User talk:Happycats58

Happycats58, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Happycats58! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Happycats58. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry? “Okay”. And you’re basing this on what exactly? No matter. I’ll be back on in 72 hours. Enjoy your weekend 👍🏽 Happycats58 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your denial, I've increased the block to an indefinite one until this is worked out. Please explain the Cresluer80 account?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you could kindly prove that I have another account sir then your point would be fact. But you are breaking your own rules by making assumptions. How unprofessional and unfortunate. I have contacted Wikipedia to appeal your decision. Good day Happycats58 (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my understandOmg what you’re implying, that the following accounts that vandalized the page I worked on is me alone? Or another user who has contributed to building up the page is me? Have you even looked at the logs and what these other pages have done? You haven’t and you are a terrible moderator and shame on you sir.

Petovo78 (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · CA) DavidwilliamsIV (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · CA) Wyomingbaby (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · CA) 96.87.117.189 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block log · cross-wiki contribs) 24.148.29.27 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block log · cross-wiki contribs) 2601:240:101:497E:7420:5B07:3490:EDCF (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block log · cross-wiki contribs) Happycats58 (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For example; The one account from the log DavidWilliamsiv who trolled the page I contributed to is me? That is ridiculous and I do not even have that much free time, especially to troll a wiki page I worked hard to build up. How did you ever become a mod on Wiki? So unprofessional to throw out odd and baseless claims like that. Well we’ll see what happens with the appeal thank you Happycats58 (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to explain the Cresluer80 account which is something that you still haven't done. I've said absolutely nothing about the others. Not sure where you are getting the words that you are trying to put in my mouth but try to pay attention please.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the logs that are titled “suspicious sock puppets”, you’re implying that those accounts were created by me. Please tell me why I need to explain to you why others contribute to a page that provide proper sources? Is this something personal you may have against the guys wiki page? I’m not a moderator, you could prove what you want you’re not doing a good job at it. because someone a nobody like me had to point out the obvious troll accounts have nothing to do with me. Happycats58 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I reported something specific. "Please tell me why I need to explain to you..." Because you have a snowball's chance in hell of getting unblocked without adequate explanation. When another checkuser looks at this, they will know what I know and one way or another it is either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet that I can match to you. Your denial only goes against you at this point. I suggest that you revise your statement.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, your countenance is unprofessional and not warranted. I’m not a moderator that is your job to back up your claims and making accusations against me is childish without proof. You may not like that answer but no those other accounts are not mine and never have been in shame on you again for suggesting such. I pray in off line life you’re a much better human being. From the sound of it it doesn’t sound like it. Happycats58 (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a checkuser and happen to know that the two accounts are on the same assigned /64 range. You're using your phone and a laptop/desktop device. You're digging yourself a deeper hole. You can file an appeal by following the guide.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true and the appeal was already filed as mentioned earlier. Happycats58 (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Happycats58. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page David Williams III, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a CPS 5th grade teacher In the Chicago land area who follows politics closely. There is no affiliation with the public figure, David Earl Williams III. There is no conflict of interest. There is the duty to faithfully & fairly maintain wiki article with the correct sources that have been provided. Happycats58 (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, Ravenswood Elementary. I am familiar with wikis procedures. Thank you for sharing them too. Happycats58 (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain why you uploaded File:David_Williams_3.jpg where you stated that the photo is your "Own work" and the author is listed as David Earl Williams III? It is labeled as "Campaign photo shoot". Are you the photographer?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paid photography. Side gig. Happycats58 (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of candidate image is his/her alone. They get full created. I got paid. Fair trade. Happycats58 (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was never any official affiliation or conflict of interest. Wiki rules makes it clear anybody can create a page for a notable public figure as long as it’s NOT the person themselves. I met the standards and explanation suffices. Happycats58 (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, backed by verifiable sources like mainstream publications and cited to wikis standards a page can be created. Happycats58 (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This professionally taken photograph doesn’t look like a selfie does it? I feel bad now if it does. I should stick to my day job. :( Some one had to be on the other side taking the picture. Your pervious request and questions of my identity has been fulfilled in the above responses. I have always positively contributed to maintaining the wiki page with verifiable sources and never vandalized. Please read the logs. I hope everything works out for the best. Happycats58 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"They get full created." I don't understand what you mean by that. Would you elaborate, please? And what does "Photo of candidate image is his/her alone." mean?

