User talk:Dstern1/Archive 1

Plea for resolution
I am taking some advise given above by reading WP:GAB again.

I do not know if any administrators read this page except when I request. But I seem to have been advised to stop requesting.

I am repeating my request for resolution and would like to be unblocked. I am assuming that it is possible if someone could let me know how I may return to the good graces of Wikipedia as an editor.

As I said before, I am not looking for trouble. I regret any rule violations that have resulted.

It is my intention to make constructive edits. It is my intention to work towards consensus when possible. I know I can be stubborn and I know that is a trait I share with many other editors.

I also express my desire to address a number of issues at a later time at the appropriate venue within the system.

Thank you,

Dstern1 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been watching your page since I first warned you some time ago. You're not going to get unblocked unfortunately.  Even us admins don't have any ability to review the checkuser evidence against you due to privacy concerns.  All we have is the word of the checkuser that the other accounts are definitely sockpuppets of yours.  Barring a statement to the contrary from a checkuser, no admin is going to unblock you. Oren0 (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have provided explanation about the unappreciated Meatpuppet. She tells me that she wrote admitting responsibility.  But I have been accused of lying about it; I have no idea how to respond to untrue allegations other than to admit what is true.  Again, I regret any rule violations.--Dstern1 (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The blocking admin did say at ANI (now archived) that Dstern could appeal for an unblock, so indefinite here did mean that the block does not have to be forever. This was in response to a suggestion that the block should have been a definite but long time period.  However, the "my coworker did it" excuse is commonly used and never very credible.  In your specific case, the checkuser was asked about this explanation, and chose to emphasize the word "not" in responding that the evidence does not support your explanation.  How much detail a checkuser can reveal is limited by the privacy policy, so we all have to read between their lines.  I read her as saying that the technical evidence actually contradicts your proffered explanation.  So while I think there is a theoretical possibility of an admin unblocking you, I can't see why one would chose to do so, and certainly am not choosing to do it myself at this time.  GRBerry 03:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For the reason that I cannot learn what technical evidence exists and refute it, I do not intend to reiterate my explanation though I stand by it. I do intend to express my desire to work within the rules to the best of my understanding.  I do wish to again apologize for any rule violations and regret my involvement in any previous rule violations.  I again appreciate the responses I have received; even though they have not been supportive, they have a tone of sincerity.--Dstern1 (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your e-mail, based on the currently available evidence (Suspected sock puppets/Dstern1), you are unlikely to be unblocked unless you admit to what we must believe is your sockpuppetry and (a) convince us that you won't repeat it and (b) tell us how you intend to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. That would mean contributing valuable encyclopedic content, not just advocating a particular point of view with respect to a current political hot topic. We have plenty of political WP:SPA's, and we frankly don't need any more.  Sandstein  16:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already admitted my involvement in "sockpuppetry" and "meatpuppetry;" so has my so called "meatpuppet." I repeat that I regret the situation and wish that it never happened.  I pledge to not create additional accounts on WikiPedia and to never encourage others to be involved simply for the purpose of supporting a position.  I do have an interest in politics and it is my intention to continue to contribute items of my own knowledge, supported by reliable secondary sources.  I share your concern over biased SPA involvement and I may have gone to extremes in my zeal to counter what I see as a bias.  I recognize that there are more constructive methods.  My interests include a number of BLP entries and my general philosophy is to include as much relevant data as possible, even when it is an embarrassing fact, provided that the fact is supported by reputable sources.  Further, when the fact is embarrassing, I believe in including any relevant mitigating factors provided that those factors are supported, with preference of response of the subject.  I know that encyclopedic entries need to be brief but that goal needs to be balanced with adequate context.  I have a background in journalism and I know the difference between an encyclopedic entry and a news report; though the journalistic style in useful to identify reportable fact versus opinion.  Again, thank you for your response and I appreciate your consideration.--Dstern1 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'd be happier with unblocking this account if you took a self-imposed break from all articles of a political nature for a period of three months. There are millions of articles at WP, surely there must be some other area where you could contribute. You've proven yourself a disruptive influence, and an unblocking admin must have some sort reason to believe that your contributions will outweigh your disruptions in the future. Would you be willing to proffer such an undertaking? Ronnotel (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to give some thought to your offer. I can counter-offer, without hesitation, that I will not offer edits to the Sarah Palin article until after the election.  I can make the counter-offer easily because I have concluded that there is a set of watch dogs on that article who will not budge an inch towards achieving consensus with my ideas; my further participation would be seemingly disruptive because the only power I could use is to block consensus.  I wish to use my knowledge of political figures to offer improvements to the articles.  I have read widely on American political history and I believe that I have much to add now and in the future.  On the other hand, I also have interest in cinema and that is another area in which I intend to offer some improvements.  Please understand that my interest is in expanding information for a wide range of political BLPs, not just those of whom I have a strong opinion.  In fact, I doubt anyone at Wikipedia can even identify my political views; except some very vague ideas.

To be clear, at this point, I have no intention of aggravating the situation further by additional deceptions.

