Jump to content

User talk:Daundelin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Daundelin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

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).

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

Request reason:

I was erroneously blocked as a sock under User:Sebthepleb. Per WP:NEWSTART I created a new account. Please explain who I'm supposed to be a sock of, because prior to the past few months I haven't edited Wikipedia in a decade.

Decline reason:

WP:CLEANSTART does not apply to you, as you are currently blocked as Sebthepleb. WP:CLEANSTART is very clear on this. You are not eligible. Yamla (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Then by all means please explain to me how I was supposed to appeal an erroneous block for socking? Who, precisely, am I sock of? I was blocked by one admin after, admittedly, I got salty. Please show me where I have made any problematic edits with this account. I have not. So, unblock me please, since the original block was incorrect, therefore so is this one.

Decline reason:

Please return to the original account, as directed below. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2019 (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.

Talk page access revoked. You are not eligible for unblock consideration here, only on the talk page of Sebthepleb. There, you will have to address your violation of WP:EVADE with this account, in addition to whatever lead to the original block. --Yamla (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following a conversation in the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel I have granted talk page access again; apparently the editor has lost access to the previous account and cannot contest the block there (nor use the Sebthepleb account if it were unblocked). I have also advised them that there are issues beyond the sockpuppetry that need addressing. Huon (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Okay, let's try this again. #) I used to edit wikipedia over a decade ago. No, I don't remember my username. And over the past few months I've been refamiliarizing myself with how things work here. #) I decided to get back into it using User:Sebthepleb #) I got real salty about WP:FRAMGATE #) I got blocked as a sock, with zero evidence #) Since there is no point in attempting to contest a sock accusation I made some snarky remarks and logged out of the account #) I did not link an email the account, and since that time I have engaged in my semi-regular cleanup of cookies and general computer cruft, so there is no way for me to access User:Sebthepleb short of brute-forcing a password--which seems inefficient #) Due to a quick skim and misread of WP:NEWSTART I created a new account, this one #) To address the complaints raised on my previous account's page, I have stayed resolutely away from drama. I literally open Wikipedia, hit Special:Random until I find something I feel like editing, that's it. #) I reported an obvious sock to ANI. I was then checkuser-blocked because of the previous account (the account for which I was wrongly accused of socking) #) Literally all I want to do is edit Wikipedia, stay out of the internecine squabbles, and improve articles.

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. Yamla (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2019 (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.

???

[edit]

Hello, you seem to have used the {{helpme}} tag to request unblocking, but that tag is generally more appropriate for questions regarding how to use, browse, or edit Wikipedia. If you haven't already, please consider using the {{unblock}} template -- {{unblock|reason to request unblocking}}. Administrators will be able to find your page and review the circumstances of your block, even if it has been reviewed. You can also discuss the situation with the blocking administrator over email, or find other administrators to email here. You can also join the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel or use the Unblock Ticket Request System to request unblocking. Please bear in mind that most of the users responding to helpme requests are not administrators. Thank you, and good luck.

