User talk:Mr vili/Archive 2

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr vili. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit _(blether) 09:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello I am applying to be unblocked on Wikipedia under the Wikipedia:Standard_offer as I have waited 6 months with no bad behavior. My request below summarises my apology and commitment to be a productive user on Wikipedia, covering: * my understanding of what I was blocked for, admitting my faults and mistakes including denying sockpuppetry * why the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to wikipedia * My promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban * Evidence of long-term valuable contributions to Wikipedia (below) * Addressing conflict of editing concerns.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Sock/meat puppeting acknowledgements

I acknowledge I participated in multiple instances of sock/meat puppetry behavior and I acknowledge the harm this can cause to Wikipedia.

• With User:Renaissance_domenic - a coworker and friend - we collaborated on multiple Wikipedia articles together - the intentions here were positive and I believe we productively contributed Wikipedia - however we engaged in WP:BADSOCK (supporting eachother in discussions) and denying association which I now understand was counterproductive to Wikipedia - The correct thing here to do was to was to note that we often shared the same IP on our user page, and avoid engaging in the same discussions.
• With User:HeliosSunGod - This was a sock account created by me, having misinterpreted the rules for when creating a duplicate account was allowed - This was a genuine mistake and I thought I had the right to a WP:FRESHSTART - however I denied accusations when my account was linked because I wanted to avoid getting banned again. This was my mistake.

I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for a few years now. I really want to make a genuine appeal regarding my sockpuppetting, as I really enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and I acknowledge I behaved unethically regarding the community policies.

These issues should not happen again as I now see why they lead to a block and how they were counterproductive.

Weighing in contributions

To prove that my intentions with Wikipedia are constructive and productive here is a list of some well written articles I have assisted in building:

• South Australia Police
• List of political parties in Australia
• Utility tunnel
• Ten Pound Poms
• List of active separatist movements in Oceania

Some good quality pages we (User:Renaissance_domenic) have created or collaborated on:

• South Australian Space Industry Centre
• Innovation Collaboration Centre
• Secession in Australia
• Mistral Appliances
• ThincLab

We have never engaged in vandalism of any kind and our contributions. I want to clarify that in any future collaborations we will attempt to make this transparent and within Wikipedia guidelines.

Conflict of interest editing

Some conflict of interest editing points were raised by Seraphimblade.

I would like to come out on the record that I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia. All of the articles I have worked on have been areas of interest or only tangentially related to me.

Me and User:Renaissance_domenic ran a startup out of an incubator we created an article about Innovation Collaboration Centre - we were not paid to do this, we just thought the entity was worthy of encyclopedic coverage as it is associated with UniSA.

I am also associated with a city-state movement, which is why I am interested in the subject of Network States, City-states, Secession and other matters.

My intention is to state this COI on my user page if I ever wish to write specifically about my startup or the specific city-state movement I am associated with, neither of which I believe will pass Wikipedia notability guidelines at this current stage.

I never vandalized Wikipedia, and all of the articles I created as far as I am aware followed Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Conclusion

My request to the reviewing admin:

• Consider my productive contributions to Wikipedia.
• A WP:LASTCHANCE (WP:ROPE) to prove I can be a productive member to Wikipedia.
• Understanding the human error/mistake to deny accusations and that it won't happen again.
• If there is any questions or concerns, to instead reply to this thread to avoid creating a new unblock request again.

Thank you for considering this request Mr vili (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Yamla. Could I please ask for something?

You have procedurally declined my unblock request twice in a row, would you please be able to take the time to review my unblock request instead? I know it may take some time, and that there is a back log but I've been wanting to be unblocked for months.

I really do want to contribute to Wikipedia productively and I have waited the time for the Standard Offer to apply. I have no intention in being a malicious Wikipedia editor and I genuinely want to contribute. I believe there is zero risk to Wikipedia by being unbanned as I now understand why I was banned and explained how I can avoid this from happening again.

