User talk:Dubs boy - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dubs boy (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 24 April 2015 (take it elsewhere). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:02, 24 April 2015 by Dubs boy (talk | contribs) (take it elsewhere)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Request to block account

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --RA (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 months for Block evasion. User:46.7.113.111 and very likely someone else as well.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:12, 18 October 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

Apparently I have been blocked based on this decision . But this decision does not outline what I have done wrong, or why I have been blocked. From what I can see they suspect I am a sock, a sock of whom, they do not know. I have used wiki before, but never held an account. I had dabbled with wiki back in Feb, this year, but only became interested recently. I am not a sock of anyone and this ban does not seem correct to me. I wish for T Canens to answer this request as they are the blocking persons.Dubs boy (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have admitted to being IP 46.7.113.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was blocked for 3 months per this. Your new block for block evasion is, as far as I can see, still perfectly valid. Giant Snowman 14:58, 18 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.

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

Request reason:

Decline reason:

You have not provided any new reason in your unblock request, but let me expand on the reasons so you understand - you were blocked as an IP for violating the restrictions of WP:TROUBLES, and your user name 'Dubs boy' has also been blocked for evading that first block. You have not been banned, and any accusations of socking (true or untrue) are not why you have been blocked. It is for violating editing restrictions and for block evasion. Giant Snowman 15:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, what Troubles related restrictions did I violate exactly, if most of my edits were on a talk page???Dubs boy (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I wish to be unblocked from this sanction. Apparently I have been blocked for breaching The Troubles editing restrictions, but if I have not made any changes to pages, how did I break these restrictions. I edited on talk pages. I am confused. I wish to know why I have received a 3 month block?

Decline reason:

According to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, administrators are prohibited from unblocking anyone who is blocked as part of arbitration enforcement, so no further unblock templates will be helpful. You can find instructions on how to appeal an arbitration enforcement block on that page. You can also find the discussion of your block at that page, in this section. I'll leave your talk page editable so you can appeal the block correctly if you like. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply to ANI

I was going to reply on the ANI, but as it's closed now I'll reply here. With regards to your comment, uninvolved is not unaware. The Troubles perennially appears on ANI which I have on my watch list and I tend to avoid contributing to those discussions, or any of the ArbCom sanctioned areas, but I do make a habit of reading through them. So yes I am aware of the issues surrounding those various articles and that awareness keeps me from getting burned by those same issues. Blackmane (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Captain Lightfoot

Ah yes, you're right. The sentence does actually utilize multiple context's using Ireland as pre-state and then the state. Apologies. Canterbury Tail talk 14:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A friendly heads up. I can see at this article that you reverted several times with different editors and an anon IP - but you were also in breach of WP:3RR which you may have resulted in a block if reported. Don't get drawn into edit wars - it happens very easily even to "experienced" editors. --HighKing (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Though I thought I was free to revert anon IP's? But feel free to help me. The anon IP has quite a long edit history. Why they have never set up an account is beyond me.Dubs boy (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You are free to revert vandalism, reverting someone in an edit dispute isn't vandalism. The reverts on that article are edit warring, not vandalism reverting. Canterbury Tail talk 14:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if it is an unregistered account? I thought 3RR is over 24hrs though I admit that 5 edits over 5 days is still edit warring, and 2 of those edits were rightly against the edits of you gents.Dubs boy (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "rightly" - especially if you don't explain *why* you are reverting. You didn't give any explanation, you just reverted. That's also a reason to open a discussion on the Talk page. Anon IP's have as much rights to edit (except on any articles covered by The Troubles I believe) as anybody else, and this article isn't covered by The Troubles. --HighKing (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Also be aware that there is no such rule as "I can do 3 reverts in 24 hours, but no more". An admin can block you for less, or can take into account a "slow" edit war, etc. I've fallen foul of this myself in my early years, and I've the scars (and block log) to prove it. --HighKing (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

