User talk:Squeaky Rubber Duck

Thank you folks! All resolved I believe.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

SUMMARY: I just made one edit, adding the model name to Land Rover (from Land Rover to Land Rover Freelander 2). My user name "Prince Phillip in a collision" was chosen only after I tried many times to select user names, all rejected by the computer. I have since changed my user name to the exact name suggested by an administrator. The blocking administrator must be on vacation and I have patiently waited for unblock for several days. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019 - Blocked because of User Name

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is being used only for vandalism. Furthermore, your username is a blatant violation of our username policy, meaning that it is profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Philip%2C_Duke_of_Edinburgh&type=revision&diff=879072760&oldid=879072337

What I did: On 17 January 2019, Philip was involved in a serious car crash while driving his Land Rover, as he pulled out from a driveway onto the A149 near the Sandringham Estate

changed to

On 17 January 2019, Philip was involved in a serious car crash while driving his Land Rover Freelander 2, as he pulled out from a driveway onto the A149 near the Sandringham Estate

See the Wikipedia Land Rover Freelander 2 article to see that there is such car.

See the BBC News for evidence that the Duke of Edinburgh was driving a Freelander. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46933739 , specifically "A new Freelander, the model the Prince was seen driving, was delivered to Sandringham on Friday."

Conclusion: No reasonable person should consider this vandalism.

Land Rovers can be very expensive. The fact that the Duke of Edinburgh was driving a Freelander 2, which was discontinued in 2014 and was one of the cheaper models may be of interest to the reader. This is why I inserted it.

Please unblock

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Squeaky Rubber Duck (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

new username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

See above for proof that I did not commit vandalism. I can see that some people may not like my username. It was not my first choice, second choice, third choice, fourth choice, or fifth choice. Wikipedia kept saying that my other choices were either already in use or too similar to other usernames. Please note that I did not say Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is a bad driver or should be ticket. My user name was Prince Phillip, not Philip, and the phrase "in a collision" is very bland and neutral. Still, I realize that some may not like it so I am willing to change it to something else. How about Subject of the Queen, Speeding is not recommended, or Sorry I will comply. I am not trying to be funny but have a difficult time finding usernames. Prince Phillip in a collision (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Firstly, you will indeed need to propose a new username (one, that is). If you have so much trouble finding an available one, let me help you: User:Squeaky Rubber Duck is up for grabs. Secondly, your justification for your edit doesn't hold water. There might be a Land Rover Freelander 2, there might have been a Land Rover Freelander delivered after the accident; no source says that a Land Rover Freelander 2 was the model driven in the accident. Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about what you think is interesting. Huon (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6607197/That-quick-Prince-Philip-gets-new-Land-Rover-delivered-24-hours-car-crash.html

The black Freelander was delivered to Sandringham at around Midday today It is an exact replica of the 4x4 Philip wrote-off in a Kia crash yesterday

Another source confirming the car driven was a Land Rover Freelander. In any case, this is clearly NOT vandalism.

{{unblock-un|Squeaky Rubber Duck}}

Globally renamed 'Prince Phillip in a collision' to 'Squeaky Rubber Duck'. Another admin will consider your unblock request. Just Chilling (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I got my user name changed. Ready for unblock. See User:Just Chilling who sort of says I should ask for unblock. I was originally blocked for my user name and claims that I did vandalism. I am sorry that changing "Land Rover" to "Land Rover Freelander 2" was done and considered vandalism even though there are many news sources confirming the car that Prince Philip was driving was a Land Rover Freelander . I had no idea that Freelander was an obscene word in the English language. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I think we can unblock you now. PhilKnight (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah:- would you object to an unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: @Oshwah:Please unblock. My writing in the article was clearly a good faith addition. Not a shred of vandalism. I changed my username to the exact one recommended by an administrator. I suspect that there was a pre-written vandalism+name reason that was selected even though it was not appropriate...blame that maybe on work overload. I have waited several days. Please offer good customer service at Wikipedia and do the unblock. Thank you.

@Andrewa: @Beland: @Canley: @Dino: @Edcolins: Can one of you help. This is just a case of a block for a user name, since changed to the exact one suggested by an administrator. The blocking administrator possibly went on vacation. Please fill in and unblock. Thank you. FYI, I randomly chose people with a user name starting with A to E, Andrewa, Beland, Canley, etc. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you have at least six other undisclosed accounts? —DoRD (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: I did not know I have six. Block 5 of them but unblock this. I do know that I have at least another one but cannot remember the name. You see, if I forget the user name, I just start a new one and never use the old one, which I cannot remember the name. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to make a bet. If I was editing the same articles with the 6 different user names, I will pay you MONEY. If it can be shown that I just serially used them, username 1 for a few days, forgot about it, then used username 2, you will pay me MONEY.

I think the best thing would be if I could have a fresh start and receive the OK from you to create a new username and one that I can remember. Is that OK with you DoRD? (I was going to do that but then thought that I should get this Squeaky Rubber Duck thing resolved. Just give me the OK, please OR unblock this. I think I can remember this username better.)Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With help from Wikipedia, I have the following information

User 1: started on October 31. Never logged in or edited after that. Did not edit any article that User 2-6 edited.

