Franchisemichael

October 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page. Thank you for attempt at educating me on Wikipedia rules. I will gladly extend the same courtesy to you. You may find Wikipedia's bad practice rules instructive. I will provide the relevant information here as well.

The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.
Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments are:

• Fixing links: if the linked-to page has moved, a talk page section has been archived, the link is simply broken by a typographical error, or it unintentionally points to a disambiguation page etc.

All the best. --Franchisemichael (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)FranMichael

Just because you do not understand the purpose of that link, does not mean it is incorrect. Don't edit any of my talk page posts again, for any reason. - MrOllie (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I fully understand what a broken link is. The link on that page goes absolutely no where. It is a broken link specifically allowed to be edited in talk posts.

Also, please understand that your instruction to me is in specific violation of Wikipedia's civility policy, specifically the policy against WikiBullying, and more specifically the policy against Asserting ownership (editing to add) and I forgot to mention no-edit orders .

As someone who is very much against cyber-bullying of any kind, I would greatly appreciate if you would moderate your tone on this talk page.

Lastly, please fix your broken link.

--Franchisemichael (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)FranMichael

If you think I'm so awful, WP:ANI is that way, but you really should stop editing my talk page comments. - MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I never said you were awful, I don't feel any need to make it personal. Nor do I feel like an admin should have to get involved to remove a dead link. Franchisemichael (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)\

It's not a dead link, it is a spam tracking tag. If you don't understand something, consider asking a question rather than deleting. - MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It is, in fact, regardless of its intended purpose, a hyperlink that, when clicked, opens a new browser tab and attempts to reach s.bettter.com. If you are asserting that that is a method that is acceptable in Wikipedia, I would challenge that but do so with an invitation to be proven wrong. However, I am also going to assume based on history that you'll ignore this, and though I am not at risk of violating the three revert rule, again based on history I believe you would likely immediately do so. I would rather not escalate this any farther for a simple link edit so I am requesting to review and advise. Franchisemichael (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)FranMichael

{od}} @MrOllie: dif or page name please. I'm reviewing their block. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

See history of User_talk:Asantorelladoyle1 MrOllie (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

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).

Franchisemichael (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

First, apologies that I didn't read the instructions before writing my appeal. I am editing do to that reason. My reason for requesting the unblock is simple. The admin is wrong. That isn't account listed as a sock puppet isn't me. I have no idea who that is so giving evidence I am not them is going to be difficult, but I'll give it a shot. Look at my user page. I very clearly state who I am. The writing style between the other individual and myself are not even similar. Perhaps the best evidence I can give is the interaction that I flagged and requested admin help for. I am quite verbose in my responses, cite Wikipedia links, etc. The other person as near as I could tell did no such thing. Of course the better evidence is to do an IP check. Thank you :: @Deepfriedokra: I totally understand you are busy. Is there anything I can provide to make this process move a little more swiftly. I am actually surprised (and glad, all things considered) that I was blocked for suckpuppetery and the other person was blocked for being a sock puppet since it looks like they've been registered longer than I have. I bring that up to just show one more reason why the charge of sock puppetry is obviously inappropriate. ::Is it appropriate, and if so would you prefer, that I remove this request and file a ticket instead? I understand some folks have access to an easy IP check; is that the better way to get that done? I am most certainly trying to be patient as this process moves forward but It's rather off putting that after basically a week no one has even looked at this and said "wait, this person obviously did not create a sock puppet account, and looking at it closer its obviously also not a sock puppet account". I appreciate any help/guidance/advice you can provide, thanks in advance. .

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2021 (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.

Thank you for reviewing. Its unfortunate that a block stands that, in order to do what I was accused of, I would have to be a time traveler (creating a sock-puppet account that is older than this account). I appreciate you taking the time to close this out. FranMichael (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I hope it is ok that I respond here; I don't know all the rules RE: blocks. To answer your stated-above question it is the account of which I am allegedly a sock of (or vice versa, not sure). FranMichael (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Do not send me e-mail unless it includes relevant private information, which yours did not. Another administrator will review your unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Unblocked.

Michael, I've consulted a checkuser, & your account & the other are unrelated. So I've lifted the block for sockpuppetry. However.... Following MrOllie's edits elsewhere, and then edit warring over a deadlink in his text on someone else's user talk page is WP:HOUNDING which would likely have earned you a short term block if it hadn't been mistaken for sockpuppetry. Please remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith of others. Cabayi (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to actually look into this; very much appreciated. @Cabayi

I also understand what you are saying about following the edits; that was unintentional on my part, was not intended to be hounding, and I will error on the side of leaving any of that particular user's edits completely alone until I fee more confident in understanding the guidelines.

