Jump to content

User talk:CrazedElectron27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, CrazedElectron27! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Happy editing! Heart (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hello CrazedElectron27! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Votes by City Tables from the 2012, 2016, and 2020 presidential elections in California needs color added, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Results by city

[edit]

Would you please left-justify that as all the other results tables appear to be? You added Live Oak which is a wp:DAB page. Probably should collapse into a box. I'm not sure how to do that. There is {{cot}} which is used for non-article pages, I believe. Ask at the wp:Teahouse? You can have DAB pages displayed in orange by checking Preferences -> Gadgets -> Appearances -> "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". That's a lot of work! Thanks for doing that! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One other question, do you know of efficient ways to add colors to the city tables (in the same format as the results by county tables where each city is colored as the party that won it)? I don't know how to do it without spending many hours manually adding the coloring to each cell one by one. If not, know what would be a good place for me to ask? Thank you! CrazedElectron27 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "collapse" or "show"

[edit]

FYI: See MOS:COLLAPSE Cheers Adakiko (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

2021 California gubernatorial recall election
added a link pointing to Live Oak, California
2022 California gubernatorial election
added a link pointing to Live Oak, California

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

[edit]

Is this account still considered a sockpuppet even though I have now disclosed all of the other accounts I have owned?

[edit]

? CrazedElectron27 (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QEDK, could you please re-open my ANI discussion?

[edit]

@QEDK: Hello, part of my purpose of making that discussion was to clear the air on the events that took place with the involved users. I have no objection to my current ban, but I would appreciate if that discussion was re-opened so that those users could reply with responses to my questions and concerns. Thank you. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply below. If an admin denies your unblock request, we can consider a community proposal. I do want to say that proposals by block evading accounts are not looked upon too kindly. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still rather that discussion be re-opened if possible, although I guess that any of those users can still ask questions here if they desire. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry no, as the discussion itself is a product of your block evasion. That said, I've flagged it to a random admin on ANI who can choose to take a second opinion. In general, if any other admin is reading this and wants to revert me, please feel free to do so. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sockpuppetry

[edit]

Hey CrazedElectron27, if you really do intend to contribute positively to the wiki, please do the following before making your next unblock request.

  • Firstly, do not evade your block. This means no new accounts, at all.
  • Declare all of your sockpuppet accounts.
  • Actually understand your mistakes before posting an apology, this means holding yourself accountable and not blaming others for your decisions.
  • Make an unblock request from your sockmaster account only (this is your oldest account), and no other account. If TPA is revoked, please use WP:UTRS.

I'd like to reiterate the point about making no new accounts on this wiki ever. Thank you. qedk (t 愛 c) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The older accounts were made with burner emails and I no longer have access to them, so is it okay if I make the unblock request from this account and make clear that I can't and won't use any of the other accounts again? I already declared all of my accounts in my ANI discussion, which I will of course do again in an unblock request. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to assume good faith (which implies that you are being honest). In that case yes, you may make an unblock request from this account. In that case, an admin apart from me will take a look at your request - if they deny your request, you can choose to go forward with your community unban proposal and hopefully that admin can address your request. --qedk (t 愛 c) 07:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A confession and apology for my trolling & block evasion, and a request to look over and discuss past events (repost of my ANI discussion)

[edit]

@OhNoitsJamie, Yamla, Deepfriedokra, and Gaelan: The below is a repost of what I said in my ANI discussion before that was removed. I understand why that was removed, and one of my main purposes there was to have a measured discussions with the involved admins over the nature of the incidents I discussed so we can come to a common understanding and consensus. This same purpose can be accomplished on this talk page. I am pinging the involved users for this purpose. This is not a formal unblock request, I will give it some time before making one of those. Thank you for hearing me out.

Hello, here i want to confess that in the past, before I made this account. I often messed around on Wikipedia and trolled quite a bit, which I do apologize for. Over the years I did trolling on multiple ips. I also have 3 accounts that were and are still blocked. They were DefenderOfTheElderly (a shameful troll account that I regret), EpicTiger87 (an account where I discussed with others in good faith in the brief time i had it, although I was too aggressive with others which I apologize for, but the account was only blocked because it was caught up in a checkuser with the DefenderOfTheElderly block), and BigBuilder1755 (created to raise an issue but blocked as it appeared to be trolling and was linked to other accounts via checkuser, discussed below). There are also numerous ips I used over the years, some for good edits, some for trolling. I regret this behavior, which is why I have only used this current account for legitimate edits, my days of disrupting this project are behind me. I am coming clean about my history here because I feel that I should be honest rather than hiding my past. I am bringing this information here firstly so that the administration can do whatever with it that they like, I will accept the deserved consequences. I know that this account will be blocked now that I have admitted this, and when that happens I will make an unblock request where I will offer to fulfill the terms of the Standard Offer or whatever else is asked of me. I would like to keep editing as I have the past few months (and I think that my edits on this account have clearly been useful), but I understand the skepticism due to my bad history here.

