User talk:BuickCenturyDrver

=Previous Discussions=

From Anna
Can we talk? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well as long as you're not part of HJ Mitchell and his legion of meatpuppets so hell-bent on using violence to keep me from editing wikipedia and enforcing "ban" that doesn't even exist, sure. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not part of that crowd. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's the deal:
 * The "ban" those editors have been trying to enforce is a hoax. There is no mention of me on WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM issuing a site-ban on this account.
 * Right after this was blocked, I tried getting it unblocked using the unblock temp but was refused twice. I leaves me no choice but to make a new account each time I want to edit, since I exhausted legitimate effort to get it unblocked to begin with.  Quite frankly, I would not have to sockpuppet if they gave me another chance to edit with this and only this name.  From 2007-2013 I've edited constructively and these rats are willing to spitefully ignore it.
 * The article I'm trying to write about Power Rangers Ninja Steel has reliable sources and all I'm trying to do is post it. Look in the article's deleted history and you'll see it was edited by legit editors, but the abusive admin Favonion has been harassing me and making persistent efforts to keep the article deleted, blocking any user that writes this article.  –BuickCenturyDriver 04:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope this helps. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Holy moly. Okay. What I am hearing is you should be a constructive editor here and you got a raw deal. You are angry with a bunch of people here and now you're socking. What I see is, well, yes, a ton of socking. It all seems to get reverted. This is a huge waste of your resources, right? This is all a bad deal for everyone. Lose-lose, I would say. A solution where everyone is happy would be a good thing. Would you agree with this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, what exactly are you proposing? I've love a solution where I could edit and those guys could just leave me alone.  –BuickCenturyDriver 05:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll need a little bit of time to look into it. They system here almost always calls for a 6 month wait then a clean start sort of thing. Maybe there's another solution though. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How's this for a solution? You change the block on this account to expire 6 months from today (September 20, 2016) then I will agree not make any more socks.  Fair deal? –BuickCenturyDriver 05:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean you would not edit Wikipedia with any account for 6 months and then return using this account? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. If it means getting this account back, it's worth the wait.  –BuickCenturyDriver 05:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, that sounds wonderful. I'll get back to you ASAP. Thank you so much for being so cool! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Appeals Discussion

 * Pinging those involved:


 * BCD, I'm not the asshole you think I am, and that's why I am here writing you today. Would I like to see you unblocked? Absolutely. The problem is I have to look out for the encyclopedia first. So here are the issues as I see it with your editing/unblock:
 * You've previously had issues with socking and comprising admin accounts in 2007, where you wasted a lot of resources.
 * Actually, I was not the one to compromised the accounts, someone exposed the password of an admin account which I logged in and experimented with, blocking a user that ironically would be banned by arbcom years later. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You wasted the time of 8 administrators to deal with his block, 4 of which were CUs.
 * 4 administrators warned you shortly before your block for getting involved in areas you shouldn't (aka unblock request declining)
 * You have one of the longest SPIs in the history of SPIs
 * Instead of helping clear up the original case, you muddied it as much as you could
 * Your asking Anna to unblock you on your terms. Basically, you are putting a gun to the head saying unblock me or I'll sock, and we are "using violence"?. That's not how it works.
 * We have never or once in a lifetime rarely changed a block in advance of a WP:OFFER. You will see that as guarantee that you will get unblocked, even if the rules are broken again, and you still continue to violate WP Standards.
 * You don't want any conditions on his unblock. Have you seen that for editors that have caused significant disruption?
 * Your targeting other people as the reason for your own block
 * Your comments are completely short of the standard way to appeal a block
 * You doesn't understand image copyright at all, shown by the slew of XfDs on his talk at the time of blocking
 * You still don't view sockpuppetry as problematic
 * You are throwing the book at administrators calling them "abusive" and "using violence"
 * CSD G5 does not require a ban, and you are not banned. You are blocked.
 * Your socks have taken a turn to impersonating administrators. Many administrators.


