User talk:Sugarloaf128

Janesville, Wisconsin[edit]

Dept of numbers is not a reliable source. At the bottom of the page it says "Data on deptofnumbers.com is for informational purposes only. No warranty or guarantee of accuracy is offered or implied." You need to provide a reliable source. It is not that no one wants the information presented it is that you keeo adding it without a reliable source or until now as a copyright violation of an unreliable source. ~ GB fan 19:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Janesville, Wisconsin[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Janesville, Wisconsin. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 32.218.32.137 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 32.218.32.137 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. clpo13_(talk) 21:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

clpo13, what illegitimate use did they do. They edited with an ip. Their edit was reverted. They created an account and edited. Their edits were reverted multiple times. They come back later and find their edits gone and create another account with the same name and numbers and go basal in and edit the same article with the same info. They never acted like they were different people and didn't go back and forth between accounts. These are obviously two accounts by the same passion and as far as I see no illegitimate use. I can see blocking for edit warring but not sock puppet. ~ GB fan 22:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original account was at WP:3RR (technically 4RR if you count the IP edit) when the second account joined the dispute. That looks to me like an attempt to game the system. That said, it's certainly possible they simply forgot the password to the original account. If Sugarloaf wants to abandon that one, I can swap the block lengths. clpo13_(talk) 22:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one warned the original account about 3rr. From my interactions I don't think they are even reading their talk page. The edit summaries they were leaving tools me they had no idea what was going on. The sock puppetry blocks should be undone and an appropriate block for the edit warring put in place. There is no illegitimate use here. ~ GB fan 22:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll reduce them both to 24 hours. clpo13_(talk) 22:47, 8 June 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).

Sugarloaf128 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked from making edits on Wikipedia since June of 2017. I am requesting to be unblocked for the purpose of making one edit to a page using information from the census.gov website. I have used this citation of authority (source) before for other edits and those edits were accepted. I will be happy to test my changes and the citation (source) with you before making the final addition to the city page. I come to you in good faith and I am merely trying to add information that can be found on the US Government Census Webpage to the page of a certain US City. My source will be U.S. Census or census.gov I believe this is a valid source and a valid citation. The information I am trying to post can be found on the census.gov website and I don't foresee any controversiality about taking information from the census.gov site and adding it to a site of a certain US City. Please let me know.

Decline reason:

This account is blocked as a sockpuppet of User:128Sugarloaf. The main account isn't blocked. Please stick to using one account (except in ways permitted by policy). Huon (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2018 (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.

I will be happy to stick to one account. When I try to edit a certain city page, it says that I'm blocked. You mentioned that the main account isn't blocked. Does that mean I can edit now, if I use just one account?

I'm sticking to one account, why can't I edit? You stated above that the main account isn't blocked. I'm not able to edit. Please help.

User:128Sugarloaf should be able to edit. I have removed the autoblock that came from trying to use this account. If it doesn't work, request an unblock at that account's talk page and tell us what exactly the block message says. Huon (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]