User talk:D4rkersib

STOP

Your edits to the Calf roping article are unacceptable. Take it to the talk page.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lapzwans
Further disruption on your part will result in a block.

Thank you. — ChedZILLA 17:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder

I saw your edits to User:Montanabw's page, and I wanted to remind you that 1) discussions are normally conducted on a user's Talk page and not their userpage, and 2) signing your posts with four tildas is always a good thing and generally gains you more respect with other Wikipedians. Finally, don't just delete important messages on your Talk page unless you're archiving them or something like that. • Jesse V.^(talk) 17:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I don't see any evidence of Vandalism as you indicated here, but I do see plenty of evidence of Edit Warring on both sides, I'd highly recomment that you refrain from such behavior and discuss your changes on the article's talk page - edit warring can result in being blocked, especially if the bright-line threshold of WP:3RR is crossed. Dreadstar ☥ 19:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would discuss it on the talk page, except it appears I got blocked. Curious, considering both of us were supposedly engaging in edit warring, yet I'm the only one blocked.D4rkersib (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not blocked, I've protected the article. It may be that the block on your other account is affecting this one per WP:AUTOBLOCK - but it doesn't appear that your other account was blocked in that manner. Dreadstar ☥ 19:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I see: "A user of this IP address was blocked by Ched for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Lapzwans". The reason given for Lapzwans's block is: "account abandoned....This block has been set to expire: 18:39, 30 August 2012." D4rkersib (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seen anything in the autoblock report that shows this account, but I reset the block on the other account to disable autoblocks. Try to edit the Talk:Calf roping page again and see if it works. Dreadstar ☥ 20:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It works again, thanks.D4rkersib (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D4rkersib, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi D4rkersib! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked this account indefinitely for sockpuppetry because the behavior is virtually identical to other blocked socks per this SPI report. Dreadstar ☥ 22:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

D4rkersib (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My accounts were Lapzwans, which I had lost the password to and didn't attempt to hide, and this one. I've never heard of ItsLassieTime and it seems to me you could easily check this by comparing IP's or something. Maybe you should show a little more discretion when throwing around blocks and you won't get as many unblock requests as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Sockpuppetry_blocks. I was blocked due to 'identical behaviour' from another user more than four years ago, as in we edited the same section of an article and removed the word 'claim'. If I was editing a week after he got blocked, I can see why you'd think so, but this is four years later. Please use some common sense. Outside of the word 'claim', which was only one of many edits, our edits were not remotely similar. I'd also like to point out I was having a fruitful discussion on the calf roping talk page, which was abruptly cut off due to this overzealous blocking.

Decline reason:

Your edits are disruptive regardless of whether you are the same editor as before. You weren't open about your identity when creating a new account, and only admitted it when confronted, claiming you'd lost the password (even though you could have had it reset via email). I see no reason to unblock you, especially considering the confrontational nature of your request here. -- Atama頭 23:26, 3 October 2012 (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.