User talk:Notfrompedro/2020/October

Unblock

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).

Notfrompedro/2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I used this account for writing articles and the other for recent change patrols per WP:SOCKLEGIT. At not point did either overlap or engage in sockpuppetry and nobody ever even approached me about this. Why was I blocked? There was no abuse. I can easily just stop using the newer account and go back to just article creation with this one. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

What about the several hundred logged out edits as noted in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notfrompedro/Archive by User:AmandaNP? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I used this account to create and maintain articles and didn't want to do any patrolling because I didn't want this account harassed by vandals. I just did recent page patrolling and gnoming via IP until I finally decided to create a dedicated account for that purpose. At no point did any edits overlap. There was no abuse of multiple accounts. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

This account has existed since March, that's not recently. Either way, this is still avoiding scrutiny and there is one heck of a time overlap. The IP edits also go back to July at least. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, there is also a solid time overlap to split contributions, and it's obvious that your account itself was not new to Wikipedia, so the additional socking compounded the block. You failed to disclose the accounts connection also. Also, just for your information, this was initiated through Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zalgo/Archive#30_September_2020. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I honestly wasn't trying to avoid anything other than keeping patrolling and creating separate. I didn't realize that putting a notice on my userpage would have made that much of a difference so I'm sorry for that. I know this account goes back to march but I didn't say this was a recent account I said Helper202 was recent and I created it after ip editing which started off as just being too lazy to login to make small gnome corrections and then I didn't want to use this one for patrolling as I said. There are no contribution overlaps and at no point did I pretend to be two different people to game anything. This account was kept completely separate from ip edits/Helper202. What scrutiny would I have been avoiding? This account was never involved in any contentious subjects. I just built articles and added references to articles.

I am 100% fine with sticking to one account and just not doing any recent change patrolling anymore. There has never been any issue with my edits that I know of and I never gamed anything by using multiple accounts. I didn't evade blocks or 3RRs or anything like that. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There was a page overlap overlap at ANI. This actually brings up another violation of the sock policy, WP:PROJSOCK. And you keep saying there is no overlap, that's false. You the person started editing from this account, and edit from other IPs and an account. So there is overlap from you as a person, not as these separate types of editors. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I forgot that I was on ANI twice. I opened a report with Helper202 but the brief comments with this one was because I was pinged. I didn't start a discussion there so it slipped my mind. Again though those weren't the same discussion so it wasn't as though I was avoiding scrutiny or evading anything. I didn't abuse multiple accounts I used multiple accounts with the full intention of keeping them separate which I feel that I did. I didn't "use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people" as WP:PROJSOCK because I wasn't in the same discussion both times. They were different discussions about different subjects involving different editors.

As I said I am 100% fine with sticking to one account but I think an indefinite block it extreme in this instance. I didn't abuse 3RR, create false consensus, evade sanctions, etc. Notfrompedro (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

To clear any confusion, WP:PROJSOCK is Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project and is separate from the bullet point for Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts. To ensure you receive a review from an uninvolved administrator, I will leave the unblock request to another admin as I archived and partly dealt with this case. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

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).

Notfrompedro/2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I will absolutely only edit while logged in and only with this account. It is my intention to only create articles and add references to existing ones and abstain from doing any recent change patrolling as I was doing with the alt account and while not logged in. I didn't abuse 3RR, create false consensus, evade sanctions, etc. so I would like a second chance. I made a mistake and it was based on laziness and ignorance not malevolence. I have created over 60 articles and I feel like I have made some very good contributions to the project. Notfrompedro (talk) 2:15 pm, 17 October 2020, Saturday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

Per the discussion below I'm making the Standard Offer: Wait at least six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion; i.e. with no edit, using any account or anonymously, on English Wikipedia; Promise to avoid the behaviour that led to the block/ban; Don't give people reasons to object to your return. After at least six months, ping a CheckUser (users with CheckUser permission are listed here), and ask if you can be unblocked either by a new unblock appeal or a community review on AN. If you don't wish to accept this offer, you can make a new appeal. SilkTork (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

@NinjaRobotPirate: Could you or another admin please explain why my unblock requests are just being ignored? The sockreport was created by AmandaNP and then closed exactly one minute later by AmandaNP [1] without anyone contacting me or allowing me a moments to explain anything. Now I have a three month IP block and an indefinite block and nobody will communicate with me. It feels strangely personal and I am just asking for the barest explanation why I was targeted for a one minute investigation with no evidence provided and no chance for communication and now I am just casually ignored. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, CheckUser blocks often sit in the unblock queue forever because only CheckUsers can lift them. There's nothing weird about the SPI case. Some CheckUsers file those pro forma cases, but I don't. It's rare for admins to ask editors for their side before blocking them. The reason why is because so many people say the exact same thing: "I've never heard of that user, and I'm not a sock puppet."

I'd have probably told you to follow WP:SOCK#NOTIFY and label the alternate account instead of blocking you. However, AmandaNP believes that you have previous accounts that you haven't disclosed. If you have any other accounts, it would probably help if you disclosed them. If nothing else works, you can try appealing to Arbcom. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you for explaining. Nobody asked me about any other accounts or even contacted me at all. I just logged in and found myself blocked. I acknowledge using Helper202 as an alt account but not to evade sanctions or create false consensus or anything but because I just wanted to do recent change patrolling with one account and creation with another. I didn't realize that would be a problem but I do now. WP:LOGOUT also says it isn't against policy to edit while logged out unless you are actively trying to deceive other editors which I didn't do. I was just lazy but I realize that was wrong. I don't see how I am a threat or anything but thank you for taking the time to communicate. Is there any chance at all this will actually be reviewed or is Arbcom pretty much my only option? Notfrompedro (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

It hasn't been a week yet. I have no idea whether anyone will review the unblock request, but if they don't, you have other options. There are a number of reasons that an unblock request might sit in the queue for a while. Many admins don't like dealing with sock puppetry because it takes too much effort to investigate. This is exacerbated when the talk page has long, repetitive discussions, which the reviewing admin might feel have become a burden to read through. So, it pays to be concise and avoid repeating yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I was blocked close to a month ago and nobody responded to my first unblock request until you did a procedural decline based on elapsed time so I was wondering what my next step might be if the same thing happened with this one. Thank you again for giving me your time and providing an explanation for me. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know... appeal to arbcom, I guess. Or take the standard offer. It's all in Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and Wikipedia:Appealing a block. If you want real-time help and advice, maybe try IRC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: If nobody responds to the current unblock request would you be "a willing administrator" for me to do the standard offer? Notfrompedro (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)