Jump to content

User talk:FilipeWhite

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

UTRS 54145

[edit]

UTRS appeal #54145 is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

The block says the reason is "Block Evasion and abusing multiple accounts", but this is my only account, i don't own other accounts and never got banned from Wikipedia either. I usually make edits in the Portuguese Wikipedia and never got blocked there, i can't recall doing anything at all on the English Wikipedia, let alone something wrong. You may check my history. I would also want, if it's possible of course, an explanation on why the moderator thought i was "Block evading" and using multiple accounts, as i have no clue on why anyone could have mistaken me for someone else. I'm sure y'all are just trying to keep a safe enviroment here, but as someone that got restricted for no reason, i'm just trying to defend myself and get my privileges back, as i wanted to go back and add more information on English Wikipedia articles about things of my country. My previous appeal didn't quite please the moderator that read it, as he told me to "concisely and clearly describe how your editing merited a block, what you would do differently", but i must say, i don't know what to say, as i haven't done anything at all, so i couldn't have made an edit that merited the block or doing anything differently. I hope you understand my situation and allow me to have my editing privileges back. Thank you for your attention. FilipeWhite (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2022 (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 didn't recall so I had to do a bit of digging. I think this account was blocked as a sock puppet of User:Arthur Brum based on checkuser evidence[1], interest in Bertrand of Orleans-Braganza[2] (compare with known socks Ottoman Editor, Tercessuinotlim, Guatimozin and Southern Person[3]) and addition of image files on Luiz of Orleans-Braganza[4], which is a constant problem from Arthur Brum socks which endlessly and repeatedly upload said file (see for example [5] and most recently [6] and [7]). After uploading the file to commons, under various file names, the socks try to add the file here (e.g. [8][9][10]). I think there may be further evidence now not accessible because it was in the file history of deleted commons files. DrKay (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— I'm not a sock puppet of any kind. Although i probably did try to add images to these articles (cause i know these articles and have made edits on them myself on the Portuguese Wikipedia), i didn't know other people had tried to do so in the past, or that they were banished for it. I don't quite know what i can do to fix it, or to prove to you that i am not a fake account of anyone, or that i have no relations to this Arthur fella. I don't think these can quite be considered evidence, as all i've actually done was trying to publish images in articles. It's not my fault other people have done so in the past, and i didn't know these images broke any rules. Doesn't wikipedia hold the IP of it's users, so we can prove that i'm not an alternate account for that Arthur guy? I'm sure there's a way we can sort this out. I just want my privileges back cause i did nothing wrong and i don't really like being accused of such. Let's talk... Please. FilipeWhite (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've never edited english WP before, why do you need an unblock anyway? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— I have never done so before cause i usually spent more time on articles of my native language. Now i see information that can be added on such articles in the English language, and i'd like to contribute, that is all. Proof to that is that i only noticed i have been blocked about a year after the block. I tried to edit something on PDT and then i was informed i couldn't cause i had been blocked, only then i came here requesting my unblock, confused for such block, as i had never broke any of the rules before. That's about it. FilipeWhite (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Anyone there? I'm still waiting for a response. FilipeWhite (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Can anyone please help me? I'm just trying to talk and see if there's a way to prove i'm innocent of these accusations. Don't leave me hanging here. @DrKay: @CaptainEek: Can't we sort this out? FilipeWhite (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your block request is 'I don't own other accounts ... You may check my history.' But that's just what I would expect Arthur Brum to say: e.g. 