User talk:LaceyUF

This is LaceyUF's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

LaceyUF, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi LaceyUF! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Owen Shroyer into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll do this from now on. LaceyUF (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email question

Hi LacyUF. I saw your email, but I'm not an administrator so there's not much I can do to help you. I'm also not on Discord (I don't even know what that is to be honest). You can try asking for administrator assistance by posting at WP:AN or by adding Template:Admin help to your user talk page and an administrator should be along eventually to help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they were. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IPBE (☑️ Resolved)

I think that's right. Yes, those behind the Great Firewall of China use them. Though that ticket did not reference your user name nor request IPBE that I saw. VPN's are anonymizing and a route for vandalism attacks, so I fail to see how turning it of would be a bad thing. The reason you gave for VPNing in the ticket had nothing to do with Wikipedia. Come to think of it, I wouldn't expect the ordinary range block would prevent logged in editors from editing. Though I see a m:global block might. What did the check user's say? Hopefully, you are now able to edit. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS I had to dig around for it, but there is also an instruction to contact the Stewards if affected. No idea why it was so hard to find. So if editing us still prevented, you should contact them-- m:Special:Contact/stewards. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I went through and reread Wikipedia:IP block exemption. "The conditions for granting this are that . . .the editor agrees never to misuse the exemption to edit through a blocked anonymizing proxy". So that explains the check user's response. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've given you IP block exemption for 3 months, after which you'll need to re-request it. From the above, it looks like you might have already had a request denied. That's a bit frustrating because we generally discourage this kind of shopping around for an administrator who's willing to give you what you want. I suggest that if you re-request IPBE that you be a bit more open about this sort of thing. But I probably should have read your entire talk page before jumping in, anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason my request was denied was because I didn't include my username in the IP:BE request (this may have been communicated to me via email) and he thought I was requesting for an IP address to be unblocked rather than an account unblocked. Also, I don't know what DeepFriedOkra meant when he said "that explains the check user's response" and I asked him via email if that meant a check user responded to me and I don't think he ever responded. To the best of my knowledge, no check user has ever declined my IP:BE request -- only 2 admins and only for reasons of making my request not clear enough to be decipherable (i.e. not including my username with the IP:BE request which led them to believe I wanted an IP address unblocked, which isn't what I wanted). LaceyUF (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, it's not a huge deal even if it happened like I said. IPBE is often discussed outside of public view, which makes everything more complicated. And because it allows people to bypass blocks, there's more potential drama involved than simply asking for rollback. To make everything worse, the whole thing is obviously a large bureaucracy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know! I also reached out to DeepFriedOkra on his talk page asking him to confirm/clarify if a check user previously declined my IP:BE request. To the best of my knowledge, none ever have. LaceyUF (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate and Deepfriedokra: FWIW, the relevant UTRS threads are UTRS appeal #44756, and UTRS appeal #44454. 44454 was declined by JJMC89. The explanation at 44756 is nothing short of bizarre, and frankly doesn't sound based in reality, speaking as a former employee of that ISP, and a 20+ year customer of that ISP that's had many similarly set up devices. It also directly contradicts any story about editing from China.

There appears to be a ticket at OTRS (VRTS ticket # 2021061710001256) as well, which was never actioned (until I closed it just now), and consisted almost entirely of "I just signed up for a VPN, and I want to edit from it!" (paraphrased), and repeated reminders that they had sent an email a few days ago.

I'm assuming that you got an email about this as well? ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 11:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about editing from China? (I don't think I ever said that!) LaceyUF (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Could you please add my talk page to your watch-list for 30 days? I dug myself into a very deep hole and I could use an ally during this difficult time. All I ask is that you stay completely quiet for the coming few days until/unless my case goes to ArbCom. LaceyUF (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra and NinjaRobotPirate: I'm removing IPBE from this user based on private evidence another user forwarded me. Please contact me if you have questions. -- ferret (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Checkusers

Someone fixed my IP:BE a few minutes ago and I no longer need any help or assistance! LaceyUF (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Happy editing! --Yamla (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Cargo film" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cargo film. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 11#Cargo film until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 12:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

☑️ Seen and responded to on the relevant pages! LaceyUF (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Platform film" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Platform film. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 11#Platform film until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 12:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

☑️ Seen and responded to on the relevant pages! LaceyUF (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I received your email, but I have no knowledge of the information you requested. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, I found reference to the incident on Tamzin's talkpage (just fwiw to solemnly convey that I'm not inventing the story). Cheers, LaceyUF (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

