User talk:158.222.189.226

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (158.222.189.226) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Hello, I'm Robvanvee. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Bossanova (Pixies album), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Rob van vee 09:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to The Neverending Story. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Jim1138 (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it.
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to The Neverending Story. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Monster of Udine. Jim1138 (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been editing Wikipedia since November 2016 and never had any problems prior to this. Several days ago a user named Jim1138 falsely accused me of vandalism (you can verify the edits were simply good faith errors and not vandalism). I have never been accused of vandalism prior to a few days ago even though I have contributed to Wikipedia for almost a year. There is no reason I should be blocked for 1 day let alone 3 months since all of my edits were in good faith which you can verify. Please unblock me and also please explain why I was blocked in the first place (the second part of that sentence is directed to Bbb23 the user that decided I should be blocked for 3 MONTHS despite doing nothing wrong - hopefully there can be some temporary blocks for Bbb23 for doing this, as well as Jim1138 who falsely accused me of vandalism initially. Why are these users allowed to do this without penalty? Thank you. 158.222.189.226 (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This IP address is blocked because it's being used in violation of WP:SOCK. You have not addressed this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please unblock ASAP

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).

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

Request reason:

Unfortunately I am being falsely accused again, this time instead of being accused of vandalism (which anyone can verify from checking all of my edits is not true) I am now being accused of violating WP:SOCK without any evidence presented. I am not a "sock", I only edit to make corrections (usually minor ones) and to help contribute to articles. I have no idea what is going on and why so many users (including apparently higher-up admins) are making false accusations (which can be proven incorrect) and blocking me from editing. Please unblock me ASAP and penalize the users/admins who are improperly blocking me for no reason.158.222.189.226 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The accusation isn't explicitly against you. It's against some person, quite possibly not you, who has been creating multiple accounts and using them against policy. The only thing we know about this person is that (s)he is using the same IP address as you; as long as you don't have an account, you are indistinguishable from this person. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand what you are saying however the reality is I am being penalized for other people abusing Wikipedia. This is not right, I am not a sock. For the third time now: please unblock me. I am not even able to create an account in order to contribute to Wikipedia, please unblock me as soon as possible...thank you very much. P.S. there has been no evidence given that my IP is actually being used to create multiple accounts. Another user just decided this and then went on to block me for 3 months. From what I've read about the rules on Wikipedia this is not proper. 158.222.189.226 (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The edits from this IP address are Technically indistinguishable from those of five new accounts created on this address. —DoRD (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 is a checkuser block, and as such there are two points which you may not be aware of. Firstly, a checkuser block can only be overturned by an admin with checkuser ability, which most admins do not possess; secondly, there is absolutely no requirement within Wikipedia for checkusers to reveal the evidence on which they base their blocks, and good reasons why they should not. It is unlikely that this block will be removed. your only option other than waiting it out, is to create an account, from a different IP if necessary - an internet café, for example. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi DoRD, can you please list those "five new accounts" you mentioned in your reply? I am very skeptical of what is going on here. For the record I have never created any other accounts on Wikipedia. I make all edits to Wikipedia from this IP address. I believe what may be going on is a user named Jim1138 got upset because I said I would report him for falsely claiming that I vandalized an article. I did not (the edit was merely a good faith error on my part - any user can verify to see that there was no vandalism involved). I believe it is possible/likely what is going on here is Jim1138 had me blocked for proving that he was incorrect. You can check the history to verify all of this. 158.222.189.226 (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No, the CheckUser and Privacy policies limit what I'm able to reveal, and especially since you insist that the accounts aren't yours, I won't be able to publicly link them to this IP a address. P.S. Since you made multiple edits to your latest request, the notification to me failed to send. —DoRD (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you admit the accounts are not linked to me - I didn't "admit" any such thing, so I have corrected your request below. You and the accounts look exactly the same to me, I'm simply not allowed to publicly announce them in relation to this IP address. —DoRD (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD I apologize, my mistake. Please reduce the length my block if you are unable to completely unblock me. I have never been blocked before or accused of vandalism/sock before this incident. 3 months seems like an extremely long time to be blocked for something that is not my fault and is a "first time offense" so to speak. Thank you.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand but especially since ~~you admit the accounts are not linked to me~~, someone else who apparently has the same IP address is abusing Wikipedia, I should not have to be blocked for 3 months that is very long and not fair. I could understand if it was 3 days or even 3 weeks, I could just suck it up and not contribute during that time-frame, however to be blocked from editing for 3 months is too long for something that is not your fault. Please unblock me or at least reduce the time I am blocked. Thank you. 158.222.189.226 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

