FreakyLocz14
FreakyLocz14 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm sorry, Hersfold, but you're making that up. I own several devices, a laptop, a PC, a smartphone, and a tablet. They all have the exact same IP address when connected to this network. I know that because when the IP was blocked, none of these devices could edit as an IP user. Only a single IP was blocked, not a range of IPs. Other people using this network (which isn't even mine btw); thus, have the same IP address. I've already provided plenty of reasoning for being unblocked: that the only edits I have ever made were under this user account. That's the truth. Those are the facts. If you have gone mad with power so much that you try explain away simple facts, I don't know what else to tell you. Either that, or you are continuing this block as punishment due to my questioning your abritrary use of unchecked authority. I ask you to ponder this, though: Would a vandal really try this hard if they were indeed guilty? No. They'd simply look for other ways to continue theif disruptive behavior. If you can cite edits made under this user account that are severe enough to warrant an indefinite block, then you've got me. If all you have to fall back on is punishing me for what others have done, than there really is a problem with your integrity. XOXO
Decline reason:
Your request completely elided the quacking that Hersfold pointed to; your continued combativeness and stubbornness convinces me that you do not and will not play well with others (so to speak). So, not only is this declined, it will be your past request since I'm going to revoke your access to this page because you've more or less been saying the same thing over and over, in the apparent hope that some uninvolved admin will come along and take pity on you (but instead, it appears as if the opposite has happened). — Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
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.
lists.wikimedia.org.
Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
FreakyLocz14 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The IP user(s) on my shared neteork that I have been falsely associated with have been unblocked, so there is no prevenitive reason for me to remain blocked. I understand if you wantef to block every user on this IP as a precaution, but now the other user(s) have been unblocked.
Decline reason:
Huh? You have it backwards. The autoblocks have expired so that people who might be able to use them productively can do so again; you, on the other hand, we're still not sure about. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
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.
June 2011
edit
Your recent edit to the page New Boyz appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take ua look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Manway 00:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
FreakyLocz14 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was suddenly and without warning blocked indefinitely. I have new received any warnings for vandalism, which I do not recall ever engaging in. I am fairly new user, so I do apologize if some of my edits were not perfect. I've only received one message due to a problem with my edits. The block reason states that I was block for BLP violations. I never recall ever being warned about that. Perhaps it was another IP user at this shared IP address.FreakyLocz14 (talk) 5:13 am, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
Absolutely not. I saw the edits you made while logged out and there is no reason for this account to be unblocked. TNXMan 15:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
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're making virtually identical edits to those that were being made by a related IP address - it's a little hard to claim that it was not you when they're identical, isn't it? A quick glance through your edits show you're trying to make Wikipedia into the National Enquirer - minute pieces of trivial information that don't really hold up as encyclopedic for the most part - then reinserting them against WP:CONSENSUS at times. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
FreakyLocz14 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't recall making edits logged out. Perhaps it was another user on an IP address that is shared by a large number of people. A quick glance says that blocks should not be used as punishment, which seems to be what is taking place here. I've only received one warning for reinserting and edit, and I ceased on that article afterwards. I've never been warned or accused of vandalism, so my presence here doesn't put Wikipedia at risk of vandalism. The reason give was vandalism, specifically BLP violations. I don't see any of that happening in the contribution history on my account, hence, I am being punished because an entire IP address was blocked that restricts several actual or potential users. Regarding the comment about my edits being trivial, I do apologize for that. I am a fairly new user, so my edits will most likely improve in quality if I am allowed to further learn the ropes of Wikipedia. Perhaps only a temporary block while I do that is in order? P.S. Upon further inspection, it appears that the IP address in question is not blocked. How does that make me guilty of block evasion even if that was me (which it was not)? Also, that IP address was not blocked at the time this account was created.
Decline reason:
It's clearly you. If you don't have the integrity to have an honest conversation about your problematic editing, then this block is clearly preventative. As you're already trying to wiki-lawyer your way out of a serious hole, I don't see any reason to give you time to 'learn the ropes'. Since you've used the Ip to evade your block recently, I'll go ahead and block it for you - that should clear up your last question. Kuru (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
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.