HK, you need to tone it down. You have kicked people of your talkpage for petty less, ok? I believe I did leave an edit summary following every revert. I reverted your edit, and you seemingly agreed with me. So if you noticed this IP making the same edit, why not help me out? The IP's edits were against IMOS, hence why I made the revert. I can't do anymore. I'm not going to chase some anon IP.Dubs boy (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm trying to help you here... I've the scars for the exact same behaviour you've just exhibited, and I wish someone had helped me out before I got too entrenched in a battlefield mentality in the early years. I'm not trying to take any particular "tone", I'm trying to save you time and grief. Believe me .. but if you'd rather I not, let me know. No worries, and no offense taken, etc.

Just FYI, you didn't revert my edit, because I didn't edit Captain Lightfoot (I'm taking a sabbatical from any WP:IRE-IRL edits). I actually didn't see your edits till earlier today. Chances are, had I seen them, I'd have reported the anon IP - but then *you* might have been blocked too (depending on the admin) for your 5 edits. --HighKing (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My mistake it was Murry1975. 3RR applies to 3 edits over 24hrs. The edits I made were justified and I'm sure you can see that. If you think my edits were incorrect then join a discussion or report me. As I recall you were one of the squabble that had me blocked first time so don't think you are doing me any favours now.Dubs boy (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You only think they're justified, and some may agree with you, but it's still edit warring. And it doesn't matter if the other editor(s) are IP addresses that doesn't change anything on Misplaced Pages (the encyclopedia anyone can edit.) The only time breaking 3RR is acceptable is when reverting vandalism, and someone disagreeing with your interpretation is extremely far away from vandalism. Oh and you can be blocked for violating the spirit of the rule if not the letter, it's happened many times. Canterbury Tail talk 01:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sound advice from seasoned pro's. What I really need is a wiki friend to do my reverting for me. Time. Dubs boy (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Listen to Canterbury Tail, they now what they are on about and are pretty even handed. Though in regards to your "wiki friend" comment: we've suffered cabals doing that, with some instructing newbies via emails on what to do (which I once got a copy of, however unfortunately lost it), and it was quite disruptive for genuine editors but it has largely ended as of the past year, so there is less edit-warring between groups who would thus avoid 1RR and 3RR. Once you learn how Misplaced Pages works properly an how to do things right, you may make progress in some of the things you campaign for without needing "wiki friend"s. Mabuska 00:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

If you continue your disruptive single purpose editing with regards to Derry, especially knowing you don't have consensus as per the talk page, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Since your account is a single purpose account solely based upon editing around Derry it is likely the block could be indefinite. Canterbury Tail talk 13:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as Dubs boy is still at the slow edit-warring, a block of some form is merited. Mabuska 21:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This is your final warning, if you continue your disruptive editing regarding the name of the city of Derry then you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 22:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Slow? Its at a snail's pace. Its a factual edit! Why would you not want a factual remark in an encyclopedia? Go away.Dubs boy (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Another infringement here @ User:Canterbury Tail, with use edit summary Company use Londonderry. talkpage please. Bye SPA. Murry1975 (talk) 13:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Murry, company refer to the city as Londonderry, that is pretty clear in my edit summary and Canterbury us aware of the edit. Not sure why you are running a tally system on my edits when you yourself are an BI / IMOS Trojan, with dubious edits and tag teaming with sock Highking so please stay off my page and never return.Dubs boy (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

And as I stated in my edit, company using Londonderry is irrelevant, on Misplaced Pages we use Derry and I kept that in there as Derry in my edit. Canterbury Tail talk 15:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Canterbury, that was not a dig at you, this is Murry1975, bringing up an event that you were already aware of, almost as if Murry1975 and Highking were in cahoots and trying to get me blocked. I have no issue with your revert, only with Murry1975 and his sniping.Dubs boy (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah fair enough. Ignore me then. Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(Note, a user is entitled to remove whatever they like from their talk pages. Exceptions are only usually considered for block notifications.) Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thin Ice

