User talk:Taking-Polandball-to-GA

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).

Taking-Polandball-to-GA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not sure why I have been blocked. I was about to place "I am declaring this account is a legitimate sock account. Given the animosity surrounding the Polandball article, it is for the best that I use this sock account to take it to good article status. My doing so under my normal account may create issues with some within my social circles (Wikipedians)." on my user page when I was blocked. As this is a legitimate use of an alternative account, I am requesting that I be unblocked to enable article improvement work to be done for the Good Article review Taking-Polandball-to-GA (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree with Salvio that you should send an email from your real account. If you want, you can send the email to me instead of Salvio. I'll only reveal the fact that your account is in good standing, not its identity. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I don't believe you; I think you're a banned user evading his block. However, if you send me an e-mail through the internal mailing system with your main account I'll unblock and apologise.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 20:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio giuliano it is for precisely the reasons of what you have done that I created this legit sock account for the purposes of taking an article to GA status. You may think I am a banned user, but you would be sorely mistaken in that belief. Not only am I in good-standing, but I have actually worked with you on numerous things in the past. Salvio, admins are not to indefinitely block editors based upon a "belief" or "gut instinct" with zero evidence or clarification as to why you believe what you do. This is what WP:SPI is for. Also, I will not be emailing you through the internal system because I do not wish to prevent our continued working relationship in the future. You and I have worked closely in the past, and we see eye to eye on many things, but on this issue we are miles apart, and I will not "out" myself to you. I don't need you to unblock or apologize in this instance. I will leave the unblock to another admin to take care of, if you don't mind. I don't wish to get involved in issues and for animosity to be directed my way simply because I see an article which is GA-worthy and don't want repercussions on my main account. Regards Taking-Polandball-to-GA (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been the cause of an account creation before, even indirectly (so far as I know). Here is a timeline of events in the day that just ended:

04:24—deletion review of Polandball closes as Undelete; article is restored within two minutes, and cleanup begins

06:39—material added to Polandball from Draft:Polandball

12:10—Josve05a reverses the April 2012 rejection of DYK nomination for Polandball and attempts to restart the nomination process

15:45—BlueMoonset reverts the reversal, restoring the previous rejection and noting that a new nomination will be required for DYK

17:21—BlueMoonset posts to Josve05a's talk page, explaining that because the material in the new Polandball article is mostly not original, over half coming from the old version, any new DYK nomination will need the article to be 5x expanded from that prior version in order to qualify for DYK (requiring another 12.5K prose characters). The "one sure way" that the article could qualify for DYK would be as a newly listed Good Article.

19:52—Taking-Polandball-to-GA account created

19:57—Taking-Polandball-to-GA nominates Polandball to be a Good Article

20:10—Salvio giuliano indefinitely blocks Taking-Polandball-to-GA and reverts (cancels) GA nomination

BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Taking-Polandball-to-GA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is not grounded in any policy. WP:SOCK#LEGIT does not require an editor to out their account when the reason for the creation of the legitimate sock is based upon that policy. Regardless of the reasons for the creation of this account, the block is not policy based; the creation of this account, however, is. If others think an editor is not in good standing, which I am, then the correct course of action is to file an WP:SPI. Taking-Polandball-to-GA (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I suggest you email ArbCom, and advise them of your original account.

Also, stop wikilawyering; if you're experienced enough to know about WP:SPI, you presumably understand there is a policy called WP:IAR. PhilKnight (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Checkuser request

Salvidrim! please note that I was not advised of the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Russavia#09_November_2014. You may wish to peruse the above discussion.

I have no objection to CU being run when disruption is occurring. On this occasion, I do object as there is no evidence of disruption; only a declared legitimate sock and an obvious intention to work on an article that I do not wish to use my account for obvious reasons. Running a CU will also reveal my account, which goes against Wikipedia:SOCK#LEGIT.

I would also ask you to unblock this account. As an admin I would do it myself but I am not in a position to do so as it would be wrong. Taking-Polandball-to-GA (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this discussion. You claim this is a "legit sock". It seems the admins who have been here, me included, have opted not to believe that allegation, at least without evidence. I am sure if you contact an arbitrator from your admin account and explain the situation, they will both maintain your privacy, and decide whether to allow it or not.

Note that I have not specifically endorsed the CU request at the present time either. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CU has, in fact, failed to reveal your supposedly "legit" account. That, coupled with the finding that this account is technically likely to be used by the same sources as another definitely certain sock, does not assuage concerns of illegitimate use of sockpuppetry. We are thus unable to unblock you without you providing any evidence (privately or otherwise) that this account does in fact meet our requirements for legitimate use of a sock. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]