User 2: started on November 7. Never logged in or edited after that. Did not edit any article that User 1 or 3-6 edited.

User 3: started on December 25. Never logged in or edited after that. Did not edit any article that user 1-2 or 4-6 edited.

User 4: started on January 3. Never logged in or edited after that. Did not edit any article that user 1-3 or 5-6 edited.

User 5: started on January 5. Never logged in or edited after that. Did not edit any article that user 1-4 or user 6 edited.

User 6: started on January 21. Thought that I should really clear this Squeaky Rubber Duck up so I did not edit at all with user 6.

Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PhilKnight!

Nomination of 2019 Prince Philip road accident for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Prince Philip road accident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Prince Philip road accident until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oathswarm (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give 2019 Prince Philip road accident a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into 2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. The correct intial step was to request undeletion to enable a page move. Just Chilling (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Just Chilling (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also not clear to me but it seems that I have a lifetime prohibition to edit Wikipedia. Not 3 months. Not 6 months. Even greater than 70 years. Please do not be so harsh. In jail, it is supposed to be for reform but it is not clear what I did wrong. I did not sock puppet. However, I admit everything (not wanting to fight) and just want to know if you can not punish me so harshly. This is very stressful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 February 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

please unblock. I am not a sockpuppet but have edited in a non-warlike fashion. Someone put a checkuser on me and it did not say sockpuppet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Squeaky_Rubber_Duck/Archive Please. Thank you. I hope that I am not being block as a punishment for not liking how I researched about Prince Philip, including references but I am ok with not editing that article. If you want to change the block to a week, I am ok with that. Please.

Decline reason:

As I watched the AFD unfold it was obvious to me that either User:Cheesesteak1 was your sock or that you were working in concert (WP:MEAT). The behavioural evidence is clear. Just Chilling (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2019 (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.

@Just Chilling:. Would you let an uninvolved administrator consider the unblock? Just re-open my request. I have nothing to do with Cheesestake1. But I am more worried that I can NEVER edit in Wikipedia again????? Nobody has answered that question.Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Indefinite' is not the same as 'infinite'. Normally, there is always a route back to editing. If you submit a new appeal then it will be reviewed by a different admin. However, for a fresh appeal to have a realistic chance of success you need to adress, specifically, the evidence presented in the sockpuppet investigation. Just Chilling (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm an uninvolved administrator. Who is Cheesesteak1? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Someguy1221: Cheesesteak is some user that I wrote to and he/she formed an opinion in an AFD. I was then accused of meatpuppetry, which is false. At worse, it's canvassing but, in reality, was just an honest message. For that, I am blocked indefinitely. I plan to be on good behavior and ask for reinstatement in a few months. It is unfair but I accept the blocking punishment. It is also unfair that somebody in Wikipedia is trying to frame me by creating fake sockpuppets, like User:Janet Bourne . Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I am extremely concerned that somebody in Wikipedia are trying to frame me by creating sockpuppets, such as Janet Bourne. I request NOT UNBLOCK OF ME, but checkuser investigation of Janet Bourne and unblock of her because she is not my sockpuppet. However, warn her that trying to impersonate being my sockpuppet is forbidden. You see, I want to act very responsibly so that in a few months, I can ask for reinstatement. I protest that somebody is trying to ruin me by pretending to be a sock of mine. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request, as you state you will ask for 'reinstatement' later. When you do, then you can discuss what you claim. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2019 (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.

>>> @331dot:I intend to ask in more than 6 months time. I don't know if the checkuser can look back 7-8 months. Will you assume at that time that I was framed? The alternative is for you to state here "IT SHOULD BE ASSUMED THAT THIS USER WAS FRAMED AND JANET BOURNE IS NOT HIS/HER SOCK WHEN CONSIDERING HIS/HER REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT WHEN IT IS MADE IN A FEW MONTHS"

INFO FOR THE ADMIN and NinjaRobotPirate

I created an article about Prince Philip's traffic accident, which was deleted. I was then blocked. Some time later, this Janet Bourne created a very similar article, using some of the same text. @NinjaRobotPirate: She was blocked as my sock. I am being framed. I have no desire to write about Prince Philip and don't want to jeopardize my Wiki standing with a sock. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Request limited unblock ONLY for the purpose of contacting the checkuser. Thus far, I have acted very responsibly about my block because I intend to ask for reinstatement in a few months. I am very concerned that someone is trying to frame me by creating socks so they can claim "see, cannot unblock because kept creating socks". User:Janet Bourne was blocked as my sock but I am being framed. If I am unblocked, I will not edit except to clear this Janet Bourne accusation by contacting the checkuser and then, if desired, I will ask an admin to reblock me until I ask for reinstatement under the Standard Offer. Please note that my request is more stringent than the Standard Offer. The usual Standard Offer is just a request but this unblock request is a way to show honesty and that I keep my word above and beyond demonstrated by Standard Offer applicants because I would then ask to be blocked for a few months after I clear myself of being framed.

