User talk:Keegscee

IP Addresses

Sadly, the non-assumption of good faith is a wide spread problem when dealing with IP editors; I can attest to a time when I forgot to log in, posted a comment in a discussion in good faith, perfectly inline with policy, and was reverted with a vandalism warning posted to my IP talk page. I try to AGF with IPs, but sometimes legitimate edits in many ways resemble typical vandalism. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User page

In reality, I get much more pleasure out of making things difficult for people that I feel are not good faith editors. I generally do this through the use of proxies so as to be slightly more discrete. Like Dexter, if editors here knew what I was doing, they would probably agree that my actions are for the best of the project, although they would have to reprimand me for my behavior.

Heyyyyyy, I don't want to sound like a prick, but what exactly do you mean by that? Are you admitting to being a troll and routinely violating WP:AGF using sockpuppets? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's blockable. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a blockable offense. But it would be very difficult to prove, because even if a checkuser were to check my account, it would come up clean (with the exception of some stupid vandalism from months ago when I just edited from in IP). And even if I were to get blocked for admitting it on my userpage, it wouldn't solve the underlying problem. At best, it would prevent me from making the few good contributions that I do from this username.

On an unrelated note, as you well know, I keep a relatively close eye on CP. I wonder why you are so down on public schools when editing on CP. You obviously love your public school, and you'd have to be incredibly naive to think that it's the only good public school in America. You know as well as I do that there are some fantastic public schools and just as many lousy ones. If you feel so strongly about the issue, as I think you do, you shouldn't put on an act just to appease Andy. Let's face it. One day you're going to slip up at CP and get blocked. I've been watching CP for long enough to know that it happens to EVERYONE who's not an admin. Maybe you should cut your losses now and contribute more to a project that has succeeded and will continue to succeed. Despite clashing heads in the past, I do believe that you are a good person and have the best interest of Wikipedia in mind. I'd hate to see your time and effort wasted on the liberal hate site Conservapedia. Keegscee (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good individual public schools, but the greater educational system has flaws (not just the public educational system FYI, homeschooling can be just as bad). You can see that I have Pirate Pride, and if you look up Port Charlotte High School, you will read it is a public school. In fact, I've had several conservative teachers, as well as liberal ones). However, people have a right to their opinions, and if I'm to edit at Conservapedia, I should do so in a manner that is acceptable to the majority of the community there; a lot of what they call "public school culture" I would call flaws in modern society. Likewise, I should edit Wikipedia in a way that is acceptable to the Wikipedia community. As should you. Indeed, political issues and Wiki drama aside, I think you have good intentions, but have a compulsive urge to engage in behavior at odds with Wikipedia's policies. You seem to have an obsession with Conservapedia. I've yet to see you actually contribute to any articles here. I sometimes have to question whether you're here to build an encyclopedia or turn Wikipedia into the next RationalWiki.

Back on topic, my biggest problem with your behavior here is that you seem rather clueless. That not intended to be a random insult, but seriously. Wikipedia does not need proof that someone is doing something to block them, but rather consensus. You seem to be thumbing your nose at the system here, kind of like haha, you can't prove it, so you can't block me, haha. Admins will likely use that against you. Sorry, but that's just how Wikipedia works; Wikipedia is not the United States legal system. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

You admitted on your userpage [1] that you are:

"Also, I feel a little bit like Dexter Morgan. I don't really enjoy reverting vandalism or helping Wikipedia, but I do it to fit in. In reality, I get much more pleasure out of making things difficult for people that I feel are not good faith editors. I generally do this through the use of proxies so as to be slightly more discrete. Like Dexter, if editors here knew what I was doing, they would probably agree that my actions are for the best of the project, although they would have to reprimand me for my behavior."

The entire point of WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS, and WP:NPA, is that this type of behavior is not acceptable on Wikipedia. We expect all users to treat the rest of the community members with respect and dignity. No user is allowed to subject others to abusive behavior. Administrators when dealing with abuse incidents are required to do so without blatant abuse of the perpetrators, and we expect reasonable behavior by normal editors as well.

You have just self-admitted to blatantly violating those principles, anonymously and via proxies. While we can't stop you from doing so through proxies (other than by blocking proxies as normal), we can unambigously state that this is not acceptable from a member of Wikipedia's community. As you have openly admitted doing so [2], [3], [4] I don't see that there's any way we can't indefinitely block you. If you chose to behave in that manner, you are placing yourself outside community behavior norms. We expect you to act like a mature adult if you participate here, and respect the other participants.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

Request reason:

Per WP:IAR, I think what I am doing is well within reason. Before someone put the indef block template on my userpage, I clearly indicated that I felt that "my actions are for the best of the project." Am I mistaken, or isn't that the point of ignoring all rules? Also, the user who blocked me believes I am breaking the following rules: WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS, and WP:NPA. What reason does he have to believe I have broken any of these rules? All I have said is that I make editing more difficult for users who I feel are not acting in good faith. Isn't that what ALL vandal fighters do? I didn't say I was uncivil, harassing them, or personally attacking them. User:Georgewilliamherbert made assumptions and then unilaterally blocked me based on those assumptions. IMO, it was an unfair and hastily applied block.

Decline reason:

You have, at least, admitted to use proxies to escape scrutiny of your contributions. WP:IAR allows only actions that actually improve the project, and since you do not tell us which accounts or IPs you have edited under, we can't tell whether it applies. Sandstein 08:11, 20 February 2010 (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.

I have rolled back your blanking of this talk page because you may not remove declined unblock requests as long as you are blocked. Sandstein 09:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I have no desire to have my account unblocked. However, per my right to vanish, I would like both my user page and user talk page deleted. I understand you don't have to grant me that right, but I would really appreciate it.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have no desire to have my account unblocked. However, per my [[m:Right to Vanish|right to vanish]], I would like both my user page and user talk page deleted. I understand you don't have to grant me that right, but I would really appreciate it. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have no desire to have my account unblocked. However, per my [[m:Right to Vanish|right to vanish]], I would like both my user page and user talk page deleted. I understand you don't have to grant me that right, but I would really appreciate it. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have no desire to have my account unblocked. However, per my [[m:Right to Vanish|right to vanish]], I would like both my user page and user talk page deleted. I understand you don't have to grant me that right, but I would really appreciate it. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}