- I can't find the edits that led to the block, so I can't assess whether the block is justified. Can you it clarify please? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
FreakyLocz14 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm posting this to respond to JamesBWatson. There are no problematic edits besides the June 2011 edits at New Boyz on this account. I am being punished for edits made by a shared IP address that extends to multiple housing units in an apartment complex. BWilkins: Also, according to WP:Vandalism, edits made in good faith, even if might be against WP:Consenus, are not vandalism. Also, if the IP address is blocked, then there is no way another user on it can make problematic edits now, so my block is no longer merely preventative, it's punishment. If any more problematic edits come up, they'd clearly be from me. I'm also not well acquainted with the ins and outs of Wikipedia. I may seem to be "wiki-lawyering" because I'm in law school and am trained to dig for information to present a defense. I only chose to begin contributing because I've used Wikipedia a lot for school and personal reference, so I thought I'd give something back. I surely hope that Wikipedia isn't as hostile towards new, inexperienced contributors as I am beginning to believe.
Decline reason:
It is simply not true that "There are no problematic edits besides the June 2011 edits at New Boyz on this account." You have edit warred on a small scale in at least three articles, in at least two such edit wars using both this account and unlogged-in edits. You have also edited while an IP address you had used was blocked. Even if there is some truth in your claims, there are significant concerns about your editing. I will consult the blocking admin on whether the block should remain as indefinite, and get back to you as soon as I can, but I see no reason for an immediate unblock. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
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.
User:JamesBWatson: I can see some cases where edits that were undone were reinserted by me, but that was in good-faith. The edits I mad at Harry Reid, for example, were of actual happenings. The edits I made about accusations of vote fraud were clearly mentioned as mere accusations that were never investigated, and the edits I made about his comments about Kirsten Gillibrand seemed relevant to me under the Criticism area because it was an issue that was brought up during the 2010 campaign. The edits I reinserted at New Boyz were due to confusion over whether Tevin Carr was considered a member of the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreakyLocz14 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 7 July 2011
- Edit warring is not permitted, even if you think you were right. (In fact, it would be totally pointless to have an edit warring policy which, instead of of saying "don't edit war" said "don't edit war unless you believe you are right", as invariably both sides think they are right.)
- The fact that you argue that you were justified in edit warring actually reduces the likelihood that you will be unblocked, as it suggests a failure to understand the relevant guideline, and a likelihood that you will do the same again.
- Your denial of having made unlogged-in edits is unconvincing, and phrasing it as "I don't recall making edits logged out" rather than "I didn't make edits logged out" does not substantially change anything. It is clear from your comments that you have checked back at the relevant editing history in order to defend yourself, and it is improbable that you are still unaware that you edited without logging in, even if we assume that it was an oversight at the time.
- I have now seen that some of your edits bear a close relationship to some made before from another IP address which is blocked. This therefore raises the possibility that your block evasion may have been on a bigger scale than I thought, and also that you may have edit warred on a bigger scale than I realised.
- I have now examined your edits in more detail. (Previously my main concern was determining whether there was evidence to support the reason given for the block, and I took little notice of other aspects.) It is clear that you have been involved in serious violations of the Biography of Living Persons policy, making serious accusations of criminal offences without providing any reliable source. I do hope that by the time you finish at law school you will know better.
- In the light of the above you will not be surprised to learn that I no longer think there is a case for unblocking you. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
FreakyLocz14 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
reason: The IP block was not automatic. It was done in retaliation due to ime appealing my block. I know this because the latest block on the IP did not take place until after I requested to be unblocked and stated the fact that I am in no way associated with edits made from the IP. Wikipedia:Blocking policy states that "Only in extreme cases would there be no administrator who is willing to lift the block." Although it is clear that there are muliple Wikipedia users on my shared network, I could edit as an IP uset if I chose to, so keeping my innocent account would not prevent me nor the disruptive users from editing. There is some real arbitrary moderation going on here. The only justification I've seen for my block are edits made by other users. I haven't seen any eits made by my account used as justification. While there may have been some minor blunders on my part due to me being a new member and not really being brushed up on Wikipedia policy, I haven't even come close to engaging in the behavior described. That was another user. I can assure you that I've read several WP articles and am much more familiar with Wikipedia policy and editing guidelines now.
Decline reason:
Another user, who happens to be in the same apartment complex as you, who happens to edit the same articles in the same ways around the same time that you do so. Look at this a moment from our perspective. Do you see the extreme unlikelihood of these coincidences all happening together? The edit history at San Jose City College certainly smacks of sockpuppetry, at the very least. You have not provided any compelling reason to unblock you. In fact, your story doesn't even hold up. Looking at the edit history of the article I linked to, I see five different IP addresses spread over four ranges. If these edits were simply fellow tenants of your apartment complex as you claim, there may be different IP addresses but they would be confined to a single range, not spread across several, including one that is registered to an educational institution. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
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.
FreakyLocz14 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #18714 was submitted on Jul 12, 2017 10:25:00. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
FreakyLocz14 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #20301 was submitted on Jan 12, 2018 01:36:36. This review is now closed.