CLCStudent

Confederate Monument (Portsmouth, Virginia)

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Article, may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you.

This user is a member of the
Counter-Vandalism Unit.

NicoARicoA

Yo Ho Ho

Donner60 (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Yo Ho Ho

Denisarona (talk) is wishing a foaming mug of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec20}} to your friends' talk pages.

Apparently...

...yes. Cabayi (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy Chinese New Year!

PohranicniStraze (talk) is sending a festive box of delicious candies! May the new year be happy and prosperous for you!

Wish someone good fortune by adding {{subst:User:PohranicniStraze/ChineseNewYear}} to your friends' talk pages.

Please don't bite the newbies

I was surprised that you did a vandalism warning to new user RebeccaAlvarez, for what was obviously a trivial typo. Was this an automatically generated 'collateral damage' from doing a twinkle rollback? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not finding that warning. Could you please point me to it? CLCStudent (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was unfair and inappropriate. It is still visible at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RebeccaAlverez&oldid=1006350146 --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That was barely a bite. I gave him a level one warning. In other words, I did not threaten him with a block or scream at him. I just told him that his edit did not seem constructive. I do not see how that is biting. CLCStudent (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

For a trivial typo? I'm amazed in that case that every editor on the project hasnt had at least a 100 warnings from you, 1,000 in my case. Lighten up! Anti-vandalism is an important task, please don't devalue it by overreacting to good faith trivia. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Editing Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena page

The information in the current page are not fully accurate and key areas are missing. I represent the person mentioned in the page. Bombaleo Matara (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry

It was accidental. –Kammil (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Some wikis allow organisation accounts - see Commons policy for an example. Please don't report users at WP:UAA if they haven't edited on this wiki. Cabayi (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It is allowed on the Commons Wiki, but it is not allowed on the English Wiki. CLCStudent (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

How do you know which wiki they intend editing until they make their first edit? Cabayi (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

They can be blocked here and still be able to edit another Wiki. CLCStudent (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That's very WP:BITEy. Cabayi (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Per the messages you left on my talk page that you just reverted them

@CLCStudent: (I was typing out this response, and while I was doing so, you reverted your posts on my talk page.) Neither IP had been warned before. Per WP:BEFOREBLOCK, warnings are typically in order before blocking, but not mandatory, and in cases that are more extreme. I don't have time to wait and see, so I suggest you post your concerns to WP:AIV if you haven't already. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello CLCStudent, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve, Happy editing, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 16:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

sorry

sorry about the blanking, my cat walked across my keyboard Daggerfella (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Requesting article expansion help

Greetings

Previously you seem to have engaged with article Islamic hygienical jurisprudence.

Requesting you to visit articles Islamic advice literature and Draft:Aurats (word) and please do expand them if find yourself interested.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Filter stuff

(Continuing our discussion at User talk:2A02:21B0:644C:3B0D:915F:E1F6:E033:6EF3) Again, what method did you use to conclude that this user's edit were unconstructive? The filters they tripped are private. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

And, indeed we've discussed this before. Twice. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I gave a level 1 warning, not level 4. CLCStudent (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

How is that in any way appropriate, given that they weren't vandalizing at all? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

CLCStudent, this is the third time I haven't gotten a direct answer to this very question. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is CLCStudent. Thank you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

TonyBallioni (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This is very disappointing if true, CLC. There are very, very few editors who can rack up over 300,000 edits in five years and I've been happy to help when you asked me for my assistance. I don't think any vandal you referred me to was not indulging in vandalistic edits and your vigilance was 24/7. I'm not privy to the checkuser information but I hope this can be straightened out. It's startling to think that one of our best vandal-fighters was "editing abusively".

