User talk:Somville243

Hello Somville243! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ronz (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Somville243, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Somville243! 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 Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

An extended welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours 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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is very disappointing. If you do this again, your next block will be indefinite. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Nurts to you. That's one way to destroy your own credibility in a BLP discussion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Drmies User:Deepfriedokra can either of you two explain to me what is going on. I was trying to switch over to a new account. Is that a crime on wikipedia? Somville243 (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think we can explain what's going on; only you can. The other account was created on 9 July. It first edited the Durkan article on 10 July. So I am not going to devote time to explaining how on Wikipedia accounts can be renamed, or new alternate accounts started, or ask why you didn't tell anyone, or whatever, because this is just a lie. Tell me one more lie and I will block this account indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Drmies You've got a lot of gall accusing me of lying and knowing my motives. I made this account July 9 after taking a long break from editing, and I had barely even done any my first go around, using this account. But I made a new account because I wanted to start fresh. But the first account I wanted to edit was protected, so that forced me continue to use this account. I also did a couple of minor edits with the new account on Durkins page (it was unprotected) to try to get past then 10 number limit. So that what you saw me in the process of a few days ago: using my old account, but forgetting that I had wanted to switch over the new account and get it confirmed. Maybe you should ask a few questions and communicate with somebody before you try to wipe them off the map. I think my recent responsible editing speaks for itself. And why did you take no action against that other individual who was using two accounts to actively harass people? Somville243 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What torques me off is you used both accounts on one article in a bleedin' content dispute. That is not the purpose of "switching accounts". When switching accounts, you stop with one, start with the other, and you do not use both on the same page and certainly not to edit war! And then, you used the second account to seek admin action to protect a page in which you have a content dispute. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I must say, edit warring to get autoconfirmed status on the new account is certainly a novel reason for edit warring. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deepfriedokra All I can say was that I was trying to edit the page of another seattle politician, whos page was protected, which forced me to use this account. And then I switched over to editing Durkan's page (which isn't protected), where I made ONE edit, before a light switch went off, and I remembered that I should be using my new account to get autoconfirmed, after which I was planning on only using that one account. Every single comment I made during the content dispute was with ONE ACCOUNT, the new one. I don't know what else to tell you. I was not using two accounts for any devious means. And I was not edit warring, that was the other individual. I was standing my ground. And I was not "edit warring to get autoconfirmed." That was something I had the misfortune of getting caught up in. Somville243 (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies User:Deepfriedokra Also could I get clarification as to why the other user in the content dispute was seemingly allowed to operate using two accounts in a content dispute, doing the exact thing you are accusing me of, with relative impunity? Somville243 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What two accounts? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Deepfriedokra 71.212.13.9 and 174.21.174.34 Somville243 (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not accounts. That is a user with a dynamic IP who stated as much on the talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies Deepfriedokra And you really believe that just as he got blocked, his IP conveniently changed. And am I wrong to think a block should apply to all ips a user might make use of, just like you savagely blocked my two accounts, even though, unlike him, I wasn't misusing them? Boy he really has you hoodwinked. I thought you two would stand up to him a little more after he bullied and harassed you, and engaged in lowest levels of behavior. Instead you come after me, for simply standing on the right side of wikipedia policy. I'm not trying to be insulting, but your behavior as administrators seems to be one-sidedly persecutory. Somville243 (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who is not trying, you are succeeding immensely. The IP is, as far as I'm concerned, wrong in a million ways, but they are right in one way: they have not edited the article. They were only partially blocked, from editing the article, and while their IP has changed (which is a thing that happens--if you want IPs to not be able to edit Wikipedia, you will need to make that case elsewhere), they honored the partial block. You are blocked for socking; you socked in order to gain an advantage in the article. The IP was edit warring, and earned a partial block. The two situations are not the same. Again, if you want to get back in good standing, you will have to change your tack. Please don't ping me anymore if you are just going to argue: I have nothing further to say to you. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"communicate with somebody"--that is sort of the key here. You can make your case to the next administrator, if you wish to get unblocked. Given your behavior, I am changing the block to indefinite: socking, colluding with socks, and edit warring, that's usually reason enough for an indefinite block. There are things you can do to get unblocked--blaming others, including the admins who took the time to look at your arguments, that's not the way. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies Fine, I will not fight this ridiculous battle anymore. But I do have one final inquiry. Since you have banned my two accounts, and I don't feel like going through the effort of getting them unblocked, I believe it would be easier to just make a new account and start fresh (which is what I was trying to do anyway!). How do I do that without incurring the wrath of being accused of socking? PS: While IP didn't edit the article, they were still fighting their battle and threatening to resume editing the article. In my mind that's just as bad.

