User talk:Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia

Welcome

Hello, Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia, good luck, and have fun. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia. Thank you for your edits to Chloë Grace Moretz and Kelly McGillis. I see you've restored the both edits, this time with a summary that appears valid. (In Moretz's case in particular, you are indeed correct: the included data refers to her family.) The removal of contentious data from biographies of living persons is a requirement; however, I hope you understand that any additions or removals without explanation may be considered invalid and reverted at any time. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia! 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 AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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 sock puppet, 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. Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:15, 14 November 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).

Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked wrongfully.

Here is what happened:

1. User:Wesco482 was blocked by User:Spike Wilbury.

2. User:Wesco482 made an unblock request

3. I supported User:Wesco482's unblock request. In my statement of suport of User:Wesco's unblock request, I said that User:Spike Wilbury "owe[d] the WP community an explanation." for the block.

4. User:Beeblebrox immediately posted a comment saying he found it "curious" that my account, which had been created less than 24 hours ago, would support another user's unblock request. That is, User:Beeblebrox suspected I was a sock, simply because I supported another user's unblock request, and for no other reason.

5. I posted a response to User:Beeblebrox, reassuring him and the WP community that I was not a sock.

6. User:Beeblebrox then declined User:Wesco482's unblock request.

7. User:Spike Wilbury blocked me. User:Spike Wilbury the same user who had originally blocked User:Wesco482.

8. In his block notice, User:Spike Wilbury said that I had abused multiple accounts. Also, User:Spike Wilbury then posted a message on my user page, saying I was a sockpuppet.

No sockpuppet investigation was ever conducted. You can read my edit history, and see that all of my edits have been constructive. It is true that other users did revert some of my edits, and these users had pointed out mistakes in my edits. (though my edits didn't constitute vandalism.) I fully acknowledge that some of my edits may have been mistakes. (However, I made other edits that were questioned and reverted, then I made the same edits again, with explanation. User:ATS, the editor who had originally questioned those edits, then thanked me for my edits, and said that I was "indeed correct.")

What I am saying, is, the one and only reason that I was blocked, is that I supported the unblock request of User:Wesco482. What is more, the user who blocked me, User:Spike Wilbury, is the same editor who blocked User:Wesco482. User:Spike Wilbury, was the same editor, who I had said, "owe[d] the WP community an explanation" for his block.

No one has proof that I am a sock. I request a sock puppet investigation should be initiated, to prove that I'm not a sock.

If I was blocked merely for expressing an opinion that another user should be unblocked, then you are blocking me because you don't agree with my opinions. If User:Spike Wilbury blocked me because I questioned him, then User:Spike Wilbury is blocking me for disagreeing with him. Even if User:Spike Wilbury's block was appropriate, I should be able to disagree and still be allowed to edit Wikipedia.

This is unfair. You should unblock me. Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your claims that you are a new unrelated editor who happened upon the blocked User:Wesco482 and the same edit wars by pure coincidence are not plausible, and nor is it plausible that a genuine new editor would have your knowledge of Wikipedia's arcane ways. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 15 November 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.

Obvious behavioral evidence is routinely used for blocking socks; please see WP:DUCK. Your account registered within hours of Wesco482 being blocked and you immediately jumped into supporting the unblock. Additionally, you jumped into the same edit wars on Miami Sound Machine and Gloria Estefan articles. Please don't insult our intelligence any further by claiming you are just a random new editor who happened to stumble into these things. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This could of course be Wesco482, but I doubt it, as Wesco never edited anything unrelated to Gloria Estefan. Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia's editing pattern reminds me of this recently CU blocked user. Not that it matters much at this point, as it's an obvious sock account anyway. Widr (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spike Wilbury: You blocked me because I supported the unblock of a user you had blocked. That is, you blocked me because I disagreed with you. I've reported your behavior to the Arbitration Committee. Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will be sure and let us know exactly what they say in their reply? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: and @Spike Wilbury: Of course I will. Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Prince-Archbishop of Wikipedia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17042 was submitted on Dec 03, 2016 22:14:53. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]