User talk:Lakeshook

Hello

I lost my password and there is no secret questions to answer to retrieve it. Lakeshook (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeshook, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Lakeshook! 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 Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for 2 days and learned my lesson to be obedient. Sorry.

This is a classic example of a wrong block but poor customer service to fix it. I lost my password to my previous account. In compliance with WP:CLEANSTART, I started a new account but did not use my old account. I even used a similar name so to link the account. Unlike WP:CLEANSTART which is sometimes used to disappear and reappear, I even used a similar new name. I posted on my user talk page that I lost my password and to ask me if anyone was suspicious. Because of a fear of hackers, I used a very hard to remember password causing me to forget it/lose it several times. Therefore, I had several accounts used serially but not concurrently. There was never any socking. One account, I found the password and was proactive in posting on the talk page that I had found my password but was retiring that account--which is really transparent and honest. The checkuser, Bbb23, confirms serial use, not concurrent or socking. (Bbb23 notes one day both were used but I am sure no false consensus was used by the accounts)

The reason for the original checkuser was that I edited in a Wikipedia policy page about indefinite blocking and how that shouldn't be infinite or permanent blocking. That was an unpopular view, causing retaliatory (or non-retaliatory) checkuser.

I am very sorry for bringing up an unpopular view. I promise to know my place and stick to articles and not administrative like discussion. I never meant to disrespect administrators and now know, for sure, not to do so. Please do not punish me by this indefinite block. user zzuuzz (below) does not support an indefinite block but do not block that person as a sock since they sort of agree with me. User:zzuuzz read my explanation and says to stick with one account (which I did). He/she did not stay "stick with zero accounts," which is what indefinite block is. Thank you for your kind unblock of me. Lakeshook (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Apparently there was socking, even if not with all accounts. In addition there is the rather ridiculous story of throwaway accounts and the continued forgetting of passwords. If one couples that with the very high NOTHERE content of the comments here and elsewhere, we have only a timesink. If you are ever going to be unblocked, it will be because you forget all this nonsense and don't bring it up anymore, and because you stop repeating these accusations at editors and administrators. That is all. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2017 (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.

See also User talk:Lakeshake which I admit losing the password and linking my account.

Please unblock this account, which I have the password. I promise not to use the other accounts but they can't because they are blocked. *****CHECKUSER Bbb23 CONFIRMS THAT THE USERS WERE SERIAL USE AND NOT CONCURRENT USE EXCEPT ONE DAY. (AND FOR HOUSEKEEPING PURPOSES). NO SOCKPUPPETRY OCCURRED THANK YOU FOR KINDLY UNBLOCKING ME. User:zzuuzz agrees to unblock, he/she read my explanation and says to stick with one account (which I did). He/she did not stay "stick with zero accounts, which is what blocking is" Lakeshook (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]

You're not being "attacked". Altogether, since November 23, 2016, you have created ~~seven~~ six accounts. Most are similarly named. One, Ken Lou, is not. Mostly you edited them serially, but two had an overlap on November 29. That's a lot of passwords to forget. Nonetheless, I'll consider unblocking this one account, which is the latest in the series, but I'd like other administrators' input as to whether your editing of any of the accounts consitutes abusive behavior. I'll ping a few of them that commented at the Talk page of the blocking policy or were otherwise involved with you and see what they think: @NeilN: @Risker: @Zzuuzz: --Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've nothing to add to Bbb23's comments and suggested course of action. Please stick to one account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid of hackers so my password was too complicated to remember. But you are right, I never edited an article like "Hitler was good" and a sock writing "I agree". I agree to make the password less complicated so that I can remember it but not so easy that it is easy to guess. Thank you if you unblock. Sorry for my clumsiness but nothing sinister was done. Lakeshook (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seven accounts is a lot. And I'm not thrilled with your contributions at Talk:Trump. More comments similar to this will result in a quick reblock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See, I was even open about it, writing that the oldest account is retired and that I found my password. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lake_of_Milk&diff=765520999&oldid=755025291 Also, it is six, not seven.

