Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.
I cannot comment there if I am blocked... Anyway, this account should be unblocked, because none of its edits were un-constructive. Deleting an article concerning a notable man and reverting constructive edits just because you have it out for someone makes no logical sense. If you and Kevin really had the encyclopedia's interests in heart, you would not also remove stuff that actually improves the project just to lash out at someone you hate for no legitimate reason. --Academic Editor (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think you need to read WP:BAN to find out how wrong-headed your view is. You've been indefinitely blocked by Arbcom decision and banned by consensus of the community. Your participation, constructive or unconstructive, is not wanted here. By all means, though, post a request for unblock on this page; if you're correct that "this account should be unblocked", an uninvolved admin will no doubt be glad to remove the block. Deor (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No good faith editors have any issues with me. Only electronic book burners and sock puppet accounts have presented a false consensus against me that I need not respect per WP:DONTFEEDTHETROLLS. Anyone who seriously is here to build a paperless encyclopedia wants me to edit. The most comical thing is that the majority of these so-called IPs and alternate accounts allegedly me actually aren't and even when checkusers say as much, people still claim otherwise. Again, though, if the good of the project was really your concern, then you wouldn't want edits that actually improve the project deleted regardless of who they come from, moreover, you would devote this same fanatacism to trying to get rid of the several currently operating obvious and even admitted deletionist sock accounts, but because you do not go after them, it is clear that this is only about silencing someone who actually makes this site a better place. If nothing else, at least no one has ever figured out my admin account... ;) --Academic Editor (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2012 (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).
First, in the interest of full disclosure and honesty, yes, I have edited here in the past as User:Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend?. Deor suggested I post a request to be unblocked, so what the heck, may as well. My edits are always with the intention of improving Wikipedia. A checkuser on the IP I am using comfirmed that "nothing interesting" was on it. Indeed, I do not presently have any other alternate accounts. Yes, over the past couple years I have made numerous IP edits, but it is because I cannot respect what has largely be an ideological witch hunt against me. I have been falsely lumped together with sock accounts of somebody similar or ones by deletionists impersonating me so as to present a false impression of my activities. Any so-called consensus against me was built by dishonest deletionist sock farms associated with such long-term vandal accounts as User:Jack Merridew, User:Eyrian, and literally dozens of others. If I seem harsh to them, calling them dishonest, and such, it is because yes, as far as I am concerned they are indeed electronic book burners and as such aren't worthy of being treated and dealt with in a respectful manner. I do not use my accounts to disrupt anything, but rather to ignore and avoid those who actually are trying to ruin this project. If my actions frustrate those trying to ignorantly stifle human knowledge, so be it. I cannot possibly feel bad about that. I do not disrespect or treat ill those who are here to improve this website. No one should feel bound by the actions of those who are the opponents of cataloging human knowledge. If you do not want to unblock me now, so be it (after all, it is not as I cannot just keep creating new accounts or making IP edits at will, but rather than continue on that path, I am going to see if we can move forward without having to play games), but it is a shame to diminish this project by also deleting edits to certain articles made by me such as to Vincent Liberto who was a great man that serves as an inspirational figure for many. It should be far more important to any neutral admin that knowledge and the articles that are of value be respected more than some technicality to punish a particular editor. Thank you for your time and consideration. And also, Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers out there! :) Academic Editor (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You are a banned user; you must request unblock through ArbCom. However, even if you were not a banned user, I'd decline this based upon your insistence that you have a right to be disrespectful of editors you disagree with. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:55, 13 May 2012 (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.
