User talk:OnceASpy

Block evasion

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

legit not me. I only have one account. Can't you check the IP of this stuff? Whoever it was either agrees with my edit, or is purposefully trying to get me blocked by impersonating me. OnceASpy (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Joe-jobbed. See below. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a little patience while this is looked into. Admins, please hold. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "other guy" admitted to being him, so, unless there is evidence that he was framed, I don't see this going anywhere. Assuming that this is as it appears to be then I would suggest upping the block to indef. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a famous line, checkusers usually know something you don't. Please all be patient. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, after seeing what the "other guy" posted, it's pretty clear I'm being impersonated. Which is both kinda funny and a little disconcerting, considering the political nature of the page in question. OnceASpy (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it pretty obvious that I'm being impersonated in an attempt to get my account blocked. I actually gained consensus on my edit after I was blocked, and had no problem waiting the 24 hours to re-contribute to the talk page and resolve the issue. This is a politically-motivated attempt to shut my account down. Either that or a really weird and sad troll who should get a more productive hobby. OnceASpy (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK OnceASpy, I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that you were joe-jobbed by Architect 134 (this falls into the latter of your categories), and I strongly recommend to Sir Sputnik that the block evasion block is nullified with a summary clearly stating mistaken identity. The bad news is that your original edit-warring block @TonyBallioni: is likely to stand. In any case it is now a separate matter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies. I had no reason to think you were being impersonated, but here we are. I've reverted the block settings to what they were previously as recommended. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder

Please watch your edit warring/3RR edits. It seems to me that when that is happening, often it's because the weight of consensus is elsewhere. Just food for thought. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're now at 5RR. I would respectfully ask that you self-undo your last edit. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't break any rules or even make an edit. I mentioned a conflict of interest in a talk page and was "punished" for daring to point it out. OnceASpy (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block looks completely justified. Calling other editors names is just a bad idea, period. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:35, 13 November 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.

Reviewing admin: this [1] accusation, followed by this response [2] [3] to my warning, then this [4], and finally this reiteration [5] that everybody disagreeing with OnceASpy must have a COI because they're a bunch of communists. Acroterion (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not "everybody who disagrees with me is a communist". It was that there were conflicts of interest because admitted communists (a subject of the article in question) were violating NPOV on the page. I'm not the only user who was worried about NPOV and how sloppy the article is. (OnceASpy (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Who are the admitted communists? Doug Weller talk 09:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent editor on the page, for instance. (OnceASpy (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I fully admit to being an anarcho-syndicalist, but my edit was simply adding on categories that were already listed in the article. Even if I had a conflict of interest, it didn't materialize in any way so the point is moot. Docktuh (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for repeated disruptive editing of your own page; selectively editing conversations and completely disregarding warnings. See page history. A month in view of previous blocks. Next block should be indefinite. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 11:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A month-long ban from editing for removing constant, persistent trolling on my talk page. That doesn't seem like a massive overreaction at all.

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

cleaning up my own talk page OnceASpy (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=cleaning up my own talk page [[User:OnceASpy|OnceASpy]] ([[User talk:OnceASpy#top|talk]]) 15:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=cleaning up my own talk page [[User:OnceASpy|OnceASpy]] ([[User talk:OnceASpy#top|talk]]) 15:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=cleaning up my own talk page [[User:OnceASpy|OnceASpy]] ([[User talk:OnceASpy#top|talk]]) 15:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}