ArkRe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm unsure of how to go about doing this, but I would like to appeal a block that was placed on my account (ArkRe), which prevents me from posting anywhere at all to appeal the block. It appears that my account was blocked following a sockpuppet investigation (see [1]) for a user who posted in a few AfDs that I have commented on, though I am not in any way connected to this user. I have read the investigation topic and I have no choice but to assume that I am a victim of collateral damage, as my ISP (Telstra Bigpond) utilises dynamic shared IPs - I understand that I don't have my own IP address and that rather I am given a new one each time I connect to the network. I have been blocked from editing Wikipedia as an IP in the past because of this, as well, which was my reason for creating an account. Given that the investigated user appears to be from a similar geographical area as me (I live in Bendigo, Australia, which is a few hours from Melbourne), I would like to appeal my block on the basis that my ISP (which gives me a new IP every time I connect to the network) has at some point given me the same IP as the sockpuppet user. I believe it is clear enough that I am not connected to the sockpuppeteer, as, aside from editing articles in the same general area of interest, I have not agreed with any arguments proposed by the user and do not have the same linguistic peculiarities as the user. I have merely been caught in the crossfire in an admittedly rampant case of sockpuppetry, when I was just trying to improve the content of several articles related to my area of interest. From the very start, my contributions had me tagged as a Single Purpose Account, which I later had removed through an appeal to an admin, and I have in no way posted anything that agrees with or validates the sockpuppet user (in fact, in the AfD for the article Eternal Eden, for which the nominator is supposedly one of the sock accounts, I did NOT agree with the nomination and I actually edited the article to incorporate sources mentioned by other participants in the AfD with the intention of improving the sourcing of the article). I have provided constructive edits to Wikipedia and I have edited for a long time as an IP, and given the readiness of the admins to block me, I can only assume that bad faith is being harboured towards me due to a geographical match with the other user. In terms of being a sockpuppet account, I do not even know who the user 03SadOnions is or what their connection to the articles is, and I'm not connected to him in any way - the only thing that brought me to the AfDs in question is that the articles concern one of my areas of interest (which, I presume, is something I share with the puppeteer, as he created them). Given the severity of the sockpuppetry in this instance, I understand the reasons for the hasty block, but I would like to affirm that I believe that blocking me was wrong, and I would like to see what can be done about it. Any help that you can provide will be appreciated.
Decline reason:
Some of what you say may well be true, while some of it seems doubtful. It seems virtually certain that you have more than once attempted to give the impression of being two different people in order to mislead, as otherwise there has been a remarkable amount of strange coincidence. However, even in the very improbable event that you have not done so, and that every word you say above is true, it is 100% clear that you have evaded this block by editing without logging in, which is itself enough justification for a block. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to when you say I have edited without logging in. If it's not too much trouble, could you please link me to where these edits were made, or provide me with a log of some kind? I haven't made any edits at all since being blocked (other than my unblock request and contacting the blocking admins personally on their talk pages, as recommended by the guide to appealing blocks). Unfortunately, I seem to be unable to make edits to this talk page from my home computer (IP block related or simply technical issues, I'm not sure) and I instead made edits to this talk page - mainly to clarify the points in my appeal request for readability - from the public library at the local university (consequently a different campus of the same university attended by the creator of the Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords game - though unfortunately I don't know him personally outside of mentions in the campus paper, which is what lead me to play and become a fan of the game in question [and thus contribute to its AfD]); if there were other recorded edits from this IP address, I can assure you that they were not made by me personally. ArkRe (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2012 (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.
ArkRe (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
ArkRe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I appealed the block placed on my account as per the rationale given in the last unblock request, but I was denied on the basis of having "edited without logging in to evade a block" and attempting to appear as two people to mislead, but I am unaware of having done these things. Since creating my account, I have only edited from my account (except for editing as an IP prior to creating my account - I was blocked when editing as an IP as I edit from a shared IP address, which is why I created an account in the first place) and I have not under any circumstance acted as a sockpuppet or attempted to mislead; if I were a sockpuppet, logically I would support the arguments of my "other account" and if one tracks my contributions to the AfDs I am involved in, I have actually argued AGAINST the user that I am apparently masquerading as. As this defeats the purpose of socking (skewing contention to one side), I'd have thought that this would be clear evidence that I am NOT this user, especially given that my writing style and language is different to the other user. In addition, the IP address I was using was blocked from editing anything at all, and I had to access Wikipedia from my girlfriend's university campus just so that I could make edits to my unblock request to clarify some points. Until my ISP's proxy server gives me an IP address that HASN'T been blocked by the sock investigation, this is my only means of editing this talk page. I was willing to assume good faith on the part of Wikipedia's hard working admins, though given the fact that a few of my edits have occurred in an article that has been tainted by socking (which are only a small sample of the edits I have made, as I've also edited articles unrelated to that subject matter, and have even fought against the sock user's AfDs, as well as created and contributed to other AfDs for completely unrelated subjects, in addition to my year long edit history as an IP editor) and I have been caught in the crossfire, and my opinions stricken out and dismissed without even being subjected to thoughtful discussion, I must admit that I am disappointed in Wikipedia. It is a shame that one abusing user who unfortunately shares my area of interest has ruined the fun of simply improving Wikipedia for a new user, and that the whole ordeal has reflected badly upon the subjects of the articles in question and/or their fan(s). In either case, I do understand the need to protect the encyclopedia from vandalism, so I do not hold anything against Wikipedia nor do I believe that this block was anything personal - I'm merely mystified as to why I am simply unable to have my contributions validated and am simply asking what I can do to help prove that I am not connected to this vandalism and only wish to improve the website's coverage on subjects that are of interest to me (mainly obscure/indie games - not just RPG Maker, though as I regularly browse video-game related AfDs as a matter of interest and noticed that one of them was concerned with an article about a game which I am familiar with, this subject area was where I made my first edits under this account) and would respectfully ask for leniency from Wikipedia's admins and a chance to differentiate myself from the abusing user whom I have been mistakenly identified as. In either case, if I am unblocked, I think it is best that I refrain from editing for a while, and I would definitely not contribute to the offending article or its AfD again.