 * So I will propose to you a counter offer that is both serious and reasonable considering the above:
 * You can be unblocked after the standard offer is satisfied
 * You come clean and admit your involvement in the issues surrounding your block showing some form of remorse for the disruption
 * You agree to strict unblock conditions:
 * A restriction from editing in advanced permission settings (unblock, RFPP, UAA, etc) until we are satisfied with your contribs except to post your own requests.
 * Prohibited from meta areas of XfD (cause of the original votestacking) for 6 months, unless you are the original creator of the item proposed for deletion
 * One account restriction, no exceptions, indefinitely, maybe to review for alt accounts after 2 years
 * No IP editing, indefinitely
 * Prohibited from file uploads for 6 months, and until we are satisfied your knowledge of copyright is satisifactory
 * Prohibited from requesting advanced permissions for 6 months (like ACC, rollback, admin, etc.)
 * Prohibited from RfX for 6 months (again due to the votestacking)
 * You make an appeal inline with the standard guide to appealing blocks
 * If you wish to take me up on it, I'll be here. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 12:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Holy cow. That's a lot of stuff. But DQ has seen the whole history and is cautious for a reason. And BuickCenturyDriver, I know you don't like being bossed around. Can we work this out? Lose-lose is exactly what it says on the box. Let's go win-win for a change, okay? See what the other admins say. I know you don't want eat crud. This isn't that. This is just a negotiation and you are one half of that. Could we just come to agreement and make things so wee're all better off? Please? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

DQ said she'd sit on the sidelines for a while so it's just us two. Can we discuss things and hash things out? I feel we can figure out something that will get you back and editing. Would that be okay? :) I'm pretty nice and not a meanie or anything. And you seem nice. I'm sure we can work it out. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Verified. I'm willing to standdown while you guys talk. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 14:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm no longer that involved in the SPI process and I have no objections to whatever is decided. --Rschen7754 14:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have been pinged, and so will respond. My involvement with this editor was in the year 2013; and not since. I do not have anything to add at this time. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to edit with this and only this account, yes. And yes, I could stay away from the AFD stuff.  The whole reason for this was I was blocked on a petty incident back in 2013.  I tried to explain it and told them I had 6 years of good editing but the people who blocked were will to overlook it over that one incident.  I waited a month again, requested another unblock but again was refused.  This left me no recourse and forced me to sock every time I wanted to edit.  It got to the point where even the constuctive edits (like the Power Rangers Ninja Steel were deleted just because of the block) and I was being harassed by  and .  I explained to them I was never banned but they persisted with their behavior in targeting me.  I was only trying to fight back at them, hoping they'd leave me alone and mind their own business, but they kept harassing me and I fought them back.  I want nothing to do with these editors, just another chance to edit in the mainspace.  That's all. I really don't know what to write in an unblock request, but consider the above and the positive contribution I made.  Thanks for understanding.  –BuickCenturyDriver 17:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Response to ping: Having just read through the above, I see no valid basis for unblocking this editor. In the past day, he's again sought to downplay the circumstances behind the 2013 block (asserting, as he did at the time, that his positive contributions should have been redeemable for a free pass), repeatedly argued that his sock puppetry is justified (because he was "forced" into it by the "rats", who left him with "no choice"), and attempted to use the promise of good behavior (which has proved worthless on prior occasions) as a bargaining chip – essentially agreeing to stop socking if his demands are met. Frankly, I don't even see the appearance of reform. If anything, BuickCenturyDriver only seems emboldened by his block evasions and less inclined to pretend that he regrets his misconduct. —David Levy 23:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * BuickCentury, most of what you write above is pretty fair. You sound like a nice person. The worst thing ever is when you feel like you got a raw deal and nobody listens or cares or takes the time to understand. And 6 years of good editing is huge.


 * And DQ makes good points.


 * Regarding David Levy's comments. Yep. This is a huge thing to get past, and then other details should be manageable: "...forced me to sock..." That is like me walking into Bob's store, getting into a misunderstanding, getting kicked out, and me saying "I have no choice. I am forced to simply keep coming back into the store because you are wrong." That doesn't wash in shops and not at Wikipedia either. You've absolutely got to give something here. Please. This will be a deal-breaker and then it will be back to the old way, which was rotten for all.


 * David Levy is pretty much on the money. Stopping socking ain't no bargaining chip. You can't call people rats. Nobody is asking you to eat humble pie or get on your knees here. You just have to address these things.


