User talk:SkepticAnonymous

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unblocked[edit]

Checkuser confirms that you have not contributed as User:98.196.233.155 (as precisely as can be determined); your initial block was most likely in error. I've unblocked you and unprotected the page; consider this a clean slate for all involved - and by that I mean if I see a hint of personal attacks aimed at another user, you're gone. Let bygones be bygones. Ironholds (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012[edit]

The edit summary is for describing your edit, not pointing fingers at others (on Wikipedia or elsewhere) and they were both inappropriate. I won't undelete the edit summaries and that's all I have to say about this. If you want another opinion you can try Wikipedia:Deletion review or WP:AN. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

How nice of you, User:Belchfire to not sign your posts and not link the actual discussion, you hate-filled bigot. SkepticAnonymous (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for a clear pattern of abusive behavior and personal attacks.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:23, 4 August 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

How very cute. Someone comes along to do bigot Belchfire's dirty work and prevent my commenting a reply to his post. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radical_gay_activism&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Belchfire Belchfire created a deliberate POV fork and his commentary shows he is in no way here in good faith.

Decline reason:

Further personal attacks in your unblock request do not encourage other administrators to unblock you. Rschen7754 22:36, 4 August 2012 (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.



Yes yes, I'm abusive and all that. I've readded the block template because you are not allowed to delete that while you are blocked. You have twice, if you do again, your talk page access will be removed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

First Dennis brown abusively blocks me to prevent me speaking my side where listed. THEN he removes my unblock request despite HIS failure to notify me. Then he blanks it out so the text doesn't show. WTF????

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — foxj 22:45, 4 August 2012 (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.

I'm fully in support of Dennis on this. SA, when I unblocked you initially I made clear that any further personal attacks would lead to precisely this outcome - and yet despite this, you come out with personal attacks such as this. That's wholly unacceptable. Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For opposing the anti-gay bigot who did THIS [1]: FINE. I won't say anything about anyone in any edit any more.
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).

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

Request reason:

FINE. HERE GOES.

#1 - I LET MY TEMPER AT AN ANTI-GAY BIGOT WHO CREATED A WP:RS VIOLATING, WP:BIO VIOLATING POV ARTICLE [2] GET THE BETTER OF ME, ALONG WITH OTHER COMMENTS HE MADE.

#2 - I MADE EDIT SUMMARIES THAT CROSSED A LINE.

#3 - IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN BECAUSE I WILL NOT CROSS THAT LINE AGAIN.

THAT IS ALL YOU ARE GETTING OUT OF ME.

Decline reason:

See, the goal here is for you to NOT run around calling people bigots. Until you grok that, you're going to continue to have problems, including losing your editing privileges. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2012 (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.


  • Well, the last edit, referring to another as a bigot, once again, earned you revocation of your talk page access, but you did manage to get this last request in, which is fine. I leave it in the capable hands of whatever random admin chooses to review the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a an issue with your behaviour. Calling other users bigots is part of that problem. Don't call other users any names; refer to editors as little as possible, and politely, and simply talk about content. Don't personalize discussions. Read WP:CIVIL, read WP:NPA. If, in your future requests, you continue without apologizing for your behaviour and demonstrating that you will act differently, then no admin will want to unblock you. If you fake it and are not sincere you will quickly be blocked for the same behaviour. Look at your actions, imagine yourself on the receiving end, realize your mistakes, move forward. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, he's not getting any future requests; he's blocked indefinitely and not even allowed to edit this page. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postmortem[edit]

SkepticAnonymous just got his head bashed in with a banhammer because he was obviously enraged. But the real story is why he's enraged.

Look at his history and you'll see that he's yet another example of someone who noticed the obvious bias in articles, tried to fix it, and got rewarded with some intentionally shabby treatment. His rage, however unseemly, is entirely to be expected: when you hit people, they get angry.

