PaulBustion88
- Can I try the Standard Offer approach by editing Irish or Scots language wikipedias or conservapedia or a similar wiki or no?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm referring to the idea of leaving wikipedia in English alone for six months and editing elsewhere, for example on the Irish language wikipedia, instead. And if I edited well and without being disruptive, maybe I could be allowed to come back? I think it would be fair to say that this account has been less disruptive than the previous ones. Because, for example, I did not let my bias show up in my editing much. I was exagerrating when I said I hate Freemasonry, but I really do intensely dislike it, but I did not let my bias get in the way of my editing about it, and I tried to remove Manly Hall and Blavatsky from the Christian opposition to Masonry article because I thought it was unfair to Masonry to use their writings to argue it was anti-Christian when they are certainly not in the mainstream of Freemasonry. As a conservative, I oppose the Rockefeller Foundation, but I didn't let that prevent me from being objective about it, I found it unlikely that it was tied to Nazism, which is why I tried to remove the statements in the article suggesting it had links to Nazism. In this link, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFreud%2C_Biologist_of_the_Mind&diff=656068509&oldid=656068242, I criticized a sentence for not being npov because it suggested psychoanalysis has already been discredited, even though I'm opposed to psychoanalysis. The only thing I did this time that was extremely disruptive was adding Judaism and Islam to the Christian category. So if I can show on another wikipedia, for example Irish or Scots, that I can edit productively, can I be allowed to come back in six months?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC) I asked a user on Irish wikipedia to review my editing, and he replied, "I also left a reply on my discussion page. I'll do my best to review your edits. Just one quick note: There's nothing wrong with noting Freud's Jewish background. Both the English and German articles contain the word Jewish/Juden at least 10 times each, and the English article refers to that background as having some importance in his outlook. It just shouldn't be overemphasized. Ach go raibh maith agat as do chuid oibre anseo agus ádh mór ort. Thanks for your work here and best of luck. SeoMac (talk) 14:32, 18 Aibreán 2015 (UTC)"-- So, although I would never insist on adding the Jewishness to the Freud article if I came back, SeoMac is showing that that was also done on the German wikipedia, so it may not be inappropriate as people said it was. However, I'm not insisting on including that and I never would again. I took it off Irish wikipedia, https://ga.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigmund_Freud&diff=763672&oldid=763599. PaulBustion88 (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- In a word, no. You said as late as March here that you agreed to stop using more than one account. That you would work on the Irish and Scots wikipedias for 6 months before coming back. I'm sorry, but you have no credibility wrt to these undertakings to stop socking. I don't see the Standard Offer as applicable to you any longer. As for this account being "less disruptive" than previous socks, less is not enough. I haven't researched the way you've used your other socks in any depth, but this one has been pretty disruptive. I spoke to you originally on this page with the good-faith assumption that you were a new user who just didn't know what was appropriate to add to articles nor talkpages. Now I know you were no newbie. Frankly, I feel you have abused my good faith with your faux-naif questions. If you'd like an uninvolved admin's take on the matter of the Standard Offer, you can post this text below:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Formally, that's an unblock request, but you could explain in the "Your reason here" field that you don't expect to be unblocked (you might as well say that, because you certainly won't be) but would like an uninvolved admin's view of your chances of the Standard Offer. You don't need to put a whole long argument into the field, just refer to your post above.
- To any admin who responds to Paul's "unblock request": sorry to ask for uninvolved input in this manner, but I really don't know how else to do it. Hope you don't mind. Please see the page history and also this and this. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC).
