User talk:Keegscee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

IP Addresses[edit]

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)

User page[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

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)

Stop x nuvola.svg
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.
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.

Keegscee (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter 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)

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 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)

{{unblock|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.}}

  • This will place you in a category which will lead to the eventual deletion of this page. WP:RTV is not usually granted to blocked users. Obviously, your unblock request is denied because you did not actually request unblocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI, I will be unplugging my router tonight when I go to bed so that my IP changes and then I will be creating another good faith account (not to imply that my other accounts are bad faith, which they are certainly not). Despite the treatment I have received, I still believe that Wikipedia is a worthwhile project and I will continue to edit it when the mood strikes. I will do my best to forgive and forget the admins who acted unilaterally and unfairly in blocking me. I look forward to working with some of you in the future. Keegscee (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So you are basically stating you're just going to keep violating wikipedias policies? You are blocked indefinitely. Creating any new accounts or editing outside your talk space is block evasion.--Crossmr (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Uggg...this really is frustrating. I seriously am a good faith editor. Besides for my own statement, which for all you know I made up because I was on a Dexter fix (because that show really is awesome), you have no proof I have ever done anything wrong ever on Wikipedia. Seriously, all I want to do is be a good user on Wikipedia. And that's all I have ever done. You, Crossmr, are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I have over 2600+ good edits on Wikipedia under this username, and I'm coming under question because of one silly statement? Per WP:IAR, I think I am justified in creating another account to edit constructively. And that's what I shall do. Keegscee (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
IAR is not a shield to do anything you want. IAR only allows you to first make edits which you feel are okay, but if you're called on them you need to defend them and they can be overturned. You've failed to defend your actions, and the community has decided to block you indefinitely for violating its policies. There is nothing good faith about socking to harass users you disagree with. You've flatly admitted a couple times that you've been socking, and alluded to other user names/accounts/proxies/etc. So there is no doubt about it. If you make another account it will be block evasion and blocked accordingly. You've shown no indication that you have any clue what is wrong with what you've done or that you'd stop doing it in the future. You perceive yourself as some kind of vigilante hero and the community isn't interested in that. You've been told as much several times now, and several editors agreed on AN/I with the admin actions taken here. You want to edit constructively here? Find someway to demonstrate to the community you actually understand what you did wrong, own up to it and figure out a way to get them to trust you again. Frankly your continued pushing that you've done nothing wrong and want to try and protect yourself with IAR is going to make that near impossible.--Crossmr (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
If you seriously think you're not doing anything wrong, why don't you 'fess up the IPs you've been apparently editing from so we can see what you're talking about? I feel a bit like Dexter too when editing here, but I don't go around using proxies and violating WP's policies in the process.
Oh, and by the way, from your page at RationalWiki: Update: A Conservapedia user just got me indefinitely blocked. Fan-fuckin-tastic. If you think this has anything to do with politics, or even that I enjoy getting involved in these little drama fests, you're wrong. When I first questioned your suggestion that people vandalize Conservapedia, I wasn't an editor there; I learned about the site because you asked people to vandalize it. This is about you acting in a manner that I don't think is right, not about my own political views. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 15:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC) ps, don't do something stupid and try playing Dexter Morgan on my IP address because probably about ten different trolls have done that already, and now there's a flag on my account from corporate instructing the abuse desk to file counter complaints agaist those filing bad faith ARs. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 15:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Believe me, if this were political, I would not be endorsing the actions of anybody who takes Conservapedia seriously!!!! It's a good, solid, well-reasoned block.--Orange Mike | Talk 00:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
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.

Keegscee (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

My sockpuppet investigation came up clean, as I promised it would. If you look at my edit history, I am a good Wikipedian. As I mentioned in my first unblock request, the original block was made on assumptions that I have edited Wikipedia under different usernames/IPs and that I have been uncivil and have attacked other users. Simply put, there is not a shred of evidence to support any of these accusations. All I won't to do is make constructive edits to Wikipedia. Based on my editing history and lack of any evidence to suggest that I've done anything wrong, I believe I should be unblocked.

Decline reason:

Your own statements seem clear enough, so I don't feel that this is a block that is so wrong as to justify overriding the blocking administrator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:14, 26 February 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.

Request[edit]

Can an admin please block me from editing my talk page as well? It is clear to me at this point that I am just feeding the troll and it would be best for everyone if I just stopped. 68.28.187.112 (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to login. This is keegscee editing from my phone. Sorry for any confusion. 68.28.187.112 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Note[edit]

Blocked from editing talk page and sending email RlevseTalk 16:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom[edit]

Keegscee, I am starting a request at WP:Arbitration/Requests to seek an official ban from Wikipedia. It probably won't be difficult. You have, unfortunately, demonstrated that you cannot control your desire to harass others, and your drama is disruptive here at Wikipedia. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 20:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal[edit]

So that you are aware - I have filed a proposal to issue a community ban on you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Keegscee - community ban proposal. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the current settings on your account and talk page, you have no way listed of being able to respond to the community ban proposal.
For your information, you can contact the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee via email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org - see Wikipedia:BASC#BASC. They can forward any comments you make into the community ban discussion at WP:AN. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Puppeter template.svg

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keegscee for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Treylander 12:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Community ban[edit]

You are indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia.  Sandstein  18:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Case[edit]

Puppeter template.svg

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keegscee for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keegscee, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) Jesus Christ loves you! 22:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keegscee, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 21:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)