User talk:Wwwma
Wwwma (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My reason for requesting an unblock or shortening the block is because (1) I've never made any abusive comment to an another editor ever, not a curse word, not a personal insult. (2) I may have forget to sign in under my user account sometimes because I'm in a hurry. (3) My internet service provider assigns a dynamic IP to my computer so it's not my fault if everyday (sometimes numerous times a day) I have a new IP address, that is totally out of my control and not planned or intentional. I understand that some editors might not understand being assigned a dynamic IP and it might appear evasive to them, but again it's not my fault. (4) I've contributed great edits to generational articles and have provided alot of good sources over time. I feel that what I contributed greatly improved the articles. If you look closely many of my edits are still there even years later and are very important to readers understanding. If you want some examples I will provide them to you. (5) Starting a few days ago I made sure to sign in after several editors requested it on my talk page. You can check the edit history for proof of that. Thank you for your time and consideration of my request.
ALSO Boing! said Zebedee declined this request before I was done writing it. So she/he did not have a chance to see the reason first.
Decline reason:
You were editing logged out on 3 May 2016. PhilKnight (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
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.
Wwwma (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
PhilKnight that was an accident, if you look I actually signed in AFTER realizing I was signed out so that the other editors wouldn't be confused. Also, Wikipedia does not require me to sign in to edit, so why are you? An indefinite block is unfair and I will appeal it. In addition, since no reason was given for the INDEFINITE block I have no idea how to respond to any of this. A person receiving a complaint needs to have the ability to know what the allegations are so they can respond.
Decline reason:
It's rather obvious you edited while logged out to edit-war without appearing to cross what you called "the 3 bright line rule". Huon (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
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.
Wwwma (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't understand why this user account was blocked. A complaint needs reasons, otherwise the person receiving it is left to guess what the complaint is about. If it is obvious as you said then please provide any evidence that I was involved in an edit war "while logged out". There isn't any. Please show me just one example. If edit warring is your reason then please show me one edit that crossed the bright line. If you cant find proof then you should unblock this account. Thank you.
Decline reason:
I have just spent a considerable amount of time checking your editing history. It is clear that you have been continuing the same kinds of disruptive editing for a very long time. (I have traced edits back to April 2015, and that may or may not be the earliest.) During that time, you have received literally hundreds of messages about the problems with your editing, on IP talk pages, noticeboards, and so on. You persistently fail to take in what is said to you, you persist in denying what is clearly true, you take a battleground approach to other editors with whom you disagree, you refuse to accept consensus, you repeatedly deny that policies say what they clearly do say, you incessantly edit-war, and so on and so on ... It is completely out of the question that unblocking you would benefit the project. I am also warning you that one more disruptive unblock request, which, for example, either fails to address the reasons for your unblock or denies what is visible to anyone who spends a minute looking, may well lead to loss of talk page access to stop you wasting yet more administrator time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
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.
Thank you all for collaborating on the articles and to JamesBWatson for taking the time to respond to my concerns here. Can anybody tell me the best way to delete this account? I've reviewed the user pages and the options are to retire or "to request deletion, adding the db-user tag to the top of each page, and an admin will delete the page for you. Or just replace userpage with the Retired template. Thank you. Wwwma (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Accounts technically cannot be deleted. You don't have a user page, and user talk pages almost never are deleted. I see no reason to delete this one, particularly since it serves as a record for your block and unblock requests. Huon (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wwwma, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
McGeddon (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- As an act of good faith towards Wikipedia, I'm informing you that this is a waste of time. And by the way, there is no way to respond to the "sockpuppet investigation" because this account has been blocked. Why is the notice above asking for a response with a link but the account is blocked from responding on that page? formerly Wwwma (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- The above alert was an automated message. If you're saying that the IP user claiming to be you on that SPI is actually not you, feel free to comment here on your talk page and I'll add a link from the SPI. --McGeddon (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I dont have time to waste on this. I suggest changing the policy. formerly Wwwma (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)