User talk:Caedmon scop

Caedmon scop, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Caedmon scop! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't want to evade scrutiny, you should have provided your user name from the get-go, not just brought up mid-argument that you'd log in. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of any reviewing admins: Caedmon scop's IP address (but not account) was blocked after threatening to log in to "escalate" an edit war. Ya know, instead of editing while logged in or giving their user name from the get-go. I didn't carry out that block, just declined the unblock request on grounds of WP:NOTTHEM and WP:NOTVAND. They then came to my talk page and asked (both metaphorically and literally) to be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should withdraw your request for arbitration

BMK was editing the Enoch Powell article long before you even registered -- which makes your accusation of stalking ridiculous and a possible sign that you're incapable of assuming good faith (a requirement to edit here).

As I explained on my talk page, you're this close to a WP:NOTHERE block. If you want to avoid it, you need to find a topic where you can at least pretend to assume good faith and don't view everything in a "you vs the world" mentality. Basically get a fresh start under this account. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should I? Or would that simply allow you two to continue to abuse people and dominate them? Caedmon scop (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could have chosen to not respond, and watched as ArbCom rejected your report and topic banned you from articles relating to American politics. Instead, you decided to continue being confrontational, only proving my point. If you continue to refuse to get that that's not how things work here, that's not going to work for you. Also:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Bill Ayers, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. There is a fine distinction between a group being described as a terror group, and a person being described as founder of a terrorist organization. It's a WP:BLP issue. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

continued targeted abuse Caedmon scop (talk) 9:07 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

You haven't been blocked. Yet. I'm going to fix that now since you don't appear to have even bothered opening the links WP:Assume good faith and WP:BATTLEGROUND, which I keep linking Ian.thomson (talk) 02:10, 4 March 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.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not being here to build an encyclopedia by this community's standards (in particular, viewing everything in a "you vs the world" mindset instead of assuming good faith).

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 ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case Request - Prematurely Filed

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

For grievances about the conduct of a Wikipedia editor, you should approach the user (in a civil, professional way) on their user talk page. However, other mechanisms for resolving a dispute also exist, such as raising the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The reason for this ban is that I am "obviously" not interested in contributing. I should like some neutral party to take a look at what happened, in order, from the beginning.

1. I wrote factual, neutral, comments on an entry for Identitarian, which were vandalized by NotMyKen. He hypocritically cited "vandalism" as a reason to delete everything I wrote without explanation. I wasn't vandalizing anything. I had actually gone about the process of defining the term Identitarian in completely apolitical terms, as a concept independent of a left-right axis of ideology, which it is, and added some criticisms of left wing identitarianism, which are well worth knowing about if anybody is interested in the use of the term.

2. This person, who was vandalizing my posts without explanation, had the gaul to accuse me of not using talk. He of course did not use talk to describe why he thought things were vandalism or why he thought I was a sock puppet troll or any of that nonsense. He immediately tried to get me banned when I noted that he was being abusive and about to violate rule son maximum reversions intended to stop edit warring. I did not make these rules or wish to exploit them, but am aware of them when someone deletes my comments twice citing dishonest reasons like "vandalism" for a matter-of-fact, relevant addition to an article.

3. He immediately tried to get me banned claiming sock puppetry. He took my reply to that out of context and suggested that by "escalation" (the generic term for submitting something to higher authority in a customer service call or whatever sort of official capacity) I was threatening him. Threatening him with the rules which he was breaking perhaps.

4. Bewilderingly, I was in fact banned. That is nonsense, given I was not concealing my identity to do something wrong. You have to indicate to me what I did wrong. And show that I was avoiding punishment. How was I doing that, if I kept a single IP, know how to change it, and am coming back to this forum to continue a conversation? Hum?

5. Apparently this is not acceptable. Maddening. The next guy says the fact that I didn't log in to dispute the ban is now proof. How the fuck does that work? Again you have to show I did something wrong to say I am avoiding consequences, and where do you get off saying I'm trying to be anonymous when I log in, and don't change my IP address at all? More bias.

6. When I log back in after all this nonsense, I'm immediately censored by the same illiterate idiot.

7. I'm permanently banned for calling a man who founded an officially designated terrorist organization a terrorist. That is not a matter of my opinion or a personal attack; it is a hard fact, and any attempt to misrepresent someone who conducted bombings, whose group killed people... it is utter madness. Does wikipedia support terrorism apologists? This is a matter of grave concern to the public and to donors.

Decline reason:

Requests that contain personal attacks are not considered. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 29 March 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.

(edit: adding signature).

NOTE: I should like to thank the person who reviewed my request for arbitration for their good and useful direction. I appreciate the professional and clear explanation of the procedure. I will read this closely. I look forward to being more active and according to the procedures; they are scattered and quite hard to grasp for a reasonably new user who has never had any issues in 10+ years of contributing as a guest only before deciding to make an account this year... thank you very much!

Caedmon scop (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Unblock request not actually reviewed. I am not attacking anybody personally. It is 100% correct to call the leader of a terrorist organization a terrorist, and as regards the anonymous editor who vandalized my entries, well... that's not personal. I don't know who he is. And my objection is to his vandalism, and abusive behavior. You cannot punish me for complaining about abusive behavior, or finding terrorism objectionable. Go and actually do the work, and look at what he did. Caedmon scop (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Calling another Wikipedia editor an illiterate idiot is very much a personal attack. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:41, 29 March 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Surely someone cares about the fact that I did not instigate this nonsense. Wikipedia is in a bad way. Puff pieces on mass murderers. Terrorists being defended by editors? People who vandalize getting the benefit of the doubt? Excuse me, but I am saying that this person engaged in vandalism and you ought to look at that, rather than disqualifying me for no no language. Perhaps I might in fact be legitimately angry that I'm being attacked for making a statement of fact about a terrorist, and having the audacity to challenge an insanely biased article full of weasel language and left wing talking points, and literally zero discussion of the fact that I think the term was actually coined by the right to refer to the Intersectionals. Your website glorifies communist mass murderers. Look at how you have consolidated power in an even smaller, and smaller, biased group of editors! No more turnover. Reject everybody. Shame.

Decline reason:

This isn't an unblock request, this is a rant. I have revoked talk page access. This leaves WP:UTRS open to you for now, but I strongly suggest reading WP:GAB before taking advantage of that, lest they revoke your access there, too. Yamla (talk) 14:29, 29 March 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.

Block evasion

This user has engaged in block evasion as 208.59.160.112 in March, 2019. --Yamla (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And May, 2019 as 71.44.221.10. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]