As to Trump, I hate that article and all the fighting and don't intend to edit it. Not a topic ban, but just general distaste for the article. Also note that NeilN's link is INACCURATE because I fixed it and made it much more polite. NeilN quoted the old, pre-revision version which I, myself, didn't like and fixed.

Lakeshook (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about one thing. It's six accounts, not seven. I've struck and replaced the number up higher. Doesn't change anything, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the above comment, I'm leaning towards thinking dealing with this editor would be a timesink. Another editor removed the comment: [1]. Lakeshook characterized it as a personal attack [2] and then complained, "If you remove comments, not only is that against Wikipedia practices, but is also something evil the Devil would do. You are a Christian." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not minded to unblock given the editing history of the accounts identified so far. Also, I'm not convinced that you are being honest with us. Is it really only 6 accounts? Given your contributions have been predominantly to change the blocking policy to allow indefblocks to expire after 1 year, I presume you have (at least) one account that was blocked over a year ago that you're trying pave the way towards having unblocked. How about telling us a bit more about your history of editing Wikipedia? WJBscribe (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Only Lakeshook as discussed indefinite blocks. All the other Lake-something before did not. So this is not a fixation. What is my edit history. I probably have about 15 users over the past 3-4 years. I edit for a few days and then forget the password or forget the user name. However, there is never any socking because I don't even remember what I edited (I have no agenda). Thank you for asking @WJBScribe:, but there's nothing sinister. Lakeshook (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confession, @WJBScribe:. I am unsure, but User:Lake taylor may be mine. If so, you can block it. I won't use and and don't have the password. Lake taylor has edits that I might have done. Lakeshook (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please

Oh my, Bbb23, you just outed me when you mentioned my real name Ken. Lakeshook (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is consistent with your troubles on Talk:Trump. Having a little knowledge of policies and guidelines and misapplying them. Bbb23 mentioned an account you registered. A list of them is here: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lake of Milk. He said nothing about it being your real name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are not sockpuppets because sockpuppets are multiple accounts to fake a consensus. They, as the checkuser Bbb23 states, are serial users which I created due to lost passwords. Please unblock. This is too much when you block and then walk away and don't unblock when the reason to block is found to be faulty.

I looked and I see that one user, Ken Lou, is not me. I did not make that edit. However, not surprising as this is a lounge computer. Luckily, Ken Lou has not edited anything bad. Lakeshook (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Risker is going to comment anytime soon as she hasn't edited Wikipedia in a few weeks. Based on Neil's comments and my own analysis of the evidence, I am not going to unblock you. I would reconsider, though, if others disagree.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh my, Bbb23, you just outed me when you mentioned my real name Ken". "I looked and I see that one user, Ken Lou, is not me". What? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:, my name is Ken. Ken Lou is not my user, though. This is a lounge computer. Good thing that user did not write hate edits or vandalize or racist stuff. Lakeshook (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by a "lounge computer"?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC) @Bbb23: It is a public computer in a lounge. Lakeshook (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SUMMARY

@Bbb23:, this looks very bad for Wikipedia and transparency. I comment on Wikipedia talk about indefinite blocks and the real danger that they become permanent banning. Risker commented months ago in the same talk page that most indefinite blocks are never undone and occur at a rate of 250 per day. So tens or hundreds of thousands of blocks (eventually a million) will be for life. When I make these comments, I am blocked and NeilN, who has been in that WP talk discussion, is given a vote, which is giving an involved user a vote.

No sockpuppetry is found. Rather it is found that there is serial use of usernames. One username edits, but the password is lost. Another user is created and used. Like Bbb23 states, there is no fake consensus, which is what socking is. User A says "This is the way it should be" and Sock B says "I agree". This never happened.

Please, Bbb23, unblock me. I have already been blocked more than 24 hours so that is punishment enough.

Also review the blocking policy which is that blocking is to prevent disruption and is not punishment. I am not and will not be disruptive. I have been punished enough. Thank you for reading. I was blocked and then Bbb23 realized I was not a sock but just lost my complicated password and had to do WP:CLEANSTART and am being permanently blocked because I utilized CLEAN START. This is not right. Use of clean start because of password loss is entirely reasonable.

