User talk:TechGuy933

December 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kinja. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. and Gizmodo. Stop re-inserting unsourced commentary. -- ferret (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

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. -- ferret (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2018 (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).

TechGuy933 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This account was not intended as a sock puppet. The account TechGuy932 was mine, but I lost its password, which is why I made a new account. It seems that the original issue related to some edits I made to the Kinja and Gizmodo page, which Ferret interpreted as disruptive. They were not intended as disruptive; it seemed to me that someone was vandalizing my own edits by undoing them, which is why I re-did my edits, but Ferret's point on dispute resolution is well-taken and I will ensure that in the future that I do a better job of following Wikipedia's policies, with respect to sourcing, dispute resolution, commentary, and so forth. Please note that I was unaware at the time of any possible violations of Wikipedia's policies, so it doesn't make sense that my account would have been created with the intent of violating Wikipedia ToS, since I was unaware of any such violations; likewise, TechGuy932 was not banned, so there would have been no incentive to create a new account if I had been able to log on. Therefore, the allegation of sockpuppetry is unfounded. Regardless, I clearly made mistakes with respect to some of my edits, and take responsibility for this. I would appreciate another opportunity to participate constructively in this community, and, if given the chance, will make greater effort to be fully cognizant of Wikipedia's rules and policies.

Decline reason:

There's no reason to unblock you if your intention is to continue using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to complain about Kinja. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:33, 26 April 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.

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).

TechGuy933 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't have any intention to edit the Kinja, Gizmodo, or related pages. I occasionally notice errors or missing things on Wikipedia, and my intention is to add well-sourced information about such topics. I am more aware of the ToS and have committed to doing a better job of following it, and I understand that my account is already on thin ice. A lifetime ban seems excessive for a first-time when I have acknowledged my mistakes and committed to doing a better job, particularly given that my violations (soapboxing, being disruptive) were not what I was purportedly banned for (sockpuppetry), and as this instance was my first ban.

Decline reason:

No reply from the blocked editor regarding the conditions laid out below by Huon in over a week. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:26, 18 May 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.

TechGuy933, if Ferret has no objections, I'd be OK with unblocking you under the condition that you do not edit the Kinja, Gizmodo, or related pages (ie a topic ban regarding these topics). Do you agree to that condiditon? Huon (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: That is ok with me. The block was on grounds of disruptive editing / POV pushing, coupled with apparent sockpuppeting. If those edits are not continued, and a single account is used, I'm good. A self-agreed topic ban Kinja/Gizmodo related topics seems fine. -- ferret (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]