'I do not have another account ... You can check my IP'. I will not stand in the way if another admin wishes to unblock you, and they may do so without further reference to me, but I'm not willing to unblock you myself. DrKay (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But you have no proper evidence against me whatsoever, can't your case be proved based on IP adress or anything like that? The only reason you claim i'm a puppet account is that i showed the same interest in the same articles as a guy that broke the rules, it doesn't make sense. If i were a fake account why would i only try to go back and break the rules more than a year after you banned me? I won't say you banned me for no reason, as i do think admins have the right to claim suspicion for safety purposes, but you continue accusing me of doing something i didn't while you have no proof to back it up. It's completely unfair, i'm trying to be reasonable, i asked you what could i do to prove my innocence, what could you do to help me, but you insist on saying that you did nothing wrong and i'm still banned for breaking a rule (that i didn't). And okay, that guy used the same request as i did, because perhaps you guys actually could check people's IP's to see if the accusations are legit or not (and in my case, they are not, i do not care about Arthur Brum, if he did something whatever, i have nothing to do with it). Why do i have to pay for other people's mistakes? You could just unblock me and see if i ever actually break any of the rules. Wouldn't that make a point on my innocence? Until then, this is just not right, not at all. I don't judge you on trying to make the website safer, but i do feel really, really offended by these accusations. I really don't like being accused of something i didn't, and now being banned from Wikipedia because of it? Now that's really something else. I'll say it again: We can talk about it and try to find a solution to the problem, some way to prove i didn't do any of these stuff, let's just sort this out, don't leave me hanging here, as an admin i bet you have good intentions on being fair, so i bet there is something we can try, i'm asking nicely, you wouldn't want to be on my shoes (being banned unfairly and being accused of being someone else, that is). FilipeWhite (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Asking again for an unblock. One of the admins said that acknowledging what i did to get banned would be a valid response, but i can't quite do that (as i haven't done a thing). They also said that i could convince that i "will not continue to cause damage or disruption", well ignoring the "continue" thing (cause i never did anything bad in the first place), i will say that i promisse not to break any rules and i will respect the guidelines so i can safely contribute to Wikipedia. If i don't, well then i'll just get banned again and that'll be solved, right? So i don't see why not unblock me. Funny thing is, i actually managed to find this Arthur Brum guy on social media, talked to him, he told me he still uses Wikipedia through other sockpuppet accounts, so ironically banning innocent people like myself didn't solve a thing. He also told me he doesn't even know lots of the names listed as sockpuppets of his (but he admitted some of them really were), so it seems i'm not the only one that got mistaken as a fake account of his. I can prove all of this i'm saying if you want me to (but i can't quite publish images here), if is there anyway for the admins to contact me so i can actually prove it, that will be great. All i want is not to be accused of doing something i didn't and being punished unfairly for it. Getting an unblock and being able to edit stuff would be only fair. Let's talk and sort this out, please. FilipeWhite (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