So, once again, we've allowed veteran editors with a shared political view to WP:BITE the newbie until they can point to his anger as justification for getting rid of him entirely. Welcome to business as usual at Wikipedia. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGF goes out the window when the editor starts making personal attacks like "bigot." No editor deserves to be called that while trying to discuss article content. Regards, — Moe ε 00:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editors shouldn't be pushing to add clearly inflammatory and biased content to articles either. Here is the requested addition by Lionel: "Today a Chick-fil-A restaurant, an important and respected institution in the city of Torrance CA, was wantonly vandalized by law breaking criminals. Our article must document the persecution of Chick-fil-A restauranteurs by out of control militant gay activists." IRWolfie- (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add the example of User:Belchfire creating an entire POV fork called Radical gay activism. These people are out of control. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the sentiment of this post. Although this editor SkepticAnonymous is not going about things the right way, bear in mind they are a new user. Also, there is significant issues on the article, for example, comments from veteran editors wanting to add content about "out of control militant gay activists"; while I think a block of some length is justified, indef seems very harsh considering the circumstances. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IRWolfie, thanks for clarifying that nobody is endorsing his behavior. He shouldn't be all "Hulk smash!", but the truth is that we poked puny Banner in the eye over and over again until he hulked out.
We bit a newbie, and he's going to correctly tell everyone he knows that Wikipedia is a hostile environment that picks on people who are just trying to make articles neutral and abuses them until they're enraged, only to punish them for that rage.
This is a typical yet completely avoidable wiki-tragedy. Instead of kicking this editor out, we should be apologizing for how they were treated and striking a deal to treat them better if they can forgive us. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply wrong here. He continued to make personal attack after personal attack. On IRC, I was as patient as I could be trying to offer a chance to hear what he had to say and see if he was capable of calming down, and all he did was make even more attacks, more bigotry, more hate and venom, so I gave up about the time he started comparing people to nazi's. No, this is a person that we don't need here. Their methods are absolutely a disgrace and are incompatible with a corroborative environment. We should not tolerate someone who is screaming "bigot" every sentence, someone who can't find a way to communicate without attacking others. New or not, it is inexcusable, and not everyone is capable of editing here. In order to keep good editors here, it is necessary to remove editors like this, as to promote a more peaceful environment. This is key to WikiProject Editor Retention. To say that I've bitten a newbie by blocking this individual shows a clear misunderstanding of what is important here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not defending his behavior, I'm looking at what caused it. This isn't a bad editor, it's someone driven bad. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may explain it, but it can't excuse it. I tried to approach them and all I got was venom. They can still ask for unblock via WP:GAB, and as I said at ANI, my user page makes it clear that ANY admin is welcome to revert any admin action I make without my permission, but while he might be right about some of his ideas, people that can't control themselves are a detriment to the greater Project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a solution to fixing the other editors behavior if one feels they are pushing an inappropriate anti-LGBT POV(which I've also witnessed). Take it to ANI or file a RFC/U. The solution is not to allow editors like SA to blatantly violate NPA over and over. I think Administrators would have looked more kindly at his/her frustration if they were able to converse in any way without the continued references to bigots or Nazis. Being indeffed doesn't(necessarily) mean forever. If one can demonstrate that they have learned their destructive behavior was unacceptable and they can also contribute in a positive manner, they can(and many have been) be unblocked. Of course that will have to be done via email if ones Talk page access is revoked. But I think if a well reasoned apology and contrite asking of restoring Talk page privileges would be met with a conditional trial period. In any case, the block was correct, just from what I've seen here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse you, where precisely is a new user supposed to learn that, much less learn to navigate the byzantine level of wikilawyering and wikigame-playing necessary to successfully file in either location? This is precisely the problem. New users come in, they make bold actions. Sometimes they get hotheaded. Instead of a little understanding, kindness and explanation of what their options are, they get a violent beatdown from people who ought to know better about how to treat new users. When they protest about the one-sided nature, because the other side has a few admin protectors and experience playing wikigames, they get another "beating until morale improves" sort of scenario. We drive off editors at an incredibly high rate acting this way.

Crosspasting from WP:ANI.