Thank you for considering! Mr vili (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Yamla. I can guarantee I did not edit Wikipedia on an IP if that's what your review meant. Could it possibly be the fact that I often used my account on a university network in the past (as stated above - I worked in a incubator run by UniSA)? It's very likely it could've been other faculty or staff editing on IP

Can you please double check and consider this. I have no recollection of ever editing Wikipedia during August & September, unless it was directly on my talk-page.

I understand if you are not convinced due to my history of denying accusations, but I genuinely promise I have not edited Wikipedia on an IP as far as I recall.

If I go to edit a page on my IP it appears as This account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia. so I have no idea how that would even be possible?

I really just want a chance to prove I can contribute to Wikipedia without sock/meat puppeting. Mr vili (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I will not be reviewing any further. You are free to make a new unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yamla no problem. Are you able to provide any information about what you found in the logs? I just want to know what pages and etc were edited under my IP?

Thanks in advance Mr vili (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Yamla, sorry again for the additional ping.

As you can see, there has already been another unrelated user blocked as a "sockpuppet" of mine (User_talk:Dan_Harvie) who stated their identity as a university staff member.

I do not know this person, but it is clearly a problem if people are getting banned for no reason due to having the same IP address as me, especially considering it's an academic/educational institution.

I think that should serve as evidence that it's entirely possible these edits were made by different people - let me know what you think?

Edit: I can see the contributions you are referring to but I guarantee they are not me Special:Contributions/180.150.112.179 - I am likely behind a NAT Mr vili (talk) 10:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"Unblock request history"

