User talk:143.176.216.29: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:35, 20 December 2015

Your submission at Articles for creation: Presidential Bid (April 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jamietw was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Presidential Bid and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jamietw (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Teahouse, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jamietw (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added full sources now, but there are sources in other wikipedia articles as well. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hans Claessen (April 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hans Claessen and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Teahouse, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Presidential Bid (April 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. We cannot accept articles that are little more than definitions of words or abbreviations as entries. A good article should begin with a good definition, but expand on the subject. Please try creating an article at Wiktionary instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Presidential Bid and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Teahouse, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hans Claessen has been accepted

Hans Claessen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Your recent editing history at Ephebophilia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 08:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Blocked from editing

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for disruptive editing and edit warring (continued from here), as you did at Ephebophilia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:21, 17 September 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is false. There have been no disruptive editing by me (see talkpage). And this cannot be called an editwar (see 3RR). And even if it was true, one month for a first offence? Are you kidding me? PS Admin is linking to contributions made by another IP from the same country, without providing any proof or explanation for this accusation. This is probably only based on assumptions made by a self-proclaimed sockpuppet expert and certainly not on findings from checkuser 143.176.216.29 (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Karl Dickman ^talk 02:27, 18 September 2015 (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.

Please note that the user accusing me of an editwar is referring to an edit made on the 11th of September at 21:25 143.176.216.29 (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second note: I have been checking the users edit history, he or she get's in fights and editwars a lot. Perhaps it's time to point this out to the user, instead of rewarding the user by preventing me from responding to the rfc. _{(Edit: She just removed the RFC-tag to prevent others from giving their opinion)}143.176.216.29 (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: Tele2 serves 34 million customers in 10 countries 143.176.216.29 (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for other editors, but when I placed the 3RR warning on this page, I did so because of the following four (4) edits, which are each less than 24 hours old: first edit, second for 3RR purposes, third for 3RR purposes, fourth for 3RR purposes. Any questions? Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 08:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have. The first edit you mentioned was made almost a week ago. The 'second' was not a revert because I added the requested scource (see comments in edit history). That leaves me at two reverts, if you count the one I had to do on flyer22. I'm not sure if this warning is right, but even if it is I still have a question. I believe you need to issue a warning first and you just did. So why am I also being blocked for two months for these reverts? 143.176.216.29 (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are clearly 143.176.62.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Denying it is futile. Callanecc is a WP:CheckUser, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 09:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then do a checkuser. You cannot block someone based on assumptions! Why are you so overly aggressive towards so many people here on the wiki? Check his/her edit history. Am I the only one who has noticed this?143.176.216.29 (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also, the rule is not to edit war. 3RR is a bright line that makes it apparent that someone is engaged in an edit war, but editors can be blocked for edit warring even without a violation of 3RR, and without the warning I placed on your page. Technically, that warning is a courtesy, not a requirement, prior to blocking for this reason. My warning was posted only about one minute before you were blocked, which tells me that the admin who blocked you had already decided to do so, and was already completing that process when my warning was posted. The warning itself wasn't considered in the block decision, and didn't need to be. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 09:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't consider this an edit war untill flyer22 removed the rfc. But I was allready blocked once I realised this was actually considered to be an editwar. Prior to my edits I have opened a discussion on the talkpage, and like I said the first edit was almost a week ago and the second edit was not a revert (as I was asked for a source and supplied it). There was no reason for me to see this as an editwar. I'm really stunned by the fact that flyer22 is allowed to remove the rfc. How is that not battleground behaviour? 143.176.216.29 (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that Callanecc didn't do a WP:CheckUser run on both IPs? As for assumptions? No, no. My user page is clear about how I recognize editors. The behavioral evidence combined with the IP range you are known for editing with is all the proof needed in this case. As for my behavior, I despise disruptive editing. My discussion with you about all of this here at your talk page is now over. Flyer22 (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I would not have been blocked if anyone actually did a WP:CheckUser. There is no credible evidence, all you have is an IP range from one of the biggest ISP's in Europe. Your assumptions or self-proclaimed expertise are no evidence for any of this. All they proof is anger. You should really look into the mirror, you get into fights with other users on a regular basis. How come you not regonise your own disruptive behaviour? And what's with this rfc removal? 143.176.216.29 (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Removed !

