Jump to content

User talk:Scottperry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scottperry (talk | contribs) at 16:01, 2 September 2022 (→Unblock request #6: tweak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk-page. Please leave any comments you may wish to discuss with me here, and I will be happy to respond.

apologies

You don't need to apologize to me, as you haven't offended me. I have to admit that our interaction hasn't left me with a very positive view of you, but I'm not above admitting that a willingness to apologize does a lot to counteract that. So thank you. In turn, allow me to offer my apologies if I offended you. I didn't mean anything I said to be taken as an attack upon you personally. I've always been of the opinion that very good editors are capable of making very bad edits, myself included. I felt that your initial edit was very objectionable for the reasons I described at the talk, but that is not to say that I found you, personally, objectionable. I also found some fault with your approach to discussion at talk, but I have noticed that you immediately changed your approach. The offering of an apology is a 180° turn and above reproach. I told you that you were not welcome at my talk page because the exchange between us was generating more heat than light, and wasn't going to be productive at all. Please understand that I have been, and remain perfectly willing to discuss the content with you at the talk page. For now, I would appreciate it if we limited our interaction to that page, and I'll not likely respond further here. In the future however, I would not object if you commented on my talk page about a different matter. I just don't want to listen to another editor repeatedly tell me that I attacked them personally because I had a lot of criticism for one of their edits. That's not the sort of discussion that will do anything but cause a disruption. FYI The changes you made since Kleuske last reverted you looked perfectly good to me. I don't think the initial grammar was much worse, but I can see the improvement, nonetheless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mpant, I welcome your future input on that page, I thank you for your conditional readmission to your talk page, and I respect your posting here immensely. Scott P. 02:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste move

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Help:Wiki markup a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history. If there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. [User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter] 10:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Prime Hunter,
I see you've kindly fixed the history, page protection, and a few other things for the Help:Wikitext page that my recent cut and paste move "messed up." I thank you for that and am quite glad for your help there. I haven't done a cut and paste page move like that for probably 10 years (at least that I can remember.) Should I ever again feel that a similar "page-move" might be called for, but blocked by old redirects as that one was, I will certainly attempt to go through the "channels" as you have advised.
As I'm sure you're aware, back in the "Wild West Days" of Wikipedia, there was often less attention paid to such moves. It's good to know that at least there's a greater "semblance" of law and order around these parts these days, and that folks like yourself are patiently helping to make that possibility a reality. Again thanks.
Sincerely,
Scott P. 16:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from spamming other editors' talk pages

Information icon If it takes you thirty edits to compose a message on someone's talk page, please compose that message offline before posting it on a Wikipedian's talk page. Editors who receive email notifications will receive notifications for each edit you make. This has the effect of spamming an editor's inbox and may be perceived as disruptive editing. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your patience then with the emails I apparently mistakenly generated, and I apologize if they may have been disruptive for you. I had forgotten that that feature was even available, and if I ever post on your talk page again I will certainly bear that in mind and be more careful. Scott P. (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continued from your talk page

Please note: The following conversation is meant by myself to initially be an "exclusive" conversation between Corbie Vreccan and myself, should Corbie wish to discuss here. It is a continuation of an earlier discussion at Corbie's own talk page. The conversation may be opened up to others by either one of us at a later point below. Thanks, 21:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


<Excerpt below is last segment of conversation copied from Corbie Vreccan's talk page>

The Legend of the Rainbow Warriors article is not about the hippie group, The Rainbow Family, it's about the fakelore itself, which has been traced to that book as the source. So you misunderstand when you write that Niman is calling that particular hippie group, "Christian." The book and the legend have Christian underpinnings, as opposed to Indigenous ones; the point of the fake prophechy is anti-Indigenous and evangelical. The issue is not whether it fits your preferred subset of Christianity, but that the legend does not have an Indigenous origin. There are some legends that have similar names and motifs (a rainbow, for instance), but those legends do not contain the central, harmful message that white people will replace Indigenous people in their own lands and cultures. That is the essence of the fakelore prophecy.

