User talk:Velvetlaptop

Block evasion

Just to be clear, you are now evading the block of Special:Contributions/2601:243:680:3688::/64. And you were active at Special:Contributions/73.8.230.59. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't evaded a block if I utilize account creation from my unblocked IP address. I haven't done anything wrong on that IP address. You have held me to a standard that no other editor on the pages I have edited on has been held to, and reverted my edits on American cultural pages because you think I'm "blind to the contributions of British culture"? Explain that to me. You've also taken it upon yourself to delete content by other uses on pages I've written on. I see a lot of excuses for targeting me for online harassment, not anything actually productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvetlaptop (talk • contribs)

You are evading a block if you create a new username to restore material from blocked editors. See WP:MULTIPLE. Just because you can technically do it does not mean you are not in violation of a hard policy.

Your argument about being held to a higher standard makes me think that you are saying your low quality contributions should be allowed to stay because other low quality contributions exist. That argument doesn't fly with me – it's a race to the bottom.

In the past, you removed British contributions to music and fashion because, you know, America, Fuck Yeah. You did it here, here, here and here. You removed Mexico from Tex Mex![1] You also said that global music genres were American.[2][3][4][5] You are obviously entrenched in the view that America Rules All. Beyond your wicked strong nationalism, you are also pushing your reactionary social views here, saying "Feminism is as bad as racism." And here you are hiding racism. What the actual fuck. Binksternet (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are imputations and excuses, they don't show me doing anything wrong. The only IP ban I had expired in May. I haven't disputed any corrections or revisions made to my edits under that IP, however long ago they were made, except yours. Your accusations of me being chauvinistic don't hold up to scrutinization, and I can just as easily make the accusation that you, and a number of British editors, are biased towards their national viewpoint, and routinely under-write or leave out contributions made by American culture, despite the fact that it is a soft power superpower and a current global hegemon. British editors were ultimately overruled on Heavy Metal music and made IP address edits to delete sourced additions to the page because they didn't want America to gain originating credit. Those deletions were reverted by other users and moderators. That shows British nationalism. I did not remove "Mexico" from Tex-Mex, I edited it so that it wouldn't be phrased as a fusion cuisine. It is regional to the southwest among Tejano people, a region that belonged to Mexico in the past. Are you anti-American? Because these are flimsy excuses to attack all of my edits, across pages that you were previously not paying attention to whatsoever, that you clearly have very little interest in or knowledge about yourself. You have also deleted other user's contributions, and now you're accusing me of racism? What? Can you direct me to a forum where I can discuss your conduct as an editor with someone "higher up", because I can't believe you can get away with that. Now you're even swearing at me on my talk page.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In your discussion on the administrator's noticeboard, you link me to a couple of accounts that are more than two years old - and then attacked me out of nowhere starting today for an "IP evasion". I notified you repeatedly that any ban that my IP address had on it expired in May, after the altercation in the talk page seen on the Heavy Metal music page. I abided by the ban, and didn't start editing with that IP address until the ban was lifted. I made an array of edits, and I never challenged anything if they were altered or deleted. In today's stream of edits, you have deleted content of mine and others, some of whom collaborated on what I wrote, that had been on certain pages for months. There is not even evidence that you have a vested interest in, or knowledge of, some of the topics I'm editing. You swore at me on my talk page. You erroneously accused me of racism. Now, you're trying to tie me to a two year old account in order to forever purge me from Wikipedia? I didn't do anything wrong. I certainly didn't vandalize pages. I abided by the last ban that was placed on my IP address. I never bothered the moderators of pages that I edited. Other users added to the information I did. And you've taken it upon yourself to delete whole paragraphs of information from me, and others, some of it literally months old. Explain to me how you're in the right?

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 02:42, 1 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Velvetlaptop (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2020 (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. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have used the 2601:243:680:3688:387e:d11c:c1c8:7791 IP address, which had a ban on it from February 2020 that lifted in May 2020, to make various edits on pages such as 2010s in culture, Street Style, and Fashion design. All of it was neutral. All of it remained up for months, even as editors reviewed it and evidently accepted it. Just today, due to the pugnacity of Binksternet, I created this account to better communicate with other users in the event that a conflict would arise, as one did. User:Binksternet has often battled with me on Wikipedia on my original IP address, and repeatedly reverted a sourced edit I made to Heavy Metal music about 5 months ago that was reverted and defended by other editors and moderators, and remains up. He swore at me on my talk page. He deleted content on the 'fashion' section of 2010s in culture that had been there for at least a year, which included additions by other users. He chased me around Wikipedia, reverting some of my edits which had remained up for months without question or uproar from moderators. He's accused my content of being "substandard", but for some reason, has not deleted content of other users on the same pages that had glaring grammatical errors, and also weren't sourced. The constant accusation of sockpuppetry seems to come from an attempt to link me to an account I created well over a year or two ago (Dcasey98) at a separate address to where I'm living now, one that I no longer have access to. I'm not seeing a good case for a block here, and I'm a little miffed that the sockpuppetry keeps popping up as an excuse, whenever convenient, to silence me on Wikipedia because Binksternet doesn't like some of the information I'm adding. I would very much like to appeal this ban and have it lifted. If you have a problem with the content I'm adding, I would request a user utilize my talk page and inform me of the problems they have, so we can discuss and compromise. That way we can flesh out certain sections by collaborating on sources together. Thank you. Velvetlaptop 03:25, 1 August 2020.

