My archives are at User talk:Hidividedby5/undone edits and User talk:Hidividedby5/deleted pages. Also replies of the Trackers Task Force are placed here

June 2010

Sockpuppetry case

Accusation

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FetchFan21 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts, per own admission. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

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).

Hidividedby5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't mean that I was a sockpuppet when I added {{sockpuppeteer}}, I meant that I was accused of being a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Simulation12/Archive#25 June 2010 (Formerly Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FetchFan21)

Decline reason:

Rather unusual behavior for a suspected sock trying to assert innocence. In any case, per the SPi I'm not unblocking until this is resolved. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2010 (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.

Appeal 2

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).

Hidividedby5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:Mac, User:Punk1, User talk:12.11.149.5, and User talk:Emico have the template {{Sockpuppeteer}} on thier talk or user pages and are not blocked. I added the template also and was blocked.

Decline reason:

That's not even remotely close to being a valid unblock reason. See WP:NOTTHEM. Smashville^talk 18:47, 9 July 2010 (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.

Appeal 3

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).

Hidividedby5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Here is the whole story: I was never welcomed to Wikipedia^[1], so I had no idea about the policies on Wikipedia. I didn't know about WP:THREATEN, so I made a threat at template:nofuture^[2]. I was then accused of sockpuppettry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet Investigations/FetchFan21 because of this and other reasons. So, I added the template {{sockpuppeteer}} to my user:hidividedby5, thinking it meant you were a suspected sockpuppet^[3]. The case was ended^[4], but I forgot to remove the template^[5].

My references:

^ The history of my talk page. If you look through the bottom, you will see that the first edit by another user was almost 5 months after I created my account, by which time a user is not really considered "new".
^ Later deleted for other reasons
^ [Template:Sockpuppeteer/doc#Non-checkuser_usage Documentation to the template sockpuppeteer] and the [Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers category] it adds you to.
^ case closed page
^ my user page and its history

P.S. I found an error with the blocking. When I am logged in on the secure server, I'm not blocked on the regular Wikipedia server. I just wanted you to know.

Decline reason:

What a gigantic wall of wikilawyering. Here's the minimum response: when you signed up, you must have read about the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. I know of zero welcome templates that warn against WP:THREATEN, so not being told about it does not excuse you from exhibiting positive behaviour. If you would like to re-read WP:GAB and try one more succinct unblock request that covers the bases, please do. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:23, 11 July 2010 (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.

Appeal 4

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).

Hidividedby5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock me. I understand that what I did at Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman is wrong. I have read all of the 5 pillars and will not threaten again.

Decline reason:

Well, this is a change of tune. Unfortunately, it still doesn't really convince me that you're sincere. What did you do wrong, what actual policies did you violate, and what will you do to avoid this happening again? You're going to need a lot more than "I'm sorry" to get unblocked, especially given the previous three requests where you deny any wrongdoing or try to lawyer your way out of it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:12, 1 September 2010 (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.

Appeal 5

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).

Hidividedby5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To answer your questions, I did not violate a policy at all. I added the template sockpuppeteer to my user page (see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User:Hidividedby5&oldid=371112688) as I was accused of being a sockpuppet. I was accused (at wp:sockpuppet investigations/simulation12/archive) because I violated the policy at WP:INTIM. I argued this in the first and third appeals, but was declined both times. I have read all of the 5 pillars and the template was deleted (because another template did the exact same thing)

Decline reason:

What you've written here gives me no confidence that your behavior will not be repeated, and after this many requests, I doubt it's going to happen. If you really want to edit, try asking again after a few months at minimum. Continuing to repeat requests now will likely lead to your ability to edit this page being revoked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:18, 2 September 2010 (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 do hope you realize what you're saying doesn't make sense. Your last appeal said "I understand that what I did at Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman is wrong." Here you say "I did not violate a policy at all." Then two sentences later you say "I violated the policy at WP:INTIM." Which is it? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is I violated a policy at WP:INTIM a couple months ago. But I violated no policies to get blocked. hidividedby5 (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fetch

Template:Fetch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I would move this to User talk:hidividedby5/deleted pages, but I am blocked

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman

Category:Fetch! with Ruff Ruffman, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would move this to User talk:hidividedby5/deleted pages, but I am blocked

Welcome to the Novels WikiProject

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books, often referred to as "novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watch it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WikiProject Novels announcements}} there.
While you are updating your userpage, don't forget our userbox {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Outreach/User WPNOVELS}}.
Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
Planning on starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines / template outlines some things to include.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the coordinators or an experienced member of the project; we will be happy to assist in any way we can. Again, welcome, and we look forward to seeing you around! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trackers redirect

Why did you redirect that to Rick Riordan? I don't see how they're related - Patrick Carman wrote the series, right? (Also, would you mind if I copyedit your editnotice?) PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 01:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just noticed that and fixed it. I get the two authors mixed up a lot, as they are both authors of The 39 Clues. Sure, you can copyedit my editnotice. hidividedby5 (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I thought that might be the case, which is why I AGF reverted the edit to Riordan's page. I also fixed the spelling of amateur in your notice. It's a rough word, but do you have spellcheck on your computer? Very useful tool! Happy editing! PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 02:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC) (no talkbacks necessary - I watch pages where I post)[reply]

Note: I would move this to User talk:hidividedby5/undone edits, but I am blocked

New WikiProject Novels initiative

We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wish I could but I am blocked. If I'm unblocked, I'll join.

WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

39 clues task force listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 39 clues task force. Since you had some involvement with the 39 clues task force redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request (4 years later)

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).

Hidividedby5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked roughly 4 years ago. To this day, I have not been given a sufficient reason as to why I was blocked. The block reason was completely incorrect, saying that I admitted to being a sockpuppet. As you can see from my talk page, I added the template that, in short, says "I was accused of being a sockpuppet". I was accused here, but that was never acted upon as it was simply "look into this person". In the past 4 years, I have changed my username to iggyvolz instead of hidividedby5, and have created an account on Wikia. I understand completely why I was mentioned in the discussion, but the placement of this template was not sufficient reason to say that I admitted to anything. I did create the account iggyvolz to contribute on the mediawiki site, and if I understand correctly, I would be able to log in with this account on wikipedia. However, I would rather be unblocked on this account and go through the proper procedures than use my new account to go around my block. hidividedby5 (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

OK, so you have created another account, which you haven't used to make any edits on the English language Wikipedia. That isn't in itself a good enough reason to be unblocked. And if you did use the other account for block evasion, it would just be blocked. In the above discussion, you admit that you threatened another editor, which is concerning. In this context, I'm not prepared to grant your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2014 (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 is a good decision to rather be unblocked on this account because using the other account would get it blocked as well for sock puppetry. The Newspaper (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel as if anyone has actually reviewed my request. I have never been given a valid reason why I was blocked as I never admitted to anything. I am taking my case to the arbitration committee. hidividedby5 (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, the committee has unblocked you under the standard offer. Happy editing. Worm^TT(talk) 12:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[myhistory-1] The history of my talk page. If you look through the bottom, you will see that the first edit by another user was almost 5 months after I created my account, by which time a user is not really considered "new".

[2] Later deleted for other reasons

[ooppuppet-3] [Template:Sockpuppeteer/doc#Non-checkuser_usage Documentation to the template sockpuppeteer] and the [Category:Wikipedia sockpuppeteers category] it adds you to.

[endofcase-4] se closed page

[myuserhistory-5] y user page and its history

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]