User talk:Encyclopedist J

I've brought up the matter of your identity here within "WP:AN/I". -- Hoary (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Appealing the Block by the Administrator

 * No evidence, except, you know, writing exactly like him, using his specific (dishonestly cropped) image for the Occupy Movement, and having a similar user name to one of your other sockpuppets. Do you really think people here are that stupid?
 * If you want to even pretend of having a chance of coming back, you need to admit you've screwed up, quit blaming others for your mistakes, and show that you're willing to learn how things work here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not trolling. Trolling is "Trolling is a deliberate, bad faith attempt to disrupt the editing of Wikipedia." If a dozen editors are citing guidelines against the edits you made, and countless others are not stopping them, they're not the trolls. If an editor comes back under a new account, edits and behaves almost identically to someone blocked for sockpuppetry and NPOV violations, the only reasonable conclusions are either sockpuppet (assuming good faith) or (not assuming good faith) a troll. When that "new" editor doesn't admit to making any mistakes, that pretty much kills any possibility of it being an honest mistake that the "new" editor will learn from.
 * Continuing to pretend that you did not make any mistakes will not help you.
 * Calling anyone who offers advice a troll just because they are not an admin will not help you.
 * The only thing that will help is admitting you've messed up, and showing that you want to repent. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing that will help is admitting you've messed up, and showing that you want to repent. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is your final warning; if you remove this post again I will remove your ability to edit this page.  Tide  rolls  20:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, do not remove posts by any editor, administrator or otherwise, that administrators might consider germaine to the review of your situation.  Tide  rolls  20:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Any Individual Who's Not an Administrator Comments Shall Be Removed, Every Time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopedist J (talk • contribs)


 * To edit on Wikipedia, you'll have to edit collaboratively with other editors&mdash;and not all of them are administrators. Your unwillingness to take advice and input from a user here does not reflect well on what would happen were you to be unblocked. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The user that you're referring to was essentially trolling me this entire time, and the one who put these accusations with no evidence on me. I've tried to reason with people like him hours ago and they continue to snark, so I'm just going to completely ignore their posts/delete them from my Talk Page since this is my Talk Page. Nothing wrong with that. I'm open to witnesses of other contributors expect the ones who's constantly baited me, trolled me and consistently tried to break me by these accusations. Encyclopedist J (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As per this report Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco/Archive, it is quite possible that this is a sockpuppet account and if you cannot prove that you are not the same person being the confirmed sockpuppet accounts, it is very unlikely that you will be unblocked. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The General, I've provided my defense numerous times during the investigation and it has not been thoroughly read nor has the proper evidence. This is why I'm repealing my block, pal, I'm just asking for a fair assessment and I've provided the defense I need to defend myself on a relevant issue, and to add an administrator who first investigateed explictly stated there's no technical evidence. When it comes to socketpuppeting, this is the key to finding the evidence and since there's no technical evidence there is essentially no evidence at all. The only arguments against me was pity arguments attempting to compare my writing to Centrist Fiasco's writing which isn't that significant nor is it relevant to even compare... The individuals who presented this argument have to got to be under the age of thirteen if this is all they got to accuse somebody, including the absurd summary comparisons. By the way, this Ian individual is a backseat moderator, he didn't even notify me when he accused me of such things. Encyclopedist J (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all too easy to circumvent the technical side, so admins often rely on behavioral evidence. If they couldn't, the rule against socking to evade a block would be all but unenforceable. This appears to be one of the many things you steadfastly disagree with regarding the way Wikipedia works, but as you've been told, that doesn't change the way Wikipedia works. You'd do well to accept that rather than grudging forward insisting that your ideas are better. Equazcion  ( talk ) 20:32, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * It is standard operating procedure in evaluating whether two accounts are used by the same person to look at editing patterns: common subject areas and ideosyncracies in spelling, typing, edit summary style, etc. In some cases, the request for a checkuser search is declined because the editing patterns leave so little doubt that there's common control over the accounts that there's no need to run it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Equazcion, did you even fucking read through my fucking contributions and summaries of those contributions? I've opened myself to changes, imbecile! Goodness, you're lack of comprehension and logic is astounding, my gosh. I've provided the necessary tools for other to contribute further on the matter of the Classical Marxist influence on Occupy Wall Street, I even took the opportunity to provide an explicit source that talks Occupy Wall Street and Marxism on the matter! It was the first and second sourced reference of my fucking contribution! Don't tell me you didn't give a damn about reading it? You probably didn't give a damn because based upon what you've said on the Talk Page, which was in completely agreement with another user that explicitly stated, "We're obliged to portray OWS the way it is portrayed in mainstream discourse. If you've got an argument that the mainstream presents OWS as primarily a Marxist movement, let's hear it. Otherwise, you've got some WP policy to study up on" and "Like it or hate it, we can only report what gets reported first by reliable sources such as Nytimes. If you want to portray the truth then get a job in the New York Times or CNN. Until then, we have to trust that their journalists are portraying the movement accurately, fairly, and truthfully", this tells me that you and others don't pay fucking attention on who you fucking source.All you care about is getting what ever thoughts you may have out there, silencing anyone who gives acredible sourced material and puts together a encyclopedic structure for an article. You guys just want things your own damn way, this is fucking against the rules and by seeing the many essays this fucking site has that even the Owners of Wikipedia explicitly stated that it's not the official policy. You guys treat it as a fucking actual policy! This is absurd! I'm sick of this bullshit, I'm not going to appeal my block anymore because apparently as I found out, the administrators are chosen by popularity or some sort of contribution rank system, this is beyond bullshit. Encyclopedist J (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Or rather, your talk page access will be revoked. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2012 (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] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. User:C.Fred (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)