 * Anyhow, if David Levy objects and that itself is a deal-breaker, I need to know. I've only invested 10 minutes in this and am prepared to walk away. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * My objection should not be considered a deal-breaker. The same goes for any particular editor's input, apart from WMF office actions.  Given the history, a potential decision to unblock should be rooted in community consensus.  —David Levy 01:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the point I'm trying to get across is that i would not have to use sock accounts if this name gets unblocked. I could easily commit to the restrictions laid out by DQ above: using only this account, not editing any AfDs or RFAs, not uploading image, etc.
 * as for the "rats" I talk about, I know here are lots of good editors on Wikipedia. But there are some who are too obsessed win blocking and chasing people they feel are banned from the site.  I can't  stand these people since it seems they have nothing better to do than persistantly block people and chase them away.  –BuickCenturyDriver 05:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the thing that worries everyone is that when blocked, rather than saying, oh well, I can't edit, you instead said, oh well, I guess I'm forced to sock. There are two choices when blocked: 1. Stop editing. 2. Find out what it would take to get unblocked and continue editing if that works out. There is no 3. Be forced to sock. What are your thoughts about that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no problem waiting six months, I just want to make sure it gets unblocked on September 22 and I don't get targeted when I come back. –BuickCenturyDriver 08:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi BuickCentury. I'm happy to hear you'd be willing to wait. And I'm sure nobody would target you upon returning. That wouldn't be a problem. In fact, if you're ever treated unfairly, I'll be right there on your side. And if you're just doing normal editing, everyone would be delighted. But what about the forced to sock thing? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "forced to sock" means I had to use a sock each time I wish to create a new page I had to make a new account since I exhausted my effect to get this username unblocked. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. I think I'm done here. I've invested about 35 minutes and this is going nowhere. I know what "forced to sock" means. If you want, as a last shot, address your "...I had to..." then we can keep talking. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry you're disappointed with my answers, but I tried to address it as best I can. The best I can do now is wait for 6 months and hope thing turn out better then.  –BuickCenturyDriver 12:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay BuickCentury. I'll be here in six months. Let's hope things work out then. All the best. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is odd. Are you reading things right above? I wrote "...I think the thing that worries everyone is that when blocked..." not "unblocked". I'm talking about when you were blocked. You said you were forced to sock. Are you sure you don't want to talk about the problem with saying "forced to sock"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The best I can do now is wait for 6 months and hope thing turn out better then.
 * I'm reminded of 2013, when you expressed "doubt [you would sock] again". Such statements appear to imply that you have no direct control over what occurs.
 * You seem to regard yourself as an innocent bystander who's repeatedly fallen victim to a gross injustice, "forcing" you to go about your business in the only manner possible (by socking). I see no indication that you accept responsibility for your misconduct or intend to cease abusing multiple accounts unless your demands are met.  —David Levy 18:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have no reason to make sock accounts if this wasn't blocked indef over some petty votestack back in 2013. I find it ridiculous that you still would be willing to overlook the positive contributions I made in the 6 years leading up to that.  –BuickCenturyDriver 21:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Afterthought:
 * A very wise person once told me to pay attention to outcomes. Bend everything around that. That is why I wrote to you. This represents three years of your life, hundreds of your hours, all lost, all reverted, a pure waste. Ever see the movie Heat? The cops could hit or miss. DeNiro stood to lose the most. Admins blew a few hours and clicked revert. You wasted hundreds typing. For what? What is it that you want? To edit, without hinderance, right? You like Wikipedia and want to just be a regular editor. That is the outcome you desire in this discussion. Saying you are forced to sock, digging your heels in, saying my way or the highway is messing with the outcome you want. Life is short. Don't shoot yourself in the foot here. Don't blow another three years like this. Rejoin the community as part of the community. That is pretty much all I can say. You are in control of your destiny. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify. Being forced to sock doesn't mean that people were forcing me to make more accounts.  It means that each time I wished to write a new article, I needed an account to do it.  I certainly would not have made all these sock accounts had things been able to work out when I requested unblock in 2013.  After I was denied once, I waited a month and tried again, only to be denied again.  –BuickCenturyDriver 10:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The original offer is as is, unless you want to talk about times, that's all I'm open to. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 15:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * BCD, I won't engage you via email. To answer your questions:
 * 1) I will not unblock you without restrictions in 6 months
 * 2) I will not pre-emptively change the block to expire 6 months from now to have you "stop socking", something as you have indicated above, that you have no problem doing.
 * , that's fine. I'll come back to you in September and perhaps you can unblock with the conditions you laid out above.  See you then.  –BuickCenturyDriver 21:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here: ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And during these discussions... Sockpuppet_investigations/BuickCenturyDriver/Archive  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that is going to pin any user who wants to write about Power Rangers Ninja Steel on me.  The user can come from China and still he'll say it belongs to me.  The latest one was created back in 2007, long before I was blocked.  So it cannot possibly be me.  The burden of proof rests on this user to prove this really is me.  I've doubted the accuracy of CU since day one, and will take this to ArbCom one the six months pass.   –BuickCenturyDriver 07:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, time to stop the charade! It has been confirmed by DoRD that you have created yet another abusive sock:. Per the standard offer, you may file a new unblock request in 6 months, provided there is absolutely no socking in the meantime. Renewed socking will cause the clock to be reset. Favonian (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? He hasn't explained how I'm connect to the other sock he/she blocked.  This person will to say anything, but let them come to prove it.   Frankly, I'm in no mood to play game with you or your meatpuppets.  –BuickCenturyDriver 21:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You appear to have nothing more to contribute other than Wiki-lawyering, so I'll revoke your talk page access. Assuming you are able to abstain from further socking, you may submit an unblock request through Unblock Ticket Request System no earlier than September 25, 2016. Favonian (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your latest action shows you have no desire to talk. Didn't DQ tell me he/she has no desire to engage  in email?  So what is the point in preventing me from using the talk  page while logged in?  You have also failed to explain how the recent accounts belong to me. --BuickCenturyDriver 10:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering the email you sent to me, it's no wonder that people don't wish to engage with you in a mail discussion, and your email privileges were revoked accordingly. and  are both CheckUsers and have access to technical information which makes it clear that you are indeed behind the sock puppets. If your attitude doesn't change for the better during the next six months, I don't think you need bother with further unblock requests. Favonian (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to have you 1) waste community time 2) nor engage via email. UTRS is open to you 6 months after you stop socking. Also, MFR-C is used on the same range as this account is, along with:




