Jump to content

User talk:ChopinAficionado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unblock request

[edit]

This user is asking that her block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

The problem: This account is banned for sockpuppetry. There had been a complex situation, including long-term hounding such as many failed and outlandish attempts at doxxing me,[9][10][11][12] leading up to this. I interacted with multiple admins to ameliorate the issue,[a] but very little was done overall. I'm not complaining, but I did something I felt was necessary to protect my privacy. I did bring this up elsewhere, and was able to rename twice, but the hounding just got worse.[b]

I find it disconcerting that I got CU blocked while attempting a WP:CLEANSTART.[c] In hindsight, I shouldn't have registered a clean start account while still intending to edit in some of my old content areas.

Now, my clean start account, Lamptonian (talk · contribs), had been blocked for another reason the same day the CU block was imposed. The CU check was "discretionary". But since the block was some strange mixture of purported WP:CIR[d] and WP:IAR[13], such as given the acting admin’s original wording on my talk page, I assumed an unblock would happen soon enough. My hard-pressed attempt at changing my behavioral pattern, namely from inclusionist to hard deletionist, was flawed and I got overzealous. While I partly understand that block being imposed on a “new” account, I do absolutely not understand a permanent CU block.

Possible solution: Someone cut the Gordian knot already ... If you unban me, I will appeal to my other soft block as user Lamptonian, properly declare it per WP:VALIDALT, and would continue to edit from only one of these indefinitely. In that case, don't forget to log my (likely to be overturned) Lamptonian ban for this account. ChopinAficionado (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2='''The problem:''' This account is banned for sockpuppetry. There had been a complex situation, including long-term hounding such as many failed and outlandish attempts at doxxing me,[http://rationa.wiki.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Lasker&diff=2687071&oldid=2686072][http://rationa.wiki.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Lasker&diff=2700823&oldid=2699563][http://rationa.wiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jordan_Lasker&diff=2694829&oldid=2686004][http://rationa.wiki.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Lasker&diff=prev&oldid=2694930] leading up to this. I interacted with multiple admins to ameliorate the issue,[a] but very little was done overall. '''I'm not complaining, but I did something I felt was necessary to protect my privacy.''' I did bring this up elsewhere, and was able to rename twice, but the hounding just got worse.[b] I find it disconcerting that I '''got CU blocked while attempting a [[WP:CLEANSTART]].'''[c] In hindsight, '''I shouldn't have registered a clean start account while still intending to edit in ''some'' of my old content areas.''' Now, my clean start account, [[User:Lamptonian|Lamptonian]] ([[User talk:Lamptonian|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Lamptonian|contribs]]), had been blocked for another reason the same day the CU block was imposed. The CU check was "discretionary". But since the block was some strange mixture of purported [[WP:CIR]][d] and [[WP:IAR]][http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_68#c-Doug_Weller-20241227145000-Kingturtle-20241227144000], such as given the acting admin’s original wording on my talk page, I assumed an unblock would happen soon enough. My hard-pressed attempt at changing my behavioral pattern, namely from inclusionist to hard deletionist, was flawed and I got overzealous. While I ''partly'' understand ''that'' block being imposed on a “new” account, I do absolutely not understand a permanent CU block. '''Possible solution:''' Someone cut the [[Gordian knot]] already ... If you unban me, I will appeal to my other soft block as user Lamptonian, properly declare it per [[WP:VALIDALT]], and would continue to edit from only one of these indefinitely. In that case, don't forget to log my (likely to be overturned) Lamptonian ban for this account. [[User:ChopinAficionado|ChopinAficionado]] ([[User talk:ChopinAficionado#top|talk]]) 11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1='''The problem:''' This account is banned for sockpuppetry. There had been a complex situation, including long-term hounding such as many failed and outlandish attempts at doxxing me,[http://rationa.wiki.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Lasker&diff=2687071&oldid=2686072][http://rationa.wiki.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Lasker&diff=2700823&oldid=2699563][http://rationa.wiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jordan_Lasker&diff=2694829&oldid=2686004][http://rationa.wiki.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Lasker&diff=prev&oldid=2694930] leading up to this. I interacted with multiple admins to ameliorate the issue,[a] but very little was done overall. '''I'm not complaining, but I did something I felt was necessary to protect my privacy.''' I did bring this up elsewhere, and was able to rename twice, but the hounding just got worse.[b] I find it disconcerting that I '''got CU blocked while attempting a [[WP:CLEANSTART]].'''