Dear Jpgordon, no, I am not disrespectful and nor would I be of editors I merely "disagree with," but only of electronic book burners. Seriously, people following in the footsteps of witch hunters and Nazis do not merit our respect. I am talking about those who speak of deletion as being like a war or who flood AfDs with nominations about topics they neither care nor know about. Plus, I am not banned in the eyes of any legitimate community consensus that anyone need be bound by. A roll call of the site's most extreme deletionists, including now blocked accounts, is nothing that need concern anyone. Anyway, how I do I request through ArbCom? Out of respect to your suggest, I am willing to do that or if you would be so kind as to make them aware of my comment here, by all means do so. I am saying straight up that I will not participate in any discussion about me as it would be a waste of my time and nor would I want any good faith editors to get dragged into any discussion about me either. I will be frank with you, I will give this a shot that way. Otherwise, it's like I said, if I want to edit, as do all the deletionists who never really go away no matter what new identity they assume, I will, because those who trumped up things against me did so maliciously and hypocritically. I do not let bullies win. In fact, as checkusers can in part see, in the past two years, I have made hundreds, maybe thousands, of edits primarily as IPs (oddly enough largely not under the ones they think...it is comical how most of the ones they think are me aren't and the other one that actually are have never been identified as such) over the past couple of years and probably rescued more articles from deletion than I ever did under an account. I even helped to get some of the deletionist sock accounts blocked by emailing relevant people evidence. Unbeknownst to those who have it out for me, I have accomplished probably more in the past two years incognito than I ever did while being a regular official editor here by not having certain accounts' keyboards stalking me. I do not say that to gloat or be arrogant; rather, it should give the good guys satisfaction that despite the fanatical fixation that certain individuals have for me, their own arrogance has blinded them. And so it is no lost sleep if their time is wasted chasing me down (let alone all the false leads), because every second they spend doing that is time they are not spending deleting other editors' work. I have already cautioned my many supporters from wasting time defending me against them, i.e. to keep their focus on saving and improving content whenever the electronic book burners are distracted on me or whoever they happen to think is me that isn't. But I am an optimist, not necessarily naive, but an optimist all the same and I hope that maybe there can be some hope for them. Maybe, instead of playing games framing me and other inclusionists, they can be reformed to actually try to help out here. If so, then here is a chance to do things without having to play games. If I am unblocked on this account, I will stick to this account, which again, you can see no other account is showing up on this IP. If I am not unblocked, then seriously, I really have no incentive to just stick to this account or to this IP or its range. If someone wants to edit, he will. I am offering to edit as Academic Editor alone and if people want to be reasonable, I will be reasonable to. If this account is also blocked and I still want to edit, then it's just back to playing games, but trust me, it is far less of an inconvenience to me than to anyone else. I would even respect mentorship from certain honest editors if unblocked. But I tell you what, just start any thread on me and you will find the same handful of extreme deletionist accounts who have had it out for me fawning and tripping over themselves to devote hours of their time digging up diffs, putting biased spins on them, accusing people based on tangential evidence, etc. like some kind of rapid dogs frothing at the mouth. Instead of doing anything even remotely constructive with their time, especially their real world time with families, jobs, and friends, they would spend maybe even weeks of their time trying to silence one inlcusionist editor whose edits consist of grammar corrections and adding content to the project. These same accounts have devoted God knows how much of their lives for the past several years chasing after me. Now notice how my two main IPs have spent their edits: adding content, fixing grammar, trying to save articles. Only one IP was ever confirmed to be my previous account and you should only see one IP associated with this account. The overwhelming majority of these edits are irrefutably harmless. We are kidding ourselves if anyone's issue with me is about anything more than trying to silence a perceived ideological opponent. If I call someone dishonest, well, is because they are being so. It is not a personal attack to state a fact. If someone says in an AfD no sources exist and it takes all of two seconds to find books that cite the topic on Google, then it should be reasonable to call BS on their nomination. The thing is deletionists don't like being called out, which is why they so despise WP:BEFORE. For some it is laziness, for others elitism. Anyway, long story short, you would think if those who did not like people such as myself who love knowledge and civilization really wanted a positive outcome, then they would be content to just deal with me as I am offering, as this one account. Otherwise, instead, they can chase ghosts for years to come. If that is how they want to spend their time, then whatever, show the community that their real interest is in playing games, but if they want to be treated with respect and not as witch hunters, then instead they would be open to engaging with me under this one account, no games, no IP edits, etc. If they earn our respect and try to be reasonable, then I will gladly return it their way as well. One thing is for sure, I will never allow bullies and certainly not the paper tigers who talk tough here but are cowards in real life to push me away (I tell you, too bad we cannot have charity boxing or MMA matches or something at the Wikipedia get togethers; that would be a fun way to iron out differences and as a former champion wrestler...and no I am not kidding...who has aced courses in karate, jiu jitsu, and even fencing, that would be a blast and that is also why I cannot take many of them seriously when they attempt to sound tough...). So, if you wish to recommend how I can appeal to arbcom or wish to make them aware of my comment here, thank you, and I will agree to stick to this account, stick the kinds of edits my IP associated with this account has made, and not do anything a few choice mentors of respected status if they accept the offer would take issue with. Otherwise, no big loss. Wikipedia is certainly not something that keeps me up at night. In any event, sorry for rambling on (I am in a good mood and have lots and lots of energy!) and I appreciate you taking the time to consider my request and regardless of how you may or may not subsequently respond, I truly do hope that you have a nice night! A lot of good shows are on tonight that I shall be enjoying tonight if nothing else and since I had a good workout today, I am treating myself for once to a Friendly's Reese's Pieces Sundae. I hope your day is going as good as mine if not better! Take care! :) Sincerely, --Academic Editor (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2012 (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).
