User talk:DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph)

Landlocked

I noticed your discussion about adding "landlocked" to various US state articles, and wanted to ask: are you intending to add landlocked/coastal to every state article? If so, I would strongly suggest opening a discussion somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States (or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography) and gauge other editors opinions before making changes to so many articles. Also a minor note, I think it's a bit misleading to say in your edit summaries that you had reached consensus with Pbritti about this change, as that is not what happened. They did not agree that this term should be included, but suggested you restore it so that other editors would give more opinions. Good luck on your campaign. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

Kindly confine your editing in the AI area, per the notices above and WP:ARBECR, to the filing of edit requests only. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the oversight, thank you for correcting me! DS537(WIR) 18:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The MLB nomination

Thanks for going ahead and putting up the nomination. After the recent NFL and NBA discussions it was just a matter of time until someone would test the MLB pages to see if a similar result occurred. Now we at least know, which is a benefit for Wikipedia. And, again, welcome, I hope you enjoy editing the project. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted article merger

I have reverted your merger of the articles skateboarding and skateboarding trick as the merger proposal you started has not yet reached a consensus. If you wish for additional input, you can ask here. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 22:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won’t undo your revert, but I’d like to understand why the merge fell solely upon the proposal. Per WP:WTRMT, You may remove a template when according to your best judgment the lack of edits and/or talk page discussion should be interpreted as the issue not worth fixing (as a form of "silent consensus"). The merge lasted a solid amount of time prior to the revert, and could have been beneficial to readers. Hope we can agree on something. DS537(WIR) 12:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

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) 01:41, 28 April 2024 (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).

DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, and thank you and many other checkuser editors for making Wikipedia a great place for knowledge. I acknowledge I have caused a lot of unacceptable behavior, such as trolling, reckless contentious topic commentary, and undisclosed of multiple accounts, and a whole lot more. I understand completely why I was blocked on several occasions. Nothing I have done could have given editors trust in me that I would stop circumventing policies. I have come to the conclusion that I will never do anything like that again. I hope people understand that the editor I was doesn’t reflect who I am now; that I have always wanted to help the project. It seems I may have misunderstood Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. In a recent inquiry, a checkuser declined the unblock request, stating: “I can’t unblock this account while the main remains blocked”, so I’m seeking for a compromise or arrangement so that I may edit legally. If this block is lifted, I solemnly swear to never disruptively edit again. Kindly asking for a one-up or another chance. Please leave comments or concerns below. Thank you.

Decline reason:

WP:SO is probably your only option at this point. You are incredibly close to a WP:CBAN under WP:3X, which would mean no admin could unilaterally lift your block. Yamla (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2024 (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.

Unblock clarification

@Yamla, thank you for reviewing many of my edit requests. I understand that the block was necessary to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia. However, I am now completely aware of all rules I must follow and take complete responsibility for what I did disruptively. As mentioned in the unblock decline, WP:SO is probably your only option at this point. May I ask why? Per WP:GAB, I have already extensively covered that the block is no longer necessary because 1. I understand what I have been blocked for, 2. Will not cause damage or disruption, and 3. That I will make useful contributions instead. Any questions or concerns will be responded to as quickly as possible. I hope you may understand where I am coming from, and kindly advise that you thoroughly review my comments rather than declining requests and removing tpa, thank you. DS537(WIR) 02:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your abuse of this account to evade your block (violating WP:BLOCK, WP:SOCK, and WP:EVADE) shows pretty conclusively you haven't the slightest intention of abiding by Wikipedia's policies. Until we are sure you are willing to abide by our policies, you aren't going to be unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I understand now. So if I do not make any more accounts, and leave my IP undisturbed, I can be sure that I may be unblocked per the standard offer? I would like to request that the SO time be shorter, as I no longer edit disruptively, and I will not create any more accounts. I think I have shown full understanding of disruptive editing and have cleared up that I will not make them (this includes talk page rules, edit wars, contentious topics, etc.) and will make useful contributions instead. Please and thank you. DS537(WIR) 12:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. You absolutely cannot be sure. Please reread WP:SO. Your claim that you have "shown full understanding of disruptive editing" is absolutely bizarre. You've shown no meaningful understanding so far. I won't respond further. --Yamla (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock req 2

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).

DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, and thank you Yamla for your clarification of Wikipedia policies regarding sock puppetry. I genuinely understand why I have been blocked, previously for reasons such as trolling, edit warring, reckless contentious topic commentary, and sockpuppetry. Never again will I engage in such reckless behavior; I will be more careful on talk pages, will not create any disruptive accounts (and will disclose any made), and will no longer troll. I cannot be sure that the Standard offer will not guarantee an unblock, as it is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Please assume good faith even in bizarre situations, and rest assured that if I am unblocked, I will contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. I kindly request that another checkuser review my situation with fresh eyes, please leave any comments or questions below (which will be quickly responded to), thank you. DS537(WIR) 20:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not a checkuser, but I can close your request; if you intend to make use of the standard offer process, then do so; you've barely been blocked two weeks. You need to wait six months as a show of good faith that you can abide by rules and guidelines. This isn't a negotiation- you either will do this, or not. Your other option is to request unblock again and try to find a checkuser willing to remove the block sooner, but I think that this is exceedingly unlikely. The sooner you start the six months, the sooner it will be over. The timer starts now, consider your next move carefully. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2024 (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.

My next move (considered carefully)

Hello again. After some discussion, I've noticed many editors suggesting that I take the standard offer. It seems there is little possibility of me being unblocked early. I have decided that the best course of action is to wait it out; six months from now will be November 8, 2024. Thank you all, peace. DS537(WIR) 21:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere unblock request

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).

DirtySocks357(WreckItRalph) (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, this is @Cleter. I have been thinking about this situation for a while; I know I said I would wait per the standard offer, but truth is I cannot wait six months due to real-world complications. Rest assured, however, that I completely understand why I have been blocked a ton (be it sockpuppetry, edit warring, reckless talk page commentary, etc.) I completely understand the reason for the block and solemnly swear to never engage in disruptive behavior again. Context regarding this situation can be found at User talk:Cleter and User talk:Edward pluribus unum. Never again will I create disruptive accounts and I will instead engage in consensus the right way. I hope I may prove that I can be trusted and accepted into the community. Thank you to all checkusers for your work.

Decline reason:

The six month waiting period of the standard offer will only be reduced in cases where the blocked editor shows an unusually good insight into the circumstances that led to the block. You've done the exact opposite. In registering this account, you've continued the behaviour that made the block necessary in the first place. Even making this request evades sanctions placed on you, namely the revocation of your talk page access. As such I'm revoking your access to this page as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2024 (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.

DS537(WIR) 20:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]