Unblock Request (6 month standard offer) New request unblock is below this block request 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). Mr vili (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Hello I am applying to be unblocked on Wikipedia under the Wikipedia:Standard_offer as I have waited 6 months with no bad behavior, I am reapplying because of the "Procedural decline only". My request below summaries my apology, covering: my understanding of what I was blocked for, admitting my faults and mistakes including denying sockpuppetry why the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to wikipedia My promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban * My long-term valuable contributions to Wikipedia Decline reason: I have read through the below conversation. Having done that, I find the denial of paid editing and COI to be entirely unconvincing. Part of what is required for any editor is to disclose any paid editing, and I am not confident that you will obey this requirement or be honest about when it's going on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC) 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. Reply Hi, @Seraphimblade While that would be very nice, I am not paid by anyone to contribute to Wikipedia. Some of the subjects I have written about are merely things distantly related to me. My edit history shows that from the varying articles i've written, many of which are about government organizations, politics, and some non-profit & commercial enterprises. Without reveal too much identifying information. I run a technology startup (associated with one of the incubators I wrote an article on) and have no interest in earning revenue by performing paid editing services for Wikipedia. I am also associated with a city-state movement, which is why I am interested in the subject of Network States, City-states, Secession and other matters. My intention is to state this COI on my user page if I ever wish to write specifically about my startup or the specific city-state movement I am associated with, neither of which I believe will pass Wikipedia notability guidelines at this current stage. I would like to note that the reason User:Renaissance_domenic and I were blocked was unrelated to anything that could be construed as "paid editing" services. We were working on a WikiProject together, to increase coverage on new city states, secessionist movements & network states around the world. My colleague (co-founder) in my startup likes to edit Wikipedia with me, which is why we often collaborated on various articles. There was no negative intentions on doing this. I ask kindly that you reconsider this @Seraphimblade and feel free to ask me any questions and I will try to answer, but I do prefer to protect my privacy. I never attempted to convince the reviewing admin that I was not a paid editor because I thought the ban was about meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry. I hope that my explanation above covers that concern. I am happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability. I believe I have made numerous positive contributions, and all were in good-intent. I never vandalized Wikipedia, and all of the articles I created as far as I am aware followed Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am asking for a second chance to prove that I can contribute to Wikipedia without damage or disruption, If I ever do something bad again (WP:ROPE/WP:LASTCHANCE) then I believe it would be fair for me to be unblocked. I understand that I made multiple mistakes, all of which I was unaware were mistakes at the time, and because I didn't want to be banned, I resorted to denying the accusations of meat puppetry, which was counter-productive. Thank you for considering this request Mr vili (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Unblock Request I would like to come clean regarding some behavior regarding my ban for sockpuppeting/meatpuppetry. I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for a few years now. I really want to make a genuine appeal regarding my sockpuppetting, as I really enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and I acknowledge I behaved unethically regarding the community policies. My original account (Mr_vili), was banned because I originally engaged in meatpuppetry, with User:Renaissance_domenic, a friend and coworker. He participated in a vote regarding a proposed deletion (supporting each other in discussions WP:BADSOCK) - we also edited multiple instances of the same articles, but with no negative intentions - with the goal of improving encyclopedia coverage of a few topics. I denied accusations of meat puppetry because I was worried about being banned, and did not want to be banned, following this I attempted some unblock appeals, before giving up. I also acknowledge denying accusations was not the right approach. After this, I created a new Wikipedia account (User:HeliosSunGod) which was linked to Mr_vili, because the two accounts participating in a Wikiproject created by me. The article both accounts collaborated on were Draft:Network State, a notable concept coined by Balaji S. I created this account because I still wanted to be contributing to Wikipedia. I created this account under WP:CLEANSTART, falsely assuming that I was allowed to, but I now understand doing this is considered block evasion and that the policy does not apply to blocked/banned accounts, and I acknowledge these actions are harmful to wikipedia. I still would like to be a valuable contributor of Wikipedia, and despite the few instances of behaving unethically, I still believe my contributions to the community outweigh my negatives. Some good articles I have assisted in building: South Australia Police List of political parties in Australia Utility tunnel Ten Pound Poms List of active separatist movements in Oceania Some good quality pages we (User:Renaissance_domenic) have created or collaborated on: South Australian Space Industry Centre Innovation Collaboration Centre Secession in Australia Mistral Appliances ThincLab I am reaching out to @User:Girth Summit as you have been the admin most involved in my case, and I would like to apologize to you for denying accusations and behaving unproductively. My request to you and the unblock reviewer is to: Consider our valuable contributions to various topics on wikipedia To unban Renaissance Domenic, Mr_Vili To use Template:User shared IP address, on both our user pages, to make our connection honest and clear to any editors. To not engage in any votes/discussions together and engage in meatpuppetry behaviour To abandon HeliosSunGod account, and mark it as an abandoned account on my main page To give us a second chance to make our wrongs right, and acknowledge that we made human mistakes that we would like to move on from. Additionally, Renaissance Domenic and I would ideally still like to collaborate on common articles for the purposes of improving Wikipedia, and if this is an option and we do collaborate, we agree to never participate and canvas each other in same votes and discussions. However if it is decided that this behavior would be considered unacceptable, we would agree to no longer collaborate on overlapping interests. Finally, I would like to say that I am genuinely sorry about my behaviour and I would like to be given a second chance under Wikipedia:Standard_offer. I fully understand what went wrong, and I know what I have to do to keep it from ever happening again. Thank you for considering my appeal. Kind regards, Mr vili (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC) "Me stupidly denying accusations of meatpuppetry" Unblock Request 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). Mr vili (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I do apologize for resorting to attacks within the unblock request, I just had no other avenue of making a report. My question is now what I am meant to do. I would still like to edit Wikipedia and I don't believe I have made any actions in bad faith or that would otherwise disrupt wikipedia. How am I supposed to appeal this? Does it require me and Renaissance Domenic to never collaborate on future articles? Does it require us to disclose that we share IPs together, so we can be treated as one user for practical intents? Surely there is something that can be done that would allow us to both edit on Wikipedia? Mr vili (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Decline reason:  Confirmed sockpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 11:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC) 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. Unblock Request 1 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). Mr vili (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I don't believe there is sufficient evidence of sockpuppeting - Renaissance Domenic is a coworker who shares my IP and