User talk:Ket10ny

@Beeblebrox, Huon, JamesBWatson, Vanjagenije, Ohnoitsjamie, and Jpgordon: I am calling your attention to User:Arglebargle79, whose behavioral patterns are virtually identical to that of blocked user Ericl (and his verified sockpuppet YoursT). I alerted all of you because you were the ones who either blocked or denied the unblock requests of Ericl and/or YoursT.

I think even a cursory examination of the behavioral patterns of the three accounts will make it painfully obvious that is the same person. For starters, the talk page of Arglebargle79 is basically just a continuation of the talkpage of Ericl. Mostly all of the same issues - original research, reference errors, etc. Also note the persistent use of bare URLs as references (by all three accounts), despite being asked repeatedly to correct this and directed to templates to help with this. Notice also that the three accounts have edited mostly the same pages and/or topics. (In particluar, note the strikingly similar editing pattern of the three accounts in the article Impeachment investigations of United States federal officials). Another common and consistent pattern among all three is the insertion of informally, sometimes slangy and/or colloquially, worded content into article namespace, often without citations or with questionable sources. And then there are the OR/Crystalball edits (like this one by Ericl and this one by Arglebargle79). Plus, there is the same argumentive demeanor found in discussions, the tendency to ignore suggestions and requests made on their talk page, and the tendency to create articles that seem to consistently be nominated for deletion.

Oh, and Arglebargle79 recently made a bit of a slip and a giveaway with this comment. How does someone who supposedly has only been editing since Jan. 2016 know of a argument that "we" "have every four years"?

Anyway, I thought was important to bring these observations to light since it appears that someone has been evading a block for three years, and thought it would be of interest and importance to you. I will now leave the ball in your court in handling this matter. Thanks for your attention.Ket10ny (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to give you the standard reply to any posting like this: File an WP:SPI or keep it to yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2019 (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).

Ket10ny (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well, I obviously screwed up and went through the wrong channels in going about this. I had no idea I was committing a blockable offense or engaging in what is considered trolling behavior, but guess I learned the hard way. A fair warning would have been, well, nice. But what is particularly perplexing is that right after one admin. instructs me (providing a helpful link) on the proper way to report a suspected sockpuppet, another comes along and blocks me so that now I am unable to follow the first admin.'s instructions without evading a block to do so. It seems the fair thing to do would be either to unblock me at least long enough to properly file an SPI (as I was instructed, and am willing, to do) or have someone look over the substantiated observations I made on this page to see if a further investigation would be justified (and I am very confident that would be the case). I look forward to a reply as to how I might go about this without further violating Wikipedia policy (which I never intended to do). BTW, it might be several days before I'm able to respond, but I will be more timely in replying than I was on this. -- Ket10ny (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are believed to be a blocked editor, evading your block, as per the evidence below. Yamla (talk) 16:53, 25 February 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.

Don't expect me to come to your defense if that's what you're looking for here. When you, as your fourth edit ever, ping a whole pile of admins and make accusations against established users, it is a giant Redflag that you are not a new user at all but rather a returning user with an axe to grind. Bearing that in mind, would you care to disclose what other identities you may have edited under? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those innocuous first edits look a little too innocuous. But then there's the understanding sufficient to remove a NN link on a page, followed by this incredibly detailed accusation of socking. Like Beeblebox says, this is not your first time at the circus. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check when I made the block, because obvious reasons are obvious, but I did on the unblock to see if it was any recently blocked account. I can't positively confirm because all the previous accounts are stale, but this appears to be JayJasper based on behavior and some things I can't reveal publicly. Beeblebrox, if you want, I can email you the evidence. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]