Re-read the article about the Legend again, on its own merits, without mistakenly assuming the book was written about the hippie group. Members of Wikiproject Indigenous work on the article, myself included, and Indigenous writers are quoted in the article.... ... - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First to clarify: I'm attempting to carry out this conversation here because I felt that the "preachy-diatribe" tone of the "Legend..." article needs to be discussed and agreed upon somewhere between just Corbie and myself first in a less formal setting than the article talk page.
Our article titled Fakelore should cover Fakelore, no? Shouldn't an article about a legend first introduced in what I think is the seminal book of the Rainbow Tribe at least be somewhat about the Rainbow Tribe, and the misappropriation that particular group has made of Native American religions? I have now "fixed" the "Christian" part of Niman's article in the Fakelore article
here.
I wonder what you might think of this edit? I see what you are saying about Fakelore, and I thank you for pointing out to me this rather significant problem. I now don't question the potentially harmful effects of it at all. I'm not saying that the article should not point out the potentially harmful effects of Fakelore. I'm now only saying that by allowing the article to point this out in a more balanced and impartial way, I believe the article could be a much more powerful article.
Some editors believe that it is better not to list erroneous ideas in Wikipedia at all, even if such ideas are held by significant numbers of people. Personally, it seems to me that the best way to refute a bad idea held by many is to expose it to the light of day. Allow its backers to speak, but also allow those with the proof to refute it to speak. If they have the proof, they will carry the argument. Whenever a significant number of folks adhere to a bad idea, personally I don't believe that censorship is a good idea. Then perhaps calm and well stated debate and reason will work best.
Scott P. (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC) (Notify:@CorbieVreccan:)[reply]
PS: Will reply tomorrow
Stick to the sources, not your WP:OR. The prophecy article is one thing. The hippie groups is another. Keep them separate. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Might the "prophesy" be significantly associated with anyone else besides the group? Scott P. (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have just reverted my edit to the Fakelore page so that it again claims that the Rainbow Warriors book is a "Christian tract," when the tract specifically refutes the core tenet of Christianity, the resurrection, and it asks nobody to profess Christiany. I give up. You win. I apologize. I don't see what else to say to you at this point, other than good luck to you in whatever you may do. Unless you might initate contact with me yourself again, I will be happy to refrain from "bothering you" again. I apologize for bothering you, and for my clumsiness here.Scott P. (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Francis Schonken (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block announcement- Oct 13, 2017

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for attempting to blackmail another editor into self-reverting..
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  CIreland (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Unblock requests

Unblock request #1, (via UTRS and here, Oct. 13, 2017)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Scottperry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19486 was submitted on Oct 13, 2017 12:40:48. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the reviewing admin:

CIreland (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: All edits below by Scott Perry were posted with his mistaken belief that a review was still under way.) Scott P. (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This block was apparently issued at approximately the same time that I stated my rationale for offering not to divulge user user:Francis Schonken's sockpuppetry to degrade the Course in Miracles article. Francis naturally rephrased my offer that if he left the article alone, I would not divulge this, as a "threat." He apparently requested a speedy block against me, hoping that I would not be given the chance to reveal his sock-puppetry against that article using TheRedPenOfDoom as a sock puppet, before I was given a chance to speak for myself there. Just after I clicked "Save" to my changes at the request for the block, I found I was blocked. His sock-puppetry, and his ability to have a 13 year editor blocked in minutes, without even being given a chance to defend himself, has totally amazed me. Francis, please don't deny the obvious, any careful comparison of contribution logs shows the sock puppetry. Yes, your "Doom-puppet" stopped contributing about the time of its last block in 2015, but that puppet did great harm to that article, and even thumbed its nose at Jimbo Wales who also complained about that puppet's edits to that article at the time! Forsooth!! Scott P. (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Maybe my 13 years here is my lucky number. My freedom from this somewhat insane place. If so I will certainly not cry.