My recommendation is that the only way out of this is to be absolutely truthful, even if it reflects badly upon you. Being honest, being forthcoming about what you've done and taking responsibility for it is the only way you can return to editing. If you find these actions too hard to do, then it's time to find yourself another hobby. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly shocked about this. Whatever happened, you were certainly one of the top anti-vandalism patrollers. Steve M (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I was surprised to see you blocked for "abusing multiple accounts." You're one of, if not, THE best at vandal fighting. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 02:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I will be honest. I had abused accounts in 2015 and got blocked. I was messing around with no clear direction kind of trying to test boundaries. Later that year, I began my first year of college. From there, I would do my editing while in school (on their IP address) during my breaks in classes. Since then, I had changed and learned to contribute constructively. I had also edited things on the Richard Spencer article because I felt it was too opinionated. For that one, I was trying to do a good thing and stop drama, but I keep being accused of whitewashing when all I am trying to do is help. CLCStudent (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, that is a good start. Now, that I'm looking into this, I see I posted a similar message to you at User talk:Studentaccountantghost4 a few years ago.

It seems to me that you've turned your editing here 180 degrees from your work back in 2015/2016 and are a productive editor although you could respond better when editors have questions about your decisions. But only a checkuser can unblock you now but, if it was up to me, I'd want to know, were these multiple accounts all from the past when you were a teenager? Or did it continue once you created CLCStudent? I think that if it continued, that is what you'll need to explain now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The abusive accounts were from before my current account. As for my Richard Spencer edits, I can agree to engage in further discussion about it on the talkpage as opposed to just reverting over and over, but that, I still have concerns about. CLCStudent (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You’re downplaying what happened here. You were blocked because you were on a multi-year campaign, which you had been warned about or blocked for multiple times on various different IPs to downplay a fringe point of view in an article. These are actions that you would likely have been indefinitely blocked for if you had done them on your account. You have continued to do them even recently. Why did you edit logged out even after creating an account? It’s because you knew this. That is evasion of scrutiny, which is something you knew as you regularly reported people for violations of our policies. You’d also been blocked for socking before, and yes, that was years ago, but while I might be willing to turn a blind eye to it on its own, it also means you should already know the expectations of the sock policy.

My view is essentially this: if we’d likely have indefinitely blocked someone for actions they took while logged out, we shouldn’t be more forgiving because they tried to hide it from us. It’s not just the logged out editing. It’s that the logged out edits were problematic. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I do admit that I did it while logged out to avoid being detected because I knew that I would get in trouble for it. The reason I was willing to do it was because I felt that it was wrong to call somebody a neo-nazi and white supremecist. Again, I admin that I completely went against policies here. I was just so disturbed by that to the point that I felt the need to do something. For that, a resolution would have been to use my account and to use the talkpage for it instead of edit-warring. CLCStudent (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

So you admit that you knowingly edited logged out for years to whitewash the page of a neo-nazi and white supremacist, knowing it was against our policies, and even edit warred in order to do so. You only admitted to this after you were blocked for it and evading your original blocks. In my view, waiting 6 months before considering an appeal would probably be the best route here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That I can agree to. CLCStudent (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

