User talk:Waysidesc

March 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 Meh. I could take a break. See you in 48 hours. Or not. Waysidesc (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Waysidesc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This last permanent block comes as the last event in a chain of patterns that I'm going to detail below. There is a good-faith reading and a bad-faith reading of each one. However, one of these readings establishes a pattern.

The last personal message from Bbb23 a couple of days ago: He kept reassuring me that according to the policy, there was nothing wrong with what I was doing; yet, he chastised me for "justifying" my policy-compliant behavior.
- Good faith reading: He wasn't chastising me. He just doesn't agree with me.
- Bad faith reading: He is baiting me.
Bbb23 enacted a 48-hours block for "personal attack and harassment" because I asked a stalker to stop harassing me, and because of something else that the blocking admin doesn't want to reveal!
- Good faith reading: I might have deserved it. In the last 24 hours, I did some soul-searching and thought the best version of dealing with this situation is to accept that I am imperfect. Instead of starting a campaign of pointing fingers, after which all of us end up pots and kettles, I can accept that I am imperfect and take responsibility for my imperfection. That's why I originally came here today.
- Bad faith reading: Let's assume I deserved the block. On the same hour that I was blocked, my stalker directed the word "fuck" towards me while alleging that studying and citing a source is original research! (Seriously, does this look like original research to you?) He didn't receive a block. Another editor in the same discussion called me a liar. He didn't receive a block either. I'm seeing a double standard here. Also, check the block reason link again: Despite my career being almost entirely dedicated to non-contentious copy-editing, Bbb23 says I am a case of WP:NOTHERE.
Today, Bbb23 blocked me for being a sock puppet. Bbb23 submits no evidence. In addition, during most of my career, I have been entirely alone. This means I cannot have been performing a sock puppet act even if I wanted.
- Good faith reading: To err is human. Bbb23 spends too much time on sock puppet cases. His contribution log is the proof of that. Hence, he might have made a mistake.
- Bad faith reading: There are evidences that Bbb23 deliberately evaded a transparent conduct. The main mover for this last block is, for the third time, my stalker, User:Nil Einne. Instead of using WP:SPI for a transparent investigation, he deliberately uses an opaque approach: On 22 March 2022, 14:50 UTC, this stalker sent Bbb23 an email. Bbb23 replies that he is blocking me on sock puppet charges on Nil Einne's suspicions. Note that they could have not taken this to an official SPI because behavioral conduct is a prerequisite of such an investigation. I have always been alone. Nobody has agreed with me to this date, let alone showing behaviors that proves he is me.

We now have a pattern: Bbb23 has been overtly involved with me. He has operated for too long without oversight, he has assumed bad faith to the point of obsession, and now he has become the judge, jury and executioner onto himself.

I got around to take a look at my alleged sock puppet co-conspirator. User:Codename Lisa (At first, I thought it was not necessary.) The thing that I see is shocking: There is one MASSIVE, HUGE reason that Codename Lisa's SPI is the most blatant kangaroo court the world has ever seen. It is like accusing someone of murder without having a corpse or missing person to show for it. A sock puppet, by definition, is an account that participates in the same discussion as co-conspirator to give a false voice. Codename Lisa's last contribution was on 2018 March 20. But the accounts alleged to have been his co-conspirators have all been made later. They could not possibly be the co-conspirators of a sock puppet act. Also, Codename Lisa left without having an active block. So, he wasn't block-dodging either. Why didn't you give him a chance to start far from the shadow of his past? Despite what he did in his last days, he is overall a better-behaving person than me anyway. This is one behavioral difference. Another: Codename Lisa, like most Wikipedia editors, abuses passive tense. I don't. I put punctuations inside quotation marks. He doesn't. Is it even possible to fake these habits? Compare this with some of the funny evidences of SPI, like one of the co-conspirators being from the same country (who isn't?) and having edited Microsoft Word (who hasn't?)

To all hard-working admins of Wikipedia: This could be your fate. One day, when you retire from active service, someone will destroy your good reputation by accusing you of being a sock puppet. It will seem unlikely. It would be outrageous. You'd think nobody would believe such a thing. (I won't; I promise you.) But when it happens and you are looking at it with utter disbelief, you realize that a community that alleges to use consensus decision-making doesn't need to look for sock puppets. In a consensus-based system, the voice of millions of sock puppets doesn't hold water against one opposing voice. Waysidesc (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This statement is an airing of grievances with others and not a unblock request. The definition of sock puppetry is broader than the one you give. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@331dot: Just look at these: [1], [2] This person was loved! He is my god. Yes, now I am become ashamed of some of the things I did in the past. But what idiot could possibly think I am this person?

Just read Desko's statement; he had grown to respect Codename Lisa despite being involved in an edit war with him. Did Codename Lisa know mind-control? How could a person be loved like this? Waysidesc (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at this: [3]. He patiently entertained a grieving person (or should I write "persion"; ha ha) through a pseudo-therapy, and told him imagine you have two different ways of killing me! Codename Lisa's conduct must be taught in schools. Who need Charlie Hebdo when we have Codename Lisa?

J'suis Codename Lisa! I don't want to be unblocked anymore. Screw all of you. Waysidesc (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]