DoRD I apologize, my mistake. Please reduce the length my block if you are unable to completely unblock me. I have never been blocked before or accused of vandalism/sock before this incident. 3 months seems like an extremely long time to be blocked for something that is not my fault and is a "first time offense" so to speak. Thank you. 158.222.189.226 (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Someone please reduce the length my block if you are unable to completely unblock me. I have never been blocked before or accused of vandalism/sock before this incident. 3 months seems like an extremely long time to be blocked for something that is not my fault and is a "first time offense" so to speak. This is the fourth or fifth request I have made...please do something to correct this. I would think several days or weeks would be enough of a remedy. Thank you very much. 158.222.189.226 (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Talk page access has been revoked as this is a CheckUser endorsed block. Please defer to UTRS for further consideration, if so desired. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Question

Question for Anthony Bradbury or other users who know the answer: if I create a new account from another location (e.g. a cafe) will I still be able to edit Wikipedia articles once I return back to my home or will I get in trouble for "avoiding a block" or something like that? Thanks...158.222.189.226 (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't be able to edit once you returned back home. PhilKnight (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reduce block length

Berean_Hunter please reduce the length of the block you imposed on this IP address. You issued a block of ONE YEAR, which seems very severe and unfair. The past few days I have been doing research on WP and observed that other users who abusively edited articles (unlike myself who always edited in good faith) and had many more sockpuppets, were only blocked for a 1 month, or 2 months, or 3 months. To be clear, I can edit on WP tomorrow by simply changing my IP or editing from a family members home but I wanted to do things the right way and appeal to you first to shorten the length of the block. If you shorten it to something more reasonable like 1 month or a few weeks I will wait until the block expires before I start editing again. If you need to, please check all of the edits I made so you can verify I edited articles in good faith. The main reason I created several different user names was simply because I enjoy creating new and different names (I know that may be dumb or corny, but it is harmless). I never abused WP or edited the same article using different user names. Here is the relevant sock investigation to verify: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PZP-003

P.S. I never made any edits using the Zeisscontex username, and only made a handful of edits with each of the other user names, except for Neilen and PZP-003. 158.222.189.226 (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One question, Berean_Hunter I noticed that you are not an admin. Are non-admins allowed to block users? 158.222.189.226 (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you had socked last year and am willing to keep this IP blocked to prevent further socking. Your implied threats, "To be clear, I can edit on WP tomorrow by simply changing my IP or editing from a family members home but I wanted to do things the right way and appeal to you first..." to me equals If you don't unblock me, I'm going to sock. You won't get anywhere that way. You've owned one set of socks which is some progress. Are you willing to own those from last year? Checkusers won't connect IPs to socks generally so it is left as an exercise for you to explain the other older accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Berean_Hunter I'm confused by this statement: "Checkusers won't connect IPs to socks generally"...isn't that exactly what you did last week with the usernames you connected to this IP? Also, you didn't answer my question about non-admins such as yourself issuing blocks to users (especially lengthy 1 year blocks). As far as I am aware only admins can issue blocks. Regarding me threatening to sock, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm not threatening anything, I simply enjoy occasionally contributing to WP and helping make articles more accurate. If you check my edits you will see that they are all in good faith and there is no vandalism or false info that I add into articles (more importantly I never edited the same article using different user names)

There is no reason to block me for more than a few months at most. Moving forward I refuse to be censored from editing WP and helping contribute to articles. I don't really think of that as a threat, I am simply letting you know I can still edit articles by changing my IP or going to another residence to edit. Before I do that I wanted to appeal here first and find out what is going on and why a ONE YEAR BLOCK was issued to me which seems ridiculous and extremely harsh. If you are acting in good faith and not trying to censor or abuse other WP editors please answer the 2 questions I asked above, and please reduce the block to a fair reasonable length (few weeks or months at most)....thanks 158.222.189.226 (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.