User talk:Dewythiel

Welcome!

Hello, Dewythiel, 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! Neutrality^talk 15:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important information regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Neutrality^talk 15:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard notification given to editors who edit in the topic area. Neutrality^talk 15:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Your recent editing history at Freedom Caucus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please note that this page has a consensus Talk:Freedom_Caucus#RFC:_far-right. Also, this article is under Discretionary Sanctions and article restrictions. – Lionel^(talk) 11:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

You have been blocked per WP:3RR for 24 hours. Andrevan@ 00:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You’ll have to excuse Andrevan, they apparently don’t know how to issue a proper block template after a mere 13 years as an admin here. I’l do that for you now should you wish to appeal the block, and I have also already asked for an impartial review of this situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rock on Beeblebrox. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're unblocked. Consecutive edits count as one revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dewythiel, I'd love for you to explain to me why you have two accounts editing in the same area. Please answer soon or I'll have to block this one. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Drmies (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I stop looking at Wikipedia for a weekend and all this stuff happened? I'm not trying to abuse or troll, I don't know why the two of you are blocking me. Dewythiel (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan got a little het up and blocked you for edit warring, though I guess they say he was wrong. So NielN unblocked you. So then someone thought something looked, well, suspicious and ran a WP:checkuser. So that's when Drmies blocked you for sockpuppetry.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 05:20, 10 June 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wasn't trolling or abusing in any way, I discussed the reasons for my edits in both the edit history and talk pages. Apparently Drmies is concerned about the fact that I have two accounts, but I didn't break any of the rules about having multiple accounts in WP:Sock puppetry

Decline reason:

Baloney. I can see where you are very clearly IP socking and using your account and IP in the same thread as if there were two different editors against another that you have edit-warred with. Next, I can identify other accounts that I believe to be yours based on behavior and those are Rowtorch and Yhbn84 which you didn't disclose below. If you file another unblock request, you should consider giving permission to the checkusers to reveal your IP info so the evidence may be made clear. I don't believe you at all.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2018 (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.

Sockpuppetry

Please see WP:SOCK. Using two accounts, when you have not declared you are using two accounts, is abuse. Alternate accounts are permissible-- this is my non admin account for when I'm at work. (If someone hijacks this account by skimming my password it's no big deal.) At any rate, you will need to explain this two accounts business to have any hope of being unblocked. Might as well say it-- please disclose all accounts you are using on Wikipedia.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 05:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that privacy was a legitimate reason to have more than one account. Basically one was for home and one was for work. But if it's such a big deal, my other account is waterbursa Dewythiel (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess this is what Drmies was asking. We'll see what he says. Not seeing how the privacy consideration applies in this case. There may be some consideration I cannot see as I am not a checkuser.Dlohcierekim's sock User talk:Dlohcierekim 06:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dlohcierekim's sock, how amusing that it's your sock responding here! Anyway, I was fine with an unblock and a one-account restriction, but given Berean Hunter's discovery, I'm going to pass the mic and let him decide on any unblock, and which account deserves to be unblocked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]