|
 | This account has been
blocked indefinitely from editing for
sock puppetry per evidence presented at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Constantprogress. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans
may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
Constantprogress ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi there, I am not sure what happened? What are these other accounts for? I only edit from Constantprogress and respect Wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate to understand what this sock puppet is about? Thanks for the help! Constantprogress ( talk) 20:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
So you say you have no idea what those other accounts that happen to be technically indistinguishable from this one and share your interests are for? Sorry, I don't believe that. Huon ( talk) 20:33, 29 September 2019 (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.
Constantprogress ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There a lots of people in this building, some of which no doubt share interests, but that shouldn’t affect my ability to contribute to Wikipedia. How can we resolve this? Constantprogress ( talk) 20:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No, that's not what the technical evidence shows. Yamla ( talk) 21:10, 29 September 2019 (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.
Constantprogress ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Would you please show me this evidence so I can understand what you're saying? I have explained the situation. I'm very upset because I have invested a lot of time into contributing to Wikipedia and have always ensured that my contributions are accurate and cited correctly. What is the appeal procedure for this? Constantprogress ( talk) 21:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Duplicate. see below -- Deep fried okra 22:56, 30 September 2019 (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.
-
Constantprogres, please see
WP:SOCK –
Ανδρέας
talk |
contributions
21:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC) - ...and in case you missed it,
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Constantprogress.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Constantprogress ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Thanks for showing me this page. I don't really understand it? Are you suggesting I made Constantprogress1,2,3 etc? I just have this one account. I've done many edits in good faith on Wikipedia these past couple of years. I have not done anything that would violate Wikipedia's rules to my knowledge, although I can make grammatical mistakes! Apologies in advance! I feel this a mistake, and I don't have any intention of doing deceptive edits or practices in general. This is a passion, and I do it because I enjoy contributing to pages that I feel need updating or changing, or even improving. I even made a page a few months back I'm proud of, and there was nothing on the web for it. What do I do now to appeal? Constantprogress ( talk) 23:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time as this is a sockpuppetry and/or checkuser block. Check users have access to technical and personally identifying information they may not disclose openly on Wikipedia. Please read and heed the relevant sections of the WP:GAB. If this is not your original account, you will need to appeal at your original account. -- Deep fried okra 22:57, 30 September 2019 (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.
- Let's take
The Cybersmile Foundation as an example. This year, until you were blocked, the article was edited, in order of first edit, by:
- You
- Rowd, an experienced editor who fixed a link issue, something they do on many pages
- IPs in the 90.254.x.x range which now happen to also be blocked. CheckUsers generally will not confirm that a specific account and an IP address are linked, but in this case it seems a safe assumption that this IP range is associated with all those accounts listed in the sockpuppet investigation.
- Some bots that performed automated tasks
- An IP in the 90.240.x.x range which happens to be blocked by the same CheckUser as you and the above IP, at about the same time. See above.
- LauraL2019 ( talk · contribs)
- Appleby342 ( talk · contribs) aka Simon Appleby who apparently personally took this photo
- Gilo1969, another experienced editor fixing a minor technical issue
- Stalinsunnykvj and Narky Blert, another two experienced editors fixing links
- Gretafinke98 ( talk · contribs)
- So every single new editor coming to the page this year before your block, everybody doing more than trivial maintenance, happens to be technically connected to you. Yes, it might be a coincidence that someone in your building might share your interests. But that everybody sharing your interests happens to be in that same building? That's not a coincidence. Huon ( talk) 16:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
|
|
| This account has been
blocked indefinitely from editing for
sock puppetry per evidence presented at
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Constantprogress. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans
may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC) |
Constantprogress ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi there, I am not sure what happened? What are these other accounts for? I only edit from Constantprogress and respect Wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate to understand what this sock puppet is about? Thanks for the help! Constantprogress ( talk) 20:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
So you say you have no idea what those other accounts that happen to be technically indistinguishable from this one and share your interests are for? Sorry, I don't believe that. Huon ( talk) 20:33, 29 September 2019 (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.
Constantprogress ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There a lots of people in this building, some of which no doubt share interests, but that shouldn’t affect my ability to contribute to Wikipedia. How can we resolve this? Constantprogress ( talk) 20:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No, that's not what the technical evidence shows. Yamla ( talk) 21:10, 29 September 2019 (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.
Constantprogress ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Would you please show me this evidence so I can understand what you're saying? I have explained the situation. I'm very upset because I have invested a lot of time into contributing to Wikipedia and have always ensured that my contributions are accurate and cited correctly. What is the appeal procedure for this? Constantprogress ( talk) 21:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Duplicate. see below -- Deep fried okra 22:56, 30 September 2019 (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.
-
Constantprogres, please see
WP:SOCK –
Ανδρέας
talk |
contributions
21:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- ...and in case you missed it,
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Constantprogress.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Constantprogress ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Thanks for showing me this page. I don't really understand it? Are you suggesting I made Constantprogress1,2,3 etc? I just have this one account. I've done many edits in good faith on Wikipedia these past couple of years. I have not done anything that would violate Wikipedia's rules to my knowledge, although I can make grammatical mistakes! Apologies in advance! I feel this a mistake, and I don't have any intention of doing deceptive edits or practices in general. This is a passion, and I do it because I enjoy contributing to pages that I feel need updating or changing, or even improving. I even made a page a few months back I'm proud of, and there was nothing on the web for it. What do I do now to appeal? Constantprogress ( talk) 23:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time as this is a sockpuppetry and/or checkuser block. Check users have access to technical and personally identifying information they may not disclose openly on Wikipedia. Please read and heed the relevant sections of the WP:GAB. If this is not your original account, you will need to appeal at your original account. -- Deep fried okra 22:57, 30 September 2019 (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.
- Let's take
The Cybersmile Foundation as an example. This year, until you were blocked, the article was edited, in order of first edit, by:
- You
- Rowd, an experienced editor who fixed a link issue, something they do on many pages
- IPs in the 90.254.x.x range which now happen to also be blocked. CheckUsers generally will not confirm that a specific account and an IP address are linked, but in this case it seems a safe assumption that this IP range is associated with all those accounts listed in the sockpuppet investigation.
- Some bots that performed automated tasks
- An IP in the 90.240.x.x range which happens to be blocked by the same CheckUser as you and the above IP, at about the same time. See above.
- LauraL2019 ( talk · contribs)
- Appleby342 ( talk · contribs) aka Simon Appleby who apparently personally took this photo
- Gilo1969, another experienced editor fixing a minor technical issue
- Stalinsunnykvj and Narky Blert, another two experienced editors fixing links
- Gretafinke98 ( talk · contribs)
- So every single new editor coming to the page this year before your block, everybody doing more than trivial maintenance, happens to be technically connected to you. Yes, it might be a coincidence that someone in your building might share your interests. But that everybody sharing your interests happens to be in that same building? That's not a coincidence. Huon ( talk) 16:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)