I can't say that I understand the "good faith", as I actually did so and even even mentioned it in my flip of the flip of my edit, and intentionally avoided an action that would have led the other user to violate 3RR, but I also now understand that we are not that worried about the link integrity etc of talk pages even if the edit is 'by the book' allowed', so I will go forward with that knowledge.

Finally, thanks a ton for removing the accounts being tied together so as to avoid the appearance that I 'got away' with something. I really do appreciate the attention to detail.

Is it permissible to remove the blocks (text) from my talk page; I am not sure what the rules are there. If you don't have time to address I can investigate myself; I know you are busy and a volunteer. FranMichael (talk) FranMichael (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The policy is that you can remove anything and everything from your user talk page with the exception of declined appeals while you're still blocked. However, human nature being what it is, not everybody sees removal as being above board. It looks a bit like trying & failing to hide your past. Best practice, in my experience, is to archive it. Help:Archiving a talk page Long story short, add

{{Talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{atnhead|noredlinks=y}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = {{subst:TALKSPACE}}:{{subst:PAGENAME}}/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=90 |dounreplied=yes}}

to the top of this page for automatic archiving. Once you have the automatic archiving configured, adding

importScript( 'User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver.js' ); // Backlink: [[User:Equazcion/OneClickArchiver.js]]

to your javascript User:Franchisemichael/common.js will give you a one-click archiver which allows you to archive a section instantly. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for being a wealth of information. I will leave it as present for a time and then do that. FranMichael (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Editor Blocking

I am updating this almost a year later with some new little piece of information. the admin BBB23 who blocked me as a sock didn't follow up, it would seem, as he was unable to. His CheckUser rights had been revoked, on 18 June 2020, by the Arbitration Committee for being "unwilling to comply with" their rules about 'fishing' people's private and personal data. Not sure why he was allowed to perform sock puppet bans after that; or frankly why he would be allowed to do anything on WP. The point below stands; walk away 100% of the time, you never know when the person that is supposed to help you might actually be the same person known for banning 25K people, some with no edits at all.

As the above talk shows, my account was blocked by an admin in October. I considered archiving all the hoopla regarding the block, but I decided to let this stand on my page as I believe it is an example of one of the key failings of the Wikipedia system.

If you are not used to reading talk pages, starting at the top you can see; I made an edit that made someone mad. That editor cited (incorrectly) wiki policy. I responded back, I realized the editor was trying to engage in an edit war and also was likely to break one of the key tenants of editing, so I requested an admin assistance.

The admin's reaction was simply to block my account as a sock puppet of someone else. This block was completely baseless, made up, and in my opinion just an excuse because the admin didn't like the back and forth between myself and the other, much more important, editor.

All-in, I spent about 1/2 dozen hours over a month clearing this up, with absolutely no reason to believe it would be cleared up. Thankfully one of the volunteers at Wikipedia looked at this, saw the claim that got me 'banned' was totally made up, and unblocked me. The notes above show in that person's own words that the ban reason was false; not that I was being treated leniently; the admin had just used a fake reason to ban. As a side note, this particular admin (the ban-hammer person) has been listed off-property as someone who simply bans and leaves, and in fact 'quit' Wikipedia for a year for getting chastised for just such behavior.

So why leave this here? New Wiki editors should know that they:

1. Have no reasonable expectation to the assumption of good faith, adherence to Wikipedia's civility policy, or any of the other touted 'rules of the road'.
2. If someone reverts you, changes your edit, etc., don't follow the Wikipedia 'right way' to handle the situation. Walk, period. If you want to contribute to the encyclopedia, this is a must. Unless you have the tenacity, somewhat obsessiveness towards fighting abuses of fake power, and time that I did, plus a fair dose of wiki-luck, you will lose. Remember, the only way to win is to not play the game.
3. Start cultivating your other sources of data. For me, Wikipedia has been so much help in so many ways over the last several years. That's why I am a financial donor and an editor. It's on its way down, however. Personally, I don't think you'll be able to turn to it as a source of up-to-date, fairly unbiased information in, say, 5 years from now. Pro-note: Quora isn't your Wikipedia replacement, I promise.

So there you have it. My little contribution to the politics that is the wiki. Hopefully this little blurb helps someone dodge the fight I had to get into for the privilege to help make Wikipedia better.

_{Stay Thirsty My Friends}

FranMichael (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)