User talk:DonkeyPunchResin

July 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm SubSeven. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Nihal Sarin, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --SubSeven (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at NHL 94, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --SubSeven (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at NHL 94, you may be blocked from editing. --SubSeven (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi DonkeyPunchResin! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Blue edit history, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on BMK's user page[edit]

Thank you. Now you take your own tampoon out and instead of making funny(?), unrelated comments, please, get back to the original issue.
Let me refresh you. Upon noticing that I made a small mistake, BMK started name calling, addressing me, as if I was a naughty kid and even proceeded with threats of banning me: "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at German Empire. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the of editing privileges. Thank you." And all this fuss instead of a simple, friendly remark and maybe even a peaceful explanation of my error. After all: Errare humanum est!. So, think deep, if it is really I, who has a problem with a tampoon. Best wishes, always yours, etc. Space Veteran (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:DonkeyPunchResin. Thank you. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because your username, DonkeyPunchResin, does not meet our username policy. Your username is the principal reason for the block. You are welcome to continue editing after you have selected a new username that meets the username policy guidelines, which are summarized below.

Per the username policy, a username should represent an individual and should not: represent a group or organization; be promotional; be misleading (such as indicating possession of special user rights or being a ”Bot" account (unless approved for such purposes)); be offensive or otherwise disruptive. However, a username that contains the name of a organization and also identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or “FoobarFan87" is allowed, though, among others, the guidance on conflict of interest and the policy of paid-contribution disclosure are relevant.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our username policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you wish for your existing contributions to carry over under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" from their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a change of name request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use. Therefore, please check the list here to see if a name is taken prior to requesting a change of name.

Appeals: If, after reading the guide to appealing blocks you believe you were blocked in error, then you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice.

El_C 17:35, 15 December 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).

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

Request reason:

Can you plead entrapment to a charge of sockpuppetry if you only have a new account due to having been improperly instabanished?

After insulting and red herringing me the admin told me to make my request from this account as this saga takes a turn towards the Kafkaesque.

Check my edits please. That’s all I ask. I contribute.

For continuities sake I’m copying and pasting my response from the account I made after this.

I am blown away. Hear me out. DonkeyPunchResin was my account. The name didn't fit into any of the categories of disruptive or offensive usernames when I made it and years later it still didn't as evidenced by that fact that in the two or three years I had that account not a single editor cared in the slightest about my name. Not in the least. And why would they? The slang donkey punch comes from the phrase donkey punch which comes from people who grew up around donkeys and lived in fear of a spine snapping backwards donkey kick (also known as a donkey punch). I can say donkey punch in church back home no problem. The name is a childhood joke that had nothing untoward associated with it till I was instabanished. The only time when a username can be instabanished per Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention is for obvious and serious violations only. Furthermore wiki policy is to "Give constructive users a chance. Except in extreme cases, when an editor has an obvious username violation but is otherwise constructive, give them a chance to change or abandon their name before blocking. We do not want to drive promising editors away." I came home drunk one night and made a few stupid edits and apologized and the other user said it was ok but maybe don't do that and I thanked the user and that was that. One time. Other than that I contributed. Citations, typos, I had even started doing a few edits patrolling the recent changes page and was trying to get more involved doing the not so much fun work. But I shouldn't have made those edits. I'm sorry. I can apologize to the other user again if you'd like. Anyways, back to the WP:BADNAME we don't consider leaving well enough alone. We don't talk to the user. We don't request a comment. We don't assume the slightest of glimpses of good faith, and in fact we act very much in bad faith, and we not only banish the user but we block his ip from so much as creating a new account for a week. So I make a new account. The other accounts have a total of one main space edit and it was fine. And clearly I should've revealed that I was in fact DPR (btw the initial RFC I did on Trump/Demagogue is a great example about how no one cared or even noticed that username ... other great examples include everything else ever related to that account) but I was a little bit salty and having learned the rules are actually pretty bendy I couldn't resist taking my shiny new username out for a spin. And I didn't do anything that shouldn't have happened anyways. Today is a perfect example of a growing problem in wikiworld. Increasingly admins and long time editors are using wikipedia in destructive ways. Obliterating potential contributors and anyone else who can't hang with their writings on reality. All leading to a more insular project with less diversity and Dunning-Krugered consensuses. User:Srich32977, an all time top tier editor, is called out for an egregious policy violation, he then lays out some of that sweet sweet sanctimonious duplicity about the importance of following wikipedia policy. Tasty. He doubles down on the violation, boldly going for the coverup and shuts down the investigation. Parties over kids. You'll just have to find another way. So anyways I spend a few hours putting together an RFC and comment as thoughtfully as I can and no sooner do I finish than I find out User:Srich32977 put the secret police on me and I've been banned again. These Sanctimonious. Duplicitous. Biters. DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)talk]]

Decline reason:

Doesn't address the username issue that got you blocked originally. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2021 (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.

To maybe help put in context how irregular this is - this will be the first (and maybe the only) time I have had an opportunity to speak on any of these issues.

DPR was instabanned for name so I made SDB. SDB was instabanned for sockpuppetry. I appealed the SDB ban and it was denied on the grounds that I needed to appeal this ban.

In other words I was forced to get another account and now the same rule enforcement organization that made me get a new account are accusing me of having made that new account for sockpuppetry. I’m banned over allegations an account I did not want to create is a sockpuppet by the very same people who made me get that account. DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right... this is a CU block. Just to save anyone else from having to check this, the master is user:SammySmith8765, and that account was created more than two years before this one was. Meters (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meters thank you for replying. Was I banned from editing Wikipedia for the rest of my life after user:SammySmith8765? I'd be happy to provide some more insight on that but not in public. I think I know the basics of what Checkuser does but I'm confused as to why it matters in the way you mean it in your response. I was trying to explain the (in my mind) absurdity of the sockpuppetry block and I read your response as right ... you're blocked because of sockpuppetry

The decline reason was because I didn't address the username issue that got me blocked originally. Would you agree that my username shouldn't have been blocked without affording me any opportunity to reply? "UAA is for obvious and serious violations only." My account was 2+ years old and there had never been an issue. The alleged offensive or disruptive (i'm not sure what category of banned names this falls under nor am I aware of the logic that would tie my name to that category) aspect of the username is not clear on the face of the username but rather is only understood if one is aware of a certain dirty joke which is only known to a small percentage of the population. That same population being nearly completely comprised of people who also do not take offense from that joke. Probably why there had never been an issue. Anyways, I'd simply suggest we do this the proper way. I'd suggest we've all wasted enough time stemming from that admin's rash decision. Thank you for your consideration. DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are wasting your time and our time. The original block by user: El C was for a name violation, but it is now a check user block by user: TonyBallioni. The name issue is now irrelevant. And yes, when you are indefinitely blocked on an account you are not allowed to create new account. If you want to request an unblock you must do so on User talk:SammySmith8765. I doubt very much that such a request would be successful given that you stated socking shortly after your block, and created a number of sleeper accounts as soon as your sock was taken to ANI. Meters (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked[edit]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

El_C 21:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]