User talk:Mister Encyclopedia

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).

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

Request reason:

Yes I am a sock. However, I thought I've made it abundantly clear already that I'm no longer interested in making up hoax bridges & tunnels, and that I'm sorry for my actions related to that last year. Now, I'm interested in constructively editing bridge-related articles, as well as articles on other subjects, and helping out in project namespace. When considering this request, please don't discount the sock puppetry but please strongly weigh the block evasion between WP:ROPE and WP:IAR.

Decline reason:

Per below, the matter can be revisited again in six months if ILB is able to refrain from socking during that period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:53, 16 August 2016 (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.

@Newyorkbrad: Given the information you provided to me here, would you consider an unblock given the rationale I provided above? ME (Contact) 21:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If your account were unblocked now, what sort of contributions to Wikipedia would you make? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Is there any practical reason not to address the unblock request on-wiki on this page? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My decline of the unblock request clashed with your response, but I'm happy for you to deal with it here if you're happy to. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted my unblock decline. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: My main focus area in terms of bridges would be to create articles regarding the extensively redlinked lists here and here. Also, I would add crossings navbox and infobox to existing articles. I'm also interested in skyscrapers and the like, so I may edit some articles related to that. In addition, I may help out in project space such as participating at AFD and RFA. Reverting vandalism and other inappropriate content (prehaps eventually applying for rollback, although that's not set in stone) would be another high priority for me. ME (Contact) 21:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. To reflect your intention to make good-faith efforts, perhaps you could give a few examples of edits you would make if unblocked. Take your time to come up with some good ones, and I'll look at this page again tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. ME (Contact) 21:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the ticket you opened at WP:UTRS, since there's no reason for this matter to be handled in two different places. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See User:The United States of America is the best. Apparently there still was quite a bit of ongoing sockpuppetry. Huon (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced that I am not eligable for return. I think that this is a blatant case of WP:IAR since while I've been block evading, at least I've been making good-faith edits. Besides, @DeltaQuad: could you please tell me which of my edit(s) made with the USA account prompted you to run CheckUser, as the policy states that CU must be run with good cause? ME (Contact) 00:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to hand over the reason on how you were able to be found and be blocked while your still blocked. You can either file proceedings with ArbCom or the Ombuds, or if you get unblocked, that *might* be a discussion I'm willing to have once i'm convinced your done socking. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Giving yourself a free pass for ongoing block evasion is not what WP:IAR is intended for. I agree with Huon's unblock decline. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: In March of this year, you blocked my home IP address. Once that block expires, are the other members of my family, who are not vandals and/or block evaders, allowed to edit without it negatively affecting me? Or is my entire household banned until I specifically am unblocked? ME (Contact) 19:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BROTHER covers all of that. (In other words, I highly doubt the rest of your family is chomping at the bit to edit Wikipedia). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohnoitsjamie: Is this comment accurate? By the way, not to throw you under the bus, but I dug up the exact edit that set me off in the first place and started the whole sock puppetry spree. I don't think this issue would've gone as far as it has if it wasn't for that. ME (Contact) 19:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a chat room. Your talk page access has been revoked at this page. You may use WP:UTRS in 6 months per WP:STANDARDOFFER assuming that you can refrain from further sockuppetry. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article to be created if unblocked: Duck Bridge

The Duck Bridge is a Double-Intersection Warren Through Truss Bridge that carries Union Street over the Merrimack River in Lawrence, Massachusetts. The bridge is a large, multi-span example of its type (which is exceedingly rare), and is also an old example, originally built in 1888 and retains its original riveted connections. It was built by Boston Bridge Works, a company that was a pioneer in using riveted connections in truss bridges. The bridge just finished undergoing a rehab project to preserve the structure.

References

http://historicbridges.org/bridges/browser/?bridgebrowser=massachusetts/union/