User talk:BuickCenturyDriver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives


Image copyright problem with 2001 New York License Plate.jpg & NYPlates.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:2001 New York License Plate.jpg.
Thank you for uploading File:NYPlates.JPG.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, BuickCenturyDriver. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 11:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:NYPlates.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NYPlates.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:2001 New York License Plate.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2001 New York License Plate.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Knowles (footballer) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect James Knowles (footballer). Since you had some involvement with the James Knowles (footballer) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Peter James (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 1978 American League East tie-breaker game

It seems that you have confused two different things. What I did was promote it to Good Topic status. The articles been a Good Article since 2012. GamerPro64 14:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:2012 Texas License Plate.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:2012 Texas License Plate.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, BuickCenturyDriver, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock reviewing

Hello BCD. I noticed you've been attempting to review some unblock appeals lately; please note that while you can comment on these appeals, you should not be making any changes to the unblock template itself, including placing appeals on hold. Thank you. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should you make any promises or committments which you are unable to fulfil. An unblock for username change is not an automatic right, and the decision as to allow it or not is for admins only to make. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I though that successful user renames requests cause an admin to unblock the account, but if you say so then I'll leave the unblocking to you. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out the promise for a quick unblock.[1]. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you review unblock requests without being an administrator, you will get yourself in all manners of trouble. So, I would suggest that you don't. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To echo the above, you are welcome to comment with relevant information, but making statements such as this (especially when they alter the unblock template in a manner that is not consistent with its usage) is neither appropriate nor necessary. Thank you. --Kinu t/c 17:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion

Hello, BuickCenturyDriver. You have new messages at Banaticus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RE: Accountcreator flag

Hello BuickCenturyDriver. I hope stwalkerster won't mind, but I'd like to take a moment to respond on his behalf as an administrator of the WP:ACC project myself. To be honest, your reason for requesting the flag in the first place ([2]) combined with what you said above about getting "awarded" the ACC flag makes us look negatively on your request to join ACC. As ST noted in his decline of your permissions request, the accountcreator flag is specifically and only for those who assist in the account creation process or otherwise need to create a lot of user accounts. If you were to, say, join ACC for the sole purpose of being able to edit editnotices - so you're active for a while then stop - you would get suspended for inactivity from ACC and have your accountcreator flag revoked. Being able to edit editnotices is a side-effect of being able to override the username blacklist (actually, the title blacklist), nothing more, and the flag is treated accordingly. In addition, even joining ACC is no guarantee that the flag will be granted; granting of the accountcreator flag is still at administrators' discretion, but you must at least either be a member of ACC or in a special program that requires you to create more accounts than normally allowed by the rate-limiter to be eligible for the flag.

If you are genuinely interested in working with ACC, I'd suggest waiting a while (more than a week; maybe a month or two) before you try to re-apply, as if you were to now, we would likely decline your request as an attempt to gain the flag for reasons other than assisting at ACC. In addition, you are not identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. We require all prospective and current ACC member to identify to the WMF, like CheckUsers and Oversighters are required to, because of the private data we handle there. To identify (summed up), you must submit proof of your real-life identity to the WMF. The details of the process are explained here. Your request to join will not be considered or discussed internally until you've identified; likewise, if you are unable to identify or unwilling to identify, you cannot join ACC. There are other factors involved when we consider requests to join ACC, such as how well your grasp of Wikipedia policy is perceived, previous blocks, and such. If you are genuinely interested in assisting us at Account Creation, please first read the ACC Guide to see what's involved, then identify to the Wikimedia Foundation, then reapply to join ACC by sending an email to the Accounts Creation mailing list at accounts-enwiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org. However, if your primary goal is to get the account creator flag as opposed to helping out at account creation, be advised that getting approved to join ACC is no guarantee that you will be granted the flag, and certainly not for a while after you join.

If you have any further questions about what I've written here or about the ACC application process, feel free to ask stwalkerster, myself, or any of the otherACC admins. Sincerely, FastLizard4 (talk•contribs) 10:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I though people who volunteer for this activity create accounts using the Userlogin interface. That's the way it was a few years ago. I wasn't aware of this new software or the like. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Due to your abuse of multiple accounts which was exposed shortly after the above conversation, the email from Riley informing you that you need to submit ID to the WMF prior to your application to ACC being approved is rendered null and void. That is to say you will not be approved as you currently are not compliant with the first four qualifications - not identified, dirty block log, a history of account-related abuse, and subject to the restriction of editing from a single account if ever unblocked. Like Riley and FastLizard4 i appreciate your desire to participate but it is not going to happen. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 18:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin reponsibilities

Hi there; i propose to give you some (possibly) unwanted guidance. Please bear in mind that in doing so I have been here for nearly seven years, and an admin for almost six.

