590:
address the problems which I laid out in my formal unblock request. I understand that I suffer from a trust deficit given the history of my actions on the encyclopedia, so I am trying to bridge that gap by being as honest and transparent about my intentions and motivations as possible. I understand that I have a long way to get others to entrust in me their good faith, but I also know that that process needs to start somewhere. Right now, my request is in a state that I'd prefer it to not be in where it is just stuck in this twilight zone between rejection and approval. I don't know how common my situation is, but based on the other unblock requests I've seen, the only appeals which have been left open indefinitely have been the ones where the appellant filed an unsuccessful request immediately prior to their extant one. As far as I can tell, that would not apply here as my current unblock request is the first and only one that I've filed on this account.
622:. Assuming that you or one of your colleagues do decide to carry my request over, would it be possible if I showed you or them beforehand a dry run of the steps that I would take to resolve a hypothetical content dispute? My inability to properly handle content disputes in the past was the ultimate reason why I was (got myself) blocked. I understand that I need to show learning from my past mistakes if my block is to have any chance of being lifted, but I am also aware that I will not be able to do so directly on the administrator's noticeboard. As such, I think the best time to demonstrate self-reflection and evidence of reform of my content dispute resolution approach is here on my talk page before my case goes before the community for consideration, and, with your permission, I would be more than willing to provide such a demonstration.
425:
my accounts) was my consulting him, so unless this is not what you meant by consultation, then I do not know what I have done incorrectly. As in my message to you, I brought up to RoySmith the avenue of communicating by e-mail because I did not want to foreclose the space that I thought I might need to make my case. But if what you are (and have been) basically saying is that none of the administrators are going to enter into private correspondence with me, then going forward I will not include that intimation any more in my future unblock requests. It was certainly not my intention to annoy your colleague with my unblock request and RoySmith, my apologies to you in advance if that's how you feel/felt.
760:
1050:
ban can be temporarily lifted so that I can make or ask the community to make changes to a few articles that I have had a deep interest in. I'm not sure if what I am asking for would be considered an unblock request/appeal and I'm not even sure if the arrangement I'm proposing would be allowed, so please don't hesitate to make the necessary clarifications and provide the necessary guidance.
302:, I should have been clearer in what I was trying to say. When I asked for your reconsideration, I meant if you could do so through either private ("off-wiki discussion" to use your terminology) or public ("on-wiki discussion") correspondence. So a final time: is there any way you can reconsider your decision to not hear my unblock request in our public correspondence here?
95:
467:
administrators who blocked my sockpuppet accounts but neither of them responded (or have yet to respond) to my inquiries. I understand you cannot speak for them, but as a general observation and based on your experience of having dealt with situations like this, is there anything that I should read into their silence as it pertains to my chances of getting unblocked?
1049:
with respect I hesitate to follow your instructions. In my last unblock request I said I would accept a ban with no possibility of appeal if I was caught engaging in sockpuppetry again, so as, a matter of principle, filing a new one is not something that I think I can do. Instead I want to ask if my
845:
Per the related discussion above, I am filing this appeal to formally request that the block on my account be lifted. I have taken time to reflect on the history of my actions and I believe I am in a position to fully and faithfully explain my understanding of my wrongdoings and the steps that I will
424:
you would not consider making an unblock request without consulting the two other administrators who blocked my sockpuppet accounts. I took this to mean your telling me not to post the unblock request without consulting them first. My message to RoySmith (who was one of the administrators who blocked
439:
How it normally goes is that someone posts an unblock request, and an uninvolved administrator will evaluate the request. They have the discretion to decline it if they aren't convinced; if they think that it might be acceptable, they would then reach out to the blocking administrator to discuss the
279:
I was the last person to block one of your socks, but two other checkusers have also blocked accounts of yours; I wouldn't consider an unblock request without consulting them, and to be honest I think it should probably go to the community for review. As such, I have no desire to enter into an email
264:
before I wrote my message, but the reason why I sent it to you anyway was because I was hoping that, as the last blocking administrator, you would be more familiar with the details of and hence more understanding of my case. I can make the appeal through the normal procedure, but before I do I would
680:
Ok. Thanks for your comments once again and above all else your willingness to reconsider your earlier decision to not post my appeal to the noticeboard. As I said (and cannot reiterate enough), I am willing to provide a demonstration of my reformed content dispute resolution approach, so hopefully
481:
I wouldn't want to speculate on their decision not to engage with you. Perhaps they feel they have better things to do with their time than spend it engaging with someone who has been blocked multiple times for sockpuppetry; perhaps they prefer to wait for you to post a formal unblock request under
466:
based on your comments, I think I am going to need at a minimum a few days to gather the thoughts that I want to get across in my formal unblock request, especially as you've brought up points which I had not thought of before. A final question: as you are no doubt aware, I messaged the two other
589:
I am not sure if you were notified of my response to your comment, but in the event that you were not, would it be possible if you could reconsider your decision to not post my appeal to the administrator's noticeboard? As I said I would be willing to further explain the things that I would do to
393:
Waskerton, I realise that you're addressing Roy here, but I'll repeat my advice to you: post an unblock request. I can't speak for my colleagues, but I would be surprised if any of them volunteered to enter into a private correspondence with you about it. If you simply post an unblock request, it
316:
You haven't made an unblock request. If and when you do, it will be put into the queue for consideration. I'm not going to commit to reviewing it myself, and I certainly wouldn't do so unilaterally since you have been blocked by multiple admins, but it will be considered in due course.