I do also have a secondary request, and that is to discuss an issue that I have been trying to get sorted for a while. Last February, on the BigBuilder1755 account, I brought up an incident that happened in 2019 on one of the old ips I messed around with. Here was the initial post. My post was very aggressive and demanding, regrettably so. I should not have demanded that the admins I took issue with be penalized, especially not for 6 months each 5 years after the fact. I apologize for this. I should have gone into this post with a more polite tone without many demands, I should have just called attention to the incident and gave my perspective so that a proper and measured discussion could be had. I was immediately blocked for this and the responding admins dismissed my complaint as nonsense. At the time I was mad about this, from my perspective I had a legitimate complaint and it was brushed aside. But in hindsight I don’t fault the admins for reacting this way. My complaint looked very much like a troll with the demanding nature, the fact that it was the first thing I had ever posted on the new account, and because the checkuser was able to connect this account to other blocked accounts of mine. I handled this the absolute wrong way, and I really had no right to leverage the complaint at all since I myself had wronged others on here and hadn’t owned up to my own had behavior. Regrettably, I did not get the clue at the time and over the next year I reintroduced this claim multiple times on different ips, each time getting them written off in similar fashion. This was stupidity on my part. Here are my additional threads on the matter for reference.

While many of my behavior over the years has been trolling, these specific posts were actually done in good faith, as silly as they seemed and as poorly as I wrote them. Let me explain where I was coming from. I was legitimately very upset by the interactions I had with multiple admins in 2019, and that stuck with me. While I knew that I myself had done bad things here and myself have wronged members of this community on multiple occasions, I was very much disappointed in what I saw from admins who I previously thought higher of. So last year I decided to look at the details of what had happened, and I came to the conclusion that I was wronged. I really wanted to see what could be done, which is why I posted that rant so many times. Each time I was very unsatisfied by it being dismissed. It being dismissed was my own fault obviously, but that’s how I felt at the time. I now withdraw all my requests to punish those admins that I ranted about, I instead just want to discuss what happened in that incident. I looked through the evidence and came to the conclusion that those admins were lying to me and unfairly blocked me, as I explained in those posts. I also understand that it’s possible that I could be missing part of what happened or misunderstanding something. While it looks to me like those admins were in the wrong, it is also very much possible that I am actually the one in the wrong. So below i will repost my perspective on what happened, but rewritten to avoid all my demands and harshness:

“I was the ip on this talk page and said ip was blocked. I was unhappy with what I perceived to be unprofessional behavior from the admins. So I would like to file a complaint on the matter so that we can discuss what happened. All of the conduct I will cite below from these users can be found on that talk page.

My first complaint is that User:OhNoitsJamie and User:Yamla seemed to have lied to me. My ip was blocked from Wikipedia for 5 months, and yet both of them claimed that there was no block on my ip. From my perspective, it was clear that my ip was blocked, I believed that the admins were lying about this. Then User:Deepfriedokra made a comment on the talk page which I interpreted as essentially admitting that I was blocked, and they said that I should not be unblocked because I had made bad edits on the Pewdiepie page. I thought this was also a lie or at least that user being confused, as I had made no previous edits at all to the PewDiePie page, no such edits would have shown up on my account history. So I had 2 users claiming I was not blocked, and one other admitting that I was but saying I shouldn’t be unblocked for an untrue reason. I believed that the 3 users involved just did not want to deal with my legitimate critiques of the block. I thought that they were not taking me seriously because I was an ip editor.