The rfc I have placed on the talkpage was just removed by flyer22. Please do something about this. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quote Flyer22:

_{"Do I sometimes use the term pedoph*le broadly? Yes, I do (not too broadly). But on Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, I want to get it right; I should get it right."}

This is confusing me, if she want's to get it right, why would she remove an RFC-tag? Why avoid the discussion, is this removal even allowed? 143.176.216.29 (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_{Please note that I had to use an astrix to mask the P-word because of an automated filter.143.176.216.29 (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

Changes on Taqiya article

There is mention of you here [1] on the talk page of the Taqiya article. Xtremedood (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed alternate accounts

Undisclosed alternate accounts are not allowed to participate in project discussions, this includes using an IP. If you want to report people to noticeboards then you will have to login to your primary account. HighInBC 22:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? 143.176.216.29 (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts: Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. HighInBC 22:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an alternative account, so this does not apply. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty clear that you this IP is not your primary account. You are clearly logging out to complain about someone, not allowed. HighInBC 22:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then you clearly have evidence, where is it? Why are you not following the guidelines? How dare you, you are supposed to be a moderator! You are obviously too IP-biased to handle the report I made on the noticeboard. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you are not an alternate account it is not appropriate to re-insert reports after they have been reviewed and rejected by an administrator. I find it interesting that someone who does not have another account is familiar with checkusers, that and other things you have said make it clear you are not new here.

I made it clear that alternate accounts are not to participate in project discussions, if you are willing to accept that then I can unblock and you can use this IP for allowed uses of an alternate account. HighInBC 22:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opion on my knowledge of policy is irrelevant. I am not willing to accept this and will report you for violating the guidelines as soon as I am unblocked. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will wait for someone uninvolved to review this. I would be a lot faster if you just agreed to not participate in project space discussions outside of your primary account, then I could just unblock you right away. HighInBC 22:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, you did not review the report. Where is your review? 143.176.216.29 (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UAA is for clear cut informal cases, they can simply be rejected. If you want an actual review use your primary account to open a case at WP:RFCN. HighInBC 22:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an account. Please enlighten me, what are these false acquisitions based on and why didn't you check for evidence? 143.176.216.29 (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

_{QUOTE:"If you decide that a reported username does not require administrative action, please notify the filing editor with a descriptive reason. Common reasons have been included in Template:UAA, which can be listed under reports. You are also encouraged to alert the filing editor on his or her talk page, possibly with Thank you for your report at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention (UAA). However, your report was removed as UAA is for username policy infringements that are serious enough to warrant an immediate block. General name policy violations should first be discussed with the user on their talk page. A helpful template to do just that is {{subst:Uw-username}}. Note that a request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. You may find the UAA instructions helpful, and I'd recommend reading them over prior to making future reports to UAA. Thank you. , which has been created for this purpose."} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.216.29 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 18 December 2015‎

Once again, it is clear that you have experience here despite showing up to file a report with no history. It is called the WP:DUCK test and you are loudly quacking. Even if you are not an alternate account, and I think you are, you still cannot repeated post reports to a noticeboard after they have been rejected. You behaviour is disruptive, agree to stop and the block will be lifted. Either that or patiently wait until another admin has time to review this block. HighInBC 22:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never made any edit with a registered account. How many edits does my IP-adress have on both the Dutch and English wikipedia? Hundreds! You have blocked me for sockpuppetry on false grounds. If you do not unblock me I will report you after my block has been reviewed. You show clear bias towards IP-users wich is unacceptable behaviour for a moderator. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can claim all of those edits are yours, but I have no way of knowing that. If all of those edits are indeed yours then you have a history of disruptive behaviour, and have made other postings showing prior experience. Either way I am happy with this block.