- Not an admin, but saw the message, and received an e-mail from about this before the sock investigation started, even if I'm not an admin. Some of the wikis he mentioned are associated with the WMF, and so editing them wouldn't really count toward establishing credibility. The best way I can see for your potentially ever getting unblocked here, given Bishonen's comments above, would be for you to maybe do something on some of the other WMF entities or foreign language wikipedias which would show that you can be productive, and then, after a period of six months or one year of engaging in a lot of content related activity there without any real problems, to request that you be allowed to edit here, at least initially, on a limited basis, pretty much exclusively, in terms of importing non-controversial articles or clearly encyclopedic content from those other entities. That might work. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
WP Standard Offer
editPaulBustion88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Refer to my post above and answer whether I can do WP:Standard Offer. I think the only thing I did here that was indisputably disruptive was adding Judaism and Islam to the Christianity category. Refer to my post above for my replies to some of the arguments that I was disruptive in other ways. PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There's a long history of problems which will need to be addressed; your summary below seems to show you have no self-awareness. As to the standard offer, it appears to have been offered before and you lied. It's going to be hard to commit to anything when you've proven that you have no integrity. I would suggest actually living up to conditions, then come back and make a case, preferably with your original account and not another sock. [edit to add: concur with Mr. Carter's summary below] Kuru (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
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.
One thing I was criticized for call and called disruptive for was arguing that the Rockefeller Foundation did not have links to the Nazis. The Rockefeller Foundation article said that they did, and sourced it to an extremist author named Edwin Black. The Rockefeller Foundation is definitely left-wing politically, Nazism is generally considered right-wing politically, so that seems counterintuitive. I was criticized for suggesting Mormonism was off topic in the Christian churches against Freemasonry article because Mormonism is actually more different from Christianity than Freemasonry is. I gave logical arguments for my position. There is a Christian pastor named James White who has said that theologically, Mormonism is more different from Christianity than Judaism and Islam. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWqwrlifyWU He has said that this is because Christians believe God has eternally been God, and God is the creator of all things, and God is the only God, there is only one God, God created man, he did not procreate man, man is not of the same species as God, in all those respects, Islam believes the same thing. Mormons believe different things on all those issues. I did not edit war over the issue. Manly Hall is not a mainstream Masonic author, so I do not think his writings are a fair representation of what Freemasonry believes in, that's why I removed his section from that article. And I didn't edit war to keep my changes in that article. Even though I felt like I was right about the Rockefeller Foundation article, I reverted my edits there after Bishonen said he did not like them to me. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- First, Bishonen is not a "he." Second, the big problem, and it appears to be a very big problem, as per the number of confirmed socks you've already used, you appear to have regularly violated policies repeatedly, while also apparently not even abiding by your early promises, as per Bishonen's comments above. Also, frankly, at this point, it is really, really, ridiculous to ask whether you can apply for lifting of a ban as per the "standard offer" in a year or six months, considering that is a year or six months away. Like I said above, as a no-longer-admin, your best bet is to develop content elsewhere, in a non-problematic manner, and then apply after the time required for a standard offer to be offered has elapsed. I know personally that there are a hell of a lot of reference works over at wikisource which could use some attention, including encyclopedias, dictionaries, and biograhical dictionaries, which could easily and sometimes quickly be developed there and then imported here as reasonable. And I just started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Library which includes a lot of other PD sources in the broad fields of religion, philosophy, and cultural anthropology, among others, all of which are considered still useful enough to be included in a recent bibliography of sources on those topics, and all of which could be developed at wikisource and then made available for importation by a pure cut-and-paste. Particularly given the rather problematic history of your multiple confirmed socks, I really think your best option is to try to do something else first before asking for an offer, to show good faith in being willing to abide by reasonable terms. Then, on the conclusion of that period, maybe ask to have the block lifted. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- But did you find my editing under this account problematic, other than adding Islam and Judaism to the Christianity category? Were there any edits that were good here? I mean, I felt like this account managed to do a lot of things in a productive manner, at least compared to before. You don't think so?