User talk:OnceASpy

Block evasion
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


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


 * The "other guy" admitted to being him, so, unless there is evidence that he was framed, I don't see this going anywhere. Assuming that this is as it appears to be then I would suggest upping the block to indef. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To quote a famous line, checkusers usually know something you don't. Please all be patient. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

I find it pretty obvious that I'm being impersonated in an attempt to get my account blocked. I actually gained consensus on my edit after I was blocked, and had no problem waiting the 24 hours to re-contribute to the talk page and resolve the issue. This is a politically-motivated attempt to shut my account down. Either that or a really weird and sad troll who should get a more productive hobby. OnceASpy (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK OnceASpy, I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that you were joe-jobbed by (this falls into the latter of your categories), and I strongly recommend to Sir Sputnik that the block evasion block is nullified with a summary clearly stating mistaken identity. The bad news is that your original edit-warring block  is likely to stand. In any case it is now a separate matter. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please accept my apologies. I had no reason to think you were being impersonated, but here we are. I've reverted the block settings to what they were previously as recommended. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Friendly reminder
Please watch your edit warring/3RR edits. It seems to me that when that is happening, often it's because the weight of consensus is elsewhere. Just food for thought. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You're now at 5RR. I would respectfully ask that you self-undo your last edit.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request

 * Reviewing admin: this accusation, followed by this response   to my warning, then this, and finally this reiteration  that everybody disagreeing with OnceASpy must have a COI because they're a bunch of communists.   Acroterion   (talk)   18:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not "everybody who disagrees with me is a communist". It was that there were conflicts of interest because admitted communists (a subject of the article in question) were violating NPOV on the page. I'm not the only user who was worried about NPOV and how sloppy the article is. (OnceASpy (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC))


 * Who are the admitted communists? Doug Weller  talk 09:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The most recent editor on the page, for instance. (OnceASpy (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC))
 * I fully admit to being an anarcho-syndicalist, but my edit was simply adding on categories that were already listed in the article. Even if I had a conflict of interest, it didn't materialize in any way so the point is moot. Docktuh (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for repeated disruptive editing of your own page; selectively editing conversations and completely disregarding warnings. See page history. A month in view of previous blocks. Next block should be indefinite. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Unblock request
Declined unblock requests cannot be removed while the block is in effect. If you remove one again, your ability to edit this page will be removed. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request

 * This is getting out of hand. Certain editors have come to my talk page, seeking out any way to stir up a reason to ban me. I didn't violate the rules, I didn't argue. I didn't edit anything to mislead or misrepresent what they were saying. I cleaned out new discussion because, in my view, it was an attempt to pick open an old scab to try and get me to say something that could be twisted into a ban. It's ridiculous, immature, and so far from productive it's laughable. I voiced some POV concerns in a talk page over a month ago, and since then I've been hounded and harassed for it by a couple of editors with some serious chips on their shoulders.OnceASpy (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Your contributions say otherwise. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What? You seem to be confused.OnceASpy (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I went through a sample of your contributions, and the block appears to be justified. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize you were the admin reviewing the unblock request. Care to elaborate? Because my block isn't for my contributions. OnceASpy (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not an admin. I'm just assisting whatever admin does review it by providing information.


 * Your block is due to a history of refactoring talk pages - this is unconstructive and is against policy. There's also the issue of disruptively editing your own page(s), as well as what appears to be POV pushing. Reviewing your edit history shows this is accurate. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Archiving old talk discussions isn't disruptive editing. And no rules were broken. You're out of line here. OnceASpy (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleting is not archiving. We have several templates for archiving: archives and archive are just two of them. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. But I'd like to take this up with an actual admin.OnceASpy (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)