User talk:Twitbookspacetube/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Twitbookspacetube. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Alternate accounts

If you want to disclose your alternate accounts, please use {{User alternative account name}} and/or {{User clean start}} on your user page. Do not open WP:SPI case against yourself. Using alternate accounts for legitimate purposes is not WP:sockpuppetry. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daniel Hardcastle (December 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daniel Hardcastle and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Missvain (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Twitbookspacetube, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Missvain (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I am unable to locate the message you indicated was left for myself

I am unable to locate the message you indicated was left for myself. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering it was deleted, it's not that surprising! The article at Board of student advisers had been deleted under CSD A7, G11 and G12 previously at Board of Student Advisers which was salted to prevent disruptive re-creation of an article consisting of an unambiguous copyright violation. I hope that clears things up. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Message received. I am a user and not a bot so please dont confuse me with a bot (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump crop

There is more talk page support for a crop of the image you put at the top. Would you please switch to the crop?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Thanks for not edit warring over it! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Catflap08/sandbox

Hello Twitbookspacetube. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Catflap08/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Page was created before any blocks/bans were in place. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump

Hi, Twitbooks! Would you consider self-reverting your recent comment at this talk page - per WP:NOTFORUM? Thanks for thinking about it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

So the comment I replied to from User:Jack Upland was perfectly fine and dandy? Bullcrap! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Indian Century

Just letting you know that that was a sock of Motbag12 that you reverted. As was the IP making the personal attack earlier. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought so - that's why I didn't bother with a warning. Thanks for the message! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

ExliranP

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Newcomer1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If you can't name any sockmaster then please don't make a "blatant block evasion" report at WP:AIV or hat a thread at WP:ANI on that basis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

So you're just going to let a blatant sock go free on a technicality? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Twitbookspacetube, it's up to you to provide proof the editor is an illegitimate sock account - this is not a technicality. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Despite the fact that their contributions at this time are in clear violation of WP:SOCK as an SPA, I'll wait to see if they edit again. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You need to read WP:SOCK again. A SPA is a different concept. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) You seem to me to be very confused about the relationship between WP:SPA and sockpuppetry. The former is not prohibited (so calling it a "clear violation" of anything is silly), and there may be perfectly good reasons for using one. General Ization ^Talk 03:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You should activate email

I emailed your earlier account. The one beginning with "B". I'm not sure if you're cool with it being directly named on your talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I really should get around to that. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Your use of alternative accounts

Twitbookspacetube, I'm concerned regarding your creation of this account. You claim that it is a clean start, but I don't believe you are eligible for one due to your extensive history of blocks (with PantherLeapord and Barts1a), edit warring, and the editing restrictions associated with your Barts1a account. Of pressing concern is your return to admin/dispute noticeboards (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, and Example 4), an area that was a particular concern with regard to your behaviour. As you essentially outed yourself here, it is clear that this is an alternative account and not a clean start. It would be prudent for you to link to your previous account on your user page if you are serious about being transparent about your previous accounts. I would also suggest you discuss your editing restrictions with your previous mentor as I see your continued activity at noticeboards as a concern.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for raising your concerns. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't say "standard discretionary sanctions"

Discretionary sanctions are applied by ArbCom to particular areas of the project. (Well, technically the right to impose discretionary sanctions in those areas is granted by ArbCom to the admin corps, but you know what I mean.) I think what you meant is "standard blocks of increasing length". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks! Twitbookspacetube (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Some more advice

Not sure if this is mentioned anywhere as a formal guideline, but it's probably better, if you want to strike your own "recuse as nom", to put the "support as nom"immediately below the stricken "recuse". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You really are on a roll! I already struck it here. I'll keep my support in place to preserve chronological order. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Drop the stick?

Until you drop the stick and your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, you are not to post here.

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

I'm not the one who needs to drop the stick and your warning is invalid, given the context of the edit. You're another one of Curley Turkey's WP:FACTION, I'm assuming? Dark Knight 2149 04:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The mere fact that you think there is a "side" shows just how WP:BATTLEGROUND your mentality around this issue is. Like it or not, You are being disruptive right at this moment through your continued refusal to drop the stick and move on. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not. The reason I'm paranoid of factioning in this situation (and, pretty much, nowhere else on this site) is because of some of the behaviour that took place in the past with Curly. Regardless, the ANI discussion appears to be going its course. Dark Knight 2149 05:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained undo

I'm not sure why you removed the Articles for deletion notice from List of highest grossing Bangladeshi films in this edit. Admittedly, the user who added it was floundering around a bit, and hadn't completed all the steps, but it might have been more helpful to guide them through the process rather than reverting them within 60 seconds and slapping them with a vandalism warning. Nominating an article for deletion in good faith is not vandalism. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Because they themselves removed it previously in this edit. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

