User talk:The Modest Associate

Am I Violating an Official Wikipedian Guideline? Write Your Complaint Here[edit]

Am I Violating an Unofficial Wikipedian Guideline (Essays)? Write Your Complaint Here[edit]

Would You Like to Provide Casual or Critical Feedback on my Contributions? Write It Here[edit]

May 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history at Occupy Wall Street shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dave Dial (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notificatino, Dave, and I tried to respond on your Talk Page but I am unable too. Apparently, I am blocked indefinitely for being a "sockpuppet" which I have not gotten a notification of such a case. The Modest Associate (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification is not required for sock cases, but here you go: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications are required if such an individual is being alleged and this is what you, and another contributor clearly were doing. The Modest Associate (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors do not have to notify users suspected of being sock puppets, although sometimes they do. I was just about to file a sock puppet and edit warring case myself. A couple of suggestions. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you will have to do two things. Stop edit warring on articles you have a clear bias against, and convince administrators on your original account that you understand what you have been doing wrong and will not keep disrupting the project. From what I've seen, I do not believe you are able to edit constructively with other editors, but perhaps if you wait 3-6 months and apply to be unblocked from your original account, some admin might. Have a good day. Dave Dial (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "clear bias" did I possibly write in my contributions? The article was already tagged for being in violation of the Neutral Point of View Guideline; I felt it was my Duty to do small contributions to abide by the guideline, and those contributions were in the Information Box and the Overview. Do you have any basis on your claim of this "sockpuppetry" case? Again, I desire a proper trial because this is unfair, and unethical. You cannot just assume that a person is another person without any technical evidence to back it up. WP:DUCK is not a Guideline and neither are any of the "essays" on this very site. Do I not have the right to appeal for a proper speedy and immediate trial right now? Doesn't this site try to promote democracy? Doesn't this site try to promote justice? The contributors that reverted my edits clearly had a bias, and I read through the Occupy Wall Street Talk Page; it is clear that this Article has a Point of View issue. The contributors based off that Talk Page that seem to be causing the real problems are Equazcion and Amaid. Why don't you investigate the POV issue for the article, itself instead of letting the same contributors who are causing the ruckus, and consistently reverting others' work because it, perhaps, doesn't fit their agenda. Take a look at the view history of the Article for the past 10 days. The Modest Associate (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy and we don't do "trials". You seem to know enough about practices here to be a previous user though. Disclose your previous account(s), if they didn't have anything to do with CentristFiasco. That might be a start. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then why should anyone waste their time getting consensus to make a change on an article then? What you've just linked just contradicted the very notion or purpose of Article Talk Page, and your "philosophy" of gaining consensus from the editing community to change an article. I've read through your posts on the Article's Talk Page, I don't need to actually read through these guidelines in their entirely to understand the gist. I don't need to have another account to know it either. It is all played out in the Article's Talk Page. The Modest Associate (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy doesn't work on consensus. That's one of the ways we differ from it. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's bargain for a second.

The Treaty of Equazcion and Modest Associate:

1. You Revert the Contributions. 2. Wait About 10 to 30 Minutes To See If Its Reverted Back. 3. If Not Reverted Back, I Will Disclosed All My Accounts to You. 4. You Can Report Them at Your Peril.

Deal? The Modest Associate (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to your preferred version isn't an option, per WP:DENY. I couldn't if I wanted to. Others would revert on the basis that a block-evading user made the changes, so this experiment wouldn't tell you anything. Since you've basically admitted to having previous accounts, and now you're socking, it would seem you're blocked on your original account (even if that's not CentristFiasco), so any request here is not legitimate. Whatever you do, it needs to come from your original account. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are not official guidelines. The Modest Associate (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Official guidelines" aren't the only things we follow here (policies aren't necessarily even followed in all situations, see WP:IAR). Many essays just spell out the common sense principles people apply here. DENY is something everyone here follows because it makes sense, even if there's no policy tag on it. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You want a confession? I'm Centrist Fiasco. There, you have it. You know why I keep on coming back? It's because of you and other contributors who are misleading the Public when editing the Occupy Wall Street Article. I feel its my natural Duty to contribute and stop the madness that you and other elite contributors caused. You're pushing a point of view and you have been for a while now, it's bloody obvious. You think I'm dumb? Think again. I'm tired of you treating this site as your blog. You have no control of this site and you certainly have no control over its contributors. I will continue to do what I'm doing until you confess your intentions. Nobody closely monitors an Article this much as you without having some kind of mischievous agenda. Moreover, stop trying to get me post on my main account because I literally cant, you idiot. There are abusive administrators on this site who ban folks from even talking on your their Talk Pages. The Modest Associate (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR report[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is User:The Modest Associate reported by User:Equazcion (Result: ). Thank you. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Equazcion, I thank you for notifying me instead of reverting my contributions. Is there something that you dislike about the contributionts? If there is, all you have to do is inform me in a proper manner on what exactly is wrong with my contributions, and I'm open to changes. The Modest Associate (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Acroterion (talk) 14:22, 25 May 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).

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

Request reason:

I was not informed properly in attention to the official Wikipedian Guidelines on "sockpuppetry". I am aware that I was engaged in a edit war but this "edit war" was due to other contributors reverting my hardworking contributions, which was not a lot, and their reasons for reverting my contributions. They claim that I am this "sockpuppet" but never submitted a claim and I never got a notification of such allegations on my Talk Page. I wish to be granted an official trial with the administrators or the higher ranking administrators on this matter, and if Jimmy Wales or his Associates are logged I would love to gain in contact with them. The Modest Associate (talk) 10:27 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I think I'll nip this now -this account is a sock of CentristFiasco (talk · contribs). If they wish to appeal, they can contact WP:BASC. TN X Man 17:45, 25 May 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.

No such notification is required: it is clear that you saw the edit summaries of other editors, that you were actively edit-warring, and that you were a returning editor intent on disruption. Acroterion (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim has yet to have any technical evidence. I would like for other administrators to key in on this as well as the problems of the Occupy Wall Street article itself. The Modest Associate (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The primary reason for your block was determined edit-warring, a bright-line transgression which you've ignored completely. It is also clear that you've been here before, and that you are probably an indefinitely blocked user. Acroterion (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, have you investigated the nature of the case instead of looking at it point blank? Consider investigating the contributors of the Article, itself and its problems and then come back to me. You'll figure out I hope that my contributions were actually helpful. The Modest Associate (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do not edit war even if you think you are right. In this case, you shouldn' have done it, even though you may think that the page is misleading people. I make no judgment on what you are trying to change, but you are doing it the wrong way. And BTW, what other people are doing has nothing to do about you getting unblocked. Even if your edits are helpful, you do not edit war. Period. 71.132.133.123 (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]