What makes the photo "professionally taken"?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above responses again. Good morning and have a pleasant day. Happycats58 (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be obtuse. I'm just trying to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly. I'm interpreting "Photo of candidate image is his/her alone. They get full created." to mean that you are saying that you have transferred the full copyrights or created the full copyrights in the name of the photo subject. Is that correct?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests

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).

Happycats58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Accused of having multiple sock puppet accounts and trolling a page I contribute to on wiki with out proof. Please reinstate full editing privileges

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, meaning that there is technical evidence to support the block(evidence that only checkusers can see). If you have not used other accounts, you will need to provide a plausible explanation as to why the technical evidence indicates otherwise. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2020 (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.

That sounds above my pay grade of internet literacy. Please provide details on how a person can go about providing evidence? For the average joe to understand. Thank you Happycats58 (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The technical evidence would seem to indicate that you are using other accounts. If you are not using other accounts, you will need to explain why the technical evidence suggests you are. I can't say more than that. You may review the investigation page for more information. You are free to make another unblock request to give that explanation. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the technical evidence you speak of? The “ Suspicious sock puppet accounts” log? None of those alleged accounts belong to me as stated above. Especially saying I would troll and vandalized (I.e. wiki user DavidWilliamsiv) that i contributed to is ridiculous. I’ll put in another unblock request. Thank you. Happycats58 (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The technical evidence is private and only visible to checkusers(not even to admins like me). They can only discuss it generally, as it it was publicly known then people would use it to continue to sockpuppet. Someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

👍🏽 Happycats58 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2020 (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).

Happycats58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

2nd request: Accused of having multiple sock puppet accounts and trolling a page I contributed to on wiki with out proof. Please reinstate full editing privileges. See convo tread

Decline reason:

Behavioural and/or technical evidence strongly suggests that this account is a sockpuppet. Simple denial is not considered a sufficient reason to unblock the account. In order to be unblocked, you will need to convince the reviewing administrator that there is a better explanation for this apparent connection than the abuse of multiple accounts. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:02, 24 May 2020 (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.

Proper flow is to place posts at the bottom of the page. Your request appears in a category that will be seen by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can also say that your request is extremely unlikely to be successful, as you provide no explanation for the apparent use of multiple accounts. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quote wiki mod 331dot:

“you will need to explain why the technical evidence suggests you are. I can't say more than that. You may review the investigation page for more information.”

My response above:

“Where is the technical evidence you speak of? The “ Suspicious sock puppet accounts” log? None of those alleged accounts belong to me as stated above. Especially saying I would troll and vandalized (I.e. wiki user DavidWilliamsiv) page i contributed to is ridiculous. I’ll put in another unblock request.”

I do not and never have used more than one account.

Happycats58 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2020 (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).

Happycats58 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

3rd request Accused of having multiple sock puppet accounts and trolling a page I contributed to on wiki with out proof. Please reinstate full editing privileges. See convo tread

Decline reason:

This wording has already been declined. PhilKnight (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2020 (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.

As you aren't listening to us, I am removing your ability to edit this page. Your request will remain open, but if it is declined, you will have to use WP:UTRS to make further appeals. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email; I decline to post your retirement message, as if you wanted to retire instead of answer our questions, you should have done so when you had the opportunity. If you later change your mind and choose to answer our questions, you may use WP:UTRS. Please do not email me again. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told, you can use WP:UTRS for further appeals. If you decline to, then this is the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing email access. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 30373

UTRS #30373 was submitted on 2020-05-23 20:36:11 . This review is now closed. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline message carried over for transparency.

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You still have not addressed the issues set forth on your talk page. In fact you appear to be stonewalling. Per the SPI you have been referred to, "Happycats58, Cresluer80 and the IPs are all single-purpose accounts whose only Wikipedia contributions to date have been tagteaming on an article about an unelected political candidate, David Williams III, and attempts to smother its AFD discussion in non-policy blather". You will need to come forth about this. Please be aware that further refusal to answer the questions you have been repeatedly asked may result in your being blocked from this venue. Please review the information already provided on your talk page.
Please see the following:

Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Checkuser_and_Oversight_blocks

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Happycats58/Archive

thanks, --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)