User talk:It's a Stick!

It's a Stick!, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi It's a Stick!! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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).

It's a Stick! (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:NeilN, the SPI case hasn't even been completed yet. How can you block someone for what it's claiming before that even wraps up? User:RickinBaltimore, why do you believe my report of incivility is trolling, while others are not? It's a Stick! (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't how you justify an unblock. You have to, at a minimum, state clearly that you are not a sockpuppet or alternate account of any other account on the Wikipedia. You are welcome to request another unblock, but only if this is the case and you explicitly state as such. Yamla (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2016 (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.

This isn't how you justify an unblock. You have to, at a minimum, state clearly that you are not a sockpuppet or alternate account of any other account on the Wikipedia. You are welcome to request another unblock, but only if this is the case and you explicitly state as such. Yamla (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)}}[reply]

Yamla, I've read the sockpuppet rules, and they're not as strict as you say they are; the rules say that you can have other accounts for certain reasons (which I don't need to relist here, but which I don't have any of even though it would be okay for me to, under the conditions stated in the rules). It's a Stick! (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2016 (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).

It's a Stick! (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:NeilN, I'm not a sockpuppet. I didn't have any other accounts before this one. My edits on manual transmission aren't enough evidence that I could have had an account previous to this one, as claimed by sro23 (as if they weren't allowed), as everyone must run into situations, from time to time, where there are some minor edits that need to be made. Besides that, I did make an edit there that might be considered as not minor. I'm obviously not the only person interested in manual transmissions who makes minor edits. Besides which, he cited things from automatic transmission, which I've never even touched. And, of course, the SPI case hasn't even been completed yet. So how can you block someone for what it's claiming before that even wraps up?

Also, User:RickinBaltimore, why do you believe my ANI report of sro23's incivility is trolling, while others are not? It's a Stick! (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The behavioural evidence is strong enough to rule out a mere coincidence here. Huon (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2016 (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 blocks can be and frequently are based on behavior over checkuser results. clpo13_(talk) 19:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so nobody else does minor edits on transmission articles, user:Clpo13? That was my behavior, as well as a large one. You can determine just by that? It's a Stick! (talk)

I don't think you understand. The SPI has been closed, you were blocked as a WP:DUCK sock of Who R U? Sro23 (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is it, as you believe, user:Sro23, that just because someone makes a minor edit on an article that might be next to one that the other guy edited (remember, I never touched the same article), and you believe that the other guy (the guy you say I'm a sock of) only makes minor edits, and that he has what you believe is a silly user name too (how you get away with that incivility is the thing that I actually don't understand), that's good enough to say he is that other person? So for the rest of your life here on Wikipedia, whenever you spot someone with what you claim to be a silly name making minor edits on transmission articles, you'll claim that's enough evidence that he's a sock of that guy you're talking about? It's a Stick! (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Who R U? socks would "ping" users and indent replies exactly the same way you're doing now. Sro23 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that idea, Sro23? You're trying to pin one editor down as doing something a lot of editors do. Look, you've been indenting this whole time. Aren't we all indenting in here? What's so special about my indenting that makes it any different from yours? And I haven't pinged anyone in here once. Show me even one place where I've said "ping" in here. Or are you talking about even using their name in brackets (to raise a notification to them) at all, like "user:Sro23" or "[[user:Aloha27" like all of you do from time to time? Haven't you seen anyone else use that anywhere? Or do you think this Who r u is the only guy who would use that feature? It's a Stick! (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admin - if you have any questions, let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So now that you've seen this, user:NeilN, will you answer my question that was directed straight to you? It's a Stick! (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to all. I saw this edit and assumed incorrectly the SPI had been completed and the offender binned. Regards, Aloha27 talk 20:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A person is not an offender, user:Aloha27, until the judgment has been made. It's a Stick! (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And good day to you. Aloha27 talk 21:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to imply with "and good day to you" there, User:Aloha27? It's a Stick! (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] Have a nice day. Aloha27 talk 21:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your sincere greeting, Aloha27. But what you're pointing to there is only something I did so I could finish discussing with you at the SPI. It has nothing to do with my faithful edits at manual transmission which wrongfully brought me to this point in the first place. It's a Stick! (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look. Here's the deal. I've been around here for nearly ten years. There isn't a lot I haven't seen in that length of time. You've launched FAR MORE than your fair share of sockpuppets and there are many eyes now on you for that reason. To be honest, I'm not 100% sure on why, instead of merely being blocked from editing, you haven't been WP:BANNED since it is clear that you have no intention of ceasing to edit here voluntarily. Each and every time you type, your writing style reinforces the WP:DUCK label. I'll comment no further on this matter. Good day. Aloha27 talk 22:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, I indented like who r u, just like you guys indent like who r u!) How do you judge someone's writing style, Aloha27, just by their having shifted stuff around in one article? In other words, how can you claim that there's some kind of typing style associated with that? My shifting stuff around looks unique from someone else's? How does that work? It's a Stick! (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree Aloha27, this user has caused so much disruption and unnecessary headaches over the course of multiple socks, a community ban proposal may be in order. Sro23 (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, Sro23, I made another "who are you indentation" just like you do! Yeah, right. Who R U... KIDDING?) Again, how do you believe that someone who:

has what you called a silly user name (though there are many of them), combined with
editing manual transmission, combined with
moving stuff around and making minor edits

has to be who r you, especially since I can't even see any edits in there by any user with a name that looks like that?

What about user:Jellyfish dave from that same article? Why would my name and edits be any more like what you claim to be like who are you's (based on the above criteria that you used) than Dave's very short edit from there? Even if WRU came later (I have to look at his edit history to study things like that in order to anticipate that you might have a comeback regarding it), why couldn't my edits be just like any others that are in that article that meet that criteria (silly name, that subject, and minor edits)? It's a Stick! (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry as well, I should have waited for the unblock review to be over before hastily tagging. Sro23 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am accountable to admins reviewing this block. I am accountable to editors in good standing asking questions in good faith about this block. I will even respond to blocked editors who I believe are not wasting my time. None of these three apply to a sockpuppet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But, User:NeilN, you're putting the cart before the horse. That would be like the judge or jury saying that someone's guilty before all the evidence was even presented. Now you're acting like those two and the executioner even before all the evidence--that there isn't even any of, since everyone must make small edits from time to time, etc. (see my appeal retry above for detail review). How can you say someone's a sockpuppet with just that? It's a Stick! (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Who r u indentation, according to sro): Too bad (who r u ping, without even using a ping) user:NeilN believes everything sro says even with such little evidence to go on, that he believes accounting for it isn't necessary. How about it, Neil? It's a Stick! (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2016 (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).

It's a Stick! (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Huon, the only evidence they have is what was listed above (see the number bullets), which are really nothing. How can that be any evidence enough for anyone, when those few bullets could match a lot of people? It's a Stick! (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock. —DoRD (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2016 (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.

Note to reviewing admin - I've removed talk page access. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future.^{[survey 1]} The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey.^{[survey 2]} The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.

[2] Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

[survey 1]

[survey 2]