FluffyPandars
March 2016
edit
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smoore95GAGA. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I just saw the source now, I didn't see it earlier. That was my bad. I make mistakes too. Carbrera (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
But notice how I didn't report you for making a mistake. We're all human. What I can't stand about you is that you don't let me make any mistakes, but you make mistakes yourself. I appreciate and respect you owing up to your mistake though. FluffyPandars (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- However, I don't report you for making a mistake; I report you for vandalism, edit-warring, creation of sock puppet accounts, continuation of sock puppetry, personal attacks against myself, personal attacks against other users, and creation of an attacking account. Carbrera (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I never attacked you until you reported me. It's not like I created an account and then attacked you (I know I did that with the one account, but just that one). And dude, I would stop attacking you if you would stop reporting me for every little thing I do. So I'm a sock, so what? If a person gets banned forever, but they come back and make constructive edits, couldn't they be forgiven? And you're still not correct about the vandalism thing. I have never vandalized. Again, vandalism is adding your own personal opinion to a page. Adding someone's middle name, or changing the name to how they're commonly credited as, is not an opinion. You may think it's not correct, but it's not vandalism. Also, when did I edit-war with this account? One revert is NOT edit-warring. That would be three or more. FluffyPandars (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Vandalism on Wikipedia is where you purposely add incorrect information to an article, which you have done easily 20+ times. Carbrera (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Here is Wikipedia's official definition: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism." You fit the definition like a glove. Carbrera (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect IN YOUR OPINION. I don't think it was incorrect, seeing as Stargate is almost always credited that way. This is what I mean. You think that whenever someone disagrees with you, they're incorrect and edit-warring. EXCEPT YOU DO THE SAME THING WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH SOMEONE! It's all opinion-based! The only time it's not ok is when you've reverted an edit three or more bloody times! And also, I have tried, in the past, to talk to you and Livelikemusic about what we're edit-warring about, and neither of you try to talk to me about it. So how is that fair? You may think Livelikemusic is a great guy, but he's not. He edit-wars just like everyone else, except he's unwilling to talk to people about why he's doing it. That's why I've personally attacked him so many times. FluffyPandars (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
That is wrong in so many ways. In what way is adding someone's middle name any of that stuff? I'll go through all of it. "Adding irrelevant obscenities"- I never cursed, just added middle names. "Crude humor"- Well I obviously wasn't trying to be funny. "Illegitimately blanking pages"- Nope. "Inserting obvious nonsense to a page"- Adding a middle name is nonsense? If you think it is, that's just wrong. FluffyPandars (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Also incorrect. Livelikemusic doesn't edit-war. And if he ever did, that was bad of him and I'm sure he's learned from it. However, I'm not here to speak for him. He does a great job of responding to users and I'm sure he would freely respond to you. The funny thing if you admit "I've personally attacked him so many times"; why does this warrant another chance for you? You easily fit the definition in every where minus that, and I'm sure you know it. I'm done here. I'm no longer responding; I'm exhausted. If you want help, contact an admin and let them review the case. I'm to getting anywhere so there's no point in discussing this cordially with you when all you say is how stupid I am, and how much you like to "personally attack" Livelikemusic and I. Goodbye. Carbrera (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
"He does a great job of responding to users and I'm sure he would freely respond to you." FALSE! BLOODY FALSE!! Dude, did you not read what I said? I sent him a message asking why he was reverting my edits, and he ignored me! But yeah, you're right, he does a great job of responding to users. You clearly just say things without even being able to back it up. Show me proof that he responds well to users. FluffyPandars (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Fine, leave. Keep holding grudges and never give anyone another chance. I don't care. I hope you take what I said into account though. FluffyPandars (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.