User talk:Drizzybake
October 2020
[edit]
Hello, I'm Blablubbs. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Shock rock—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 23:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC) |
Drizzybake (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I should make it clear that I tried my best to not engage in any edit-warring behavior. I should also make it clear that I was editing on the behalf of my friend (as are a number of people in my friend group, who all tried to make accounts in the same general neighborhood tonight, some last week, who were immediately banned), who has consistently been steamrolled on this platform and been banned from Wikipedia for trying to correct certain biases. I am currently writing this at the address of a surely banned IP. So, can we discuss the edit a couple of users have reverted on the Shock Rock page, that got my friend, and all of our accounts, banned? The edit a certain user labeled "not constructive" was the removal of this addition to the page, which was made back in 2017, by a known sockpuppet and editor going by the name of AC Armstrong, who was promptly banned. I think that if you're going to revert all edits made by sockpuppets, than you should be consistent in that policy and revert the edits made by that sockpuppet - but no, you'll ignore the sockpuppetry if it suits your particular biases. On top of that, the article referenced in the paragraph is an opinion piece; moreover, that opinion piece is presented as objective fact in the summary section of the article. It states that "British rock has always been more theatrical than American rock", despite the fact that the very page negates that opinionated statement, considering the earliest listed shock rock act (by nearly a decade) is American, and the bulk of those mentioned are American. It clearly tries to sway opinions on which rock scene is the "better", when that kind of conjecture is just utterly partisan and not at all appropriate in the summary section of the article. It's in keeping with the theme of British chauvinism on Wikipedia, particularly as it relates to the music pages on the site: An addition to the highly opinionated and biased Stereotypes of the British page literally included an edit that stated "many people think British music is better than American music" with a reference to someone's social media posts, compiled by an online news journal, as a "source". I'm not sure how a number of users can claim they are editors of integrity when they hold up such edits as these in the face of mere deletion. To reiterate, I am not a sockpuppet, though I'm not sure what your policy on "editing on behalf of a user accused of sockpuppetry" is. I maintain that he (my friend) might have poor conduct on that score, my issue is that Binksternet has not made the case that his conduct is positive, and so is certainly not the type of person who should be the arbiter of who's conduct is appropriate and who's isn't, of who gets banned, or incessantly reverted and attacked, and who doesn't. He's routinely edit-warred, by the looks of things - he's a voracious supporter of Wikipedia policy when it's most convenient for him, but tosses it aside if it's not, and he's never reproached for it. Additionally, this edit, made by a brand new user on Heavy Metal music, altered the information provided by a source that didn't support the addition made - it was the viewpoint of an editor, and it wasn't an addition that was even discussed in the talk page, it was just erroneously added and then protected, with no regard for how it contradicted the information in the source given at the end of the sentence that it was just shoved in the middle of. And yet, Sergecross73 maintained the random edit, an addition which was not discussed on the talk page, and told ME to use the talk page in order to change it. How is that appropriate editing? How is that appropriate conduct? The only reason given for maintaining the "to a lesser extent" edit was that the person trying to remove it for completely legitimate reasons was a sockpuppet - it's not like there was even overwhelming consensus that the edit should be instated. How is that not inconceivably biased conduct on the part of editors, editors who are accusing my friend, and by extension me, of bias and malfeasance? So I have to use the talk page to remove an addition by an editor[1], an editor who altered sourced information without using the talk page[2]? What?! So certain moderators will delete edits of sockpuppets if they disagree with them [3], but will uphold the edits of sockpuppets if they happen to align with their biases [4]. What?! I'm sorry, I will of course agree to refrain from making the edits that I would like without using the talk page first, and deliberating with Sergecross73 properly there, but the double-standards, and the combative, biased and negativistic treatment that I describe above, is extremely unfair, and it suppresses editor enthusiasm and involvement. On top of all this, attempts to use the talk page by me (and my friend) have been futile, and have resulted in deleted sections, and if not that, been made impossible by undeservedly swift bans. I'd like an answer as to why any of this is deemed acceptable, and I'd very much like my account un-blocked. Thank you. Drizzybake (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Site-banned sock puppeteer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2020 (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.