I have offered to unblock you if you stop repeatedly posting rejected reports to UAA, that is something we expect from everyone alternate account or not. If you can't agree to this simple thing then you will just have to wait it out. You are of course welcome to report me after. HighInBC 22:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You block is based on false grounds, you have blocked me for sock puppetry. There is no reason to believe I'm editing from a registred account. I have made over a thousand constructive edits on the Dutch wikipedia and hundreds on the English wikipedia. You also did not provide any checkuser because you believe my knowledge of policy is evidence for using a registred account. If you truly okay with that then you should not be a moderator. I cannot consider your offer unless you block me for a valid reason. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to not be listening to what I am saying. I will say it one more time and if it does not sink in I will stop talking to you. Even if you are not an alternate account your behaviour was still unacceptable, if you agree to stop reposting rejected reports to the noticeboard I will remove the block. If you can't understand this then perhaps the reviewer will do better explaining this to you. HighInBC 23:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot sink in unless you explain what it was that I did violate. Was it 3R? Was it sockpuppetry? Did I ignore the UAA notification?

_{QUOTE UAA Instructions, section 3:"If you decide that a reported username does not require administrative action, please notify the filing editor with a descriptive reason."}

I did not see any notification, but I might have overlooked it. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The report was cancelled because WP:UAA is for obvious cases. It had been there 10 hours and had an extensive discussion, that is not what UAA is for. HighInBC 23:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you not review it and make a decision? You could have just used {{UAA|rn}} or {{UAA|no}} and all this would have been avoided, because I would have known that it was reviewed and closed. I did not get the required notification so I had no way of knowing that you are a moderator. That being said, I'm not even sure reviews can be cancled at all. It looked like a plain revert to me, was it not?

_{QUOTE: "You are clearly logging out to complain about someone, not allowed. HighInBC 22:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)}

The above quote makes it look like you cancled the request because you believe I am a sockpuppet, is that part of the reason?143.176.216.29 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the report before even taking to you, I would have done the same regardless of who reported it. You were blocked after you repeated the report after me asking you not to. I don't know what this "review" you are talking about is, look at how UAA works you will see reports are either acted upon or removed. Please stop trying to guess my motives, you are not very good at it. HighInBC 23:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it would be easier if you'd just explain your motives. You obviously did not block me for 3R and did not inform me that you are a moderator who cancled the report.

_{QUOTE UAA:"notify the filing editor with a descriptive reason."}

You just told me I was not allowed to submit a report because I was 'logging out' to use my IP-adress (see section above: Undisclosed alternate accounts). You did not identify yourself as a moderator until you blocked me. Why not?143.176.216.29 (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explain my motive? I don't know if I have said this already but if you agree not to re-post the report I can unblock you. My motive is clearly to prevent you from reposting reports that have already been examined and handled. Until you agree to this simple request the block will stand, as Ohnoitsjamie mentions if you carry on after the block then another block can be made longer.

You are not the first person to not accept an outcome they did not like.

Anyone is allowed to ask you to stop disruptive behaviour administrator or not(we don't have "moderators"), so why would I bring that fact up? Being an admin is no big deal. HighInBC 00:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the timestamps, you did not ask me anything until after I was blocked. Prior to the block, you did not mention that the report had been reviewed or cancled by an administrator. The report was an obvious violation, the translation of poepkop is shit head. Someone just removed it without notifying the filing editor with a descriptive reason. All you did was write on my talkpage that I am not allowed to submit a report using an IP-adress. How am I supposed to know that you were allowed to remove the report? You could have just reviewed and closed the report, but you did not. So how is my repost disruptive if there was no actuall violation? 143.176.216.29 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

