User talk:Frank20041

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Frank20041! Thank you for your contributions. I am NatGertler and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Nat Gertler (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Stephan Cappon, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nat, Thank you for updating me on the edits 'minor' technical details - and Thanks for the Cookies yumeee : )

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Papisjap (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. De728631 (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2013 (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).

Frank20041 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please reconsider this block, I am in ALL honesty not guilty of any (sock puppet of Papisjap) I do not know this person and this is the honest to god truth. I know that I am new to Wikipedia and have a lot to learn... I come form a good heart. I realize also that some of the Reference links provided were not suitable and broken. I have contact Agora Gallery NY to restore the link, as well as the IPA and Best of show links, to show that in good faith the article meets Wikipedia high-quality sources. I believe things have got very messy and lost in translation. The Stephan Cappon profile is in no way providing fake or misleading information as stated - confusing yes. As mentioned I have contacted the mentioned websites in regards to the links to restore them. I am doing my best in doing so and realize this will take time. Please look within your heart to give me a chance to prove to the editors of Wikipedia in good faith that this page is relevant and of high quality. Thank you for your time and understanding, I look forward to your review.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, if we believed every account which said, "No, honestly, I'm not a sockpuppet" then there would be no blocked sockpuppets on WIkipedia at all. You need to explain why we should accept that you are not a sock, establishing reasonable doubt over the suspicions raised at the investigation casepage. Please have a read of the appeals guide before submitting another unblock request. Simply claiming innocence is, I'm sorry to say, not enough. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:07, 19 April 2013 (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.

Frank: I am the editor who first pointed to the possibility of you being a sockpuppet, due to certain editing patterns. However, I feel that both of the above declines of unblocking have been based on a misreading of the facts, and have now posted on the pages of both editors who declined you, asking that their decisions be looked at again with a more proper reading of the facts. Even if they do choose to re-review, that would not guarantee a different result, but I feel it best if the situation is judged off of an accurate set of facts. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this user's comment to me, and the above, I have restored the original request and removed my decline for another admin to review. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to put my clarifications here, as the editor who brought up the possibility that Frank is a sock:

While I brought up the possibility in discussion at the investigation casepage, it was not part of the initial filing, nor was this possibility visibly investigated.
I brought it up as User:Voidz was being investigated as part of the sock group, and I felt that Frank might be a sock of Voidz. However, Voidz was found not to be part of the sock group. Had it been found that Voidz was a sockmaster, that would be a different issue, as we would've been looking for more socks of Voidz.
The only relation of Frank to the socks that were found is that they both were involved in trying to save different articles among the many articles generated by Voidz.
Frank was not contacted when he was mentioned on the sock investigation page. That was my own error in judgment. As such, he did not have an opportunity to defend himself against said accusation.

Those are the facts on the ground, and any evaluation of his block should take those into consideration. -Nat Gertler (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Frank20041 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty" it's very hard to explain anything or appeal to this block, when the only reason given to me is "suspected sock puppet of Papisjab". I need to know why you think this ? just because someone makes an assumption "suspected" does not make it so. I have not made any suspicious editing to the page of Stephan Cappon - that can lead to making anyone think it's a sock puppet. I realize that you must protect Wikipedia I just find it sad - that in todays free world that people can purely pass judgement based on "suspected" to the detriment of others. Please look at my page edits as you will clearly see I have made no suspicious edits. What can I do to prove otherwise ? Thank you again for your time to review my appeal.(Frank20041 (talk) 11:23 am, Today (UTC+1))

Accept reason:

Considering that Voidz is technically unrelated to the confirmed sockpuppets in this case and that your edits were in fact constructive, I'm unblocking you now. This includes considering Nat Gertlers comments above and a message by Yunshui at my talk page. I'd also like to apologise for the inconvenience this may have caused you. In hindsight it looks like you were simply working on the wrong article at the wrong time, but I hope you will continue editing Wikipedia. There are lots of uncontroversial pages that could need your attention. De728631 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]