Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 1003694696 by IHateAccounts (talk) |
|||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 20:
For additional information, please see the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence|here]]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. ''It does '''not''' imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.''
Line 26:
For additional information, please see the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors|guidance on discretionary sanctions]] and the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee's]] decision [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2|here]]. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Line 64:
== Setting time aside to talk ==
Just wondering if you were able to do that today or tomorrow? &
== Sidney Powell ==
Line 93:
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em; border-bottom: 1px solid #92a3fc;" | '''Celebration{{color|#eb92fc|~}}{{color|#92a3fc|!}}'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Wikipedia will only ever turn 20 once! Hope you are doing well and have a prosperous onwiki experience in the future.<br />{{Smiley|grin}} &
|}
Line 103:
== Take it to AN/I ==
{{noping|Jleel}} seems pretty ripe for an [[WP:AN/I|AN/I]] report. &
:{{reply|MJL}} I reported them to [[WP:AIV]] previously today? [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts#top|talk]]) 01:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Line 161:
: I don't think we should be blocking users if the evidence is not beyond reasonable doubt. If IHA's editing is disruptive then they should be sanctioned, rather than be indefinitely blocked based on limited circumstantial evidence. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 02:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|Hemiauchenia}}, While I think IHA should be unblocked, I do note that our standard on Wikipedia is probably more analogous to [[Burden_of_proof_(law)#Preponderance_of_the_evidence|a preponderance of the evidence]] (used in civil cases) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt (very high standard, criminal cases). [[User:CaptainEek|<span style="color:#6a1f7f">'''CaptainEek'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<span style="font-size:82%"><span style="color:#a479e5">''Edits Ho Cap'n!''</span></span>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 03:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
:::I hate that that's our standard. If someone is contributing productively, why do we care SO MUCH that they might be a sock that we're willing to throw away a currently-good contributor for a preponderance of the evidence, especially when (as I understand it, which is likely iffy) we don't allow people the opportunity to prove they aren't socks. (That said, IHA, if you are a sock: admit it, apologize, and there's a fair chance we can move on. If it's true, it's more likely you'll eventually get unblocked if you come clean.) [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 19:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
== Request ==
{{unblock reviewed |1=On advice, I am writing this second request. I am not a sockpuppet. I believe my contributions to wikipedia have been positive, and I try to work on talk pages first if I believe something is controversial or could use help in determining wording to be included in an article. I believe I have given extra effort well beyond what was required, time and again, to show good faith. If there are questions to be asked of me, please respect that it will probably take me a while to reply, as this ordeal and the on-wikipedia and off-wikipedia messages I have received due to it have affected both my physical and mental well-being. |decline = Thank you for your patience and I apologize for the delay in processing this request. Please be assured it has been thoroughly and carefully reviewed. While there is an outstanding question (below), I am closing this unblock request now on the basis of information received from an editor you’ve previously self-identified as your mentor indicating that you are no longer editing Wikipedia. You continue to enjoy Talk page access on this account so, if this information is incorrect, you may file a new unblock request at any time.
Since this account is a sockpuppet of [[User:SkepticAnonymous|SkepticAnonymous]], it cannot be unblocked. Per [[WP:SOCKBLOCK]], you must register your unblock request through your master account. For that reason, I regret that I am required to decline this request.
