User talk:Sterling44
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AquaB until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Oia-pop (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
May 2025
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 17:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Sterling44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to appeal the block on my account, as I believe there may have been a misunderstanding. My account is not and has never been listed in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aniflower case, nor is it connected to that matter in any way. This account was created in 2012 but has remained completely inactive with zero edits made since creation, which means it could not possibly have been involved in any sockpuppetry or policy violations. There appears to be no valid justification for this block, as there is no evidence of any misuse of this account. I would appreciate if an administrator could review this situation and remove the block, as it seems to have been applied in error. I'm happy to provide any additional information needed to resolve this matter. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sterling44 (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You say this account remained completely inactive with zero edits. This is blatantly false. The account was created on 2025-04-18 and has made a number of edits; see Special:Contributions/Sterling44. I did not check whether or not you are related to Aniflower or any of those socks, as your unblock request just didn't add up. You are welcome to make a new one. Yamla (talk) 21:57, 7 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.
Sterling44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am writing again to formally appeal the block placed on my account, Sterling44, and to express my deep concern over the handling of this matter.
- First and foremost, I must correct what appears to be a significant misunderstanding. The blocking administrator states that my account was created on 2025-04-18 and has made multiple edits, which is true. However, in my initial message, I was referring to the account Aniflower, not Sterling44. To clarify: the Aniflower account was created in 2012 and has remained completely inactive — with zero edits. Therefore, any suggestion that this inactive account has been involved in sockpuppetry or policy violations is wholly unfounded and unsupported by evidence.
- Now, concerning Sterling44: this account has been active in good faith, making constructive edits and engaging in discussions transparently and with integrity. To be suddenly blocked and associated with a long-dormant account without any clear explanation, connection, or investigation is, frankly, unacceptable.
- There appears to be a troubling lack of procedural fairness here. No actual evidence has been presented to justify this block, and the administrator has stated they "did not check whether or not you are related to Aniflower." That admission alone calls the entire basis of this block into question. Blocks should be based on clear evidence and due process—not assumptions or guilt by association, especially when the supposed "associated" account has never made a single contribution.
- I have participated in Wikipedia with the intent to improve the encyclopedia and to contribute to a collaborative knowledge base. I have followed the rules, adhered to guidelines, and operated transparently. This punitive action, absent any meaningful justification or inquiry, is a disservice to the values Wikipedia is supposed to represent: openness, accountability, and evidence-based moderation.
- I respectfully demand that my block be reconsidered and lifted. If you require any further clarification or information from my side to assist with the review, I am more than willing to provide it. But as it stands, this block undermines the principle of good faith that Wikipedia itself upholds. Sterling44 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The SPI seems to indicate a sock farm that this and the Aniflower account is a part of. An account doesn't have to make a single edit in that case. Saying this lacks good faith is rich. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 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.
Sterling44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Wait, I'm really confused here. The SPI says my account is part of some 'sock farm,' but on what grounds? I mean, how does that work? If an account can get blocked just for existing near other accounts? How is anyone supposed to avoid that? I'm not Aniflower, I don't know who that is, and I don't understand how something automatically makes me part of a 'farm.' I just genuinely don't get it. If I did something wrong, fine, point it out. But if the only 'evidence' is that my account happened to be in the same place as some bad ones... how was I supposed to know? What should I have done differently? Can someone please explain what I'm missing here? [[User:Sterling44|Sterling44]] ([[User talk:Sterling44#top|talk]]) 23:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Wait, I'm really confused here. The SPI says my account is part of some 'sock farm,' but on what grounds? I mean, how does that work? If an account can get blocked just for existing near other accounts? How is anyone supposed to avoid that? I'm not Aniflower, I don't know who that is, and I don't understand how something automatically makes me part of a 'farm.' I just genuinely don't get it. If I did something wrong, fine, point it out. But if the only 'evidence' is that my account happened to be in the same place as some bad ones... how was I supposed to know? What should I have done differently? Can someone please explain what I'm missing here? [[User:Sterling44|Sterling44]] ([[User talk:Sterling44#top|talk]]) 23:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Wait, I'm really confused here. The SPI says my account is part of some 'sock farm,' but on what grounds? I mean, how does that work? If an account can get blocked just for existing near other accounts? How is anyone supposed to avoid that? I'm not Aniflower, I don't know who that is, and I don't understand how something automatically makes me part of a 'farm.' I just genuinely don't get it. If I did something wrong, fine, point it out. But if the only 'evidence' is that my account happened to be in the same place as some bad ones... how was I supposed to know? What should I have done differently? Can someone please explain what I'm missing here? [[User:Sterling44|Sterling44]] ([[User talk:Sterling44#top|talk]]) 23:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Please place new posts at the bottom, so they stay in order. This may be easier to do if you click "edit" and not "reply" to edit this page, the reply function doesn't work well in every situation. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)