User talk:Knotweed

Knotweed, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Knotweed! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request number 1

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked as a sock, apparently for having the audacity to question the sentiments expressed in an essay about socking. There was no SPI or even ad-hoc discussion, no rationale was provided, no evidence was proffered, no sock-master has been implicated, and no advice about how to fight this slur given. Knotweed (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

the given reason for your block is illegit. editing in project space. There is no mention of socking, although the inappropriate edits you made were in a policy document (not an essay) about sockpuppetry. And possibly reverting a senior admin and checkuser was not a good idea. Your first edit with this account clearly shows, however, a deeper knowledge of the project than would be expected in a new user. Would you care to comment on this?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:48, 7 August 2014 (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.

@Anthony Bradbury:, thanks, yes I will comment on this. See the new unblock entry below. And thanks for the compliment at the end, but it's down to years of experience on other wikis and many a happy hour spent lurking around the edges of this one too - it's not, unfortunately, that I am a particularly quick learner! Knotweed (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request number 2

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was not given any information explaining my block and the only clue I found was when looking at my contributions page, a banner at the top contained this text: "This account is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 02:40, 7 August 2014 Kww ... blocked Knotweed ... with an expiry time of indefinite (WP:ILLEGIT: editing project space)". Anthony Bradbury, in his refusal to unblock above, said I wasn't blocked for socking, but for "illegit"; well given that WP:ILLEGIT links directly to a section in the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy, and gives nothing more than an explanation of a class of socking, then the only logical conclusion for me was that I was was blocked for socking - am I wrong there? Anthony Bradbury was also mistaken about the types of pages I have edited, and the nature of my edits. He said I edited a policy document, not an essay. A quick glance at my contributions list reveals that I have edited just 4 pages: *Wikipedia:Dealing with sock puppets - an essay about socking. In a banner at the top that is clear "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." *Wikipedia talk:Dealing with sock puppets - the talk page of the above essay. *Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard - presumably the board to put notices for administrators on (which is all that I did there). *This, my talk page. There are no policy documents there, but there is an essay. Anthony Bradbury also said "And possibly reverting a senior admin and checkuser was not a good idea." I did not know I had done that. The only possible edit he could mean there was the one where, in the essay, I carefully re-edited-in some factual and typo corrections that I had made as part of my first, much larger, edit - and that had been inadvertently undone (presumably as there is no justification for keeping typos and such, is there?) after an editor reverted the entirety of my previous edits. Either way, I wasn't aware that the views of certain classes of editor took priority over those of others. And further, how could I know the status of other editors involved anyway? So I am baffled. Knotweed (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC) ;Additionally... Just to make my request reason perfectly clear, and hopefully to provide enough information to allow a clean unblock now... I simply did not contravene WP:ILLEGIT. I believe that the essay, Wikipedia:Dealing with sock puppets, that I had edited, was mistakenly thought to be a policy or guideline. As it says near the top of Category:Wikipedia essays, "Essays in the Wikipedia namespace may be edited by anyone." As no notification of, or rationale for, the block was given by User:Kww (who made the block) it's impossible to know exactly what was in their mind, but there is a part of WP:ILLEGIT that says: "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages". Mine isn't an "alternative account" and I did not "edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages" (Wikipedia:Dealing with sock puppets is clearly headed as an essay). And now a plea to reasonableness: if you think you might need any further information to enable you to make a fair and informed judgement here, please ask for it (and await the reply) rather than just assuming the worst and declining the request for lack of necessary information. Knotweed (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given the limited scope and non-constructive nature of your edits, I'd say that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:35, 22 August 2014 (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.

I did not claim that the views of a certain class of editors took priority over others. But I do suggest that the actions of an experienced admin could reasonably be assumed to be correct unless evidence to the contrary is forthcoming. And when your edits are reverted it is always better to investigate rather than to just re-revert. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: you are side-stepping the issues here:

1. Is WP:ILLEGIT, the policy it is asserted that I have contravened, a branch of socking, or not?

2. Do you accept that you were mistaken and that it was not a policy document that I edited, but it was an essay?

3. How could I have reasonably known that the editor who reverted my change, and thus brought back a bunch of typos and factual errors into the essay, was a "senior admin and checkuser"?

