User talk:Stanmarsh97

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is Stanmarsh97's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

no archives yet (create)

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).

Stanmarsh97 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been a few months now since my block. Since then, I have examined Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy. I have not created any more sockpuppets and I have not edited while logged out for a few months. In the event that I am unblocked, I am willing to accept a topic ban from the Phillips Academy and related articles/redirects, alongside a one account editing restriction. I also will not recreate the Alex Shieh article, which is already indefinitely protected from creating. If these terms are not abided by, I would be willing to accept a community ban (though, of course, I wouldn't violate the terms). Furthermore, I understand that some of my previous comments were unwarranted. However, I have matured since then, and I have learnt not to do such things again. I realize the disruptive nature of my edits, and my main goal would be to contribute to other areas I am interested in, such as the Beatles and adult animation. I chose these areas specifically because they are more casual topics to edit. I am not, nor have I ever been, affiliated with anyone at the Academy, despite claims to the contrary. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You were lying about your sockpuppet as recently as last month. I think we'll consider the standard offer no sooner than six months from then: July 9 2024. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:13, 17 February 2024 (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.

@Jpgordon Now, well, that's just untrue. I never lied about that sockpuppet. In my UTRS request there, I explicitly stated that I knew what I did was wrong, and that the sockpuppetry pertaining to the Phillips Academy was a clear violation of rules, hence why I have agreed to a topic ban. Stanmarsh97 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Might I refresh your memory? Best, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with standard offer -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of both of those things. I already brought to your attention the UTRS request on that account, in which I explicitly admitted to usage of that sockpuppet account. I also, as previously mentioned, haven't been editing logged out or with a different IP address than the one I was originally blocked on. Stanmarsh97 (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2024 (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).

Stanmarsh97 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I already agreed to a topic ban from the Phillips Academy and related articles, and a one account editing restriction. I never fabricated any information about my sockpuppets, despite claims to the contrary, and any such assertion is categorically false. I have been as transparent as possible, and I'm completely willing to answer any further queries to the reviewing admins, if they choose to do so. As previously stated, I am aware of the disruptive nature of my edits pertaining to the Phillips Academy Poll, and my over emphasizing of the notability of the founders. Despite this, I'm not affiliated with anyone, and have not edited Wikipedia with an ongoing conflict of interest. I have already provided the topic areas in which I intend to edit in. I don't know what further I'm expected to add that hasn't already been said.

Decline reason:

I also concur you'll need to use the SO process. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2024 (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.

@331dot @Yamla What is the standard offer process? I haven't evaded my block since I was initially blocked as an accused sockpuppet of @Tintinthereporter226 and @Pohjamadesse1. Stanmarsh97 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SO. We're going to need more than your word here; the SO is a way tp give a show of good faith that you can abide by instructions and policies. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been almost 6 months since this account was blocked, which is why I took the decision to mention this here in an effort to establish some progress. I don't know how much more transparent I can be when I say I haven't been evading my block, or editing logged out, aside from providing my IP address, which I'm obviously not going to do in a public forum. Stanmarsh97 (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

@331dot I was not evading my block. I'm trying to garner support for an RfC on the Talk:Al Gore page. Stanmarsh97 (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no additional comment about this matter, other than to reiterate that I agree with Jpgordon that you should wait until July; you may make a new request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you accused @92.40.213.240 and associated IPs of block evasion, when all they were doing was garnering support for a rightful removal of a paragraph at an RfC. And I thought that it would now have been reset to August 19, 2024 since I've been accused of evading my block twice already. Stanmarsh97 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep referring to those IP addresses in the third person? It was quite obviously you using those IPs, and creating an "enemies list". I think we've wasted enough time here. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Stanmarsh97 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The claim that I was evading my block on the 92.40.213.240 IP and associated ranges is false. That range is already partially blocked for sockpuppetry. They also display an interest in an RfC at the Al Gore page, which I haven't done previously. My interests were limited exclusively to other topics, and not modern politics.

Decline reason:

I suggest you make a UTRS appeal in July. PhilKnight (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2024 (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.

Stanmarsh97 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #90923

is declined. User has continued evading their block with Confirmed sockpuppets. --Yamla (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]