User talk:Commonedits

August 2022

Cunard Thank you so much for your vote, help and support in the WP:DELREV of Bhumika Gurung. I know you are not interested in my thank you as I am considered someone really despicable. Anyhow a big thank you for what you did as now I can peacefully retire from Wikipedia completely. Wishing you all the very best for your edits! Have a great day! Commonedits (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commonedits, I am happy to help and don't consider you despicable. I can understand your frustrations at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 July 27#Bhumika Gurung as it is challenging to recreate articles that have been protected from recreation. However, Tamzin (talk · contribs)'s block is understandable and supported by policy given your comments violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I hope admins will be willing to unblock you if you commit to not making comments like that again though you may have to wait a while as this is your fourth block for personal attacks. I hope you will be unblocked in the future as you've made good contributions here though I understand if you do not want to return. Best wishes. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard Thank you so much once again Commonedits (talk) 07:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been off for a while and not been editing for sometime now. I would like to make valuable contributions without making any personal attack comments on other editors. So please consider unblocking me. Commonedits (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That is insufficient. This is a collaborative project, where avoidance of communicating with others is not possible. You need to be able to know how to work through editing disputes- which are inevitable here. If you don't think that you can do that, then this project isn't for you. There is nothing wrong with that, and it does not make you a bad person, but this sort of thing isn't for everyone. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2022 (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.

What steps will you take to avoid making personal attacks? 331dot (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I will not talk to any editor nor talk about any editor anywhere. I will make valuable contributions and leave Wikipedia after I finish making those contributions.Commonedits (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There was some broken markup up here and it never got properly declined as a duplicate. Normally a blocking admin isn't supposed to decline unblock requests, but this decline is purely procedural in nature. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:37, 29 September 2022 (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.

Let me butt in and try this. Please describe each of the steps in resolving disputes. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I will work through editing disputes and communicate with the other editors in a reasonable manner. Please consider unblocking me by giving me one last chance Commonedits (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well, this is awkward because I don't remember why exactly I ran a CU on you. The rationale I used was "suspect further personal attacks while logged out". I don't remember what I found, and I don't really want to go digging for it. That means it's basically irrelevant until I do so. However, I did tag a sock puppet, User:Only Smiles No Tears, and I'm now pretty sure that I can say you're also Confirmed to User:Creativitylove. I think you've also been continuing to edit while logged out. You need to explain this sock puppetry to be unblocked. And if I see any more logged out edits or new accounts, I'm going to do range blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2022 (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.

Deepfriedokra I) Go the talk page of the editor with whom there is an editing dispute or the talk page of the article where there's a dispute. II) Start a discussion on the dispute with the editor III) Discuss amicably on the pros and cons of the edit. IV) Finding a solution together on what can be the best edit possible in the article.Commonedits (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, since the unblock request was filed, this has been upgraded to a CUblock. Note also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Creativitylove. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I haven't used the other accounts to personally attack anyone. Neither have I used them for abuse. You can check the edit history. Then why is that am I even blocked for sockpuppetry? Commonedits (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Closing as stale only, you may make a new request. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2022 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) Commonedits, Would you kindly list all accounts you have used, whether previously or now? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot Only Smiles and Tears was my account. Creativitylove is my best friend's account but since we both come from the same place, our IP address were same so he too got blocked for sockpuppetry.Commonedits (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you meant Only Smiles No Tears (talk · contribs) as the other account. Your comment about "same IP address" as a different editor seems problematic, but I'll leave that for others to dispose. By the way, please watch your indentation on reply comments; have a read of WP:THREAD for how to reply, and how to indent your comments. Thanks, and good luck, Mathglot (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What have you used your other accounts for? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra Actually I wanted to create WP articles using one account which is when I created Only Smiles No Tears but in the middle I lost it's password so I created Commonedits. However, I have used very less my first account once I created Commonedits and I have never used the two simultaneously for personally attacking anyone or for abuse. Creativitylove is my best friend's account. He was having his boards when he created the account last year so he wasn't much active here after creating some articles and he doesn't have much time to edit here.Commonedits (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ima leave this for one of the SPI people to unravel. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice some behavioral differences with Creativitylove, enough so that I asked TheSandDoctor to make the final call on blocking them, as it wasn't clear-cut enough for me to play judge, jury, and executioner. I don't know about TSD, but it seems plausible to me that CE and CL are two different people. What this doesn't address, though, is that canvassing a friend to go advocate for your position in a discussion where you've engaged in blockable personal attacks is not okay. Until CE can acknowledge that, I don't think an unblock should be granted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin Okay I acknowledge that I shouldn't have canvassing a friend to go advocate for a position in a discussion where I'm engaged in blockable personal attacks. However, I would like to add on that I asked him to make a vote but whatever he voted was his own will. Nevertheless, it was still a mistake from my side and I assure I wouldn't repeat it once again so I request you to please unblock both me and CL. I will do my edits and let him do his edits.Commonedits (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

So Deepfriedokra has asked me to explain how my editing merited a block, what I would do differently, and what constructive edits I would make in order to get unblocked. Firstly, I got blocked because of hurling personal attacks on other editors. As I already mentioned several times even earlier, I was undergoing mental health issues at that time which is I was getting frustrated at each and every other editor. I apologize for my mistake and promise not to ever repeat it once again. Secondly, what I would do differently is that I will edit constructively without causing issues with/to anyone as I had done before. Lastly, what constructive edits I would make As many of you might have already observed, I am quite good in editing stuff on Indian television shows. I promise I will continue to do that and not cause any issues which I had caused earlier once again even if my edits gets reverted or the articles I created get deleted. Now please can I get unblocked? I have no issues if you block me again if by any chance I repeat any mistake which I had committed earlier.Commonedits (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC

Decline reason:

Given your latest sock puppetry, I doubt anyone will complain that I'm closing with a decline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:01, 9 August 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.

