User:Crazytales/desk/Gen. von K IRC log

This is a query, and I have permission to post the log. [161730] hi. [161734] Hello [161743] have you seen my case on WP:ANI recently? [161751] it seems they will not unblock me. [161927] so, let's say I will wait 3 months until IP block expires... [161932] You can come back productively after the three month block on the IP expires. [161949] I will create another account, with description on my user page who I am. [161953] But I recommend you stay away from sexually related articles, just to be careful. [161957] what they do next? [162011] they'll block me because of WP:SOCK, regardless of my edits. [162034] So don't make any connection obvious. [162045] I am not going to hide, sorry. [162100] WP is about openness and sincerity, isn't it? [162105] Yeah. [162139] so, tell them to block my IP indefinitely, too, right now, because I will create another "sock" after block expires. [162156] I don't think they'll reblock for being a sockpuppet, just as long as you don't do anything abusive. [162202] perhaps they will start to think about their stupid policies.... [162242] look, earlier or later I will make some conflict with someone. it is inevitable on WP. [162256] so, he/she will report me as WP:SOCK. [162300] Conflict != abusive. [162323] I wasn't abusive. never. but Ryulong blocked me indefinitely nevertheless. [162349] And they can't block under the policy if the account isn't being used to circumvent a ban/block. [162436] but, it will be "used as circumvent block". I will create another account and I will tell on my user page that I am Gen. von Klinkerhoffen. [162456] so, it could be considered as block evasion. [162524] I am not going to hide, because block of my frist account was unfounded. [162532] it is that simple. [162602] It all depends on the blocking admin. You don't have a ban in place (bans are about community consensus, and more concrete than blocks). IIRC, WP:SOCK only applies to block evading. [162612] s/block evading/ban evading/ [162622] my first account is still blocked indefinitely. [162701] so, creation of another account could be considered as avoiding block. [162737] I don't think it'll result in banning/blocking just as long as you stay away from sexuality related articles. Especially after as long a period as three months. [162821] why should I stay away from sexuality related articles? they need editing, i.e. removing of pornography. [162918] That's what got you into trouble in the first place. There needs to be talkpage consensus on the removal of images. [162927] Wikipedia is built on consensus. [163007] read talk pages of articles in question. there was no consensus to keep images removed by me in the articles, especially inline. [163109] Was there consensus to remove though? [163142] probably no. but there was never consensus to keep it either (in case of Ejaculation), AFAIK. [163404] think about whole this case from the beginning. I've been blocked _indefinitely_ because of one 3RR viol. then, they blocked my IP address for 3 months. [163409] where is policy for all this? [163437] and they expect me to be calm after all this? ridiculous... [163541] Your 'For Brian Peppers' edit summaries didn't help. They escalated a 3rr vio into what may be seen as trolling. [163751] there were only two edit summaries. not more. [163803] it is not much to justify _indefinite_ block. [163838] I've never repeated this and never used "For Brian Peppers" edit summary. [163844] Okay. [163905] But why did you use a 'For Brian Peppers' edit summary at all in the first place? [163955] BTW - here is the timeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GenVonKlink_Hoffen&oldid=115703210 [164046] why? well, I thought it was funny... you can read my explanation on my user talk page (Gen. von Klinkerhoffen), too. [164319] Okay/ [164352] Are you also aware that WP:NOT censored? [164511] have you seen explicit photos related to sexuality in other serious encyclopedias like, let's say, Britannica? [164645] you know, inclusion or not some photos, is not a matter of "censorship", but more a good taste. [164701] Britannica and WIkipedia are not directly comparable. [164702] but some people want to add as explicit images as they can. [164715] And good taste on whose opinion? [164805] good question... Jimbo's actions could be some direction... [164844] (By the way, may I log this query and post it in a user subpage to refer to?) [165024] my mention about "stupid policies" will be read as "harmfull to WP", I guess, so they will trying justify block of me, I guess... but, yeah, feel free to post it. [165040] Thanks.