User talk:Anonymous84hgh389hg
Anonymous84hgh389hg, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Anonymous84hgh389hg! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
Confusing Block
[edit]
Anonymous84hgh389hg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My account was unjustly blocked. I frequently make edits at a public workplace, which has WiFi shared by many employees. The person spamming and making multiple accounts is confirmed to be someone there, who is intentionally trying to impede me on Wikipedia. They are convinced that I am wrong about the TFLOPS count on Apple silicon processors, and seem to be stopping at nothing to evade their block. This includes relentlessly trying to frame me, as there seems to be no other way for them to harm me. While I did respond to a recent edit they made on their original account (Tech dude master)’s page, I am not involved in with their actions in any other way. Please unblock my account. Anonymous84hgh389hg (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I do not find this request convincing. 331dot (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2021 (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.
Anonymous84hgh389hg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You may not find it convincing, but you don’t have any proof of the claim that I am Tech dude master. Please tell me what gave you that impression from the checkuser program, even if you don’t unblock me. If checkuser had a mistake, then there will at least be proof that my block was unjust from the beginning.
Decline reason:
Confirmed sockpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2021 (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.
At a minimum, please at least unblock my workplace’s WiFi. Some people there like to edit Wikipedia, and it’s easier for them to edit without switching to cell data. Of course, this decision is still up to Wikipedia, but it would make everyone’s lives easier. The perpetrator could still keep editing Wikipedia from their cell phone, while the WiFi block could be re-established if they edit Wikipedia from it again. If this does not justify un-blocking my workplace’s WiFi, please give an explanation why instead of flat-out deleting my account.
Also, my edits to Tech dude master’s talk page have no relation to my block. I request that the reversion be reviewed by an admin and undone. Several people familiar with his case (Henriok and C. Fred) can confirm I am not in the wrong here.
- For technical and legal reasons, it is not possible to delete an account. I am not a checkuser. If you work at the same workplace as a blocked user, you and anyone there will be blocked as meat puppets. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Victim of Impersonation
[edit]On the Wiki page for “Help:I was blocked”, I fall into section 3: collateral damage of accidental triggering of anti-vandalism systems.
I get that there was sock puppetry involved, but it was Tech dude master doing the act, not me. I am saying that I was framed, and request evidence as to why checkuser tagged me as the perpetrator, instead of Tech dude master. For example, did our accounts share the same profile data or creation date, etc. We both made accounts at around the same time for the Apple silicon edit war, but I am asking for the hard proof that the checkuser bot used to reach its conclusion.
- You must make another unblock request. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Anonymous84hgh389hg (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Admin “331dot” instructed me to make another unblock request.
Decline reason:
Second, leaving aside your perspective on this situation, can you see that it's not in our interest to casually—or, really, at all—share the technical evidence on which the sockpuppetry finding was based? If we did everybody who is determined to use sockpuppetry for whatever nefarious purpose here they desire would be able to figure out how to better evade detection technically.
At a time when many Internet platforms seem unable or even unwilling to curb the misuse of their technologies by bad actors, with horrific real-world consequences, that we take this behavior as seriously as we can and err on the side of protecting the project is of ever-increasing importance. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2021 (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.