This does not explain how we can be sure you won't have further mental health issues causing the same behaviour in the future. Nor does it address your multiple abusive sockpuppet accounts nor your attempt to lie to us. This has been going on for years. I very strongly oppose unblocking this user at this time. --Yamla (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how we can be sure you won't have further mental health issues causing the same behaviour in the future. Regarding my mental health issues, I have been taking medication since two years now which has improved my mental health significantly. You can already see a proof of that in my edit history of the accounts of Amma&Papa and Ilovetvshows. I have never got into any kind of personal attacks or edit wars while using these two accounts. I can assure you that I will not cause any issues in the future too, but if by any chance, I break my word then I'm ready to face the consequences.

Nor does it address your multiple abusive sockpuppet accounts Secondly, regarding my sockpuppet accounts. To be very honest, I created Amma&Papa because nobody was responding to my unblock request here. You can see the last unblock request which I had made before losing access to editing my talk page was on 8th September 2022 and none of the admins cared to even look into it. By the time (that was 3 months later on 9th December 2022), I got a reply from 331dot, I had already created Amma&Papa and since my mental health issues were better that time, I have always edited constructively using the account Amma&Papa. Also, I created Amma&Papa because I had lost access to editing my talk page and had no idea about WP:UTRS so I believed that I will never be unblocked. The second account Ilovetvshows was indeed a mistake resulting from a misunderstanding. When, Explicit asked me to make an unblock request from my original account, I misunderstood original account to be a new account. I apologize for misunderstanding and committing the mistake of creating Ilovetvshows.

nor your attempt to lie to us. Lastly, I agree that I have lied several times but as I mentioned the reason earlier, I lied because I really did want to make constructive edits in Wikipedia and I knew if I reveal my true identity then I will be blocked from editing Wikipedia once again. Now, I assure you that if I get unblocked, I will never again lie about anything once again.

Please give me one last chance. Please? Commonedits (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not getting a response doesn't necessarily mean that nobody considered your unblock request. In fact, it may just be the opposite. A common reason why an unblock request take a while to be answered is that the admins reading it found it unconvincing, but allow the opportunity for another admin to be convinced by the unblock request. Your unblock request being open for two months gave two months of opportunities for an admin to decide if they felt comfortable trusting you, opportunities that wouldn't exist if the first admin to read it and be unconvinced officially declined. You can see admins asking you further questions after that 9/22 block, but choosing not to decline. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs: Ok I'm sorry for having said that. Commonedits (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla:, see [1] where two more socks not mentioned above were blocked - one a sleeper with no edits, the other active in June to create several AFD's which the Ilovetvshows also participate in. Some of their comments this year raise concerns about future behavior. JBW commented on Ilovetvshows [2] with some questions highlighting some questionable parts of their unblock request. The post was direct but polite, but the reply from Ilovetvshows called it a personal attack.[3] It wasn't even close. On the Amma&Pappa page, there's multiple comments about not being a sock, so they either hadn't bothered to read the page or are ignoring the second bullet point about creating a new account to avoid sanctions. The use of "we" is worrisome from a WP:MEAT perspective plus their comment about being part of a group of editors. Their attitude on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Perennial_requests#Priyanka_Choudhary blaming the outcome on biased/COI admins, and not showing good faith towards other editors. Ravensfire (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla Their attitude on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review/Perennial_requests#Priyanka_Choudhary blaming the outcome on biased/COI admins, and not showing good faith towards other editors. I was not blaming the admins. I just found it weird that the Wikipedia admins do not keep an account of the pages of actors who do not pass WP:NACTOR and at the same time, do not allow the creation of articles of the actors who actually pass WP:NACTOR.Commonedits (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate and @Yamla, I wouldn't say Ravensfire's claims are wrong but they are only partially true Editingmylove is not my sockpuppet but she can be called my WP:MEAT because she joined Wikipedia on my insistence, however whatever edits she made was her own choice. The reason why our IPs are same is because we both are from the same university Jawaharlal Nehru University and also reside in the same hostel in the campus.

But I swear to god and say, I really don't know who Editsfun is, I request @NinjaRobotPirate to please recheck their IP address but if their IP is the same as mine then it is just another editor from my university and I swear I have no connection with him/her. Commonedits (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla, @Deepfriedokra, @CoffeeCrumbs and @NinjaRobotPirate, Can someone tell me when will my unblock request be reviewed because I want to create a new WP:BLP. Commonedits (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pinging people. It's almost certain your unblock request will be declined by whomever reviews it. You'll just have to wait for the review to happen in due time. --Yamla (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely sorry. My intention wasn't to disturb you. It's just that I was worried that this request will go unnoticed like the previous one which is why I asked when will my request be reviewed. Extremely sorry. Commonedits (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Can you please review my unblock request? Commonedits (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, pinging people randomly will not make it more likely you will be unblocked. If anything, it makes it less likely you will be unblocked. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(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 post of this notice.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, for anyone reviewing this case, this editor has gone on to sockpuppet in response to talk page access being revoked and has freely disclosed that they have done so. [4] CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #91055 is closed.

But it should be considered in any unblock discussion. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a check user block -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]