I primarily edit Wikipedia from and IP because I prefer it; far from hiding that, I openly stated it on my userpage in full disclosure and stated it on multiple other occasions such as before I made this account. I only created a Commons account ThirteenToThirty to add media (and unfortunately, I was accidentally logged into Wikipedia when I made my first edit but I've never edited WP with it again). I only created this account because I was referencing multiple other surname SIAs which were not extant, and making an account was the easiest way to make then without being burdensome on the AfC community, as explained here because I made 18 SIAs in 3 days (with no issues from New Pages Patrol), and it was my intention to translate the 30+ interlanguage links that I added to a page. No one ever raised that being problematic and I can't see why my good faith effort to be less of a burden to AfC would be. I've never intentionally done anything against Wikipedia rules and all of my edits using my account and IP have been made in good faith to improve the project, so there's no vandalism or anything like that -- and I only use the word "intentionally" because I did once do a cut and paste move because I didn't know any better, and a kind user assumed good faith and helped me with the correct approach.

I've never done anything against the rules about sockpuppetry: I have never (1) created an illusion of support, (2) used multiple accounts in internal discussions, (3) circumvented policies, (4) had a strawman sock, (5) evaded sanctions, (6) contributed to the same discussion with multiple accounts, (7) avoided scrutiny, (8) had a "good hand" and "bad hand" account, (9) misused a clean start, (10) had a role account, (11) deceptively sought positions of trust, (12) had more than one administrator account, or (13) posed as a neutral commentators. I have technically contributed to the same page with multiple accounts, but that was fully compliant with the rules: my first edit to the Buss page was while accidentally logged into my Wiki Commons account on 20 March 2022 and I never edited Wikipedia from that account since on any page such that it is retired on Wikipedia; and then two months later on 21 May 2022 I made this account, immediately disclosed on my userpage that I edit with an IP address and published the IP address, and then I made 3 minor edits (on 3, 4, and 5 June 2022 respectively) to the Buss page when accidentally logged in. I have also edited while logged out but that was also fully compliant with the many rules as I did not do so in order to mislead (WP:LOUTSOCK) and I fully disclosed it. I do all edits that aren't about creating pages via IP, except when I forget that I'm logged in -- when I forget I'm logged in, these are all minor edits except the one that Drmies forced me to do on my account by blocking my IP without explanation.[1]

I edit obscure and uncontroversial articles to avoid the bullies and gatekeepers, so I began editing Buss. It is an orphan, only linked to by the DAB page: here. It was ranked N/A for importance and List for quality: here. It’s a niche article with low readership in which no one had taken real interest in 12 years, with it listing just 11 of the many people with the surname on WP. I'm not sure it's possible to find a more uninteresting article, which is why I chose it. It went from this to this. It certainly wasn’t perfect, but it's quality was consistent with other WikiProject Anthroponymy class B articles, and it used the same sources as other surname articles. For 3 months' work, I like to think I did a good job, and it was my hope to keep improving it up to FA status. A user by the name of Hipal disliked it because I used the same source as used on over 19,000 other articles (as well as 172 other sources), and rather than improving it (or giving me and other editors the chance to), he deleted large portions of it, so I politely messaged him on his talk page to collaborate.[2] Hipal wasn't willing to collaborate with me so I decided I would move on to other articles, and told him "I'm going to leave you to it" [3] and I did. Hipal teamed up with Drmies to delete half of my contributions[4] for invalid reasons, and then Drmies proposed reverting back to before I even worked on the article[5] despite all the reasons not to, so I reverted back my 3 months of hard work to circuit-break the bullying, but I did so without any animosity, stating in the edit summary "I tried to do something nice, it backfired, c'est la vie".[6] And my only edit to the article thereafter was to add a hatnote to reference the DAB page.

I edit Wikipedia as escapism from the stresses of life, and because I edit non-controversial pages, I just wasn't prepared for the abuse I got. The experience was not a pleasant one, so I told to two users that I felt bullied by that I would leave English Wikipedia to them[7] and I edited my userpage to say I'm retired because, after 15 years in the community (albeit small edits for the last decade), the bullies were getting to me. But, after 15 years in the community, I also can't help but correct typos, formatting errors, etc. when I see them because I want Wikipedia to be the best it can be. When I came to do that today, I saw Drmies blocked my whole IP range, RandomBlobby and ThirteenToThirty for disruptive editing stating:

I blocked your other account, User talk:ThirteenToThirty, and the IP range you used to edit your hobby horse. It is obvious that this was abuse. If you wish to try and make progress with that Buss article, you may do so from the talk page; please be forewarned that any further disruption may result in more blocks, with either a block on editing article space or an indefinite block as possible options.

There is no evidence that I have ever abused or disruptively edited Wikipedia. Ever. How turning this into this is considered abusive and disruptive is beyond me. That was practically the only page edited aside from minor edits elsewhere and creating many of the SIAs it linked to. I made a positive contribution to the project in good faith, I did so in a polite manner when faced with hostility from others, and far from being protective of my hard work, I left Hipal and Drmies to delete it against the interests of our users who surely prefer a pretty good article that can be improved above what they have now which is no article at all. I'm not looking for a pat on the back for my hard work, which is one reason I edit anonymously when I can, because people shouldn't be interested in the editor, but in the edits. Most of the deletion was by Drmies,[8] who never made any effort to collaborate or understand the reasoning behind the inclusion various sections (if he did, he would learn that I included standard sections used in the highest rated anthroponymy articles). His only involvement in surname articles is SIAs which all have no citations despite unevidenced claims about geographic origin ([9], [10], [11]) because he holds articles that I contribute to to a far higher standard that the ones he authors.

All this was, was a content dispute for what Drmies has termed my "hobby horse" and made clear the block was in relation to the "Buss article", threatening me with further blocks if I edit that article space instead of its talk page. As such, the block is contrary to WP:BLOCKNO and WP:INVOLVED; it was made without me actually doing anything against the interests of WP contrary to WP:BP; and I certainly received no warnings or advice on the best conduct contrary to WP:BEFOREBLOCK. When I felt bullied on that article, I walked away whilst all of the content was maliciously and gleefully deleted, and when I felt bullied on Wikipedia as a whole by the same two users, I walked away from the whole project: I put on my userpage RandomBlobby that I'm retired, and I never edited with this or any other account since (except to address this block) showing Drmies block against me has nothing to do with being preventative, contrary to WP:BLOCKP, and everything to do with gaining advantage in a dispute contrary to WP:ADMIN. The block should never have been put in place by Drmies, and this account, my other account, and my IP range should be unblocked.

Once I am unblocked, I will confirm with an administrator that I trust, but as far as I'm concerned I'm happy to just always edit using IP and put the tens of new articles through AfC. I only made an account to be less of a burden on that process, and for my good faith I have been punished by an admin abusing their privileges in a content dispute. I do not believe bullies should win and I don't want to leave Wikipedia under a cloud when I can evidence that I've done nothing wrong, hence I want all 3 blocks lifted. RandomBlobby (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, I have still not received any response to this unblock request from an independent admin. It seems by the time this gets looked at, the ban will have already expired. It means that I have to suffer Drmies's abuse of admin privileges in a content dispute to block an already retired editor, thus it was not for prevention but for punishment because I disagreed about content inclusion. RandomBlobby (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editor is no longer blocked. SQL^{Query Me!} 22:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]