You are obviously reasonably knowledgeable in the ways of wikipedia, and are equally obviously eager to play a full part, not only in straightforward article creation but also in vandal-control and in policing the encyclopedia. This is welcome, without qualification. But there are, as a non-admin editor, boundaries which you must not cross. Now some actions usually performed by admins can be performed by non-admins; some AfD closures, for example. But there are a number of actions which only admins can do, and a non-admin really should not promise events which a non-admin cannot deliver. I realise that you have the interests of the project at heart, and I am confident that in the fullness of time you will become an admin, or higher if you wish. I earnestly suggest that you do not wreck your chances by getting blocked for overstepping the line. This is not a warning in any sense, merely what I hope is sensible advice. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, even after all this time I still do not always capitalise "I"s!--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice, I really have been considering another RFA and one of the tasks that I intend to do is help handle unblock requests. As you can see from my contibution history, I tried but my a couple of sysops got annoyed from this edit and I decided it's best to leave them alone. As for closing AFDs (right now I only vote but very rarely close them), I'd probably handle the obvious "close as delete" ones. However, before I run I am going to ask a few editors that know me well if the time is right or if I should wait a few more months. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as an outside set of eyes, the recent series of unblock reviews probably set you back at least 6 months - that's a policy that's inflexible, especially when the templates clearly state "for admins only". Also, if you're ready then a few admins will tell you - you'll never need to ask (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ace of spades.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ace of spades.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. LGA talkedits 23:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:CardSharkCardBack.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CardSharkCardBack.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. LGA talkedits 23:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, BuickCenturyDriver. You have new messages at LGA's talk page.
Message added 23:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

LGA talkedits 23:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:BlackJack2.JPG

Files that you uploaded or altered, File:BlackJack2.JPG, File:BlackJackInsurance.JPG, File:Soft17.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. LGA talkedits 23:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, BuickCenturyDriver. You have new messages at LGA's talk page.
Message added 00:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

LGA talkedits 00:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, BuickCenturyDriver. You have new messages at LGA's talk page.
Message added 00:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

LGA talkedits 00:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Files

Files that you uploaded or altered, File:KlondikeSolitaire.JPG, File:New York Empire Gold License Plate.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. LGA talkedits 00:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:New York Empire License Plate.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:New York Empire License Plate.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. LGA talkedits 02:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:New York Empire Gold License Plate.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. LGA talkedits 02:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, BuickCenturyDriver. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 March 3.
Message added 02:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LGA talkedits 02:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review your uploads

I have been reviewing your uploads. Can you confirm that you actually took the following photos and did not use or edit ones you had found :

With regard to :

Can you have a look at the Licence, as I doubt very much you actually created it, it looks like a derivative work. LGA talkedits 07:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following section copied from my talk page so as to keep this in one place, see this edit for proof.

To answer your question regarding the images I uploaded:

–BuickCenturyDriver 07:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In which case can you change the licence on File:Njtp.JPG as you can not licence it cc-by-sa, it needs to be one of Fair-use. LGA talkedits 07:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Playing cards

Can you also confirm which of the playing card images contain your own designs, any cards you purchased or obtained are likely copyrighted designs on the backs and on any picture card. LGA talkedits 07:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The playing cards I used in my uploads were given to me for free from various casinos and and Solitaire photo uses bicycle cards. –BuickCenturyDriver 07:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you cant licence them CC-BY-SA as you do not own the copyright on the backs of the card nor the picture cards, and they fail the WP:NFCC rules as they can be replaced by free designs. LGA talkedits 07:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any free playing card designs then show me and I will re-upload the card images. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't but the point is they can be created. LGA talkedits 08:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per checkuser evidence. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the SPI case is here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have emailed both DeltaQuad and Hersfold. –BuickCenturyDriver 06:59, 4 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have too many good contributions to Wikipedia and I think I deserve a second chance. I've personally emailed Hersfold with a request. If I am unblocked I will use only this name. I'm not ready to walk away quit using WP just yet.–BuickCenturyDriver 06:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As this block was conducted with CheckUser evidence, only CUs can give permission to unblock. Rschen7754 08:23, 4 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

As I stated above, I have emailed CU editor DeltaQuad & Hersfold and they're handling this request by email. please leave this open. Thank you. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your assumption is incorrect; the fact that you have emailed me does not mean that I am handling this by email; as a matter of personal policy, I will not unless there is some specific reason why the review cannot be handled in public. I do not see such a reason here.

You have now admitted to the other three accounts by email, however you still do not seem to realize why you were blocked. It is legitimate to have a single additional account to edit when on a public computer or similar - the account I'm using now is a prime example - however, such accounts should in general be publicly declared, and you only need one for that purpose. Even then, these accounts must not be used to vote multiple times in deletion debates, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Kira. It is expressly forbidden for undisclosed accounts to be editing anywhere in project-space, and at deletion debates in particular. On top of all of this, you have attempted to keep up the appearance that you were separate people up until you were blocked. Such deception is unacceptable, particularly in the light of the fact that DeltaQuad told you outright that coming clean before a block was placed would have made things much easier. That time has passed. If you wish to return to editing, then we will need a full, reasonable explanation as to why you had these other accounts, why you attempted to deceive the community when confronted about the accounts, and you will need to agree to a restriction to use a single account from this point forward.
Administrators are free to lift this block on their own if they believe these conditions have been met, but should still first consult a checkuser to ensure that no other accounts have appeared in the meantime. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:17, 4 March 2013 (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.

