User talk:Ralf302

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Roqui15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is this, I went on vacation for three days and now suddenly I'm a sockpuppet, can you at least explain why my account was blocked, I am sure that i obeyed by all the Wikipedia guidelines. Ralf302 (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ralf302, you appeared to be a sockpuppet of User:Roqui15, and then Roqui15 admitted on their talk page that they asked you to join the discussion, which is a case of meatpuppetry. You may file an unblock request and an uninvolved administrator will review it. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2020 (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).

Ralf302 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(disclaimer I am editing this text on another device due to my recent travel) I'm not a "sockpuppet" of another account,but it's true that I am indeed a personal friend of Roqui15 and he invited me to participate on the thread discussing the "list of largest empires" page, and I believe that in not a "meat puppet" as well since I didn't directly partake on Roqui15 discussion, instead I took a different approach to the same topic trying to learn more about Taagepera's work and tried to explain that his works are subjective and that he hardly talks about the Portuguese empire for the assumption of the values stated on Wikipedia's page when there are overwhelming evidence that state the contrary. But if you believe I went against the guidelines just explain me why I was "punished" so I can act accordingly and make sure it never happens again. (Since I'm still new on Wikipedia I would appreciate some leniency.) Ralf302 (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As your sole purpose in being here is to help your friend, I doubt this account can be unblocked. You would need to persuade us that you can edit constructively. As you have destroyed our trust in this manner, that may not be possible. You speak of leniency. That is irrelevant. This is not punishment. This is to prevent disruption and damage to our encyclopedia. Please review the pertinent section of the WP:GAB. Please tell your friend to read WP:PROXYING. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2020 (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.

That's still a violation of WP:MEAT. I will let an admin review the block. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 00:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand, I just want to emphasise that i only wanted to have a civil discussion on the list of the largest empires topic. And what are the "punishment" differences on the violations? Ralf302 (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not punishment. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to look on the talk page of the list of largest empires you could see that I was nothing but civil and objective, none of my actions prove that I intended to disrupt nor to take the matter personal. All my comments on the talk page ware constrictive and I intended to reach a consensus all could agree on, and if you doubt my claims please have a look through the conversation. I read the guidelines and I understand that I do indeed fill some parameters of meetpuppeting and I accept that judgement, but I never intended to cause harm or damage to Wikipedia. I also never edited the main article and only stated my opinions on the talk page. And again if you doubt my statements have a look on the "List of largest empires" page. Ralf302 (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the topic was of my own interest and not because i intended to blindly help Roqui15, he went on a conversation of his own and i never said that he was undoubtedly right. What interested me the most was to search viable factual data to be taken in consideration along with Tengepera's work. Ralf302 (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2020 (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).

Ralf302 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(Due to the lack of a response to my fallow up arguments of the unblock decline reason I decided to file a new unblock request, if you could respond to the follow-up arguments on the first unblock request I would appreciate it). There seems to be lack of valid reasons to my indefinitely block, since I'm not a sockpuppet please revert my block and change it to a "meatpuppet" accusation(or meatpuppet block). And to respond directly to the decline reason: All my edits ware on the discussion talk page, and I never edited an article page, all my edits ware to achieve a consensus and learn more about the topic. I never took the matter personally and neither insulted anyone. I never caused disruption and damage to Wikipedia and neither that was my intention and objective. In which way did I destroyed your trust? Because I was invited to enter a public talk discussion page? And a "indefinitely block" is really the approach of someone who does so? I think this is all a misunderstanding on which I have always been compliant to discuss and resolve. Ralf302 (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, this request has been insufficient to convince any administrator to unblock you in well over a month. You are welcome to open another, significantly reworded unblock request.

I would strongly suggest that you review the guide to appealing blocks if you have not already. SQL ^{Query me!} 14:24, 18 August 2020 (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.

Meatpuppetry is still a blockable issue, and treated little differently than sockpuppetry. If you were to be unblocked, what would you edit? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost i'd like to resolve the matter at hand, and clear any confusion that may still reside. Since I was already discussing a topic when all this happend and I left it on hold because of the block on the short term I aim to discuss Taagepera's work on a talk page. (Unless you think it's ill advised since there is currently a "crackdown" on that page) On the long run i understand that there is a well established community in Wikipedia, one which i'd like to take part in the future. But I didn't understand if what you asked was a how high can i jump type of question.(could you clarify) And given that I'm new on Wikipedia the first thing on my agenda is to understand the mannerisms, habits and rules of Wikipedia. Ralf302 (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for a valid response regarding my unblock request, and the follow-up questions of the first request, I've been patient but since it has passed 17 days since my last edit I can only conclude that either you forgot or are unwilling to respond. Ralf302 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of response to the unblock request

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I am still waiting for a valid response regarding my unblock request, and the follow-up questions of the first request, I've been patient but since it has passed 17 days since my last edit I can only conclude that either they forgot or are unwilling to respond. Do I have to file a new unblock request? Why is it taking such a long time to respond on a simple and clear discussion? 18:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Ralf302

Hi Ralf302, you have correctly requested an unblock, and the request is still open. While this is a volunteer project, it is unlikely that the request has been forgotten. Unwillingness to respond to a specific request can possibly be a factor in a volunteer project, but only to the blocked user's disadvantage. In particularly serious cases in which no administrator would be willing to lift the block, the user is effectively banned by the community. If the request is currently not convincing enough to be answered, you are always welcome to add something to it. The only alternative seems to be patience. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. What has been bothering me the most (in the unblock request) is the lack of discussion about the topic, given that none of my questions were answered and there is seemingly no effort on behalf of Wikipedia's community to discuss the issue. Can you give me any advice on how to make my request more "simplified"? And am i allowed to create a new account? (There are more Wikipedia articles on which i think i can help with new sources (not in the same page in which i was blocked)).Ralf302 18:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new account while being blocked ("account creation blocked" as well) would be sockpuppetry and block evasion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, the last thing I want to do is add to the problem, I will refrain from creating a new account.Again thank you for your time. Ralf302 (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you recommend starting a new unblock request from scratch or simply edit the one already pending? Ralf302 23:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good question. Hm. I recommend to keep the old text in place for proper chronology and transparency. You may, however, like to strike through (<s>text</s>) each paragraph of the old appeal, effectively withdrawing it, and create a new one below. This might actually be the best idea if your opinion has changed from "the block is a mistake" to "the block is justified but no longer needed". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]