User talk:BAABNRRBBORB1/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, BAABNRRBBORB1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. JarrahTree 11:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creator is a sockpuppet.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jarrahdale Jarrah Forests and Railways Limited and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jarrahdale Jarrah Forests and Railways Limited, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SL93 (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Unblock Requests

August 2021

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).

BAABNRRBBORB1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for sockpuppetry, as I was abusing multiple accounts (the other account being Norman_Roswin_Rolf_Birkner) I understand that this was picked up because when this account/I created the atom bond article it was selected for deletion for lack of sources so I used my other account to try and save it by posting my vote as to keep as well as this account also voting for a keep which is abusing multiple accounts. I also never stated whether or not this was an alt which you have to under the policy but I didn't both accounts we're also used to edit each others drafts. I fully understand what I've done wrong and would love to come back and be a constructive user. My actions were wrong and I apologise for causing such disruption and take full responsibility for them. Here is the text from the other two post-six-month appeals for quick reference. Thank you for reading. (Sorry for poor writing style and spelling) "As stated before I know why I was blocked and how not to do it again and would like to return to the en Wikipedia to contribute in a constructive manner. Thank you for reading. Below was my original reason from the 2nd of August (2021). "I was blocked for sockpuppetry as I was abusing two accounts this was/is wrong and I fully understand what I've done wrong and how to avoid it in future. I have waited six months but continued to work on other WikiProjects (as per the Standard Offer) such as contributing to a deletion request on one of my images one my drafts was also published. In short, I understand why I've been blocked, how to avoid this in the future and would like to return to the English Wikipedia to contribute valuable information. Thank you for reading." (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Factoring out edits to your Commons userpage, you only have a single significant edit to Commons - a single other project, afaict. You haven't done any negative in the last six months, which is a significant positive, but you also haven't given us any reason to trust that should an issue arise, you wouldn't utilise similar means or can edit productively. I understand that if you're not especially confident on images (a category I share) that Commons may not be ideal. Have you considered simple english wikipedia? While of course you're welcome to appeal again immediately, you seem to be following a self-specified six-monthly schedule (that's fine btw - indeed, is often recommended) so I will note that given the improvements I would say you can appeal again in 3 months. I'd aim for a couple of hundred *productive* edits. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2021 (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.

Hi there, a few questions/notes:

Were those two other six month appeals both through UTRS? Or were they on a talk page?
What other projects have you been working on - can you give a couple of good examples of productive work on them?
In the meantime, I will find a CU to do a check Nosebagbear (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CU here. No evidence of socking or evasion that I can see. I can confirm this account to Norman Roswin Rolf Birkner as everyone already knew. --Yamla (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear Yes, both six-month appeals were on UTRS the first one was declined as I was instructed to do the appeal using my original account (this one). The Second Appeal was declined as they instructed me to leave an appeal on my talk page which had been blocked until now. Other projects include wiki commons where I responded to a deletion nomination to one of my images to which I agreed. One of my drafts (WAGR AI Class Passenger Carriages) was also published (if that counts). I must admit I was a bit skittish to edit on other projects. Thanks (talk) 7:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC+8)

@Nosebagbear: Sorry for the inactivity but I have one more question before I begin editing on other Wiki projects. Which account do I use? As I want to use the NRRB one and not this one. Thanks. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)/6:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC+8)[reply]

May 2024

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).

BAABNRRBBORB1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have caused no trouble since I was blocked, and have made over 2,000 edits on Wikidata, and over 180 edits on Simplified Wikipedia under the account S547 Lindsay. I promise not to cause any trouble if I'm unblocked, I acknowledge my disgraceful behaviour. Thank you (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC+8), edited 10:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC+8). Here is my previous response:

"I was blocked for sockpuppetry, as I was abusing multiple accounts (the other account being Norman_Roswin_Rolf_Birkner) I understand that this was picked up because when this account/I created the atom bond article it was selected for deletion for lack of sources so I used my other account to try and save it by posting my vote as to keep as well as this account also voting for a keep which is abusing multiple accounts. I also never stated whether or not this was an alt which you have to under the policy but I didn't both accounts we're also used to edit each others drafts. I fully understand what I've done wrong and would love to come back and be a constructive user. My actions were wrong and I apologise for causing such disruption and take full responsibility for them. Here is the text from the other two post-six-month appeals for quick reference. Thank you for reading. (Sorry for poor writing style and spelling) "As stated before I know why I was blocked and how not to do it again and would like to return to the en Wikipedia to contribute in a constructive manner. Thank you for reading. Below was my original reason from the 2nd of August (2021). "I was blocked for sockpuppetry as I was abusing two accounts this was/is wrong and I fully understand what I've done wrong and how to avoid it in future. I have waited six months but continued to work on other WikiProjects (as per the Standard Offer) such as contributing to a deletion request on one of my images one my drafts was also published. In short, I understand why I've been blocked, how to avoid this in the future and would like to return to the English Wikipedia to contribute valuable information. Thank you for reading." (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)"[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2024 (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.

CU data shows no evidence of block evasion, with the exception of S547 Lindsay which is not abusive (not used to edit on en.wikipedia). --Yamla (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Unblock Request June 2024

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

BAABNRRBBORB1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked on Wikipedia back in 2021 for committing sockpuppetry as I used another account User:Norman_Roswin_Rolf_Birkner to vote in-addition to myself to keep an article titled Atom Bond, while also not declaring that I had any alternative accounts, this breaks Wikipedia's policies regarding multiple accounts.

I understand that what I have done is wrong, and has disrupted the community, and I vow that I shall not cause any further damage or disruption should I be unblocked.

During the time I've been unblocked I have made useful contributions to other Wiki projects (under the account User:S547_Lindsay), including 188 edits on Simple English Wikipedia, creating nearly 100 articles last year, none of which have been deleted, these articles are still very rough around the edges I admit, but I'm planning to expand and improve them later on.

Furthermore from November 2023 to the present I've made over 3,500 edits on WikiData, all remain active - I've also made 96 edits on Wikimedia Commons mainly to correspond with WikiData - one such edit I was even thanked for, Category:Morangup Nature Reserve.

I take full responsibility for my actions, and understand it is at your full discretion whether I mean what I'm saying, but I want to let you know this is a serious request, I have changed and would never dream of doing something so disgraceful ever again, I carry great shame for what I have done and will continue to do so.

Thank you.BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Let's givean unblock a go. Graham87 (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Sorry for the ping, but could you give an evaluation of my unblock request to see what I could add/remove and make clearer? I'm asking you as you were the last admin to visit this page, thanks. BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk)

No. Sorry. --Yamla (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Okay, I understand, is their another way I could get an independent opinion on improvements or should I just be patient and wait? BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham87, it's been a long time, but you were the blocking admin here. Any objections to an unblock? Yamla states above that (as of April) there's no evidence of further sockpuppetry. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Yeah let's give it a go. Graham87 (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks G87. Welcome back BAAB. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! BAABNRRBBORB1 (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]