User talk:Tradepath8
Tradepath8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
After the first block, I followed the WP:OFFER and did not return to the site until the six-month block expired. The block expired in December of 2009, possibly 2010, but most likely 2009. I am uncertain of the year but am certain of the month. Immediately upon returning on the same account, I was blocked again for "sockpuppetry" even though it was the same account and the block had expired (I assume this was because I did not return on my "original account" but on one of my preferred accounts). Yes, I created different accounts to edit different pages so that the particular grudging user would not notice me. None of the edits since then have been "abusive" in any way. I do not wish to request unblock at my original account, whichever one that may be. I think it would be extremely unfair to ask me to stay away for another six months. I have not made any abusive edits. In fact if you look at the talk pages for Matecumbe and Symbols100, other editors praised my edits. Even though I believe it is extremely unfair, I am willing to stay away for another six months but have an important request. User:Kww made extremely abusive edits on Anne Heche[1], Natalie Wood [2], Catherine Deneuve [3], Sondra Locke [4], and Ann-Margret [5]. I request that someone revert all of those edits, because as you can see, those pages are currently very messy and full of errors. They were much more accurate and well-written a short time ago before my hard work, as well as the work of others, was completely wiped away and the pages were reverted back to the way they looked like an entire year ago. See how those pages are poorly written? I'm sure if you look back in the edit history even further, you will notice much of that messy information was contributed by me years ago before I became an experienced editor. Right now, the pages have messy edits that I made a long time ago. The pages are absolutely disastrous right now. Please review Kww's revertions and put them back to how they were a short time ago. I would be okay with staying away for six months if these reasonable conditions were met, but I still ask that you unblock me because I have already stayed away for six months and will stick to one account (preferably this one).
Decline reason:
(1) Continuous socking over such a lengthy period does not satisfy WP:OFFER. (2) Accusing other editors of abusive edits in an unblock request is a big fail. (3) You don't get to impose your own conditions when requesting unblock. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2012 (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.
- Commenting as a user that has have had to deal with you the past couple of years. You have been socking consistently since at least June 2008. That's 4 years now. When you were blocked just now, you socked as several different IPs, even edit warring. (Not really showing good faith in the system there...). Kww can and should revert your edits, and can do so vehemently. See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors.
- Not sure which period of time you are referring to, since your socks have been popping up with less than 6 months apart. For WP:OFFER to be valid, you have to contact an administrator who opens a review case at WP:ANI. Nymf hideliho! 06:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- How do I do that? Who is an administrator? Please provide a link.
- This is terribly upsetting to me and very unfair in my opinion.
- I noticed you basically wiped Julie Christie's page completely by reverting all my edits. I just read the policy in the link you showed me. While you are allowed to revert anything I've done, it is not necessary. I mean just look at her page right now, it's terrible. My contributions should not have been reverted, don't you agree?
- Let me break down my activity for you:
- June 2008 is when I first made an account. I made more accounts for various reasons. First, it was because I had forgotten the password for one account so easily made a new one. Then, because I did not know that sockpuppetry was against the rules, decided to make different accounts for editing different pages.
- I think someone caught on to my sock puppetry when I started adding controversial information on Natalie Wood's page (that being allegations regarding her death and why she split from Robert Wagner that I read in Suzanne Finstad's book). That was probably in early 2009. I was blocked until December of that year.
- When the block expired that December, I came back on. Then I was blocked immediately---but I don't know why? I wasn't making abusive edits. My thoughts were, once I was blocked for sock puppetry I could never edit again?
- Anyway, I'm sure you can understand why I continued to create and use multiple accounts. I couldn't edit on my old account because that would be like, automatically blocked (maybe not, but that's what I though at the time before reading WP:Offer). By the way I am female yet I am referred to as a he in that sock puppet archive page. So I was editing with different accounts because I had the feeling someone would be on the lookout for me.
- I hope that you will see that my edits are good. Like I wrote in the unblock request, two of my accounts' talk pages have praising comments from other editors on my contributions. I will stick to one account, even stay off for six months, but please undo all those revertions. The pages are terribly inaccurate and poorly constructed right now. I put a lot of good work into those pages. They didn't have to be reverted. Tradepath8 (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Tradepath8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am requesting an administrator who opens a review case at WP:ANI
Decline reason:
you appear to have generated about fifty sockpuppets over the last four years. You will need to be much more convincing before we unblock, and requests should be made on your primary account. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:39, 24 May 2012 (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.