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Considering you have apparently been editing under this account to get around a site ban, any edits made here are inherently problematic, in that they are in violation of policy. You may have gotten a bit better in your editing under the new name, but considering the new name was itself created and used in violation of policy that isn't saying much. Like I said above, I think your best alternative, at this point, is to demonstrate elsewhere that your conduct isn't problematic before asking questions again here. And, if your primary interests are Scots and Irish, I know that Charles Matthews has been doing damn good work on developing the DNB over at wikisource, much of which just needs a second proofread by their terms to be finished, and my user page over there lists a largish number of other PD reference sources many of which haven't been added at all yet, and most of the ones that have been started aren't finished. Honestly, you might even find it a bit more relaxing over there, or at some other WMF entity. But under the obvious circumstance of multiple sockpuppetry asking if one illegal sock behaved better than others is kind of missing the point that the multiple socks are themselves inherently problematic. John Carter (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- But it is relevant to whether or not I'm capable of doing a good job of editing wikipedia. If my edits here were all bad under this account, that would suggest perhaps that I'm not capable of it, if a large number of them were good, it would suggest I am capable of it.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- But it is in not reasonable to request an "editor review" as per WP:ER at this time, and that is what you are seemingly demanding, considering that the account was clearly itself in violation of policies and guidelines. The only way your question would even make sense would be if you are intending to create yet another sock to edit, and maybe use a qualified "edits OK' for this account as a pretext to allow that account to continue editing once it's caught. If you can edit productively elsewhere, and also abide by the policies and guidelines regarding sockpuppetry during that time here, that would be a better suggestor that you can edit productively here at some future point. But the short period this account was active, and the minimal acticity it did, are not sufficient for anyone to draw a conclusion. Bluntly, you are not going to get an "OK" of any sort from anyone under the circumstances here. Take the time you are wasting here trying to get some sort of approval and spend it better at some other language wikipedia or other WMF entity. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I do not really believe I could learn a foreign language. And my understanding of simple topics like history, "sexology", Freud, etc. that were in English was bad, so I probably shouldn't be editing Irish wikipedia. I would edit simple English wikipedia but they banned me. Are there any other wikis I could practice editing on?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know of any wikis that would necessarily anyone to "practice" making articles. You do or you don't, and the only way you do is by following all the guidelines and policies, including those of sockpuppetry. To my eyes, your best bet would be under the circumstances to not practice writing articles, but reading them to see what good articles do and do not look like. And, in some cases, particularly for controversial topics like sex, religion, Freemasonry, etc., etc., etc., you probably should try to avoid them until you do have a better grasp, and maybe even thereafter. So, at the risk of repeating myself, I think your best bet would be to read, both our guidelines and policies here and printed or electronic reference sources. I find it strange to tell someone that there are other things in life to do than edit wikipedia, because even most editors around here know that. But, if you really, really, insist on editing, your best bet would probably be to go over to wikisource and find some reference sources to read and proofread, according to their policies and guidelines, and just do that for a period of six months or a year or however long it might be until you can request the ban here or elsewhere be lifted. My user page at wikisource:User:John Carter has a really scary number of reference sources which are in the public domain and could be added there, and many of the pages in Category:Bibliography of encyclopedias include others. Your best bet would be to find a reference source of some kind on one of those pages that deals with a topic that appeals to you and read it, and, maybe, if you want, edit the pages in the scan index to reproduce the content exactly on the individual pages of the scan index. If you can find a topic that interests you that doesn't have a lot of coverage elsewhere, that might make it easier to get a block lifted elsewhere. Maybe. You might even be able to get some help in learning the ropes over there. But you would also have to realize that, if you do return, there is a very real possibility that the content of any PD source, even an encyclopedic one, and the content of wikipedia pages will be different. Some of the PD articles are altogether too long to all be included in an article here, sometimes running to over 100 pages long. Some of the others are, at best, outdated. But they can be a start. John Carter (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand your point that there are other things to do. But I just looked at wikisource, and I have before. I think its just republishing previously published articles and books. For example, Henry Ford's The International Jew, a book about the Jewish influence in the world government movement that I've never read but I've come across before, is there I'm not endorsing its contents, my point is that's a previously published book. Sigmund Freud's Totem and Taboo, The Interpretation of Dreams, and Three Contributions to the Theory of Sexuality are there also. So it does not seem like that site would need editing, they're just republishing previously published material, not original work. