User talk:Cognition








 * And I seriously doubt that Mr. LaRouche's death will have a salutary effect on your editing and interactions. On the contrary, the subtext is that you now feel it grants you a carte blanche because you believe BLP and your sanctions no longer apply. I might consider an unblock w/ a TBAN on LaRouche in particular and post-1932 US politics in general. You also in no way have given any meaningful assurance that problems will not recur and you have not described what constructive edits you might make.  Dloh cier ekim    (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

please post your arguments
for unbanning below so they may be carried over to WP:AN. Dloh cier ekim   (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I pledge to follow all Wikipedia policies. My arguments consist of my pledge, plus the fact that Mr. LaRouche has passed away, and that more than a decade has passed since my ban. I have learned my lesson after nearly 13 years. Cognition (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you care to carry the request to WP:AN. I'm just plain out of time. Dloh cier ekim    (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Cognition, there's zero chance the community will sanction an unblock given the above statement. It's nowhere near sufficient and doesn't come close to addressing your violations. Are you absolutely sure this is what you want to use for your unban appeal? I'm afraid if I copy this across, I'll be sanctioned for wasting people's time. --Yamla (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest? I'm not sure how to address my violations other than to acknowledge and apologize. Yes, I used to relish in antagonizing Mr. LaRouche's political opponents on this site. Wikipedia is not the proper arena for that; and, again, yes, I do understand that for moving forward. Despite that, I did make a number of useful contributions, of which I am quite proud, especially my contributions on the Martin Luther King article. Cognition (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for "disruption, harassment, personal attacks, multiple violation of arbcom rulings, no or very few useful contributions". You need to address all of those points. You also need to address the concerns that, just because Mr. LaRouche has passed away, we don't believe this will meaningfully change your edits. Finally, are you willing to abide by a topic ban on Mr. LaRouche and on post-1932 US politics? --Yamla (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will meaningfully change my edits, especially being careful to avoid BLP violations on public figures I oppose. I would like to return to editing topics related to Mr. LaRouche and contemporary U.S. politics, but understand I may have to go through a period where I prove myself before editing any potentially contentious subject matter. Cognition (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's nowhere near close to addressing your problematic edits and I'm unwilling to copy that request to the admin noticeboard because of WP:SNOW. You are welcome to step back, think through your previous behaviour, and write a new paragraph addressing each of the points in turn. --Yamla (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, will do. Cognition (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is my point by point response to everything cited in the ban.
 * I am aware of my past disruptive behavior. I felt that there were a number of anti-LaRouche editors and administrators who used their positions of power and influence to push their political agendas. I wanted to protest their influence. Even though I strongly feel I was right in principle, what I did to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point impeded improvement of the encyclopedia, and did nothing to help. I apologize.


 * Yes, I stalked and harassed a number of those anti-LaRouche users as well, and was wrong. Following and reverting their contributions to get them riled up did nothing to improve the encyclopedia in the short or long run. I apologize.
 * Yes, I attacked users like SlimVirgin, Chip Berlet, Adam Carr, 172, etc. because I felt they used their influence in Wikipedia to promote their POV. Wikipedia is not the venue for such battles. I did feel they were attacking me with impunity. Rather than attacking back, I should have sought proper dispute resolution channels. I was wrong and apologize.
 * Yes, I knowingly disregarded various arbcom rulings. Again, I felt those rulings were politically motivated and hurt Wikipedia's mission to report on the sum of all human knowledge. Rather than ignoring the rulings, I should have followed proper channels for appealing them. I apologize.
 * Regarding the 'no or very few useful contributions' point, I disagree. I feel I made quite a few excellent edits. But I can see why the community felt that way, since I did frankly make a lot of disruptive edits I knew very well would just get quickly reverted. I apologize.
 * In sum I ask the community to accept my apologies and give me another chance to improve the encyclopedia. 13 years is a long time; and I feel I have already served my time of punishment! Cognition (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @Yamla I don't know if there was a discussion at AN about this yet. But I have to mention that not giving someone a second chance after 13 YEARS sounds completely unreasonable to me. Thinker78  (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I am not available to work on this till Tuesday. If no one beats me to it, I'll work on it then. Dloh cier ekim   (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Have you edited while not logged in over the last 6 months? If so, you might wish to try again in 6 months (without editing while logged out or socking in the interim). Dloh cier ekim    (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request
You still need to address the specific points of the block; it appears you tried to do so above. Is this the statement you would like copied to WP:AN(perhaps combined with your point-by-point comments above)? 331dot (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, please and thank you for your assistance with this request. I am eager to get back, finally. Cognition (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have transferred it. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you let it go to a vote? That was almost a year ago; and I said I regret that my last request rubbed people the wrong way. Cognition (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No. It was closed with prejudice. The community will no longer hear your request. --Yamla (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But now that I think about it, reading over the request I wrote last year, maybe I didn't help my cause brining up SlimVirgin, which might have triggered a sympathy vote against me. This time I won't mention her. Why after 18 years I'm still not given another chance is beyond me. Cognition (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your avenue of appeal is to go to ArbCom. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (ec) The community decided, on your last request, that this was the end of the line for community discussion around your block. That's why that venue is not open to you now. Only WP:ARBCOM is open to you now. --Yamla (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How do I do that? I can only edit this page. 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC) Cognition (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Email them according to the directions given at WP:ARBCOM. ArbCom, if you are reading this, I see no evidence of recent block evasion based on CU data. --Yamla (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Cognition, @Yamla, and @331dot Arbcom only hear CBAN appeals for when "there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure" (WP:UNBAN); as far as I can tell there are no serious or raised concerns about the ban's validity, so an appeal is out of our scope. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand, though the user seems to feel that way(regardless of their accuracy). If ArbCom had determined there is nothing for them to resolve, this is the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying, Moneytrees. I concur with 331dot. Cognition, this is the end of the line. You have no further options. --Yamla (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

In light of the recent presidential debate here in America, which has led many to question their blind adherence to false mainstream media nostrum once considered unquestionable, I appeal once again to reverse my nearly two decade old block. It will just take one admin with the guts and courage. Please lift my block! The encyclopedia will be better for it. Cognition (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)  Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. _________