logs here would find that I've made no attempt to hide my real IP address, and I'm convinced that these proxy "allegations" are just a red herring to distract from the unorthodox admin action that has been leveled against me, as others have pointed out.

Thanks to everyone who's defended my conduct here, by the way. I've given WjBscribe a few days now to respond to my considered responses to his action, but it doesn't seem that he intends to do so. Perhaps he wishes for yet another unfair indefinite block regarding this group of articles to be quietly swept under the rug and forgotten about, as in the case of Samantha Pignez, who was blocked with only the vague reason "extreme disruption" given and absolutely no proof of any rule violations. As Dyskolos noted, Samantha was "probably the most unbiased and civil of editors" working on these articles, but the only thing that seemed to matter was that she chose the wrong contingent of people to disagree with. Equilibrist is also right to point out the blatant hypocrisy in the fact that Pol64 was only banned for a week, and there was actual proof of his infractions rather than merely vague circumstantial evidence. If the accusation against me is that I'm a sockpuppet of a previously banned user, I'd like to know which user that is.

As others have suggested, I will consider placing the unblock template here to request an admin review. First, though, I want to work on compiling a list of my edits to this encyclopedia that I think have shown my good will and hard work in attempting to improve these articles. I also want to compile a list of evidence of the hostility that has been shown to me by certain editors since I began contributing here, and I want to present cases of other users who have been treated much more leniantly in response to the same accusations. I hope that any fair administrator will be able to look holistically at my contributions here and see that I have not had any ill intent, and that as far as I know I have not broken any policies here.

I'm well-aware, though, that I'm fighting an uphill battle, simply because I've taken issue with the conduct of those who have let their emotional crusade take precedence over their neutral editing of this encyclopedia. It would seem that, despite the fact that my edits have always been in consensus with other editors and in compliance with Wikipedia's policies, simply expressing a less rabid opinion regarding the direction of these articles than SqueakBox is enough to get me accused of advocating pedophilia. Far from me being the one that's being uncivil or trying to promote an agenda, a look at SqueakBox's history will show massive edits without consensus, temporary blocks, admin warnings, and petty squabbling with nearly every other editor he has come in contact with regarding these articles. I, on the other hand, have not even had so much as a warning from an administrator for my conduct given to me throughout my time here, which I think suggests that I have been far more civil and cooperative regarding these articles than certain other users. Perhaps the tension between me and SqueakBox has been greater than between other editors, but I think any neutral observer would conclude that I was the victim of far more accusations and generally bad-faith comments from SqueakBox than others. Perhaps I allowed myself to become more tenacious in debating with SqueakBox than could've been productive, but I absolutely feel that I was justified in defending myself each time.

And lest it seem like I'm being overly-hostile toward SqueakBox, I am well-aware of the background behind my banning here. SqueakBox was handed a 48-hour ban, which by any objective standard was deserved because of his clear violation of the three revert rule. He then went and did what he does everytime he doesn't get his way regarding these articles; he cried "sockpuppet!" I can only assume, since he seemed to be upset with me at the time, he decided to blame me for the edit war (although a look at the article's history would actually reveal that Fighting For Justice was the one who was undoing Squeak's reverts, and not without reason). So the fact that I'm taking the blame for "edit warring" here is confusing, since I had no more than a few completely different edits that I made to that article that particular day, and since I generally don't have to worry about violating the 3RR, anyway, as other users typically stand with me in disagreeing with SqueakBox's more disruptive edits and often revert them themselves.

I think other users can attest, though, that SqueakBox has been using this tactic of dismissing nearly everyone who disagrees with him as a sockpuppet for months now, which has been extremely disruptive to those who wish to improve these articles. SqueakBox seems to feel that the fact that sockpuppets have edited this group of articles in the past justifies him ignoring the concept of concensus with other users completely. This idea seems to have been adopted by administrators, as well, as it appears that merely the whisper of "sockpuppet" regarding someone who takes a less rabid (and more neutral) stance regarding these articles than SqueakBox is enough for a perma-ban. Even if the reasons for my ban were not highly suspect, as I think I've pointed out, simply the fact that my ban resulted from another user whining about his completely-deserved temporary block leaves a bad tast in my mouth. I would think that, were there truly any justification of admin action against me, it would've been considered previously and not carried out simply because another user got their feelings hurt over a temporary ban, and decided to blame me for it.

Anyway, as I said previously, I'll be considering what action to take regarding an appeal of my block as I have time in the next few days. Thanks again to everyone who's backed me up here and agreed that my contibutions to Wikipedia have been in good faith and should continue.

Mike D78 02:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)