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your definition of "editing" is here. If you mean "original creation of content in one's own words," no, there isn't any to do over there. All that material is previously published, agreed. But much of it, including the reference works on my user page there, is of an "encyclopedic" nature. So, in those cases, the material for some articles which could be here is already there in an format which is roughly acceptable for our own content here. While there may not be any personal creation of content on one's own, particularly for the older editions of Encyclopedia Britannica and other sources, what they have is to a degree what we should have. And for at least the topics of a less widely-arching scope, most of which are poorly developed here, that material could be theoretically imported here to improve the encyclopedia. The articles on the Catholic Church and Jesus, for instance, are already pretty good here, and they don't need that much changing of the content as some of the other articles that are still as important but maybe not so immediately obvious. And reading such pages of other published encyclopedias would give you a better understanding of how to apply policies like WP:WEIGHT and other standards of encyclopedic content here, by seeing how they are applied in those sources. From what I can see, maybe WP:NPOV, including WEIGHT, might be one of your more obvious problem areas here, and learning how others apply it by reading what they publish and include in which topics might make it easier for you to understand how to apply it to your own content creation. And, honestly, for some of the sources there, like the DNB, what they have is probably already better than what many if not all of us on our own could create from our individual research and writing anyway. John Carter (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm currently banned from Simple English wikipedia, but they said I could ask to be unblocked in six months. I did a much better job of editing there than here, they only banned me for sockpuppetry. So maybe my best is to see if they would unban me in six months, then edit there for six months and come back here. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Conservapedia is another website similar to wikipedia. Even though I don't like their extremist ideology and I don't agree with their premise that there's a liberal bias on wikipedia, maybe editing there could be a way for me to show that I can edit responsibly here after six months. Could trying that out work?PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- Could editing wiktionary be a good way to practice for six months before I try to come back?PaulBustion88 (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Do not unblock this user
editHi. I'm the second most prolific Wiktionary user, by number of edits. There seems to be some reason why PaulBustion88 was "sent" to us in order to serve his Wikipedia blocking time. He has been intolerable, and has made a huge mess. He is now perma-blocked on English Wiktionary. I just want to make it to clear that there are no circumstances I can possibly imagine under which this dude should be unblocked. Thanks. Equinox (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Equinox, see here and above. He is a highly problematic editor who WP:Sockpuppets all the time. I don't think any Wikipedia editor sent him to you all. As seen in that WP:Diff link I provided in this section and above, Bishonen and John Carter have tried to help him become a better editor. But he has been a serious Wikipedia problem for years. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- And just to keep obvious count: Now he has proven that he can't edit Wikipedia, the Simple English Wikipedia or Wiktionary productively. Flyer22 (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I view Flyer22 constantly posting to my talk page as harassment. She's just another arrogant person I came across who likes to bully people. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also, I was not banned from simple English wikipedia for the content of my edits, I was banned for using multiple accounts, Flyer knows this. She's lying about the reason I was banned. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- I managed to edit simple English wiktionary without making any jokes, https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PaulBustion88, or being disruptive. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=molest&type=revision&diff=32798530&oldid=31914828 This is part of the reason English wiktionary banned, was for changing this sentence. It is true that almost all pedophiles and child molestors are men, that is a point Flyer22 herself has made. Another reason I was banned was because I wanted to focus more on the medical definition of pedophilia than on the popular mistaken definitions of adults having sexual attraction or wanting to have sex with people younger than some arbitrary age, such as 16 years old or 18 years old, that is something she has advocated in her editing of the pedophilia article. I also felt that although I think hebephilia is basically a form of pedophilia, I think ephebophilia is more like teliophilia than hebephilia, and I'm skeptical that such a thing as ephebophilia even exists, because most 15-19 year olds look pretty much the same as most older adults in their secondary sex characteristics, and people attracted to the one tend to be attracted to the other, so I advocated separating ephebophilia away from pedophilia in the definitions, saying they were completely different. This is also a point Flyer22 herself has made. Since I've been saying things on wiktionary that I know she agrees with, the only explanation I can think of for why she keeps trying to attack me is that she has a grudge against me that she holds obsessively. