User talk:Shipofcool
Shipofcool (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Yes, it is me. I'm at a loss for words right now. It's very upsetting to see all my hours and hours of hard work having just been reverted and wiped away by a particular user. I expanded many pages that needed expanding, and made contributions on this account that were very benefitial to Wikipedia. My reasoning for making the sock accounts at this time was only so nobody would catch on and realize it was me. For a few months, it worked, until I returned to two articles (presumably Natalie Wood and Lisa Marie Presley, since they were mentioned in the latest "Sockpuppet investigation") that I had frequented as Excuseme99, and that outed me.
I don't exactly have a defense, because technically I am guilty of sockpuppetry. But I am not guilty of causing any damage, and I want to be correctly understood. 5 months ago when my last sock (Tradepath8) was blocked, I made several unblock requests until I was blocked from editing my own talk page. The user Kww told me to stay off Wikipedia for 6 months and then I would at least be listened to. I made an effort and stayed off for 3 whole months. After 3 months, I noticed that the protection templates on a few of the pages I'd edited had been removed. I thought I could return and make a few minor edits that no one would notice, and still come back as Tradepath8 to make another unblock appeal when the six-month mark came in November. Well, I made the minor edits, but didn't stop there. As time went by I started finding new pages that needed improvement and/or expanding. Many of these were for film stubs that needed posters to be uploaded, citations, etc. On some of the articles that I had previously frequented, like Lisa Marie Presley, I was only trying to undo some of the bad edits that I had made as an amateur editor during my early days as Excuseme99. For example, on Presley's page I had added added some very pointless, trivial sentences that still remained on the page 3 years later. Or on Natalie Wood' page, I had made some poor edits a long time ago that no one had fixed in the 2/3 years since. So recently, as an experienced and applauded editor, I was fixing the damage that I had indeed made back then.
In my own opinion, I really do believe that I should be unblocked.
I would like to address Nymf, who by self-admission has been following my case from the beginning: Nymf, don't you notice that I've been a good editor? By the way, I read what you wrote on the latest sockpuppet investigation page where you erroneously wrote "quite a bit of damage done during the 2 months he went undetected." First of all, I am not a man so please stop referring to me as he. What "damage" are you talking about? I did not cause any "damage" and you would surely know that if you actually looked at my edit history instead of being so biased and holding some sort of grudge for mistakes I made over 3 years ago when I was just starting out. This whole ordeal started because I was adding contentious material to Natalie Wood's page in 2009, which caused a dispute. The fact that I'd been using other accounts (for harmless reasons I don't even remember) provided a reason to have me blocked. And ever since then I've been repeating a pattern: come back under a different name, make helpful edits but get caught because I always tend to frequent the same pages I frequented on my first account.
I would like all the admins involved to take a good, close look at my edit history from the last 2 months. You will find that they have all been extremely benefitial to Wikipedia. Don't you think it's unfair to have all that hard work, which took hours and hours, reverted merely because of a problem concerning the person who made the edits? Nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it say you have to undo all the edits of blocked editors, which Kww has just done. In some case, Kww's edits are damaging, because I was repairing pages that were unsuitable, and now the repairs have been reverted and the pages are in an unsuitable state. You can find examples of this here[1], here[2], here[3], here [4], and here [5]. Surely you must find this outrageous? It's truly damaging to Wikipedia.
It would be benefitial for everyone if I was unblocked. If I'm unblocked, I'll be more helpful than ever. Why? Because I will continue to improve Wikipedia without having to use sock accounts for other pages due to the fear of being outed. This account is the most productive one I have ever used, but even with it, I was worred that I'd be outed if I edited certain pages so I created other accounts to make those edits (like AnnMargretFan---I created that account just to edit her page, since I thought if I used this one to edit it, someone would spot me). If I am unblocked, I can just be me with my one account, and continue to improve Wikipedia without any worries. I think my best contribution was to Demi Moore's page. Fortunately that is the only one that Kww didn't revert, because it has been edited too many times since my last contribution. If you don't want to tediously look through all my edit history, at least go to that page and check out the revision history. Not to brag, but I did an excellent job and got kudos for it by admins who were monitoring that page. Shipofcool (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
So you've created another sock swarm and honestly believe that it was OK? This only reinforces the opinion that you can't control yourself enough to be a constructive Wikipedian. Max Semenik (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2012 (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.