does occasionally collaborate with me - I also don't consider this meatpuppetry, as his account has not participated in any votes that my account has participated in - except for supporting a WikiProject which we will be collaborating on - which I do not believe is any bad or disruptive behavior Also, please check for Sockpuppeting between these accounts who all collaborate with AndyTheGrump * https://interaction-timeline.toolforge.org/?wiki=enwiki&user=AndyTheGrump&user=Criticalus&startDate=1661990400&endDate=1666655999 * https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Criticalus&users=AndyTheGrump&users=23.84.19.247 They have a clear history of editing the same articles @User:Girth Summit I believe all behavior between me and Renaissance Domenic should fall under WP:AGF - nothing we have done went against the goal of building an encyclopedia Decline reason: Per Liz way below. But frankly given that this request spends more time attacking another user than making a case for unblock, it should have been declined long before this whole thread below got to where it is. And to the extent it does make a case for unblock, it is nowhere near sufficient. Whether there is "sufficient evidence of sockpupetting" is not, to be frank, a question on which your input matters, or more fairly one on which it will have much, if any, impact. You seem to be aware, from the aforementioned discussion below, that Checkuser data is something that those who can access it almost never share publicly, and for good reasons. And beyond that, as I have to say so often, if we unblocked any suspected socks just because they said they weren't socks, well, pretty soon we wouldn't really have a sockpuppetry policy, now, would we? Daniel Case (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC) 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. The suggestion that user Criticalus and I are socks is of course ludicrous, as can be seen from the (lack of) evidence. It amounts to an observation that we've both posted to Wikipedia's major noticeboards, and have on a couple of occasions agreed with each other. As for meatpuppetry, see also the repeatedly rejected Draft:Simon Gerard created by Renaissance domenic, and the article Simon Gerard subsequently created by Mr vili/DominusVilicus. If this is 'collaboration' it also looks like some form of conflict of interest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC) That article was significantly improved upon from it's initial submission with highly notable sources later included (SMH, Australian Financial Review, Bloomberg, Daily News, etc). There was also an initial bias to delete due to the pre-existing reviews, so I took the initiative as an experienced editor to create it in the mainspace. I opted to WP:IGNORE in order to create a good, well sourced Wikipedia article that deserves coverage Mr vili (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Looks like WP:ALWAYS and WP:BRIEFLY to me. A good percentage of the edits on that new account seem to be supporting you in discussions Mr vili (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC) What is your relationship with Simon Gerard? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC) None. He is a South Australian businessmen who run some of the largest companies in Australia. I am working on another similar figure, Draft:David Bohn (Businessman) Mr vili (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC) So you have 'no relationship' with Gerard, but you 'collaborated' with a 'coworker' by moving their rejected draft into article space? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Yes. That's exactly correct. There was no bad behavior in doing so - it was an significantly improved article on a notable businessman who ran multiple ASX-listed companies, with numerous sources from credible, independent news publications. You need to WP:AGF. I have a history of creating articles about organizations and businesspeople Mr vili (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2022 (UTC) The claim that the Gerard article was 'significantly improved' over the draft is demonstrably false, as anyone comparing the two can readily ascertain. If there is any difference at all, I can't see it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Please see the original draft that was submitted for review and compare it to the current Simon Gerard https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Simon_Gerard&oldid=1075936534 Mr vili (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC) What the heck is that supposed to show? Your 'coworker' amended the draft. It was again rejected. You moved it to article space, making no further changes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC) I believed it did not need any further changes, as it was a good article. I am allowed to move it to the mainspace - there is no rules preventing me from doing so - and even if there were, I would be allowed to be break them as it is done with the goal of improving Wikipedia. The only reason there was even a draft process is because his account was new - something my account wouldn't have the restriction of. Mr vili (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Engaging in sockpuppetry and or meatpuppetry to get a rejected draft into article space is not 'improving Wikipedia'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Under what account do you have "a history of creating articles about organizations and businesspeople"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Please point out any instance of bad faith between Renaissance Domenic and I. Any collaboration we've done, or articles we've co-created have been done with the intent of improving Wikipedia. Even in the instance of him supporting me in the WikiProject proposal, that was also done with the intent of improving Wikipedia. Each statement I have made in each article I've created is adequately sourced. Mr vili (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC) You haven't answered my question. Which 'businesspeople' have you created articles on? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC) I said businesspeople and organisations. The other businessperson is a draft I am working on for David Bohn. Mr vili (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC) So, the answer to my question is 'none'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Another question: have you ever edited Wikipedia under another account? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Possibly, a long time ago. But also occasionally from various IP addresses if I've been on my phone. Mr vili (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC) I will allow another checkuser to review this request. I will note, however, that situations of this sort are covered at WP:COWORKER, which is indeed a part of the WP:MEAT guidance. If what you say is true, I note that you do a very great deal of your editing while at your place of work, which makes me wonder whether you are editing as part of your job. Girth Summit (blether) 13:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC) While that's a totally fair accusation - without getting into too much private detail - My colleague and I run our own business, we choose what we do in our day. It's 11:38pm here and I am still at the office - and this is the place where I edit most of the time. Mr vili (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Here's yet another question for Mr vili: were you aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines when you created the now-deleted Arkovia article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Nope. that was years ago when I was new to editing on Wikipedia. Mr vili (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC) Comment I'm just an observer, Mr vili, as I'm not a checkuser who can research your use of this and other accounts. But spending precious time in an unblock request to attack other editors always backfires on the blocked editor. I guess you are trying to shift the subject but right now you are the one that is blocked, not Andy, and while he is asking you a lot of tough questions, you can choose whether or not to answer them but please do not engage in a badly put together personal attacks. It doesn't help you get unblocked one bit and, in fact, it makes admins reviewing your request take a harder look at your own behavior. So, please, do not do this again. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC) I do apologize for resorting to that behavior. Mr vili (talk) 09:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Applying to be unblocked under WP:Standard_Offer. I have waited 6 months and given my reasoning and explanation of my actions for unblock below. I please request the reviewing admin to take the time to read through it. I truly want to continue being a productive contributor of Wikipedia. Thank you.