As recomended, i'm here trying for yet another unblock request. I assure y'all that this unblock is not necessary, as i garantee that i will not break Wikipedia rules and instead will do my best to contribute to the community. I know there's as much reason for you to trust me as there was reason for me to be blocked, but the only way to prove my good intentions is giving me a chance, i'd say. I'm trying my best to sort this out and prove to the mods that i'm only trying to have make good contributions and let go of nonsensical accusations. If we all could just try to solve this, it would be awesome. FilipeWhite (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't see where you describe what edits you intend to make- and with regards to the sock puppetry you just seem to be saying "it's not me" which is what every sock puppeteer says. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2022 (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.

  • @DrKay: Hey, fella. Can you just explain to me one simple thing? If i really were a sockpuppet account, why would i be here for all this time trying to have my account unblocked? If i were sockpuppet, wouldn't it be more logical to create yet another sockpuppet account instead of trying to unblock one of them? If i was Arthur, why would i be wasting my time trying to unban one of my dozens of fake accounts instead of just making another one? It doesn't make really sense. Wouldn't that logic be just enough of a point to prove i'm just a random guy that was mistaken by a fake account? I have nothing against you by any chance, i know you are only trying to make things safer around here, but i'm also trying to prove that i am not a fake account of any kind and i did not break any rules whatsoever. Can't we just talk so i can prove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilipeWhite (talk • contribs)
We have sock puppets who have been trying to get unblocked literally for years, even a decade, so yes, it is possible. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @331dot: Alright, mate, what do you want me to say? What can i do to prove i am not a sockpuppet? I am more than willing to prove my innocence, i just need the opportunity. In your profile page it says you "Assume Good Faith", well, let me show you i am acting in good faith, give me a chance to prove it. You claim all i did was saying "it's not me" and that's not enough, well, fair, but i don't really have much to say since it's really not me. As a moderator, please tell me what can i do to prove it's not me. What else can i do? Just accept the unfair and untruthful accusations and get banned forever for something i didn't do? I bet you, as a moderator, wouldn't want innocent people to get punished unfairly either, so i'll say it again: Let's find a way to solve this, please! I don't really see why not believe me, if i start breaking rules or doing any vandalism, i'd just get banned again and that would be it. Let me prove that i'm not a sockpuppet and that i actually have good intentions here, but i can't do this if you're not willing to make things right. Tell me, what should i say on my unblock request that would be valid for y'all? You said i didn't specify what edits i intended to make, well i don't have many ideas right now but i found out i was blocked when i tried to edit the page PDT by adding "Founder: Leonel Brizola" and updating the flag to the new one that they use nowadays, since the flag showed in the article is outdated. That would be it for now, but of course i would make other edits in the future. You can check my editing history on Portuguese Wikipedia if you want, all i do is useful edits correcting mistakes, never been banned for vandalism or sockpuppetry, i think that by itself shows that i have no vile intentions here, but i'm willing to prove further if you want. FilipeWhite (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already weighed in, I can only suggest that you make another unblock request for someone else to review. If they are convinced, they will remove the block and do not need my input to do so. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I believe it's only fair to be unblocked, since i'm not a sockpuppet. This can be clearly seen if you check my history of edits on the Portuguese Wikipedia, all i do is minor edits, usually correcting spelling or grammar mistakes on pages, once i tried to add the history of Cincinnatus on the (Portuguese) Ancient Rome page, but it didn't quite work out because i didn't quote my references properly, common mistake i suppose. But i never been banned for vandalism or sockpuppetry there, i think that already shows to you that i'm here in good faith and good intentions to make useful edits on the English Wikipedia. (As i previously stated, presently i intend to update some informations on PDT). I actually managed to contact the guy (Arthur Brum) i've been accused of being a sockpuppet from. I also printed and translated our Messenger conversation for you to see here (i hope you accept this as proof that we are not the same person). That being said, if there's anything else i can do or say to show you guys i'm not a vandal and that i have good intentions, please let me know. FilipeWhite (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Stale unblock request. You can make a new one if you want. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet. I can assure you, you can even check my history of edits on the Portuguese Wikipedia, all i do is minor edits, usually correcting spelling or grammar mistakes on pages, once i tried to add the history of Cincinnatus on the Portuguese Ancient Rome page, but it didn't quite work out because i didn't quote my references properly, common mistake i suppose. But i never been banned for vandalism or sockpuppetry there, i think that is a good evidence to you that i'm here in good faith and good intentions to make useful edits on the English Wikipedia. (As i previously stated, presently i intend to update some informations on the PDT page). I actually managed to contact the guy (Arthur Brum) i've been accused of being a sockpuppet from, i found him on Facebook. I also printed and translated our Messenger conversation for you to see here (i believe that's a good enough proof that we're not the same person!). That being said, if there's anything else i can do or say to show you guys i'm not a vandal and that i have good intentions, please let me know. This block is not necessary because i will not break Wikipedia rules, all i want is to contribute with useful good information and that is all. FilipeWhite (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2022 (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.

Unblock Request

[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).

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

Request reason:

I am currently working on an important project and i will most certainly need to make edits in the English Wikipedia in the future, however i am unable to do so while i'm blocked. This block is not necessary for Wikipedia, because i have no history of vandalism on Wikipedia whatsoever and i have no intentions of committing such thing, i am here in good intentions of contributing to Wikipedia, not disrupting it. Although i have been acused of being a "sockpuppet" account, that is simply not the case, and that was already proved, or at least attempted to, as far as my capabilities can reach. If i commit any type of vandalism after i am unblocked, then the admins will have reasons to block me for good, but so far that has not been the case. I am not implying anyone here is acting in bad intentions, i am simply stating that i am not doing so either. Hopefully this can be sorted out soon. Happy 2024. FilipeWhite (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What important project are you working on that requires you specifically to be unblocked? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2024 (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.