  • I'd like to add an alternative perspective. I was in IRC and watched much of that part happen, and I have looked over the other issues as well. There are a few key points to consider in the treatment of SkepticAnonymous.
    • Regarding previous incidents following from the history of their user page, it's clear that something very bad and ALSO WP:BITE level happened to them previously. To have a user hit by WP:BITE issues twice in a row, including false accusations of sockpuppetry that took a very long time to clear up and an incorrect assertion of CheckUser results, is not good.
    • The admin who blocked failed to provide a timely notification of the issue. Likewise, the user who submitted this issue did not seemingly provide a timely notification nor a direct link, only a link to WP:ANI itself. That's poor form and WP:BITE level again.
    • The blocking admin, in putting his notification in, appears to have removed the user's unblock request at least once. I can't tell whether there was an honest mistake edit conflict or two simultaneous submissions that somehow got in together. Part of the user's first request addresses some of the notification issues, their second one addresses the admin's removal of template which is not cool and again WP:BITE level of incompetence.
    • There are level of civility issues from the other side. Some have been raised. The first response from the editor who brought this here asserts, among other things, that an edit "fails common sense." That's not designed to do anything but inflame in an incivil manner. Added to the level of incivility from his friend and his creation of POV forks that said some very insulting and inflaming things, definitely WP:BITE.
    • Regarding the IRC discussions, the blocking admin (Dennis Brown) came in VERY late to it. He was not there for most of it, when a group of editors led by Demiurge1000 were deliberately trying to rile up SkepticAnonymous, playing games that would infuriate anyone. Dennis Brown did briefly try to enter the discussion, but he only posted once or twice before another admin decided the game had gone long enough, made a very rude statement, and then proceeded to kickban SkepticAnonymous from the channel. All in all, it wasn't anything but an incivil WP:BITE tactic and it was very disheartening to see wikipedia editors act in this manner. Dennis Brown, from his post to the talk page of SkepticAnonymous, is probably not aware of what went on in the channel before his arrival and his judgement about SkepticAnonymous's demeanor in IRC is tainted thereby.
    • Nobody ever seems to go into these situations to try to explain the situation. They template and attack and prod, like Dennis Brown. Or they template with a generic, as foxj did. Or they leave borderline insulting messages with unusual terms in them, as Fluffernutter did. Each admin who dealt with unblock requests didn't bother to talk to SkepticAnonymous, they walked in with a sharpened stick ready to poke the bear. That all adds up to a colossal case of WP:BITE.
  • So as I see it, Still-24-45-42-125 is right. This is a pattern on Wikipedia, something we see from administrators and "veteran editors" alike far too often. It's an example of wikipedia game-playing that drives off editors who, taken with a kinder hand, would more likely turn out to be good editors. There's misbehavior from a new editor and it's been met by a pack of snarling dogs, not a welcome hand of humans trying to make a better editor of a newcomer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.106.234.26 (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can only agree with 173.106.234.26's analysis. In fact, they've taken the words out of my mouth. This editor was bitten hard. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to feel sympathy for someone who uses multiple sockpuppets] to try to set up other editors in a negative light. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If he's a monster, he's a monster we created by biting off his head. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to block/ban admins by spreading false information about them is not excusable, period. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to block/ban new users by spreading faked IRC logs like your buddy little green rosetta did isn't kosher either. We have no proof anything on that front is genuine, all we have is the word of an organized POV gang known to operate in tandem and hide their interactions and go seeking meatpuppets to rig the AfD and MfD !vote process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.255.110 (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

gnu57 09:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am coming here to request amnesty, or whatever the applicable Wikipedia policy is that is similar. I long ago lost the password to this account. When I started on this account I was a teenager and I was very angry, and I reacted very poorly to what I saw as provocations and bullying by other editors who I felt were mistreating me. I am admitting that I did create some sockpuppets at that time and for a few years after, out of anger and frustration and a desire to get revenge for how I felt I had been treated. In the time since then I have grown up, and I went into the military, and I have experienced much personal growth. I realized that I need to own my own actions from that time, and I apologize for the disruptions that were the result of my lashing out. I am also grateful to those who did stand up for me. I have not been on Wikipedia since 2017 when I went to boot camp and I have been out of the country until last week. I wish to request an amnesty and find a way to contribute productively, and I am writing this after consulting with two friends who participate on wikipedia and have encouraged me to do so. I was not aware until now of the notification from gnu57 but I can confirm that it was not me, and I feel sorry for whoever it is.

Decline reason:

Log in to this account if you wish to make an unblock request. ST47 (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2021 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I think that ST47 did not read my request before declining as I was clear that I long ago lost the password to this account. I am asking for amnesty and hoping that I will be treated respectfully by coming in good faith and admitting my prior behavior years ago.

