User talk:Loomis51
Loomis51 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked for objecting to WP:NPA against me
Decline reason:
As your block log shows, you had a last chance and you blew it. Even if you hadn't, this kind of request usually doesn't work. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2009 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Loomis51 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My block was in contradiction with Wikipedia's blocking policy. Beginning in December of '05, I began editing at the RefDesk and enjoyed it immensely. Apparently so did the rest of the RefDesk community, as I was issued plenty of barnstars and drew a significant amount of praise from OP's and fellow editors alike. Yet this was put to an end when a certain other editor began to post responses I disagreed with, as well as to personally attack and offend me relentlessly. The reasons given for my block are vague indeed: "Violated terms of unblock, even after warnings." Yes, I indeed violated the terms of my unblock. However these unmentioned "terms of unblock" were based in no way upon anything to be found in Wikipedia's blocking policy. Briefly stated, these terms consisted of being told that I must avoid the other editor in question completely, and should I voice any disagreement whatsoever with her responses, even in the politest possible of manners, I would be in breach of these terms. Now according to Wikipedia's blocking policy, editors are to be blocked for behaviour disruptive or damaging to Wikipedia. My aim has always been to improve Wikipedia, not to disrupt or damage it, by offering alternative responses to certain particular questions, rather than to let the OP be misled that there is one, and only one authoritative answer to the question asked. I would argue that my being blocked from contributing did far more harm to Wikepedia than any behaviour of mine while there. Is it indeed Wikipedia policy that a polite disagreement with another editor's response does more to damage and/or disrupt Wikipedia than to have that disagreement stifled, giving the OP the false air that there is no controversy to what is in reality a controversial question? Yes, I rocked the boat a bit, but only to benefit and improve the quality of Wikipedia. I'm here to offer my perspectives once again, and since the other editor in question has quit contributing for some two years, I can't possibly see any friction whatsoever. If you would like me to once again offer my perspective, as well as my particular knowledge in certain fields, please unblock me so I can begin again. Likewise, should you be uninterested in my contributions, leave me blocked.
Decline reason:
Per the comments of the blocking admin, and considering my observation of probable sock puppetry, I see no reason to unblock the account. Jehochman Talk 15:28, 26 March 2009 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Comment from the original blocking admin
I find the above request disappointing for a number of reasons. First, an unblock request was placed ([1]) – and denied ([2]) – by an independent administrator just yesterday, and it strikes me as rather careless of Loomis not to mention that. The extant request is simply a more verbose restatement of the wikilawyering position he took previously.
More seriously, Loomis appears to be relying on a lack of 'institutional memory' due to turnover on the project in an attempt to rewrite his own history here.
The real reason for Loomis51's block is clear from this talk page's history. After repeated, explicit warnings and escalating blocks issued by at least three different editors, Loomis insisted on continuing a campaign of harrassment directed at another Wikipedia editor. For that, he was blocked.
See [3] and [4] for the conditions under which his last unblock was issued, and the reason why he was subsequently indefinitely blocked. For nearly a month, his only contributions to Wikipedia were to pursue his dispute with another editor.
Note that even before he was blocked from Wikipedia, he chose to take his show on the road, and made extensive use of our sister project Wikiversity to launch a fresh broadside of attacks (under the usernames Loomis and Lewis) in a venue where Wikipedia's administrators were less likely to take note of his behaviour.
- [5] "Clio, a clearly disturbed individual"; "Clio is INDEED a Nazi Apologist"
- [6] "Eric or Clio or Ten...have skulls that are so damn thick they're absolutely inpenetrable...trying to convince them of the painfully obvious is an impossible task."
- [7] "that spoiled brat of a revisionist historian"; "...he's probably the only one who's actually stupid enough to actually be speaking honestly when he denies the reality that's so obvious to everyone else"; "I'm openly referring to Friday as an imbecile, and Ten as an opportunistic egomaniacal prick"
- [8] "...disgusting and pathetic a person she is"; "she's a disgusting person"; "the obnoxious, conceited disgusting monster she is"
- [9] "Clio pretty much fits the bill as the model New Antisemite"; "She just doesn't come as a "bad" person to me. Yes, she's obnoxious as all hell, completely lacking in social skills, incapable of any form of humility whatsoever, incapable of ever admitting she's wrong, extremely lax when throwing around supposed "facts"...."
Finally, the argument that he should be unblocked since the editor he was harrassing has left the project is specious. As he apparently sees nothing wrong with his previous conduct (the above abuse qualifies as merely rock[ing] the boat a bit, to benefit and improve the quality of Wikipedia), I have little confidence that this problem will not recur the next time he encounters someone with whom he has a disagreement.
It was at Loomis' emailed request that I unprotected this talk page to allow him the opportunity to post – and have considered – an unblock request. I had hoped that he would acknowledge his previous mistakes, or at least recognize that attempting to rehash past disputes would be a fruitless endeavour. It would have been nice to see some awareness that his singleminded focus on Clio wasn't helpful to him or to the project. If he had been prepared to say, "Yes, I blew it a year and a half ago; I got into a badly overblown dispute with another editor; I've learned from it and I won't do it again" then we might have something to work with here.
As it stands, Loomis is attempting (twice in as many days, as he didn't take the hint from the first unblock denial) to resume the exact same debate that got him blocked the last time around. If nearly two years of reflection haven't sufficed to allow Loomis to release his grudges, I don't know what will. As the last blocking admin, I won't turn down the unblock request myself, but I strongly recommend that it be denied. Any admins reviewing this request can feel free to drop me a line if there is need for further background material. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- As the admin requesting this comment - thanks, and I agree with Jehochman's declining the unblock request. Sandstein 15:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- NB: I've restored the original unblock request/denial from the page history for reference. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Rebuttal to Comment From the Original Blocking Admin
First off, my apologies for not mentioning my previous unblock request. It was apparently filed in improper form, and I honestly didn't see any purpose in mentioning it.