Decline reason:

No need to unblock you for that. You still have access to this talk page so still have the ability to contact the checkuser. Yamla (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2019 (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.

@Yamla: In accordance with your instructions, would you please ask a checkuser to come. Thank you. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no point in a CU assessment because CUs cannot prove a negative. Your socks were blocked on behavioural evidence. If, for example, you edited from other locations, eg a computer in a public library, there would be nothing for a CU to examine. Just Chilling (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: But it could prove a "not positive". I am being framed. I did not create this Janet Bourne sock. What if the Checkuser showed that Janet is editing in Russia or Afghanistan? That would be good evidence of "not positive". Wikipedia should not be so cruel. Look two administrators who deny an unblock request. Isn't that behavioral evidence that both administrators are socks since both are agreeing and, according to Just Chilling, the Checkuser cannot prove the two administrators are innocent? I cannot believe that cruelty is the official Wikipedia policy. I am just trying to clear my name. Please help me or give advice. Do not say "just kill yourself". Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Offer request

WP:STANDARD is an allowed mechanism where blocked users can be unblocked.

I have waited longer than 6 months. I have not committed any Wikipedia misconduct.

Earlier this year, I edited an article about the Road Traffic Accident of Prince Philip. It was carefully written but deleted. Sometime later, a user named User:Janet Bourne recreated the article. It was deleted and I was blocked as a sockpuppet. I had NOTHING to do with the article creation. I begged Wikipedia to run a checkuser on User:Janet Bourne but I was met with scorn, mocked, and no investigation was done. I had NOTHING to do with this but I will accept punishment that User talk:Janet Bourne was my sockpuppet even though this is not true.

Please, in the spirit of Thanksgiving, please unblock me and I will resume editing in a responsible and careful manner. Thank you.

@Coffee: @Foxj: are asked to unblock but anyone may do it. I certify that I will respond to your unblock by acting in a responsible manner in Wikipedia and will report to you after 30 days about my progress, which presumably will be beyond reproach.

Thank you. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

request unblock ONLY to contact administrators who are open to the standard offer. Will not edit until a standard offer is approved. So while I've made comments below on how I'll abide by a Standard Offer and will abide by additional measures that I describe, I am ONLY asking to be unblocked to contact administrators willing to use the Standard Offer. There are such administrators. Please allow this. Thank you.Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's not how it works. ST47 (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2019 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

I was told "That's not how it works" when I asked for an unblock so that I can request a Standard Offer from a list of administrators that do Standard Offer unblocks. Ok, then please YOU unblock me under the terms of Standard Offer but also note that I voluntarily added some conditions that I self impose on myself and will follow, such as reporting to the unblocking administrator of my progress 30 days and 90 days after unblock. This is a very good indication that I will be a good editor and that there will be easy recourse. For example, if I don't report, then I could be blocked for the reason stated. I kindly ask that you not deny this request and, if you are prone to, then leave this request open for another person to approve it. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I will not unblock you while you are creating new accounts. SQL ^{Query me!} 22:26, 24 December 2019 (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.

Someone actually did run a check on Janet Bourne back in April 2019. It wasn't me, so I'm not sure what the result was. So, what's your connection to Aerostar3 (talk · contribs) and Cheesesteak1 (talk · contribs)? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: none. I looked at Aerostar3's contributions because I never heard of that name and all those articles are foreign and unfamiliar.

As far as "someone actually did run a check on Janet Bourne..." that was the reason I was blocked and you, NinjaRobotPirate are the blocking administrator but admits he/she blocked me without knowing the results. Now, the checkuser results are so old that nobody has it unless they violated Wikipedia privacy rules and kept the information in their own home outside of Wikipedia control.

I am so sorry that I'm in this Wikipedia mess. I now know what I did wrong. I edited something less than completely favorable about Prince Philip and that can make people mad. They want to delete the article then pick on me. From now on, I promise to stay away from anything controversial.

If it is required to make a confession that I am Janet Bourne, I am not but am willing to make a false confession. Since Janet Bourne is blocked, she cannot do anything stupid, like make death threats or bomb threats, so my falsely admitting to be her, that can't happen to me. But really, please don't require that I make a false confession. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'REMEMBER/SEE MY INITIAL REQUEST FOR THE STANDARD OFFER In addition to the standard offer, I made a promise to report to the unblocking administrator after 30 days to report my behavior. I expect to present an excellent report of nice behavior!Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't unblock me, please follow the More Than Standard Offer, which I agree to be blocked for one year (until April) and will report my behavior to the unblocking administrator not only 30 days after unblock but also after 90 days after unblock. This shows that I am a very responsible person. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and kindness. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have apparently twice been abusing multiple accounts? And you don't mention this in your unblock request? ST47 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. If you contend this, then name the editor and the article that both of us edited. I am NOT Janet Bourne but only will admit to it if a false confession is necessary. I have never heard of this Aerostar nor am I familiar with any articles that he/she writes. I state for the record that I wish to be unblocked so I can use ONE account. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]