Gristleking
April 2019 edit
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.
(talk Please clarify. What precipitated this block on my account? I am a new member however I have done my best to follow the rules and also registered properly. I have just added to a complaint about another user. I am hoping that this is not the reason for my block. Gristleking (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's not. Follow the instructions above if you wish to appeal your block. General Ization Talk 14:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- (ec) On the contrary, you are not a new member. Your original account has been around for almost six years. —DoRD (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
DoRDThis is troubling. I opened my account just a few days ago. Gristleking (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, yes, you opened this account a few days ago. You also opened Operationendgame (talk · contribs) yesterday. You do realize that using multiple accounts with the intention of appearing as multiple people is against the rules, don't you? —DoRD (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
DoRD I hope sharing an internet connection with my boyfriend is not a violation of any Wikipedia policies. I registered my email this morning (Redacted) I am just asking how I have violated policy to warrant a block? I think I had a legitimate complaint about an editor and I thought I used the right method to say something. I was blocked as soon as I posted the complaint. Gristleking (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC) DoRD In addition there are four adults living in this home - it is a duplex. We all share a wireless connection. I have done nothing abusive. As far as I know the worst I have done is revert two edits in one night from another user. I then listened to the admin who warned me. And today I added to a complaint about that other editor Gristleking (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Even if you are multiple people, you are still in violation of Policy for supporting each other's edits. I have not blocked your main account, but you are certainly free to appeal these two blocks per the instructions in the message above. P.S. It's not safe or wise to post private contact info anywhere on Wikipedia. —DoRD (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand your statement. When you say have not blocked "your main account" you are referring to another account in this duplex. I am going to appeal my own block on this account. Thank you for explaining your reasons.
Gristleking (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
First I will admit that I am not aware of all of the rules and policies on wikipedia. I do not think my account should be blocked. DoRD blocked my account and then stated that I have two other accounts (a 6 year old account and another one) besides this account. However, this is my only account. I explained to DoRD on my talk page that I share an internet router with four other members of my household. As a new member of Wikipedia I have not been a person who operated in bad faith or initiated problems on Wikipedia. I did have a spat with another editor who reverted my work on the Chicago article. My work was reverted, and the reverter posted a warning on my talk page ...I probably should not have reverted the reverter but I did, and then he reverted me again, and then I reverted him, and then an admin (General Ization) stepped in an reverted my revert- and warned me to refrain on my talk page. I was a bit surly with the the admin on his/her talk page because I thought he should be warning the other user. In the future if I am unblocked I will refrain from that kind of confrontation. This morning when I woke up I added to a complaint that was started about the editor who reverted my work here: the discussion at ANI and I was blocked directly after. Another issue is: I was also accused of supporting another household member's edits. I am probably guilty of that, because what is important to my boyfriend is usually important to me. If I am unblocked, going forward, I will be careful not to support the other members of my household on Wikipedia. I made quite a few constructive edits on Wikipedia and I hope that I can continue. If I am unblocked, going forward I will do my best to follow the Wikipedia policies. I apologize for my errors and will do my best not to repeat them.Gristleking (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
From WP:FAMILY: Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives.
Technically and behaviorally, you are indistinguishable from the original account. The reason why we have policies like this is because people create multiple accounts, each with a different persona, and vote multiple times at AfD. Then, when they get caught, they say, "Oh, that's just my roommate. Did I forget to mention that we share a computer?" NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2019 (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.
- (Non-administrator comment) In the interest of transparency, I will mention that I am not an "admin" (as Wikipedia defines the role), nor have ever claimed to be; I am only a rollbacker, and indeed a longer-term user who attempted to explain to the editor our policies concerning edit warring and personal attacks. (Also here.) General Ization Talk 15:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also, for clarity, the editor received a warning for 3 reverts at Chicago in a 24 hour period 1, 2, 3, despite the fact they claim only two. General Ization Talk 16:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying- you operated with the authority of an administrator so I thought you were. I am pretty sure I only made two reverts (reverting the reverts) then I stopped and moved on. Gristleking (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- General Ization 1 is me creating content - not reverting. Please do not accuse me of doing something I did not. Gristleking (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'll grant you that (that the first diff was actually your introduction of the challenged content, not a revert). For some reason, I thought the introduction had occurred in an earlier edit. Nevertheless, please note that it is entirely possible to edit war without having reverted three times (or been allowed to), and it was clear to me that you displayed no intention of following the BRD procedure despite its having had been explained to you (several times) without intervention in the form of a clear warning (which any Wikipedia editor has the "authority" to issue – not just admins). General Ization Talk 18:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- As for the fact (which I suspect you'll be quick to point out) that the other editor (John from Idegon) also had reverted twice at that point, the difference is that the other editor had Wikipedia policy (the policy on consensus, and the BRD procedure that upholds it) on their side. Reverts that enforce well-established Wikipedia policies, and that return an article to its consensus version pending the development of a new consensus (by way of Talk page discussion), are not generally considered violations of the edit warring policy. Persistent reversion that defies the current consensus is. General Ization Talk 18:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)