  • Already replied here – for clarity: yes, that was exactly the reason why you were blocked (you tried to coerce me by threatening to reveal something, and then went on with revealing something that didn't make any sense but was nonetheless formulated as an accusation against me). Still repeating the same (as you do above) might ultimately get you your talk page access revoked. At least it seems best to oversight the wild accusation above, and revoke your talk page access if and when it would ever return here or anywhere else. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, denial as usual. How foolish do you think the rest of us are? How many other sock-puppets have you conjured up to have things your way over the years? This should be interesting. Scott P. (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone bothers to check this out, it would seem to me that you and I should rightly be switching places my friend, but we shall see. Scott P. (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Truth, over time has a way of finding its way to the surface. Does that statement concern you, or reassure you? Scott P. (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My behavior was within the normal bounds of Wikipedia behavior to insist that Francis at least give rational answers to my questions before reverting the lead to essentially a mass of info about negative criticisms and irrelevant copyright data. So now the article lead has been reverted back to a mass of critical and confusing info, 100% critical of the book, with no reasonable explanation for the reversion, other than claims like describing the fact that the authors were psychologists is "puffery" and other such nonsense. If they were priests or garbage truck drivers, that would be just as relevent to the lead. So, at any rate, an editor who insisted upon a rationale for such a reversion is now apparently blocked for life, and an article about a topic that has received probably about an equal amount of praise as criticism, is now described here as complete rubbish (lead and reception sections), and all of this via the instrumentality of a clear sock-puppeteer. I rest my case for upholding the integrity of that article, despite being threatened with this block. Scott P. (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were right Francis I supose, the comments are better in their original sequence. Scott P. (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I give up and if resign here I must, so will I do. I just realized that there are only the last 9 months of Doom's edits that synchronze quite nicely with Francis.' I'm a fool. Adios to all. Scott P. (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, the above remarks suggest you have not understood why you have been blocked.

  • You have not been blocked for accusing another editor of sockpuppetry. That's not to say that the ludicrous accusation in question is something to be approved of. But it is not why you are blocked.
  • You have been blocked for attempting to use blackmail to influence article content. Even if the allegations were true (which they patently are not) or if the allegations were of something much more real-world serious, it would still be wholly unacceptable to leverage the threat of disclosure to dictate article content.

I see you appealed the block via UTRS. Because you continue to have the ability to edit your user talk page, you would usually be expected to appeal in the first instance on this user talk page. You can do that by adding {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to this page. If you wish to appeal, but need technical help to do so, leave a note on this page and I or another editor will assist you. CIreland (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CIreland,
I thank you kindly for your offer of assistance above. I can see now that any appeal, that would not require my in some way bowing down before what I will call the currently evolving "Wikipedia belief system" would be pointless. I have written a brief "WIKI-SUICIDE NOTE" below to help try and explain what I mean here by "the currently evolving Wikipedia belief system." Thanks though CIreland for the offer, Scott P. (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Contemporary42

This user has been blocked for block evasion by Scottperry. Just Chilling (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I first read the above post I had the wrong impression, so just to make everything clear - Contemporary42 has been blocked as a sock of the editor Scottperry. Shearonink (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:System-security-test and Static IP

Checking User:Scottperry's logs turned up this alternate account as well. Due to the user's already trying to evade the block with the Contemporary42 account, it seemed best to indef-block all known alts. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(After removing personal data about myself that others had posted here....) I would very much appreciate it if WP editors did not go about publishing my personal information on my own talk page. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note after user edited out the IP link: I will let the editor remove the IP link from this view, but: Intentionally editing while logged out, if done to avoid connecting edits to one's registered account, is also considered socking. Scottperry, you are the one who revealed your IP, through using it as an alt account. I hid the actual IP from casual view here. Had your logged-out edits only been a minor slip, it would have been ignored and totally hidden if no policy violations were involved. But the massive amounts of edits made from the IP, then using the IP talk as a sandbox, look like a clear attempt at using the IP as an alternate account; hence my decision to include it in the block, and my decision to note it here for other admins to see. I will leave it up to admin review if any other admin wants to revert Scottperry and make the links visible again, and/or add the IP to the socks list. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

Talk page access is maintained for blocked users solely to enable them to appeal their block. I nearly revoked your access in view of your comments above. However, your essay of self-justification is an inappropriate use of this page and I have removed it and revoked your access. Any further appeal would need to go to WP:UTRS. Just Chilling (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BALAATS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:BALAATS. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:BALAATS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. FallingGravity 21:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request #2, (via UTRS, Mar. 10, 2019)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Scottperry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24253 was submitted on Mar 10, 2019 17:14:30. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request #3, (via UTRS, Oct. 19, 2019)

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Scottperry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #27213 was submitted on Oct 19, 2019 22:24:53. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request at UTRS, I have restored your TPA so that you may make an appeal here.-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 5 albert square for restoring my TPA, and for advising me to resubmit my Unblock-Request on my talk-page. Will now do.
Scott P. (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request #4, (via discussion here, Oct. 22, 2019)

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).

