User talk:SMandy809
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
SMandy809 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand that concern has been raised due to similarities in subject matter between my contributions and those of another account. I’d like to clarify that while the topics may overlap, that in itself does not constitute evidence of sockpuppetry — nor does it imply coordination or bad faith.
I have a longstanding and genuine interest in cyber security and am specifically involved in furthering public understanding surrounding the incidents of the Snowflake data breach, which naturally guides the types of pages I engage with. It’s not uncommon for multiple good-faith editors to take an interest in the same topic, particularly when it’s underrepresented or emerging.
The account in question has not been confirmed as a sockpuppet — only flagged as suspicious — and I want to make it absolutely clear that I have no association with that account. I operate independently, and all of my contributions have been made transparently, in line with Wikipedia policy.
If needed, I’m open to any further verification steps or user conduct review. My only aim here is to contribute constructively and continue improving Wikipedia content. SMandy809 (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were blocked based on behavior, and I agree the behavior is sufficient to warrant it. It's possible that you are a different person, but that would only make this meat puppetry. When a new account makes edits that another user was blocked for, that user will be blocked themselves. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 12 April 2025 (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.
SMandy809 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I’m respectfully requesting a second look at the block placed on my account. The reasoning cited was “behavioral evidence,” with the claim that my contributions mirror those of a previously blocked account, and therefore constitute either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I want to state clearly: I am not the same person as the previously blocked user, nor have I been asked or encouraged by anyone else to edit on their behalf. Any overlap in topic areas is purely coincidental and driven by shared interest, not collusion or coordination. There is no technical evidence linking my account to theirs, and my editing history shows no effort to evade scrutiny or manipulate consensus. Equating overlapping interests or similar article contributions with bad faith behavior is a slippery slope. Wikipedia is a collaborative platform where many users may care about the same underdeveloped or niche subjects. That should not automatically lead to blocks unless actual abuse or coordinated disruption is demonstrated. If this is being treated as meatpuppetry, I’d ask for a clearer explanation of the basis for that conclusion — especially in the absence of communication between accounts or intent to influence discussions. Assume Good Faith should apply unless there's direct evidence of coordination. I’m fully willing to discuss my edits and approach with a different admin or through the UTRS process, and I’m committed to following Wikipedia policy. All I ask is for a fair and impartial reconsideration. I’m asking that this be taken into account when evaluating both the block and the underlying motivations of the request. I am happy to engage in a constructive discussion about content, but I believe every editor deserves to do so without fear of being targeted for simply caring about the same subject. Also, in response to 331dot's comment "When a new account makes edits that another user was blocked for, that user will be blocked themselves." - I investigated the other sockpuppets, and it is worth noting that none of them were blocked for any reason relating to this article. It just so happened that one of them created an article with a similar topic (involving a major security hack of more than 160 companies), which is why I was flagged. The article has significant news coverage and given how many companies were affected should not be surprising that someone is trying to create an article about this topic. I hope someone will take all of this into consideration. Thank you
Decline reason:
WP:GAB explains how to appropriately contest your block. Yamla (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2025 (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.
Someone else will review your request, but your request should not raise grievances with other users, see WP:NOTTHEM. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
SMandy809 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Actually, sir. I believe i have following the exact guidelines in WP:GAB. I even asked GPT to help me to ensure i was covering my basis. You, on the other hand, have provided 0 reason as to what the problem is or which if the "exact guidelines" I missed. Is it not evident that I am TRYING to be a part of the community and follow the guidelines? I feel like my argument is concise and well thought out. I stick to the point and make my case. I promise to be more through and thoughtful going forward. All i am asking for is for someone to legitimately review my case. I believe if you do you will see i am telling the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMandy809 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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.
May 2025
[edit]
(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 posting of this notice.