User talk:Gabe1e

February 2018[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you file an unblock request, make sure that you give your permission to the checkusers to reveal your IP. You are trying to stir things up.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:41, 2 February 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).

Gabe1e (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not used this account abusively at all... look at my contributions. As for linking to my IP, I use my account at my school and home. You may be assuming my IP edits are all me Gabe1e (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, a checkuser is indicating there is technical evidence that you have edited abusively on Other accounts, or while logged out. As I'm not a checkuser, I am not privvy to this evidence, unless you give Berean Hunter (talk · contribs) permission to release it. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:09, 4 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.

Correction to the request:

You may be assuming my school IP edits are actually me.

People from my school edit Wikipedia all the time, about 10% of the time it is actually me. Gabe1e (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, we may show your IP then?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, I don't have anything to hide. I'd love to see the "other accounts" I've been abusing with, as this is the only account I use on Wikipedia. The IP you'll see is my school or my home. I don't know which is connected to here. It's probably my school. Gabe1e (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another thing. If it is my school's IP address, you should see that the IP is public. Gabe1e (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: So? Are you going to reveal technical data? Vanjagenije (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije:, with the unblock request declined and his delayed response without pinging me, I was unaware of this.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:03, 20 February 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).

Gabe1e (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked about two weeks ago, and no action has been taken to try to resolve this. I gave permission to reveal my IP, which is a public IP that can be used by anyone in my school. The implication that I am "trying to stir things up", yet I have multiple contributions to articles, is absolutely ridiculous. Why would I contribute to articles in a meaningful way, then vandalize something on an article under my IP? It makes no sense. Also, if you look at the contributions that the IP has done, they relate to nothing I edit on this account whatsoever. I don't even know what half of the articles they've contributed to are.

Decline reason:

First off, there is not such thing as edit war for a valid reason (see WP:Edit war for more info). Second, Berean Hunter showed technical evidence of you logging-out to discuss with your self (that is WP:IP socking), and you did not even comment that issue (that is original reason you were blocked for). Your argument that you are using school IP is not helping you. It is hard to believe that someone else from your school is interested in exactly the same article as you and at the same time. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:27, 20 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.

You jumped into an edit war at Battle of France which involves several editors. With that being heated, you followed one of them to Battle of Kiev and got into an edit war there leading to another talk page discussion. There are other edit wars in your contribs but the illegitimate IP socking was this conversation with yourself trying to start yet another controversy at the Battle of Moscow. Confirmed. You seem to suggest edit warring on the other battle articles. No good, no thank you; that isn't helping. Can you find a single diff of yours where you brought sources to the table? Your sole existence here has been to simply try to enforce your opinion. That isn't what we do here. With the deception of IP socking, I have no problem blocking you and letting you know that your current methods, unsourced opinions and edit-warring are unwelcome here.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: First off, that edit war on the Battle of France was for a valid reason, if you would actually read that talk page you could see many disagreed with the opinion. There was a poll, and it was actually IN FAVOR of the opinion I supported. Also, you describe that I "jumped into an edit war", when I did no actual editing on the article itself, just the talk page. So please, look into that discussion before jumping the gun on it. If that's your main reason for blocking me, then maybe you should block the few dozen others on that talk thread...?

Secondly, the Battle of Kiev was also reverted by me and others, because the editor thought the victory was decisive. His edits were unsourced, and he also added bullet points which is not recommended in the conflict box template. Once again, look into the situation before jumping the gun. "No good, no thank you; that isn't helping.", so reverting the articles to a popular opinion by editors on here is not helping? Or reverting unnecessary material from articles that will mislead readers is not helping? As a matter of fact, that revert I did is still in place, nobody has changed it.

As far as finding some things I've cited, I cited something minor on the Hundred Days Offensive article, cited something in the 1942 article, added to the Marshall County High School shooting, as well as other small contributions. I've been on here since the 19th of January, 2018, and I've been blocked since February 3rd, so sorry if I'm not editing daily to satisfy you.

"The deception of IP socking"? I use a public IP address, this is the only account I use. As I said before, my IP is from my school, as I am on my school laptop at the moment. As I am typing this argument to you, I am on my school network. That's not "IP socking", it's using a public IP because I don't have internet at home.

"your current methods, unsourced opinions and edit-warring are unwelcome here." I've seen many people "edit-warring" for the same reasons I have and you have done absolutely nothing. The fact that you're blocking me for posting my opinion to resolve an issue on the Battle of France, reverting an edit by a user which most (probably yourself included) would revert as well, (as a matter of fact, it's been reverted and nobody has changed it because they agree with it), and claiming that I don't source my edits when I just showed 3 examples of me doing so is absolutely disgraceful. Gabe1e (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to the quote you had of me "suggesting" edit-warring "The reason why I was appealing to the other articles is because it raises a question. Why is this the only WW2 article that has been edit-warred over the word "decisive"? If you want to enforce the template on this article, why haven't you done it on others? - Gabe1e", that was not a suggestion to edit-war. It was asking the user Keith as to why he edit-warred on one specific topic concerning the Battle of France, because it was similar on other articles. You're twisting my words and not including other comments on the talk page, just to support your own opinion. The way you're suggesting I said it isn't at all what I meant and you should know it. Gabe1e (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a citation and neither is this. This is a citation albeit crude in its raw url form. You shouldn't call people disgraceful when you don't know what a citation is. Unfortunately, you haven't brought any to the table in the edit wars which is what I'm talking about.

