User talk:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz

Well that's interesting.

It's funny how different the treatment is depending on who's doing the bullying of an editor. In one case they're falling over themselves to stop the harassment, in an almost identical situation they're falling over each other to see who can be the first to swing the bat at someone's kneecaps. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kyle

Thank you so much for preventing vandalism on Chris Kyle. I noticed some IP address was edit warring to. The page now currently has admin protection to. Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at American Sniper. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Katie^talk 11:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge you to rethink your approach to editing while you're away. When you're not edit warring you make valuable contributions, but you've been around long enough to know that long-term edit warriors can eventually get themselves topic banned or community banned. Please do some reflection. Katie^talk 11:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie, as far as I am concerned, this is extremely inappropriate - at the very minimum, if I am being given this, then there are others who should be as well. The type of untoward behavior, including having editors who openly declare they refuse to work with others, is ridiculous coming from Winkelvi and DHeyward. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not feel this is appropriate given the circumstances, both that I have been singled out and heavily trolled and targeted.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM as are your comments below, some of which are personal attacks. Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2016 (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.

@KrakatoaKatie: @Keri: this diff came up as I looked in this morning. I'm now DOUBLY incensed to be treated in this manner by KrakatoaKatie, in the face of what I have been on the receiving end of. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie:@Keri: as did this diff - I find it interesting how Winkelvi and DHeyward are both so interesting in controlling and removing any comment they dislike. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Keri: regarding this, I think dancing around it is meaningless. The only two logical explanations for this one for instance are either Winkelvi or DHeyward logging out to hide edits, or else a result of off site canvassing that was first observed a couple days ago. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not feel this is appropriate - nor is it appropriate for Bbb23, who has stated an antipathy towards me for reasons I can't understand, to be the reviewer.

Decline reason:

First off I count 4 reverts in a content dispute in 24 hours, this is edit warring and a violation of 3RR and will get you a block pretty much every time. The block seems correct. As for Bbb23's review, if you have evidence that they are involved in this matter in a way that is not purely administrative then present your evidence. Their judgement has always seemed sound to me and I really cannot imagine them coming to a different conclusion in their review. This is going to happen to you every time you edit war so just stop edit warring. HighInBC 14:26, 4 June 2016 (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.

In regards to your accusation against our other editors, accusations made without evidence are considered personal attacks. Please do not continue to accuse other editors of sock puppetry without providing reasonable evidence. You say "either Winkelvi or DHeyward" which should be your first hint that you don't have enough evidence to accuse either of them. Repeated use of personal attacks while blocked can result in loss of talk page access. HighInBC 14:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC:I provided evidence of it, and Bbb23 deleted my request to checkuser. The confluence of edits is clear - that IP only shows up when Winkelvi and DHeyward are WP:TAGTEAMing somewhere, to support them. So I'm afraid your claims are highly disingenuous at this point. I guess was right, wikipedia admins don't really care about policies unless it gives them an excuse to beat up on someone. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say that, but WP:3RR is a pretty clear policy and we are following it to the letter. You can pretend we are picking on you because we like to pick on people, but the reality is that 3RR is a bright line rule and people get blocked for violating it all the time. You got blocked because you edit warred, plain and simple. Just don't edit war and you won't get blocked for edit warring. HighInBC 14:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Bbb23 deleted my request to checkuser", can you link to that? HighInBC 14:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get a link to a deleted page. Copying the log. (Deletion log); 11:36 . . Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/108.34.150.59 ‎(G3: Vandalism: content dispute spite filing)

In addition, Bbb23 closed my request to CheckUser three days ago regarding the same IP and DHeyward, despite my providing well researched evidence and diffs, accusing me falsely of "bad faith."

I object strenuously to Bbb23's pattern of targeting me and ignoring solid evidence that I provide. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All my actions against you have been administrative, including the ones at WP:SPI. I have removed your reenactment of the SPI and revoked your Talk page access. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I see that Bbb23 has removed the content you have posted. Really Bbb23 is far more skilled than I at investigating sock puppetry cases. They have access to tools I do not have. I really am not in a position to check on their opinion on the matter. That being said the evidence mostly to me indicated that the people had similar opinions, I did not see evidence of sock puppetry. Other people may see things differently than me. But I certainly don't see enough evidence to justify edit warring in an article. HighInBC 14:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to removing talk page access, please take into account that I did ask them to provide evidence of their accusations. HighInBC 15:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: It's impermissible for PVJ to use this page as a forum for their personal attacks via SPI. It should be fairly easy for you to see any deletions I made, as well as any edits regarding PVJ that were not deletions. I've deleted SPIs before when they are clearly made in bad faith and constitute personal attacks. PVJ's isn't the first. Your request to provide evidence does not give PVJ carte blanche to say whatever they like.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I just wanted to be sure you were aware of the context. HighInBC 15:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Keri (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Keri: Thanks, but you already know that thanks to a block based in a bad faith filing, I can't participate. Notifying me of it is pretty meaningless unless you intend me just to be frustrated by that fact. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Keri:, I have forwarded you something that was sent to my email this morning. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of all involved parties is required, but it was also for information purposes. I don't know what the result of the ANI discussion might be, but there is also a very slight possibility that an admin may unblock you only for the purposes of joining an ANI discussion. But that's only speculation, and the discussion may be very short. Keri (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Keri: I doubt that any policies of wikipedia will be followed by any wikipedia admins at this point. My faith in them has gone to nothingness after being on the receiving end of blatant mistreatment that they'll do nothing about, only to beat me up instead. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bothering me on IRC

I have told you very clearly that I don't want to have a private discussion with you, please stop sending me private messages on IRC. You can talk to me in the public #wikipedia-en-unblock channel but stop sending me private messages. Any further private messages will considered unwelcome and will be closed without being read. I don't want to talk with you without witnesses. HighInBC 15:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sock block

DoRD - I'm not entirely aware of the conditions by which Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz was blocked as a sock of SkepticAnonymous, however, I have co-edited with him/her on a number of articles over a long period of time and have not seen any behavioral similarity to SkepticAnonymous' edits. It appears there were some other issues going on here, and I can't comment on them as I don't have the background, but I do feel I have a fairly broad scope of familiarity with PVJ's edit patterns to comment on the sock question specifically. (Not that long ago he/she was also the subject of a fairly aggressive gaslighting by editors who are no longer with us. I don't think he/she handled it in an ideal manner, though also understand his/her frustration at the time.) That all said, you may have additional information, or geolocation data, regarding this question which invalidates my own observations. In any case, I thought it might be helpful or useful for me to offer some observational testimony from the perspective of a long-term period of watching. Hope all is well. LavaBaron (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LavaBaron: I'll just say this: I've been dealing with SkepticAnonymous, on and off-wiki, for a long time, and if this account isn't him, they're doing a remarkable job of imitating him. —DoRD (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]