Scottperry (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The initial reason for my block, as I understand it, was due to my unduly coercive behavior towards user:Francis Schonken in 2017. Prior to this one mistake of mine, I had been a WP editor for 13 years without a single block. I fully recognize and take responsibility for this mistake, and I sincerely apologize for it. As such, after not making a single edit to WP since Mar. 11, 2019 (over 6 months) and I would like to now make this request for the clemency of a second chance to have the wonderful and great privilege of editing the world's leading source of information once again.

  • (Petitioner's note regarding user:One passer by: I did edit under the registered name of “user:One passer by,” after my block and prior to March 11, but, out of my respect for correct and proper WP policies and rules, in March I decided I no longer felt comfortable editing here under such circumstances, and as such I then intentionally allowed my use of my “counter-policy ID” to be known when I last appealed in March of this year (via the UTRS system). I was then advised that I should wait another 6 months with absolutely no edits under any user name, and then if still interested in editing here, re-submit my appeal. Thus today’s re-submission of my appeal.) Scott P. (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra 16:25, 22 October 2019 (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.

  • Additional petitioner's notes regarding block evasions in first week after block, and misc: Immediately after my block, I must also 'confess' that I did indeed evade my block several times via various IP's etc, for the express purpose of 'apologizing' to all. As I had been blocked even on this talk page, and I felt it was then important to make such apologies before leaving this matter, I took the liberty of making these 'unauthorized apologies.' Personally, I remain glad that I did, as attempting to force me to leave my main user-id, being essentially treated as some sort of a 'mute scoundrel,' (see my user page) simply seemed a bit overly 'draconian' to me.
  • Administrative errata: The one user, user:Dcenters who is listed as a suspected sock-puppet of mine, is somebody with whom I have no known connection, and is no sock-puppet of mine.
  • Sentiments: After taking the prescribed 6 months of full leave over the last several months, I now realize how nice it was to be away from WP, and accordingly, I will be more than happy to fully abide by the outcome of this appeal process, whatever it may be, this time. Had I wanted, I could have merrily gone on my way, using my user-id one-passer-by, continuing to intentionally evade detection, had I wanted, but I felt this was not in my basic 'character,' so I decided to allow for detection, and to try to set this matter straight (or leave it crooked, as the case may be) once and for all. I have now sort of lost much of my 'appetite' for WP, and now feel no need to edit here any longer if genuinely no longer wanted. You have my word, I will not create any further socks to edit here this time, if my 'disappearance' here is what you really want at this time, then that is what you will get here.
Scott P. (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC) (Note: This edit is out of chronological sequence, but was placed here for better logical flow.)[reply]
I have no prejudice whether the user should be unblocked at this point in time or not. A few thoughts nonetheless:
  • "unduly coercive behavior" is a bit vague. One can exhibit such behaviour without exceeding the bounds of approved methods (e.g. trying to coerce a co-editor unduly via private e-mail). One can exhibit such behaviour using some more questionable methods (e.g. sailing close to the wind of WP:AGF/WP:NPA restrictions). We had some of both of these methods, but the actual block reason was trying to coerce by completely out of bound methods. I'm not sure Scottperry recognises that it were the out of bound methods ("attempting to blackmail" according to the blocking admin) which led to the instant block.
  • The lighter forms of coercive behaviour can lead to a block too: by the blast of the out of bound methods the lesser blockable offences received, at the time, no further attention. Let's not forget that Scottperry was blocked during a procedure exposing their edit-warring (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive352#User:Scottperry reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result: Indef)). The concluding admin deemed the edit-warring as small potatoes compared to the coercion attempt, nonetheless it can not be excluded that without the coercive behaviour the 3RR might have led to a block too. The fact that Scottperry thus far only recognises "one mistake" (my bolding) doesn't seem too encouraging regarding their self-awareness. Further, that Scottperry was blocked, then continued the behaviour, which led to their talk page access being revoked seems at least more than a single error.
  • The "One passer by" sock has over 700 edits: true, over six months ago. Whether that plays to the user's advantage (700 apparently mostly unproblematic edits), or their disadvantage (quite substantial socking) I couldn't say but it seems remarkable.
  • The problems that led to Scottperry's block originated at the A Course in Miracles page (and its talk page). Would Scottperry be OK with steering clear of that topic for a sizeable amount of time, e.g. only returning there after, say, six months of constructive editing elsewhere?
--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Francis for your more than generous proposal, which I would be happy to abide by, were that asked of me.
Scott P. (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Francis, Just trying to clarify: I now recognize that it was a "foolish mistake" of mine to have made such a harsh assumption about you two years ago, without first making a "good faith" effort to discuss this with you privately, and I thank you for the quite generous sentiment you have expressed just above. I must personally admit, there are some things about WP that seem to me to be in need of improvement, such as the levels of transparency and accountability, but this is no reflection on any one individual. This is what I am beginning to sense must be more of a "systemic problem," which may have to be dealt with some day on a "systemic level." I am now coming to believe that such "systemic questions" can never be solved until first greater "unity" and mutual respect can be achieved amongst editors, and not divisiveness. You were only doing the best you could here to try and keep this sometimes "seemingly leaky boat" afloat, and I thank you for that, and for your generosity.
Scott P. (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC) (Note: This edit is out of chronological sequence, but was placed here for better logical flow.)[reply]
information Administrator note To be clear, no form of coercive or abusive behavior will be tolerated, on Wiki or off. Looks like a bunch of socks were used, please list all of the accounts you've used just for clarity. Since this block involves abusive/coercive behavior, you might need to appeal to WP:ARBCOM.-- Deepfriedokra 16:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to list here all "known or remembered" user id's since my block, if that would be helpful here, however I'm unsure if that would be helpful here. By declining my appeal to unblock, and by referring it to Arbcom, it would seem to me that you have now left this matter in the hands of others. Accordingly, shouldn't I now await the requests of others for info, before trying to do rather tedious exercises here for anyone who has apparently already made their 'final judgment' on me? (Note: For further info on my subsequent socks, you can now see my Additional petitioner's notes above, which was just now added.) I have already now appealed this thing 5 times, requiring numerous hours of work on my part. I happen to know that nobody will find any other instances of coercion, because all you would have to do is look at my block record to see that such behavior is otherwise not how I work. So I guess I now have to appeal this to Arbcom. Even though:
  • I have apologized for my mistake of coercion.
  • I have expressed remorse for my mistake of coercion.
  • The initial complainant has now suggested that he might be OK with my being reinstated, if only I might promise not to edit the "Course in Miracles" article for 6 months.
  • Over my 15 years here, no other evidence of any other attempted instance of coercion of anyone else by me has been (or will be) found here.
Still, I have now been told by you that for the moment, you appear to have decided not to accept any of my statements, or what I assume were your own supporting findings, as genuine, sincere, true or accurate. This appeal process seems to me to get more daunting and disheartening at each turn. All of this not with-standing, I do thank you for suggesting a certain way that this block might still be removed. I will now appeal at Arbcom for a fifth go around as suggested.
May five (six or seven or so, eventually) be my "lucky number",
(Revised) Scott P. (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
--> Invitation to other admins for comments

