Wikipedia

StryoFome

Joined 13 May 2011
Latest comment: 12 years ago by 86.133.51.89 in topic Another sock
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).

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

Request reason:

I'm truly sorry about the images on commons (and the Wesley Taylor one on here); I haven't been very well educated about the copyright policy (and have been testing it), so I will read up on it. But I am curious as to how I am a sockpuppet of S.S Miami. Because we've both uploaded a few bad images (well, me a few, him/her A LOT), doesn't necessarily mean we're the same person. If it's the IP adress, I edit from my local public library, and therefore could see how this is an honest mistake.

Decline reason:

The odds of two serial copyright violators with almost identical grammar both editing from the exact same computer is higher than the odds of me winning the lottery. Nevertheless, attacking people while blocked (see "wild deletionist" below) certainly shows you're not here to follow the rules and act in a community environment. To suggest that you are simply going to "read up" on a legal policy that puts Wikipedia at risk is not really going to cut it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:31, 5 June 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

  1. I do admit that I did upload these bad images, though this is my first (and only) time doing this. I've made a terrible mistake, and I just hope to have a second chance to correct my ways.
  2. I promise I will never upload copyrighted images without consulting another editor.
  3. I have no intention to harm Wikipedia; you can see that from my text contributions (see Sandra Church, Leigh Ann Larkin, and Michael Codron).

But what I am not is a sockpuppet. And if I upload a bad image again, I will gladly take any punishments to find suitable.

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified sock of User:S.S. Miami. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:28, 5 June 2011 (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.

An interesting animal. But what is it?

Per WP:DUCK test. Account created right after the latest sock Bialytock&Bloom (talk · contribs) was created; identical editing profiles; systematically edits same articles (Doug Besterman, Sandra Church, Janet Dacal, Rory O'Malley); same bad image uploads; immediately saw when B&B's upload File:Dougbesterman.jpg was tagged for deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dacal, Besterman, O'Malley. All people who have shows on Broadway this season. Many people have seen The Book of Mormon (O'Malley), How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying/Sister Act/The People in the Picture (Besterman), and Wonderland (Dacal). Church doesn't make sense, B&B never touched it. Many accounts can be created on the same day. My text contributions are helpful. I explained the images in my unblock request. I am truly sorry for the images, but I can't apologize for something I didn't do.--StryoFome (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean by identical editing profiles?--StryoFome (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, your style in making unblock requests and professing your innocence matches the other guy's too. Do you really want me to go and have your IPs checked if they match? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
On the S.S. Miami talk page, the editor asks, "[B]lock [me] from uploading images, but not from editing." Is there a reason that was not done before? I think it would've prevented S.S.'s copyright problems.--StryoFome (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'm not his/her sockpuppet, but perhaps I could reach some sort of agreement with you? ie: if I upload a bad image again I will be blocked without question?--StryoFome (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
BTW, becoming a wild deletionist doesn't help.--StryoFome (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Help edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has deleted a bunch of images just because I uploaded them, even perfectly fine images. This is not savory; these images are improving Wikipedia, and I believe that Sunrise has become a deletionist. I would file a report, but I can't, so can someone please do so or re-upload the images? It was not in violation of a ban or block; they were uploaded before the block!--StryoFome (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

You need to sort out your block first - you cannot evade it by asking other people to repeat your actions for you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Don't repeat my actions; re-upload the good images (like War Horse, Sandra Church in Gypsy, Catch Me If You Can - those ones).--StryoFome (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Wait for your unblock request to be addressed! Any attempt to get other people to do things for you while you are blocked is an abuse of your Talk page - if you reinstate this {{helpme}} request again I will revoke your Talk page access -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
OK, thanks for telling me.--StryoFome (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unblock edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
 
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).

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

Request reason:

Once again, I am NOT S.S. Miami. I've already explained how I edit from the library, and that would explain it, and I've also pointed out my helpful text contributions (Michael Codron is my favorite). You can be assured (I swear) that if you unblock me, I will never upload a bad image again, and if I do, I will gladly take any punishments you wish to bestow on me. I understand what I've been in trouble for (the copyright images) and I've given three reasons why you should unblock me, and I've even told you to block me if I do this again. Give me a second chance, assume good faith, and I promise you won't regret it!

Decline reason:

This reminds me so much of the conversation we had when you were using the other account. Now that you know we can recognize you and block you even when you don't tell us who you are, I hope you'll be able to stop creating new accounts and find a hobby other than editing Wikipedia. Please believe that you really are blocked, and we really do want you to stop editing. I know you are just trying to help, and the thing that would help most if if you didn't make any more edits, or create any additional accounts. Thank you. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:11, 5 June 2011 (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.

Note to reviewing admin: the link in the checkuser to User:Bialytock&Bloom is unambiguous; and SS Miami admits to being B&B here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
You may be biased due to you involvement in the B&B blocking, and I've already explained the IP.--StryoFome (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I'm biased against serial abusers of multiple accounts such as yourself. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes. And I've already explained enough about how I haven't abused multiple accounts; I only have one, I only use one: StryoFome. I've explained the IP, vowed never to upload a bad image again, and that's all I can do. If you can't believe me, then so be it, but I have no intention to break the rules of Wikipedia, only improve it, as anyone can clearly see from my text contributions.--StryoFome (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would prefer an unbiased admin to review this block and read all my above comments; both Jpgordorn and FisherQueen were involved with the B&B blocking. And FisherQueen, I highly doubt that having me stop editing would be helpful, because there are many articles that I update that no one else cares to, leaving you with what? An outdated article that makes no sense to readers.

I would never intend to harm Wikipedia! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that from my text contributions! And saying that we edit the same articles is useless; all of those people (O'Malley, Besterman, Dacal) have a show on Broadway this season. Do you know how many people have seen those shows? Do you know how many people are fans of those shows and the people involved with them?


Saying that I am a sockpuppet is offensive to me, and you act as if you are so right about everything! FisherQueen treats me like B&B and SS, even though I'm not! I can swear on the holy Torah that I am NOT either of those editors! Please, assume good faith and believe me and I swear again that I won't upload any bad images!


I am willing to confirm my identity by e-mail or other means.

Decline reason:

Make enough socks and I suppose you'll eventually run out of 'unbiased' admins. Same behavior as the previous socks, same bad uploads, same articles, same unblock conversations, same disturbing lack of integrity. Let me again be the one that runs out of patience and locks your talk page. This is nonsense. Kuru (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2011 (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.

Another sock edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
User:Mamma_Rose is definitely another sock of User:S.S. Miami/User:Bialytock&Bloom/User:StryoFome.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StryoFome&oldid=1077379684"