Though you are not currently able to edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to continue to participate in the Wikipedia project as a non-editing reader. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia! [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 22:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)}}
* '''Note to patrolling admins.''' Please be sure to review all the conversation '''[[#January 2021|above]]''' and '''[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous#26 January 2021|here]]''' before deciding on this unblock request. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">[[User:MJL|<span style="color:black">MJL</span>]] [[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]]<sup>[[WP:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 06:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Question:''' Thank you for your willingness to consider questions and I regret this process has created real-life stress. IHateAccounts, do you have a relationship with the owner of [[User:6YearsTillRetirement|IMadeThisStupidAccount]] <small>(renamed to 6YearsTilRetirement)</small> — that might cause editors to wrongly assume both accounts are controlled by the same individual — the existence of which you'd like to voluntarily disclose prior to action being taken on this unblock request? For example, sometimes flatmates, acquaintances, or persons who come to know each other through editthons might be mistaken as sockpuppets. (If you choose to respond, please don't disclose personally identifiable information.) I hope this message finds you well and remember that WP is not worth letting real-life stress invade your life over. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 18:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
*:{{u|Chetsford}}: I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your rationale for declining (which is not to say that I disagree with declining an unblock, just that I have issues with this particular decline). You're declining based on what appears to be off-wiki discussion with a third party rather than discussion with the blockee, and frankly I do not think that's okay. I'm pretty confident I know who you talked to and I'm pretty sure I know what they said, but someone else telling you off-wiki that a blocked editor doesn't plan to come back should not be sufficient to decline an unblock. Also, given that they're pretty clearly arguing that they aren't a sock, the standard "you're a sock, go request an unblock from your main account." Given all of the fuss surrounding this block, I will be reviewing it in my role as an SPI clerk in the next few days, and I hope to have a good answer for everyone then. [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] ([[User talk:GeneralNotability|talk]]) 03:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
:::Hi [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] - I apologize if I expressed myself imperfectly. To be clear, the only reason I declined the unblock was due to [[WP:SOCKBLOCK]], namely, that it was not made from the master account; there was no other reason behind my decline other than that. <br/>{{xt|"You're declining based on what appears to be off-wiki discussion with a third party rather than discussion with the blockee, and frankly I do not think that's okay. "}} The discussion with the third party, [[Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous|which occurred on-Wiki]] and not off-Wiki, only made me decide to close the request today (rather than wait several days to give the blockee an opportunity to first respond to the above question). It had no effect on the decision to decline, only on the timing of the decline. I declined it only because it was not made from the master account and for no other reason. <br/>{{xt|"Also, given that they're pretty clearly arguing that they aren't a sock, the standard "you're a sock, go request an unblock from your main account.""}} I would disagree that merely repeating "I'm not a sock" constitutes an argument, or at least one that requires a point-by-point rebuttal. The evidence is so clear and overwhelming that to torture the editor with a further dissection of the case seemed, to me, to be callous and unnecessary particularly given the problems with their "mental well-being" they've reported as having encountered over this. It would be presumptive of me to assume such claims were merely manipulations and I think we should err on the side of caution with respect to the wellbeing of editors, even those editors who are blocked, and not draw these cases out interminably when the outcome is clear. Again, I apologize if I didn't express myself well. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 03:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
::::{{u|Chetsford}}, thanks, I wasn't aware of that sidebar on the SPI's talk page, so strike what I said about off-wiki. And my apologies to you - re-reading that a day later, my comment has an annoyed tone to it that I didn't intend. I'll still be doing a full behavioral workup on this SPI since it seems to be more than a little contentious and I'd like to put this to rest. [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] ([[User talk:GeneralNotability|talk]]) 01:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{u|GeneralNotability}} - there's no need to apologize, I read no annoyed tone in your comment at all. I should apologize for being a little verbose in my reply, which was intended to disambiguate any vagueness in my original comment but could have unintentionally come off as preachy. Thanks again for your work on this. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 02:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock reviewed|decline=Not an unblock request. [[User:Jpgordon|--jpgordon]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Jpgordon|𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 ]]</small></sup> 01:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)|1=No actually don't bother. You can harass me, you can lie about me, you can attack me, you can doxx me, your Arbcom can give my email away so that your abusers can send harassing messages to my email telling me to kill myself...and I'm 100% sure that they did it deliberately. I won't be taking their "advice" to kill myself, and I certainly won't trust your nonresponsive "trust and safety" team nor the abusers at your arbcom with anything. Creating an account was the worst experience of my life, and I now fully understand how you generate people who are willing to vandalize wikipedia, because with as little good faith as you show and the level of harassment you throw at LGBT individuals, wikipedia doesn't deserve to exist. Especially when abusers and worse like Chetsford are applauded and encouraged to harass and doxx and attack.}}
{{reply|CaptainEek}} I want it noted I hold you personally responsible for the mass of email harassment I received over the past month, and the complete not giving a fuck of your so-called "trust and safety" team. Goodbye. [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts#top|talk]]) 23:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
{{reply|valereee}} no, I'm not a sock, no matter what liars and serial harassers claim. I'm just one more abused LGBT person who's gotten the wrong end of wikipedia's culture of abuse, which really made it fucking laughable when I saw that wikipedia supposedly now has a new "conduct" standard even while I'm getting emails telling me to kill myself thanks to arbcom revealing an email address to someone. [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts#top|talk]]) 23:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
== "Dr. Michael Roizen" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect [[:Dr. Michael Roizen]]. The discussion will occur at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 23#Dr. Michael Roizen]] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> '''[[User:JPxG|jp]]'''×'''[[User talk:JPxG|g]]''' 02:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
| |||