280:
correspondence with you. You can still take advantage of any of the regular unblock request avenues. I don't know what you would want to include in your unblock request, but I'd caution you against disclosing anything that really needs to be kept private, whichever channel you choose.
217:
about this for an unblock request? I've taken some time to reflect on the history of my actions and I think I'm in a position to fully and faithfully explain my understanding of my wrongdoings and the steps that I will take to guarantee that I will not repeat them again.
181:
about this for an unblock request? I've taken some time to reflect on the history of my actions and I think I'm in a position to fully and faithfully explain my understanding of my wrongdoings and the steps that I will take to guarantee that I will not repeat them again.
871:, an account creation block on the IP address from which I am editing and a ban with no possibility of appeal if I am caught engaging in sockpuppetry again as the core prophylactics against any future disruptive editing and attempts at sockpuppetry.
378:. I've taken some time to reflect on the history of my actions and I think I'm in a position to fully and faithfully explain my understanding of my wrongdoings and the steps that I will take to guarantee that I will not repeat them again.
1000:
banned. So, I'm not real enthusiastic about putting them back in circulation. But, to answer your specific question, I just ran some checks and I can see no evidence of socking right now. This discharges the responsibility to
850:
and my review of unblock requests by other users that the opening statement should be concise and there will be follow-up discussions, so, in that vein, I understand the root causes of the problems to be violations of
260:. The reason why I said I would like to communicate with you via e-mail is because there are some things in my prospective request that I would like to keep private. I was aware of and understood
536:
Could I further explain the things that I would do to address the problems which I laid out in my formal unblock request? I wouldn't be able to comment if my appeal was to be carried over to
394:
will definitely be reviewed; if you badger the list of people who have blocked your socks, you risk testing their patience and adversely affecting any likelihood of your being unblocked.
993:
371:
210:
374:
SPI file, you were one of the administrators to block my sockpuppet accounts. Can I speak to you about this for an unblock request? If it's necessary I can do so via
894:
117:
26:
928:
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.
25:
43:! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Knowledge and get help from experienced editors like
233:
Apologies for the slow response, I've not been online much recently. You can request unblock in the normal manner, following the instructions at
800:
135:
913:
142:
482:
your own steam before commenting; perhaps they were just busy (as I was between 4 December and 9 January); I really don't know.
795:
1028:
Please make a new unblock request, addressing all concerns, and suitable for a member of the unblock review team to carry to
944:
can I ask you something in connection with my abortive unblock request as detailed above? You were the last person to
772:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
604:
Gah. Surprised no one carried this over. I should be available tomorrow afternoon. I'm sorry this has dragged on.
773:
108:
103:
767:
265:
like to ask one final time: is there any way you can reconsider your decision to not hear my unblock request?
73:
1037:
975:
814:
712:
671:
657:
609:
527:
128:
121:
113:
540:
so I want to preemptively address here any concerns or objections that potential reviewers may have there.
856:
491:
453:
403:
326:
289:
246:
213:
SPI file, you were the last administrator to block my last sockpuppet account. Can I speak to you via
177:, according to the above you were the administrator who blocked this account. Can I speak to you via
1046:
1033:
1013:
985:
971:
941:
900:
860:
708:
699:
667:
653:
619:
605:
586:
523:
57:
50:
40:
948:
on it so I'm reaching out to you to see if you could, hopefully, answer a question that I have.
643:
501:
483:
463:
445:
417:
395:
318:
299:
281:
257:
238:
206:
922:
148:
864:
375:
214:
178:
440:
potential unblock. But it has to start with an unblock request: read the instructions at
1051:
1023:
949:
872:
778:
682:
623:
591:
541:
505:
468:
426:
379:
337:
303:
266:
219:
183:
162:
1010:
965:
897:
868:
852:
847:
696:
647:
441:
367:
261:
234:
1029:
1006:
997:
988:
Well, I'm not sure how to respond. The last time I was involved in this case (see
537:
519:
444:, and place your request in the appropriate template at the bottom of this page.