EVERYONE, PLEASE BE REASONABLE. I edited and someone didn't like my policy discussions so they ran a checkuser on me. Proper??? Anyway, they wrong suspected socks and blocked me. Now that I've explained, you don't care. You don't unblock. That isn't very nice. Lakeshook (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal

I am sorry for taking your time but being permanently blocked is a big deal to me. Indefinite is permanent because if I am not unblocked now, you can bet that an unblock request next week or next year will not be granted.

Again, I am blocked for suspicion of sock but later shown not to be socking but having multiple users of WP:CLEANSTART due to loss of password. Please unblock. If unblocked now, I will consider it bygones and will happily help improve the encyclopedia. Don't do this to me, a life sentence. Keep me blocked for 48 hours, which ends tomorrow (shorten the block). I am sorry. Lakeshook (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, your behavoir throughout this unblock request was way below the standards expected of good-faith editors: wikilawyering, accusing others, yelling in ALL CAPS, generally not behaving in a stable, consistent way. I was going to decline this request myself, but since Bbb23 stated they're considering an unblock I ultimately decided not to do that. I, however, still believe that you shouldn't be unblocked. Max Semenik (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

summary of above: thought to be socking by checkuser, found not to be by checkuser (who explained it), banned for life, anyway. Really fair, yeah right.' Lakeshook (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MaxSem, you have never been blocked. Imagine, if you can, that, effectively immediately, you are blocked indefinitely. Imagine that you are not an administrator so you wouldn't get special sympathy. You can, forever, be banned from Wikipedia. All for an accusation that turns out not to be true. Think about that. No, my week block already is long enough. Time to present Wikipedia in a good light and unblock. Thank you.

Wikipedia has a lot of pejorative terms that you use, such as wikilawyering. However, that could be said of administrators. I decline to cite examples in the spirit of calmness but if that is a condition of unblock (show discriminatory treatment) then I am willing to comply with your request to do so. There was no wikilawyering but rather citing the policy and practices of Wikipedia that I did not create or write myself. Please unblock. It's been a week. Lakeshook (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I am very sorry. I read Drmies block denial and confess. While I did not knowing sock and cannot find absolutely no examples of making a false consensus, I admit that I lost passwords for serial accounts, which I should have written down and not relied on memory. While I noted it in my talk page, I should have been even more specific, such as "Lake of Milk password loss and this is my new account" rather than just say the password was lost and mark the account as retired when I found it. Please unblock. I have been blocked for a week. Please read Bbb23, a checkuser and his/her summary of the extend of sock puppetry (says the accounts were used serially, not concurrently except one day, the day I found the password). Thank you.

Decline reason:

This story would be believable if you had 2 accounts, but not if you have 6. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:00, 5 March 2017 (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.

Lakeshook (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the account is giving the same story that User:Drmies called "ridiculous" when rejecting the last appeal. It's simply unbelievable that the same person would lose the passwords for five separate accounts without learning their lesson the second or perhaps third time. Also interesting is the account's attempt to alter the blocking policy to ban indefinite blocks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passwords are difficult to manage. Too simple is bad. Too complex is bad. Writing them down is bad. It is a big problem worldwide.

As far as "interesting" comment, I realize that what did me in. If anyone comments on policy, unless they are an administrator, checkusers will often search and can jump into conclusions. This happens in ANI a lot. If a non-administrator that hasn't had years of editing starts to comment, they will often be treated harshly and checkusered. This is not a complaint, just an unwritten practice. Note that the checkuser found NO socking. Read the definition of socking. It is not alternate accounts, doppelgangers, or replacement accounts for lost passwords. It is creating a fake consensus by pretending multiple people support one thing. This has never been done and even notes made that the accounts were replacements. This is not an excuse but fact. If it is easier to be unblock by confessing murder or real socking, let me know and I will. Please kindly unblock.

I offer a compromise. Block me until March 1, 2017. I have learned my lesson and will write down my password from now on. Lakeshook (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mountain View Academy (San Francisco) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mountain View Academy (San Francisco) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain View Academy (San Francisco) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nightfury 09:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mountain View Academy (San Francisco) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mountain View Academy (San Francisco) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain View Academy (San Francisco) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]