Decline reason:

As requested, I'm directly reviewing your unblock request.  Highly likely WP:LOUTSOCK block evasion in August and September. On that basis, I'm declining your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Unblock Request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

• I acknowledge participating in multiple instances of sock/meat puppetry behavior, notably with User:Renaissance_domenic and using a sock account User:HeliosSunGod. The latter was a genuine misunderstanding regarding WP:FRESHSTART. * I have been an active contributor to Wikipedia for years, with contributions to articles such as South Australia Police, List of political parties in Australia, and Utility tunnel. * I have never been paid for any of my Wikipedia edits. Certain conflict of interest points were raised, particularly regarding an article I wrote about the Innovation Collaboration Centre. This was related to a startup I was involved in, but I was not paid for this article's creation. * My intention is to declare any potential conflicts of interest on my user page moving forward. * I have always aimed to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Requests: * Review and consider my positive contributions. * Grant me a last chance to prove my constructive intent. * Address my query regarding the supposed edits from my IP, as I have not edited Wikipedia outside my account. I had previously used a university network for my contributions, which might explain the IP concerns raised. Additional Comments: * I genuinely want to return to contribute productively to Wikipedia. I have waited to reapply as per the Standard Offer and believe that I now understand the reasons for my block. * The contributions in August & September under my IP Special:Contributions/180.150.112.179 I guarantee they are not me - I am likely behind a Network Address Translation network used by ISPs to share IPs between users in the same neighborhoods. Mr vili (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per Yamla, you were just WP:LOUTSOCKing as recently as last month. You've been given multiple last chances, and each times you have run afoul of them. If you truly do want to come back productively, you need to that this WP:SO. Do no request an unblock until October 2, 2024. DO NOT edit under an IP, period. Do that and we could consider an unblock. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Hey @User:RickinBaltimore I am not sure if you read my unblock request but I specifically stated that I did not edit under my IP. I can guarantee it was other users on my shared IP that my internet service provider is using across the neighbourhood.