695:
I'm looking into this now. I hope to be able to respond by the end of today.
237:; I don't see any particular need to enter into off-wiki discussion about it.
639:
174:
158:
94:
141:
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
145:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
1059:
1041:
1016:
979:
957:
903:
880:
846:
take to guarantee that I will not repeat them again. I understand from
716:
702:
690:
675:
661:
631:
613:
599:
549:
531:
513:
496:
476:
458:
434:
408:
387:
345:
331:
311:
294:
274:
251:
227:
191:
166:
867:
and (in that order), and will agree to the baseline restrictions of
420:
but now I am confused. In one of your earlier messages to me, you
992:
above), I was asked to review their previous unblock request and
681:
this is something you and your colleagues will allow me to do.
45:
895:
Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton#12 February 2024
68:
758:
93:
134:, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans
910:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
930:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
1005:. I guess the next step would be to start a thread on
945:
828:
824:
818:
809:
805:
791:
787:
783:
421:
766:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
1009:to see if the community wishes to lift the ban.
518:Would someone (not me) like to carry this to
118:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton
8:
17:Waskerton, you are invited to the Teahouse!
1003:consult with a CheckUser before unblocking
504:Ok. Once again, thanks for your comments.
994:and found that they were actively socking
37:! Thanks for contributing to Knowledge.
1002:
7:
120:. Note that multiple accounts are
14:
666:Will need check user clearance.
652:. Later today i should do this.
24:
989:
336:Ok. Thanks for your comments.
116:per the evidence presented at
1:
904:16:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
717:18:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
703:15:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
691:08:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
676:07:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
662:07:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
632:02:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
614:00:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
600:23:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
192:10:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
167:00:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
881:20:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
618:Thank you for your response
550:09:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
532:01:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
514:08:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
497:12:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
477:07:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
459:14:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
435:14:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
409:12:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
388:11:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
346:11:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
332:10:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
312:07:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
295:15:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
275:09:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
228:06:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
55:
996:, at which point they were
770:, who declined the request.
252:15:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
79:16:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
1082:
1060:02:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
136:may be reverted or deleted
63:We hope to see you there!
22:
1042:15:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1017:14:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
980:13:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
958:07:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
914:guide to appealing blocks
256:Thanks for the response
143:guide to appealing blocks
114:abusing multiple accounts
1055:
953:
876:
686:
627:
595:
545:
509:
472:
430:
383:
341:
307:
270:
223:
187:
89:Blocked for sockpuppetry
636:Courtesy notifications
763:
751:Formal unblock request
98:
815:change block settings
762:
153:Your reason here ~~~~
97:
970:OK to unblock????
764:
99:
58:Visit the Teahouse
1034:-- Deepfriedokra
972:-- Deepfriedokra
709:-- Deepfriedokra
668:-- Deepfriedokra
654:-- Deepfriedokra
606:-- Deepfriedokra
524:-- Deepfriedokra
112:from editing for
86:
85:
80:
76:
72:on behalf of the
1073:
1027:
969:
927:
921:
834:
832:
821:
803:
801:deleted contribs
761:
651:
489:
486:
451:
448:
401:
398:
324:
321:
287:
284:
244:
241:
156:
78:
71:
65:
60:
48:
39:Be our guest at
