User talk:Cognition

Eternal gratitude to a hero, peacemaker, and martyr

  Imagine facing the question respecting that mortal life, asking, "Was that life necessary in the total scheme of the universe and the existence of mankind, was it necessary that I be born in order to lead that life, the sum total of that number of years between birth and death? Did I do something, or did my living represent something, which was positively beneficial to present generations, and implicitly to future generations after me?" If so, then I should have walked through that life with joy, knowing that every moment was precious to all mankind, because what I was doing by living was something that was needed by all mankind, something beneficial to all mankind.'  -- [https://larouchepac.com/ Lyndon H. LaRouche, economist, philosopher, statesman, scientific thinker

MARTIN LUTHER KING AND LYNDON LAROUCHE

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).

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

Request reason:

Now that LaRouche has passed, Wikipedia's punitive arbitration rulings against him should be null and void. My account was banned due to disputes stemming from those rulings. Please unblock my account. My first order of business would be helping to improve the Lyndon LaRouche article to give a more balanced accounting of his legacy. Cognition (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for "disruption, harassment, personal attacks, multiple violation of arbcom rulings, no or very few useful contributions" but haven't really addressed most of that. Note that you are also banned, not blocked, so any unban discussion would have to go to the community. Please keep that in mind; your unblock request will be copied over to an admin noticeboard for community discussion, so needs to fully address the reasons for your block. For future reviewers, note that this is mostly a procedural decline. I'm declining on the basis this is a ban, not a block, and there's not enough justification for unbanning here, to consider copying it over to an admin noticeboard. It's not a ruling on the merits of unbanning. Yamla (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2019 (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.

And I seriously doubt that Mr. LaRouche's death will have a salutary effect on your editing and interactions. On the contrary, the subtext is that you now feel it grants you a carte blanche because you believe BLP and your sanctions no longer apply. I might consider an unblock w/ a TBAN on LaRouche in particular and post-1932 US politics in general. You also in no way have given any meaningful assurance that problems will not recur and you have not described what constructive edits you might make. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I sincerely apologise for all the disruption I've caused, and those usernames that were reported as confirmed in 2009 were all operated by me. I've been struggling with stress and mental health issues which impaired my judgment. It has been a long time since I last edited here. I promise to stick to this and one account only, and my focus will be on adding information and copy-editing, and staying away from contentious areas, including LaRouche and politics. Cognition (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We will not consider an unblock request from a sockpuppet. Please sign in with your original account, or make a request on your own talk page. I will go block your account in a moment. Yamla (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2022 (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.

please post your arguments[edit]

for unbanning below so they may be carried over to WP:AN. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I pledge to follow all Wikipedia policies. My arguments consist of my pledge, plus the fact that Mr. LaRouche has passed away, and that more than a decade has passed since my ban. I have learned my lesson after nearly 13 years. Cognition (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Would you care to carry the request to WP:AN. I'm just plain out of time. Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cognition, there's zero chance the community will sanction an unblock given the above statement. It's nowhere near sufficient and doesn't come close to addressing your violations. Are you absolutely sure this is what you want to use for your unban appeal? I'm afraid if I copy this across, I'll be sanctioned for wasting people's time. --Yamla (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest? I'm not sure how to address my violations other than to acknowledge and apologize. Yes, I used to relish in antagonizing Mr. LaRouche's political opponents on this site. Wikipedia is not the proper arena for that; and, again, yes, I do understand that for moving forward. Despite that, I did make a number of useful contributions, of which I am quite proud, especially my contributions on the Martin Luther King article. Cognition (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for "disruption, harassment, personal attacks, multiple violation of arbcom rulings, no or very few useful contributions". You need to address all of those points. You also need to address the concerns that, just because Mr. LaRouche has passed away, we don't believe this will meaningfully change your edits. Finally, are you willing to abide by a topic ban on Mr. LaRouche and on post-1932 US politics? --Yamla (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will meaningfully change my edits, especially being careful to avoid BLP violations on public figures I oppose. I would like to return to editing topics related to Mr. LaRouche and contemporary U.S. politics, but understand I may have to go through a period where I prove myself before editing any potentially contentious subject matter. Cognition (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's nowhere near close to addressing your problematic edits and I'm unwilling to copy that request to the admin noticeboard because of WP:SNOW. You are welcome to step back, think through your previous behaviour, and write a new paragraph addressing each of the points in turn. --Yamla (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do. Cognition (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my point by point response to everything cited in the ban.

I am aware of my past disruptive behavior. I felt that there were a number of anti-LaRouche editors and administrators who used their positions of power and influence to push their political agendas. I wanted to protest their influence. Even though I strongly feel I was right in principle, what I did to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point impeded improvement of the encyclopedia, and did nothing to help. I apologize.