4. I did not re-revert anyone, I painstakingly re-corrected typos and factual errors that the reversion by the "senior admin and checkuser" had re-inserted, carefully avoiding re-reverting the removal of the substantive changes I had previously made.

I am still baffled. Knotweed (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@PhilKnight:: your decline reason was not a reason, it was some questions. Why couldn't you have asked the questions first, then waited for the answers so you could take them into account before deciding whether to grant the unblock, or not? Then, if you still declined, at least you could have provided a proper considered reason, which would have been open to scrutiny. As it is, it seems like your decision was prejudiced.

As for your questions:

Q: If this is an alternate account, could you explain why it's necessary?

A: It isn't an alternate account.

Q: In other words, why do you need this account to make the edits you've listed above?

A: I don't need it, but chose to register an account, rather than use an anonymous IP address, for my first edits here.

Q: Why can't you just use your main account?

A: Is is my main account, my only account, in fact.

Now I have to make yet another request to try to have this totally flawed block removed. Knotweed (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll self revert. PhilKnight (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @PhilKnight:, fair play to you. Knotweed (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, posting on WP:AN with an alternate account is enough for me to block based on editing project space. What I have an extremely hard time believing is that a legitimate editor would make his first edits to essays about sockpuppeting and have those edits be in terms of trying to make the world a softer, gentler place for socks. What prompted your interest in the subject?—Kww(talk) 22:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: thanks for coming back to explain. You seem to have read more into what is not allowed in "project space" than is described in WP:ILLEGIT. There it specifies just "policies, guidelines, or their talk pages" and "Arbitration proceedings", "requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections." It doesn't mention notice boards. Either way it is academic, because as I explain above, this is not an "alternate account", it is my main (and only) account.

You say you find it hard to believe that I would make my first edits to essays about sockpuppeting. Well if you had told me that before you blocked me, we could have saved all this wasted time for everyone, because I could have made it clear to you then. Here is an account of exactly how I ended up doing just that. Having been a regular user of more than one wiki for several years, I was intrigued when I came across this news article about sock puppetry on Wikipedia recently. The article mentions the sterling work of "administrator Dennis Brown"; so being inquisitive by nature, and always having been slightly suspicious of the reliability and neutrality of Wikipedia articles, I Googled '"sock puppets" "dennis brown"'. The the very first hit was Wikipedia:Dealing with sock puppets (and it still is)! I read it, and re-read it. My first impression of it was not good. I was disappointed because of its careless mixing of the terms "sock puppet" and "suspected sock puppet", when it was abundantly clear to me that due to the nature of internet use that these accounts could never really be other than suspected sock puppets. Also I noticed numerous grammar and/or typing errors, and found myself disagreeing profoundly with the notion expressed that suspects should not be informed of the suspicions, and that the investigation and judgement should take place behind their backs, without giving them the opportunity to explain their actions. And having now, ironically, experienced exactly that myself, and having been blocked without explanation for a socking offence, and having had to waste so much time going around in circles, hamstrung by the block, to try to get unblocked, I believe even more strongly that blocks should never be enacted before the suspect has had a chance to answer the charges. So I decided to act, not as an anonymous IP user, but through a real, registered, account. For my first edit I chose to correct the typing errors, factual mistakes, and add my opinion about informing the suspect into that essay.

I wonder just how many of the suspected socks blocked b "administrator Dennis Brown" really were socks, and how many of them were innocent, perhaps naive, contributors trying to make their mark, but in the wrong place at the wrong time. Knotweed (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't have made any difference: I wouldn't have believed you then, either. Perhaps someone else will.—Kww(talk) 03:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

What have I done wrong?

@Ohnoitsjamie:, why do the goalposts keep moving? Is it too much to expect a straight explanation? Did I contravene WP:ILLEGIT (the only reason given for my block), or not? If I did, in what way - I need to understand? If I did not then please unblock me, don't just try using another unsubstantiated reason. This is nuts. Knotweed (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

They don't keep moving. Your task is to make an admin believe that you just happened to make your first non-anonymous edits to content related to sockpuppetry and to the administrator's noticeboard and that you have no other named account. I don't. I cannot deny your unblock request, but no one seems particularly inclined to grant it.—Kww(talk) 22:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kww:, you blocked me for WP:ILLEGIT, yet you cannot show where I contravened it. Please take the time to explain your reasoning, bearing in mind that essays and noticeboards are not within its scope. Knotweed (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverting unblock reviews

If you do this again, your talk page access will be revoked. You'll need to create a new unblock request if you wish it to be reviewed again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie:, will you please elaborate on how correcting typos, correcting factual errors, and adding personal opinion to an essay is "non-constructive". What policy contravention am I actually blocked for now? Knotweed (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A civil, attack-free, reasonable, and good faith request

From WP:ADMINACCT:

"Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed."

