User talk:Climate surfer 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Climate surfer 23 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I have been blocked without warning and without explanation as to why I was blocked. As a result I am unable to even begin to prepare an unblock request to address whatever evidence there is against me. None has been provided. I can only assume that I have been blocked for ideological reasons relating to my interactions with William M. Connolley. Does the blocking administrator have a history of blocking accounts which disagree with Mr. Connolley? If so then perhaps I should be unblocked and the blocking administrator warned about making such ideologically based blocks. How should I proceed since no evidence of wrong-doing has been presented?

Decline reason:

You have been blocked for the inappropriate use of multiple accounts. This account doesn't appear to meet any legitimate need for an additional account, and you haven't addressed your use of multiple accounts in your unblock request, so I cannot unblock based on this request. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Climate surfer 23 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I see. I claim this as a fresh start account per Wikipedia:Sock#Legitimate_uses. Because of this I won't reveal my other account for any reason. If the blocking administrator has evidence to link this account to an account which is ineligible for a fresh start under the cited policy then let him put it forth so that it may be examined. Otherwise I request to be unblocked for a simple lack of evidence to support his claims. I assume he is not allowed to block accounts he does not like in this manner based on bald assertion, or is he?

Decline reason:

Behavioural similarities would appear to indicate that you are using multiple accounts, and so I am declining this unblock request -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

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.

I agree with placing this request on hold- since this user won't reveal his other account to anyone, no one but the blocking admin is able to review the request for unblocking. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

@Climate surfer 23: After seeing this, one of your first edits, it is clear that you are at the very least a bad faith contributor, no matter if you are a legitimate fresh start account or an illegitimate one. Think of the block reason to "disruptive editing/trolling" if you want. NW (Talk) 15:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
First, I'd like to know precisely why I was blocked and you appear to be unwilling or unable to give a specific reason. Why have you actually blocked me, for abusing multiple accounts (no evidence given) or for disruption and bad faith (based on a single edit)?
Reviewers, please note that even in my short time with this account I have already been contributing new content to articles in need. Isn't that why we are all here? --Climate surfer 23 (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
You were blocked for your inappropriate use of multiple accounts. User:NuclearWarfare correctly points out that, even without being able to review your other accounts, we can see that with this account, you are pushing your own opinions into articles and making personal attacks, and that both of those are reasons to block even if you had never visited Wikipedia before. Therefore, we don't really need to know your previous account name to recognize that you're breaking the rules at Wikipedia. I suspect that if I reviewed your edits in other accounts, I'd see personal attacks and the pushing of your own opinions. I could be wrong. I guess I'll never know. I can live with that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
What opinions have I pushed into the project and how have I actually done so? Please provide specific diffs. What personal attacks are you talking about? Again, please provide specific diffs. --Climate surfer 23 (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't see any purpose in further discussion, since a fair review is not possible for me to do. I'm sure that if comparison of the two accounts shows a legitimate attempt at a fresh start, the blocking admin will unblock you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I see. No specific guidance from you either. That's a pity because it makes it particularly difficult for me to learn and reform myself but let me take a stab at it:
Interjecting my comment into his such as I did is considered disruptive and referring to him as an SPA is considered a personal attack and each are of a magnitude sufficient to warrant an indefinite block even after only a single such example.
Does that properly sum up the positions being taken here by NW and yourself? I don't wish to put words in your mouths. I ask because from my perspective that is what I feel I am being told. If that is the case then I agree not to do those things again. If that is not the case please clarify where I have gotten it wrong.
Aside from my edits to Raymond S. Bradley, its talk page, and specifically the diff provided by NW, do you consider my other edits to be problematic? Are they the type of thing that helps or harms the project in your view? These are the bulk of my edits thus far and they should be what I am judged on, in my opinion, and not a single edit provided by NW.
Since I have now acknowledged what I did wrong and have agreed to not repeat the mistakes is there any reason to keep me blocked? I understand that blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, is this correct? --Climate surfer 23 (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As an outsider (other than putting the unblock request on hold), I have looked at the edits for this account (there are no deleted edits). Apart from the Raymond S. Bradley edits (which could be construed as disruptive and/or personal attacks), I see no other problematic edits. I cannot find an SPI case involving Climate surfer 23. The editor has stated above that they will not "repeat the mistakes". I would be curious to know if there are any reasons (apart from these first few edits) that this editor cannot be unblocked. Is there any evidence that this user has used multiple accounts (I can't find any, but it's not my area of expertise)? I'm sure I'm missing something here, so would be grateful if someone (NW for example) can fill in the blanks. Only that way can I make a reasoned decision on whether to decline this unblock request, or to accede to it -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Phantomsteve, I am not sure if you have followed the WMC thread on ANI, but was just a big drama about edits like the one I linked above. There have been a great number of new accounts that spring up to cause disruption based on recent issues, and this instance is a perfect example of it. WMC is probably right that Climate surfer 23 is GoRight; the wikilawyering and manner of writing sounds the same. NW (Talk) 04:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If anyone if thinking of checkuser, then based on linguistic analysis I'd go for this being GoRight William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:GoRight is banned from editing, so if that is the case, the "fresh start" clause wouldn't apply to her. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)