Augenblinkauch

Augenblinkauch, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Augenblinkauch! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Soni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello, I'm Mr Potto. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to MigrationWatch UK because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't insert material that's unsourced and in direct opposition to consensus on the talk page - if you think it really should go in, please try to gain a new consensus on the talk page to support your view. Mr Potto (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it seems like you've coming into the situation late. What you've reverted is, itself, a repair of repeated vandalism by another user. As such, I have undone your change. Augenblinkauch (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• You're at WP:3RR at MigrationWatch UK now, so please stop before it's too late. Mr Potto (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That's not correct. Reverting obvious acts of vandalism is a documented exception to 3RR. Please read the policy. Augenblinkauch (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length at your original talk page and the article's talk. Also you're indefinitely blocked so your use of this account is block evasion. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would refute your accusation of "sock puppetry". My original account can no longer edit, so therefore in order to continue to fix vandalism and perform other edits, I was forced to open a new one. My goal is not to have multiple accounts active at once, merely one. If there is a process/mechanism for closing out my other account completely at the same time, please let me know and I'll absolutely do that. Now that THIS account has been blocked from editing, I guess I need to go through the process of making a new one? That seems burdensome, but ok. Feel free to remove this one in the meantime so that there isn't any confusion/suggestions of "sock puppetry". Augenblinkauch (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That's called block evasion and is not allowed. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This is just a clarifying comment. When you are blocked, it is not just your account that is blocked. You, as the account owner, are blocked. Additional accounts created after the original is blocked will be treated as sockpuppet accounts and indefinitely blocked as well. Accounts cannot be deleted due to the need for correct attribution of copyright. Repeated sock account creation will result in a de facto or a de jure site ban at which point any and all of your edits, regardless of whether they are constructive or not, can be removed without fear of exceeding 3RR. This is a customary way of dealing with banned editors. This is not a threat, this is part of the policy on dealing with banned editors, see WP:BAN. Blackmane (talk) 02:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see what you're saying. I don't agree with it, and I won't respect it, but at least I understand your reasoning. Thanks for the clarification! Augenblinkauch (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether you agree with it or respect it is immaterial. Until such time as the community agrees on a new policy, this is what we all abide by. Violation of the policy will be dealt with swiftly. Blackmane (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I understand that you're fine with condoning repeated acts of vandalism to wikipedia entries. That is absolutely your prerogative. *shrug* I'm not in charge of policing anyone's integrity but my own. I am, however, not ok with letting the aforementioned acts of vandalism stand -- So, I will continue to repair that vandalism whenever and however I can. To do anything less would be a serious breach of ethics and (by extension) letting the vandalism remain would be deeply detrimental to the Wikipedia project. Augenblinkauch (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you are the only one who thinks the edits are vandalism. You have not convinced a single other editor that any vandalism has taken place. Where you should have started is discuss the edits not edit war over the edits. -- GB fan 11:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Also until you convince an admin that unblocking you will not disrupt the project, any edits you make will be reverted. -- GB fan 11:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Maybe you're thinking of a different case? This is a situation where a user is repeatedly removing sourced and objectively factual information from an article. The only way his argument makes sense involves a radical/revisionist definition of the term "commenter". Absent that act of semantic contortionism, this is an open and shut case of user vandalism that I have been repeatedly repairing. As for your threats to continue vandalising the site (or, simply abetting other users' vandalisation), there's nothing I can do to stop you. Your wrongdoing is something to take up with your own conscience, I suppose, but that's not really my concern, ultimately. As I said, I'm not in charge of enforcing your integrity. All I can do is continue to do all I can do to make right the damage done by other users. Augenblinkauch (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not confused, show me where any other editor believes what you are undoing is vandalism. All I have seen is you calling it vandalism and multiple editors telling you it isn't vandalism. -- GB fan 11:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would that matter? Two wrongs do not make a right, and it is a truism that the popularity of an incorrect assessment does not make it any more correct. *sigh* Since you do still seem confused about what's going on, let me run through the situation again -- We're speaking of a plain, objective fact, to wit: "MigrationWatch UK is an immigration and asylum research organisation and think-tank, which describes itself as independent and non-political, but which has been characterised by some commentators and academics as a right-wing "astroturfing" pressure group." -- Multiple sources have been provided where commentators have characterised MigrationWatch UK as an "astroturfing" organisation. I honestly cannot see any wiggle room in terms of re-interpreting that as anything other than a plain fact. I mean, unless you're suggesting that every one of those commentators are actually just one, single person, then I guess you could argue that the "some" in "some commentators" makes it a false statement. Other than that, as established above, the only way to argue that this is not a factual statement is by radically altering the definition of the word "commentator". Q.E.D. Augenblinkauch (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Well it's too bad that you can no longer make these arguments on the talk page of the article since you insisted on edit warring and getting yourself blocked. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm just waiting for my new account to get confirmed, then I can fix it. Augenblinkauch (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And then that account will be blocked also and any edits it made will be reverted. -- GB fan 12:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I get to do the right thing and feel good about it, and you get to continue being disruptive and obstinate (and, one assumes, get whatever pleasure you seem to get out of that.) Everybody wins! Augenblinkauch (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You're never going to get unblocked like that, you've made it extremely clear that you don't care about Wikipedia's processes and that you fully intend on being disruptive. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 13:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That's just demonstrably false. I've been nothing but open and responsive throughout this whole process, despite repeated removals of my comments in discussion pages, etc. I seem to be the only one involved who is behaving correctly. As long as you keep trying to defend your untenable ethical position, I don't see how you're going to be contributing meaningfully to Wikipedia. Augenblinkauch (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I completely understand what your opinion on the situation is. When looking at the complete situation, I see one editor, you, that thinks astroturfing belongs in the article. I also see 5 editors that have reverted your insertion of astroturfing. They have explained on the article talk page that they do not feel the sources you have provided are reliable. I also see actions by another admin that indicate they do not believe what you are doing is reverting vandalism. You can claim it is vandalism all you want but that does not make it so. You don't seem to hear what others have been telling you. -- GB fan 12:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You clearly aren't listening, or simply don't understand the situation. There is no question of "reliability", simply, as shown above, a matter of objective, observable, simple fact. At this point I'm forced to assume you're either being purposefully and wantonly obtuse or else this is all some sort of elaborate practical joke you're playing. In the first case, I would say: willful ignorance is revolting. In the second case, I would say: You can get your kicks however you want, I suppose, but it would be preferrable if you didn't continue to disrupt the integrity of Wikipedia by doing it here. Augenblinkauch (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked user is simply trolling now. If the blocked user had reliable sources for the addition, they would have used them. I suggest talk page access be revoked. Keri (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Really? You're actually arguing that I'm the one trolling? As opposed to the person who has repeatedly been vandalising the page in question being the troll? That's a pretty twisted definition there. But, ok. After all, the last redoubt of anyone who can't actually defend their position through logic is to try to silence the opposition. *shrug* Seems like that's the route you're going down, so knock yourself out, I guess. Augenblinkauch (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

• See above, re: refutation of this spurious claim. Augenblinkauch (talk) 10:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• See my comment on User talk:Augenblink. -- GB fan 10:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

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.  -- GB fan 14:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)