Rtmorphine

<nbsp> AND THE MESSAGE LEFT BY MisterBee1966

Thank you for your message. I was under the assumption (yes! I know what happens when I assume (Ass U Me) and I was wrong) that the <nbsp> HTML tag was used only to prevent what I call a 'hard line-break'. By a 'hard line-break', I mean going from one paragraph to another, with a space between the two lines. I checked-out what you said and, of course, you were correct. I sincerely apologize for my screw-up. I atempted to leave a message on your TALK page, but I continue getting a message that says you've been RETIRED for the last 3 years. I hope you receive this message. All The Best, 06:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Hello, I'm TSventon. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Phil Konstantin have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. TSventon (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

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 ~~~~}}.

Plus vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #26099 was submitted on Jul 26, 2019 22:16:28. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Appeal to unblock Wikipedia user id “rtmorphine”

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I received a message that my account has been “blocked indefinitely” on Wikipedia. The text of the message said that my account was only being used to “vandalize” Wikipedia. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Usually I correct misspelled words and incorrect grammar. If I have some knowledge about the subject (such as WWII German fighter pilots) that would improve the Wikipedia article, I add it. The changes that were made to the “Phil Kontantin” Wikipedia article were done on my computer and account by someone else while I away from my computer. When I returned, I noticed that a Wikipedia article (Phil Konstantin) that I didn’t access was on my screen. I read the article and thought that some of the text sounded strange, so I opened my “Contributions” section and saw that the unusual text had been added from my account. I then deleted the alterations since I don’t want my name, computer, and account associated with violations of Wikipedia’s rules. I’m not positive as to who made the alterations to the article, I only have my suspicions. An indefinite block on an account without full knowledge of the facts, is heavy-handed at best. Given that I didn’t make the alterations, and attempted to delete them, my account shouldn’t have been blocked at all, and definitely not blocked indefinitely! Please remove the block. I submitted an appeal yesterday. Today, I noticed that a separate authorization was requested and gave my permission. However, I then noticed that the appeal had apparently been closed. But no notification was given as to whether or not my appeal was successful. I don’t really know if any action has been taken on my appeal. I assume that no action has been taken, since I am still blocked. I noticed that an appeal could be filed in the manner that I am now pursuing, that’s why I’m sending this message. Again, please remove my block. I contribute financially to Wikipedia and I will continue to do so, even if my appeal is denied, since Wikipedia is, for the most part, a phenomenal resource for most subjects that interest me. But it should be obvious that heavy-handed actions (such as indefinitely blocking someone when the person who does the blocking doesn’t have all of the facts) could cause some Wikipedians (those that contribute content-wise, administratively, and/or financially) to re-think their commitment. Indefinite blocks should only be performed after dialogue has taken place and several warnings have been issued. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Robert Ternes rtmorphine Rtmorphine (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sorry, compromised accounts cannot be unblocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:19, 27 July 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.

REQUEST FOR A GENUINE REVIEW OF MY APPEAL

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).

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

---

Request reason:

