History1221

Blocked as a sockpuppet

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).

History1221 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi – I was blocked because someone thought I am connected to an account named “historylover4”. In fact, however, I have no connection to this account. Thus, please unblock me. Thanks, gistory1221.

Decline reason:

Oh, alright then. Seriously, you think we're just supposed to take your word for that? If we did we might as well not have a sockpuppetry policy. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 21 August 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.

Hello - I hope I am doing it right. I do not have a lot of experience with Wikipedia. So, how can I prove that I am not connected at all to historylover4? I am blamed for something but I do no tknow how to prove the opposote. Please give me your advise. ON the other hand - what proof was provided that I AM connected to historylover4?? This should be more important to see this proof! Thanks, history1221.

History1221, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Ryan Vesey, Thanks for the invitaiton to the Teahouse. Unfortunately, though I tried, I do not know how to introduce myself there. When I click on "Introduce yourself" it just goes to messages that I got, and I do not know how to introduce my self. Also, can you please let me know why you invited me to the teahouseme? Is it because I was blocked as sockpuppet (eventhough no proof was given to this - just saying I might be using another account)? Thanks, History1221

Hi History1221! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia 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 automatically delivered by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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).

History1221 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, I have been blocked already for a long time (for an indefinite time) for having anouther acount named historylover4. All this, though as far as I know I have no relation to username historylover4. It might be that I registered to Wikipedia several years ago under this username, but I do not remember such a thing. If I did so, and did not remember this and registered more recently under another username history1221, this was just because I forgot about the historylover4 (though, again, I do not remember registering as such), and in any case - it was with NO bad intention and I apologize. In any csae, I would appreciate if I am told what proofs are there that I am associtaed with historylover4? In every legal procedure in the name of justice, before someone is being punished - as I am here by being bloacked - the person is presented with the efidence against him and has the possibility to defend himslef. I would appreciate having this right. Thank you, History1221 History1221 (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

(1) The evidence makes the claim that you are unconnected to Historylover4 very implausible. (2) The idea that you forgot that you had created an earlier account is out of the question, as the old account continued to edit for a little over six hours after this account was created. (3) This is not a "legal procedure", and our aim is not "justice", and certainly not punishment, but rather assessing what, on the balance of probabilities, is likely to be best for the project. There are very often very good reasons for not presenting all the evidence of sockpuppetry, as doing so warns sockpuppeteers what give-away evidence to avoid in the future. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2013 (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.

• So, let me get this straight. First, you had no connection with the Historylover4 account at all. Now, it seems it might have been your account "several years ago" but you forgot. Well, the Historylover4 account last edited in August 2012, not several years ago. What's your next story? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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).

History1221 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

James Watson and Said Zebedee, I write in response to your above responses, and after integrating - following James Watson's request - the two parts of my recent requests to be unblocked. I also got now more info about historylover4 through all kinds of links that I got via email from Wikipedia, so I can update my unblocking request: I have NEVER been involved in any Wikipedia sanctions and am not currently involved in a AE process (all this, as I understood from Activisim1234, that historylover4 WAS/IS involved in). If before I was not sure that maybe some years ago I registered as historylover4 and forgot about it – now I am sure I did NOT do it. I am sure you have good intentions, but I think there is a mistake. Here are my arguements: (1) I wrote that I might have ccreated the historylover4 account and forgot about it only in case it happened a long time ago and I forgot about it. You maybe deal with Wikipedia a lot, but until recently, this was not my case. This is why if I opened this account a long time ago I thought I might have forgotten about it. (2) But, if you, Said, inform me now - for the first time I know about it - that historylover4 edited just recently, in August 2012 - there is no chance that it was me. This was around the time that I edited under history1221 and definitely not under historylover4. (3) Since I was told about historylover4, and thought initially that maybe I opened this account and forgot about it, I tried recently to enter this account using the normal passwords that I use - but could not get in. (4)I am a professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerisalem and at Columbia Univeristy, previously a lawyer, and believe me - I am not the kind of person who would do such things as using intentionally and for bad reasons two accounts at the same time. (5) I can not believe that there is definite 100% evidance that I am connected to historylover4. I tell you, it is a mistake, please recheck the facts that allegedly connect the two accounts. (6) why would I use another acount, the historylover4 one? As far as I remember, I was using the history1221 account editing on Wikipedia around August 2012 and all went well. So I had no reason to use another account at that time (as I understood from Said that historylover4 did, in August 2012). I am so novice on Wikipedia, that I would not know why I should use two accounts. See for example, in my talk page - I was asked to join the Tea House, but could not figure out how to introduce myself there; so I asked online how can I introduce myself, but eventually did not know how to do it, and did not introduce myself. (7) Also, please look at the areas/topics that I edited on Wikipedia. As far as I remember, it is only regarding collective memory in general and the 1948 Palestinian exodus in particular. What can I do – these are my main topics of research. I never dealt with genetics (have no knowledge about this – you have my website link). (8)Also, Dennis Brown wrote, inter alia: “his editor's [I understand that he meant me, history1221] first edit was 02:00, 19 August 2012. Historylover4 was blocked first by me, but was later reblocked via the Arb case by Blade at 23:57, 19 August 2012, so the writing was on the wall at that point and the duckiness of the case is obvious.” But, this is all coincidence. Also, history1221 started editing some 22 hours BEFORE historylover4 was blocked. If I was both history1221 and historylover4 – why would I start editing under different name (history1221) if I am still not blocked as historylover4? It does not make sense. (9) Even if there was something wrong, and I can now definitely say that I am NOT historylover4 - I am already blocked for about half a year, which is a long time. It seems to me that bloacking me for ever is a too severe punishment. Thus, I would ask that the bloacking forever would be changed to something less severe; including the possibility of paying some penalty (only if I cannot convince you).