Then User:Gaelan responded on the page and again falsely claimed that I was not blocked. I responded to them explaining how they were wrong. Then Yamla seemed to decide that they were just no longer interested in dealing with me at all. So he then claimed that although I “wasn’t blocked before” I now was due to my ip address apparently being a proxy. In reality, my ip was not a proxy. I was using regular mobile data on my phone. Sometimes mobile data connections can be false flagged as proxies on those online checkers, which I thought was common knowledge. So it seemed to me that he just wanted me gone and made up a flimsy excuse to penalize me. He also claimed that my talk page was filled with rampant abuse and copyright violations. While this was true, I had apologized and stated I would not do that again. Since that issue was already resolved without a block, I also saw that as another flimsy excuse.

I then filed a long unblock request, where I thoroughly explained that I had learned my lessons with the talk page abuse and clearly stated that I would never do that again, and I explained that I was not using a proxy. User:Berean Hunter just said that “You are the disruptive editor on this range. Silence is golden and you need some quiet time to reflect on what you have done. TPA revoked.” So, after I gave a unblock request addressing every reason given for my block, Berean Hunter responded by just blocking me for longer and revoking my talk page access. After the tpa restriction was lifted, I asked Berean Hunter clarifying questions about the block, but got no reply. This really bugged me, I felt that I was being unfairly ignored and that none of my complaints were being taken seriously.”

And that sums up my issues with that incident. Hopefully this is more understandable now that I explained the context behind this, withdrew my unfair and hypocritical demands, and have admitted to all my own faults and am ready to face the consequences. I am no longer asking for any penalty to those admins, I just wanted to share my perspective. I am willing to listen to the opposing perspectives from the admins involved to understand why they did what they did and to see if I missed anything. I just want to put everything from my past here behind me and face the consequences so that in the future I can be a good Wikipedia user who isn’t hiding anything. Since I have cleared everything up and given my apologies, I sincerely hope that the admins involved in that incident are willing to clear the air with me. Since I will likely be quickly blocked after posting this, that discussion can take place on my user talk page in the event that I lose my edit access to this page. To conclude, I apologize, I am happy to admit to what I’ve done, and my only requests for admins are to hear out an unblock request whether it be via the standard offer or other conditions, and to clear the air on that unfortunate instance from 2019 so we can finally get closure and move this all behind us. That one instance is the only legitimate issue I have had with admins, which is why my only other request beyond consideration of an unblock request is to clear the air on that specifically. But to anybody I have wronged: If you want to clear the air with me about bad things I did to you, then please don’t hesitate to reach out to me. Thank you. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enough's been said already. Please stop pinging me. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't ping you again. I'd still appreciate your thoughts on what the miscommunications were in that incident and why my claims/impressions on the matter were wrong, thank you. If not, hopefully one of the other admins involved could help. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ping me, either. In fact, don't ping anyone. Nobody is interested in what an abusive sockpuppet has to say on this topic. You are deliberately wasting everyone's time. --Yamla (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to waste anybody's time, I am just trying to understand what happened in the incident I brought up, I want the admins involved to share their side of the story so I can see if I got anything wrong about it. I've accepted that I've done bad things and that my block is legit, I just want to respectfully clear the air on that incident. I won't ping any of you again since I have already called attention to my discussion starter here. Hopefully somebody involved with this incident will be interested in figuring out what happened. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You actually have to use the unblock template to request an unblock. {{Unblock}}. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And don't just copy/paste the above into your unblock request, because that's not going to go well for you. You should be concise, point out what you did wrong, and state that it won't happen again. No dragging other people into it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair points, I'll give a concise unblock request. But outside of getting unblocked, I really just want to have a discussion about that incident from 2019 to figure out what exactly happened there and to see if my impressions of the incident were wrong. I am disappointed that none of the involved admins show interest in that. Would you be interested in discussing that? CrazedElectron27 (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. This is not the time nor the place to discuss that. Either make your unblock request or just move on. While you are blocked the only thing you should be doing on this page is making an unblock request. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please Undo Rollbacks of my legitimate edits on California election pages

[edit]

@HandThatFeeds: Hello, I spent a lot of time and effort adding city results to various California presidential and governor elections. Unfortunately, it appears that a good portion of my additions have been removed due to a mass rollback being done by Yamla of all my edits that happened to be the most recent edits to pages. Any review of these reverted edits will show that all of these edits were constructive and helpful. Below is a list of the pages on which my edits were rolled back, where I am requesting they be reinstated. All of the below pages could be fixed simply by reverting the single rollback edits done by Yamla. Thank you.

