User talk:214.13.69.132/Archive 1

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Karl Rove, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Karl Rove was changed by 214.13.69.132 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.957031 on 2011-01-30T12:32:07+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Reggie Jackson, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of Christian martyrs, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 17:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

RPA

(Personal attack removed)

Falsely Accused

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was falsely accused by skepticsanonymous because I disagreed with him on whether a page should have been deleted. I have been making minor edits to wikipedia for three months and users under this IP (which is a federal government IP) have been making minor edits for years. A simple look at the contribs will show this to be the case.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for suckpuppetry, so you will need to address that if you wish to be unblocked - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TreyAU21 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 8 May 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I cannot address the investigation, because I am blocked. Please look at my contribs. That will prove that I am not a sockpuppet.

Decline reason:

If we unblocked everybody who made that sort of request, we might as well not have a sockpuppetry policy in the first place. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 8 May 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.

Page blanking

Under the terms of WP:BLANKING, you should not blank this Talk page while your declined unblock requests are still in force - you can blank it when your block expires. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I tried editing and messed up. I went to undo it, but it you must have while I was typing below. Can you explain to me what is going on? 214.13.69.132 (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok, no worries -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Note

I tried to modify a request and accidently blanked the...please accept my apologies.

That being said, can somebody please explain to me exactly what is going on? I honestly have no clue. I tried to vote on whether a page should be kept or not and the next day I was blocked. I had no idea of any investigation because nobody notified me. I cannot participate in said investigation because I am blocked. I did not engage in sock puppetry. Please look at my contribs. I have been here for at least three months. Before I got here, the soldier who I relieved was contributing, as were other in his unit. Is voting without an account sock puppetry? If so, I won't do that anymore. I don't know any of the users that were involved in the discussion, only that one user who disagreed me made all sorts of false accusations and personal attacks towards me. I cannot put in another unblock request for fear of being permanantly banned, but can someone please tell me what happened and share with me what I did wrong? 214.13.69.132 (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not familiar with the case myself, but that sockpuppet investigation page is closed now, so you wouldn't really be able to add any comments there anyway. So here on this page is the correct place to challenge the block. I think you should be OK to try another unblock request, seeing as you are addressing the issue in a bit more detail now. But I'll have a closer look at the case myself, and will get back to you asap. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've had a look at this now, and it appears to come down to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (generic name of socialist publications), where it looks like there was off-wiki canvassing and some attempt at vote-stacking. Usually when that happens, the canvassed !votes are discounted, but no further action is taken against the editors. In this case, there was also incivility and personal attacks, which appears to be why a number of participants were blocked. However, I see no incivility and no personal attacks from IP 214.13.69.132 - your only contributions appear to be this !vote, this reply to someone else, and this response to an apparent sockpuppet accusation. In my view, it is entirely plausible that you came to the deletion discussion, possibly after seeing the off-wiki request for support - and I think the appropriate response was to note the canvassing and for the closing admin to discount what appear to be canvassed !votes. But as you did not engage in any incivility or personal attacks, I think the block on you was harsh. I'll contact the blocking admin and see if they will agree to an unblock. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have looked back over the contribs of this IP and now additional detailed technical information and have determined that this block should be cleared. I will note that with you being on a DoD network it is impossible for me to tell where your editing from except through a military connection, which is sometimes possible from home. That said this would also make this IP shared with a lot of people. Though I do doubt your statement that the "the soldier who I relieved was contributing, as were other in his unit" as you would have had to directly traded off with him to know that and there are 5 hours between contributions. Then several days back to the edit before that. But i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you edit again. Please understand that recruiting other people to !vote for your position or asking people that you know in life to !vote for your position is not allowed here at Wikipedia. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, both. DQ, if you will allow me to clarify one thing - when I said "the soldier I relieved" I meant the deployment-wise, not shift-wise. I apologize for the confusion. 214.13.69.132 (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)