[c] In hindsight, '''I shouldn't have registered a clean start account while still intending to edit in ''some'' of my old content areas.''' Now, my clean start account, [[User:Lamptonian|Lamptonian]] ([[User talk:Lamptonian|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Lamptonian|contribs]]), had been blocked for another reason the same day the CU block was imposed. The CU check was "discretionary". But since the block was some strange mixture of purported [[WP:CIR]][d] and [[WP:IAR]][http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_68#c-Doug_Weller-20241227145000-Kingturtle-20241227144000], such as given the acting admin’s original wording on my talk page, I assumed an unblock would happen soon enough. My hard-pressed attempt at changing my behavioral pattern, namely from inclusionist to hard deletionist, was flawed and I got overzealous. While I ''partly'' understand ''that'' block being imposed on a “new” account, I do absolutely not understand a permanent CU block. '''Possible solution:''' Someone cut the [[Gordian knot]] already ... If you unban me, I will appeal to my other soft block as user Lamptonian, properly declare it per [[WP:VALIDALT]], and would continue to edit from only one of these indefinitely. In that case, don't forget to log my (likely to be overturned) Lamptonian ban for this account. [[User:ChopinAficionado|ChopinAficionado]] ([[User talk:ChopinAficionado#top|talk]]) 11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1='''The problem:''' This account is banned for sockpuppetry. There had been a complex situation, including long-term hounding such as many failed and outlandish attempts at doxxing me,[http://rationa.wiki.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Lasker&diff=2687071&oldid=2686072][http://rationa.wiki.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Lasker&diff=2700823&oldid=2699563][http://rationa.wiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jordan_Lasker&diff=2694829&oldid=2686004][http://rationa.wiki.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Lasker&diff=prev&oldid=2694930] leading up to this. I interacted with multiple admins to ameliorate the issue,[a] but very little was done overall. '''I'm not complaining, but I did something I felt was necessary to protect my privacy.''' I did bring this up elsewhere, and was able to rename twice, but the hounding just got worse.[b] I find it disconcerting that I '''got CU blocked while attempting a [[WP:CLEANSTART]].'''[c] In hindsight, '''I shouldn't have registered a clean start account while still intending to edit in ''some'' of my old content areas.''' Now, my clean start account, [[User:Lamptonian|Lamptonian]] ([[User talk:Lamptonian|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/Lamptonian|contribs]]), had been blocked for another reason the same day the CU block was imposed. The CU check was "discretionary". But since the block was some strange mixture of purported [[WP:CIR]][d] and [[WP:IAR]][http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_68#c-Doug_Weller-20241227145000-Kingturtle-20241227144000], such as given the acting admin’s original wording on my talk page, I assumed an unblock would happen soon enough. My hard-pressed attempt at changing my behavioral pattern, namely from inclusionist to hard deletionist, was flawed and I got overzealous. While I ''partly'' understand ''that'' block being imposed on a “new” account, I do absolutely not understand a permanent CU block. '''Possible solution:''' Someone cut the [[Gordian knot]] already ... If you unban me, I will appeal to my other soft block as user Lamptonian, properly declare it per [[WP:VALIDALT]], and would continue to edit from only one of these indefinitely. In that case, don't forget to log my (likely to be overturned) Lamptonian ban for this account. [[User:ChopinAficionado|ChopinAficionado]] ([[User talk:ChopinAficionado#top|talk]]) 11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Boldly hatting thread to the effect that I, idiotically, didn't check one specific article's history before editing it again. Yes, I did reintroduce old material on that one occasion. Absent-minded watchlist revert, unironically sorry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I will leave the unblock request to another admin, as is usual, but I want to note that the CU block was specifically for returning to disputes that you had participated in as ChopinAficionado with the Lamptonian account. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I edited a rather small - relative to 800 edits, that is - number of articles I frequented before. But I never reintroduced old material or engaged on the same talk page as far as I know. ChopinAficionado (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you "Never reintroduced old material", how would you characterize this timeline? [14]. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of that one. Sorry, I should have double-checked. If this is of any consequence, I may as well pledge to never edit that pesky article again if/when unblocked. ChopinAficionado (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably non-constructive and distracting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment Just a note to admins here, the impersonation accounts referred to are from a well known WP:LTA blocked user Mikemikev. This same person has been causing trouble at RationalWiki going back a decade on fake accounts and likes to stir trouble between RationalWiki and Wikipedia users. It isn't possible to get rid of him because he uses German mobile IP, proxies and TOR nodes. He has spoofed the usernames of RationalWiki admins and sysops for years and we have all had it done to us. He has also impersonated Wikipedia administrators like Doug Weller. His spoof accounts are easy to spot and are quickly blocked. He has even created a few impersonations at Wikipedia that got blocked. I am not convinced ChopinAficionado's name changes and use of multiple accounts on Wikipedia fit the "personal safety" claim because this user is entirely anonymous. The user admits the "failed" doxing attempts are "outlandish", meaning they have no factual basis.