• I have been subjected to unexplained administrator actions (a block and refusals to unblock) and have questioned those actions. I am now waiting for those actions to be justified. Knotweed (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope you have a good book handy while you are waiting. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie:, of the four administrators involved so far, and whose actions I have questioned, Kww has, at last, tried to explain their actions and PhilKnight self-reverted his unblock refusal. That leaves Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs), who at least responded (although he evaded my concerns and has not yet responded to my request for more clarity) and yourself who appears to be happy to defy WP:ADMINACCT and have refused to respond (and you threw in the above taunt too). If you are happy to bring the office of administrator into disrepute, then on your head be it. Knotweed (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• There's been no lack of accountability. I blocked because I believe that this is an alternate account being used illegitimately. Your defense is that it isn't an alternate account, and I've stated that I find your defense implausible. —Kww(talk) 02:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: WP:ILLEGIT contraventions require not only an alternative account but an illegitimate use too. You assert the first, against my reassurances that I have no other account, but as I have not performed any of the illegitimate edits, your case fails. I believe the root of your error was that you wrongly believed I had edited a policy and not just an essay. Can you review your contributions (such as this one) at WP:AN please. Knotweed (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Your use of an alternate can only be viewed as a method of avoiding scrutiny. Even if my interpretation of project space is a broader than some's, you fall afoul of WP:ILLEGIT.—Kww(talk) 15:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kww:If I had used an alternate account, your interpretation of "project space" is still borderline and needlessly harsh. And why do you think I would need, or want, to "avoid scrutiny" to make that edit? However, as I explained above, the impetus for my edit, and thus my account creation, was triggered by a chain of events starting when I read a news article about sock puppets on Wikipedia. Knotweed (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest that your time here might be better spent in re-framing an unblock request, rather than continuing to snipe at the various admins who have been involved. The basic problem is your edits, not our reaction to them. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I will concede that the document within which your questionable edits were made was a guidance document, not a policy one. This does not affect, in my opinion, the validity of your block. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The notice boards are certainly within project space. That language in WP:ILLEGIT is a series of examples, not an exhaustive list.—Kww(talk) 15:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kww: yes, yes. But do you honestly believe for one second that my single post there (this one) fell foul of the spirit of WP:ILLEGIT which is "to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus."? Knotweed (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: Thanks for your advice and thanks for your admission in response to one of my concerns with your remarks above. I'm disturbed though that you characterised my requests for clarity and transparency as sniping at admins. I have been blocked - and I want to know on what basis (ie what policies have I contravened)! And that is still no clearer. Look at the confused interpretations developing above. Kww still insists the block was for illegitimately posting a notice to a notice board, yet you assert that my "questionable edits" were made to a "guidance document" (an essay in fact)".

Now you say that my time here might be better spent in re-framing an unblock request. I totally agree and in fact I have tried to do that twice now. But, on both occasions, the refusals were accompanied, not by explanations, clear rationales, and helpful insights into what I need to do to recover my editing rights, but by more confusing, conflicting, even untrue accusations.

Perhaps you can now point me in the right direction - show me the light - and tell me which of my actions need further explanations and/or further justifications. And what other type of evidence do you think I can to provide, on top of the audit trail of my journey from news article to google to that Wikipedia essay that I gave above, to help convince Kww that I am not an undercover agent attempting to subvert the content of Wikipedia by placing a short notice advising of the existence of a discussion on an appropriate notice board. Knotweed (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request number 3