Tradepath8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Did you read the reply I left in between the two above unblock requests? What would be more convincing? And this is my primary account. It's not the first one I've created, but it's my primary one. My edits are helpful to Wikipedia, not abusive. I am quite upset that all my hard work has been reverted. That was not necessary, and now the pages are terribly constructed.
Decline reason:
Yes, I read it. By definition your primary account is the first one you create, unless you exercise a right to vanish, which you have not done. And you do not even begin to explain why you have felt the need to create perhaps fifty different accounts. A need to edit is insufficient reason for this. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:14, 24 May 2012 (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.
Tradepath8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Was it really fifty? I don't think it was that many. I have explained why. I will explain it again. Initially I made more accounts for various reasons. First, it was because I had forgotten the password for one account so easily made a new one. Then, because I did not know that sockpuppetry was against the rules, I created different accounts for editing different pages. After the first block, I was off for six months. When the block expired, I came right back on to the account I was blocked on. The moment I did that, I was blocked again for no reason that was apparent to me. I did not get into the unblock request process because I was not an experienced editor at that time. I still had useful contributions to make, and there was a grudging editor who would not allow me to do so. I had to create different accounts so that the particular gruding user (who has since retired) would not catch on to me. I realize that was against the rules, but I felt I needed to make useful contributions, and I did. That is the reason for my creating multiple accounts. Can you tell me what was my first account created? I will post more requests there, but I need to be informed of what the username was first.
Decline reason:
When you are blocked from editing, it does not matter how useful of edits you think you have in you to make. The community, at that point, has disagreed, and asked you to stay away until and unless you regain trust. Instead of doing that, you engaged in further underhanded activity by sockpuppeting and attempting to do an end-run around the block, and then call those who stopped you from doing so abusive! You're welcome to contact the Ban Appeals Subcommittee if you like, and I believe that is really your only possibility—I can't imagine at this point that you're going to find an admin willing to unilaterally unblock you. You can see if BASC will give you another chance, but please rest assured, if they do, it'll be the last one. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:54, 25 May 2012 (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.
- What you seem to fail to grasp is that this isn't a case of a "grudging editor" reverting you. You are not permitted to edit. You haven't been since your Excuseme99 account was blocked. You've been constantly blocked whenever anyone detected you since then, but you act and talk like that was some kind of problem that the editors reverting you had. It wasn't: since you aren't permitted to edit, any editor that reverted you was completely justified. The best approach for you at this point is to actually take that 6 month break, without editing at all, and then post an unblock request at User talk:Excuseme99 or through WP:BASC. I suggest WP:BASC. There's a confusing comment above about the standard offer only being available after an ANI discussion, and that simply isn't true.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why was I not permitted to edit? I explained that I stayed off for 6 months, returned when the block expired, then was immediately blocked again. Will you please address what I wrote about your edits in the first box on this page? I really wish you would revert them. Yes, you had the authority to revert those edits, but it wasn't necessary. Those pages are horrible right now, but were in excellent condition a short while ago. All I ask is that you revert those edits you made and I will be happy. Tradepath8 (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your block never expired: see [6]. You were blocked once, and that block was indefinite in length. There was a shorter block applied to your IP address, but that has nothing to do with you. We put shorter blocks on IPs because they get reassigned, and the original IP associated with you now belongs to someone else. The block on you was for forever. That's exactly why I revert all your edits, protect any articles you touch, and block any account I find associated with you: I want to make it extremely and exceedingly clear to you that your editing is futile. Any changes you make will be undone. Hopefully, you are intelligent enough to recognize that if nothing you do is allowed to stick, there's no point in you making the edit in the first place. That way we both save time.—Kww(talk) 00:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why was the block forever? Will you revert the edits anyway? Come on, me aside, those edits are just bad and the pages would be better off if they were reverted back to the way they were a short while ago. Some of the crap that is currently on those pages was added by me. You would have to go back to 2008 or 2009 to completely remove everything. Come on, be reasonable. Tradepath8 (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- It was forever because you were simultaneously using 15 accounts to attempt to get your way. That's pretty much a sign of someone that will never be trustworthy.