22:14, 22:29, 22:30. Looks like I asked you to stop before I blocked you and did not block you until after you continued. I am done here, I don't think any amount of me explaining myself will satisfy you. If you really think I am wrong you can file your report once your block is expired. HighInBC 00:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what you wrote? At 22:14 you told me I could not submit a report with an 'undisclosed alternate account'. There is no mention of the report being examined by an admin. I only reverted once, at 22:29 right after I found out someone deleted the report. As you can see in the edit comments I wrote: "Needs a moderator review". At 22:31 you responded to this by immediately blocking me. It does not even remotely look like you asked me to stop. No warning was given, no request was made. How can you overlook this? Even admins make mistakes, a good one knows when to admit it. I am going to bed now and will probably be afk for most the weekend. I'm really disappointed by your selective reading. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer to take the weekend off rather than simply agree to not repost the report then fine. I have given you a clear path to being unblocked, you have simply chosen not to accept it. HighInBC 00:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about me agreeing not to revert. It is about you immediately blocking me after one single revert without a prior warning or anything that even remotely resembles one. I'm not taking a brake, I simply have too many activities this weekend. Why are you reading so selectively? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.216.29 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 19 December 2015‎

December 2015

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. HighInBC 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

Request reason:

Blocked without a checkuser. Being falsly accused of sockpuppetry without investigatioin is abuse of moderator powers. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not The Hague. A checkuser is not required for a sock block. If after this block expires you resume restoring closed reports, your next block will be for a longer duration. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:09, 18 December 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

There is no evidence for sockpuppetry at all. Having experience with wikipedia is no evidence for sockpuppetry. I have over 1000 constructive edits from this IP-adres on the Dutch wiki and hundreds here on the English wikipedia. The report was cancled because I was accussed of being a sockpuppet, there has not been a review. There was no notification of the report being closed and restoring the cancled report was not given as a reason for blocking me (no 3R violation).

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts; I don't care why you created PoopKopf and Scheiße Kopf and Poep Temp, but at the very least it's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and you're lucky it's only a short block. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:15, 19 December 2015 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

That is insane, you are just defending each other. I tried to create those yesterday to check the profanity filter. It gave me an error, so those are not even supposed to exist! Besides, everybody can see no edits have been made with User:PoopKopf, User:Scheiße Kopf and User:Poep Temp. Since none of these ONE DAY OLD accounts have been used, it is not possible that an account has been abused: this is no violation of Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry. I have over a thousand constructive edits with this IP-adres and ZERO edits with a registred account!

EDIT: I just checked and those accounts do not excist! As I said I was testing the profanity filter and the usernames obviously did not pass the test. They only show up in the checkuser log because they were automaticaly rejected. This is no disruption because users cannot read this log. No edits have ever been made by me from a registred account, nor did I ever login.

