User talk:PM ME UR FITS

March 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 29 March 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).

PM ME UR FITS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Left a reminder for user Codename Lisa to remain civil after noticing a pattern of rudeness from said user. I mentioned one such instance that I pulled from Codename Lisa's edits from the last 24 hours, linking to the edit in question and linking to the message Codename Lisa left for the other user—a misuse of Template:Uw-vandalism1, used in very poor taste to respond to a (good) edit from a (presumed) newcomer. I created an account to prevent unnecessary public disclosure of my IP when leaving the message on Codename Lisa's talk page. Very quickly blocked on a (rather hasty) assumption of being a sockpuppet operated by that other user. ಠ_ಠ In the future, exercise more caution. PM ME UR FITS (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree with Bbb23's assessment here; it seems very odd that a new user would pop up to make a comment about the edits of another new user being reverted. only (talk) 10:36, 29 March 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).

PM ME UR FITS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The sockpuppet policy is in place to prevent disruptive edits. This block does not comport that policy. Neither do "I think, therefore I ban", nor "better sorry than safe" comport with Wikipedia's sockpuppet policy. Please describe a way in which it would have been possible to bring up the issue from the message that I left Codename Lisa, and to do so in a way different the one I chose and to which the response was the block we are now discussing. PM ME UR FITS (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We don't need a Wikipedia-Constitutionally-sound version of (WP:NOTHERE or WP:SOCKPUPPETRY} to block WP:DUCK accounts. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:17, 29 March 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).

PM ME UR FITS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The response to unblock request #2 is totally unparseable. I ask again: Please describe any way in which it is possible to bring up the issue that I did, and furthermore, how it's at all possible to continue editing in the future. Like, literally anything. Drive-by commenters seem to indicate an indifference to examining the situation or caring enough about it to reverse the block. Hey, okay. Great. I'm not also not all that worried about convincing you personally that I'm not a sockpuppet if you're adamantly disinclined to care. What I mean to say is that I can live with the fact that there are people wrong on the Internet; I'll be okay. The problem is, as a person who has now been subject to a wrongful block, there is no path forward. Let's go through this. Suppose you say this: "We welcome any constructive edits you want to make. Here are the options available to you: A) Create a new account and edit under that"; answer: I can't. I'm blocked, remember? "B) Well, make 'anonymous' edits (IP-only edits)"; answer: you mean with the IP that's associated with an account that's blocked because somebody jumped the gun and cried "sockpuppet", and then have no way to prevent my IP from being publicly disclosed? "C) Er, okay, well, go somewhere where you can connect from a different IP and create an account, or log in from some old account you might have created a few years ago?" answer: you mean some account that will be associated with an IP that's blocked for being a sockpuppet, unless I do all my editing from a remote location and avoid this IP, and then get blocked from those accounts, because, hey, that IP is used by a "known" sockpuppet. The only possible path that seems to available to a person who's not a sockpuppet (read: me) seems to be, "D) Just get fucked and leave Wikipedia, whether you're a sock or not." PM ME UR FITS (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well played, but game over. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:44, 30 March 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.

You could have brought the issue up at WP:ANI. As the message from Codename Lisa is a perfectly friendly standard template message, however, I am not sure how you would have phrased your objection. In my opinion this block is valid.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the edit that Codename Lisa responded to with Template:Uw-vandalism1? Template:Uw-vandalism1 does go to great lengths—erring probably even more than it needs to—to be friendly and assume good faith wrt to edits that are for one reason or another "unconstructive" (read: vandalism). Template:Uw-vandalism1 is not, however, an appropriate response to non-vandalism. The point at which it's used as a response to non-vandalism is the point at which its use becomes uncivil. In the greater picture, this is part of the aforementioned pattern of rudeness I referred to in my first unblock request, where the pattern is for User:Codename Lisa to make several edits to effect some change (usually a revert), and embed in one of those edits a snipy edit summary and/or what happened in this case: misuse of an unrelated standard template response that constitutes a disproportionately aggressive message for the topic at hand.

In my opinion this block is valid.

On what basis? For all you and I have said about the appropriateness of User:Codename Lisa's original message, it's besides the point: the scope of this discussion is concerning the block wrt whether or not I'm a sockpuppet for User:Evilprincewiki. Even if you feel that User:Codename Lisa's message wasn't used in (let's say, to be generous) "poor judgement", that's immaterial to whether this block is justified, the rationale for which I remind you again is a (too-hasty) suspicion that I must be the same person behind the account that made the edits in the example I linked to in my message to User:Codename Lisa.

At this moment, we have User:Bbb23, who instituted the block, and another user discussing on User:Codename Lisa's talk page whether I am maybe, in fact, instead a sockpuppet for some other person—a person who is a) also not me; and b) obviously a non-native English speaker and can be triviably observed to write in no resemblance to my style (see User:FleetCommand's comment).

Given the above, with User:Bbb23 writing "I don't know anything" (emphasis in original comment), along with the fact that the single message I sent was non-disruptive, and so therefore the block would not be in accordance with policy, and the fact that policy also wasn't followed for actually putting the block in place (see Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Handling_suspected_sock_puppets), the block is without justification and should be removed. I repeat again, whatever your opinions on User:Codename Lisa's edit that I pointed out, it has no bearing on the veracity of the claim for the block. PM ME UR FITS (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond first to your quote of my comment above. I blocked you as a suspected puppet, which means that I don't know if the Evilwikiprince account and this account belong to the same person. If I knew, I wouldn't use the word "suspected". We don't have to know conclusively that someone is a sock of another account to block them. I am an WP:SPI clerk in addition to being an administrator, and I frequently block accounts based on behavior rather than technical proof. Usually, I have more edits to go on, both from the master and from the puppet accounts. In this case, I had one each. However, sometimes one edit can be more revealing than many, and in your case, no matter what you say, what you did was very unusual. That said, let's assume hypothetically that Evilwikiprince is not the master account. I have even greater trouble believing that this is the first account you've ever registered at Wikipedia. Thus, worst case, I have the wrong master but the right result. Finally, you write a bit like a lawyer, and I don't tend to engage in protracted discussions on these kinds of issues, so don't be surprised if I have no further comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to respond to here. I just posted a response, but have removed it because it seems you've adopted a stance of, essentially, "no matter what you do, I'll consider that to be a damning suggestion against you and therefore a reason to think of myself as right"; I'd rather focus on resolving the block rather than addressing spurious arguments, since every word written increases the likelihood that the reply will focus on anything but the things most pertinent to the discussion. PM ME UR FITS (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Each decline warned you about the consequences of making "too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests". Yours have been both. I have therefore revoked your talk page access. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! This is what happens when someone unaccustomed to authority in the real world gets a taste of it on the internet. Amusing but typically unhelpful. 104.156.240.163 (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]