User talk:Industrial Metal Brain

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Irtapil per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irtapil. 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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Spicy (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really am here to make Wikipedia better

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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblock my account.

I really do want to help make Wikipedia better. I have explained at length in the sock puppet case against me so I won't repeat myself here.

To begin with I would be willing to agree to an "everything" topic ban and only edit the sock puppet investigation I was in the process of filing, the sock puppet case against me, and my own talk page.

I.M.B. (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. User account got locked. Izno (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2025 (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.

To answer your email if there is private evidence you can submit it to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. If there is just more that needs to be said you should say it here. Producing further evidence of BM being a sock is not going to be to your benefit. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In thinking about this a tad longer, it seems like this might benefit from community review. The most block is based on a self-admission, the unblock really seems to be a ROPE ask, and it does not seem that there is evidence of other socking. So Spicy any objections to asking for ~500 words from this user and letting AN decide? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No interest in being involved with this any further. Do as you wish. Spicy (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any other situations where a serial sockpuppet was allowed to appeal their case to the community? I don't see how that would be precedented or appropriate. Andre🚐 19:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my remarks, a user with 6 confirmed socks is firmly in the LTA, community banned camp. I could see them launching an appeal after 6 months or a year of going clear. To allow them to appeal seems inconsistent with the way other sockpuppets are generally treated. Andre🚐 23:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, I don't have any objections, but we've got a CU-confirmed sock as recently as October. My expectation would be that this wouldn't fly at AN for that reason. Does your previous experience with this editor suggest otherwise? If I'd come across this before you'd said anything I'd have given the WP:SO but dated the start of the six months to Oct 27. -- asilvering (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have socking today so shouldn't the clock for the SO start at least no earlier than today? Isn't it the SO of 6 months without doing the bad thing? Andre🚐 04:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I presume my reasons for saying so are the same as Barkeep's. -- asilvering (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 24 hours the user has made 2 frivolous retaliatory SPIs and advocated for another sockpuppet to be unblocked. And of course their edits today were made in contravention of a ban. What exactly is the reason to grant them additional leniency? Because they came clean when it was glaringly obvious they were caught? Why shouldn't the standard offer be at least 6 months from today? This is their 6th sockpuppet account in as many months practically. Are all their edits bad, no, many are good edits, but the same can be said for many other blocked sockpuppets. Andre🚐 04:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with your SO framework. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edit conflicted with the above decline, which isn't wrong, but just for the record here is what my decline reason would have been: "Per the conversation below, you need to stop socking and go away entirely, including editing this page, for at least six months if you want to have a reasonable chance of being unblocked." Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still getting the hang of using the relevant tool (and might just kick it to the curb for how useless it is). Though I agree it's not wrong, it's definitely not what I wanted to put in the box. I did want to add that this account is now locked so spending a lot of time trying to hash it out here isn't going to work regardless. User can contact ArbCom and/or the stewards if they want to work on being unblocked/locked. (I'm fine with framing it as taking 6 months away in that regard.) Izno (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I managed to use that tool successfully less than half of the time. I gave up on it. -- asilvering (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I also got an email, which is what drew my attention. I assume it was a copy of Barkeep's. Izno (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]