Trying to get someone's attention here. Daundelin❁ 03:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is abusive. Don't do this. Your unblock request will be reviewed in due time. If it is not sufficiently convincing, it may be declined to give you a chance to write a more convincing request. Trying to jump the queue via the helpme template is abusive and may result in your talk page access being revoked. --Yamla (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: I'm not sure you followed the precise history of the user's edits before your post. In his first edit after the unblock request he created this "???" with the helpme template and the comment "Trying to get someone's attention here." In his second edit immediately after, he removed the template and responded to himself as if he were another editor. As you pointed out, the use of the template is inappropriate, but his second edit was blatant trolling. Regardless of anything else, if I see such behavior again, I will revoke TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: @Bbb23: Excuse me? Trolling? No, I'm sorry, you have misinterpreted. Please look at the history again. I added the helpme-unblock template and saved. The template told me I needed to subst, so I did. I wasn't trolling, I was doing what the template said--I've added it again below so you can see what I saw. Nor is this abusive--given the speed with which I was responded to previously, I was getting a bit antsy that it had been 24 hours. I have made a mistake, okay? Please stop being mean on top of it. Daundelin❁ 14:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition I'd like to note there was roughly 27 hours between my unblock request and the helpme-unblock template. Daundelin❁ 14:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation makes partial sense and only makes complete sense if you are cluleless or pretending to be clueless. After you got the error message because you didn't subst the template, you didn't replace the template with it subst'ed. Instead, you removed the unsubst'ed template and tailored the error message to look slightly different. In addition, why did you use the template at all? The template tells you not to use it for the purpose of being unblocked. As for as how long your unblock request has sat, it may sit for weeks. That happens, and there's not much you can do about it except appeal to ArbCom.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. My edits were to add the template helpme-unblock. My next edit was to add 'subst:' at the beginning of the template. That is literally all I did. I used the template because I saw it elsewhere, and didn't read the documentation. I am going to add the template again, and subst it again, so you can see--or you can do so yourself as a test. I did not, at any time, 'tailor the error message to look slightly different.' Daundelin❁ 15:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you seem to have used the {{helpme}} tag to request unblocking, but that tag is generally more appropriate for questions regarding how to use, browse, or edit Wikipedia. If you haven't already, please consider using the {{unblock}} template -- {{unblock|reason to request unblocking}}. Administrators will be able to find your page and review the circumstances of your block, even if it has been reviewed. You can also discuss the situation with the blocking administrator over email, or find other administrators to email here. You can also join the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel or use the Unblock Ticket Request System to request unblocking. Please bear in mind that most of the users responding to helpme requests are not administrators. Thank you, and good luck.

This is when I first added the helpme-unblock template This was my next edit, to subst it