08/02/2019 Greetings: This is becoming extremely frustrating. My Wikipedia account (“Rtmorphine“) has been “blocked indefinitely”. I have previously submitted 2 appeals. On the 1st appeal, after I completed the appeal review form, I received an e-mail message asking me to verify that I’m the account holder and that I’m the one who completed and submitted the form; I did so. Then I received an e-mail message asking me to provide further information; I sent it. However, I didn’t receive a reply to my appeal. After a few days, I noticed that I was still blocked, so I submitted the 2nd appeal. I received a one sentence reply: to paraphrase “sorry, but compromised accounts can’t be unblocked”. This reply, from Wikipedia administrator “Jpgordon”, leads me to believe that my detailed appeal either wasn’t read or that it was lightly skimmed and important details were missed. My account ISN’T compromised! My account WASN’T hacked. My password WASN’T stolen. Whoever altered the Wikipedia article, did so while I was away from my computer. He/She/It DOESN’T know my password. PLEASE read my appeal. Rather than re-typing my appeal, I’m including the text from my 2nd appeal below. I am truly dumbfounded as to why I haven’t been able to get my account restored. This seems to be a simple matter of an administrator not having all the facts before they took an extreme and unwarranted action against me. The administrator, Wikipedia account: “Cullen”, who placed the indefinite block on my account had a “Let’s discuss it” hyperlink on the message that informed me that I was being blocked. I thought: “Hey, great! We can get this matter straightened-out quickly!” Then I clicked this hyperlink and guess what? I can’t discuss it with him because I’m indefinitely blocked. Gee, thanks for allowing me to “discuss it” with you, “Cullen”. People who are blocked indefinitely should at least be able to write directly to the administrator. In my case, it would have eliminated headaches and frustration. PLEASE unblock Wikipedia ID: “Rtmorphine”. Thank you. All The Best, Robert Ternes (redacted) THE TEXT OF MY APPEAL: ———————————— I received a message that my account has been “blocked indefinitely” on Wikipedia. The text of the message said that my account was only being used to “vandalize” Wikipedia. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Usually I correct misspelled words and incorrect grammar. If I have some knowledge about the subject (such as WWII German fighter pilots) that would improve the Wikipedia article, I add it. The changes that were made to the “Phil Kontantin” Wikipedia article were done on my computer and account by someone else while I away from my computer. When I returned, I noticed that a Wikipedia article (Phil Konstantin) that I didn’t access was on my screen. I read the article and thought that some of the text sounded strange, so I opened my “Contributions” section and saw that the unusual text had been added from my account. I then deleted the alterations since I don’t want my name, computer, and account associated with violations of Wikipedia’s rules. I’m not positive as to who made the alterations to the article, I only have my suspicions. An indefinite block on an account without full knowledge of the facts, is heavy-handed at best. Given that I didn’t make the alterations, and attempted to delete them, my account shouldn’t have been blocked at all, and definitely not blocked indefinitely! Please remove the block. I submitted an appeal yesterday. Today, I noticed that a separate authorization was requested and gave my permission. However, I then noticed that the appeal had apparently been closed. But no notification was given as to whether or not my appeal was successful. I don’t really know if any action has been taken on my appeal. I assume that no action has been taken, since I am still blocked. I noticed that an appeal could be filed in the manner that I am now pursuing, that’s why I’m sending this message. Again, please remove my block. I contribute financially to Wikipedia and I will continue to do so, even if my appeal is denied, since Wikipedia is, for the most part, a phenomenal resource for most subjects that interest me. But it should be obvious that heavy-handed actions (such as indefinitely blocking someone when the person who does the blocking doesn’t have all of the facts) could cause some Wikipedians (those that contribute content-wise, administratively, and/or financially) to re-think their commitment. Indefinite blocks should only be performed after dialogue has taken place and several warnings have been issued. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Robert Ternes rtmorphine Rtmorphine (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"The changes that were made to the “Phil Kontantin” Wikipedia article were done on my computer and account by someone else while I away from my computer." WP:COMPROMISED is very clear: "If you state in your request that the edits that led to your block were made by someone else who accessed your account, we will have to leave it blocked." This is the end of the line. We will not lift the block on this account, as you state someone else had access to your account and made edits with it. Yamla (talk) 21:49, 2 August 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.

APPEAL TO UNBLOCK WIKIPEDIA ACCOUNT ID: RTMORPHINE

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).

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

---

Request reason:

08/17/2019

Greetings:

I sent the e-mail message below (dated 08/02/2019) to Wikipedia 2 weeks ago. Today, I logged onto my Yahoo e-mail account and noticed that Wikipedia sent an e-mail message to my Yahoo e-mail account asking for verification. However, when I clicked the hyperlink that was provided, I received a message indicating that that action couldn’t be performed. I guess that Wikipedia’s request for verification had expired. Therefore, I am resubmitting my request.

PLEASE give my unblock request serious consideration. I have tried to straighten-out this misunderstanding for over a month.

PLEASE read my entire request. I realize that it is lengthy; however, I made sure that I covered all of the facts. I am extremely frustrated; I feel that my unblock request wasn’t given serious consideration, given that the reason for denial (‘compromised accounts can’t be unblocked’) didn’t make sense. [My account wasn’t compromised - another person in the computer lab typed some nonsense on a Wikipedia article while I was away from my computer - nobody else knows my account password - see below for a full explanation.]