I didn't ban your accounts, I blocked them. You can believe it would be easier to start a new account, but the moment we discover that that's you, it will be blocked indefinitely because you are socking. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies If even if I no longer any using any of the those older accounts, or have deleted them? You're telling me that once you create an account on wikipedia, you have to use that one account in perpetuity? Somville243 (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Drmies (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't tell you that. You're blocked. YOU are blocked. Indefinitely. Which account you use is of no concern: as long as you are blocked, every new account you make is a sock editing against policy. It is really not that hard to grasp. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies Ok well that's strange that the note above says " this USER ACCOUNT...It has been blocked indefinitely" It never refers to ME being blocked. I guess that's why I can't grasp what you are saying because it seems wrong. So I guess that's why I was wondering if I came back at a later date, and didn't sock (which I mistakenly did in the first place, and didn't cause any harm), I couldn't get a clean slate. Somville243 (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies See, were you implying I was given a site ban, because I don't think that was the case, so I don't know if you saying "YOU are blocked" is accurate. And I am not seeing here on the policy page that having more than one account is illegal, it just depends on how you use them. So this would lead me to believe if I had a new account, and used it correctly, I would be fine. What is the policy that you are citing that says otherwise Somville243 (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Somville243: Ask for a unblock and you will get another admin to review your case. Techie3 (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I think this is a close-call decision to block indefintely. I check out the history for the article, and personally think that Somville243 should have been warned, but not blocked. You should have got an uninvolved admin (not Deepfriedokra) to do the actual block. However the decision does not need to be overturned. Techie3 (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may personally think what you like, Techie3. Look up WP:ILLEGIT, and if you don't agree, perhaps you can suggest a different policy to handle people who use multiple accounts to get their way. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I checked WP:ILLEGIT. First, he was unwise to edit with multiple accounts. However,IMO,this case was not a clear "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts", as the user behind Somville243 only made ONE edit on the page with this account, and did not use this account for the entire edit war. Instead it was probably "misusing a clean start". If you had discussed that, it might have led to a better discussion or a better reason to block. Techie3 (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I see on this talk page is a user who thinks they can just throw away one account and start another--in case you hadn't read all their messages after the block. I do not need to be lectured on whether I need a "better reason" to block, and if this discussion was not to your liking, don't blame it on me. The user had a chance to calmly explain what might have been going on, but instead chose a different route, as here, for instance: the essence of NOTTHEM. But I am not really interested in entertaining what seems like an odd kind of advocacy--you agree with the block but tell me I'm wrong?--and doing this on the blocked editor's talk page isn't exactly right either, so if there is something to take somewhere, please take it elsewhere. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing

I did block the IP from editing the article, as is reasonable for a content dispute. When their IP changed, they did not edit the article though that new IP was not blocked. They continued the discussion on the article talk and on my talk page and on your sock's talk page and on Drmies talk page, inviting discussion and consideration of sources. That's very different from using two accounts to edit war. My advice is to read the WP:GAB and use the unblock template to request unblocking by a neutral admin.

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra"That's very different from using two accounts to edit war." I don't want to argue again, but seriously don't even go there. I already clarified what I was doing above. I made one edit, then remembered I should be using my new account, switched over, made another edit, and then someone began an edit war for which they were blocked. I was never accused of edit warring. And my edits were always on the right side of Wikipedia policy. And I am greatly disappointed that the other individuals' efforts to harrass, bully, and insult you seems to have eroded your fortitude to stand up for what is right. Did they actually get you to apologize to them, or did I misread that? Somville243 (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]