This was me adding it again just now And me substing it again

They are identical edits--I did not 'tailor' anything. Please stop assuming that I'm being a jerk here--I make mistakes, I'm not perfect, but I am telling you the verifiable truth. Daundelin❁ 15:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I apologize.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Thank you, that is very courteous of you to admit. Since you did the CU block, I would appreciate it if you'd apply that courtesy to reviewing. As you ran the CU, you'll have noted that there have been no other edits from my IP (which is provided by a major ISP in my area--I'm not going to say which, for obvious personal data reasons, but you can see which one it is), and while I'm unsure as to exactly how much data a CU returns, you'll have noticed also that User:Sebthepleb is unconnected to anything else. The simple facts are that I'm a long-ago user--who apparently remembers less of the technical side of things than he thought he did--who was erroneously accused of socking. Rather than fight it (because it's virtually pointless to do so), I created this account to do nothing but contribute in mainspace, and here we are. I'm being entirely aboveboard and clear with you, and I would appreciate if you could take another look while assuming--even if only for the sake of argument--that I am telling the truth. And see whether that leads you to different conclusions. Thank you. Daundelin❁ 15:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, the other account was blocked as NOTHERE with socking mentioned. You seem to have a grasp of policies when it is convenient but like to feign ignorance to make yourself look new. I believe that your convenient memory loss concerning your account name is to avoid scrutiny. Not sure this is the right board? ...and yet you had no problem jumping into the Fram proposed decision that is on a subpage of Arbcom or posting at the ref desk like your an old hat. Someone who is dipping their toe in the water again isn't going to have jumped into the Fram affair and mouthed off to an admin. Notice that you have been sighted as trolling with both of your newer accounts...this tells me that you have been blocked before I ever did. You seem to not accept community decisions and decided to be derogatory towards them. This doesn't sound like an editor interested in editing after having returned from a ten year hiatus. And how would you know about the rest of Arbcom's record such as to post this? Familiarize yourself with one case and suddenly you know all about Arbcom's business such that they need to be ousted. Your contribs with either of the two new accounts does not tally with the degree that you jumped into things.
Just like with LTAs, we do not always have to know the name of an original sockmaster to recognize the behavior and block.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gregory Feest: I truly did not know whether that was standard practice in military biographies or not. So I asked.
  • Fram: I read through everything. The mess had bubbled up into mainstream news and it interested me to find out.
  • You are incorrect as being sighted for trolling. Please show me where I trolled with this account? I reported an obvious troll. And I had no idea if the best place these days was ANI or elsewhere--it didn't seem to be obvious straightforward vandalism, and it wasn't a username in the sense that a change could be forced. So my thought process was "ANI is the place I remember, people there will tell me to go somewhere else if needed, and a quick look through help pages hasn't really suggested anywhere else."
  • WP:NOTHERE: I can understand why you made that conclusion. And as I said above, I have been addressing that by staying only in articles (plus one template) and making what I think have been net positive and uncontroversial edits.
  • I have already told you I don't remember my username, and that it would have been something stupid, juvenile, and cringeworthy. I am not avoiding scrutiny. I don't recall if I was ever blocked, to be honest--you are free to make whatever conclusion from that which you like, because I am truly unable to give you a definitive yes or no. There's no sarcasm there, in case that reads wrong, I am straight up saying I cannot remember and therefore I don't get to tell you what to think about it.
  • I appear to remember some things more than others because I do--I can recall for you things I learned in high school, but I couldn't tell you what my nickname was. Concepts stick in my head longer than specifics.
  • I knew about the rest of Arbcom's record because...I read the case pages related to Fram.
  • I popped onto the Humanities page because ten years of not editing Wikipedia isn't the same thing as ten years of not reading Wikipedia--including perusing the reference desks from time to time because they're often a fascinating source of trivia.
  • Some people go swimming by dipping their toes in first, then their legs, and so forth. I'm a dive right in kind of person--after doing a lot of reading. And, in this case, making the mistake of thinking that my patchy memories were more accurate than they were, and thus not filling in some holes in my knowledge.
  • I am not a sock. I only want to edit. To address your concerns I don't want to get involved in any backstage stuff. Just edit articles to make them better. Nothing more.
  • I would ask you the same thing I asked BBb23, above: for the sake of argument, assume that I am telling you the truth about my actions. Follow that to its logical conclusion. Daundelin❁ 19:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: If it would ease your concerns, I would be happy to abide by any editing restrictions you would care to reasonably impose. I think this would be a good list to assuage your concerns:

  1. Edit articles and article talkpages only. Up to you whether that can include or exclude wikiprojects and templates, and how to handle if I run across blatant vandalism or abuse
  2. Use only this account (which was my intention anyway, but I hope you get my point here). Since Bbb23 has already run a checkuser, my read of the checkuser policy is that they may re-run one at any time if they have reasonable suspicion, is that correct? So there's a backstop to keep me honest, if you're concerned.
  3. I'm guessing a 1-revert restriction would also help you be content? It would be my intention anyway, but it provides clarity
  4. In say six months, review and see if they're still necessary

My point with suggesting these is that they give you (or anyone else) simple and bright-line boundaries. I stay within them, I prove that I'm here to edit. I don't, I've proven I'm not, and then I don't have a single leg to stand on to contest it.

We've both made errors here--me with mis-ordering my priorities when logging in, and not bothering to read WP:CLEANSTART carefully enough, you with assuming I'm a sock. I would like to make amends for my errors; the above is my attempt at that. Will you be gracious, accept that there's a possibility you're wrong, and extend a chance? Thank you. Daundelin❁ 19:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So uh... it's been a few days, @Bbb23: and @Berean Hunter:, any thoughts? I really would just like to edit, please. (and you can both see that I haven't been trying to evade). Daundelin❁ 19:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Bbb23: and @Berean Hunter:, it's been over a week, may I have a response, please? Thank you. Daundelin❁ 15:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Daundelin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #27519 was submitted on Nov 08, 2019 01:29:01. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daundelin&oldid=925964331"