Also, I thought it might be useful if I explained why I contributed edits to the Legionwood: Tale of the Two Swords AfD, as some editors have concerns that I am (or are connected to) the creator of either the article or the subject matter, as evidenced by a COI notice being placed on the One Night Trilogy article following my block and a reversion of some of my contributions. I would like to point out that I have NO connection to any of the articles that I have edited in (the games by Dark Gaia Studios especially) apart from simply being familiar with them as a regular of the RPG Maker/indie game community. The creator of Legionwood apparently attends the same university as my girlfriend (though not the same campus) and his work was mentioned in some campus publication or news post. Given that he is from an area close to where I live, and that I am interested in RPG Maker games, I decided to play the games and became a fan of them. When I edited as an IP, I regularly followed video game related AfDs as a matter of interest and, shortly after registering my account, I encountered an AfD concerning this particular game, so my first edit as a registered user was to contribute to the AfD. The honest intention was not to troll, mislead or disrupt in any way. I was completely unaware of the sockpuppet issues in the AfD when I contributed, and merely wanted to register my opinion on a topic that is of interest to me. As the game was publicised in Australia via PC Powerplay and Digitally Downloaded (another Australian based magazine), it makes logical sense that the abusing user and his sock accounts are also Australian, which is why they geolocate to the same general area - the vast majority of the fans of this game are in fact Australian, and I would assume that many of them also use Telstra as their ISP as it is Australia's most used ISP - and have used the same shared IP addresses as myself. Given the reason for declining my first appeal above, I do not have much faith that this clarification will be perceived as sincere (at least without proof), though I assume good faith on the part of Wikipedia, and at least hope it will be given thoughtful consideration and that it helps to relieve some of the concerns. ArkRe (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC) **Regarding the actual creator of the article subject, for what it's worth (in case anybody believes that I act on his behalf or on his request) it seems that he is largely disinterested in the issues surrounding the articles and was unaware that the articles even existed until a month or two ago when a fan posted a link to them on one of his discussion forums; my edits were not made on his behalf and they do not reflect any requests or concerns made of his (in fact, I even contacted him following my block to alert him - as a fan - of the sockpuppet issue, and he expressed that he has no interest at all in the articles and has very little knowledge of Wikipedia's policies or what the terms "socking" and "AfD" actually mean [and I have his permission to repost my email from him to prove this, if required]). Overall, I am just disappointed that people who call themselves his fans have elected to abuse Wikipedia in the ways that they have. ArkRe (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am procedurally declining this unblock request because it has been stuck in limbo for over two months. If you still wish to pursue this, you are welcome to file a new unblock request, but you might want to consider using our Unblock Ticket Request System instead. Bovlb (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2012 (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.
Finally, please forgive the wall of text above. Unfortunately, it appears that formatting is not retained in the unblock template, and I would ideally like to present a better formatted appeal for the sake of readability. It is not my intention to overwhelm reviewing editors with a huge un-formatted chunk of text. ArkRe (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the long wait. Formatted or not, such a lengthy appeal of a block is likely to cause most admins to keep on going and find a simpler case to review. Your explanation and the explanation presented at the SPI on this case are both plausible explanations so this is indeed a tough call. As such I am asking the blocking admin to comment again here. I hate to say this when this has taken so long already, but please be patient as this may take some time to resolve. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- IIRC I was just working from Amalthea's results. He's the one who ran the check so you'd probably want to ping him. I'm also checking with another CU for a second opinion. T. Canens (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Purely on the practical level: could you cut your entire unblock rationale, replace it with "See formatted comments below", and paste your comments after the template? I'm sure that you'd get a decline only if your reasoning were seen as invalid; I can't imagine someone refusing to read the rationale and declining with words such as "Four words aren't a good unblock request". Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Anyone responding to a future unblock request should probably consult this checkuser report. Bovlb (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)