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- I managed to edit simple English wiktionary without making any jokes, https://simple.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PaulBustion88, or being disruptive. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- I just read your email. Email me again, and your email restrictions will be disabled, just like what happened with the RJR3333 (talk · contribs) account. I've told you before that I could not care less about you, as long as you stay off Wikipedia and away from the areas where I will instantly recognize you. You still misrepresent what I've stated, as seen with your posts in this section, which is one of the biggest reasons I hate discussing a thing with you. And since you think that you can comment on this talk page about me as much as you want without me replying, I'm telling you now that you should think again. You stated in the email that you will report me to Wikipedia for WP:Harassment. Go ahead. Repeatedly reporting your misbehavior and letting others know of it is not WP:Harassment. Neither is repeatedly uncovering your WP:Sockpuppets. You are not making anymore jokes, you stated in your email? Oh, puh-leese. Yes, I am repeatedly on your case -- for your past and current misbehavior. You have hardly improved in all of these years, and you still don't know the difference between a WP:Block and a WP:Ban. You are incompetent when it comes to editing Wikipedia and the like. And seriously get it through your head that you have absolutely no right to edit Wikipedia. And since you want to keep testing my ability to identify you, by returning to the same areas you edited before/the areas I edit in, you are the one asking for trouble. Your talk page access is likely to be restricted if you keep posting here, especially if you keep posting others' emails. Oh, and I have not advocated anything on Wikipedia regarding pedophilia and child sexual abuse, except for what is noted on my user page about pedophilia and child sexual abuse. Flyer22 (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Why is it ok for you to post on my talk page without my permission but its not ok for me to post on yours without your permission. You complained about that before. You're not an administrator so that's a double standard. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like a block means technically preventing a specific computer address from editing, while a ban is a rule against editing. So it would be sort of like the difference between confining a person so he cannot interact with another, versus merely having a rule that he cannot. I guess I do understand the difference, its just that its hair splitting because either way I'm not allowed to edit, and with a block I could just find a different computer to edit from, not that I would, but if I really wanted to resist a block, it would be extremely to do that also. Even blocking an entire range wouldn't work cause I could just use a public access computer in a different city. For a block to be effective, you'd have to block an entire state. So I understand the difference, its just that its hair splitting. BTW, I'm not saying I'm going to do that, I'm just tired of Flyer implying that I'm a retard. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Anyway, Flyer22, this is my talk page, move on. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- To other editors, see the edit history of this talk page for what email aspect I was referring to in my "03:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)" post about posting others' emails; PaulBustion88 removed that material.
- "Why is it ok for you to post on my talk page without my permission but its not ok for me to post on yours without your permission." Because you are indefinitely blocked. The block is on you, not just your account! You should not be editing Wikipedia at all! I can post on your talk page, any talk page of your WP:Socks, to defend myself and to report your WP:Disruptive behavior. Your description of what a WP:Block and WP:Ban are is inaccurate, and that you cannot even tell the difference between that is further indication that you cannot appropriately comprehend Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or any policy or guideline. A WP:Block means that you are blocked, not just your account; it is "a rule against editing." It's time that your talk page posting abilities for this account be restricted. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- I removed it because you said it was inappropriate for it to be to there. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- It is accurate. I'm saying a block means that either a specific computer, computer address, ip address, or ip range of addresses is blocked so that its impossible to edit. While a ban forbids an individual man from editing wikipedia. So a ban only forbids a person from editing without being enforced through technology, while a block enforces the ban through technology. And editors are normally allowed to edit their own talk pages, even if banned. And I am going to be reporting you for harassment. Because you don't need to post to my talk page to get me banned and you know that. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen or Tiptoety, per this (the insult) and the editor's repeated nonsense/disruption above, will you go ahead and restrict PaulBustion88's talk page access? I would ask a different WP:Administrator, but you two are more familiar with this particular case and I am busy with other matters at the moment. There is no need whatsoever for the PaulBustion88 account to keep pleading RJR3333's case, as if Wikipedia will ever welcome him back. Flyer22 (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Bsadowski1, thank you for this. Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Noting this piece for transparency. Sigh. Flyer22 (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)