  • @UtherSRG: It's not promotion if it's written in an informative non-proselytization manner, however i do understand the concern. That is not the sole reason i'd like to be unblocked anyway. What i don't see is the reason to keep me blocked. The reason to unblock me (that you claim not to see) is the main reason addressed in the request: this block is not necessary to protect Wikipedia in any way, since i am not a sockpuppet account and have no intention (or history) of attempting to vandalize Wikipedia whatsoever. Shouldn't that be reason enough? Why ignore all of the attempts to prove my innonence only to focus on what specific things i intend to edit? Blocks are meant to keep Wikipedia safe, and the main subject here is how this block has absolutely no utility on doing so. FilipeWhite (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you continue to not take our definition of promotion to heart, I see no reason you follow our policies, so I see no reason to unblock you. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @UtherSRG: Alright, alright, fine, i can't write about a project i have involvement in, i get it. So i won't write about it, and if i do so, feel free to block me again and delete anything i wrote, in addition i will never request an unblock again if that happens. I hope this statement helps to show i only have good intentions to contribute to Wikipedia, and no personal involvement in my life is the main reason for my Unblock Requests, the main reason is what was already stated (and proved): I have no history of vandalizing Wikipedia and no intentions of doing so, i am not a fake account nor i have ever attempted to create one (even though i've been unfairly blocked for about 3 years). What else do all of you want me to do or say? I have followed the process of Unblock Requests, followed the Wikipedia Guidelines while doing so, gave every justification possible, proved through screenshots how i am not the one they accuse me of being, and yet nothing happens. I don't understand what you want of me anymore. Apparently the guidelines are not enough anymore, so there's something else i can do to solve this situation. I'd only wish any of you could explain or help. FilipeWhite (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because you have convinced no one that you are not a sock, nor that you are sincere in your requests. I will no longer be responding. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have literally screenshoted a conversation between me and the guy you guys claim me to be and posted here for everyone to see, how is that not enough? What else can i do to prove? He admitted that he still uses Wikipedia on fake accounts to this day, and yet i'm here being punished for things he did while i haven't done a thing. In what world is that fair or just? I just don't understand, none of this makes any sense. I'm just confused and completely unaware of what i should do, since following the Wikipedia Guidelines for unblocking clearly isn't enough. FilipeWhite (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Arbitration Committee received a request to review this block. We don't review sockpuppetry blocks that are not marked as CheckUser blocks, so we won't be taking action as a committee. That said, I did take a look at the block, and I have a few comments in my individual capacity. I am doubtful that this is a sockpuppet account. We have little technical evidence, and, due to the lack of edits on the English Wikipedia, little behavioural evidence. That aside, typical serial sockpuppeteers would have moved on to a bunch of new accounts rather than spend two years trying to get one old "sock" unblocked.
    That said, the proposed edits are promotional, so in an unblock request, I would want to see an understanding of our conflict of interest guideline (see also WP:SPAM and WP:PROMO), along with a description of intended edits if unblocked. I can get live with an unblock provided we can reasonably expect compliance with our content policies and guidelines, which is, at this point, unclear. Pinging DrKay as the original blocking admin. Maxim (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. As I said above, in 2022, if another admin wishes to unblock, I'm fine with that. DrKay (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings, Maxim, thank you for your note, i have re-read the guidelines about Promotion and i understand now that articles on things such as political parties need to be written by an unbiased author, which i don't qualify. Therefore i no longer intend on writing the article i stated before. I will discard any future plans for such. However i still wish to be unblocked since i don't consider the accusations made against me to be pertinent and i do promise to all of you that i am a good-faith user that just wants to use Wikipedia in a helpful friendly manner. FilipeWhite (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What kinds of edits do you plan to make if you are unblocked? Maxim (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since i have answered your questions below, and i assume there is no other issue, and with DrKay having answered that they are fine if another admin unblocks me, should i make another Unblock Request? If there is any other issue i must address before attempting to do so, please let me know. FilipeWhite (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unblocked you per the discussion here and DrKay's comment above. Maxim (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Much appreciated! Thank you, Maxim. FilipeWhite (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, Maxim, i forgot to mention that. I plan to make in the English Wikipedia the same types of edits i do in the Portuguese Wikipedia, as you all can check my Edit History there, what i usually do (and intend to do here) is to correct spelling and grammar mistakes, and also add minor informations on already existing articles (such as i have done recently about LGBTs in the Anglican Communion here.). I am a graduating History Student in the University of Porto, so i also plan on making additions (with proper sources, of course) in Historical articles in the future. FilipeWhite (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FilipeWhite&oldid=1198299508"