If there is any confusion concerning my request, I am willing to discuss this issue on the telephone. If that is agreeable to you, you can call me collect at: (redacted) . I believe that this situation can be rectified very quickly given the proper interaction, rather than going back-and-forth via Internet messages. I wanted to submit my request to the person (Cullen) who initiated the block; however, I was prevented from doing so because of the block.

I look forward to no longer being ‘persona non grata’ at Wikipedia. Thank you very much.

All The Best, Robert Ternes Wikipedia Account: Rtmorphine (Redacted)

       PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE
       ———————————————

08/02/2019

Greetings:

This is becoming extremely frustrating. My Wikipedia account (“Rtmorphine“) has been “blocked indefinitely”.

I have previously submitted 2 appeals. On the 1st appeal, after I completed the appeal review form, I received an e-mail message asking me to verify that I’m the account holder and that I’m the one who completed and submitted the form; I did so. Then I received an e-mail message asking me to provide further information; I sent it. However, I didn’t receive a reply to my appeal.

After a few days, I noticed that I was still blocked, so I submitted the 2nd appeal. I received a one sentence reply: to paraphrase “sorry, but compromised accounts can’t be unblocked”. This reply, from Wikipedia administrator “Jpgordon”, leads me to believe that my detailed appeal either wasn’t read or that it was lightly skimmed and important details were missed. My account ISN’T compromised! My account WASN’T hacked. My password WASN’T stolen. Whoever altered the Wikipedia article, did so while I was away from my computer. He/She/It DOESN’T know my password.

PLEASE read my appeal. Rather than re-typing my appeal, I’m including the text from my 2nd appeal below.

I am truly dumbfounded as to why I haven’t been able to get my account restored. This seems to be a simple matter of an administrator not having all the facts before they took an extreme and unwarranted action against me. The administrator, Wikipedia account: “Cullen”, who placed the indefinite block on my account had a “Let’s discuss it” hyperlink on the message that informed me that I was being blocked. I thought: “Hey, great! We can get this matter straightened-out quickly!” Then I clicked this hyperlink and guess what? I can’t discuss it with him because I’m indefinitely blocked. Gee, thanks for allowing me to “discuss it” with you, “Cullen”.

People who are blocked indefinitely should at least be able to write directly to the administrator. In my case, it would have eliminated headaches and frustration.

PLEASE unblock Wikipedia ID: “Rtmorphine”. Thank you.

All The Best, Robert Ternes (Redacted) Rtmorphine (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

           THE TEXT OF MY APPEAL:
           —————————————

I received a message that my account has been “blocked indefinitely” on Wikipedia. The text of the message said that my account was only being used to “vandalize” Wikipedia. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Usually I correct misspelled words and incorrect grammar. If I have some knowledge about the subject (such as WWII German fighter pilots) that would improve the Wikipedia article, I add it. The changes that were made to the “Phil Kontantin” Wikipedia article were done on my computer and account by someone else while I away from my computer. When I returned, I noticed that a Wikipedia article (Phil Konstantin) that I didn’t access was on my screen. I read the article and thought that some of the text sounded strange, so I opened my “Contributions” section and saw that the unusual text had been added from my account. I then deleted the alterations since I don’t want my name, computer, and account associated with violations of Wikipedia’s rules. I’m not positive as to who made the alterations to the article, I only have my suspicions. An indefinite block on an account without full knowledge of the facts, is heavy-handed at best. Given that I didn’t make the alterations, and attempted to delete them, my account shouldn’t have been blocked at all, and definitely not blocked indefinitely! Please remove the block. I submitted an appeal yesterday. Today, I noticed that a separate authorization was requested and gave my permission. However, I then noticed that the appeal had apparently been closed. But no notification was given as to whether or not my appeal was successful. I don’t really know if any action has been taken on my appeal. I assume that no action has been taken, since I am still blocked. I noticed that an appeal could be filed in the manner that I am now pursuing, that’s why I’m sending this message. Again, please remove my block. I contribute financially to Wikipedia and I will continue to do so, even if my appeal is denied, since Wikipedia is, for the most part, a phenomenal resource for most subjects that interest me. But it should be obvious that heavy-handed actions (such as indefinitely blocking someone when the person who does the blocking doesn’t have all of the facts) could cause some Wikipedians (those that contribute content-wise, administratively, and/or financially) to re-think their commitment. Indefinite blocks should only be performed after dialogue has taken place and several warnings have been issued. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Robert Ternes rtmorphine Rtmorphine (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I skimmed but did not in depth read this request; the account does not have to be hacked to be compromised. It is no different to leave access to it on a computer that you have stepped away from. The person who took control of your account may have learned your password, even if they didn't or you changed it, this demonstrates that you cannot be trusted to secure your account. We have no way of knowing if you are the creator of the account. This is why compromised accounts are not unblocked. Please read WP:COMPROMISED for information on how you can resume editing and better secure your account. Let this be a life lesson, at least it was Wikipedia and not your bank account. I'm also redacting your contact information for your safety. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 21:58, 17 August 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.

