User talk:B4204T43

how to get a barnstar?

What is a barnstar and how can I get it? B4204T43 (user talk:B4204T43) B4204T43 (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You earn it by making good, solid contributions to the encyclopedia. You get it by being modest and working well with the community one. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request of IP address

Well, sorry for the blocked user @ScrewsHirsch make such dumb thing of quarrel with administrators and an innocent user @GrapefruitSculpin. First of all, ScrewsHirsch is our former employee in our company. I used to be his co-worker and I am new here. He left our company yesterday. He losts his job. He is out of mind these days and our boss gets annoyed and want to drive him away. Second, the IP is belong to our company. It's a public IP. Our company shared the IP together. Third, our company was work for modifying cars. We had a lot of car specs and books.

The last but not least: I am not the user ScrewsHirsch, I am just his former co-worker who shared the same IP with ScrewsHirsch. Please give our IP back and we can update some car specs in Wikipedia. Thanks Wikipedia administrators! And I say sorry about ScrewsHirsch screwed our IP and his ignorant rants about killing people. @Acroterion @Drmies

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).

B4204T43 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Give back the IP to our company. The blocked user ScrewsHirsch is no longer in our company. I agree the administrators blocked him from editing but I'm assured that ScrewHirsch is no longer here. Bring back our IP and unblock the editing from Wikipedia. We have to advanced some subjects about Volkswagen and Volvo cars. B4204T43 (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the discussion below, I don't believe an unblock is advisable at this time. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 24 November 2017 (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.

Checkuser needed I think we should leave this unblock request to a checkuser. I'm a bit concerned given that we know ScrewsHirsch (talk · contribs) has been using this IP address within the last few hours, and given that this user knows about the other and is focused on the same areas. If there's an overlap, we should block this account as per WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. If not, we should lift the autoblock. --Yamla (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our company's IP address was: (Redacted), we are all shared with the blocked user ScrewsHirsch. I assured he is not here anymore. B4204T43 (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: I don't think that CheckUser would likely be useful here. If the user is at the same company then any info CU would reveal is likely to show a connection just based on being in the same location on probably similar equipment. This sounds a bit like a WP:LITTLEBROTHER situation but the explanation is reasonable, and it would probably be fine to assume good faith until the user does something. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: sorry to revert you, but you've got the timeline wrong. The user was autoblocked, but then Acroterion also indeffed them for sockpuppetry (see below). They can't just wait out the autoblock at this point. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm declining CU per Ivanvector. Based on what this user has said, I would expect all technical details to be identical, so it isn't too helpful to run a check. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why we know this?

@Yamla @Acroterion First of all, ScrewsHirsch left a note about his account and password and we all know what he did to the another user. We just login his Wikipedia and we discover why he is out of his mind these days. And the boss knows about his quarrel with other editors. I am new in this company and ScrewsHirsch is not here anymore. Today is the last time we login ScrewsHirsch in this IP. We just discover out what he did. I am new in this company and ScrewsHirsch is not here anymore. Today is the last time we login ScrewsHirsch in this IP. We just discover out what he did. B4204T43 (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed second unblock request. This appears to be a new account by the blocked editor with a similar writing and communication style. I see no reason to unblock, . Acroterion (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this account is not blocked. I will remedy that. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account is blocked. Based on the writing style, use of the ScrewsHirsch account to insert identical commentary, and this account's editing focus, this appears to be a sockpuppet account. Acroterion (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Acroterion. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion and Drmies: as I said in the section above, I think there's reason to assume good faith that the user is telling the truth here. I'm not going to unblock them myself but I think we ought to consider it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but having interacted with ScrewsHirsch I'm doubtful of the story being presented here. In particular, I'm skeptical that somebody else at this company needs to edit the same topics as ScrewsHisch, using much the same writing style. Even accounting for the users not being native speakers of English, there are too many similarities of writing style and behavior to ignore. Acroterion (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, I'm all about AGF but this strains credulity a bit--"the boss knows"? Drmies (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am always happy with AGF, but I would be very uneasy about unblocking here. I have some trouble in accepting the given story at face value. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...having looked over this, and the diffs of their editing, I can only see this as a variation on the little brother defense. I'd be happy to be wrong, and if I am I'll accept a trout, but as it is I can't quite buy the situation presented here and have declined the unblock request. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<<ec>>Let's not be in a hurry to unblock. I can and do fully accept the narrative, but recommend examining the subtext.23:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, ok, and I accept the decision, but if this is a different user and the story is accurate, how do they now demonstrate that as they remain blocked? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not very easy to do, since CU would inevitably produce the same technical data. That's why I'm focusing on behavioral evidence. Why exactly would someone else at a company need to edit car-related topics? I see no evidence that this is a paid editing situation or someone editing on behalf of an organization, which would be a separate matter. The question to ask here is probably "Why does someone else in the company want to or need to edit the same things as the blocked user?" CU might be able to determine if it's a static IP belonging to a company. Acroterion (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same phone on the same broadband IP and I've revoked tpa to prevent admins from believing any of it. The phone (in supposed new hands) was used on different ISP networks previously used by the blocked sock and not just what is supposed to be the "company" network. There is also a another machine used across the networks. It isn't believable.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. All available evidence refutes the story. Off to build an encyclopedia, then. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

zh.wiki

Mys 721tx, this user has been confirmed here to ScrewsHirsch. I see from this edit on zh.wiki that they are active there and that it is a match to the other account's edit which should be sufficient for you to perform a check. I believe that they are likely going to have more accounts. Thank you for looking at this.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find any additional account on zh other than those two.-Mys_721tx (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]