I am not 100% sure, but perhaps you are talking about User: Ironholds. It took me a few minutes to remember who it may have been because several years have gone by. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I appreciate being pointed in the right direction and I apologize for not making it clear that this event took place quite a while back! LaceyUF (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You appear to have much more interest in wikipedia drama and inserting yourself into it than building/maintaining the encyclopedia. The evasion of your discord ban indicates further disruptive behavior. I've disabled your email as well, as you've apparently been sending emails of varying disruptive degrees to several different users. Further evidence for this block has been sent to Arbcom. I'm not sure what they will do moving forward, but you should appeal to them and not on your talk page if you wish to be unblocked. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 02:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees Hey, I'm sorry you feel that way. Is there maybe anything I can do to begin a dialog with you so that we can explore some of your claims in more detail? (interestingly, I read your RFA debriefing last night and was very moved by it) LaceyUF (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. Please refer to what I've previously said. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 03:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees If you're not willing to discuss this block with me or provide diffs to posit disruptive editing, then would you mind unblocking me or at least assigning a new admin for me to have discourse with? Cheers, LaceyUF (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to provide diffs and a further rationale. Looking over the entirety of your edits, a lot of them have to do with past drama and issues. In particular, stuff like this looks like an attempt to insert yourself into disputes that someone who has only been around for a bit can't really help with.Then there's this; had I failed rfa and then some stranger told me to run again, I would honestly feel a bit irritated. These issues are too complex and long running for a new user to bother with, so why are you bothering with them? Is it because you want some sort of clout or power? Wikipedia doesn't really work that way. At User talk:Chlod#Question, it seems like you want to do some Wikipedian mental study or ARG- but what does that have to do with Wikipedia? Or the above conversation with Cullen328 about someone who hasn't been around in almost a decade; why does that matter so much? Along with the evidence I've sent to arbcom, it all gives me the impression that you have some goal you want to accomplish that doesn't really have to do with the encyclopedia and won't really help it either. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 04:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees Thank you for your response. I notice and appreciate the level of diligence and professionalism you have given me by responding keenly to my request and providing diffs. I don't know about you but I definitely believe in the adage "respect begets respect" and I feel like a proper level of comity has been established now between us that enables a successful resolution to our disagreements regarding your claims of disruptive editing. Before I address your other issues, how do I send my counter-claims to ArbCom? It puts me at a significant disadvantage if you're allowed to speak ill will about me and I don't know how to present my side of the story to ArbCom. You obviously studied me quite well as an editor and I can confirm some of your intuitions about me are justified & warranted, especially regarding the convo that I had with Chlod. If you'll allow me to dispel the myth that I'm "not here to build an encyclopedia", I'd like to provide this diff and I can (and likely will) provide several others in the coming 3-4 days. Please respond to this message, at the very least, with an indication of how I can provide my counter-argument to ArbCom. Lastly, I profoundly appreciate your continued patience and newfound professionalism! 👍 LaceyUF (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees Sorry to ping you again but could you please respond when you get a chance? LaceyUF (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've been given your answer already. Private evidence is involved and you can appeal to Arbcom as directed. -- ferret (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret 2 quick questions: May I be allowed to view the private evidence (or at least a description)? Can you tell me how to contact Arbcom? LaceyUF (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly confident that you're quite aware of the things you've been emailing or direct messaging to various individuals and the kinds of proposals you've made to them. Wikipedia:Arbcom has the information you need. -- ferret (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret I appreciate your response but I still don't know how to contact Arbcom. I clicked the link you gave me and wound up with this email address: clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org Is that the preferred/optimal way for me to contact ArbCom? (if not, please tell me the preferred method) As for my emails and direct messages, I'd like to place strong emphasis on noting that I have been working for 4 months on an alternate reality game to be launched on reddit that involved an ostensible conspiracy on Wikipedia involving seemingly conspiratorial behavior to advance the plot midway through. ~~(It's complicated but there's only 1 Wikipedian who I probably told too much information and their name ends with a "T".)~~ LaceyUF (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom's page has a big yellow warning banner at the very top that points to their contact information. I have every confidence you'll figure it out. Even if the ARG excuse is truth, you have wasted the time of dozens of community members who have had to deal with the unsolicited emails and messages, as well as the users and admins that they approached to report your behavior. It's incredibly disruptive, and I don't buy the excuse for a moment. Go play on Reddit. -- ferret (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FerretThe person I was referring to in my last sentence in small/strikethrough font was Vermont. He and I are chatting on discord right now. He revealed to me he has been in contact with other high-ranking wiki-members about 10 minutes after I wrote my last message. Since you're the owner of the discord, I want to emphasize something I wrote earlier today -- I was never contacted or warned about my discord behavior or given appropriate feedback that I was causing such a major problem. You just banned me for what feels like because I didn't fit the cookie-cutter mold for proper discord etiquette. As you may be aware, other discord servers commonly use YAGPDB (bot) or MEEE-bot to kick or ban members because it allows you to issue a discord message to the banned user, which would have been very helpful bringing to my attention the amount of disruption I was causing. Going forward, I recommend you consider adding either of those 2 bots to your discord server since it may help prevent my situation from occurring and escalating unnecessarily. As I have told Vermont in discord a few minutes ago, other than the last 10 days, I've edited 3.5 years on this account and 2 years on my other account and never caused disruption or vandalism. Furthermore, I was never given any information or warnings about how problematic my discord messages or emails were. I never knew until after I was blocked. LaceyUF (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My 2nd appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

I'd like to request an uninvolved admin to check out my edit history and confirm that in my 4-year editing history, I've never engaged in disruptive editing. I spoke briefly on Chlod's talk page about my planned launch (on reddit) of an alternative reality game that had mild overlap on Wikipedia. If I understand Wikipedia policy correctly, blocks are not punitive and are intended primarily to prevent damage/harm to Wikipedia. My discord activity was partially-tied to the plot of my alternative reality game and I deeply apologize that my discord behavior turned out to be such a large problem -- I had no idea the escalation level as I had never been contacted in any way or given suitable feedback of how problematic my discord behavior was judged by others. LaceyUF (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the discussion above it really seems like it would be better for you to appeal to ArbCom. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 13 July 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.