User talk:DubiousPuffery

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DubiousPuffery. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. firefly ( t · c ) 21:09, 5 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).

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

Request reason:

This is a clear mistake, those other accounts are not my sockpuppets, and since I don't know who they are, not meatpuppeting either. My sin is registering first? Please review. DubiousPuffery (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't have to know the others involved to be engaging in meat puppetry. Per WP:MEAT, "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." What is the source of your interest in Andrew Hollander? Agreeing to abandon, at least for now, editing about him, may help. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 5 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.

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

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

Request reason:

I definitely did not recruit anyone to edit this page, or any other. I was looking for links to a book and was very surprised to find that the author's page was up for deletion. Knowing about the history of the subject she wrote about, I noticed that the AfD nomination looked suspect, especially when I saw her husband was also nominated at the same time, by the same account. I decided to comment there as well. I also submitted an edit to the page on the topic of the book I was looking for, since I noticed an outdated portion with no citation. I have no plans to edit the Hollander page any further. DubiousPuffery (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

User is unblocked with editing restrictions on editing about Andrew Hollander and Dana Parish. While partial bans will be used to prevent editing to the articles and their respective talk pages, the restrictions also prevent editing on related pages (e.g. an deletion discussion). These restrictions may be appealed after six months, to any admin or to the Community at WP:AN. I would also note to the editor that an abundance of caution regarding both this and general behaviour is wise, especially for the near future. [Technical note, unblock will occur in about 5m] Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging blocking admin @Firefly: - we do get incidents of this type with AfDs, from otherwise acceptable new editors. I'd be tempted to unblock with a pban on Hollander - thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to lifting of the site block with a pblock from Hollander (and Dana Parish, the other article concerned for good measure), Nosebagbear. I'm still skeptical given the influx of accounts with a laser focus on that AfD, but as you say these things do happen. firefly ( t · c ) 20:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @DubiousPuffery - are you willing to be unblocked with partial blocks on the Hollander and Dana Parish articles/talk pages (and related pages, such as any future deletion discussions)? These would be appealable after six months of productive editing, to me or any other admin. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, that's acceptable, thanks. DubiousPuffery (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Hello, for the sake of clarity, I've ultimately not placed technical blocks to enforce this action (due to somewhat irksome technical restrictions). However the prohibitions still apply - they're just dependent on you. I've watchlisted them to provide a degree of oversight. Other than that, you're good to go - best of luck editing. If you've got any queries about the unblock please ask me. If you've got any queries about editing - WP:TEAHOUSE is the best place to go. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you. DubiousPuffery (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]