User talk:CupWithSoda19

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).

CupWithSoda19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked by a CheckUser for being a sockpuppet account of a user, being misused. The alleged user constantly makes edits that later get reverted and often capitalizes every first letter of every word they type. Meanwhile, I've just been editing as normal and haven't got a clue to why I've been blocked for something. This is my only account. At the very least, I would like more details regarding my block. Thanks, CupWithSoda19 (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Interesting. You claim to know enough about this other user's behavior to distinguish yourself from them, yet the block message does not identify that other user. I don't know who that person is, but you seem to ... — Daniel Case (talk) 06:26, 9 August 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.

Daniel Case: The user was probably able to look at their user page... --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: The request precedes the tag on the user page by eight minutes. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't try to tell time in the morning. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, snap! If this is you, Nakita, you are doing better. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 9 August 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).

CupWithSoda19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The other user is User:Nakita Kelley. That account joined a month after mine and if you do some digging, you can tell that there is no connection to them at all. All of their sockpuppets follow similar patterns that signify it's them. I don't have those patterns. If you looks at any of my contributions or talk messages, you can't make any good connections.

Decline reason:

You forgot to explain how you know the other user is Nakita Kelley. Yamla (talk) 20:31, 14 August 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.

I'll leave it for another admin to consider this request, as I've already ruled on your other one, but the sock finding is based not just behavioral but technical evidence (which I can't review). Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:26, 9 August 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).

CupWithSoda19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know who the other user is because their username is shown in the block reason on my user page. I can still see my user and talk pages, I just can't edit them.

Decline reason:

No, I don't think so. As was pointed out to me, you posted the connection to Nakita before your user page was tagged. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:34, 14 August 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.

Unblock discussion

As noted by Daniel Case above, you described Nakita's idiosyncrasies eight minutes before the tag was applied. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

CupWithSoda19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The tag was added on my user page on August 8, 2022 at 14:43 UTC time (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:CupWithSoda19&diff=1103152685&oldid=1098192894). I made the first unblock request at 17:22 the same day (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CupWithSoda19&oldid=1103181967). That was three hours later and the rest of my unblock requests were in the days afterward. The tag showing the alleged 'puppeteer' was added before I even made my talk page.

Accept reason:

The block was made based on some peculiarities in the technical data. There were notable technical similarities between your account, and the two other recently blocked accounts (which I have also reviewed, but in those cases, I am very certain that they are correctly blocked). Having thoroughly reviewed my earlier checkuser work, as well as Blablubbs's notes here, I no longer think that the evidence supports my earlier conclusion, thus I have unblocked your account. I apologize for the original block, which I now consider incorrect. Maxim_(talk) 12:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the chronology. Purely from a behavioural perspective, I'm not really seeing a connection to the master or the two most recently blocked socks ([1][2]), and I'd be inclined to unblock if that had been the sole rationale for the block, but there is technical information involved that I am not privy to. If Maxim or another CU could weigh in on the CU data, that would be much appreciated. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the ping Blablubbs; see my notes above. Maxim_(talk) 12:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the quick response. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! CupWithSoda19 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]