  • You still have yet to either admit that 1) the three other accounts are your socks or 2) provide a decent explanation as to why this is going on when I gave you direct evidence that your editing was very close together. Also, in our email exchanges, at points the information you were trying to give me was very contradictory to what was actually going on. You also neglected to inform me of the part of the data that would have caught you socking, but told me everything else. So you have given me no reason to consider unblocking you at this time. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Delta, I just replied to you by email. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:58, 4 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have read Hersfold's comments above and I agree to edit using this name only going forward. The other names were meant to used when I was away from home. I apologize for causing the commotion on Hurricanekira'a AFD. I did think it would lead to this. I hope we can put this all major setback behind us and move on. I have made plenty of good contributions and I intend to make more constructive edits if given another chance. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no recognition of the problems - only being embarassed that they got caught. This is unacceptable. For someone who feels themself to be admin-category material in terms of knowledge, these actions and the sheer inability to follow WP:GAB, plus the desire to hide the evidence by trying to become unblocked in private via e-mail is just ... unbelievable. Here's a recommendation: go away for at least a week. Don't even read Wikipedia. In a week, come back and review WP:SOCK, WP:GAB. After that, take a few days to compose yourself and an unblock request (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:13, 4 March 2013 (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.

That's not satisfactory. As I said above, "I had this account to edit when away from home" explains one account, not three. Why did you have three? Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 17:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you also haven't addressed "why you attempted to deceive the community when confronted about the accounts". Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 17:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was reluctant to say it at first fearing you would block me if I told you outright and therefore tried to pinpoint the edits in question. The other three accounts were not intended to be used maliciously but intended to edit tv show articles. Again I apologize for the commotion of the AFD and hope you can forgive me on that. Had DQ showed me the edits in question I would have told them the edits are mine. Now that it has passed it doesn't mean I should be deprived of a we one chance given my long history of constructed editing. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, there were multiple indications that you were deliberately trying to conceal the fact that you were socking. Not only did you disrupt the AfD process but you disrupted the SPI process as well. You had the chance to at least save yourself some trouble. When given the chance to explain yourself, you didn't tell us everything. In fact, you outright lied to us on several occasions. I don't see any excuse for this behavior. Elockid (Talk) 17:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
forgive me for handling the situation the way I did. What do You suggest I do now to return. I understand I was blocked for misusing three account and trying to explain it by email. I said I agreed to use only this name going forward . –BuickCenturyDriver 18:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite honestly, if you had told us from the start, you probably would have been blocked, but only for a few days at the most; that's fairly standard for someone caught abusively socking that otherwise has made good contributions. If it weren't for the multiple voting, it's also quite possible you could have gotten off with a strong slap on the wrist and a one-account restriction. It's happened before. However, Elockid is right; your handling of the situation led this situation to what it has become. I also agree with Bwilkins in entirety - your apparent complete lack of understanding as to why this was a problem means you're not likely to get unblocked any time soon. Take this as a sort of enforced wikibreak; when you come back, we can look into how to move forward then. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold, do you mind if I interact by email? I hope to return at the end of the month –BuickCenturyDriver 18:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Under the circumstances, do you understand why your attempts to discuss the matter via e-mail (just as you did in 2007) might be met with suspicion? —David Levy 19:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think given six year worth of experience should merit being given another chance, and besides. The last incident happen nearly six years ago. I haven't had any problems since then up until now. In any event, I agree with bwilkins to wait a week or so before make any further unblock requests. It seem I do need a break from all this wiki stress. –BuickCenturyDriver 19:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, six years is a long time. That's why it's disheartening to discover that you neither learned your lesson back then nor came to your senses in the interim.
Positive contributions aren't aren't bargaining chips that negate or excuse misconduct. All editors are expected to act in good faith 100% of the time. Unfortunately, you've demonstrated a propensity not only to engage in egregious abuse, but to further deceive the community via attempted coverups. I see no reason to believe that you regret anything other than getting caught. —David Levy 20:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do mind. As I said above, I will not review blocks by private email unless there is some pressing need for privacy. I do not see that there is such a need here. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 19:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, the above apology would have carried considerably more weight if you'd expressed it immediately.
Does that sentence seem familiar? I just copied it from one of your archives. I wrote it in May 2007, when you used a compromised admin account to block an editor, got caught red-handed via a CU investigation, denied involvement, and even attempted to conceal your role (via a story about someone hacking into your wireless network) until consulting an administrator via e-mail and realizing that you had no choice but to come clean.
Here we are again. And you say that you've "agreed to use only this name going forward". So I'll copy and paste the question that I asked previously:
Given the fact that you've been lying to us, why should we believe you now? —David Levy 19:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of the 2007 incident, but if David Levy is correct in his summary (and I have little reason to doubt that he is), I do not think an unblock is very likely. We'll see when you return. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Buick, I have received your e-mail, and am shocked - based on the above - that you would ask those questions in that manner. Look, I'm not going to tell you what to write in order to become unblocked. The idea of WP:GAB and WP:AAB is that you need to personally reflect on the why, and how you'll move forward. I'm not going to put words in your mouth, especially based on the severity of the situation as a whole. Every block is different, and yours became a doozy. This is why I suggested you go away and meditate. So, really, off you go (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Example