 * And that's only one range. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybne all those come from the same IP range, but it's a busy cellphone range. (Do a WHOIS and you'll see it's used by many people, not just me). Are you willing to blame every person that log in from the IP range on me?  I strongly suggest you both step back and let the ArbCom handle this.  I'm not convinced this all goes to me.  –BuickCenturyDriver 16:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

BCD, you posted at my talk with another account telling me you sent an email. I replied at my talk saying I will not use email for discussions with you. I will reply here:

Okay, fine, those accounts are not yours, you weren't socking. If you want to make a false accusation complaint, understand that nobody will hear your case until six months from the time of your last sock edit. Start that clock now and state your case then.

Between now and then, don't drive yourself nuts. Forget about Wikipedia. There are plenty of Internet communities to discover. You want to write about Power Rangers Ninja Steel? Wikia is a place to consider.

See you in six months, or maybe never. Why never? Simple. There can only be two reasons why you want to edit here: To help Wikipedia or because you like it. Well, Wikipedia is full of jerks, right? So, why help Wikipedia? You like it? Wasting hours and getting everything reverted can't be something a sane person likes. See you in six, maybe. Don't reply to this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , though I have no problem waiting for the six months, it doesn't explain why I shouldn't be able to discuss this on talk. I asked to two other editors to leave me alone, why can't they mind their own business?
 * You don't want to talk with email, fine, but the least you could do is unblock email so I can email the BASC with the time comes. BuickCenturyDriver 12:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I also don't want to be blamed on every iteration of vandalism that comes off the IP range 97.x.x.x. I'm not the only person that has verizon wireless, am I?  BuickCenturyDrver (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

An Open Letter to Those Who Are Interested
(The names above are users that have actively pursued me (either by blocking or reverting contributions or using WP:DUCK and WP:SPI to justify that a new editor's username was created by me) from the site over the past few years in an attempt to enforce a block that -- given the circumstances -- was made in the heat of a moment over an article about a fictional storm three years ago. Judging from personal experience, these editors seem to have nothing better to do then hunt for people that use multiple accounts to edit the site.  Like google mail and facebook, creating an account on wikipedia is free and as the site grows, dozens of usernames are created on a daily basis, some which are used once and never again.)

There are basically 2 types of editors: From my experience, most of the users above are from the second group.
 * 1) Editors who are truly committed to creating an accurate Encyclopedia.
 * 2) Editors who -- in an attempt to supposedly protect the site -- treat the site like a video game and chase away editors who don't know better because they're from the same IP range or edit the same articles. I still wonder if the CU data is accurate enough to always assume "Two users + one IP = same person" in a time where thousands of IPs are shared over wireless networks.