I have never been given a "last chance" I was never unblocked at any point. Please stop being so harsh on me and actually take the time to read through my request and explanations to everything.

Im really frustrated because I haven't done anything wrong in over 6 months. There's nothing I can do about my IP being shared with many users… It changes regularly too whenever my internet restarts Mr vili (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey @User:RickinBaltimore. I don't want to be annoying but I am just seeking a response. I don't know what to do. It's very likely that there may be additional contributions under my IP in the future because it's shared between many users.

There's nothing I can do to stop this because I have no control over it. I genuinely honestly did not make those contributions to Wikipedia, and I feel like I will never be unblocked because there's nothing I can do to prevent other people from editing on the same IP that was assigned to me and many other users. Please there has to be some other way to be unblocked as I've been extremely patient and have not edited over the past 6 months

[1]https://i.imgur.com/TPDnmaA.png as you can see on this screenshot, I am not even able to edit while logged out so I'm not even sure how this is possible Mr vili (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Unblock Request Again

Look. I don't want to be an annoying f**k but I literally did not make those contributions. ISPs assign the same IP to many customers, and I can say with absolute certainty I did not make those contributions under my IP. There is absolutely nothing I can do to prevent random people who share my IP from continuing to contribute under it - it will likely continue to happen in the future and this just means that I will never be unblocked which is completely unfair as I have done everything right on my end to be unblocked.

Mr vili (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

• I have waited over 6 months with no edits for the standard offer to apply with no bad behavior. * All I want is a simple chance to prove I can be a productive contributor to Wikipedia. * I DID NOT engage in WP:LOUTSOCK - This was 100% another person editing under my shared Network Address Translation IP. The contributions made under my IP were topics I have never written about, and there has been 0 overlap in interests proving that these were by another user. * Mr vili (talk) 08:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked, subject to the editing restriction discussed below. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

So, here's the problem we've got, Mr vili. You have, in the past, lied to us. You are saying that you are going to stop lying going forward, but you can see how your past record would make people disinclined to believe you when you say that it wasn't you who made those edits. Certainly, most of the edits on the IP in the last few months are you, editing this talk page; then there are a few that you are saying are somebody else, and we're stuck with the question of whether or not to believe someone who has repeatedly flat-out lied to us in the fairly recent past.

Having said all that, I've reviewed those edits, and I agree with you that they don't look like the sort of edits you would have made - they're not in your usual areas of interest, and they didn't look to be disruptive in any way. So, speaking as the blocking administrator, I would be willing to consider extending you another chance, unless either of the admins who declined your earlier request objects (Yamla, RickinBaltimore - any thoughts?).

If my memory serves, all the previous disruption seemed to be centered around certain topic areas - microstates, autonomous zones, Liberland, stuff like that. I would be wary of unblocking you without your acceptance of an indefinite topic ban, which may not be appealed for at least a year, from that entire subject area. I'd have to give a bit of thought as to how exactly to word it, but you presumably get the idea - stay away from the subject area you were disruptive in before. Would you be amenable to that as an unblock condition? Girth Summit _(blether) 20:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello @User:Girth Summit. I really appreciate you for taking the time to have a second comprehensively review of my unblock request and the edits made under my shared IP. I completely understand the skepticism surrounding my claims due to my previous actions and false denials

I'd like to emphasize that the core issue surrounding our past behavior was not the topics we contributed to, but rather the act of meatpuppetry itself. The subjects of microstates, autonomous zones, and similar topics were somewhat coincidental, as our inappropriate collaborative efforts began on entirely different subjects. (which include moving articles like Simon Gerard by User:Renaissance domenic's to the mainspace despite being rejected by the AFC process.)

