IAFIS
Welcome!
edit
|
What was your previous account before you started this one?
editYou're obviously not a newbie. You created this account, racked up the requisite number of edits, then waited to edit the Gavin McInnes article. That makes you an obvious banned or blocked editor, attempting to return to editing. Do you want to 'fess up, or shall we ferret out your identity through the edits you make from now on? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- User:Carpatho / User:Perspex03, I'd say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not an obvious anything I joined last month for the first time. You appear to be an obvious person trying to prevent me from editing because you have an ideological and political agenda. Why are you removing legitimate edits I made to the McInnes article? He does not self-identify as a white nationalist, so how can he be placed into that specific category? I'm only trying to do the right thing and contribute and you jump all over me thinking I'm a sock. If you smear me again I will report you. IAFIS (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- BMK and others within his echo-chamber bubble (ALWAYS the same tedious cast of characters to be found in any controversial article talk page) belong to a special protected class of editors. They are given special privileges by 'friendly' administrators to patrol political articles and go looking for anything 'problematic' to their agenda; excising any 'wrong-think' with total impunity. It has now gotten to the point where they are emboldened to such a degree, that they actively discourage new editors (but of course, ONLY new editors who make edits they disagree with, ahem) from joining and editing Wikipedia by using bullying and accusatory tactics. This, at a time when the encyclopedia is desperately in need of new, talented editors. These tired, boring, entitled ideologues need to be thrown overboard. They are, inch by inch, destroying this project with their rabid activism. 172.78.12.200 (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sock, meet vandal; vandal, meet sock. Just keep the window open please, so the smell doesn't become too overwhelming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- This user (more like political activist it seems) BeyondMyKen is again accusing me of being a sock (and now a vandal too, even though I never vandalized any articles) without any evidence. Why are no penalties given out to these people? I guess you are right, I didn't think the game was rigged as bad as it seems to be on Wikipedia. IAFIS (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- I;ve restored my last comment. You can't delete my post and then respond to it. If you want to respond to it, you have to leave it on the page, so anyone who reads the page can see the chronology, or alternatively, you can reference it with a diff. See WP:TPO. BTW, you're the "sock", IP 172 is the "vandal". Invest in a reading comprehension course, it'll do you some good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- This user (more like political activist it seems) BeyondMyKen is again accusing me of being a sock (and now a vandal too, even though I never vandalized any articles) without any evidence. Why are no penalties given out to these people? I guess you are right, I didn't think the game was rigged as bad as it seems to be on Wikipedia. IAFIS (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sock, meet vandal; vandal, meet sock. Just keep the window open please, so the smell doesn't become too overwhelming. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- BMK and others within his echo-chamber bubble (ALWAYS the same tedious cast of characters to be found in any controversial article talk page) belong to a special protected class of editors. They are given special privileges by 'friendly' administrators to patrol political articles and go looking for anything 'problematic' to their agenda; excising any 'wrong-think' with total impunity. It has now gotten to the point where they are emboldened to such a degree, that they actively discourage new editors (but of course, ONLY new editors who make edits they disagree with, ahem) from joining and editing Wikipedia by using bullying and accusatory tactics. This, at a time when the encyclopedia is desperately in need of new, talented editors. These tired, boring, entitled ideologues need to be thrown overboard. They are, inch by inch, destroying this project with their rabid activism. 172.78.12.200 (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
AN/I
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions
edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Would like to reply on SPI page
edit
IAFIS (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ivanvector has made false claims about me on the SPI page and I am unable to respond to these false claims there (cannot edit where it says "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below") so I am responding here instead. Can another admin or user please tell me how to respond in the proper way on the SPI page, and why I am unable to edit where it says "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below"? Thanks. IAFIS (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Confirmed socking. I'm revoking TPA. Any unblock requests should be made by the master account. Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2018 (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.
Edit conflict: If you want to respond, write here at User talk:Enjois and someone will copy it there. But given that it's a checkuser block -- meaning that Ivanvector examined the IP logs and other such technical evidence before making the block -- calling him a liar absent a really REALLY good technical explanation that actually exonerates you is NOT going to get you far. And you'll have to do it from the User:Enjois account now. --Calton | Talk 15:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)