User talk:Fort Visitor Across

Welcome!

Hi Fort Visitor Across! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Fettlemap (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for that messaging! - Fort Visitor Across (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other accounts

What other accounts have you used at Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be fair, I do not have any of my other accounts. Just one of them I owned. - Fort Visitor Across (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is not clear. Please explain whether you have ever had other accounts, even if you don't use them anymore, and, if so, identify them.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I would say it, I actually do not own any of other accounts, because I created my account recently and currently a new editor in there. Furthermore, if I just saw one of the new editors, it would not be mine, it would be a unique user, who has a purpose of editing both different articles and pages that have been forgotten for a while. That would only include Pointway2846, who is a completely and fully different user with different contributions and one user who also voted support for an administrator rights to be granted for “Ingenuity.” I also saw another user, who is interested in California and its cities topics, made its first contribution on Requests for Administrator rights, named CaliforniaLover. Thanks for leaving me a message. - Fort Visitor Across (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: For your information, @Bbb23. The two users I mentioned here on other account section has revealed to be a lie and a myth since I never owned two of these accounts and both of them never contract each other for encyclopediac reasons. So it must been a mistake. Furthermore, those users listed are totes different people due to editing differences articles and they have different usernames as well. - Fort Visitor Across (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fort Visitor Across. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

-- RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for unblock for this account

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).

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

Request reason:

The main reason of why my block is just always unfair is solely because I never abused multiple accounts and neither I was block evading them. I just wanted to edit Wikipedia for fun and I definitely wanted to make useful contributions without being interfered with a notice. However somehow, one of the admins, which is Bbb23, just asked me about this other account I own and I hand out two, but reveals that I made an horrible and unsurprising mistake and that was way too late for me to cease. After that, he then reported me to the sock puppet investigations and requested me for a checkuser for just no reason at all. Just like I replied, the other two accounts you listed are not the same person. I have my own individual account and I have the ability to find different articles to edit as well as letting other users give thanks and barn-stars to my user talk page. I never did anything incorrect because I am trying to edit articles in a constructive way. Just like other editors, I am a very different person and my I intention isn’t going to ruin or violate Wikipedia policies and essays. The ones that are two usernames I listed, are a lie and a false claim. Because I never contact them to begin with and it is difficult to recognize the alt under a difficult username. Plus, both are here to build an encyclopedia and not doing personal attacks on Wikipedia or other users with special rights. The other account on first, has not been editing since May 3, 2023 due to the fact that they are inactive after considerable amount of few edits and both contribute to separate pages including talk pages and Wikipedia pages. Users like AD1934, ThatCaliforniaLover2019, and especially NorthernBladeLights9, are all three different person, instead of the same. Furthermore, I did not ever vandalize Wikipedia at all, I wanted to be unblocked right now. Plus it is not good for a checkuser to view my IP because it is not fair. Also, I made few or little contributions, so I was accused for abusing multiple accounts when in fact I did not do those. Admins, would you ever please review my block right now? I am going to log out for a final time for my own good. So in terms of that post, thank you for reading this huge paragraph and I really appreciate it. Period. The end.- Fort Visitor Across (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is incoherent. In any case, sockpuppetry was established and is not in doubt. Yamla (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2023 (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.

Why I was brought to sockpuppet investigations and blocked me for abusing multiple accounts? Why is my block sample incoherent?

@Bbb23 @Yamla @RoySmith One of the admins asked me about this other account I own and I mention the two but I was later brought to SPI and I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. To my belief, I never ever abused multiple accounts at all and I never created alt accounts. If I did, I am making sure that they are editing in good faith and helpful way. But all of other editors accounts are blocked indefinitely and reviews by a checkuser. I can not believe it that an checkuser just discovered all of the other accounts revealed and blocked all of them. I tried appealing to it and it is denied. Would you ever consider explaining why did an admin asked me a question about other accounts and then brought me to an SPI? Why was it triggered? Why I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts when I did not? And furthermore, why was my block sample appeal so incoherent? How though? Anyone answer? - Fort Visitor Across (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]