User talk:IDriveAStickShift
December 2014
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. Bbb23 (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- You edit-warred in the article as an IP address until an administrator semi-protected the article. Then you created this account, and to get around the semi-protection, you made 11 ping-pong edits to Faithbooking with a zero-sum effect so you could recommence your edit war at One Magnificent Morning despite the semi-protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23:, would you please not mind answering something for me, then? What's so "wrong" with logging in to edit in the same manner as someone who already was logged in while editing? In other words, if spshu had been I.P.-editing and then logged in just like I did, would he have gotten blocked too, or would he just get a pass for some odd reason? And if so, then why? Why shouldn't an I.P. editor get to log in and continue editing in the way that someone who was already using their user name gets to? If an article gets semi-protected, then that means that we're permitted to edit while being logged in, does it not? Then why should I be in any more trouble than spshu while he was doing the same kinds of edits while being logged in? Why isn't spshu blocked for the same edit-warring, then--especially for posting/trying to enforce false sources?
And then how did you get notified of what was happening there even though it's not on the ANI?
IDriveAStickShift (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- But you didn't just create an account. And it's not true, as you obviously know, that a registered account can edit a semi-protected article. Only an auto-confirmed account can do so, and you deviously edited another article without really editing it so you would become auto-confirmed and edit war again. I didn't get notified. I noticed. It's unusual for a new account to edit a Wikipedia guideline. So, I looked at the rest of your so-called contributions.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, @Bbb23:, a registered user can edit semi-protected articles. They just have to be auto-confirmed also. And what's so "wrong" with a new account editing a Wikipedia guideline, if it's just to remove some superfluous punctuation or something like that? Why would that prompt you to wonder what else I had edited?
- Also, are you saying that an editor who has been around a little longer automatically gets more of a pass from edit-warring punishment than a new guy? If not, then why is spshu not also blocked if he's warring in the same amount too?
@Bbb23:, will you please come by and answer my follow-up questions so that I can learn more about the system (for example, what supposedly constitutes "one-sided edit-warring")?
IDriveAStickShift (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've increased your block to one week from today for block evasion (User:75.162.212.197).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23:
1. Why do you automatically assume I'm that IP?
2. Why are you ignoring my question about why both sides in an edit-war don't get blocked (supposed "one-sided edit-warring")? Why is it so hard to get you admins to keep talking about something until the subject has been covered for the understanding of the asker?
3. Even if I were that IP, then why would it be "block evasion" if neither you nor anyone else has said that a blocked name-user can't post while logged out, when it's even part of Wikipedia policy that a name-user doesn't always have to log in after creating their name account?
IDriveAStickShift (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Your questions don't merit a response. They are a continuation of your disruptive and disingenuous attitude. I've therefore revoked your access to this page for the duration of your block. If you evade your block again, you risk being indefinitely blocked. If your conduct continues in the same vein after expiration of this block, you also risk being indefinitely blocked. To appeal, use WP:UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
January 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
IDriveAStickShift (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't understand how I could have just been doing "sock-puppetry." Is there a Wikipedia policy that once a person gets a user name, they're no longer allowed to edit without logging in? No, there is not. In fact, I quote WP:SOCK: "There is no policy against editing while logged out." There is however, a policy that if you use another Wikipedia account or just go back to your IP address for doing something that's prohibited, then that's sockpuppetry. I quote, "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry." So bbb23 has either assumed that I was doing something "wrong" while editing without being logged in, or he doesn't understand that editing while not being logged in is allowed as long as it's not doing something that's prohibited. He compared me to this IP address up here, but when I wasn't logged in all I did was make some new edits to an article (without edit-warring) and then report an edit war there. What's so "improper" about either one of those things? They're not improper, so I should be allowed to do them either while logged in or not. That would be different than if I used another named account to just do editing anywhere (which I did not do), right? Besides that, no SPI was even launched against me for that, so to just jump out and call it "sock-puppetry" at this point is invalid! We really need to do something to counteract this overreach by one or more admins here. Will the next admin. just agree and overreach also, or do you think you could actually be reasonable and help out here, please?