CLCStudent, I hope you have a better time outside of Wikipedia. I will miss your edits. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 04:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Definitely come back in six months, and please please learn from this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the worst surprise to wake up to - please do take up the WP:SO after 6 months. You're abscence is going to be felt, especially within recent changes patrollers. Pahunkat (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@CLCStudent: I will add my voice to all those who are encouraging you to PLEASE come back as soon as your block ends. @TonyBallioni: And I would encourage you Tony to PLEASE consider reducing the length of the block. Paul August ☎ 14:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m not going to reduce the length of a block for a multi-year logged out editing campaign to whitewash an article on a neo-nazi and white supremacist. There’s no amount of good work that makes up for the damage that causes or the betrayal of community trust involved. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Saying "There’s no amount ..." is surely hyperbole. However you would quantify the "damage" done here, it's certainly finite. So some amount of good work would in principle out weigh it. Paul August ☎ 15:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I wasn’t using hyperbole. He’s whitewashing a Nazi using IP addresses so we don’t know it’s him. It’s extremely hard to come back from that point. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: The point I'm trying to argue for here is that what should guide us in such decisions is an unemotional rational pragmatic cost-benefit calculus. Put the amount of "good" done on one side of the scale, and the amount "bad" done and on the other, and see how they compare. From the many testimonials I've seen, I have a reasonable idea of the amount of "good" done (apparently thousands upon thousands of vandals dealt with). So I'm asking again how would you quantify the "bad"? All we seem to know for sure is that CLCStudent violated our socking policies. That is bad. But how bad? Especially if they stop. Has any of their edits (which you claim are whitewashing, they presumably disagree) had any lasting impact on the article in question? If not what "damage" have they done to our articles? And more importantly what "good" vs "bad" ratio should we expect from them going forward — greater than one? Paul August ☎ 15:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Paul August, Why do we have a policy on multiple accounts anyway? What if we got rid of it. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 17:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No, socking is generally bad. We don't want to get rid of the policy. See WP:SOCK. Paul August ☎ 19:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@NASCARfan0548: It's because they can be easily abused. Not all alternate accounts are bad or prohibited (see WP:VALIDALT); however, in this case the alternate account usage seems to be avoiding scrutiny — an inappropriate use per the policy on sockpuppetry. The policy is in place so that people cannot use alternate accounts to disrupt the project. Most illegitimate uses are listed at WP:BADSOCK. These include avoiding sanctions (blocks or bans) with another account, manipulating a discussion to gain support, and avoiding scrutiny of one's main account. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 19:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paul August: All we seem to know for sure is that CLCStudent violated our socking policies. Falsely understated. 1) Socking. 2) Edit-warring. 3) Pushing a neo-Nazi-sympathetic agenda. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if all that were true, it doesn't change anything with regard to my argument. Paul August ☎ 19:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This situation seems to be similar to Edgar181 in the way both accounts were used for many years without being caught by the method used to say if they used multiple accounts or not. Whether or not different people from the same network have created these accounts is another thing. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Unbelievable... GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:15, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Iggy the Swan, I remember that too. That happened in December 2019, when Edgar181 was still an admin. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 21:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Even the most experienced admins have had this problem before. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 21:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I was the one who discovered that Edgar181 was socking. Him doing it is not an excuse to allow everyone to do it. Also, most admins don’t sock. It’s fairly rare it happens. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This is most definitely a surprise to me. CLCStudent is one of the few Wikipedia editors that I could remember seemingly editing in a very useful manner across a vast variety of pages, and one of the few non-admins I can remember by name. Socking still remains socking though, and not even the greatest wealth will save you. I hope you'll be able to learn from your mistakes and acknowledge the grave nature of them (whitewashing is highly inappropriate and breaches WP:NPOV), contribute positively on some other Wikimedia projects, e.g. the Simple English Wikipedia or Commons, and then take the standard offer afterwards. If you don't feel like you're capable of doing so, I wish you good luck in your future endeavors outside of Wikilandia. KevTYD (wake up) 23:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed — I'm rather new here, but I have seen CLCStudent's helpful contributions multiple times and was shocked when I saw this. I sincerely hope he returns at some point. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 00:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

On one hand, there's the consideration of WP:UNBLOCKABLES - but I don't see why the WP:SO should not apply here. Six months is plenty of time and if they avoid contributing in the meantime and return, I think it would be safe to say they've learned from their mistakes. Possibly a topic-ban on editing areas related to right-wing politics, broadly construed, would be appropriate, if this is still a concern. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 01:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a related discussion on my talk page here, where Oshwah and I were dealing with the fall out of what I now believe to be CLCStudent editing logged out. I'm also wondering if Oshwah's indirect mention of CLCStudent in that conversation was simply a co-incidence? I want an amazingly good explanation from CLCStudent why my viewpoint there : "This is not just common or garden vandalism, this is a Nazi sympathiser trying to whitewash Wikipedia with sockpuppets." is wrong before I will begin to consider an unblock. WP:NONAZIS. PS: To all those who'd like to see CLCStudent unblocked "because he does good work", would you agree to an unblock of Eric Corbett for the same reason? {Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, as far as I can see, no one is arguing that CLCStudent should be unblocked unconditionally. Paul August ☎ 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think many editors would like to see Eric Corbett unblocked! But there has always been a huge problem here; on the one hand, some editors are highly productive and it could be argued that there many positive contributions vastly out-weigh their negative ones; but on the other hand, their editing has been significantly problematic to the community. I don't believe that this is dichotomy has ever been satisfactorily resolved by the community, except on a case-by-case basis.