- You've been blocked for years, primarily for edit warring. Your socks this go around have gone back through dispute resolution for edit warring. There's nothing about being an edit-warring sockpuppeteer that makes you more attractive to the project. I warned you last time that every edit you make will be undone. You've had that reinforced tonight: your hours and hours of hard work are gone. If you repeat them, they will be gone again. Go find something else to do.—Kww(talk) 02:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're wrong. I'm not edit-warring. My only serious bout with edit warring was when I was a brand new editor back in 2009 adding contentious material to a certain page. Look at my edit history. There is no edit warring. You have been unnecessarily abusing your power (here[6] is another example of it). I want other users to look at this because you are not kind and you don't seem to care about the well-being of Wikipedia but only in reverting whatever I do. Shipofcool (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- You were edit warring on Supercouple with Sancap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I am an admin and actually quite a kind person. You seem to think that kindness necessarily extends to being concerned about your feelings. I'm not. You were told to leave years ago, and you don't seem to be able to get the message. Another admin will come along and review your request. I'm not allowed to deny it. That's a check-and-balance built into our system, in the off-chance that a block actually is abusive.—Kww(talk) 02:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, that. That was just a one-day thing and I still stand by the edit that I "warred." Stop saying "years" as if it was so long. It was less than 3 years, it will be 3 in December. The block was listed as "indefinite." I'm anxious to see another admin's response. I have made a good case. Shipofcool (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're wrong. I'm not edit-warring. My only serious bout with edit warring was when I was a brand new editor back in 2009 adding contentious material to a certain page. Look at my edit history. There is no edit warring. You have been unnecessarily abusing your power (here[6] is another example of it). I want other users to look at this because you are not kind and you don't seem to care about the well-being of Wikipedia but only in reverting whatever I do. Shipofcool (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Shipofcool (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Sorry to repeat the unblock template but this is the only way I can communicate to admins since I cannot post on their talk pages. MaxSem, you're reply was short and didn't tell me much. What do I do now? There is no expiry set for the block. I can control myself, just give me one chance to prove it. Also, how can you allow Kww to wipe out tens of Wiki articles and leave them in abominable, unsuitable conditions? Tens of pages now have errors, typos, and representative images deleted because Kww has shown a complete disrespect to the integrity of this site. Just click on the links I provided in the first request. There has to be someone who recognizes this hypocrisy and reverts the pages back to how they were. I sent an email to some Wiki-staff address asking them to revert Kww's harmful reversions. They said that the only thing for me to do is browse talk pages and see if anyone has their email address listed, email them and ask them to undo the edits for me. I've been looking for a while now and cannot find a single editor who has their email listed on their talk page. Help. Shipofcool (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were aware that BASC was your only venue for unblock. Creating socks is never appropriate. Your method of communicating with Wikipedia admins and editors was wiped out with your removal from the community. There is only one person who, by showing lack of respect for the rules they agreed to, is completely disrespecting the integrity of this site. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:35, 27 October 2012 (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.
Your apppeal to arbcom May 29 was denied, and your coming back has simply restarted the 6 months timer. No admin can unblock you after the BASC has denied it. If some member of Wiki staff told you to e-mail people trying to get your edits restored, they were wrong. That would be proxy editing, which violates WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors. It will only result in the cooperating editor being blocked as well. As for my reverts, the reason is quite simple. You are not permitted to edit this site. I have erased every thing you have done, returning it to pretty much the same state as if you had never edited. As long as you keep socking, this will keep happening, and all your work will continue to get erased. Go away for 6 months (really away), and you stand a chance of coming back. Continued block evasion and socking only makes it worse.
As a note to the reviewing admin, I've removed talk page and e-mail access for this editor, given the threat of searching for a proxy editor. If you want him to be able to argue further, you should re-enable talk page access. Please not e-mail access, though.—Kww(talk) 06:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
So, the user claimed it would stay away from it for 6 months. Looks like it was easier said than done, as it's editing as an IP again that outed itself on this talk page. Nymf hideliho! 07:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- IP reblocked per WP:DUCK. --Kinu t/c 07:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Looks like it jumped immediately, though. See 130.157.127.101. Weird. Nymf hideliho! 07:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting. Looking at the history of the IPs, the articles this editor tends to focus on, etc., it appears that these actually are likely static... it just so happens that the editing is coming from these two, but only these two, based on what I can tell. I'd definitely say that we should continue monitoring, but blocking these two might be a solution for now, so I've done so on the second as well. --Kinu t/c 07:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Looks like it jumped immediately, though. See 130.157.127.101. Weird. Nymf hideliho! 07:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 27
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Natalie Wood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barry Watson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:The First Time 1969 poster.jpg)
[edit]
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Orphaned non-free media (File:Secret World 1969 movie poster.jpg)
[edit]
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Orphaned non-free media (File:In Search of Gregory movie poster.jpg)
[edit]
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Orphaned non-free media (File:Mother Lode 1982.jpg)
[edit]
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
){kind=link}
Orphaned non-free media (File:Hard Country 1981.jpg)
[edit]
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
){kind=link}