So what? Isn't doing something, undoing it, and doing it again a perfectly plausible thing for a novice to do while trying to follow all the instructions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and Wikipedia:How to delete a page for the first time? Isn't that particularly true for a newcomer whose first language, judging from their editing history, may not be English? I encourage you to try not to bite the newbies, but to extend a helping hand instead, it's often better for the encyclopedia in the long run. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. Thanks. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You and CT did "interact" briefly

You were both involved in a recent incident involving me. I don't think you actually exchanged any messages directly, but he commented several times on January 31 and you commented on February 2. Not a direct interaction, but if you were subject to an IBAN then your having suddenly showed up to a discussion he was involved in would have probably been a violation.

Still doesn't make you a part of his inner circle, mind you. Our smoke-filled room only welcomes cabal members if they can write gibberish English-by-way-of-katakana on talk pages anyway, and I don't think you've demonstrated the necessary skills. Meaning no insult to you: when the new world order comes to power, you will have a supervising position in the mines, but I am afraid we cannot accept outsiders into our ruling class. I hope you understand.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. As long as I'm not one of the grunts in the trenches, I don't have an issue. :P Twitbook space tube 05:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Four_Award#Reviewers

Would you like to remove PantherLeapord from this list or update it to this account? starship.paint ~ KO 10:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Done Thanks! Twitbook space tube 10:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Please consider reverting this. If the editor wants to speak this way at ANI, I say let him. Anyway, deleting it makes the following comment by JFG lack context. Best,Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. That idiot is well on their way to an indef anyway with or without that comment being present. Twitbook space tube 08:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to give you a formal warning, but you should probably avoid referring to other users as "idiot" (disruptive or not). Dark Knight 2149 23:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

2017 Unite the Right rally

Would you please consider self-reverting this edit and give the TP discussion some time? GoldenRing (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

No, because I am restoring sourced content in compliance with relevant policies. You are edit warring using deliberate misinterpretations of policy, and this request screams of WP:GAMEing the system. Twitbook space tube 12:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

See WP:AE#Twitbookspacetube. GoldenRing (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call

This is a volunteer roll call sent to you on behalf of the current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Coordinator, Robert McClenon, and is being sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to the roll call list. Those who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after May 31, 2017 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after May 31, 2017, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

"Clean start"

Please remove the "Clean start" user box from your user page, as it was established clearly at the recent AE report concerning you that this is not a valid clean start. Also, please obviously link your former accounts to this one, as required. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright... Twitbook space tube 02:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Your recent editing history at 2017 Unite the Right Rally shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 15:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm giving you this as a formality. You obviously know about 3RR given your report, but I'm puzzled that you would report someone when you have reverted non-vandalistic edits so many time today - I forget if I counted 7 or 9. I suggest you stop reverting and let others do it for the next 24 hours or so. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Overcounted. I think it's 6. [1][2][3][4][5][6] that aren't obviously vandalism. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, as I indicated in the ANEW thread, I don't have much of a problem with this (should say "rv unexplained removal of sourced information") or this (look carefully: it's a Trumpian equivalence of neo-Nazis and Black Lives Matter). This isn't a revert as much as it is a modification of an earlier edit (this one). But since this user seems to be under 1R, it's kind of hypothetical. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Twitbookspacetube is subject to a community imposed 1RR restriction via their Barts1a account, which I reminded them of here recently.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, as I indicated in the ANEW thread, I don't have much of a problem with this (should say "rv unexplained removal of sourced information") or this (look carefully: it's a Trumpian equivalence of neo-Nazis and Black Lives Matter). This isn't a revert as much as it is a modification of an earlier edit (this one). But since this user seems to be under 1R, it's kind of hypothetical. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

And I'm giving you a courtesy non-template bit of advice. Don't call living people terrorists, even on talk pages. It is a major violation of the WP:.BLP policy.That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding

Topic is your message on my talk page

What?! I NEVER edited the page A Family Man! 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello? 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't personally edit that page, but someone from your IPv6 address did. Sadly, we can't target warnings at specific individuals unless they have an account here. Twitbook space tube 07:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I know. Somebody with the IP address 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA did this before I got this user address. 2600:387:B:7:0:0:0:BA (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Hi TBST, thanks for your supportive notes at ANI. If you do consider bringing a full Arbcom case against Rubin's actions, feel free to ping me regarding the plethora of diffs I have which demonstrate the ongoing personal attacks and his failure to meet WP:ADMINACCT obligations, some of which I didn't get round to adding to the initial ANI report. As I suspected, the ANI report has been obfuscated by retaliatory accusations, none of which address the principle issues of his abuse of policy and his abuse of his position. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

No Worries! You can find a draft of my statement at my sandbox - feel free to draft your statement there. Arthur, I know you're watching as well - feel free to do the same after you post that status update or those diffs (Not keeping your word will hurt your case). Twitbook space tube 06:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Re

That's enough of that. Please read WP:NPA

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

Please stop fiddling around with that page about the Philadelphia police shooting. I have cited the reference; it is your responsibility then to disprove the citation, which you cannot.