- I am being reasonable. Go away. If you come back in 6 months, you'll at least be listened to. If you come back in less, your edits will be removed. Removing the edits is the only way I know to get people that are supposed to stay away to actually do so. Not doing so encourages them to keep trying in the hopes that someone will like their edits. The last thing I want to do is encourage you.—Kww(talk) 00:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- How is removing my edits and making the pages horrible going to make me go away? It seems the opposite would achieve that goal. I will stay blocked and be happy about it if you will just put the edits back! I read the Wiki policy. It says it is not necessary to revert all the edits by a banned user. In this case, it is absolutely unnecessary because the pages are terrible without those edits. Tradepath8 (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Because every edit you ever make will be undone. Why would you not go away if everything you do is simply reverted? Remember, I don't care if you are improving articles, and I have no reason to trust someone that has been as deceptive as you are. I don't care whether you are happy. I don't care whether you feel you are being treated fairly. I don't care whether you feel constructive. I only care that the edits are being made by someone that isn't permitted to edit, so I will just undo them. Forever.—Kww(talk) 01:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- You are impossible to reason with. I need other admins to look this over and give it the proper treatment it deserves. Tradepath8 (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Because every edit you ever make will be undone. Why would you not go away if everything you do is simply reverted? Remember, I don't care if you are improving articles, and I have no reason to trust someone that has been as deceptive as you are. I don't care whether you are happy. I don't care whether you feel you are being treated fairly. I don't care whether you feel constructive. I only care that the edits are being made by someone that isn't permitted to edit, so I will just undo them. Forever.—Kww(talk) 01:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- How is removing my edits and making the pages horrible going to make me go away? It seems the opposite would achieve that goal. I will stay blocked and be happy about it if you will just put the edits back! I read the Wiki policy. It says it is not necessary to revert all the edits by a banned user. In this case, it is absolutely unnecessary because the pages are terrible without those edits. Tradepath8 (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why was the block forever? Will you revert the edits anyway? Come on, me aside, those edits are just bad and the pages would be better off if they were reverted back to the way they were a short while ago. Some of the crap that is currently on those pages was added by me. You would have to go back to 2008 or 2009 to completely remove everything. Come on, be reasonable. Tradepath8 (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your block never expired: see [6]. You were blocked once, and that block was indefinite in length. There was a shorter block applied to your IP address, but that has nothing to do with you. We put shorter blocks on IPs because they get reassigned, and the original IP associated with you now belongs to someone else. The block on you was for forever. That's exactly why I revert all your edits, protect any articles you touch, and block any account I find associated with you: I want to make it extremely and exceedingly clear to you that your editing is futile. Any changes you make will be undone. Hopefully, you are intelligent enough to recognize that if nothing you do is allowed to stick, there's no point in you making the edit in the first place. That way we both save time.—Kww(talk) 00:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why was I not permitted to edit? I explained that I stayed off for 6 months, returned when the block expired, then was immediately blocked again. Will you please address what I wrote about your edits in the first box on this page? I really wish you would revert them. Yes, you had the authority to revert those edits, but it wasn't necessary. Those pages are horrible right now, but were in excellent condition a short while ago. All I ask is that you revert those edits you made and I will be happy. Tradepath8 (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Tradepath8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Requesting WP:BASC. If not willing to unlock, I request that the reverted edits mentioned at the top of this page be put back, because they're essential and the pages are horrible without them.
Decline reason:
If you had read WP:BASC, you would have seen that you need to e-mail arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org . I'm taking your access to this talk page away, as this has gone on long enough.
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.
ArbCom unblock appeal[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your appeal and has declined to unblock at this time.
After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts you may again apply to have your ban reviewed. As there is no automatic entitlement to an unban you will need to provide us with good reasons why we should do so. Additionally, we would expect to see evidence of insight into the conduct that caused the problems in the first place, as well as commitment to changed and well-controlled behaviour.
For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)