Anyway CLCStudent thanks a lot for all your work, wishing you the best however this works out. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That may have been partly Ritchie333's point. Sure there plenty who would happy with such an unblock. But also many who would not. And I'm sure a bunch who want to see CLCStudent unblocked probably fit into the no way camp for EC. So perhaps they can better see why plenty feel the same for CLCStudent. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

To make a potential unblock request review easier if CLCStudent decides to go the standard offer route: Here is a permalink to the ANI discussion. It may also make sense to list some specific IPs; while CUs cannot comment on them, it seems clear based on behaviour and geolocation that the following ones have been used by CLCStudent:

• 2601:246:CF80:67F0:0:0:0:0/64 (note the block log)
• 99.53.112.186 (block log)
• 73.110.34.139
• 173.161.79.86
• 50.196.219.133

Best, Blablubbs|talk 13:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Second chance?

CLCStudent has made enormous positive contributions to the encyclopedia, and in my view, that means we should do everything we can to make possible such continued positive contributions going forward. CLCStudent has said that they suffer from ASD. Which can cause sever problems regarding communication. This could explain a lot, including possibly the charges of being "a Nazi sympathiser". (@Ritchie333: This would also make an amazingly good explanation difficult). They have also said that they now understand that what they did was wrong, and I believe them. I guess that is what it comes down to, I believe them. To me this means we should give them a second chance. If it were up to me I'd do it now, provided I got the necessary assurances. But if not now then in six months (via WP:SO), (@TonyBallioni: or sooner if possible). If I am right about them, then not doing so will be shooting ourselves in the foot. Paul August ☎ 14:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paul August: If you keep this up, I'll file against you at WP:AN/I. ——Serial 14:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a flat out NO from me, forever. This was wilful, deceitful and contemptful behaviour. CLCStudent was already a problematic editor before this started - poor communication, shotgun reporting of anybody they took a dislike to at AIV and some really quite bizarre editing disputes, above. I'd be wanting a delay to unblock if we were only discussing the editing conduct of this one single account. When you add in long term block evasion (which they freely admit to was done to avoid sanctions) and the question of are they a Nazi sympathiser, I really don't see how they can be permitted to return if we want to keep blocking as any sort of meaningful measure to prevent disruption. If we let CLCStudent back, even after six months, we'll let pretty much anybody else back and that makes the blocking policy sterile. Nick (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Paul August, CLCStudent has not just been edit-warring over what to call Richard Spencer, but has also been evading not one but four active blocks since 2015, while also editing logged out basically the entire time. Blablubbs|talk 15:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paul August: While I agree that CLCStudent has certainly contributed greatly, the severity of his actions suggests that anything more lenient than the standard offer is unlikely. He has not only edit warred, but done so using illicit sockpuppet IPs to violate neutrality about a living person. I do believe that there is a path back with eventual consensus between TonyBalloni (the blocking admin) and the community; however, I similarly believe that CLCStudent should wait at least six months, if not longer, before requesting an unblock. Twassman | Talk | Contribs 21:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

CLC Student has removed their unblock request, and indicated that they can accept waiting six months. I really don't see how continuing discussion here is helpful.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

While technically this is just a CU block at the moment so the community isn't involved, and it's complicated by IP involvement meaning the editor has to give up some privacy if they are going to admit to all they've done for the community to evaluate, I think the chances you'll get any agreement without a minimum of following the SO is close to zero. Even if you put aside the Nazi issue, from what I read this isn't just someone who made a few ill-advised logged out !votes or something. Instead someone who's editing while logged out was disruptive enough to warrant many blocks of those IPs along with page protection and careful monitoring. And it's been going on for several years. Ironically the editor's experience counts against an immediate block IMO. It's much harder to believe they've just suddenly realised why their behaviour was so damaging when they have the experience that they do. Nil Einne (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I just want to clear up the whole nazi sympathizer issue. I do NOT support Nazies at ALL. The reason for my edits there was because the content that was there can cause a lot of outrage. We just cannot have that kind of drama on an encyclopedia. I wanted to stick with what is factual and important. I admit that the editing away from my account and the evasion of my previous blocks are things that I cannot defend, and I will definitely take that as a learning experience no matter where things go from here. As for the Richard Spencer edits, I will try to think about how I could have handled that situation differently, but it can take time for me to fully come around on that issue. Thank you. CLCStudent (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

