User talk:Enidblyton11

WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE

March 2011

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because it is believed to have been compromised. Note that edits to your user talk page might not indicate that you have regained control of your account. If your right to e-mail and edit your user talk page have been revoked, contact ArbCom at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. 7 04:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't hacked, as you know. Enidblyton11 (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crickets chirping, crows crowing, bees buzzing and tumbleweed tumbling. Fin. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean?Enidblyton11 (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

???????????????? Enidblyton11 (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2011 (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).

Enidblyton11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

account recovered. I confirm if unblocked I will abide by all Wikipedia policies and begin to edit in good faith. Some projects I'll work on if unblocked: NSW state election results by individual electorate eg Electoral district of Murray Darling, The Bolt Report which is outdated and Andrew Bolt's page. ThanksEnidblyton11 (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unfortunately we have no way of knowing that what you say is the truth. Frankly, I'm not sure how you could prove it, you never set up a committed identity in the past so I don't think there's any way to verify. -- Atama頭 22:16, 7 June 2011 (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.

My account was never hacked. I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Enidblyton11 (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2011 (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).

Enidblyton11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

account recovered. I confirm if unblocked I will abide by all Wikipedia policies and begin to edit in good faith. Some projects I'll work on if unblocked: NSW state election results by individual electorate eg Electoral district of Murray Darling, The Bolt Report which is outdated and Andrew Bolt's page. I was NEVER, EVER hacked. I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Enidblyton11 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

For reasons detailed below by Lear's Fool.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 09:06, 8 June 2011 (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.

Looking at the block log, it looks like this account was originally blocked with a reason that it was hacked, but it was unblocked and reblocked specifically to change the block reason to "Abusing multiple accounts" - but the block message on this page was not changed. So from this it looks, on the face of it at least, as if the account might really not have been hacked at all. I'm a bit too busy right now and can't do it myself, but I think this needs to be taken up with the blocking admins to check -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user claimed to have been hacked here. - Bilby (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) :However, having said that, look back at an old version of this Talk page - here, you'll see just under the "hacked" block message, a reply from Enidblyton11 saying "I have regained control of my account. Please unblock me. Thanks." - and it's hard to see how you can regain control of an account when you haven't lost it. But then prior to the block message, we see "I note your claim at Talk:Tony Windsor that your account was supposedly hacked" - so did Enidblyton11 just claim to be hacked to try to hide sockpuppetry? We need more explanation all round here, I think -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment by Enidblyton11, misplaced within mine said "No, becasue I ddin't have any sockpuppets at that time." in reply to by question about hiding sockpuppetry -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I admitted on numerous occasions that I wasn't hacked. I was lying. But User:Nick-D offered me a chance to get myself unblocked. He told me to request to be unblocked: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:144.136.101.238

I promise if unblocked: 1. I will not continue disputes with anyone 2. I fully acknowledge my past mistakes 3. I will begin to edit in a positive, helpful way 4. I will never, ever create a sockpuppet again. Btw, I created a sock the first time wothout knowing it was against the rules and that you were not allowed two accounts. I promise to only use the account for editing in future. Please give me a chance. If you have a look at some of my postivie contributions over all accounts, including creating pages I am surey you will agree I am trying to reform myself. I LOVE editing wikipedia. Thanks for your timeEnidblyton11 (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tell you to ask to be unblocked - I locked that IP account's talk page you were using to evade you block to prevent further time-wasting and dishonest unblock requests, and advised that you should request to be unblocked here if you wanted to do so. Given that you've used the sockpuppet accounts to evade your block, continue edit wars, post biased material about left-leaning politicans, lodge frivolous prod deletion nominations for articles about left wing politicians, create articles about obviously non-notable political parties (including one you claim to be a member of), abuse other editors and repeadedly lie by claiming to be a new editor your case to be unblocked is very weak. Nick-D (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation

Seeing as the confusion is my fault (I reblocked for sockpuppetry but didn't add a new block template), I figure I might as well explain what's going on here. Enidblyton11 was a constructive editor until he added an assassination hoax to Tony Windsor, and claimed his account had been hacked. He was blocked on suspicion of not being in control of his account. It eventually became clear he had been editing as (among other IPs) 144.136.101.108 (talk · contribs), and that he had been comitting vandalism (including on Tony Windsor) while contributing helpfully as Enidblyton11. After Enidblyton11 was blocked, he continued to vandalise as 144.136.101.108, see User talk:144.136.101.108#PROD of Ian Rintoul. He then created Jarrodaus11 (talk · contribs), and after he used multiple accounts to try to affect a discussion at Sophie Mirabella, I filed an SPI (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enidblyton11/Archive#16 April 2011, which confirmed that Jarrodaus11 = Enidblyton11. I blocked both for sockpuppetry.

At User talk:Jarrodaus11 (which is very much tl;dr), Enid made half-a-dozen vexatious unblock requests, denying he had ever abused multiple accounts, and making accusations of a conspiracy against him. When I made a final, good-faith offer to consider an unblock if he came fully clean, he continued to claim his account had been hacked, which was obviously false. See User talk:Jarrodaus11#Some advice for all this. He then admitted his account had not been hacked, but by this point I had had enough of his time-wasting unblock requests. He then came to this page and changed it so as to try to trick any reviewing admin into thinking this block was just for a hacked account, and not for sockpuppetry. Since then, he has sockpuppeted (causing various levels of disruption) as Timbracks13 (talk · contribs) and Jackthart (talk · contribs).

It seems to me that this unblock request is yet another attempt to waste the time of everyone involved. His talkpage access at all of his sock accounts has been removed for precisely this reason, and I'm starting to think it may need to be removed from here also. The standard offer would be applicable here, but that requires a minimum of 6 months away from the project with no vexatious unblock requests or socking, and this is certainly something Enid has not done. -- Lear's Fool 03:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Talk page access has been revoked. I think we've had enough games here. -- Atama頭 05:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enidblyton11 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. -- Lear's Fool 15:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]