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Example, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Example and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Example during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rcsprinter (chat) @ 09:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

After a month of waiting I have decided to try and make a return. Hopefully the fallout from the extra accounts and the deletion discussion manilpuation have worn off. Here are a few reason for my request:

  • WP:NETPOSITIVE. Should one petty incident outweight all the positive contrubitions I made?
  • In both CU cases I was hoping the editors who investigated would consider the possibility that not all IPs direct to one computer but there are cases where an entire network can share an IP. Though two accounts from one IP can raise a suspicion, "CU is not pixie dust".
  • I understand the indef is a result of attempting to manipulate a discussion, and after suffering this I doubt I will try it again. The people involved in the above discussion may have too it as a betrayel.

If the reviewing editor still feels I can't come back, then it is what it is and being I have over 10000 edits, starting from scratch only to get blocked for a petty wrongdoing a few years down the road just isn't worth it. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see a distinct lack of understanding of the depth of your betrayal of the Wikipedia community. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:27, 11 April 2013 (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.

Having commented on your infractions in 2007 and 2013, I'm not going to perform the review, but I must note my disappointment. In the above message, you state the following:
  • You should be unblocked because you do more good than harm. You've cited an essay about adminship candidacy and misleadingly implied that you've been involved in only one such incident.
  • You abused multiple accounts in an attempt to manipulate a discussion's outcome and subsequently lied about your actions because you believed that the CheckUser function's limitations would enable you to do so without getting caught.
  • You probably won't attempt this again.
I can't fault you for finally being honest, but the truth hurts. —David Levy 18:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to address the above. I know DL opposes my return, but lets settle the record:
  • the 2007 incident was for cracking into the account I loged into, there was no way to prove I cracked it. the recent incident only proved that me and my other accounts and only those usernames made the edits and i hoped that given my overall positive contributions i would be given the due process and blocked for maybe a few months but not indef. and i didn't outright lie i mentioned the possibility the account logging in from outside using an unsecured wireless connection and unfortunately the ip checker was not convinced. like it or not, IPs follow a connection to the internet, and not necessarilty one single machine. i appreciate deltaquads efforts to clear the connection, but i'm not happy that he abruptly declared a match after 5 to 6 emails. i don't know what made him make that decision, though.
  • if people were to look at the stuff I contributed then they should see this as a small setback in the greater scheme of things. yes, what I did was wrong, but i feel it is wrong to suspect i would go right back to what i did to get me to this situation after waiting a month to ask for an unblock,
  • knowing the next confirmed incident will result in an irreversible indef, I doubt I would try the same stunt in the near future and risk a reblock after my effort to regain your trust.
botton line, the point of my request is an effort to rebuild my reputation. i know things won't be the same but i find it disturbing that there are editors who think of me as someone with nothing better to do than make new accounts wreak havoc and annoy other editors. i am requesting so that i can show that this was a setback that i would like to throw behind me and i have a lot more to give to the site. i would have no problem walking away but i feel i derserve another chance, ::knowing any further mischief will result an another indef should i get an unblock. –BuickCenturyDriver 19:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if you still feel i should stay away then i belive this case is worth a review by arbcom. if that's declined, then this will be a very bitter farewell.–BuickCenturyDriver 19:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the 2007 incident was for cracking into the account I loged into,
You used a compromised admin account to block an editor, got caught via a CU investigation, denied involvement, and attempted to conceal your role (via a story about someone hacking into your wireless network) until consulting an administrator via e-mail and realizing that you had no choice but to confess.
there was no way to prove I cracked it.
Pardon? What are you arguing?
the recent incident only proved that me and my other accounts and only those usernames made the edits
Your point being...?
and i hoped that given my overall positive contributions i would be given the due process and blocked for maybe a few months but not indef.
Positive contributions aren't aren't bargaining chips that negate or excuse misconduct. All editors are expected to act in good faith 100% of the time. You've demonstrated a propensity not only to engage in egregious abuse, but to further deceive the community via attempted coverups. Then you complain about not receiving the leniency that you're "due".
and i didn't outright lie i mentioned the possibility the account logging in from outside using an unsecured wireless connection and unfortunately the ip checker was not convinced.
"Unfortunately, I failed to deceive the community and get away with my misconduct." That seems to be your only regret.
i appreciate deltaquads efforts to clear the connection, but i'm not happy that he abruptly declared a match after 5 to 6 emails.
Right. You're unhappy about getting caught.
knowing the next confirmed incident will result in an irreversible indef, I doubt I would try the same stunt in the near future and risk a reblock after my effort to regain your trust.
You doubt that you'd do it again in the near future. Do you even realize how this comes across? —David Levy 20:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your only route is WP:OFFER and nothing else. In order to rebuild your reputation, you need to NOT edit wikipedia during the block and go away and work on a project somewhere that will allow you to prove yourself for a minimum of six months. This is not rocket science - you screwed up badly, and you need to prove yourself elsewhere before dreaming of coming back. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Bitter Farewell

