User talk:MrJohnProctor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of Joehazelton.
Please refer to editing habits and/or contributions; this policy subsection may also be helpful.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs
This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(info: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "The charges and accusations you make have absolutely no basis of proof, their only merit is your own personal opinion (a personal opinion of a so-called good faith administrator). For the record, I am not Joe Hazelton, and your accusations are without merit and shows a lack of good faith. You have no right to do this, and your behavior shows that ad hominem attack and censorship is justified and acceptable behavior. I demand to know how to answer you unjustified accusations and rebutt of them to someone with higher authority than you."

Decline reason: "Clearly a sockpuppet account. You can appeal your block and/or ban to unblock-en-l or the Arbitation Committee. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Joe, as I've told you multiple times, you can appeal your block to the Arbitration Committee, but you have been unwilling to take this step, and I doubt they would be pleased with your lengthy history of personal attacks and policy violations. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 19:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BUT I AM BLOCKED TO DO THAT!!! so this suggestion is just a sham on your part, because I've been locked out by this block from able to pursue that arbitration, as you so advise. Again, don't insult my intelligence with bullshit advice that you know very well I can't use. You must read Joseph Heller. MrJohnProctor 03:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


For the last time, for the record, my name is not JOE, ROB, and your statements and arguments as well as your condescending tone is an insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of any person who reads this. This charade of civility is an insult as well.

The searing logic of your weasel word "Clearly a sockpuppet" is impressive considering you have not shown any ways and means to back up such a statement, which is, in and on to it self, an engagement of personal attack and cyber slander.

ROB, it is crystal clear your intent in engaging in this ad hominem attack. Your snarky comments is clearly a form of harassment and abusive behavior. This is self evident by the record (assuming it has not been changed or revise or blanked, which seems to be SOP on Wikipedia these days ). ROB, the behavior you engage in, is for the sole intent of preventing any kind of legitimate discussion and/or debate, regarding the neutrality and encyclopedic content of the Peter Roskam biography.

It is apparent, to any reasonable and educated person, you have little respect for published Wikipedian policy. Obviously, Rob, you operate above the following regulations: WP:Civil , WP:NPOV, WP:AGF , WP:NPA. and in fact, you operate as a law unto itself without any control or accountability thereof.

It's also apparent that you refuse to engage in any reasonable debate concerning the content, tone and neutrality of the“ Peter Roskam biography. It's also apparent, by the edit history, that anybody who edits contrary to your agenda, on that article, will be Cyber slander with scarlet letters on user pages by your attack drone sockpuppet Propol (Note the fact Propol operates as a single-purpose account WP:SPA) and allowed to harrase editors, with the use of trumped up charges, Scarlet letter tags on user pages, and cyber slander, be allowed and enabled, by you ROB, with without a shred of substantiation or evidence. This behavior shows your weakness, ROB, and the weakness of your organization. It's very clear that thuggery and chaos is the rule of the wiki land - which allows you, Rob, to engage in this type of administrator malfeasancee. The statement "Clearly a Sockpuppet" frankly shows your cowardly fear and malice.

Pray, very hard the real world don't come busting in to your little charade and shut you down. By quashing this debate here, you will be responsible of forcing this discussion to take place somewhere else and it will happen to the the detriment of Wikipedia, Rob. You may not know who I really may be. I may have the means to rock the boat and get the ear of people with the ways and means to change laws and to force Wikipedia to be accountable to the rule of law.

So ROB, "Grow Up", don't be an idiot, and don't be an DICK, DICK.MrJohnProctor 03:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't have any trouble operating dozens of sockpuppets, but somehow you can't figure out how to use one of them to contact the ArbCom. Or you could, say, email them. There's plenty of accountability here. If you want your case examined, all you have to do is ask them. Instead, you would rather rant and attack and complain. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 18:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, I'm not Joe Hazelton as you seem to be obsessed with. Your accusations again are unfounded and your assumptions are without merit and with out basis of fact. The fact that you have talent on loan from Jesus Christ himself, with the talent to stick the RJ-45 ethernet connector up your nose, and know who may be at the other end, though the ethernet cloud, is divine. The CIA or one of the other intelligence agencies, would hire you in a New York second as that's a rare skill indeed.
But back to the point, as you damn well know, I'm locked out and have no way of contacting or interacting with the ArbCom. Your statement "You don't have any trouble operating dozens of sockpuppets, but somehow you can't figure out how to use one of them to contact the ArbCom" is snarky and insulting. You know damn well that my account is blocked by your divine sense of censorship, and have no access to this ArbCom court of law and as such I am denied access to any justice, real or Illusionary. Again, this alone, is a form of abuse, incivility, and harassment. It's you and Wikipedia that has total disrespect of basic human "natural law" (The right to face your accuser, and answer those charges, and then have fair and impartial judges review real and factual evidence, and logical argument) as well as, bold face hypocrisy of the Wikipedia policies,( WP:Civil , WP:NPOV, WP:AGF , WP:NPA ) which you so proudly claim to respect, but in reality, ignore. And finally, ArbCom is a dysfunctional entity and would be a useless exercise considering the abuses that take place there. I consider it a Star Chamber and Kangaroo Court, operating without the application of any consistent rule of law or regulation. So, don't insult my intelligence and pretend to talk one way, but walk the other. I would suggest that you act like a human rather than like an Ass. MrJohnProctor 06:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You do have access to them. Just email them. But if you did that, you couldn't play the oppressed martyr anymore. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 14:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)