Since you posted another lengthy rant that is too long to read, have decided to remove your talk page access. I will leave the request open, but if it is declined you will need to use WP:UTRS to make further requests. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

For your own protection, do not post here or send copies of personal identity documents that can be used to steal your identity, and don't prove much since it is not difficult to fake pictures of identity documents. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

And I'm a guy. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I've once again redacted your personal information. SQL^{Query me!} 17:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

• I've digested some more of your request. Re "I believe that if I had originally lied and said it was me who vandalized the “Phil Konstantin” Wikipedia page and that I was sorry and would never do it again, that my account would have been unblocked. So much for honesty being the best policy." This is precisely why compromised accounts are not unblocked. Also, re "Would someone who isn’t the creator of an account (an account that has no special privileges), go through the time and effort that I have gone through to restore my account?". Yes, people do attempt to do so, probably more often than you think. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I was going to restore your access to this page to permit you to respond to comments if you wish, but it seems I did not remove it in the first place. However, you will need to keep your posts to a minimum length. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

331dot’s message

Greetings:

This is a brief message.

I just saw your reply to my last unblock request. This was after I re-entered it with the addition of the e-mail message the bot sent to me and the response that I received when I clicked the hyperlink.

I don’t believe what I wrote to be a rant. My suggestions for proving who I am and that I’m in control of my Wikipedia account were excellent and totally reasonable. Additionally, my observations about 1) Wikipedia’s different standards depending on whether I’m asking for my account to be unblocked or making a donation, and 2) indicating the ambiguity in Wikipedia’s text about this issue, were both spot-on.

Since my Wikipedia account was not only blocked, but I was banned from creating a new account, what do you suggest I do in order to be back in Wikipedia’s good graces? Thank you.

All The Best, Robert Ternes Previously, rtmorphine Rtmorphine (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Donations are handled by the Foundation, which does not handle day-to-day issues on Wikipedia. They just operate and fund the computers Wikipedia is on. I'm not sure why the UTRS system would be doing that, you could try again, maybe with a different email address. When you do get through, I would suggest that you keep your answers to the questions to a few sentences each if you want it to be considered. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked

You've been told the length of your unblock requests is abusive. 331dot was going to revoke your talk page access based on your previous request, which I believe to have been 1072 words. You just posted one that had just short of 2500 words. WP:WALLOFTEXT applies here. I have therefore followed through and removed your talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The facts of the matter

I am the original blocking administrator. For the sake of discussion, I will accept your various explanations above. On July 16, your account added false information to SS Athenia (1922), stating that German submarine U-123 torpedoed that ship when the reliable sources agree that it was submarine U-30. Perhaps that was an honest mistake, and another editor corrected the error within minutes. Six days passed without any edits from your account. Then, on July 24, your account made 11 serious vandalizing edits to Phil Konstantin over a 56 minute period. Those edits posed a major risk to Konstantin's reputation, and he considered them embarrassing and insulting, and complained about them at Wikipedia's help desk. That led me to block your account. You claim that your password itself was not compromised so this leads to the conclusion that, for at least 6-1/2 days, your device was logged into Wikipedia and that potential vandals had access during that time. We know for sure that a vandal had access for nearly an hour. That is the very definition of a compromised account. In addition, your comments on Talk:Messerschmitt Bf 109 variants call your competence to edit Wikipedia into question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)