If the decision is indeed final then I've stated my case. the people who insist I stay blocked say, "Yeah you were very constructive but what you did was so evil we can't stand you any further". You may feel I am not sincere, but then again it is was it is. If the decision is indeed final, then I've certainly learned my lesson experiancing the dark side of Wikipedia. To those who support the blocker's claim, i wish to have nothing to do with you. To those who may feel otherwise, you can email me. Until then, I bid farwell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuickCenturyDriver (contribs) 20:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Victor Sierra for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Victor Sierra is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Sierra (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wizardman 22:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:2012 NBA Finals.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:2012 NBA Finals.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:2012 NBA Finals.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:2012 NBA Finals.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:IPsock

Template:IPsock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. NE Ent 22:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Speedy deletion nomination of Sophie Clarke

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Sophie Clarke, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sophie Clarke

The article Sophie Clarke has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article was decided to redirect in an AfD but has been made again.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In light of tomorrow night, I apologize to anyone I annoyed on the wiki since I arrived back in 2007. I won't name names and I am sure there will be naysayers. But I regret what I did and there is no way to change the past or the way certain editors think about me.

I considered requesting an unblock many times but, given the fickle suspicions of some, I'd have to edit with a bullseye on my back and would get blocked on the next misstep. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BCD, you should know that (believe it or not) we have had editors who were once blocked then go on to become admins. Yeah, people will watch you ... until they realize that your edits are no longer problematic and you're not breaking any rules. There's the trick: don't do anything that could be misconstrued as a misstep - it's that easy, and it's wholly doable. WP:OFFER was extended for a reason: because there's a belief that you were redeemable as an editor :-) the panda ₯’ 11:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sophie Clarke for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sophie Clarke is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Clarke (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:2001 New York License Plate.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:2001 New York License Plate.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:2011 World Series.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2011 World Series.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:1998 World Series.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1998 World Series.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:1999 World Series.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:1999 World Series.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is "block evasion" a big a deal or victimless crime?

@HJ Mitchell: wrote A CU couldn't hurt anything, but BCD hops around a few ranges including some from mobile phones. Them most we can do is block them for a few days until he moves on but they're busy ranges so we can't leave them blocked for the long term. It's possible it would flush out some more sleepers, but I doubt it personally; BCD knows enough about how Wikipedia works that he normally avoids getting caught until he edits. Semi-protection and whack-a-mole is the only way to deal with him really. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really take these things too seriously. If you know that Wikipedia is a "Free Encyclopidea" then I feel i can edit. Just because a few editors feel I can't edit doesn't mean anything. If you really felt I should go away then thats for the arbcome to decide, not you. –BuickCenturyDriver 18:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The community has decided (explicitly or implicitly) that the disruption you cause is not worth your positive contributions. If you edited constructively most people wouldn't notice and frankly I wouldn't be interested, but if you keep adding hoaxes and/or fancruft to articles, people are going to revert it regardless of who added it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell and DeltaQuad: Maybe adding hoaxes to real life article might be vandalism, but the stuff I add is clearly fictional and in fiction, anything goes. Let focus on HolidayShoopr's recent activity for a second. By in large, all I did was move my userpage. That barely counts as disruptive.
The community has decided (explicitly or implicitly) that the disruption you cause is not worth your positive contributions.
If the community at large (that is, the thousands of people who edit the article, not the people who spend all their wikipedia time targeting people who keep changing their username) took stock at my editing from the time I joined in 2007 by in large they wouldn't mind. I never was formally banned on ANI or by Arbcom. I wass blocked because at the time I logged in from a computer someone else had used to vandalize wikipedia. Of course with the advent of wi-fi service I find it hard to believe it's natural for people to feel the "two accounts from one ip = same person" equation still exists. Therefore I still edit and I've shown that since my ip constantly changes there no reason to believe that anymore. I don't know what red flags were considered at the time. But it is clear you still are willing to block anon ranges long term since I logged in and gave this message. –BuickCenturyDriver 05:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Anna