My whole tables were removed on:

2000 United States presidential election in California - Wikipedia

2004 United States presidential election in California - Wikipedia

2008 United States presidential election in California - Wikipedia


My formatting fixes of the tables were removed on:

2002 California gubernatorial election - Wikipedia

2014 California gubernatorial election - Wikipedia


My talk page section was removed on:

Talk:2024 United States Senate elections in California - Wikipedia (note that the issue I brought up in that talk page section still has not been resolved, the county map as well as statements in that article are incorrect, as it shows Garvey winning Nevada county even though Schiff easily won it)


Hopefully I have shown through my edit history that I am here to make constructive edits on election articles. I do desire to make more of these types of edits, particularly in adding city results to some of the 2024 California elections once the state releases city results. I also hope that somebody here will be interested in looking over and discussing that 2019 incident that concerned me so that we can come to a conclusion on what exactly happened there in case I was getting any information wrong or things confused in my accusations against the involved admins. Thank you. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ask people to help you WP:EVADE your block. --Yamla (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am simply asking an admin to review the edits that were rollbacked, as any review of them will show that they were fully informative and constructive edits that improved the articles they were on. Those edits were not related to any trolling and were not controversial. The section of the page you linked to states that in relation to banned editors "changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand". On the subject of an editor reinstating edits on behalf of a banned user, it states "Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content." I have described the purpose of my edits and shown how they were productive (by adding useful information on city results to those election pages), so another user agreeing with me and reinstating those edits would be entirely appropriate according to those guidelines. It also doesn't make sense to not reinstate those specific edits of mine, as I added the same tables on other pages, and those other tables have not been removed. Those tables are either good edits for all of those pages or none of them, it doesn't make sense for those tables to be removed from some but not others. I understand that happened due to the automated rollback process, but that doesn't mean that it is appropriate for said arbitrary changes to stick. Thank you. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) I have no idea why you pinged me.
2) Asking someone to make edits on your behalf while blocked is block evasion & can result in your talk page access being revoked. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to do with whether they were "fully informative and constructive edits" or not. It's to do with the fact that if we were to let edits by persistent block-evading sockpuppets stand, there would be no incentive for them to stop evading blocks. If you again abuse talk page access by trying to use it to get someone else to help you evade the effect of your blocks, you can expect your ability to edit your talk page to be withdrawn. JBW (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

[edit]
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).

CrazedElectron27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I am requesting an unblock, because although I have a history of trolling and sock puppetry, I now regret that immature behavior and am interesting in making positive contributions to this project, specifically when it comes to the topic of US elections. On this account I have made nothing but productive edits consisting of correcting errors and adding more information to election pages. I hope to continue doing more of this work in the future if I am unblocked. I thoroughly explained my history on this website in the "A confession and apology for my trolling & block evasion, and a request to look over and discuss past events (repost of my ANI discussion)" section earlier on this page. To summarize, my oldest account was the shameful troll account DefenderOfTheElderly, the account EpicTiger87 where I conducted myself immaturely and was far too combative, and BigBuilder1755 which I made to an raise an issue but was quickly blocked for sock puppetry. I disown my behavior on all 3 of these accounts, as well as on IPs I have edited on. I believe that I have shown that I am now a good faith productive editor on this new account. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that I was blocked and that I am a sock puppet so I deserved this block. I take full responsibility for my trolling, sock pupperty, and block evasion, which regrettably violated Wikipedia's policies. I recognize that my past behavior has led to distrust, but I am committed to moving forward as a positive contributor. If unblocked, I will follow Wikipedia’s polices strictly. I will not create any additional accounts or engage in any form of block evasion, or violate Wikipedia’s policies in any way. I appreciate the time and consideration of the reviewing administrator. I would also be interested in discussing the 2019 incident that I explained in my apology earlier on this page with any admin interested in reviewing it. Thank you. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The standard offer is your only route to being unblocked at this point. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:32, 22 March 2025 (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.

CrazedElectron27 (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any chance I could get a community review of my block initiated before the 6 month mark? Or is even a community review not allowed until after the 6 month period is up? Thank you. CrazedElectron27 (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What part of The standard offer is your only route to being unblocked at this point do you not understand? You were blocked all of 4 days ago as a sockpuppet of an indef'ed editor. Your apparent inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK about something that happened in 2019 is not helping. Neither is your apparent inability to understand what editors are trying to tell you. Stop posting here (don't even respond to my post), wait at least six months, without any IP or account socking, and then make a concise unblock request that does not attempt to rehash whatever happened in 2019. Meters (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CrazedElectron27&oldid=1281911367"