User talk:75.162.237.213

March 2015

Hello, I'm Amortias. An edit that you recently made to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, 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. Thanks! Amortias (T)(C) 18:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

• Please stop messing around at AN.I. You clearly don't know what you're doing, and you're messing up the page. BMK (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:

I wasn't "messing around." I was fixing formatting problems. Will you please go answer my questions now?

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Amaury (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It was a mere formatting error. Let it go.

75.162.237.213 (talk) 07:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IDriveAStickShift, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Amaury (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of editing privileges. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Philg88 ^♦talk 07:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

So now, while I was asking why creating 6 accounts in the same day from the same IP address is considered "abuse" even though the system allows it, and why the system allows it if they're just going to be blocked anyway because they're "abuse" (seems like a catch-22), and not even one if them is allowed to stay unblocked (which would've been reasonable, or it's like we can't even follow your suggestion of having an account because we can't even have ONE account), then suddenly for some reason now I'm being falsely accused of being a "sockpuppet" of some "stickshift" guy, and am told to go defend myself at some investigation place, and then suddenly get blocked before I even CAN do that! How's a guy supposed to defend himself at that place if he gets blocked before he even can, and while the waiting time goes by, more false accusatory talk happens there and he can't even say anything? How can someone get any justice at this site if you're just so busy assuming and blocking all the time? And why should someone who wants to accuse me of this be allowed to be uncivil to me (calling me an "idiot") just because she/he thinks I'm a sock? Do people who are accused of breaking a rule not deserve respect here anymore, so it's "okay" to be uncivil to them?

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you

1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

---