8eatle
 | Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history. |
Getting started on Wikipedia
edit- My advice 8eatle, heed the warnings you remove from your talk page. Do your best not to make controversial edits, rather take it to the article talk page. Don't revert if an editor reverts you, again take it to the talk page. Continue to be bold and don't stress too much when you get bitten. This happens more than you'd expect. Heed the warnings and keep up the good communication. It can be tough getting started here and making big or controversial edits are going to piss more experienced editors off so, as Flightime pointed out, start off by making more menial edits initially as you get a feel for things and get bolder over time. Good luck and shout if you need a hand. Robvanvee 19:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
8eatle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I've been blocked for apparently abusing multiple accounts? What? This is ridiculous. I didn't even know what a sock puppet was before being accused of being one, and I have never been a user called "Keditz". It's inconvenient to suddenly indefinitely block me; where's the proof for me being accused of this? Please show me. I know this is not that serious, but this is some sort of false accusation. It's crazy that I have try to have a genuine discussion but then get blocked; this exactly the type of point I was making: new users get treated like shit and if they try to speak up...well they get blocked.
Decline reason:
You need to address how you were using the same browser from the same location, editing the same articles, as that blocked user. Yamla (talk) 16:17, 21 June 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.
8eatle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
How would you know what browser I use and what my location is? And also, if that user is apparently using the same browser as me and lives in my location, you should know it isn't exactly uncommon for multiple people to use the same browser within a location. Also, how do I have any clue on what that user edits? You can't seriously be blocking me because I'm from the same location and use the same browser as that user; millions of people edit on Wikipedia, how many do you expect to be from the same location.
Decline reason:
Further technical details of the checkuser process cannot be provided, sorry. El_C 17:48, 21 June 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.
How do they know
editIt's a WP:check user block. They can see all sorts of technical information left by the computer you use. You'll need to make a fuller explanation for all those "coincidences". You may also want to read carefully the pertinent sections of the GAB.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Is that even legal to know my "technical information"? Also, could you elaborate on "technical information" and also show me it? How could you expect me to give a "fuller explanation"; I don't have a clue about "Keditz". 8eatle (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- Of course it's legal. How could Wikipedia respond to requests without this technical information?!? We do not elaborate on the technical information or show it; see WP:CHECKUSER. If you are claiming you have no relationship with Keditz despite editing the same articles from the same computer at the same location, there's nothing more for us to do here other than revoke your talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
The same articles? Could you tell me what articles these are. I also find it odd that I'm not allowed to know what "technical information" is considering you claim to have access to mine. I also do not have any sort of relationship with "Keditz". It doesn't surprise me that there are other users who may use the same computer as me and live in the same location, just like they may with you and other users. This isn't a uncommon thing; look at Facebook: there's people with the exact same first name and surname that live in the same city. I shouldn't really have to explain this, isn't it common knowledge that various people can share the same "thing" within different subjects? 8eatle (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- As to the overlap, see this. --Yamla (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Dude look at those people I edited, don't you think there's so many people who edit the same people? Most of these people I edited once, compare it "Keditz" they edited significantly more than I have. Compare my edits to other users and I doubt you wouldn't find the same edit pattern. If this is what it takes for people to get blocked on Wikipedia then there might aswell be a limit to the amount of users in a specific location. Blocking users because a "checkuser" is enough "proof" doesn't solve anything, it just causes inconveniences for the users who are wrongly blocked. Honestly this really doesn't give a good impression for people who want to edit; what's the point of Wikipedia encouraging/inviting people to edit. 8eatle (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- From the same computer?!? No, come on. You are welcome to make a third unblock request, though, and a third uninvolved administrator will review your request. --Yamla (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I mean yeah I'm not oblivious to the fact that it does sound pretty weird; this is either a coincidence or there's been some sort of mistake regarding the accuracy of all this stuff about locations and computers. If I have to submit a 3rd request then fine I'll do that, I mean I thought I would be unblocked rather quickly considering how ridiculous the "proof" is. Also, on Taylor Swift I removed "one of the leading contemporary recording artists" out of the lead because it's Puffery (which I stated in the edit summary), yet I've just checked and it's been reverted. I mean seriously? How hypocritical is it that I was told by an administrator about Puffery, yet when I appropriately apply my knowledge from reading about it to an article it get's reverted. Those users who constantly apply Puffery to their favourite artists, like Taylor Swift, should be the ones who should be blocked. 8eatle (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Reverts and deletes
editUser:Aoi dude why are you reverting edits I've done, especially ones that I added useful information in? You haven't even given me the chance to try and explain to you guys that I'm not a sock puppet. How is this fair? Just because of some "checkuser" where you can apparently see my "technical information" (which I'm not even allowed to be told what it's about and what "mine" is), you're going unfairly treat me like some sort of troll. What's the point of having the option to "request an unblock" yet users like you (User:Sir Sputnik) will delete drafts and revert edits before even given the user a chance. Honestly, Wikipedia is run really poorly. There's no surprise that's there articles all over the internet about the unreliability and general issues about Wikipedia. You want new people to improve articles but will falsely block them because of some ridiculous "proof". Come on. Wikipedia needs to do better, you and other administrators have to realise that. It's filled with false information, that's the bigger issue; instead of trying to make out that a user is a sock puppet because of their location and computer, all that time and effort could be used to actually make Wikipedia as truthful as it can be because to be honest there's simply a lot of exaggeration/lies on here. You guy's need to realise your priorities in what will improve Wikipedia. You got an apparently "semi-retired" user called FlightTime who does nothing but give warnings and then doesn't even reply back when he's challenged. 8eatle (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
- Make an unblock request, or don't. You have access to this talk page solely to make unblock requests. --Yamla (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
8eatle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User:Aoi dude why are you reverting edits I've done, especially ones that I added useful information in? You haven't even given me the chance to try and explain to you guys that I'm not a sock puppet. How is this fair? Just because of some "checkuser" where you can apparently see my "technical information" (which I'm not even allowed to be told what it's about and what "mine" is), you're going unfairly treat me like some sort of troll. What's the point of having the option to "request an unblock" yet users like you (User:Sir Sputnik) will delete drafts and revert edits before even given the user a chance. Honestly, Wikipedia is run really poorly. There's no surprise that's there articles all over the internet about the unreliability and general issues about Wikipedia. You want new people to improve articles but will falsely block them because of some ridiculous "proof". Come on. Wikipedia needs to do better, you and other administrators have to realise that. It's filled with false information, that's the bigger issue; instead of trying to make out that a user is a sock puppet because of their location and computer, all that time and effort could be used to actually make Wikipedia as truthful as it can be because to be honest there's simply a lot of exaggeration/lies on here. You guy's need to realise your priorities in what will improve Wikipedia. You got an apparently "semi-retired" user called FlightTime who does nothing but give warnings and then doesn't even reply back when he's challenged. 8eatle (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Since you seem to be using your talk to post rants and not unblock requests, I'm revoking your talk page access to prevent further time-wasting. You can still use WP:UTRS if you want to make an actual unblock request instead of ranting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:52, 22 June 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.
A kitten for you!
edit
This kitten is so cute when I look at it I remember that I've seen something cute before 😍😍