{{unblock}}

• Alternate accounts, aka sockpuppets, are only allowed under very limited circumstances. They are otherwise not allowed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: yes, I understand that, and am confident that I have not contravened the policies on that. Mine is not an alternate account. I'll summarise (again) shortly, in response to DangerousPanda's comments below, my wiki experience and the how & why I came to create this account. I hope it will answer your natural scepticism. Knotweed (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's the problem as I see it: there are 33 million pages. There are 22 million registered users. New users cannot logically be able to find another editors personal essay within moments of registering. A new user also would not have a strong opinion on something like that, unless they have been involved in the project. They also would not express such an opinion unless they had a personal link to contents of the essay. They would also not immediately find administrator noticeboards. Your words, actions, edits, abilities etc all show that you are NOT a novice editor. You have either been editing anonymously, or using another account - both of which you deny. Unfortunately, based on evidence, that denial is implausible. The root of any community - and a project based on that community - is trust. Help us to trust you, all goes well ... implausible denial does not build trust the panda ₯’ 11:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: I have not been blocked for editing that essay, but for posting a message to a notice board - check Kww's (the blocker) comments directly above. However (apologies to those who have already figured it from my explanations above) I'll explain for you: (1) exactly how I arrived at that essay page from amongst all the 32,999,999 other pages. (2) why I edited it and why it mattered to me, (3) why I don't appear to be a novice editor.

1. I read an online news article, this one: The battle to destroy Wikipedia's biggest sockpuppet army. I was intrigued, especially by the quote attributed to administrator Dennis Brown: "I literally put in 12 hours yesterday, verifying/tagging/blocking 199 socks, and I have about 100 more to go, plus a few dozen unlisted socks to research". Naturally, I wanted to see if the story was covered elsewhere, so I went to Google and entered the following search string: '"sock puppets" "dennis brown"'. If you try it you will see that the first results are for the essay. I had actually found it alone, from amongst the 33,000,000 pages before I had registered an account!

2. I went on to read that essay, and I was struck: firstly by the number of typos in it, secondly by the sloppy use of "sock puppet" when what was being discussed were actually "suspected sock puppets" (journalists are obsessed with inserting 'suspected' and 'alleged' before due process has occurred and a proper verdict reached) and thirdly by the unbelievably arcane and almost medieval notion that an accused party should not be notified of the suspicions about them and not given the opportunity to defend themselves before a verdict has been reached. I felt almost obliged to make corrections and adjustments to this essay, especially as a notice at the top made it clear that it was a collection of opinions and not a policy. Being paranoid about privacy and internet security and realising that my ip address would become publicly exposed if I edited without first registering an account, I chose what I thought was the sensible option. The rest, as they say, is history.

3. I have several years experience of the MediaWiki wiki engine, as I have run and/or been a prolific contributor to many private wikis. They all use the same mark-up language, terminology and structures as Wikipedia. I have also often consulted Wikipedia (it is the big-daddy of the wiki world after all) when looking for inspiration for work on my other wikis, and have followed many threads through discussions, talk pages, notice boards and so forth on Wikipedia, so I am well aware of much of the lore and language behind the scenes of Wikipedia.

Does anyone have any more doubts or questions about my behaviour, or other susoicions about my motives? If they do, please give me the chance to answer them. I want to be as open and honest as I can here - I actually have nothing to hide. Knotweed (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the annoying things about your original series of posts - and your explanation above - is that you seem to forget that Wikipedia is a private website, and thus does not follow the course of "natural justice". We don't need to go by the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" whatsoever. Notifications also are often a bad idea (things like WP:BEANS come into play). It's highly possible that your edits were potentially good faith, but making such edits without an understanding of the culture, policies, and 12 years of jurisprudence was a very very bad idea. Dennis is also 100% entitled to his own opinion - and changing his opinion statement in an essay is unacceptable - you cannot go around putting words in someone's mouth. Indeed, making such edits makes you appear as someone who was recently on the "receiving end" of a Dennis Brown block, and therefore came back to a) twist his words, and b) try and invalidate their actions - 'that is why you appear to be a sockpuppet. When the written word is all we can go by, "appearance of impropriety" is all we have: and both sockpuppet investigations AND your actions/activities give the appearance of something very wrong the panda ₯’ 09:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: I'm sorry you find it so annoying that I have a different opinion to yourself, but as your points are unclear - they lack sense and clear reasoning - I cannot easily talk to them. Why do you think that being a private website means that Wikipedia therefore does not follow the course natural justice? Why do you find it morally superior or desirable to assert guilt without evidence and without a supported good reason? What is the parallel, do you think, between advising someone that they are a suspected sock puppet and warning a child (or anyone) not to force beans up their nose - and what would be the potential harm of giving someone the chance to respond before being blocked be to Wikipedia?