Can we talk? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Well as long as you're not part of HJ Mitchell and his legion of meatpuppets so hell-bent on using violence to keep me from editing wikipedia and enforcing "ban" that doesn't even exist, sure. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not part of that crowd. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's the deal:
  • The "ban" those editors have been trying to enforce is a hoax. There is no mention of me on WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM issuing a site-ban on this account.
  • Right after this was blocked, I tried getting it unblocked using the {{unblock}} temp but was refused twice. I leaves me no choice but to make a new account each time I want to edit, since I exhausted legitimate effort to get it unblocked to begin with. Quite frankly, I would not have to sockpuppet if they gave me another chance to edit with this and only this name. From 2007-2013 I've edited constructively and these rats are willing to spitefully ignore it.
  • The article I'm trying to write about Power Rangers Ninja Steel has reliable sources and all I'm trying to do is post it. Look in the article's deleted history and you'll see it was edited by legit editors, but the abusive admin Favonion has been harassing me and making persistent efforts to keep the article deleted, blocking any user that writes this article. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this helps. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Holy moly. Okay. What I am hearing is you should be a constructive editor here and you got a raw deal. You are angry with a bunch of people here and now you're socking. What I see is, well, yes, a ton of socking. It all seems to get reverted. This is a huge waste of your resources, right? This is all a bad deal for everyone. Lose-lose, I would say. A solution where everyone is happy would be a good thing. Would you agree with this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what exactly are you proposing? I've love a solution where I could edit and those guys could just leave me alone. –BuickCenturyDriver 05:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll need a little bit of time to look into it. They system here almost always calls for a 6 month wait then a clean start sort of thing. Maybe there's another solution though. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How's this for a solution? You change the block on this account to expire 6 months from today (September 20, 2016) then I will agree not make any more socks. Fair deal? –BuickCenturyDriver 05:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you would not edit Wikipedia with any account for 6 months and then return using this account? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If it means getting this account back, it's worth the wait. –BuickCenturyDriver 05:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, that sounds wonderful. I'll get back to you ASAP. Thank you so much for being so cool! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals Discussion