In any case, if you wish I can also give one of you – sent separately via email, not on my talkpage – my password for my history1221 account. I do not understand in these things, but if think it will give you any info that might help you decide whether to unblock me or not – I’ll do it. Moreover, if you wish to have any more info – just ask. I did not understand a lot of the text of communication between various administrators about this and that check - so I could not address these issues. History1221 (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am going to decline this request for now. While you make a compelling case there are also rather too many coincidences to ignore. I would suggest that you appeal to WP:BASC, which is a committee that deals with some of the more complicated issues involved in long-term blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2013 (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.

Beeblebrox, well, what can I say (about declining my request to be unblocked)? Can you please inform me how can I find out what did historylover4 edit in the past? I eidted only regarding my research topic (collective memory, mostly of the 1948 Palestinian exodus) and gave references only of my own academic articles. I am sure historylover4 edited - at least inter alia - other topics and never cited my articles. This will provide strong support that historylover4 and history1221 are different prople. Would you consider such an evidence as a valid one for my request to be unblocked? And if I will have such a proof, can I submit it here again as another request to be unblocked (but this time based on new evidence and arguements), and like this I will not have to go through a new unknown process via some committee? Thanks, history1221

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).

History1221 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Beeblebrox, well, what can I say (about declining my request to be unblocked)? Can you please inform me how can I find out what did historylover4 edit in the past? I eidted only regarding my research topic (collective memory, mostly of the 1948 Palestinian exodus) and gave references only of my own academic articles. I am sure historylover4 edited - at least inter alia - other topics and never cited my articles. This will provide strong support that historylover4 and history1221 are different prople. Would you consider such an evidence as a valid one for my request to be unblocked? And if I will have such a proof, can I submit it here again as another request to be unblocked(but this time based on new evidence and arguements), and like this I will not have to go through a new unknown process via some committee? Thanks, history1221

Decline reason:

For the final time, "regular" admins will not be able to remove this block. Please see WP:BASC - please don't force me to lock this talkpage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:49, 13 March 2013 (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.

Unblock requests

One unblock request is sufficient. Please remove one or remove both and add your preferred version. Tiderolls 02:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Note from blocking admin

• Had to do some homework. The block was based on this SPI report, which I had initially endorsed for CU, but it was so obvious that I felt a CU would have thrown it back at me, so I duck blocked for six months, which is the period that the AE case was leaning toward. This editor started editing at the exact same time that Historylover4 was getting blocked. This editor's first edit was 02:00, 19 August 2012. Historylover4 was blocked first by me, but was later reblocked via the Arb case by Blade at 23:57, 19 August 2012, so the writing was on the wall at that point and the duckiness of the case is obvious. Feel free to look at contrib areas as well. Since Historylover* is indef blocked via an Arb action, and the 1st year is covered under Arb enforcement guidelines, I don't recommend unblocking without going through Arb unless you think I was mistaken in the duck call, and that this is entirely a different person. If you do, that is fine, I will leave it in your good hands, with no hard feelings. My opinion should be obvious, so I won't labor it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That being the case I would again advise you to appeal to the ban appeals subcommittee. As this is related to an arbitration matter they should really be the ones to review it, but I will leave the above request open should some other admin wish to review it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked by Ban Appeals Subcommittee, restricted to one account

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has considered your appeal, and decided to unblock you under the terms of Wikipedia's standard offer. You are unblocked on condition that you edit from this account (User:History1221) only; if you deliberately edit anonymously, or edit from any other account, without permission from the Wikipedia community or this subcommittee, you may be summarily and indefinitely reblocked by any uninvolved administrator. For the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, AGK [•] 11:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Autobiographical memory because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widr (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)