With the hope of possibly sparing the Arbcom members with having to deal with this request, first I would like to invite administrators @CIreland: and @TonyBallioni: to comment on this request if they might. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--> A 19th century allegory, and a question

In 19th century England, anti-theft laws were so harsh as to hand down sentences of 5 years or more, to individuals whose only crime was sometimes merely stealing a loaf of bread to stave off starvation for their family. These "criminals" were then sometimes shipped off to Australia, to serve out their sentences of hard labor, and routinely shared cells with murderers and the like. In my humble opinion, in this particular case of 19th century English "justice," the English justice system may have inflicted more harm on society than even the supposed "bread-thieves" themselves. I would think it might be safe to say that in this particular type of case, the English justice system might have been more "abusive" than the "bread-thieves" themselves.

In Wikipedia, according to the template on my user page, I have been labeled as an "abuser" due to certain "socks" that were discovered at the time, which violated my block. Anyone with the patience to see what I did with these socks at the time of the placing of this template, could see that all of these socks were created merely as the result of my having been prohibited from apologizing for my mistakes, and thus the requirement that I had to then create unauthorized socks, simply to apologize (this, after having then contributed here without a block for over 13 years.) So then, which "abuse" here is the greater? The "abuse" I allegedly perpetrated by creating these unauthorized socks simply in order to apologize to my fellow editors, or the "abuse" of a system that makes making a simple apology a "crime," and that would therefore perpetually inscribe on one's "wiki-tombstone" the claim that the apologizer was in fact really a vile "abuser."

