User talk:OnceASpy

Block evasion

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

legit not me. I only have one account. Can't you check the IP of this stuff? Whoever it was either agrees with my edit, or is purposefully trying to get me blocked by impersonating me. OnceASpy (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Joe-jobbed. See below. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a little patience while this is looked into. Admins, please hold. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "other guy" admitted to being him, so, unless there is evidence that he was framed, I don't see this going anywhere. Assuming that this is as it appears to be then I would suggest upping the block to indef. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a famous line, checkusers usually know something you don't. Please all be patient. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, after seeing what the "other guy" posted, it's pretty clear I'm being impersonated. Which is both kinda funny and a little disconcerting, considering the political nature of the page in question. OnceASpy (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it pretty obvious that I'm being impersonated in an attempt to get my account blocked. I actually gained consensus on my edit after I was blocked, and had no problem waiting the 24 hours to re-contribute to the talk page and resolve the issue. This is a politically-motivated attempt to shut my account down. Either that or a really weird and sad troll who should get a more productive hobby. OnceASpy (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK OnceASpy, I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that you were joe-jobbed by Architect 134 (this falls into the latter of your categories), and I strongly recommend to Sir Sputnik that the block evasion block is nullified with a summary clearly stating mistaken identity. The bad news is that your original edit-warring block @TonyBallioni: is likely to stand. In any case it is now a separate matter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies. I had no reason to think you were being impersonated, but here we are. I've reverted the block settings to what they were previously as recommended. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder

Please watch your edit warring/3RR edits. It seems to me that when that is happening, often it's because the weight of consensus is elsewhere. Just food for thought. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're now at 5RR. I would respectfully ask that you self-undo your last edit. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't break any rules or even make an edit. I mentioned a conflict of interest in a talk page and was "punished" for daring to point it out. OnceASpy (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block looks completely justified. Calling other editors names is just a bad idea, period. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:35, 13 November 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.

Reviewing admin: this [1] accusation, followed by this response [2] [3] to my warning, then this [4], and finally this reiteration [5] that everybody disagreeing with OnceASpy must have a COI because they're a bunch of communists. Acroterion (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not "everybody who disagrees with me is a communist". It was that there were conflicts of interest because admitted communists (a subject of the article in question) were violating NPOV on the page. I'm not the only user who was worried about NPOV and how sloppy the article is. (OnceASpy (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Who are the admitted communists? Doug Weller talk 09:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent editor on the page, for instance. (OnceASpy (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I fully admit to being an anarcho-syndicalist, but my edit was simply adding on categories that were already listed in the article. Even if I had a conflict of interest, it didn't materialize in any way so the point is moot. Docktuh (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for repeated disruptive editing of your own page; selectively editing conversations and completely disregarding warnings. See page history. A month in view of previous blocks. Next block should be indefinite. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 11:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A month-long ban from editing for removing constant, persistent trolling on my talk page. That doesn't seem like a massive overreaction at all.

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).

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

Request reason:

cleaning up my own talk page OnceASpy (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 17 December 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.

Declined unblock requests cannot be removed while the block is in effect. If you remove one again, your ability to edit this page will be removed. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Didn't break any rules. Cleaned out old conversation on my talk page and declined to engage in debate over a month-old, already put to rest discussion OnceASpy (talk) 15:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block is justified. OnceASpy selectively removed comments [6] [7] [8], was warned to stop [9], then removed both the warning [10] and the restored comments [11]. The block length is reasonable in light of previous history of disruptive editing. -- Scott (talk) 20:17, 17 December 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.

This is getting out of hand. Certain editors have come to my talk page, seeking out any way to stir up a reason to ban me. I didn't violate the rules, I didn't argue. I didn't edit anything to mislead or misrepresent what they were saying. I cleaned out new discussion because, in my view, it was an attempt to pick open an old scab to try and get me to say something that could be twisted into a ban. It's ridiculous, immature, and so far from productive it's laughable. I voiced some POV concerns in a talk page over a month ago, and since then I've been hounded and harassed for it by a couple of editors with some serious chips on their shoulders.OnceASpy (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions say otherwise. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? You seem to be confused.OnceASpy (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went through a sample of your contributions, and the block appears to be justified. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize you were the admin reviewing the unblock request. Care to elaborate? Because my block isn't for my contributions. OnceASpy (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not an admin. I'm just assisting whatever admin does review it by providing information.

Your block is due to a history of refactoring talk pages - this is unconstructive and is against policy. There's also the issue of disruptively editing your own page(s), as well as what appears to be POV pushing. Reviewing your edit history shows this is accurate. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving old talk discussions isn't disruptive editing. And no rules were broken. You're out of line here. OnceASpy (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting is not archiving. We have several templates for archiving: {{archives}} and {{archive}} are just two of them. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. But I'd like to take this up with an actual admin.OnceASpy (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

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.

TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]