As always, thank you for your consideration.--Dstern1 (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You might find another admin willing to unblock on that but I see little in your statement that indicates you will not resort to disruption again. Ronnotel (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've asked the blocking admin to comment, because no admin will unilaterally unblock in such circumstances. If he or she declines to unblock you, your only remaining venue of appeal is WP:ARBCOM.  Sandstein   11:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hard to appeal to ArbCom when one is blocked. Not that they'd likely hear this case anyway.  The bottom line here is this: the checkuser report says his "coworker" story is not plausible.  Dstern1 continues to maintain this story, either because he's stubborn or because he's telling the truth.  Either way, we're forced to choose between an established checkuser whom the community has entrusted to make these types of determinations versus a relatively new user with a disruptive past.  It's no wonder most people (and likely all admins) are going to trust the checkuser here.  Barring new checkuser evidence or a significant cooling off period, I'd be surprised to see this user unblocked.  My advice: take a wikibreak and come back in a month or two.  Someone might unblock you then. Oren0 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a principle in law called nolo contendere. I interpret it to mean that the truth is no longer consequent; lets move forward.  Above is a not so subtle hint to start lying.  I have been told that my true account is not believed; say something different.  I have also been told that my account is not consequent; I am still equally guilty.  So be it.  I am equally guilty under the true version I have reported and the untrue version I have been advised to tell.

I am pleading nolo contendere. I admit that I was wrong in the means I used. I regret the entire situation. I wish to express my desire to work within the rules to the best of my understanding. I wish to again apologize for any rule violations and regret my involvement in any previous rule violations. I am not going to aggravate the situation by further deception, even when I am told that the problem will be resolved if I just tell another lie. I cannot offer explanation or refute information I do not have; my sole option is accept that I am not believed and not repeat the incredible truth. I think I have been very clear above in my intentions to be a valuable contributor and editor. I have identified where I believe I can be an asset. I have also identified concerns which I would like to address at an appropriate venue. I have made a counter-offer which I believe would solve the original concerns. Thank you for your consideration.--Dstern1 (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you may be missing the point. You're not being asked to lie, you're being asked to reconsider why and how you contribute at WP. That you seem to regard WP as a battleground makes it unlikely you are ready to contribute in a constructive way. Ronnotel (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I had been clear in that I do not want to to continue with a battle. I want to move forward.  That is the meaning of my previous message.--Dstern1 (talk) 19:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My Intentions
I wish to participate as an editor of WikiPedia. My goal is to make constructive contributions towards the development of an ongoing project. It is my intention to work within the rules that have been developed, to the best of my understanding. It is my interest to offer contributions in areas where I have knowledge but to base the edits upon verifiable and reliable secondary sources.--Dstern1 (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish to reiterate my response to a specific concern that has been raised. Because of my previous less than constructive involvement on the "Sarah Palin" article and the strong emotions of those who remain involved on the specific article, it is my intention to self-impose a break from editing that specific article until after the elections.  If asked by an adminstrator to self-impose a greater restriction, I would give that request serious consideration and would be inclined to comply in the interest of peace. --Dstern1 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request
I read on the ANI noticeboard that the administrator who placed the block on me said that I was welcome to request to be unblocked. On that basis, I am again requesting to be unblocked.--Dstern1 (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!--Dstern1 (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I intend to follow the agreement and not edit information about Sarah Palin until after the election. While I cannot think of an example at this time, it is possible that I will have something to add in an article in which she has a remote connection; in which case, I will avoid discussing her.  The wording raised immediate concerns but I am assuming that I do not need to interpret the wording concretely.--Dstern1 (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Reengaging?
This edit is not starting out on the right foot. Your best bet is to avoid Sarah Palin and not to attempt to engage any individuals you encountered while editing there. user:j   (aka justen)   23:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I was asking her to cease her harassment of me. Obviously she is on a fishing expedition to make more complaints against me.  I thought it best to contact her directly instead of making a formal complaint.  But that remains an option, I imagine.  I have avoided the article and talk sections but I shall continue to monitor for any discussion about me.--Dstern1 (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Monitoring" for any mention of your name seems like an frustrating way to spend your time. You've started working on a few other articles it looks like, that's great.  You'll notice the checkuser process that led you to post on User:Kelly's talk page was resolved without any need for you to address the matter.  I can tell you I don't think that "making a formal complaint" over the most recent checkuser request isn't going to result in any sort of vindication for you, I'm afraid.  Again, your best bet is to keep moving forward.  Take care.    user:j    (aka justen)   02:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think her best bet is to avoid involvement with me.  Any further involvement by her will be addressed either directly or otherwise.  My desire is to continue working on my articles and I am inviting others to participate in those specific articles.  I am not inviting specific involvement with me as an individual by anybody, including you or Kelly.  Have I made myself clear?--Dstern1 (talk) 15:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are clear in your desire. You are also in the wrong if you expect to go unwatched.  You got off to a very rocky start, and have been allowed back in with restrictions.  You should actively expect to be monitored, including by people who you don't know are watching you.  Every user's contributions are subject to review - indeed every single action you take other than reading pages is part of your "permanent record", admins can even review each of your edits to a page that ends up deleted.  This level of reviewability is inherent in the wiki model, and it is beneficial to the encyclopedia because the review of other user's contributions is a large part of how we identify those editors that are either here intentionally to harm the encyclopedia or those that want to help but are a net negative.  All talk pages, including user talk pages, are for the use of the community, for the purpose of building the encyclopedia and learning to work together.  GRBerry 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have agreed to follow the rules. I have agreed to avoid edits on the Sarah Palin article.  I have agreed to cooperate with administrators. I have not agreed to intrusions or harrasment.  I do not object to my edits being monitored, provided they are not reverted arbitrarily and the other user gives me the courtesy of discussion.--Dstern1 (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)