_{Quote userpage:“User account "PoopKopf" is not registered.”
Quote userpage“User account "Scheiße Kopf" is not registered.”
Quote userpage:“User account "Poep Temp" is not registered.”}
Please erase the excistance of this block completly from all logs, as it was not justified by any policy.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=That is insane, you are just defending each other. I tried to create those yesterday to check the profanity filter. It gave me an error, so those are not even supposed to exist! Besides, everybody can see no edits have been made with [[User:PoopKopf]], [[User:Scheiße Kopf]] and [[User:Poep Temp]]. Since none of these ONE DAY OLD accounts have been used, it is not possible that an account has been abused: this is no violation of [[Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry]]. I have over a thousand constructive edits with this IP-adres and ZERO edits with a registred account!<p>EDIT: I just checked and those accounts <b>do not excist!</b> As I said I was testing the profanity filter and the usernames obviously did not pass the test. They only show up in the checkuser log because they were automaticaly rejected. This is no disruption because [[WP:POINT|users cannot read this log]]. No edits have ever been made by me from a registred account, nor did I ever login.</p><sub><p>[[User:PoopKopf|Quote userpage]]:“User account "PoopKopf" is not registered.”</p><p>[[User:Scheiße Kopf|Quote userpage]]“User account "Scheiße Kopf" is not registered.”</p><p>[[User:Poep_Temp|Quote userpage]]:“User account "Poep Temp" is not registered.”</p></sub><br/><b> Please erase the excistance of this block completly from all logs, as it was not justified by any policy.</b> |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=That is insane, you are just defending each other. I tried to create those yesterday to check the profanity filter. It gave me an error, so those are not even supposed to exist! Besides, everybody can see no edits have been made with [[User:PoopKopf]], [[User:Scheiße Kopf]] and [[User:Poep Temp]]. Since none of these ONE DAY OLD accounts have been used, it is not possible that an account has been abused: this is no violation of [[Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry]]. I have over a thousand constructive edits with this IP-adres and ZERO edits with a registred account!<p>EDIT: I just checked and those accounts <b>do not excist!</b> As I said I was testing the profanity filter and the usernames obviously did not pass the test. They only show up in the checkuser log because they were automaticaly rejected. This is no disruption because [[WP:POINT|users cannot read this log]]. No edits have ever been made by me from a registred account, nor did I ever login.</p><sub><p>[[User:PoopKopf|Quote userpage]]:“User account "PoopKopf" is not registered.”</p><p>[[User:Scheiße Kopf|Quote userpage]]“User account "Scheiße Kopf" is not registered.”</p><p>[[User:Poep_Temp|Quote userpage]]:“User account "Poep Temp" is not registered.”</p></sub><br/><b> Please erase the excistance of this block completly from all logs, as it was not justified by any policy.</b> |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=That is insane, you are just defending each other. I tried to create those yesterday to check the profanity filter. It gave me an error, so those are not even supposed to exist! Besides, everybody can see no edits have been made with [[User:PoopKopf]], [[User:Scheiße Kopf]] and [[User:Poep Temp]]. Since none of these ONE DAY OLD accounts have been used, it is not possible that an account has been abused: this is no violation of [[Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry]]. I have over a thousand constructive edits with this IP-adres and ZERO edits with a registred account!<p>EDIT: I just checked and those accounts <b>do not excist!</b> As I said I was testing the profanity filter and the usernames obviously did not pass the test. They only show up in the checkuser log because they were automaticaly rejected. This is no disruption because [[WP:POINT|users cannot read this log]]. No edits have ever been made by me from a registred account, nor did I ever login.</p><sub><p>[[User:PoopKopf|Quote userpage]]:“User account "PoopKopf" is not registered.”</p><p>[[User:Scheiße Kopf|Quote userpage]]“User account "Scheiße Kopf" is not registered.”</p><p>[[User:Poep_Temp|Quote userpage]]:“User account "Poep Temp" is not registered.”</p></sub><br/><b> Please erase the excistance of this block completly from all logs, as it was not justified by any policy.</b> |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You're no longer blocked so maybe you should drop the stick. clpo13_(talk) 23:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: What policy was violated?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Was any policy violated by the IP-User and if so did it justify a block? Checkuser proofs no edits have been made from a registred account the by IP-user, as no registered accounts actually excist. The checkuser log shows failed registration attempts, but those did not pass the profanity test and have not been registerd. This can be confirmed by visiting the userpages User:PoopKopf, User:Scheiße Kopf and User:Poep Temp. Since regular users can not view the checkuser log, examinaning what is filtered out and what is not, can not be considered WP:POINT. The accounts do not excist. The IP-user has never made any edits while logged in to an account, neither did he ever log in. I'm asking this question because the selective reading of moderators involved make it very hard to understand this. Note that that I am no longer blocked. 143.176.216.29 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == Your submission at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]]: [[Draft:Presidential Bid|Presidential Bid]] (April 13) ==