Decline reason:

You seem to have some bizarre ideas on how Wikipedia handles sock puppetry. Once one your accounts is blocked, you are no longer allowed to edit Wikipedia any more – not until that account is unblocked. You've admitted that you're a sock puppet of Dcasey98. You need to log in to that account, appeal your block from there, and stop creating new accounts or editing while logged out. If you create any new accounts, they will be blocked as sock puppets. If you've lost the password to your original account, you can try appealing via WP:UTRS from this account. The standard offer is a possibility, but it requires you to stop creating new sock puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2020 (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.

Your story is not adding up: To my knowledge, I never evaded a block. I created an account from my IP address that another user who had harassed me for more than a year now had an issue with, to open up a more consistent channel of discussion.[6] What? El_C 02:42, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That IP wasn't blocked. The only ban I had placed on that IP placed in February of 2020 and was supposed until May. That ban was lifted, and I made edits that remained up, and unchallenged, for months. Binksternet literally deleted content other people posted too, in addition to mine. How is that fair? You've even attached me to two different accounts that I made literally years ago in a different house in a different IP address to constantly harass me on silence me on Wikipedia. How is that fair? And how am I in the wrong for adding random cultural information?

Come on, you're entering into an edit war in direct support of certain IPs. That is totally suspect. El_C 02:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I edit war, beyond reverting Binksternet's deletion of whole paragraphs of content that have remained up and even edited by other users for months? I haven't received an explanation for why anyone is allowed to do that. I have used one IP address, which was the one I made this account off of today after complaints by Binksternet, and I was transparent about that. Binksternet has tried to revert a bunch of my edits on other pages, and they've been reverted by moderators. I have waited for bans to lift, I definitely have not edit-warred. What content are you so mad about that I'm adding? The content I have added was kept neutral, and though I didn't source a lot of it, I kept it to a standard of authenticity and believability I saw matched by other editors on those pages as well.

Please don't mischaracterize my action as driven by emotion —I am not mad— because it is not. The edit war corresponds to your multiple reversions. By the way, your unblock request is currently blank. El_C 03:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm just getting used to the formating. It seems my editing mistake meant my appeal was immediately rejected, can I pose another request?

That is allowed, though I think the chances of it succeeding is low. At any rate, you should really read WP:GAB before doing so. El_C 03:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Binksternet's conduct is anything but unfair, nor how anything I added to any page was wrong. I assume you're notifying all the users who had their content deleted in your scourge of mine from various pages?

Negative, I am not obliged to notify anyone about anything with regards to this matter. El_C 03:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took the subsequent discussion into account in my review. Blaming other editors instead of dealing with your problematic behavior isn't a path to unblocking. For my part you're blocked for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Acroterion (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to be, but the only user I've really ever had this issue with to any consistent level has been Binksternet. So I thought that warranted emphasis. Velvetlaptop 03:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTHEM is not a winning strategy. El_C 03:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote what you state above, "User:Binksternet has often battled with me on Wikipedia on my original IP address, and repeatedly reverted a sourced edit I made to Heavy Metal music about 5 months ago that was reverted..." The only reverts "five months ago" on the Heavy metal music by Binksternet were to revert an Checkuser blocked sockpuppet named Grafton56 (sockpuppet of Dcasey98). Binksternet reverted no IPs and no other accounts "five months ago", and no other repeated reverting of a user or IP has occurred by Binksternet this year on that page. This to me reads that you are saying that you are Grafton56 (aka Dcasey98), no? Zinnober9 (talk) 03:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was indeed the account I had used at my previous address a long while after I had lost the Dcasey98 account. I think I mentioned this, or at the very least implied it, on one of your talk pages. I'm often frustrated to find seemingly convenient accusations of sockpuppetry linked to me, often over accounts that I have lost the log-in information for and can no longer access. That's why I was mainly focused on my current IP conduct, on which I abided by any bans I have ever received, under which I made this account today. I think it's counterproductive to accuse anyone who's ever owned two+ Wikipedia accounts of engaging in sockpuppetry, and banning them continuously for it. Velvetlaptop 03:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least eight named accounts and a bunch of IPs have been blocked since 2016. I'm turning off talkpage access, this discussion serves no further purpose. Acroterion (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]