Yes my edits were good-faith:- fixes of typos, factual corrections and tweaks to reflect my opinions on notification of suspects. I assumed that the guidance given in WP:Essays WP:Wikipedia Essays that "You do not have to be the one who originally created an essay in order to improve it. If an essay already exists, you can add to, remove from, or modify it as you wish, provided that you use good judgment." was also given in good-faith. You appear to contradict that advice - can you please explain? I had not come across Dennis Brown before I read, in the above referenced news article, about his valiant attempts to rid Wikipedia of sock puppets, and this is my only Wikipedia account, so no, I have never been on the receiving end of one of his blocks, so the rest of your thesis about my motives is baseless.

Given your apparent ignorance of WP:Essays, I will assume your verdict of "appearance of impropriety" was, by virtue of it being misguided, given in good-faith, and will not challenge it further. Knotweed (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Having personally written a number of essays, I'm clearly well-aware of them. If you're going to use that page as if it's policy, WP:ESSAYS says that there is a difference between those that are in project space and not those that are in a person's userspace: "You should not normally edit someone else's user essay without permission". the panda ₯’ 08:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: there should be no worries there then, as the essay I edited, Wikipedia:Dealing with sock puppets, is not a user essay, but is a Wikipedia essay - in project workspace. Oh, and the quote I gave above was from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Essays, not the similarly named Wikipedia:Essays that I mistakenly gave, but have now corrected.

Just to clarify where we are. I did not break any policies or guidelines that I am aware of when I edited that essay. Can you now give me a break please, and perhaps even support my request to be unblocked. Knotweed (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No, let's truly clarify where we are: you're blocked indefinitely for WP:SOCK. Don't forget that. The blocking admin is still 100% certain of that.

I've spent a week trying to edumacate you as to how your edits appeared to the community, and to try and get you to at least admit that you might have wholly misunderstood Wikipedia's policies and culture, and therefore your edits might not have been appropriate no matter where they took place. That way we could potentially move forward with some type of unblock-with-restrictions. Instead, I get insults, accusations, and you're giving me orders. Sorry, when someone's bending over backwards to try and get you to understand where you went wrong, fucking with them doesn't work well the panda ₯’ 22:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: No, I've apparently been blocked for an alleged or suspected infringement. But even that isn't too clear. Allegations and insinuations have been issued, but when challenged, none of thoses suspicions have been substantiated or rationally supported. You say you have tried to educate me and get me to confess to breaking Wikipedia policies, yet have not shown any actual policy contraventions on my part. You (like others above) seem to have confused user essays with Wikipedia essays. The only rule I can imagine that I may have contravened is some unwritten rule to do with administrators' opinions being sacrosanct. What is clear is that administrators have extreme difficulty admitting to being wrong, and tend to wriggle a lot and move the goal posts a lot if challenged. Knotweed (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

So what if it's alleged? What you now know above all else on this private website is that WP:DUCK is a fallback position, and needs little-to-no defense (goes back to the original edits you made that led to this block, which shows that you STILL don't get it). So, my attempts have been to show you why it looked so ducky, and to try to help to unblock you. I'm done now - the insults and spitting-in-my-face have been more than enough. I'm a volunteer here, I don't deserve to be spit on for trying the panda ₯’ 08:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: We should strive for accuracy, and not sloppiness, that is why alleged, suspected, or whatever, is important. WP:DUCK is another Wikipedia essay, not a policy or guideline - and I don't get the point you are making about it. It clearly isn't relevant in this case, or do you have a sock master in mind to apply it to? Speaking in riddles doesn't help anyone. If you had a message, or offer of help, why didn't you state it clearly, rather than disguising it as poking me with a stick through the bars of my cage here? Let me remind you that I'm a volunteer here too, and don't deserve being locked up for 4 weeks, with no better an excuse than correcting a bunch of typos and factual errors in an essay in a category open for anyone to edit. Knotweed (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. I've reblocked on a not here to build the encyclopedia basis and revoked talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)