It was the act of collaborating inappropriately and failing to disclose our relationship that was problematic.

While I did seek inappropriate support from Renaissance Domenic to support the creation of a WikiProject, a number of other users were also interested in the proposal and I don't think the proposal or topics themselves were problematic.

I have taken the time to deeply reflect on this and understand why such actions were disruptive to the Wikipedia community. It was not our intent to be harmful or misleading, but I recognize that we inadvertently were. I assure you that moving forward, I am committed to adhering strictly to Wikipedia's guidelines and maintaining full transparency in all my edits - including disclosing any COIs

If given another opportunity, I genuinely believe I can contribute positively to these topics without any recurrence of past mistakes. I'd be grateful to be able to edit without any restrictions, I also understand that precautions may need to be taken. Given that the quality of my contributions in those areas was never really the issue, I humbly request that these precautions not indefinitely bar me from areas where I believe I can add good value in improving articles.

With that being said, I believe it would be appropriate to have an agreement that if I ever do cause disruption in those areas again, that it would be entirely within reason to introduce a topic ban but I do not believe that will ever need to happen. Mr vili (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The "number of other users" interested in the ill-defined, improperly-created and now-deleted WikiProject Autonomous Zones was as near to zero as not to matter, once the sockpuppet and 'contributors' with no real editing history were discounted. We don't need WikiProjects built on a personal whim through vague hand-waving over undefined terms that change their meaning whenever convenient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Groups of like-minded editors may start new WikiProjects at any time and are encouraged, but not obligated, to propose them before doing so. Formal proposals have many advantages, including receiving valuable input, saving a lot of work, and recruiting potential participants. Wikipedia:WikiProject#Creating and maintaining a project

According to the guide, I was within my rights to create a WikiProject, but it is true that it would've been a better idea to propose it before creating it.

Regardless, I don't really feel a motivation any more to relaunch it so I don't think it's relevant anymore. Mr vili (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. My memory is of a slightly different set of circumstances. It's true that you were blocked for sock/meatpuppetry, but it was your activity in that topic area that originally drew my attention to your accounts - if there hadn't been a certain level of disruption, I wouldn't have had a reason to investigate. I would not be willing to accept an unblock request that did not have a TBAN as a condition; you are at liberty to refuse that, and I will leave this request open to see whether another CU is willing to be more lenient. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Girth Summit.

My primary aim has always been to contribute positively and build knowledge on Wikipedia. I'm ready to take responsibility for my past mistakes, and I genuinely want to make amends.

If a topic ban is the only way to regain the trust of the Wikipedia community and ensure that I can continue contributing in a meaningful and non-disruptive way, I'm willing to accept it. My hope is that over time, by consistently demonstrating my commitment to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, I can rebuild trust.

However, I'd like to humbly ask if it's possible to set a defined period (such as 6mo) for the topic ban rather than an indefinite one. This would give me a clearer path to demonstrate my commitment and understanding of Wikipedia's policies and the opportunity to work towards regaining complete editing privileges.

Thank you again for considering my unblock and for your patience. Mr vili (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that topic bans with defined lengths are often effective. I have in the past seen people simply wait them out, doing very little or zero editing, then diving back into the area they were previously disruptive in, and disrupting it again, when the ban expired. For me the, point of a topic ban is to allow the user to edit in other areas and build up their experience and understanding of how the project works; once they have demonstrated that they can be collegiate and productive, they can request that the topic ban be lifted. An indef topic ban, appealable after a year of productive contributions in other areas, is the best offer I would personally be willing to make. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit would you be willing to consider reducing the appeal time length to 6 months?

This is just considering I have been an editor of Wikipedia for quite some time, and have already been banned over 6-7 months already, and I believe that I've got a good grasp on the rules and policies of Wikipedia by now to ensure disruptive behavior doesn't happen again and that I'm walking on thin ice.