28:
21:
20:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1021:
963:
938:
933:
925:
919:
918:, then use the
907:
884:
857:WP:BATTLEGROUND
822:
812:
798:
781:
774:blocking policy
759:
753:
637:
494:
487:
484:
456:
449:
446:
406:
399:
396:
370:, according to
364:
329:
322:
319:
292:
285:
282:
249:
242:
239:
209:, according to
203:
170:
169:
146:
139:
91:
82:
81:
67:
61:
56:
44:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1079:
1077:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
937:
934:
908:
891:
887:Decline reason
843:
839:Request reason
836:
757:
752:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
693:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
492:
454:
412:
411:
404:
363:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
327:
290:
247:
202:
199:
197:
195:
194:
140:
101:You have been
100:
92:
90:
87:
84:
83:
74:Teahouse hosts
62:
38:
31:
29:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1078:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1048:
1047:Deepfriedokra
1045:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1025:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1015:
1012:
1008:
1004:
999:
995:
991:
987:
986:Deepfriedokra
983:
982:
981:
977:
973:
967:
962:
961:
960:
959:
955:
951:
947:
943:
942:Deepfriedokra
935:
932:
931:
924:
917:
915:
906:
905:
902:
899:
896:
890:
888:
883:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
849:
842:
840:
835:
830:
826:
820:
816:
811:
807:
802:
797:
793:
792:global blocks
789:
788:active blocks
785:
780:
775:
771:
769:
768:administrator
756:
750:
718:
714:
710:
706:
705:
704:
701:
698:
694:
692:
688:
684:
679:
678:
677:
673:
669:
665:
664:
663:
659:
655:
649:
645:
641:
635:
634:
633:
629:
625:
621:
620:Deepfriedokra
617:
616:
615:
611:
607:
603:
602:
601:
597:
593:
588:
587:Deepfriedokra
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
534:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
516:
515:
511:
507:
503:
500:
499:
498:
495:
490:
480:
479:
478:
474:
470:
465:
462:
461:
460:
457:
452:
443:
438:
437:
436:
432:
428:
423:
419:
416:
415:
414:
413:
410:
407:
402:
392:
391:
390:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
361:
347:
343:
339:
335:
334:
333:
330:
325:
315:
314:
313:
309:
305:
301:
298:
297:
296:
293:
288:
278:
277:
276:
272:
268:
263:
259:
255:
254:
253:
250:
245:
236:
232:
231:
230:
229:
225:
221:
216:
212:
208:
200:
198:
193:
189:
185:
180:
176:
172:
171:
168:
164:
160:
154:
150:
144:
137:
133:
131:
130:
123:
119:
115:
111:
110:
106:
105:
96:
88:
77:
75:
70:
66:Delivered by
59:
54:
52:
47:
42:
36:
30:
27:
23:
16:
939:
929:
911:
909:
892:
886:
885:
844:
838:
837:
810:creation log
777:
765:
754:
644:Girth Summit
502:Girth Summit
464:Girth Summit
418:Girth Summit
365:
300:Girth Summit
258:Girth Summit
207:Girth Summit
204:
196:
152:
129:illegitimate
127:
125:
109:indefinitely
107:
102:
64:
41:the Teahouse
34:
32:
990:#unblock x2
861:WP:BLUDGEON
936:A question
806:filter log
362:unblock x2
1052:Waskerton
1032:. Thanks
1024:Waskerton
950:Waskerton
912:read the
873:Waskerton
825:checkuser
784:block log
779:Waskerton
683:Waskerton
624:Waskerton
592:Waskerton
542:Waskerton
506:Waskerton
493:(blether)
469:Waskerton
455:(blether)
427:Waskerton
405:(blether)
380:Waskerton
338:Waskerton
328:(blether)
304:Waskerton
291:(blether)
267:Waskerton
248:(blether)
220:Waskerton
184:Waskerton
35:Waskerton
1011:RoySmith
966:RoySmith
898:RoySmith
865:WP:CIVIL
796:contribs
697:RoySmith
648:RoySmith
368:RoySmith
151:|reason=
126:not for
46:Missvain
946:comment
923:unblock
819:unblock
646:, and
201:unblock
149:unblock
132:reasons
122:allowed
104:blocked
69:HostBot
1014:(talk)
901:(talk)
869:WP:1RR
853:WP:AGF
848:WP:GAB
700:(talk)
488:Summit
450:Summit
442:WP:GAB
400:Summit
376:e-mail
323:Summit
286:Summit
262:WP:GAB
243:Summit
235:WP:GAB
215:e-mail
179:e-mail
124:, but
1030:WP:AN
1007:WP:AN
998:WP:3X
916:first
707:Wut.
538:WP:AN
520:WP:AN
485:Girth
447:Girth
397:Girth
320:Girth
283:Girth
240:Girth
1056:talk
1038:talk
976:talk
954:talk
893:See
877:talk
863:and
713:talk
687:talk
672:talk
658:talk
640:ST47
628:talk
610:talk
596:talk
546:talk
528:talk
510:talk
473:talk
431:talk
422:said
384:talk
342:talk
308:talk
271:talk
224:talk
188:talk
175:ST47
163:talk
159:ST47
138:.
51:talk
940:Hi
829:log
776:).
366:Hi
205:Hi
173:Hi
157:.
53:).
33:Hi
1058:)
1040:)
978:)
956:)
926:}}
920:{{
889::
879:)
859:,
855:,
841::
823:•
817:•
813:•
808:•
804:•
799:•
794:•
790:•
786:•
755:{
715:)
689:)
674:)
660:)
642:,
630:)
612:)
598:)
548:)
530:)
522:?
512:)
475:)
433:)
386:)
372:my
344:)
310:)
273:)
226:)
211:my
190:)
165:)
155:}}
147:{{
1054:(
1036:(
1026::
1022:@
984:@
974:(
968::
964:@
952:(
875:(
833:)
831:)
827:(
782:(
711:(
685:(
670:(
656:(
650::
638:@
626:(
608:(
594:(
544:(
526:(
508:(
471:(
429:(
382:(
340:(
306:(
269:(
222:(
186:(
161:(
49:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
