User talk:Usernameistoosimilar

Usernameistoosimilar, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Usernameistoosimilar!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/143.85.18.18, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

DonIago (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation said that I wasn't a sock puppet, and no action was to be taken against me. You may post your apology on my page, for making an accusation. Usernameistoosimilar (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No apology? How classy of you.Usernameistoosimilar (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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 ~~~~}}. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:21, 8 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).

Request reason:

two reasons. 1. Bias - the banning admin is in contact with a editor who I have had dispute with and has suggested that this editor become an admin (you talk on his page, ban me and then go back to his page). There is a certain conflict of interest there. 2. I have not been here long enough to show a huge list of edits, however from my edits you can clearly see that I have contributed to talk pages, accepted consensus, corrected errors, accepted mediation from experienced users & provided sources for edits that were previous contested due to lacking sources ...oh and of course WP:DONTBITE Usernameistoosimilar (talk) 09:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After reviewing the situation, I concur with the blocking admin's decision. Max Semenik (talk) 16:18, 9 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.

You were told by DonIago quite plainly to stop trying to contact them via their talk page. You continued to do so. Continuing to post on someone's talk page after they have let you know in no uncertain terms you aren't welcome has gotten other users interaction bans at the absolute minimum, and usually blocks. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit was to revert Doniago in an existing edit war. All subsequent edits, bar one minor one to Florentino Pérez, have been to revert or harass Doniago. I'm not speaking for the rights and wrongs of Doniago's edits that you were reverting, but your focused and hostile approach is unhelpful and unwelcome. It's been spotted, and you've been blocked. If you have another account you can edit from that, if you don't have another account, and this is how you think you should be editing Wikipedia, then the project would be better off without such a confrontational editor who hounds other users over petty matters. If you show understanding for what you have done wrong, and put forward a convincing case that you will never do such a thing again, another admin may unblock you - the Wikipedia community is very forgiving and willing to give chances. But I am unwilling to unblock you, as I would then feel obliged to monitor your edits, which I am unwilling to do as I suspect this is a throw away account by someone who knows exactly what they are doing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone (who made false sock puppet reports against me) asks me not to post on their page, and then slaps unrequired templates on my talk page, that doesn't seem so serious about not wanting to interact. Does he get it both ways? I'm harassing him by posting there, but he can slap templates on my page, and make false sock puppet accusations against me and it's all ok, because he has been editing wikipedia for a long time and I'm a new editor? Please, tell me that isn't seriously how wikipedia works? I don't have another account, I used an IP once or twice (when I forgot to login) and I see no reason why I should be banned, when a blatant troll like Doniago is defended. You suspect I'm a throw away account? Well, Doniago suspected that I was a sockpuppet and the result of the investigation was that I wasn't. You're making assumptions about me and my motivations, when it's already been proven and stated not to be the case. You are wrong and making the wrong decisions. I'm sorry if that's blunt, but it's true. Usernameistoosimilar (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to answer your unblock request, but another admin did so first. I found, when I looked at this page, that I was feeling a measure of sympathy for your position. I then went and scanned every single one of your edits, and my sympathy vanished, to be replaced by a firm conviction that the block, and the unblock refusal, are fully justified. You clearly have a battleground approach here, and your edits to the other user are clearly harassment; indeed, with your jibes about adminship they appear quite obsessive. Unless you can see and understand the problem your edits cause I see no place for you here.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:28, 9 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).

Request reason:

as below... Usernameistoosimilar (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have a history of numerous kinds of disruptive editing, including edit warring, wasting other editors' time by persistently going on about trivia, persistently trying to harass another editor, and refusing to follow Wikipedia policy. There is no constructive editing to balance against all that unconstructive editing. Unblocking you would not benefit the encyclopaedia in the least. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:56, 19 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.

The problem my edits cause are obvious, I saw unreasonable edits by an editor who was gaming the system and tried to rectify them. My edits have caused ill-feeling for one editor on a tiny amount of articles. His edits have caused ill-feeling for a much larger number of editors on numerous articles, but because he has been here for a much longer time than me, that doesn't seem to bother anyone. If it makes people happy, I'm sure I can promise to be nice and stay away from his talk page and his drama (assuming he does the same), but that won't change my opinion that: 1. He is taking great pleasure in annoying people and contributes little to wikipedia apart from drama. 2. Wikipedia rules are being made to look less than effective with editors like him. 3. people are judged by the length of time they have been here, rather than what they actually do. So unban me, and see if I would be a good member of the wikipedia clique, I'm sure it will only take you a second to ban me again, if I don't seem to be contributing in a constructive manner. Usernameistoosimilar (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I nearly forgot. I am on a shared IP that is used by numerous people. If I remain blocked from editing wikipedia, how will this affect other users of that IP if they wish to edit 1. English wikipedia? 2. Other language versions of wikipedia? I can't really give details of this IP here, but I am more than willing to disclose it somewhere more secure/private than a talk page. Usernameistoosimilar (talk) 07:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are always local. They will be able to edit other Wikimedia Foundation projects just fine; they may see an autoblock if they try to edit here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 14:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will resist the temptation to test it, to see if my IP sounds any autoblock alarms in wikipedia. As interesting as it is to find out, I'm sure someone will think I was trying to evade a ban or something equally bad. The strange thing is that due to the nature of my IP, I have no idea how many people I am sharing it with etc etc...anyway thanks for the info, Jeremy.Usernameistoosimilar (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]