On a separate note, would you be able to confirm the wording of the topic ban? Thank you again. Mr vili (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You're making me nervous - why are you so eager to get back into editing in that subject area? I'm offering you the chance to do what you have said you want to do - to prove you can be a productive contributor to Wikipedia. I'm starting to get the feeling that what you actually want to do is to use Wikipedia to promote a set of ideas, and that you are impatient to start doing that. I haven't decided on the exact wording of the topic ban yet, because it's a subject area I know precisely zero about - I will have to go back and look at the areas you were editing before to come up with a suitable wording, but for the purposes of this conversation you should consider it to be anything even vaguely related to microstates and autonomous zones, broadly construed. You will be free to build up your experience and skills writing about anything else that takes your interest. I always advise people to avoid subject areas that they're passionate about - that way disruptions lies. I mostly do historic buildings and architects, not because I am an architectural historian (I'm a primary school teacher), but because I am rather fond of old buildings and enjoy visiting them - it's a hobby, nothing more. Find a completely different subject area, and spend your time improving our existing articles about it, then perhaps dip your toe into creating new articles about it. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit The reason I asked about reducing the appeal time length is simply due to my current understanding of Wikipedia’s guidelines and my intent to genuinely prove that I can contribute in this area constructively. As you know I've had a lot of time to think and reflect regarding my behavior.

I respect your stance on this, and I am more than willing to comply with the conditions you're setting forth.

The reason I was "eager" is I wanted to write some quality articles related to the topic such as Network State (coined by Balaji Srinivasan) which is a notable concept with lots of secondary sources and I believe coverage would fit into Wikipedia's goals.

Your advice about avoiding areas of personal passion makes sense, and I'll certainly keep that in mind moving forward if I do eventually appeal it - I will do my best to remain objective and follow policies to the T. Mr vili (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

From a quick check online, it does appear that Srinivasan's book is probably notable (I found this review, there are probably others). However, that subject would definitely fall squarely within the bounds of the topic ban I am offering to unblock you under - you would need to stay well away from subjects like that. I'm going out for a walk shortly, but I will do some digging and let you know the wording of the ban later today or tomorrow, and we can go forward from there. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand and thank you again for looking into this and giving me a second chance and opportunity to become a productive contributor of Wikipedia. Mr vili (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, how about this for a TBan - "Mr vili is topic banned from the subject of novel or non-typical systems of governance, and people involved with such movements, broadly construed." So, the concept of the network state, Srinivasan, nationality as a service, Liberland, autonomous zones - all of these subjects and similar ones would be covered by the ban. You would be free to edit about sport, literature, history (with a few very specific restrictions), music, art, culture, mainstream politics - whatever floats your boat. Seem fair enough? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that seems fair however there is one type of uncontroversial "novel governance" system I would like to write about which is direct democracy and possibly more controversial, mars settlement

Can I write about this? If not, then I accept and understand, I will avoid this area in the topic ban. Mr vili (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You're making me nervous again. Direct democracy would be a hard no - that would be very much within the scope of your TBan. It should be obvious that any article that begins with wording like 'This differs from the majority of currently established democracies...' would be a no-go area. Mars settlement is more of a grey area - you'd be welcome to write about what sort of rockets might be used, how humans would grow food, or what experts think the effects of living in Mars's environment might be on human physiology (although you'd have to familiarise yourself with the requirements of MEDRS for the latter), but you should go nowhere near anything about how any future colony on Mars would be organised or governed. Clear enough? Girth Summit _(blether) 21:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

No problem sounds good Mr vili (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I am unblocking your account. Read WP:TBAN to familiarise yourself with what the restriction means - it's not just 'no editing articles', it's no discussion of the affected subjects anywhere (talk page, project pages, etc). I have logged the restriction at WP:RESTRICT - it is listed under the 'voluntary' section, but that does not mean that adhering to it is voluntary, it just means that you entered into it voluntarily in order to be unblocked. My advice to you is not to try to skirt around the ban by editing in adjacent areas - find something completely different to write about. Good luck. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you again. I won't disappoint Mr vili (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)