User talk:Knotweed

Knotweed, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Knotweed! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request number 1

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked as a sock, apparently for having the audacity to question the sentiments expressed in an essay about socking. There was no SPI or even ad-hoc discussion, no rationale was provided, no evidence was proffered, no sock-master has been implicated, and no advice about how to fight this slur given. Knotweed (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

the given reason for your block is illegit. editing in project space. There is no mention of socking, although the inappropriate edits you made were in a policy document (not an essay) about sockpuppetry. And possibly reverting a senior admin and checkuser was not a good idea. Your first edit with this account clearly shows, however, a deeper knowledge of the project than would be expected in a new user. Would you care to comment on this?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:48, 7 August 2014 (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.

@Anthony Bradbury:, thanks, yes I will comment on this. See the new unblock entry below. And thanks for the compliment at the end, but it's down to years of experience on other wikis and many a happy hour spent lurking around the edges of this one too - it's not, unfortunately, that I am a particularly quick learner! Knotweed (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request number 2

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).

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

Request reason:

I was not given any information explaining my block and the only clue I found was when looking at my contributions page, a banner at the top contained this text: "This account is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 02:40, 7 August 2014 Kww ... blocked Knotweed ... with an expiry time of indefinite (WP:ILLEGIT: editing project space)".

Anthony Bradbury, in his refusal to unblock above, said I wasn't blocked for socking, but for "illegit"; well given that WP:ILLEGIT links directly to a section in the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy, and gives nothing more than an explanation of a class of socking, then the only logical conclusion for me was that I was was blocked for socking - am I wrong there?

Anthony Bradbury was also mistaken about the types of pages I have edited, and the nature of my edits. He said I edited a policy document, not an essay. A quick glance at my contributions list reveals that I have edited just 4 pages:

Wikipedia:Dealing with sock puppets - an essay about socking. In a banner at the top that is clear "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."
Wikipedia talk:Dealing with sock puppets - the talk page of the above essay.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard - presumably the board to put notices for administrators on (which is all that I did there).
This, my talk page.

There are no policy documents there, but there is an essay.

Anthony Bradbury also said "And possibly reverting a senior admin and checkuser was not a good idea." I did not know I had done that. The only possible edit he could mean there was the one where, in the essay, I carefully re-edited-in some factual and typo corrections that I had made as part of my first, much larger, edit - and that had been inadvertently undone (presumably as there is no justification for keeping typos and such, is there?) after an editor reverted the entirety of my previous edits. Either way, I wasn't aware that the views of certain classes of editor took priority over those of others. And further, how could I know the status of other editors involved anyway?

So I am baffled. Knotweed (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If this is an alternate account, could you explain why it's necessary? In other words, why do you need this account to make the edits you've listed above? Why can't you just use your main account? PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2014 (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.

I did not claim that the views of a certain class of editors took priority over others. But I do suggest that the actions of an experienced admin could reasonably be assumed to be correct unless evidence to the contrary is forthcoming. And when your edits are reverted it is always better to investigate rather than to just re-revert. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Bradbury: you are side-stepping the issues here:

1. Is WP:ILLEGIT, the policy it is asserted that I have contravened, a branch of socking, or not?

2. Do you accept that you were mistaken and that it was not a policy document that I edited, but it was an essay?

3. How could I have reasonably known that the editor who reverted my change, and thus brought back a bunch of typos and factual errors into the essay, was a "senior admin and checkuser"?

4. I did not re-revert anyone, I painstakingly re-corrected typos and factual errors that the reversion by the "senior admin and checkuser" had re-inserted, carefully avoiding re-reverting the removal of the substantive changes I had previously made.

I am still baffled. Knotweed (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight:: your decline reason was not a reason, it was some questions. Why couldn't you have asked the questions first, then waited for the answers so you could take them into account before deciding whether to grant the unblock, or not? Then, if you still declined, at least you could have provided a proper considered reason, which would have been open to scrutiny. As it is, it seems like your decision was prejudiced.

As for your questions:

Q: If this is an alternate account, could you explain why it's necessary?

A: It isn't an alternate account.

Q: In other words, why do you need this account to make the edits you've listed above?

A: I don't need it, but chose to register an account, rather than use an anonymous IP address, for my first edits here.

Q: Why can't you just use your main account?

A: Is is my main account, my only account, in fact.

Now I have to make yet another request to try to have this totally flawed block removed. Knotweed (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]