Pinging those involved: @David Levy, Jpgordon, Rschen7754, HJ Mitchell, Anthony Bradbury, Kinu, and Deskana:
  • BCD, I'm not the asshole you think I am, and that's why I am here writing you today. Would I like to see you unblocked? Absolutely. The problem is I have to look out for the encyclopedia first. So here are the issues as I see it with your editing/unblock:
  • You've previously had issues with socking and comprising admin accounts in 2007, where you wasted a lot of resources.
    Actually, I was not the one to compromised the accounts, someone exposed the password of an admin account which I logged in and experimented with, blocking a user that ironically would be banned by arbcom years later. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You wasted the time of 8 administrators to deal with his block, 4 of which were CUs.
  • 4 administrators warned you shortly before your block for getting involved in areas you shouldn't (aka unblock request declining)
  • You have one of the longest SPIs in the history of SPIs
  • Instead of helping clear up the original case, you muddied it as much as you could
  • Your asking Anna to unblock you on your terms. Basically, you are putting a gun to the head saying unblock me or I'll sock, and we are "using violence"?. That's not how it works.
  • We have never or once in a lifetime rarely changed a block in advance of a WP:OFFER. You will see that as guarantee that you will get unblocked, even if the rules are broken again, and you still continue to violate WP Standards.
  • You don't want any conditions on his unblock. Have you seen that for editors that have caused significant disruption?
  • Your targeting other people as the reason for your own block
  • Your comments are completely short of the standard way to appeal a block
  • You doesn't understand image copyright at all, shown by the slew of XfDs on his talk at the time of blocking
  • You still don't view sockpuppetry as problematic
  • You are throwing the book at administrators calling them "abusive" and "using violence"
  • CSD G5 does not require a ban, and you are not banned. You are blocked.
  • Your socks have taken a turn to impersonating administrators. Many administrators.
  • So I will propose to you a counter offer that is both serious and reasonable considering the above:
  • You can be unblocked after the standard offer is satisfied
  • You come clean and admit your involvement in the issues surrounding your block showing some form of remorse for the disruption
  • You agree to strict unblock conditions:
  • A restriction from editing in advanced permission settings (unblock, RFPP, UAA, etc) until we are satisfied with your contribs except to post your own requests.
  • Prohibited from meta areas of XfD (cause of the original votestacking) for 6 months, unless you are the original creator of the item proposed for deletion
  • One account restriction, no exceptions, indefinitely, maybe to review for alt accounts after 2 years
  • No IP editing, indefinitely
  • Prohibited from file uploads for 6 months, and until we are satisfied your knowledge of copyright is satisifactory
  • Prohibited from requesting advanced permissions for 6 months (like ACC, rollback, admin, etc.)
  • Prohibited from RfX for 6 months (again due to the votestacking)
  • You make an appeal inline with the standard guide to appealing blocks
If you wish to take me up on it, I'll be here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow. That's a lot of stuff. But DQ has seen the whole history and is cautious for a reason. And BuickCenturyDriver, I know you don't like being bossed around. Can we work this out? Lose-lose is exactly what it says on the box. Let's go win-win for a change, okay? See what the other admins say. I know you don't want eat crud. This isn't that. This is just a negotiation and you are one half of that. Could we just come to agreement and make things so wee're all better off? Please? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DQ said she'd sit on the sidelines for a while so it's just us two. Can we discuss things and hash things out? I feel we can figure out something that will get you back and editing. Would that be okay? :) I'm pretty nice and not a meanie or anything. And you seem nice. I'm sure we can work it out. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verified. I'm willing to standdown while you guys talk. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no longer that involved in the SPI process and I have no objections to whatever is decided. --Rschen7754 14:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been pinged, and so will respond. My involvement with this editor was in the year 2013; and not since. I do not have anything to add at this time. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DeltaQuad: I'd be willing to edit with this and only this account, yes. And yes, I could stay away from the AFD stuff. The whole reason for this was I was blocked on a petty incident back in 2013. I tried to explain it and told them I had 6 years of good editing but the people who blocked were will to overlook it over that one incident. I waited a month again, requested another unblock but again was refused. This left me no recourse and forced me to sock every time I wanted to edit. It got to the point where even the constuctive edits (like the Power Rangers Ninja Steel were deleted just because of the block) and I was being harassed by Favonian and HJ_Mitchell. I explained to them I was never banned but they persisted with their behavior in targeting me. I was only trying to fight back at them, hoping they'd leave me alone and mind their own business, but they kept harassing me and I fought them back. I want nothing to do with these editors, just another chance to edit in the mainspace. That's all. I really don't know what to write in an unblock request, but consider the above and the positive contribution I made. Thanks for understanding. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to ping:
Having just read through the above, I see no valid basis for unblocking this editor.
In the past day, he's again sought to downplay the circumstances behind the 2013 block (asserting, as he did at the time, that his positive contributions should have been redeemable for a free pass), repeatedly argued that his sock puppetry is justified (because he was "forced" into it by the "rats", who left him with "no choice"), and attempted to use the promise of good behavior (which has proved worthless on prior occasions) as a bargaining chip – essentially agreeing to stop socking if his demands are met.
Frankly, I don't even see the appearance of reform. If anything, BuickCenturyDriver only seems emboldened by his block evasions and less inclined to pretend that he regrets his misconduct. —David Levy 23:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BuickCentury, most of what you write above is pretty fair. You sound like a nice person. The worst thing ever is when you feel like you got a raw deal and nobody listens or cares or takes the time to understand. And 6 years of good editing is huge.
And DQ makes good points.
Regarding David Levy's comments. Yep. This is a huge thing to get past, and then other details should be manageable: "...forced me to sock..." That is like me walking into Bob's store, getting into a misunderstanding, getting kicked out, and me saying "I have no choice. I am forced to simply keep coming back into the store because you are wrong." That doesn't wash in shops and not at Wikipedia either. You've absolutely got to give something here. Please. This will be a deal-breaker and then it will be back to the old way, which was rotten for all.
David Levy is pretty much on the money. Stopping socking ain't no bargaining chip. You can't call people rats. Nobody is asking you to eat humble pie or get on your knees here. You just have to address these things.
Anyhow, if David Levy objects and that itself is a deal-breaker, I need to know. I've only invested 10 minutes in this and am prepared to walk away. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My objection should not be considered a deal-breaker. The same goes for any particular editor's input, apart from WMF office actions. Given the history, a potential decision to unblock should be rooted in community consensus. —David Levy 01:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the point I'm trying to get across is that i would not have to use sock accounts if this name gets unblocked. I could easily commit to the restrictions laid out by DQ above: using only this account, not editing any AfDs or RFAs, not uploading image, etc.
as for the "rats" I talk about, I know here are lots of good editors on Wikipedia. But there are some who are too obsessed win blocking and chasing people they feel are banned from the site. I can't stand these people since it seems they have nothing better to do than persistantly block people and chase them away. –BuickCenturyDriver 05:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the thing that worries everyone is that when blocked, rather than saying, oh well, I can't edit, you instead said, oh well, I guess I'm forced to sock. There are two choices when blocked: 1. Stop editing. 2. Find out what it would take to get unblocked and continue editing if that works out. There is no 3. Be forced to sock. What are your thoughts about that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem waiting six months, I just want to make sure it gets unblocked on September 22 and I don't get targeted when I come back. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BuickCentury. I'm happy to hear you'd be willing to wait. And I'm sure nobody would target you upon returning. That wouldn't be a problem. In fact, if you're ever treated unfairly, I'll be right there on your side. And if you're just doing normal editing, everyone would be delighted. But what about the forced to sock thing? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: "forced to sock" means I had to use a sock each time I wish to create a new page I had to make a new account since I exhausted my effect to get this username unblocked. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think I'm done here. I've invested about 35 minutes and this is going nowhere. I know what "forced to sock" means. If you want, as a last shot, address your "...I had to..." then we can keep talking. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak:, I'm sorry you're disappointed with my answers, but I tried to address it as best I can. The best I can do now is wait for 6 months and hope thing turn out better then. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay BuickCentury. I'll be here in six months. Let's hope things work out then. All the best. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is odd. Are you reading things right above? I wrote "...I think the thing that worries everyone is that when blocked..." not "unblocked". I'm talking about when you were blocked. You said you were forced to sock. Are you sure you don't want to talk about the problem with saying "forced to sock"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The best I can do now is wait for 6 months and hope thing turn out better then.
I'm reminded of 2013, when you expressed "doubt [you would sock] again". Such statements appear to imply that you have no direct control over what occurs.
You seem to regard yourself as an innocent bystander who's repeatedly fallen victim to a gross injustice, "forcing" you to go about your business in the only manner possible (by socking). I see no indication that you accept responsibility for your misconduct or intend to cease abusing multiple accounts unless your demands are met. —David Levy 18:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Levy: I would have no reason to make sock accounts if this wasn't blocked indef over some petty votestack back in 2013. I find it ridiculous that you still would be willing to overlook the positive contributions I made in the 6 years leading up to that. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought:
A very wise person once told me to pay attention to outcomes. Bend everything around that. That is why I wrote to you. This represents three years of your life, hundreds of your hours, all lost, all reverted, a pure waste. Ever see the movie Heat? The cops could hit or miss. DeNiro stood to lose the most. Admins blew a few hours and clicked revert. You wasted hundreds typing. For what? What is it that you want? To edit, without hinderance, right? You like Wikipedia and want to just be a regular editor. That is the outcome you desire in this discussion. Saying you are forced to sock, digging your heels in, saying my way or the highway is messing with the outcome you want. Life is short. Don't shoot yourself in the foot here. Don't blow another three years like this. Rejoin the community as part of the community. That is pretty much all I can say. You are in control of your destiny. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anna Frodesiak: Just to clarify. Being forced to sock doesn't mean that people were forcing me to make more accounts. It means that each time I wished to write a new article, I needed an account to do it. I certainly would not have made all these sock accounts had things been able to work out when I requested unblock in 2013. After I was denied once, I waited a month and tried again, only to be denied again. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • BCD, I won't engage you via email. To answer your questions:
  1. I will not unblock you without restrictions in 6 months
  2. I will not pre-emptively change the block to expire 6 months from now to have you "stop socking", something as you have indicated above, that you have no problem doing.

