User talk:Ppizzo278

June 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted Block

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).

Ppizzo278 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not done anything that warrants for me to be blocked. This account is the sole account of mine and I have not abused any articles on Wikipedia. Upon searching for information on why I was blocked, it shows that the user Livonia ainovil was listed as a sock pocket of mine. While I do indeed know the owner of that account, I am in no way responsible for running that account or what he does. Ppizzo278 (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Admitted violation of WP:MEAT, below. Yamla (talk) 10:30, 3 June 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.

Comment I'll be honest and say I was rather surprised by the sockpuppetry block. I didn't think this editor would particularly engage in that sort of practice? Looking at the limited public evidence, the timeline between the editors is rather sparse for this sort of thing. On the other hand, the two edits are textbook WP:Meatpuppetry. Pizzo, you might want to consider reading WP:SHARE, though. It does look bad on your part at the moment. (Non-administrator comment) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL The Napoleon edit most likely occurred as a result of a discussion between me and my friend at school. He was sitting by me when I told him that "some dude just reversed my wiki edit and said that Napoleon was Ligurian" to which he responded "what an idiot". I can only assume that he went and edited the article further during one of his computer classes. Whatever actions you impose on his account, I do not have an opinion on, but I would like to clarify that our accounts are in no way related. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Ppizzo278 (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a violation of WP:MEAT. Combine that with the technical evidence showing the overlap and the block is clearly appropriate. --Yamla (talk) 10:30, 3 June 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).

Ppizzo278 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Yamla I respectfully disagree that this constitutes a violation of WP:MEAT. The account was not recruited, created, or solely used to edit Wikipedia in my favor at all. His account has been around for a while longer than this edit and he has been making his own contributions on here last time as far as I know. This incident was the result of a conversation that had no mal intent or bad faith and was simply a discussion of like minded topics among peers. I would graciously take a timed block if you still believe I am deserving of one, but I ask that an indefinite block be either removed or reduced. Thank you for your understanding and consideration. Ppizzo278 (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Bbb23's comments below seem pretty conclusive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:21, 3 June 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.

Technically, the possibility of meat in this case is next to nil. Both accounts used the same residential IP and the same user agent, and both accounts used the same range of an institutional IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 I'm not exactly sure what this comment means, but I do hope that it portrays that an understanding is getting close to being reached? You have my word that I will talk to Anthony in person and make it clear to him that we cannot edit on the same topics. However, I am aware that he has been blocked before, so I do understand if advanced action is taken against him, and will convey this information to him. I do admire this website greatly, regardless of some minor incidents, and look forward to being able to positively contribute in the future. All sympathies. Ppizzo278 (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What my comment means is that your contention that you are not a sock is highly unlikely. In addition, your positive comments about your editing here and about Wikipedia are at best misleading. You have removed all the warnings from your Talk page, including a final warning by El_C, and a link to a report you filed at WP:AIV about an experienced user. Your time, particularly lately, at Wikipedia has not been constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 There was an incident with that user months ago, but my actions here have been peaceful since then. You can see by my contributions that I have been creating articles and growing Wikipedia. I am asking you on a human level to please remove this block or at least make it timed. You may put whatever restrictions you want on this account, but I ask that I be able to edit and improve articles here. Thank you. Ppizzo278 (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have an unusual sense of time. The vandalism report, as well as the administrator warning, was less than a month ago. I am not unblocking you or shortening your block duration.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 Benjamin, I commend you for your attentive work on this site. You have made it a better place by cleaning up the vandals and bots. But I am neither. Wikipedia is my life on some level. I do not want to tell you about my personal life because I know it does not matter to you, but right now I am not having very much keeping me distracted. This site is my happiness right now, more specifically the article I created on the 6th Regiment, European Brigade. I continue to stand here pleading with you to make the Berger family proud and allow me to edit that article. I renounce all other abilities, but please, restore my editing abilities on that article. Ppizzo278 (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Benjamin? Who are the "Berger family"? You mean the 6th Regiment article where you uploaded an image as your own work but it was in reality someone else's (it's been deleted from Wikipedia as a copyright violation and removed from the article)?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ppizzo278, we have the WP:Standard offer for a reason. Assuming you speak other languages, you still have the ability to edit other language wikipedias. If that is not the case, Reguyla (who is perma-super-banned from Wikipedia) has created the Military wiki. There are good ways of getting unblocked in this situation and still occupy yourself for the next few months. Bbb23 did do you the massive courtesy of not making your block a Checkuser action with {{Checkuserblock-account}}. Were that to have been the case, WP:CUBL would apply and a regular admin would never be able to unblock you. I hope this helps! Also, nothing I have wrote should be construed as a free pass to continue any abuses on other wikis that got you blocked here. That's cross-wiki abuse, and it is even more severe. Tread lightly there. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: First, the block is a CU block. Second, before this user would be able to take advantage of the standard offer, they would first have to admit they were socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I realize now I can't read (the block log).

Self-trout –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 @MJL: I will take the blame of my friend if it were to mean I have the option of an offer. I accept all responsibility for all mishaps related to this thread. Now, what comes next? Ppizzo278 (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 I know you want to unblock me. Addison and Hudson would want you to too. So let’s stop messing around with this subject, and lift the block already. Ppizzo278 (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are now trolling. I've revoked your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ppizzo278: huh? Who are those people? Just read WP:Standard offer and follow its advice, etc. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]