While you've done a lot of valuable counter-vandalism work, statements like this are just digging your hole deeper. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that I am not a nazi supporter by any mean, and I want to make that clear before we proceed with anymore discussion. CLCStudent (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I can accept your assertion that you are not a Nazi sympathiser, CLCS, but you have to understand when people see you whitewashing the description of someone described in the press as a neo-Nazi, that behaviour looks a lot like sympathy. That said, out of respect for you, I don't want to cause you any additional stress about it, so I'm backing away from this conversation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I am starting to see that. Maybe it would have helped if I had given better explanations in those edit summaries to help people understand my intentions. My intentions were to delete anything that may cause outrage. I never intended to promote a nazi propaganda of any kind. I am realizing based on this conversation how bad it probably looked. I do apologize for giving the impression that I sympathize with nazis when that couldn’t be further from the truth. I admit that I knew I was edit warring (that is why I edited logged out), but I didn’t realize the extent of how bad it looked. CLCStudent (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is though that Richard B. Spencer is a white supremacist and neo-nazi. He is the one provoking outrage (not the people calling a spade a spade). You do know that right? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

CLCStudent, The problem is not just that you were edit-warring the description of Richard Spencer; indeed, if you'd been doing that as CLCStudent and left a message on the talk page explaining why you'd done it, I wouldn't have advocated any administrator action. The problem was that you were doing it logged out on an IP with no other edits and no other explanation. That meant that the edit-warring on that IP was technically indistinguishable from a pro Spencer POV pusher seeking to pick a fight.

I'm saying this because I don't want to give the impression I decided you were a pro-Nazi editor out of malice or because I decided to give you a hard time after this block. Anyway, I think you've now learned how important communication and explaining yourself are; unfortunately as others have said, it's come too late to be able to do anything that's going to get consensus at this time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Look, I get where you are coming from, but we're in one of those situations where you don't have the benefit of the doubt. You're pretty clearly not going to be unblocked here any time soon. You're best bet is the WP:SO like everyone else told you, and if you get unblocked in six months you will be incredibly lucky even then. A lot of people who like you (like myself) feel incredibly betrayed by what you have done, and while I want to see you succeed.. that has to be balanced against the reckless disregard you have shown this community by acting as you have. Don't get me wrong, I'm relieved you admitted it instead of denying everything like most in your position would. It's just.. it's a sore spot right now.
I have to imagine you are free to join the m:SWMT and the like if you want to still productively contribute to wikis, but that still carries the risk of you doing something similar to this and getting globally locked. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t really know anything about Richard Spencer other than what I have read here. I do want to sincerely apologize for the betrayal that I have caused. Everything I have done here since those other blocks has been with the intent to support the missions that Wikipedia is meant to accomplish. I realize now that by trying to help, I have betrayed a lot of people, and I feel horrible about that. I do not expect an unblock anytime soon and understand I may not even be welcomed back here. I just want to say in case this is it that it has been a pleasure contributing here for the time I have. Unfortunately, it looks like at least for now, it is time for me to move on. I have learned a lot from being here (that includes far more than this very situation here and now). I wish each and every one of you luck both on and off Wikipedia. I am very sorry it has to end this way, but I hope I can leave here on a positive note. Thank you CLCStudent (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"My intentions were to delete anything that may cause outrage"--well, that backfired spectacularly. And I don't even accept it: they are exactly the kinds of edits that you've reverted, by the thousands. If you want to delete things that cause outrage, you might could just delete racism, in real life, or something like that. Yes, I also am very disappointed, and not just because I discovered that I blocked one of your whitewashing IPs back in 2019 already. If you are to come back, you should address all of the points brought up here, including the salient point that the edits you made are completely contrary to Wikipedia policy, both in content and in motivation, and that if you don't understand that, and can convince your audience that you do, you are simply not competent to edit Wikipedia. Plenty of people including me have sometimes questioned your judgment in your reverts and other matters--well, here's all the evidence you need. I can't even bring myself to say "good luck and I hope to see you back", because whitewashing for a Nazi while betraying the people you work with every day, that's about as low as it gets. I suppose I hope you can climb out of that hole, but not until you understand what Nazis and neo-Nazis are and what they do. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Look, I totally agree that it was very wrong for me to edit using IP addresses to avoid detection. I also should have educated myself better on the subject matter. I am not fully aware of the reasons behind the gravity of how my edits were interpreted, but I swear that my intentions were always pure. I know that good intentions cannot make up for the conscious decision that I made to go against Wikipedia policy. I know that neo-nazism is bad, but I want to make sure everyone knows that I did not have dirty intentions. This was a case of me seeing something that I felt needed to be corrected and going about it completely the wrong way and thus, betraying several people. Again, I am not expecting to get unblocked anytime soon, but I want to make sure I am not known for being a Nazi sympathizer because I do NOT support Nazism AT ALL. I was not trying to defend this man's behavior by any means. I was just trying to make it appropriate for an encyclopedia, and my judgement on that matter was completely flawed. CLCStudent (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@CLCStudent: I for one believe you when you say you are not a Nazi sympathiser. I also believe that you were, in your view, simply trying to make that article more neutral. I also know that reasonable people can disagree about such things. But such a disagreement, involving an extremely emotional issue like Nazism, can often lead to unfortunate consequences, as I beleive it has in this case. For all of that I am very sorry. I hope you will be able to edit again.

