User talk:CheerfulKnight

December 2017
Hi User:Doug Weller,

I'm unsure as to how to go about proceedings, but as we exchanged via email, and further to your instructions to edit my page to begin any proceedings, I would like to bring your attention to this case, and the issue of proportionality, focusing on the actions of a few select users such as Acroterion. I believe both my case and the wider sockpuppet case at large here seems to have been dealt with improperly. I hope we can get to the bottom of this.

Cheerfulknight

PS. AH silly me, I missed the unblock box.


 * Reviewing admin: see, blocked for harassing MarnetteD, and subsequent block evasion by , , none of which were blocked for more than 31 hours, and, of course, Sockpuppet investigations/Euexperttime.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are outright misrepresenting the case, as you have always done, and ignoring the fact that this "harassment" was nothing more than asking for the ability to defend myself, and pointing out the truly absurd nature of how certain administrators, such as yourself, may operate with absolute impunity. I do think you should see that as a critical reflection on how you operate. The very fact that the reviewing admin agreed with you on purely circumstantial evidence, based merely on your position within the Wikipedia hierarchy goes to the heart of my complaint.


 * I think the wider point about the overall sock investigation I'm being wrapped up in is interesting in well. It is a case of a user who admitted to using socks, am I correct? But who did not agree to being one of the socks he was subsequently accused of, stating that was partner, who lived at his address and used his computer and that they worked at the same computer. What evidence would be available to you to contradict that? How would such a user overcome the refusal to accept that information? Did not that user have their right to comment on their page revoked, after a reviewing editor described an emotional confession of the situation as "irrelevant", to which they were rightly angry. The system is flawed and critically. It punishes users for minor infractions and then forces them into a corner, to reveal information about themselves to anonymous online users halfway across the world, in a totally asymmetric position of power over them, who might still spit in their face after such a humiliating position. Your own conduct through this has been venomous - and increasingly so, the more I suggest that certain elements of the administrative system as they have evolved, are not fit for purpose. Most revealing is the way the system procedurally paints anyone in such a poisiton as myself, as a "vandal" or "troll". WP:Deny, as awful as it is, I think most accurately describes the mind set of users such as yourself; you believe anyone in my situation suffers from, and I quote WP:DENY "chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness and seek recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Wikipedia project and community. Such users experience exceptional attention as empowerment, reward, and encouragement". I think you should reflect upon how totally disgusting, absurd and ridiculous the ascription of such motivations are on people like me, and how that might feel.


 * That for example WP:DENY needs an overhaul is I think almost self-evident. That WP:wikilayering is missed by administrative staff and experienced editors to essentially bully those asking for a fair defence is also undeniable. (It was used on me in that manner when it is clear that it is actually intended to be used for those who use real world legal terminology and processes to obfuscate administrative work). The refusal to engage on these points is nearly incredible. CheerfulKnight (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I also want to make clear that I have repeatedly made clear that I wish to progress to a stage where I may contribute freely within the rules, only to be told by users to go through such and such process, only to find those same users presiding over these same processes, and then blocking me. It's like a dark comedy. What is the point of using official processes, if there is no clearly laid down way to navigate through them. The most recent case of MarnetteD reinstating my edits and assuming good faith and Sro23 undoing them on the same available information reveals the totally arbitrary nature of it. It's also the case that any sense of proportionality is truly missing. Did you protect an article with the only editor being me, where any normal person would say they were constructive edits for a 6 month period? How can you argue you are being proportional. CheerfulKnight (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)