I do not understand your angle here, this is a simple and unobtrusive change which makes the sentence make some sense. It is illogical to say that such a man 'claimed to pledge', whether such a pledge reflects accurately on Islam or ISIS or not is irrelevant and is not the question, this is a simple statement of fact found in the police report. The man pledged his support, and his crime, to the Islamic State.

You're a republican, your political bias is what's driving this. Until such time as you have consensus for the change, we go by what the majority of the sources say. Twitbook space tube 14:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, well, whereas I have made at least some of my views public, you hide yours behind filters and use the privileges granted you by this monstrosity of left-wing propaganda called 'wikipedia' to enforce them and conceal the truth. Tell me though, if you would: Who is "we"? And these sources, have you actually bothered to look at them? Come on, why don't you make an argument rather than hiding behind your privileges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Updating counts at case requests

This is meant to be an action done only by arbs or clerks. Silly, I know, but others (including me, I believe) have been yelled at over it in the past. Just letting you know as a courtesy before someone gets annoyed about it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Previous community-imposed topic bans reinstated

Per Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, you have, in the past, been "topic banned from all noticeboards", and told you "should avoid contentious articles and their talk pages". I recall the circumstances when this ban was implemented several years ago, and it was caused by a long-term problem of you inserting yourself into contentious situations that had nothing to do with you, and making them worse. These sanctions were lifted, with a note under the entry that "Past restrictions may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, should [you] return to past behaviour".

While I have no thoughts on the Arthur Rubin ArbCom case (except to note it had nothing to do with you), your case request for Winhunter was horrible (smug, inaccurate, poorly formed), and also had nothing to do with you. I also note with some alarm that you say in two different places you plan to file more ArbCom cases in the future.

I also note that at the recent Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Twitbookspacetube, you were sanctioned for behavior that, among other things, included editing a contentious article (and violating your still-in-place 1RR restriction on it). Note that there was a suggestion - which gained some traction there - that you be be indef blocked. I opposed this at the time, recognizing your improvement as an editor, but I'm beginning to regret this a little bit if you are going to return to other disruptive behaviors that I thought you'd overcome.

These are examples of a return to past behavior. So, as an uninvolved admin, I am reinstating your topic ban from all noticeboards, including ArbCom cases and requests. I'm also reinstating your topic ban from "contentious articles and their talk pages". The topic ban from contentious articles has no exceptions. The topic ban from noticebaords has the following exceptions:

As a party to the Arthur Rubin case, you can of course comment there once it is accepted.
As the filer of the Winhunter case request, you can of course continue to comment there. If the case is accepted, you'll be a party, and so you can of course comment there if that happens.
You can comment on noticeboard threads opened by others that mention you.
You can file an appeal of this reimposition of the topic bans at WP:AN.
If you need admin help on something that directly involves you, you can ask any admin directly to investigate. They can either choose to get involved, or give you one-off OK to file a noticeboard request.

Both topic bans are indefinite. I will note both of them at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. As mentioned above, they can be appealed at WP:AN. You can do so right away, if you want, but it has been my experience that topic bans are more likely to be successfully appealed if there is a history of non-contentious editing first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to restore community confidence in you mob and this is the thanks I get? Twitbook space tube 22:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

To be blunt, this was an invalid clean start account, as your previous account has restrictions that were never lifted. Also, your polemic message you just posted to your user page only goes further to show you're here to stir up more drama, not to mention the posting at ANI and Arbcom. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

UTRS appeal #19052 was submitted on Aug 23, 2017 13:48:18. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Community siteban