Although I admit I was wrong for trying to keep the article that was eventually deleted, that doesn't make persistently chasing me and enforcing this curse right either. you say i've been trying to waist your time. you feel that way because most of your contributions are to SPI pages and have nothing better to do than block new editors that have multiple usernames from one IP network as opposed to correcting errors on articles making sure they're accurate. to be honest, I think you take this "sock" stuff way too seriously. it got to the point where one of the above users restricted editing to my talk page to only admin users unless it gets unblocked and so I must use this instead of my original talk page to communicate.

I am requesting to Arbitration committee review this. Given that I've struggled with these users, I think the Arbcom can reach a fair compromise in which the above users will have to refrain from communicating with me or undoing my contributions. Looking at much of the edits that were undone in the past few months, most were actually not vandalism but were done in an effort to enforce this so-called ban. the edits i made were not done out of spite, so why not just forget about the past and respect my work?

Yes, we proposed 2 months ago that I should wait until September to edit. But -- I am afraid that my request might be turned down again and we're back to fighting again. Therefore I am requesting an appeal via Arbcom. Looking at the cases they've handled most of the time the person's behaviour was discussed and a resolve based an consensus was reached. Perhaps they can resolve this favorably once and for all without the drama. This is my own statement to them. The community as a whole could care less how many usernames i've created over the years. I'm not here to turn the site upside down. I'm here to edit articles like the people in the first group mentioned above.

...and what is the difference between this edit made today and this edit made in March? I'm sure one of you can't wait to report the editor to SPI and block them and add another name to the list of usernames you assume that I used. After all, that's been your natural reaction to any edit made to that list, especially new editors. if it's just because im blocked and it means i cant edit under any circumstances then that's ridiculous and its assuming bad faith. BuickCenturyDrver (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Arbcom Case
There are two purposes of this discussion:
 * 1) To put an end to the edit warring and harassment by admins of new editors contributing to Power Ranger related articles.
 * 2) To reach a compromise that would allow me to edit under one username without making sock accounts. Hundered on new accounts are created all the times.  it's when someone creates an account and make an edit the the PowerRanger WikiProject that makes those editors declare they belong to me. --BuickCenturyDrver (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your ability to lie is boundless. I shouldn't dignify your comments with a response, but morbid curiosity impels me to ask why Wikistormy? How do you know the "purposes" of the case request? It's not terribly important because it's not going to go anywhere, just as your thinking you're going to be allowed to edit again on Wikipedia is grounded in nothing but fantasy. I really shouldn't be saying any of this, but I and other administrators have blocked a lot of your accounts this weekend. Whether you acknowledge those accounts or not is immaterial to me. At some point, though, I or someone else is probably going to revoke your talk page access because Wikipedia is not a forum for you to spin stories.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground either. You and your meatpuppets have been trying to keep a sourced article deleted because I was blocked 3 years ago.  At this point it makes more sense to WP:LETITGO and move on rather then waist time and fight against every new editor on the Power Ranger WikiProject.  I don't know how exactly the checkuser function works, but how could you declare every user coming from a large shared IP range belonging to me?? BuickCenturyDrver (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record, in case of future unblock requests, more socking today: Jo-Jo Humorus. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The user is blocked, but no tags and everything deleted. no mention of this username anywhere supporting your assertion.  Special:WhatLinksHere returns a mention of JJH's name here.  BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

=Unblock Discussion= This is all very incoherent. This account is blocked for WP:SOCK. If you have an earlier account, you should appeal there. As I see no constructive edits from this account, I am disinclined to consider unblock at this time.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:OFFER, you need to identify what led to your block and how you will edit constructively. You need to describe which constructive edits you would make.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Note to other reviewers-- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver/Archive.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

This was quite slippery of you. The original account is. You should make your appeal there.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * the problem is that user talk:buickCenturyDriver is read-only and I can't post an appeal there. If you can unlock the talk page, that would be a tremendous start.  BuickCenturyDrver (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As for WP:OFFER, I stated above that originally the block was result of me trying to use more than one account to falsely keep an article from getting deleted by wp:AFD. over the next few years it was because I had too many accounts and a few were used to fend off attacks from other editors trying to enforce me being blocked.  BuickCenturyDrver (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, BSZ. I need your help I would like you to contect the arbcom. I am appealing a decision in November and an explanation of changing my original block message. I've been trying to resolve being blocked since a 2013 deletion discussion incident buy my efforts have been met with cold resistance -- be it refusing to unblocks & UTRS requests, blocking suspected long term editors to edit warring and deleting articles that are perfectly sourced and are in line with inclusion criteria. .