 <div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> [[File:AFC-Logo_Decline.svg|50px|left]]Your recent article submission to [[WP:AFC|Articles for Creation]] has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.<nowiki> </nowiki>The reason left by Jamietw was:
@@ Line 147: / Line 145: @@
 :::::: I did not see any notification, but I might have overlooked it. [[Special:Contributions/143.176.216.29|143.176.216.29]] ([[User talk:143.176.216.29#top|talk]]) 23:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
-== December 2015 ==
-<small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
-<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] Anonymous users from this IP address have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for [[WP:Disruptive editing|abuse of editing privileges]].   If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[WP:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by first reading the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}. &nbsp;[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkOliveGreen">HighInBC</b>]] 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)</div>
-: ''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]] and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by [[Special:Userlogin|logging in]]''.<!-- Template:uw-ablock -->
-{{unblock reviewed | 1=Blocked without a checkuser. Being falsly accused of sockpuppetry without investigatioin is abuse of moderator powers. [[Special:Contributions/143.176.216.29|143.176.216.29]] ([[User talk:143.176.216.29#top|talk]]) 22:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC) | decline = This is not [[The Hague]]. A checkuser is not required for a sock block. If after this block expires you resume restoring closed reports, your next block will be for a longer duration. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 23:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)}}
-{{unblock|reason= That is insane, you are just defending each other. I tried to create those yesterday to check the profanity filter. It gave me an error, so those are not even supposed to exist! Besides, everybody can see no edits have been made with [[User:PoopKopf]], [[User:Scheiße Kopf]] and [[User:Poep Temp]]. Since none of these ONE DAY OLD accounts have been used, it is not possible that an account has been abused: this is no violation of [[Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry]]. I have over a thousand constructive edits with this IP-adres and ZERO edits with a registred account!<p>EDIT: I just checked and those accounts <b>do not excist!</b> As I said I was testing the profanity filter and the usernames obviously did not pass the test. They only show up in the checkuser log because they were automaticaly rejected. This is no disruption because [[WP:POINT|users cannot read this log]]. No edits have ever been made by me from a registred account, nor did I ever login.</p><sub><p>[[User:PoopKopf|Quote userpage]]:“User account "PoopKopf" is not registered.”</p><p>[[User:Scheiße Kopf|Quote userpage]]“User account "Scheiße Kopf" is not registered.”</p><p>[[User:Poep_Temp|Quote userpage]]:“User account "Poep Temp" is not registered.”</p></sub><br/><b> Please erase the excistance of this block completly from all logs, as it was not justified by any policy.</b>
-}}
 :The report was cancelled because [[WP:UAA]] is for obvious cases. It had been there 10 hours and had an extensive discussion, that is not what UAA is for. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkOliveGreen">HighInBC</b>]] 23:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 :: Then why did you not review it and make a decision? You could have just used <nowiki>{{UAA|rn}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{UAA|no}}</nowiki> and all this would have been avoided, because I would have known that it was reviewed and closed. I did not get the required notification so I had no way of knowing that you are a moderator. That being said, I'm not even sure reviews can be cancled at all. It looked like a plain revert to me, was it not?<br/>
@@ Line 174: / Line 164: @@
 ::If you prefer to take the weekend off rather than simply agree to not repost the report then fine. I have given you a clear path to being unblocked, you have simply chosen not to accept it. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkOliveGreen">HighInBC</b>]] 00:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 ::: This is not about me agreeing not to revert. It is about you immediately blocking me after one single revert without a prior warning or anything that even remotely resembles one. I'm not taking a brake, I simply have too many activities this weekend. Why are you reading so selectively? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:143.176.216.29|143.176.216.29]] ([[User talk:143.176.216.29|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/143.176.216.29|contribs]]) 01:05, 19 December 2015‎</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
+== December 2015 ==
+<small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
-== What policy was violated? ==
+<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] Anonymous users from this IP address have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for [[WP:Disruptive editing|abuse of editing privileges]].   If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[WP:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by first reading the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}. &nbsp;[[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:DarkOliveGreen">HighInBC</b>]] 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)</div>
