User talk:Aphroditean

Welcome!

Hello, Aphroditean, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quis separabit? 22:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed to Rbka. Additionally, he has been editing logged out and not being civil.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly where was the person to whom you are referring not civil? Aphroditean (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

This account has not been and never will be used abusively. I have absolutely no idea why you have accused me of this. Please identify which edits I have made that you consider to be harmful and tell me why.Aphroditean (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yamla (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

It did address the reason for the block, obviously, insofar as that reason is claimed to be that this account is being or has been used abusively. It has not and it will not. All of the edits I've made improved articles. I don't believe any were disputed by anyone. So, what is the reason to accuse me of behaving abusively? As I have not ever behaved abusively, nor ever would, this block is inexplicable. I have absolutely no idea why you have accused me of such a serious thing, and as the accusation is obviously spurious, you should lift this block that has been placed for no sensible reason.Aphroditean (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As TPA has been revoked below, this is now moot. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 23 December 2017 (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.

Abuse of checkuser rights

Requesting the attention of the arbitration committee: User:Casliber, User:Callanecc, User:DGG, User:Doug Weller, User:Drmies, User:Euryalus, User:GorillaWarfare, User:Keilana, User:Kirill Lokshin, User:Ks0stm, User:Mkdw, User:Newyorkbrad, User:Opabinia regalis.

From the meta:CheckUser Policy:

The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of the Wikimedia projects.

I have never vandalised anything, nor disrupted the project, nor do I even comprehend what sockpuppet abuse is and how I might be accused of it.

The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user.

There was no valid reason, seeing as I've only made good edits which improved articles, and which no-one disputed. Aphroditean (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have written above that you would like to know where. Do I have your permission to reveal your IP to allow admins to see the contribs for themselves? It has such things as you calling an established editor "rv idiot trolling vandal" in an edit summary.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have my permission for anything. I did not say such a thing, and if you found an IP address that did, that still obviously did not give you a reason to use your tools on my account. Why did you use your tools on this account? Aphroditean (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just logged out and found that I had made some edits while logged out. See Special:Contributions/2.28.156.23. These are all the edits. Oddly, none of them remotely resemble the one that you want to attribute to me. Aphroditean (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 21 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-10)‎ . . Granite State (Breaking Bad) ‎ (→‎Production) (current)
11:30, 21 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-114)‎ . . Granite State (Breaking Bad) ‎ (→‎Production: highly contrived original research)
11:09, 20 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . Chromecast ‎ (current) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
00:10, 20 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-16)‎ . . Claudio Ranieri ‎ (→‎Chelsea) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
06:44, 19 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Spontaneous symmetry breaking ‎ (References go after verifiable facts. Presumably this is where these ones should be) (current)
06:39, 19 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . Mr. Wrench and Mr. Numbers ‎ (→‎Production) (current)
06:39, 19 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-14)‎ . . Mr. Wrench and Mr. Numbers ‎ (→‎2010–2016: it is not remotely inadvertent)
06:37, 19 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-246)‎ . . The Law of Non-Contradiction ‎ (→‎See also: maybe a place could be found to link this in the article. This link appears like a tacked on irrelevance)
06:35, 19 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-170)‎ . . The Law of Non-Contradiction ‎ (→‎See also: not relevant to this article)
06:28, 19 December 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-3)‎ . . Fargo (season 3) ‎

I see that you took the time to revert "a picture of a donkey" to "a picture of a donkey (ass)". You didn't think that was making the encyclopaedia better, did you? Aphroditean (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We ask the questions here. You aren't telling the complete truth...not even close. Anyone with CU rights can see the entries for Dec. 8 & Dec. 10 here and discern the IP that I'm talking about.

Next, we won't be dealing with any kind of claims of impropriety and arguments from banned users. Especially not you. It is a waste of time as you don't tell the truth. We just don't let banned users wikilawyer against others when they haven't re-established themselves in the community. From now on, any mass pings will get your talk page access revoked since that is you being disruptive...that counts from now on regardless of what accounts you may be using. Stop being disruptive.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, your comment "...nor do I even comprehend what sockpuppet abuse is and how I might be accused of it." indicates that you lack the competence to edit here or you are terribly insincere.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disruptive. I make edits which improve the encyclopaedia. You've undone some of those edits, deliberately damaging the encyclopaedia. Clearly, you're more concerned with exercising your "power" here than actually building a quality encyclopaedia. You have not explained why you checked this account. What edits from this account caused you concern? Aphroditean (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You never answer the questions on socking when asked at your other accounts. Deflection isn't going to happen here. Remember, you don't know what sockpuppetry is therefore you lack the competence to call any checkuser decision in question.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

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. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You removed one of my comments before and I ignored it. With the second removal, I have revoked your talk page access. Deflection won't work. This is all about you.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]