You can stop with the "if you actually read it" and "jump the gun" business. If you were to actually pay attention then you would have seen this, this, this and this. I've been watching that thread since Jan. 25 and I do understand the situation and have read the threads...there are several. Since there are still editors arriving at that RfC, I haven't closed it yet but am well-acquainted with it.

I disagree with the way you characterize some of the situations but it doesn't matter.

Are you saying that 50.202.41.32 in the conversation isn't you? You weren't very clear on that. That is the chief reason why you were blocked but your behavior factored into why it was an indefinite block.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter:Well if you were "well-acquainted" with the discussion, you should have seen I was involved in about 4 to 5 discussions, and voted on the poll. I didn't edit the actual article whatsoever, so I really don't see how that's edit-warring at all. The contributions you cited were small contributions to articles that helped the viewer. I was correcting grammar and minor things, that's what I meant when I was referring to my contributions. I've never edited an article significantly, vandalizing or actually contributing. "You shouldn't call people disgraceful when you don't know what a citation is. Unfortunately, you haven't brought any to the table in the edit wars which is what I'm talking about." I wasn't calling you disgraceful, I was calling your actions disgraceful. I have reverted edits and offered to take them to talk, because people have not agreed with the edit. If they agreed with the edit, it would still be there. As you can see from the Battle of Kiev, and the Battle of France, they were both not reverted. I'm sorry if I sound rude, but I'm just angered that I can't edit.

As for the 50.202.41.32 in the conversation, that is indeed me. I did not know you were referring to that for the block. My account was created on January 19th, and I edited that with my IP on the same date. I either created that thread before my account was registered OR I created my account on Wikipedia and Google did not save my login, and after not going on Wikipedia it logged me out. I think I might have accidentally edited with the IP address OR I edited before I created my account. I can't remember, but I know that I went on the talk a few days later, the 24th (of January) to be exact, I looked to see if anyone commented on it, and realized I edited on my IP. So I elaborated with my account below it to try to get the discussion started. However, I don't think this violates anything, because I was reading the IP socking and it says this, "Additionally, one who has an account may sometimes forget or be too lazy to sign in some of the time, or may be unable to for technical reasons, and therefore make IP edits. This is not considered sock puppetry." Gabe1e (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I just realized I created my account after I edited with my IP. My account was created on 15:45, 19 January 2018‎, and the edit on the "Decisive?" talk thread was created 12:25, 19 January 2018. So I did indeed create my account after the edit with my IP. Gabe1e (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanja has already declined your request and I don't buy the way you describe the conversation between your account and your IP but you may file another request.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter:Can I ask why you "don't buy" the way I described it? My account was created after the comment. You can see my talk history and the "Welcome to Wikipedia!" being posted 15:45, 19 January 2018‎, then the edit history on the Battle of Moscow being at 12:25, 19 January 2018‎. It's obvious I made the edit before I created my account. Gabe1e (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP socking combined with you initiating more threads to start new fires. That is how I see it. I have to go for now so it will be more expedient for you to file another request if you wish. Another admin will be able to offer you their opinion as they consider your case. I'll be back later. One more thing, do you have any previous accounts?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but I did nothing wrong and am telling the truth. I will file another request, if it fails then I don't know what to do. As for previous accounts, I might have had one or two a few years back on my other computer (separate IP), but besides that no. Gabe1e (talk) 19:17, 20 February 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).

Gabe1e (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The accusation of IP socking by certain administrators on Wikipedia is flawed and not true. You can see my talk history and the "Welcome to Wikipedia!" being posted 15:45, 19 January 2018‎, then the edit history on the Battle of Moscow being at 12:25, 19 January 2018‎. It's obvious I made the edit before I created my account. Therefore I did not IP sock because my account was created after the post. Yes, I did respond to my post at thehistory talk thread, but it was to elaborate on my previous post because I did remember I posted on my IP initially. I wanted to get a discussion for an article started. Gabe1e (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were clearly replying to yourself there in an attempt to appear like two different people ("I've wondered this myself."). It doesn't matter in which order you used IP and account; what matters is that you tried to deceive others by appearing to have more support than you did. Huon (talk) 19:25, 20 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.

@Huon:, I understand that my wording made it seem like it wasn't me, but I meant to reinforce my earlier opinion because I forgot that I just posted it on my IP, before the creation of my account. To that extent, I admit that I am at fault for that. I should have posted something referring to it being me, or put my signature below the comment afterwards. However, I thought that was against the rules of Wikipedia to sign someone else's statement. Is there anyway to get my block lifted, or can I just simply serve my time until the block expires? That being said, I disagree with Berean Hunter's side accusation of intentionally edit-warring, or trying to stir things up, but I admit to being at fault for making it seem like it wasn't me. Now that I know the rules of Wikipedia, it won't happen again. Gabe1e (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter:, Is there anyway that this block can get removed? I've admitted fault, but I don't think I should be blocked forever. Gabe1e (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The justice system on Wikipedia has treated me very unfairly, banning me indefinitely for a mistake. Because of this, I vacate this account. Don't worry, you will see me again. Gabe1e (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]