Given your history returning to WP solely to troll HighKing's ANi appeal was a bad idea, by now you should have understood that the ice is thin when it comes to this kind of stalking behaviour in the WP:TROUBLES/WP:GS/BI area. The fact that this happened just made it thinner--Cailil 15:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Cailil, Slow day? I can't prevent someone posting on my wall anymore than I can stop you from stalking and harassing me. Editing the AN/I notice board is well within my rights. All I did was request that if Puckshed had any information to share, that he do so on his wall. Nothing wrong with that. While you have got nothing to do, you might want to ask yourself why this user made this edit , and ill ask the question, what are you going to do about it? Dubs boy (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes removing an attack on an editor as per WP:NPA as qouted in the edit summary. I am sure if you have information that someone is socking you will bring it to an SPI Dubs boy in the near future, no? Murry1975 (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Highking admitted to socking as he was using a 2nd account in User:Popaice. Didn't you know? So by me saying that he is a sock is not a personal attack but the God's honest truth.Dubs boy (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The matter regarding User:Popaice was dealt with in 2010. The Checkuser's comments do not match your allegations. I'm advising you to drop it - misrepresenting that issue any further will be considered harassment and will lead to a block under the terms of WP:TROUBLES.
Now, you Dubs boy were in touch with a sock-puppet of Neil Edgar and have misrepresented what happened in your comment above. Facilitating trolls or rule breaking is just as bad as trolling or breaking the rules yourself. Do not do that again. Either you're here to improve wikipedia within its rules, codes and standards or this account is just here to hound users whose politics you don't like and waste everyone else's time. It's your choice how you proceed--Cailil 14:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Well the SPI case says differently: Highking received warning. What was the warning for if not for socking?

"Popaice should have been blocked with conclusion of the case, and is blocked now. Due to the very short time of activity of the account and the minuscule overlap with articles HighKing has edited this was only a minor WP:SOCK violation."

"As you say, "some cases are worse than others". The WP:SOCK violation in this case was not significant enough to warrant any sanctions for HighKing besides a warning."

A list of states ia a list of states

As per factocop discussion on Odeon cinemas and proper application of IMOS. Now stop stalking me, or anyone else, you were warned above about your behavour. Murry1975 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I can edit where I want. I don't think I need your permission, or at least I thought that was the case, and I'm not sure of what relevance a stale conversation from another topic has. There is a case for ambiguity and that is why I made the edit. Had the list included states only, I would have no issue but as it also list territories it seemed prudent and again in keeping with WP:IMOS that the edit was made.Dubs boy (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Its a list of states, the fact that NI is mentioned under the UK is further clarity of what Ireland means, NI is not used in the same context, its a sub-subection and the island is not mentioned anywhere. Now if you could kindly stop stalking me, wow you made an edit to an article I hadnt yet, it would be good, as I am tiring of your behavour at this point. Murry1975 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I can edit where I like. You are not the POLICE of WIKIPEDIA nor are you the POLICE of how IMOS is applied. Yet again you can not see the forest for the trees. It is not a list of States. Is Puerto Rico or Gilbratar a state? Ireland and Northern Ireland are listed under Europe. This is very much in the same context. You can take your argument to the talk pages or to IMOS but yet again you are pushing a POV that is not welcome. Please refrain from engaging in an edit war as you are likely to be blocked. thank you. Dubs boy (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You can stop following me around. BTW I see above you we warned that YOUR behavor will lead to a block so stop threating me. Murry1975 (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Murry1975, please stay off my page. You have displayed questionable behaviour and conduct far and beyond anything I could accomplish. No threats, simply notifying you that your behaviour will no longer be tolerated, much the same as the warning you posted ]. You are the revert king and self imposed Police of IMOS. Try and contribute rather than making flash reverts and adding unnecessary red tape to a project that should be fun to partake and most of all, encyclopedic. Ok Kitten?Dubs boy (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)