And to those who feel a sense of personal betrayal, I understand that, it's natural that you should. But I hope you won't let such personal issues cloud your judgement as to what is best for our encyclopedia.

Paul August ☎ 20:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey CLC, I'm very late to this (been very busy at work) and only just seen this discussion. I just wanted to say that I also believe that you're not a Nazi sympathiser. I know that I've had words with you before regarding how you warn users and report to AIV, however I do believe that you can be a good editor. I hope that we see you back in the not too distant future. I would suggest that you read the link to the Standard Offer that MJL provided above as that is very helpful. Gives you lots of advice etc. All the best for now :)-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. One other thing that I think I should add is that I realize how important it is not to go against rules even if I think it is for the greater good because I see how it can lead to situations like this. You all have my sincere apologies. This is another one of those lessons that I will take wherever I go in life whether it be here or some place else. CLCStudent (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I will check my talkpage daily until Sunday, so if anybody has anything else that they want to add, please so now. CLCStudent (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I have one small bit of advice. Talk more. Explain your actions better in your edit summaries, in posts to talk pages, and in your AIAV reports. I don't suggest becoming long-winded -- FSM knows we have too much of that from certain other editors -- but I would have wanted to see that "My intentions were to delete anything that may cause outrage" argument made at the time the edit was made. That would have shut down any suspicions that you were promoting Nazism (Naziizm?) and only made up the outrage argument when you got caught. I am not saying that is what happened -- you seem sincere and have never shown signs of that in your other edits -- but an explanation made at the time would have made your intentions crystal clear. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Now I did leave some comments at Talk:Richard Spencer and Talk:Richard B. Spencer at the time of some of the edits trying to explain myself in case anybody wants to read those. CLCStudent (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I just read a little about neo-nazis, and I am horrified at what I have read. I realize that they are a group that goes after minorities and promotes hatred. That goes against all of my core beliefs. I am also reading more into Richard B. Spencer, and I realize that he made his career based on being a neo-nazi, and I see now why the fact that he is one needed to be in there. I am horrified at what I am reading about him, and now understand that listing him merely as a publisher and author is a denial of significant facts. I am seeing more and more why my edits were interpreted the way they were. I feel even worse about my behavior now because I realize I was inadvertently hiding somebody's horrid behavior. Now I realize another thing I should have done which is to actually read the article and then decide whether or not the description of him was appropriate. If I had thoroughly read the article, I would have agreed that it needs to be in there. I realize now that this was not a case of him making one or two comments and people rushing to judgement (which is the case way too often), this is ideology he has been promoting his entire career. I do believe that I still have more to learn, but I am starting to understand more and more why people were so offended by my actions aside from the fact that I eluded everyone for such a long time. I will re-iterate that I am not seeking to get unblocked right now, I am just trying to make sure we all understand eachother properly to clear up any misjudgements. CLCStudent (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)