User:Crazytales/desk/Gen. von K IRC log

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a query, and I have permission to post the log.

[161730]<genvon> hi.
[161734]<crazytales2> Hello
[161743]<genvon> have you seen my case on WP:ANI recently?
[161751]<genvon> it seems they will not unblock me.
[161927]<genvon> so, let's say I will wait 3 months until IP block expires...
[161932]<crazytales2> You can come back productively after the three month block on the IP expires.
[161949]<genvon> I will create another account, with description on my user page who I am.
[161953]<crazytales2> But I recommend you stay away from sexually related articles, just to be careful.
[161957]<genvon> what they do next?
[162011]<genvon> they'll block me because of WP:SOCK, regardless of my edits.
[162034]<crazytales2> So don't make any connection obvious.
[162045]<genvon> I am not going to hide, sorry.
[162100]<genvon> WP is about openness and sincerity, isn't it?
[162105]<crazytales2> Yeah.
[162139]<genvon> so, tell them to block my IP indefinitely, too, right now, because I will create another "sock" after block expires.
[162156]<crazytales2> I don't think they'll reblock for being a sockpuppet, just as long as you don't do anything abusive.
[162202]<genvon> perhaps they will start to think about their stupid policies....
[162242]<genvon> look, earlier or later I will make some conflict with someone. it is inevitable on WP.
[162256]<genvon> so, he/she will report me as WP:SOCK.
[162300]<crazytales2> Conflict != abusive.
[162323]<genvon> I wasn't abusive. never. but Ryulong blocked me indefinitely nevertheless.
[162349]<crazytales2> And they can't block under the policy if the account isn't being used to circumvent a ban/block.
[162436]<genvon> but, it will be "used as circumvent block". I will create another account and I will tell on my user page that I am Gen. von Klinkerhoffen.
[162456]<genvon> so, it could be considered as block evasion.
[162524]<genvon> I am not going to hide, because block of my frist account was unfounded.
[162532]<genvon> it is that simple.
[162602]<crazytales2> It all depends on the blocking admin. You don't have a ban in place (bans are about community consensus, and more concrete than blocks). IIRC, WP:SOCK only applies to block evading.
[162612]<crazytales2> s/block evading/ban evading/
[162622]<genvon> my first account is still blocked indefinitely.
[162701]<genvon> so, creation of another account could be considered as avoiding block.
[162737]<crazytales2> I don't think it'll result in banning/blocking just as long as you stay away from sexuality related articles. Especially after as long a period as three months.
[162821]<genvon> why should I stay away from sexuality related articles? they need editing, i.e. removing of pornography.
[162918]<crazytales2> That's what got you into trouble in the first place. There needs to be talkpage consensus on the removal of images.
[162927]<crazytales2> Wikipedia is built on consensus.
[163007]<genvon> read talk pages of articles in question. there was no consensus to keep images removed by me in the articles, especially inline.
[163109]<crazytales2> Was there consensus to remove though?
[163142]<genvon> probably no. but there was never consensus to keep it either (in case of [[Ejaculation]]), AFAIK.
[163404]<genvon> think about whole this case from the beginning. I've been blocked _indefinitely_ because of one 3RR viol. then, they blocked my IP address for 3 months.
[163409]<genvon> where is policy for all this?
[163437]<genvon> and they expect me to be calm after all this? ridiculous...
[163541]<crazytales2> Your 'For Brian Peppers' edit summaries didn't help. They escalated a 3rr vio into what may be seen as trolling.
[163751]<genvon> there were only two edit summaries. not more.
[163803]<genvon> it is not much to justify _indefinite_ block.
[163838]<genvon> I've never repeated this and never used "For Brian Peppers" edit summary.
[163844]<crazytales2> Okay.
[163905]<crazytales2> But why did you use a 'For Brian Peppers' edit summary at all in the first place?
[163955]<genvon> BTW - here is the timeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GenVonKlink_Hoffen&oldid=115703210
[164046]<genvon> why? well, I thought it was funny... you can read my explanation on my user talk page (Gen. von Klinkerhoffen), too.
[164319]<crazytales2> Okay/
[164352]<crazytales2> Are you also aware that [[WP:NOT]] censored?
[164511]<genvon> have you seen explicit photos related to sexuality in other serious encyclopedias like, let's say, Britannica?
[164645]<genvon> you know, inclusion or not some photos, is not a matter of "censorship", but more a good taste.
[164701]<crazytales2> Britannica and WIkipedia are not directly comparable.
[164702]<genvon> but some people want to add as explicit images as they can.
[164715]<crazytales2> And good taste on whose opinion?
[164805]<genvon> good question... Jimbo's actions could be some direction...
[164844]<crazytales2> (By the way, may I log this query and post it in a user subpage to refer to?)
[165024]<genvon> my mention about "stupid policies" will be read as "harmfull to WP", I guess, so they will trying justify block of me, I guess... but, yeah, feel free to post it.
[165040]<crazytales2> Thanks.