I've been resenting this block from day one but I've come to realize that if I'm ever going to get this resolved it's going to have to come through someone genuinely interested in getting me back on my feet. I'm not going to say that I was right for what I did over the past few years, nor am I going to justify what I did. I just want to resolve this once and for all. I understand the people that negatively interacted with me will come up with all sorts of reasons why I should never get another chance, but I'm a firm believer in the principle that people can change and it's possible to forgive getting wronged by someone after the passage of time. I understand that it will be difficult to regain the trust of those I wronged and I can't blame them for being skeptical, but I'm willing to take the slow process if it means editing with restrictions that are subject to negotiation and consensus.


 * Just got the ping as Ritchie333 moved the message and signed it, so I thought I'd turn up. First things first, this is doppelganger account, as Ritchie points out, so nothing should be happening here. Next, your block is a CU block, based upon a very long term history of socking. Assuming you have not been socking, then yes, your case can be reviewed, but that doesn't guarantee anything, nor does OFFER suggest you must be unblocked without restriction. I'll get down to doing a bit of research, see what's been happening. WormTT(talk) 13:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And that didn't take long. I see that in November 2017 the committee offered you a way back in, which included 1 year away from Wikipedia. Yet, the last incident in the SPI archive was after that. This request is also before the deadline. I'm not going to invest myself in this block appeal. Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 14:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - The last ip check person to edit the spi archive clearly declares is ❌ to me.  So that can be discounted.
 * - In your response to my unblock you said Send an unblock request on your main account, . If it isn't asking too much, please unlock the talk page so I can do just that, thank you. BuickCenturyDrver (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Discounted? I wouldn't say it was clearly unrelated, but rather inconclusive and likely unrelated. But that's semantics - Either way, you have still been unable to remain away for a year, as requested. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - Let me ask you: What does doing nothing for a year accomplish anyway? Tell me how counting the recent months as time served and working something out now would be detrimental.  It's true I won't be able to gain back people's trust overnight, but 10 months since last interaction and no confirmed usernames reports to wp:spi should be enough to help get thing worked out sooner.  Don't you agree that people can change for the better?  So why stick to the "one year of doing nothing" request? BuickCenturyDrver (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You've hit the nail on the head, it's about trust. Just as the standard offer talks of insight into reasons behind the block, it also implies that the community should be able to trust that you will be able to remain within the community norms. Given the length of time that you have carried on with your actions, it's not going to happen overnight. As you are still pushing the boundaries on what is suggested as a route back, why would the community suddenly accept that you capable of remaining within the norms? To me, it really doesn't matter how long the arbitrary period is, what matters is that you stuck to it - and you didn't. If you come back, it will be on the community's (or by extention Arbcom's) terms, not on your own. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 09:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - The whole purpose of this request is so that the community as a whole -- not just the people that know me -- could give input based on my entier history 2007-present. I was confident that someone uninvolved could offer up some support.   Based on what you said, the offer that was laid out ought to be a year from November, not January since the last wp:spi was confirmed unrelated by another arbitrator and not my fault.  Could we at least agree that the downtime begins from then?  BuickCenturyDrver (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The "community as a whole" is generally unable to review CU blocks, which yours is. That's why it is referred to Arbcom. I can accept that the downtime began from November, as the last item in the SPI was not "confirmed", but generally clocks reset when breached - and this very thread is a breach. If you wait for 6 months from now, then contact Arbcom, I'll certainly accept that a sign of good faith and say so. If you come to Arbcom on the 1 year from November, I'll be pointing to this thread - I cannot guarantee how the rest of the committee will view it. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - I wasn't aware that appealing something is a breach since I sought to find somebody willing to listen to my side of the story. I'm inclined to take a chance and try again late November.  Worst case scenario is if review turns sour next review would be Summer 2019.  I wouldn't mind if they looked at this discussion as it would indicate an effort to come back with the original account by means of WP:OFFER which only requires 6 months downtime.  It's also an effort to communicate without hurting.  The fact you're responding to my comments is a positive step.  Maybe next time things will turn out better.  BuickCenturyDrver (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you added a ping, there isn't anything for me to respond to there. I'm sure I'll see any appeal when it comes before the committee. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)