The original offer is as is, unless you want to talk about times, that's all I'm open to. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad:, that's fine. I'll come back to you in September and perhaps you can unblock with the conditions you laid out above. See you then. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just leave this here: [3] ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And during these discussions... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BuickCenturyDriver/Archive#22_March_2016 EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: It's obvious that DoRD is going to pin any user who wants to write about Power Rangers Ninja Steel on me. The user can come from China and still he'll say it belongs to me. The latest one was created back in 2007, long before I was blocked. So it cannot possibly be me. The burden of proof rests on this user to prove this really is me. I've doubted the accuracy of CU since day one, and will take this to ArbCom one the six months pass. –BuickCenturyDriver 07:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, time to stop the charade! It has been confirmed by DoRD that you have created yet another abusive sock: MFR-C (talk · contribs). Per the standard offer, you may file a new unblock request in 6 months, provided there is absolutely no socking in the meantime. Renewed socking will cause the clock to be reset. Favonian (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? He hasn't explained how I'm connect to the other sock he/she blocked. This person will to say anything, but let them come to prove it. Frankly, I'm in no mood to play game with you or your meatpuppets. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have nothing more to contribute other than Wiki-lawyering, so I'll revoke your talk page access. Assuming you are able to abstain from further socking, you may submit an unblock request through Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System no earlier than September 25, 2016. Favonian (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian and DeltaQuad: Your latest action shows you have no desire to talk. Didn't DQ tell me he/she has no desire to engage in email? So what is the point in preventing me from using the talk page while logged in? You have also failed to explain how the recent accounts belong to me. --BuickCenturyDriver 10:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the email you sent to me, it's no wonder that people don't wish to engage with you in a mail discussion, and your email privileges were revoked accordingly. DeltaQuad and DoRD are both CheckUsers and have access to technical information which makes it clear that you are indeed behind the sock puppets. If your attitude doesn't change for the better during the next six months, I don't think you need bother with further unblock requests. Favonian (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to have you 1) waste community time 2) nor engage via email. UTRS is open to you 6 months after you stop socking. Also, MFR-C is used on the same range as this account is, along with:
Sock list
And that's only one range. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Favonian and DeltaQuad: Maybne all those come from the same IP range, but it's a busy cellphone range. (Do a WHOIS and you'll see it's used by many people, not just me). Are you willing to blame every person that log in from the IP range on me? I strongly suggest you both step back and let the ArbCom handle this. I'm not convinced this all goes to me. –BuickCenturyDriver 16:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


BCD, you posted at my talk with another account telling me you sent an email. I replied at my talk saying I will not use email for discussions with you. I will reply here:

Okay, fine, those accounts are not yours, you weren't socking. If you want to make a false accusation complaint, understand that nobody will hear your case until six months from the time of your last sock edit. Start that clock now and state your case then.

Between now and then, don't drive yourself nuts. Forget about Wikipedia. There are plenty of Internet communities to discover. You want to write about Power Rangers Ninja Steel? Wikia is a place to consider.

See you in six months, or maybe never. Why never? Simple. There can only be two reasons why you want to edit here: To help Wikipedia or because you like it. Well, Wikipedia is full of jerks, right? So, why help Wikipedia? You like it? Wasting hours and getting everything reverted can't be something a sane person likes. See you in six, maybe. Don't reply to this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • For teh record, in case of future unblock requests, more socking today: Jo-Jo Humorus. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BuickCenturyDriver&oldid=1176095985"