User talk:Sapsby

Problematic changes

After writing that espresso and cappuccino aren't Italian without reaching a consensus, what will be your next move? JacktheBrown (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not exactly what I wrote. Sapsby (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reach a consensus to change the place of origin of the cappuccino page; I don't want to report you, please don't make me do it. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat this for the last time, after which I will be forced to report you: "reach a consensus to change the place of origin of the cappuccino page". JacktheBrown (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to reach a consensus. I want to include Austria only, but the consensus was to have both countries in infobox. Check versions earlier than January 2024 Sapsby (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"You have to reach a consensus". Do I have to reach a consensus? You must obtain consensus, since you were the user who first added "Austria": [1] (14 May 2024). JacktheBrown (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I want to include Austria only, but the consensus was to have both countries in infobox. Check versions earlier than January 2024". [2]; this is a 2020 version, my account is from 2022. The problem is that you want to be right about something you're not right about. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Xiaomichel per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xiaomichel. 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.

Girth Summit _(blether) 19:26, 21 August 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

As far as I understand, I am suspected of sock puppetry because my edits resemble the behaviour of the previously blocked editor Xiaomichel. I believe it's a weak basis to conclude sock puppetry in this case. I noticed on the talk page of the 'Cappuccino' article that Xiaomichael is described as a French chauvinist removing references to Austrian origins[3]. However, I was doing exactly the opposite, as my intention was to include Austria in the article's infobox [4], and none of my edits were related to France. My account is quite recent, and I have been more involved in the Cappuccino article because another user (JacktheBrown) was constantly reverting my edits, defending a nationalist point of view that I have reported [5] . I believe there is a clear mistake here, motivated by the accusations of an anonymous IP address. Therefore, I request to be unblocked. Sapsby (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

On balance of evidence, your denial with supporting arguments do not outweigh the checkuser evidence. PhilKnight (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2024 (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.

Sapsby (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

@Valereee I would like to express my surprise at being accused by an anonymous IP address from Italy shortly after I reported JacktheBrown, which ultimately led to my block. This appears to be a deliberate attempt to silence me. It would be worthwhile to consider the possibility of sock puppetry in this case as well. Moreover, I see several ongoing complaints about JacktheBrown in the ANI, where decisions are taking a long time, and everyone is being very cautious. Could you explain why, in my case, the decision to block me based on suspicion was made so quickly? I perceive a degree of favouritism here, which I would not expect to find on wikipedia. Sapsby (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a CheckUser, so I can't shed any light. What I know is that a skilled, experienced CU appears to be fully convinced. And no one was being cautious at ANI, it was more that no one wanted to have to spend the time and energy dealing with that mess. Valereee (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]