"More seriously, Loomis appears to be relying on a lack of 'institutional memory' due to turnover on the project in an attempt to rewrite his own history here." With respect, gratuitous editorial comments such as these are uncalled for.
"The real reason for Loomis51's block is clear from this talk page's history. After repeated, explicit warnings and escalating blocks issued by at least three different editors, Loomis insisted on continuing a campaign of harrassment directed at another Wikipedia editor. For that, he was blocked." With respect, this is a rather gross mischaracterization of events. There simply was no "campaign of harrassment". The pattern is simple. I would politely disagree with the editor in question, upon which she launched a salvo of personal attacks. At first I would consult an Admin, and plead with him to censure her, to no avail. So yes, my frustration got the better of me, and I responeded in kind, leading me to be warned several times, and ultimately blocked.
"See [3] and [4] for the conditions under which his last unblock was issued, and the reason why he was subsequently indefinitely blocked."
These weren't the conditions I discussed with Rockpocket via private email:
"You say that you give me your word that you will respond without bias to whatever concerns I bring up. So I'll take you at your word. I'm fully prepared to be absolutely civil in my behaviour. HOWEVER, DO NOT FORGET THAT YOU GAVE ME YOUR WORD. I give you my word to be civil and you give me your word to be fair. As long as both words are kept, I see no problem and am fully prepared to return. And please do not be concerned that I'll be coming to you to complain about every tiny little insignificant infraction. Only significant concerns will be raised. I suggest that you don't rush to unblock me without giving this agreement full consideration. Only should you be absolutely certain that we are indeed in full agreement, and that you're as prepared to live up to your end of it as I am prepared to live up to mine, do I hereby officially request to be unblocked."
These, in fact were the terms of my unblocking.
Yet Rockpocket did not at all live up to his word. Once again I politely disagreed with one of the editor in question's responses, and yet again she returned with a full salvo personal of attacks. As was my agreement with Rockpoket, I responded with nothing. Instead I made him aware of the attacks, and expected some sort of warning be given to the editor in question, only to be turned a deaf ear.
However the terms of my unblocking were somehow transformed into:
"You will cease and desist from any communication with Clio whatsoever. If you choose to respond the same question as her, or write in the same article, you will do so without any reference, no matter how oblique to her or her answer. Indeed any reference to her here, or on Wikiversity, will result in a block."
"For nearly a month, his only contributions to Wikipedia were to pursue his dispute with another editor." On the contrary, there was nothing I could have wanted more than for the dispute to end so that I can return to contributing.
Of course I didn't contribute anything. I was forbidden from disagreeing were the editor in question in any shape or form, and seeing as she participated in responding to the vast majoriy of questions asked, I was pretty much shut out from the RefDesk.
- All I have to say is that:
- Loomis was not a party to the discussions I had with the other editor in question, and therefore has no idea of how I "kept my word" to be fair in my efforts to keep both editors editing.
- The diffs show that Loomis was not, in any reasonable interpretation, "absolutely civil in [his] behaviour."
- The Ref Desk is not a discussion forum, and therefore expressing agreement or disagreement with other editors is not a necessary (or even encouraged) for full participation. The conditions were clear and fair: Loomis was free to contribute like anyone else so long as he didn't use to it as a forum to perpetuate personal disagreements. The other editor in question agreed to this also, and stuck to it.
- I did not block Loomis (quite the opposite, I unblocked him despite misgivings by other admins, and continued to try and keep him from being reblocked), therefore my actions are somewhat beside the point.
- Rockpocket 17:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Which diffs are you referring to?
Correct, the RefDesk is not a discussion forum, and I don't recall ever expressing any "disagreement" with the editor in question. However the RefDesk is a forum that represnts itself as being factually correct, is it not? If one editor is factually incorrect, or employs a logical fallacy, correcting that incorrect fact or that logical fallacy does not amount to mere disagreement. Should one editor posit that 1+1=3, and another correct that statement by simply stating: "Incorrect. 1+1=2," would you classify this "disagreement" as an innapropriate engagement in "discussion", unsuitable for the RefDesk?
"Loomis was not a party to the discussions I had with the other editor in question." Indeed I was not. However the agreement was that Rockpocket "[Gave] me [his] word that [he] will respond without bias to whatever concerns I bring up." I recieved public censure for my innapropriate behaviour, yet the editor in question did not, for her far more innapropriate behaviour. What is this if not bias? Why was my innapropriate behaviour publicly censured, while hers was not?
Clio: "Lewis Posesses an Almost Total Lack of Intellectual Comprehension".
Not only did Clio not get the mildest of public censure for it, indeed it was in merely asking the question as to why these types of extreme personal attacks against me are allowed without even the mildest of disapproval that ultimately got ME permanently blocked, as constituting what Ten refers to as a "campaign of harrassment".
So I basically asked the question: "Why won't anyone please tell Clio that saying "Lewis Posesses an Almost Total Lack of Intellectual Comprehension" constitutes a personal attack?"
Ten: "In daring to ask that question Lewis is once again continuing with his "campaign of harrassment" against Clio. Lewis must therefore be permanently blocked."
Insanity. Lewis (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
socking
I believe this account has been evading its block as . Jehochman Talk 11:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)