per WP:Fresh start and due to constructive edits that only improve Wikipedia. No one who actually wants to build an encyclopedia has any issues with me and nor would they. Bad faith and disruptive deletionist account Kww has an obvious conflict of interest (see his RfAs) and should have nothing to do administratively with regards to me. If this request needs to be forwarded to arbitrators, please do so. Thank you for your time and help! --Academic Editor (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
There appears to be an ArbCom decision regarding this, so this unblock request goes beyond what a normal admin can do. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Nobody says at the bottom that you are to be unblocked if and when you return to face the case. To pursue this further, please contact the Ban Appeals Subcommittee by email. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2012 (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.
Request to forward message to ArbCom on my Behalf[edit]
Would someone kindly forward an unblock request per WP:FRESHSTART to arbcom on my behalf? I have tried sending an email, but it was bounced back for some reason. As a recent checkuser has shown, this account is the only one I currently have and I do not want to create others. I am willing to accept mentorship or something from trustworthy editors and avoid AfDs per past precedent if necessary. I primarily want to return just to create some articles on notable subjects from literary history and the like.
Academic Editor (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I never heard from them. How can I correspond them? My emails don't seem to go through. I am very concerned about the mental health of User:Kww and a few others who has been fixated on me for several years now and is clearly violating WP:INVOLVED due to his obsession. It is downright creepy enough that I wonder how much further he has been or is going to take things? I want nothing to do with such freakiness, for one thing. I am uncomfortable being around such people and as such cannot be expected to engage in any kind of interaction with people who clearly have issues. I am happy to contribute here and am willing to deal with reasonable people, but although I have tried messaging arbcom myself, I have thus far received no response. Without any response, I have little incentive (nor would any reasonable person) to just go along with anything arbitrarily imposed by accounts who have demonstrated a bizarre obsession with me over the course of years or who have since been themselves banned for far worse offensives than even the worst of what has been dishonestly alleged against me, especially when those who have it out for me have created multiple accounts pretending to be me thereby preventing a distorted picture of things, even to the point that when their faux accounts are not even confirmed by checkusers, they block them anyway just to distort things even more. Anyone actually checkusering my confirmed accounts, should only see a particular IP range with them and on that IP range no accounts editing concurrently. Anything else is either someone else or not just someone else in some cases, but my cyberstalkers impersonating me out of their obsessive behavior. This account is one of the impersonation accounts (at least this one was proven to be someone else) and here we get threats of physical violence. The web of sockpuppetry and meat puppetry of those obsessed with me is so extensive (here is one sock farm of one of my most persistent antagonists, it has been beyond difficult trying to demonstrate just how much distorting and impersonation I have contended with from people around the world. Yet, anyone who actually checks this account and its IP will not honestly turn up all sorts of other accounts. I am not talking about people who just show up from time to time to screw with me, but people who have been following me for five or more years, have actively impersonated me, have shown up even off-wiki threatening physical violence and more. These are people obsessed to the point that there is little they would not do to continue their efforts to create bogus accounts just so they can claimed they are me, block accounts of others claiming they are me without a checkuser even showing one way or the other, and so much more. If you look at the sheer delight with which those who have cyberstalked me for most of the past decade such as Deor, Kww, Reyk, and others react whenever they go after an accounts probably one of them actually created, you get a sense of just how totally bizarre these people really are. They have been playing a game and unfortunately they have played it so long and with so many allied sock masters such as Editor XXV and David Belle, that the truth is perhaps not even presentable. --Academic Editor (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Contacting the Committee; one of the many contact channels has to work, or you should find yourself a new email service provider. Arbcom may also already be aware of your concerns but not share them; then there isn't much you (or anyone) can do. – sgeurekat•c 10:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll give it another whirl via email. If worst comes to worst, i.e. if I do not get a reply soon, than I can always just use new accounts if I am ignored and that way it will just keep those who have been stalking me tied down/busy chasing me around rather than trying to delete content. Take care! --Academic Editor (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mdann52, thank you again. I am sorry to see that one of my cyber stalkers has retaliated against you as well. I noticed that right after you relisted a discussion, he just went ahead and closed the discussion anyway before anyone else could even comment. Shameful. I am sorry to see you blown of and insulted in such a way, especially by someone totally ignorant of the subject matter. --Academic Editor (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee have received an unblock request from this user which has not yet been considered. In the meantime, having noted the personal attacks above, I have hatted the talkpage and removed email and talkpage rights from this user. The Committee's decision regarding the freshstart application will be posted shortly. SilkTork✔Tea time 22:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