Yes, the WP project, in my mind was a surprise success, and as such there is still much work that yet needs to be done in order to make it more "just," wise, fair, and effective. The current system of governance here "seems" to work after a fashion, but in my humble opinion, it still needs much more "design work" in order for such oddities as effectively banning a 13 year editor, and inscribing "abuser" on his wiki tombstone, for only one real mistake, to not be a somewhat regular occurrence around here. If I'm allowed to "honorably" come back here, I intend to work within the system to try to correct some of these things that I consider as "design flaws" here. In my humble opinion, no admin should ever feel compelled to have to act in such a draconian way towards editors, without having to first seriously consider whether or not "good faith" may in any way be a remediating factor, and no editor who has been acting with nothing but the intentions of mending his own mistakes by making heartfelt apologies, and trying to help make WP a better place ("acting in good faith"), should have to be subjected to a "system" which would seemingly tend to routinely treat such editors with such 'parting shots' as this. Scott P. (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request #5, (so far via email, Oct. 22, 2019)

Should anyone be interested, as advised above by the admin, today I submitted an appeal by email to the Arbcom, (the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee) essentially summarizing my sentiments in Appeal #4 just above.

Scott P. (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS: While making this appeal, I believe I may be learning something of the great value of identifying the positive value of each person I meet, even those who may not seem to feel the same way towards myself. For me, this ability makes the whole process worthwhile. Scott P. (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--> My hope

In my own view, I have been blocked because I dared to be bold. I dared to be bold enough to hope that Wikipedia editorial policy might somehow be made more:

  • Transparent
  • Civil
  • Easily understood by most editors
  • Oriented towards true neutrality in the articles created here

So far, nobody here has yet disputed my claim that there is a need for a greater abundance of these qualities in Wikipedia. Admittedly, my decision to confront an individual, rather than to take a more reasoned approach which directly addressed policy, and not any one individual, was a mistake of mine.

Despite what by any measure, would appear to be a dismal reply by those parties concerned here, my hope remains, that Wikipedia might one day be able to "regain" these qualities which I am now beginning to feel have been notably and significantly diminished over the last 10 years at WP. I will continue to monitor this page for the next few weeks, in the hopes that maybe I am mistaken about what seems to me to be a sort of recent reduction here of common decency.

Scott P. (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for sockpuppetry and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.45.222 (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request #6

To whomever it may concern here;
I have been told just above that the only reason I have been blocked is because of my alleged "sock-puppetry." In so far as I understand it, the problem with Sock-puppetry is that folks use it for the following two reasons:
A.) To deceive other editors.
B.) To gain unfair advantage over other editors by causing them to erroneously believe that they are outnumbered when they are not.
I have done neither of these things with alternate ID's, but instead have only used alternate ID's in the last several years to enable myself to sincerely apologize to other editors, when otherwise, no such apology would be possible here, or else I have used them to simply enable me to contribute here without hassles. For merely offering apologies in this way, I have been unfairly labeled as a "sock-puppeteer" myself. I was a user from 2004 through 2017 without a single block. Yes I have used sock puppets on rare occasion strictly for the purpose of improving Wikipedia, but never to cause harm to it. I would ask that perhaps user: @William M. Connolley: might please suggest to me what I might do here. Please at least hear me out and check for yourself that what I'm saying here is true.
This all simply does not make sense or seem right to me.
Thanks,
Scott P. (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to your block notice (found here), you were not blocked for sock puppetry. You may want to rethink your unblock request. I would further advise that you refrain from casting aspersions in any future requests. That will almost certainly result in losing you talk page access again. You should remove the personal attack from your talk page and/or, understanding the problem, explain how your post was in error. Tiderolls 12:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add, though, that creating another account to evade one's block is also sock puppetry. How one employs the sock is irrelevant. Tiderolls 12:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the material that was requested for removal. Thanks for the suggestion, and for reviewing this request. I am somewhat new to this "neck of the woods." Positive suggestions also gladly accepted.
Scott P. (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Solzhenitsyn.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Solzhenitsyn.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
















Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scottperry&oldid=1108110490"