User talk:2603:7000:2101:AA00:38F3:BD24:DD3D:2ED5

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).

2603:7000:2101:AA00:38F3:BD24:DD3D:2ED5 (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, for reasons that seem to result from a misunderstanding. I'm not the editor I'm accused of being (now, the third such editor that the complaining editor has accused me of being). That is incorrect. At the same time, the "evidence" does not indicate that I am.

History may be interesting here. I made the mistake of tagging an article that Badbluebus (the complaining editor here) did not want tagged. I tagged it because it was just a list. "Bad" then deleted my tags, while he left the article as -- just a list. I went to the talk page, and said my view that Bad's removal had not addressed the fact that the article was still just a list. I think this was my first interaction with Bad. Bad did not respond on the talk page.

Instead, Bad, with their very next edits, opened up a sockpuppet investigation accusing me of being User:BetaWizard6742 and Lytotr (I'm not either). On flimsy "evidence" similar to his evidence here. (Blue's evidence, with bolding added: "All IPs in this range geolocate close to IPs previously used by this master, and all have similar edit summary styless to each other (abbreviating everything, writing everything in lowercase, overusing the "'ce"), it's pretty clear this is the same person using the range. They share some interest in actors and cinema and also the habit of making very small and incremental edits, just like previous socks. See how User:BetaWizard6742 moved Alex Garfin, an obscure page, out of draftspace [1], then after their account got blocked for socking and the page got moved back to draft, the master tried to improve the article under multiple IPs in order to submit it as a draft [2]. Three IPs in this range have also recently edited Erik Valdez [3][4][5], a rather low-activity page that was previously edited by three blocked socks of MetaWiz4331. This case probably needs to be merged with SPI/Lytotr, as IPs from this same geolocation were editing Tea Alagic, an obscure article, suspiciously closely with Lytotr [6][7], and now the 2603:7000:2101:AA00:0:0:0:0/64 range began editing the same article and asked for the COI tag to be removed [8], which is something that previous socks attempted to do [9][10])." When I became aware of Bad's assertions, I told Bad he was wrong. He eventually withdrew his accusation.

Having withdrawn his accusations that I was editor BetaWizard and editor Lyotr, Bad then accused me of now being a third and unrelated editor, Epeefleche (this one, different from the others, not a blocked editor). An editor from a decade ago. On the basis of very similar accusations to those Bad made with regard to the other two editors he first incorrectly (he now admits) accused me of being. And he added an impressive number of links -- 97 -- that are as unimpressive as his "evidence" that I was one of the prior two editors. Just as with the other two editors, he draws his conclusion in part from the fact that I use abbreviations such as "ce". But here I guess he feels his accusation is stronger because on rare occasion I use hyphens? As impressive as his number of links are, his "evidence" is unimpressive. And he's wrong. I'm not this 10 year old editor.

I apologize if I upset him by adding the "just a list tag" to an article, in our first interaction. And I apologize that I pointed out that he then removed the tag without addressing the issue. And if he is upset, in my editing of bios, that at times I happen to indicate their background - in particular he focuses on those edits that indicate if they are Jews - I apologize if any of such edits upset him.

I ask to be unblocked because the claim is untrue (as his prior two claims were). And his "evidence" does not support his claim (any more than his other evidence supported his other two claims, that he now admits were untrue).

Also, if this ten-year-old editor has not edited in a decade, I am not clear how this is a sockpuppet case.

Thank you. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:38F3:BD24:DD3D:2ED5 (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2025 (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.

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).

2603:7000:2101:AA00:38F3:BD24:DD3D:2ED5 (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, for reasons that seem to result from a misunderstanding. I'm not the editor I'm accused of being (now, the third such editor that the complaining editor has accused me of being). That is incorrect. At the same time, the "evidence" does not indicate that I am.

History may be interesting here. I made the mistake of tagging an article that Badbluebus (the complaining editor here) did not want tagged. I tagged it because it was just a list. "Bad" then deleted my tags, while he left the article as -- just a list.

I went to the talk page, and said my view that Bad's removal of the tag had not addressed the fact that the article was still just a list. I think this was my first interaction with Bad, ever. Bad did not respond at all on the article talk page. Though Bad shortly later did make an edit to the article, that did not at all address the fact that the article was still just a list.

Instead, Bad, with their very next edits, tagged a page I had just with assistance nominated for DYK (and edited a day and a half earlier), resulting in the article not being able to be promoted. And then Bad deleted RS supported text, and with their next dozen edits deleted text from that article. An article they had never edited before.

Bad in their next edit followed me to an article I had just edited hours earlier that day (that Bad had never edited), and deleted material (not material that I had added, and I did not think it should remain, but it now catches my eye that Bad followed me to this additional article to do that).

Next, half an hour later, Bad in their next edit opened up a sockpuppet investigation accusing me of being User:BetaWizard6742 and Lytotr (I'm not either). On flimsy "evidence" similar to his evidence here. Saying: "it's pretty clear this is the same person."

Bad's evidence, with bolding added, was Bad writing: "All IPs in this range geolocate close to IPs previously used by this master, and all have similar edit summary styles to each other (abbreviating everything, writing everything in lowercase, overusing the ce), it's pretty clear this is the same person using the range. They share some interest in actors and cinema and also the habit of making very small and incremental edits, just like previous socks. See how User:BetaWizard6742 moved Alex Garfin, an obscure page, out of draftspace [1], then after their account got blocked for socking and the page got moved back to draft, the master tried to improve the article under multiple IPs in order to submit it as a draft [2]. Three IPs in this range have also recently edited Erik Valdez [3][4][5], a rather low-activity page that was previously edited by three blocked socks of MetaWiz4331. This case probably needs to be merged with SPI/Lytotr, as IPs from this same geolocation were editing Tea Alagic, an obscure article, suspiciously closely with Lytotr [6][7], and now the 2603:7000:2101:AA00:0:0:0:0/64 range began editing the same article and asked for the COI tag to be removed [8], which is something that previous socks attempted to do [9][10])."

When I became aware of Bad's accusations, I told Bad he was wrong. He eventually withdrew his accusation.

Having withdrawn his accusations that I was editor BetaWizard and editor Lyotr, however, Bad then accused me of now being a third and unrelated editor, Epeefleche (this one, different from the others, not a blocked editor). An editor from a decade ago. On the basis of very similar accusations to those Bad had just made with regard to the other two editors he first incorrectly (he now admits) accused me of being. And he added an impressive number of links -- 97 -- those links are as unimpressive as his "evidence" that I was one of the prior two editors. Just as with the other two editors, he draws his conclusion in part from the fact that I use abbreviations such as "ce". But here I guess he feels his accusation is stronger, because on rare occasion I use hyphens? He's wrong, again. I'm not this editor from a decade ago.

I apologize if I upset him by adding the "just a list tag" to an article, in our first interaction. And I apologize that I pointed out on the article talk page that he then removed the tag without addressing the issue. And if he is upset, in my editing of bios, that at times I happen to indicate their background - in particular he focuses on those edits that indicate if they are Jews - I apologize if any of such edits upset him.

I ask to be unblocked because the claim is untrue (as his prior two claims were). And his "evidence" does not support his claim (any more than his other evidence supported his other two claims, that he now admits were untrue).

Also, if this decade-old editor has not edited in a decade, I am not clear how this is a sockpuppet case.

Thank you. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:38F3:BD24:DD3D:2ED5 (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The best way to show that you are your own editor with your own interests is to request an account via WP:ACC. Otherwise, this request boils down to "I'm not a sock" which every sock says, since that is the whole point. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2025 (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.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.