Will you please also refer to the above previous abuse by this same "admin."? He seems to think that he can just block people whenever he wants, and that once they're blocked, he doesn't need to have even a reasonable amount of communication with them, because once they're blocked, their communication is now "reject" and not worth handling. He even blocked me from editing my own talk page just for asking a question, as if merely asking the question in my own talk page was supposedly "disruptive editing of the Wikipedia"! Please help us out here by putting this tyranny to rest, won't you?
Decline reason:
You just got caught evading your block with user:71.219.21.215. Not only am I not unblocking you but if you engage in further block evasion I will increase the block duration to indefinite. Chillum 04:58, 4 January 2015 (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.
@Chillum:, 1: How do you even know that IP was me just trying to get around this block?
2: Even if it was, why should that matter, when this blocking wasn't even valid in the first place and you obviously haven't even considered that?
- Seriously? You made near identical unblock requests here and on both IPs. Both IPs are in the same city and same internet provider. It is abundantly clear that you are the same person and your repeated claims that you are not only hurt your credibility. I suggest you come clean and wait out your current block, when it is over don't do it again.
- Be glad you have only been given a temporary block, this sort of behavior often results in permanent blocks. Chillum 05:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
@Chillum:, "seriously"? Yeah, seriously. I wasn't denying the use of the first IP. Yeah, that was me, just editing while not logged in, which I shouldn't have been blocked for because that's not against the rules. But the only account I made an unblock request from was this one. On that first account, I did ask bbb a question, but that wasn't an unblock request. As for the second IP address, that's the one I'm asking you about right now. So you think that everyone from the same city and provider using Wikipedia would have to be the same person? You don't think that when one person gets blocked, they would ever happen to garner support from another Wikipedian from the same area who isn't blocked? What if a friend from that area had heard what was going on and wanted to help out, but then you just assume they're the same person and block them without any real chance?
Yeah. "Seriously?" That's a good question, actually--for me to ask you! Do you really have to turn Wikipedia into such a fort of tyranny: just block someone at the drop of a hat based on your little assumptions? And what about bbb23's false assumption that all editing while not logged in is automatic sockpuppetry? Or if I was supposedly breaking a rule while not logged in (which would then convert my work into sockpuppetry), which rule(s) did I supposedly break while not logged in (and don't say something like "You broke the sockpuppetry rule," because that would just be circular antilogic)?
Oh, and if you two think you know so well about who's whom, then why does the system even have checkusers?
IDriveAStickShift (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Read WP:DUCK, for one thing. People who think they can work-around checkuser investigation are mistaken. JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- But, @JoeSperrazza: and @Chillum:, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying, instead, was that nobody launched an SPI or asked for a checkuser, so if they don't think they need either of those, then why do those even exist?
- Also, Joe, still neither @Bbb23: or anyone else has told me what I supposedly did "wrong" while editing without being logged in that has supposedly qualified it as "sock-puppetry." Remember, use of either your IP instead of your user name, or use of another user name, is only socking if you did something abusive at the time. So why hasn't someone told me what supposed "abuse" I did in order for my editing while not being logged in to have qualified as socking? Come on please someone tell me what thing I supposedly did "wrong" during editing while unlogged-in that made it "socking." Okay?
- Gosh.... IDriveAStickShift (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
When you edit logged out you reveal your IP, checkuser is not needed when you reveal your IP. Please stop pinging me, if you want further review you can get it from another admin. Chillum 07:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
- Duh, @Chillum: I know that when you edit using your IP, it shows your IP address. Hullooo...? I was asking about how someone would think a second IP would be connected to a first one, and then how a named user's IP would be discovered without a checkuser.
- Why aren't you willing to try to tell me what @Bbb23: is obviously too self-absorbed to tell me, abut which rule I supposedly "broke" while editing in IP mode, that supposedly made it "socking"?
- And why shouldn't you and I continue this subject? Why do you consider yourself "too important" to finish talking about this, but instead I should pass it on to another admin?
- Why does it seem like so many of you think that once a person has been blocked, they "fall off the Earth" and shouldn't be cared about even enough to work out such a simple concern as what the person supposedly did wrong? Yeah, I know sock-puppeting is against the rules, but first, in order to rightfully have been considered as socking, something besides just editing in IP mode has to have been done. Why are you guys so resistant to telling me what mine supposedly was?
- I've revoked your Talk page access. You may appeal through WP:UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)