User talk:Publis the Second

Welcome!

Hello, Publis the Second, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing a Block from an Administrator

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).

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

Request reason:

It seems that I have been blocked without a notification, and I haven't gotten warnings nor violations in attention to any of the Wikipedian Guidelines. I'm awfully curious as to why I am blocked as this point; I was responding to a colleague on the Occupy Wall Street Talk Page to reach consensus on a contribution but I am unable to do so now. Did I violate a edit warring rule? If I did, I apologize if I did and to let you know, I had no idea that I violate the rule at this point. I know that I edited the Article twice but I don't think that's a violation of the edit warring rule but if it is, I apologize and I won't do it again. I'll reach consensus the way you want me too if you want. Publis the Second (talk) 10:07 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirmed sock. TN X Man 14:47, 1 June 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm going to appeal this block again but this time I'm not going to write a typical response catering to any administrator who may be reading this because apparently, there are administrators who are obviously corrupt and discredit the experiment Jimmy Wales originally intended for Wikipedia.

1. Equazcion Paranoia: This fellow is paranoid to practically every individual who makes what he calls, "radical" contributions which the last time I seen somebody this paranoid when sharing knowledge was J. Edgar Hoover.

2. Equazcion Hidden Agenda: It's so fucking obvious, sorry for my language, that this fellow has a hidden agenda and it's so fucking prevalent on the Article's talk page, and other contributions he has written himself. He thinks he's an elitist who's above everybody and he often gets catered by some administrators very, very easily of practically everything he finds suspicious. In other words, he's the one who truly holds a lot of power which one can make the case that he's a crony.

3. No Fair Trial: I know that this site may not live up its democratic motives but with this case, you guys can at least attempt. Notify me with a message before such a ban or when a allegation is afoot; let me defend myself for these claims which are overly absurd if you look at the evidence, Equazcion presented.

4. Equazcion's Personal Issues: It is clear that this man or woman has a grudge against CentristFiasco and his accounts which I, personally, do not care for but when it accuses me for being associated with him or her, it just pisses me off. His allegation had personal attacks towards my minor grammar inconsistencies and character, I draw the line there. Sorry, Equazcion but when you accuse somebody of such an action then attack one's character for something as minor as comma usage, or capitalization regarding certain titles is going to further the hate you have with non-administrators. At this point, your relationship with me is by far dead and can never be restored. I tried to communicate with you when you reverted my first contribution to the Article; I did not revert it back until about 6 to 10 hours later after I realized that you were not responding to it. Publis the Second (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests which contain personal attacks will not be considered. (Regardless, this is a checkuser verified alternate account of a blocked user.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:09, 1 June 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.

You do not appear to be directly blocked. I suspect you encountered an autoblock, which happens when someone else on your network is blocked. Please cut and paste the block message that you see when you try to edit a page to here, and we may be able to track down the issue. Syrthiss (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go:

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, move, or create them. Editing from Publis the Second has been blocked (disabled) by DoRD for the following reason(s): Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco This block has been set to expire: no expiry set. Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail. Note: Please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.

I just recently read through the investigation and it was by Equazcion in which I contacted before due to a reverted issue. I think he thinks I'm Centrist Fiasco, you can view his Talk Page or history of his Talk Page and check what I wrote to him. Publis the Second (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CentristFiasco; though this unblock request seems to have come before the block showed up in the block log. Maybe someone has now implemented a rangeblock? It would be appropriate, seeing the frequency of sock accounts from this person. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:30, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Let me get this straight. You were the likely one who alleged this in the first place and now you want to go back? I hope that you took my advise that I wrote to you a couple of hours ago. You are a sign of poor judgement, bro. You need to take a break from this site for a while. Publis the Second (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been confirmed that you're a sock of CentristFiasco, if you see the investigation page. My having alleged it is of little consequence now. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:37, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

You just admitted that I was blocked by a rangeblock which means, an administrator blocked people on my network which is Comcast. This is a very broad ban which could essentially affect everybody who has Comcast who lives in my town. The town that I live in is in the top twenty biggest cities in the United States. Again, you seriously need to take a break from this site. The events that you obviously went through with CentristFiasco and his accounts has affected your judgement and possibly the administrators who cater to you as well. It's bad to have your way all the time, it ultimately affects your ways and means of communicating with others. This is played out on the Article's talk page. You obviously think you're above everybody who contributes to Articles you care about. Elitist. Publis the Second (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They may have just blocked your IP. Even if it was a rangeblock, that doesn't mean they blocked all of Comcast in your area. Besides which, the investigation page indicates you've been confirmed to be a sock, not merely within their range. That confirmation came independently from someone else, not me. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:46, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Goodness, you're so disillusioned about your own catering, bro. Don't you get it? Not all administrators actually blocks users effectively nor in a justifiable manner. They didn't do any investigation by any means. All they did was look at your shitty evidence in which I have read, and read through Associate J's contributions. This investigation is overly fucking absurd. They catered to you and it's so fucking obvious. Publis the Second (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea I was that popular :) Your block isn't based merely on my summary. That's just what gave us a reason to check further. The sock was confirmed by checkuser. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:17, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I'm furthering this case to the ARB and I'm going to mention you and your actions. Publis the Second (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure they get the spelling right. Some people tend to put the "c" before the "z", that's why I mention that. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:21, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

You think you're going to win this case, don't you? Know what? I'm not going contact the ARB, I'm going to create another account in due time and show how much of an elitist you are, and I will make your time on Wikipedia a living hell for the next seven months. Publis the Second (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Threats of continued socking probably won't help your unblock requests. ArbCom cases need to be accepted first, and this wouldn't be accepted because you're a confirmed sockpuppeteer. The case is pretty much closed. I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish, but if it's to affect the Occupy Wall Street article, you're not going to succeed, because you haven't been listening to the criticism of your edits. That's essential for every editor, and you're not special. If you just want to have fun trying to evade the system, I guess you'll continue to do so, at least until we see a need to get more aggressive in our blocks. You're not making life difficult for me though, or else I would be pushing for those more aggressive tactics. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:42, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I don't listen to feedback? Clearly, you have never read the contributions I've made by any means. For crying at loud, you don't even provide proper summaries to justify your fucking reverts. Ever. Not even from other contributors. You think I'm the problem? Oh please. Publis the Second (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough bickering. I've removed talk page access for Publis -if they want to be unblocked, they can contact WP:BASC. Equazcion, please stop engaging them -it's only encouraging the problem. TN X Man 15:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]