As stated many of us over at RationalWiki have had our usernames spoofed by Mikemikev for years and ridiculous doxing attempts but none of us have created multiple accounts for "personal safety". As far as I know ChopinAficionado made no attempt to reach out to the admins of RationalWiki, nor even reported the issue. RationalWiki is very quick at blocking spoof and troll accounts and they can easily be renamed. In regard to the use of the account Lamptonian I think it is more likely that ChopinAficionado created this to evade detection as their main account was being watched by admins due to the controversial nature of their edits on eugenics related articles. This isn't WP:CLEANSTART because they were editing the same topic area within a short amount of time. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have verifiably talked to you about impersonations in the past,[15] but received no response. Psychologist Guy is a sysop on RationalWiki in case anybody is wondering.[16] I sincerely doubt this was Mikemikev. I do not desire to keep discussing this aspect publicly; admins may email me. ChopinAficionado (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is strong behavioural evidence and even some checkuser evidence that Mikemikev is behind the impersonation socking at RationalWiki. If you contact the RationalMedia Foundation trustees they could fill you in on some of the story behind Mikemikev. You have not contacted the RW Foundation nor did you request to have the spoof accounts renamed so it couldn't have been much of an issue to you. A username on RationalWiki can be renamed in a few seconds, it is that easy. Your privacy and safety is not at risk. In the diff you listed, this was the impersonation account cited [17] which I blocked. These off-site blocked spoof accounts do not explain why you created and edited on Lamptonian. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, but note that the account had already been blocked before I ever brought it up to you. You did not respond.
Additional evidence may be forwarded to acting admins on request.
I, frankly, do not wish to hear RationalWiki's "perspective" here. While admittedly making the same point about me, you have nonetheless publicy talked about doxxing one of the people RationalWiki wanted to associate me with.[18] I will certainly not "contact" anybody that is going to leak further personal information. ChopinAficionado (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link to RationalWiki is to a now deleted diff. Doug Weller talk 16:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should perhaps note that my identification of Psychologist Guy as a prolific RationalWiki editor was not WP:DOXXING as they had declared it on my talk page previously. ChopinAficionado (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Including one extended conversation with @Oshwah: and, amusingly enough, another with the former CU Doug Weller. Retiring was brought up/implied, but there was no direct reply to it. Both, however, seemed concerned over my privacy and personal safety at the time.
  2. ^ E.g., in the form of vicious impersonations.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] It, however, escalated further; and IFF you’re a conflicted admin, email me if you want to see the more spicy diffs.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference note3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Note that all my 800 contributions, including lots of standard edits, were mass reverted
  • Sorry for the inadvertent reintroduction to of material that showed up on my watchlist. Shouldn't have done that. But ignore talk of there having been no need for my clean start; there is active hounding on RationalWiki[19] (*now completely deleted apparently thanks to Psychologist Guy) and also on Wikipedia. I can forward concerned admins very recent diffs that are obviously from the same person or group! ChopinAficionado (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly hatting a thread that was, if anything, really a sub-heading
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Have you any relationship to the Human Diversity Foundation?

[edit]

I see that's been suggested on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not, @Doug Weller. You have been involved in many content disputes with me, and were the blocking admin for Lamptonian based on WP:IGNOREALLRULES. I ask that you please take a step back and potentially even self-revert. The IP commenting over there is almost certainly the same person that has hounded me in the last few months. Email for relevant details. ChopinAficionado (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've no reason not to accept your statement about the HDF. I think I now have all the relevant details. I am certainly not reverting the edits in question (it wouldn't be a self-revert as I didn't personally revert them. Doug Weller talk 09:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I meant the comment here, but no worries. In any case, I wouldn't edit this article again as to avoid further hounding.
I should have probably also mentioned that the "troll cruft" I removed, was mostly a 1:1 copy of the RationalWiki article. This may have been what got me in somebody's crosshairs over there. ChopinAficionado (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChopinAficionado&oldid=1269376114"