It appears you're aware of this, but just to dot the i's and cross the t's, since it hasn't been posted here yet: Per this close of a community ban discussion by User:Cyberpower678, you've been indefinitely community banned. Cyberpower notes in his close that you may appeal this ban in 6 months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to actually leave a message regarding this ban. Per the strong consensus that developed at AN in the 24 hours of discussion on whether to ban you or not, you are hereby indefinitely community banned from the English Wikipedia. You may appeal this ban after 6 months.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Rather than getting bent out of shape and yelling about how unfair it is, I'm working to prove, through actions on other wikiprojects, that I am actually here to build an encyclopedia. This will be the last thing I post here until such time as the appeal time comes up. See you in late Feb/early Mar 2018. Twitbook space tube 09:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Very mature and responsible of you. If you carry through with that, your appeal in 6 months should go well. Just a neutral comment.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from all American politics-related WP:BLP content for three months.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 21:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Old enemies rear their heads and all I got was this lousy topic ban. Thanks for the notice. Twitbook space tube 00:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, since I have now been indeffed for at least 6 months, does this topic ban now run concurrently, or does the timer stop until I get unbanned? Twitbook space tube 13:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That would be part of a community unban discussion (Cyberpower hasn't posted here yet, but to be clear: you've been community sitebanned, not just indef blocked), and no one knows in advance what direction that would go. For example, it is possible, even likely, that if the siteban is ever removed, the community would make all your editing restrictions indefinite. And/or add more of them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Some questions for a signpost article

Dear Twitbookspacetube,

I don't know if you're still watching your talk page, but in case you are, I'm writing an article, which I hope to submit to the Wp:Signpost. I was wanting to ask you a few questions, in light of your recent block. If you see this message, send me an email at BmargaloB (at) gmail (dot) com. Thanks. Margalob (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Margalob: While you're certainly welcome to encourage anyone to contact you, I just want to remind you ahead of time to be careful when writing this article, whatever it is for. Inserting quotes or comments from a community-banned editor into your article would be akin to editing/commenting by proxy. This is not allowed. See WP:PROXYING. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

UTRS appeal #20738 was submitted on Feb 26, 2018 02:27:03. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Talk page access restored

I have restored your talk page access to allow you to appeal your community ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Twitbook space tube 01:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Several apologies I need to make as a ban appeal

First and foremost, to the entire community. I was hot-headed and blatantly irresponsible in creating this account in the first place, blatantly ignoring my restrictions which, at the time, I felt to be unjust. While things could have been handled better, I am willing to take at least 99.9% of the blame here. I hope that you can forgive me and trust that I shall never waste your time on this level again.

Second, To the administrators. I got frustrated by what I saw as action to protect your own. You got frustrated because you know that no such action has ever been taken and couldn't understand why I saw things as I did.

Third, To arbcom. I shouldn't have filed that spurious case against winhunter. While my first case was largely successful in it's intent, the second was not even remotely the same situation and not even worth your time. As an added bonus, I was labelled a troll by Opabinia regalis in this edit which I fully accept because, at that time, I had become the very type of person I despise. I promise that it won't happen again.

I feel that I have sincerely learned my lesson. I hope that you can forgive me and see fit to remove the community ban I have been placed under. Twitbook space tube 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I realise that I am under a community ban so I would like someone stalking this talk page to copy and paste these to the admin noticeboard for community discussion.

Again, sorry! Twitbook space tube 02:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I've copied this to WP:AN (diff). power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Twitbook space tube 06:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a crucial detail missing from the appeal. How are you going to be a benefit to the encyclopaedia as an editor if the ban is lifted? Mr rnddude (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I will primarily edit minor topics where little conflict exists - checking facts, finding sources, that sort of thing. I have made some sparodic contributions on Simple English Wikipedia, you can use those as an example of the kind of productivity I intend to maintain here. Twitbook space tube 06:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

copied to AN (diff) power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I fully support the restriction proposed by power~enwiki

A ban from all pages in the Wikipedia namespace, with the exceptions of reports at WP:AIV and discussions/appeals of his own restrictions.
A topic ban from all American politics articles.
One account limitation.
0RR
These four restrictions are indefinite, and appealable after 6 months.
All other previous restrictions are lifted.

I feel that these are actually preventative rather than stiflingly punitive. Twitbook space tube 07:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I retain my support of the updated proposal. Twitbook space tube 00:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

In response to the question of !Dave - My current restrictions are

I am topic banned from contentious topics (Admittedly, this one is dubious)
I am topic banned from noticeboards
I am not using Huggle
I am adhering to the one revert rule

I hope this clears things up. Twitbook space tube 13:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Since the community already set the bridge on fire, I may as well pour on gasoline

As I said on IRC, and I quote

"Keep an eye out for a productive vandal fighter. It could be me proving the community wrong"

Rest assured, I have no intent to disrupt. I got punitive sanctions slapped on unilaterally. You cut off my air supply and yet you complain when I choke.

I'm not being unbanned, and I might very well not even work up the motivation to prove the community wrong. I have found other hobbies now, this is just on principle at this point. Twitbook space tube 02:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Unban appeal declined

I have closed your recent unban appeal at WP:AN as declined. I have removed your talk page access again as a result of this discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)