User talk:NitramCricket96

NitramCricket96, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi NitramCricket96! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Talkback

Hello, NitramCricket96. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by ^King Jakob _C2 13:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Editing help request

You asked me to move some articles for you, but I don't know how to do that, either. I see above that you've been invited to the Teahouse. They are helpful and supportive there. I'm sure they will help you to do this. All the best luck, Wordreader (talk) 00:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 20:29, 31 July 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).

NitramCricket96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This account is not a sock puppet. This account is one that I created in 2013 in order to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Irish Interprovincial cricket competitions, as you will see from my edit history, I have used it seldom if at all since then. Today I wished to create Wikipedia entries for the European Cricket League, and could not remember what my account details were at the time. I accidentally logged onto another account which, as far as I am aware has no editing history. Upon realising my error, I logged out and found my correct account. I then used it to create Wikipedia entries for the European Cricket League, and for its 2019 season. Now, not only has my account been wrongfully blocked from editing, but two legitimate entries for a sporting competition broadcast to 104 countries have been needlessly deleted. I would greatly appreciate it if you would reverse these actions. If you feel the need to delete my unused and unwanted "MTed165" account, then I would have no objection to this.

Decline reason:

When I first read this unblock request I could not see any obvious evidence of misuse, so I posted the message below to Yunshui. However, within a minute or so of doing so I noticed two interesting details which both looked highly suspicious. I have now seen further evidence, and it is beyond suspicious. It is clear that there has been abuse of accounts to evade blocks on other accounts; an account which had been used to edit on behalf of an organisation became blocked, and the block was then evaded by use of another account, and whether the two accounts were actually operated by the same person is completely irrelevant. It also appears that this account has been run by an undisclosed paid editor acting in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. Either one of those two facts would be enough to justify maintaining the block, even if the other were not true. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:22, 4 August 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.

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).

NitramCricket96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm very sorry, but this is ridiculous. I have no way of knowing what I am supposed to be defending myself against, because I've done nothing wrong. I am not a paid editor; as you can see from the following Reddit post [1] I am simply a fan trying to do a good turn. Similarly, I have only ever had two Wikipedia accounts: one, as mentioned in the unblock request, is the "MTed165" account, which I have never used to contribute to Wikipedia, and this one which I have used previously to contribute to a selection of cricket articles irregularly over a period of six years. I have not "abused accounts" to evade a block or for any other reason - this is the only account which I have ever used, and therefore the only one which has ever been blocked. I simply do not understand what else I can present to defend myself against this suggestion because it's not anything to do with me or anything I have done. As for being a paid editor, this is also absolutely false: I have a fairly extensive background as an amateur journalist particularly in Associate cricket, but I have never been paid for my work on any platform. @JamesBWatson: - either of those two facts may be enough to maintain the block, if it weren't for the fact that neither is true.

References

https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/ckaf5j/currently_working_on_wiki_pages_for_the_european/

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. Yamla (talk) 11:21, 5 September 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.

@Yunshui: Can you give some indication what the evidence is? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaking, that Reddit post was created half an hour after you posted these articles. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not especially sure why that matters, but yes it was. It was an effort to get people other than myself involved because I was basically learning the markup from scratch as I went along and I would have liked for someone more competent to help me out. You will see that I had edited the posts before I asked people on Reddit for help, and continued to edit them afterwards until wrongly banned. NitramCricket96 (talk) 08:22, 5 August 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).

NitramCricket96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My previous unblock request was denied because nobody took any action either way, with the instruction that I can request an unblock again if I substantially reword my request. Therefore, I am again requesting to be unblocked for the following reasons: * I have only ever edited Wikipedia with this account. I am not and have never been a "sockpuppet". * I have only ever used this account to make valid and verifiable edits, with sources provided. * I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia, or for any kind of cricket writing. If this is not sufficient reason to be unbanned, then please provide me some sort of feedback as to what more I need to say or do to end this absolute farce of me being improperly banned from improving Wikipedia's cricket content. NitramCricket96 (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yamla (talk) 12:14, 22 September 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.