Decline reason:

I'm certain ST47 read it, as did I. If you want to request unblock from this account, you must be logged in to it. I suggest that you try hard to remember the password. Otherwise, you will need to request unblock on your IP talk page and explain your situation. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2021 (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.

requests for more help[edit]

Since neither @331dot: nor @ST47: will be helpful I am going to ask for someone else to help. I am trying to follow wikipedia policies as I was advised and come clean to admit my past bad behavior. As I said in my previous request, I am coming here to request amnesty, or whatever the applicable Wikipedia policy is that is similar. I reacted very poorly to what I saw as provocations and bullying by other editors who I felt were mistreating me. I am admitting that I did create some sockpuppets at that time and for a few years after, out of anger and frustration and a desire to get revenge for how I felt I had been treated. Since I cannot remember the password to this old account they keep denying the requests and leaving unhelpful comments. I could edit from an IP address or create a new user name but I am trying to follow Wikipedia policies and come clean to have a fresh start. Would someone please provide real helpful comments and instructions on following the processes because I have tried to read the policy pages my friends sent me to but between physical therapy exhausting me and long term concussion issues I am having trouble understanding those pages or why 331dot and ST47 are acting like this. It feels to me like they are intentionally being insulting or dismissive with their responses in hopes to get me angry or to test if I will get angry and I am trying very hard to not repeat any previous anger issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.67.248 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I doubt anyone is trying to test you (WP:AGF). 331dot gave you a specific suggestion about posting from your IP talk page — what happened when you tried that? Other than trying that (and since your IP address has seemed to change with each request): I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I believe that if you can't login to your account, there isn't anything else anyone can do. If an admin unblocks this account (and, for now, I believe this is still hypothetical), and you can't login because you don't know the password, then what does that unblock accomplish? I think the idea is that the unblock request needs to come from the person who was actually blocked, and the only way you can do that is if you login again. (In the best case, we'd end up with an unblocked account that no one can use, because no one knows the password.) I'd suggest reading Help:Logging in#What if I forget my password? so that, at least, you can post the unblock request from your actual account. If that doesn't work (and if 331dot's suggestion doesn't work), I'm not sure there's anything else you can do except for a clean start. Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure there's really no way forward (and that's just to make the unblock request) if you can't/don't login. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried the passwords that I can remember and they do not work so either the concussion made me forget the right one or someone changed it with admin powers. I tried reading your clean start page but that says as long as there is an "active lock" that says that I can't have a clean start without first requesting the fix here so that is what I have been doing only to get ignored and treated disrespectfully for trying to do things the right way, coming clean and owning my own part for my reactions to how I was treated. I could edit to my own IP talk page or create an account but my friends said I should really go through a process to clear this up first otherwise some admin will just decide to call me a sockpuppet again and it will be another bad experience though this hasn't exactly been good to be given a runaround and pointed to pages that don't apply either. All I am asking for is to be treated with some basic respect and human decency and to have the actual process explained so that I can follow it. When I originally came here I was given bad treatment that violated the WP:BITEpolicy. I responded to it poorly and with much anger and I am apologizing for and owning my own part in that. Telling me that my feelings are invalid is something that in therapy I learned about almost always designed to try to make people angry, and it's not a good way to treat people so please do not do that. My purpose coming here is to show clear good faith and show that I have changed and accept my own responsibility for my own reactions despite how I was treated as those kind souls who defended me above pointed out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.99.147 (talk)

People who are looking at the help me category can't do anything about your issue. Please follow the instructions that the admins have given you and don't abuse the help system. SamStrongTalks (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Samstrongtalks:pleaswe do not do things like you did. i am asking for help and trying to do things to follow the wikipedia rules and i need to ask these questions to get answers.
@Gyrofrog: will you please respond to the questions— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.99.147 (talk)
People summoned by the help me template still can't do anything to help with your issues. SamStrongTalks (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I am honestly not sure what else to suggest other than what I wrote above. Also I am not sure how or why anyone else would have reset your password. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i used the live help channel and sent an email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org like +Dragonfly6-7hi there!21:06:52 told me to do. thank you for being helpful.

i got an email response but it was a form letter that didnt address my request and i am being told that they will not explain the reasons so that i can address it properly please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.99.56 (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not something any other helper can help with. The ArbCom has responded that they will not unblock you at this time (you showed me the letter).
Also, you have to realize that posting here to this talk page is considered block evasion and does not help your case at all. I realize this is all very frustrating to you, but - unless you like the idea of pestering ArbCom, not a recommended course of action - your only option is to wait out the period specified and apply to ArbCom again when that time has elapsed. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SkepticAnonymous&oldid=1143310916"