-{{rfc|policy}}Was any policy violated by the IP-User and if so did it justify a block? Checkuser proofs no edits have been made from a registred account the by IP-user, as no registered accounts actually excist. The checkuser log shows failed registration attempts, but those did not pass the profanity test and have not been registerd. This can be confirmed by visiting the userpages [[User:PoopKopf]], [[User:Scheiße Kopf]] and [[User:Poep Temp]]. Since regular users can not view the checkuser log, examinaning what is filtered out and what is not, can not be considered [[WP:POINT]]. The accounts do not excist. The IP-user has never made any edits while logged in to an account, neither did he ever log in. I'm asking this question because the selective reading of moderators involved make it very hard to understand this. Note that that I am <b>no longer blocked</b>. [[Special:Contributions/143.176.216.29|143.176.216.29]] ([[User talk:143.176.216.29#top|talk]]) 23:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
+: ''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]] and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by [[Special:Userlogin|logging in]]''.<!-- Template:uw-ablock -->
-:You're no longer blocked so maybe you should [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]]. [[User:Clpo13|clpo13]]<sub>([[User_talk:Clpo13|talk]])</sub> 23:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
+{{unblock reviewed | 1=Blocked without a checkuser. Being falsly accused of sockpuppetry without investigatioin is abuse of moderator powers. [[Special:Contributions/143.176.216.29|143.176.216.29]] ([[User talk:143.176.216.29#top|talk]]) 22:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC) | decline = This is not [[The Hague]]. A checkuser is not required for a sock block. If after this block expires you resume restoring closed reports, your next block will be for a longer duration. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<font color="#D47C14">itsJamie</font>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 23:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)}}
 {{unblock reviewed| reason= There is no evidence for sockpuppetry at all. Having experience with wikipedia is no evidence for sockpuppetry. I have over [https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Bijdragen/143.176.216.29 1000 constructive edits] from this IP-adres on the Dutch wiki and hundreds here on the [[Special:Contributions/143.176.216.29|English wikipedia]]. The report was cancled because I was accussed of being a sockpuppet, there has not been a review. There was no notification of the report being closed and restoring the cancled report was not given as a reason for blocking me (no 3R violation).|decline=Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts; I don't care why you created PoopKopf and Scheiße Kopf and Poep Temp, but at the very least it's [[WP:POINT|disrupting Wikipedia to make a point]], and you're lucky it's only a short block. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|::==( o )]]</small></sup> 22:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC)}}
+{{unblock|reason= That is insane, you are just defending each other. I tried to create those yesterday to check the profanity filter. It gave me an error, so those are not even supposed to exist! Besides, everybody can see no edits have been made with [[User:PoopKopf]], [[User:Scheiße Kopf]] and [[User:Poep Temp]]. Since none of these ONE DAY OLD accounts have been used, it is not possible that an account has been abused: this is no violation of [[Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry]]. I have over a thousand constructive edits with this IP-adres and ZERO edits with a registred account!<p>EDIT: I just checked and those accounts <b>do not excist!</b> As I said I was testing the profanity filter and the usernames obviously did not pass the test. They only show up in the checkuser log because they were automaticaly rejected. This is no disruption because [[WP:POINT|users cannot read this log]]. No edits have ever been made by me from a registred account, nor did I ever login.</p><sub><p>[[User:PoopKopf|Quote userpage]]:“User account "PoopKopf" is not registered.”</p><p>[[User:Scheiße Kopf|Quote userpage]]“User account "Scheiße Kopf" is not registered.”</p><p>[[User:Poep_Temp|Quote userpage]]:“User account "Poep Temp" is not registered.”</p></sub><br/><b> Please erase the excistance of this block completly from all logs, as it was not justified by any policy.</b>
+}}
+:You're no longer blocked so maybe you should [[WP:STICK|drop the stick]]. [[User:Clpo13|clpo13]]<sub>([[User_talk:Clpo13|talk]])</sub> 23:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
+=== RFC: What policy was violated? ===
+{{rfc|policy}}Was any policy violated by the IP-User and if so did it justify a block? Checkuser proofs no edits have been made from a registred account the by IP-user, as no registered accounts actually excist. The checkuser log shows failed registration attempts, but those did not pass the profanity test and have not been registerd. This can be confirmed by visiting the userpages [[User:PoopKopf]], [[User:Scheiße Kopf]] and [[User:Poep Temp]]. Since regular users can not view the checkuser log, examinaning what is filtered out and what is not, can not be considered [[WP:POINT]]. The accounts do not excist. The IP-user has never made any edits while logged in to an account, neither did he ever log in. I'm asking this question because the selective reading of moderators involved make it very hard to understand this. Note that that I am <b>no longer blocked</b>. [[Special:Contributions/143.176.216.29|143.176.216.29]] ([[User talk:143.176.216.29#top|talk]]) 23:29, 20 December 2015 (UTC)