Yes, I stalked and harassed a number of those anti-LaRouche users as well, and was wrong. Following and reverting their contributions to get them riled up did nothing to improve the encyclopedia in the short or long run. I apologize.
Yes, I attacked users like SlimVirgin, Chip Berlet, Adam Carr, 172, etc. because I felt they used their influence in Wikipedia to promote their POV. Wikipedia is not the venue for such battles. I did feel they were attacking me with impunity. Rather than attacking back, I should have sought proper dispute resolution channels. I was wrong and apologize.
Yes, I knowingly disregarded various arbcom rulings. Again, I felt those rulings were politically motivated and hurt Wikipedia's mission to report on the sum of all human knowledge. Rather than ignoring the rulings, I should have followed proper channels for appealing them. I apologize.
Regarding the 'no or very few useful contributions' point, I disagree. I feel I made quite a few excellent edits. But I can see why the community felt that way, since I did frankly make a lot of disruptive edits I knew very well would just get quickly reverted. I apologize.

In sum I ask the community to accept my apologies and give me another chance to improve the encyclopedia. 13 years is a long time; and I feel I have already served my time of punishment! Cognition (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla I don't know if there was a discussion at AN about this yet. But I have to mention that not giving someone a second chance after 13 YEARS sounds completely unreasonable to me. Thinker78 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am not available to work on this till Tuesday. If no one beats me to it, I'll work on it then. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Have you edited while not logged in over the last 6 months? If so, you might wish to try again in 6 months (without editing while logged out or socking in the interim). Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I just found out that the admin who unilaterally blocked me is no longer active on Wikipedia. No one notified me the entire time. May God spare her soul. With that said, it's now past due to reconsider the ban against me. My ban was previously rendered irrelevant by the passing of Lyndon LaRouche, who tragically left us back in 2019. While I was an editor, the arbitration committee sanctioned the use of sources from any scientific, journalistic, and scholarly organizations to which Mr. LaRouche contributed. Though my edits to LaRouche-related articles were minimal, I was targeted by the admin in question because I posted one or two comments on my userpage favorable to Mr. LaRouche [1], amid a plethora of other content. Yes, I made some mistakes (for which I have already apologized publicly), but I am ready to resume my outstanding contributions, such as my work on the Martin Luther King article. While long overdue, now that Mr. LaRouche and the blocking admin in question are gone, I ask the community to move on and lift the ban against me. Please lift my ban. Respectfully, Cognition (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per [2], your unban request was declined unanimously and with prejudice. I'm sorry to say, this is the end of the line for you on en.wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2023 (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 still need to address the specific points of the block; it appears you tried to do so above. Is this the statement you would like copied to WP:AN(perhaps combined with your point-by-point comments above)? 331dot (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please and thank you for your assistance with this request. I am eager to get back, finally. Cognition (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have transferred it. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello all, I regret that my last request rubbed people the wrong way. Buy it has been almost a year; and I'd like to try again. This time I would like to make clear that I do not intend to resume the same tactics that triggered my ban nearly two decades ago. Please lift the ban so that I can get back to work making Wikipedia a better site for all involved. Cognition (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your request was declined with prejudice. The community will no longer hear your unblock request and no individual admin is free to lift your ban. I suppose you are free to appeal to WP:ARBCOM if you wish. Yamla (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2024 (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.

Can you let it go to a vote? That was almost a year ago; and I said I regret that my last request rubbed people the wrong way. Cognition (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was closed with prejudice. The community will no longer hear your request. --Yamla (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But now that I think about it, reading over the request I wrote last year, maybe I didn't help my cause brining up SlimVirgin, which might have triggered a sympathy vote against me. This time I won't mention her. Why after 18 years I'm still not given another chance is beyond me. Cognition (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your avenue of appeal is to go to ArbCom. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The community decided, on your last request, that this was the end of the line for community discussion around your block. That's why that venue is not open to you now. Only WP:ARBCOM is open to you now. --Yamla (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do that? I can only edit this page. 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC) Cognition (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Email them according to the directions given at WP:ARBCOM. ArbCom, if you are reading this, I see no evidence of recent block evasion based on CU data. --Yamla (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cognition, @Yamla, and @331dot Arbcom only hear CBAN appeals for when "there are serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure" (WP:UNBAN); as far as I can tell there are no serious or raised concerns about the ban's validity, so an appeal is out of our scope. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, though the user seems to feel that way(regardless of their accuracy). If ArbCom had determined there is nothing for them to resolve, this is the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, Moneytrees. I concur with 331dot. Cognition, this is the end of the line. You have no further options. --Yamla (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

_________

This user is a Platonist.

This user is drug-free.