Waskerton
Joined 15 August 2018
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Waskerton in topic A question
Waskerton, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi Waskerton! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC) |
Blocked for sockpuppetry
edit
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ST47 (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)- Hi ST47, according to the above you were the administrator who blocked this account. Can I speak to you via e-mail about this for an unblock request? I've taken some time to reflect on the history of my actions and I think I'm in a position to fully and faithfully explain my understanding of my wrongdoings and the steps that I will take to guarantee that I will not repeat them again. Waskerton (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
unblock
editHi Girth Summit, according to my SPI file, you were the last administrator to block my last sockpuppet account. Can I speak to you via e-mail about this for an unblock request? I've taken some time to reflect on the history of my actions and I think I'm in a position to fully and faithfully explain my understanding of my wrongdoings and the steps that I will take to guarantee that I will not repeat them again. Waskerton (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies for the slow response, I've not been online much recently. You can request unblock in the normal manner, following the instructions at WP:GAB; I don't see any particular need to enter into off-wiki discussion about it. Girth Summit (blether) 15:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response Girth Summit. The reason why I said I would like to communicate with you via e-mail is because there are some things in my prospective request that I would like to keep private. I was aware of and understood WP:GAB before I wrote my message, but the reason why I sent it to you anyway was because I was hoping that, as the last blocking administrator, you would be more familiar with the details of and hence more understanding of my case. I can make the appeal through the normal procedure, but before I do I would like to ask one final time: is there any way you can reconsider your decision to not hear my unblock request? Waskerton (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I was the last person to block one of your socks, but two other checkusers have also blocked accounts of yours; I wouldn't consider an unblock request without consulting them, and to be honest I think it should probably go to the community for review. As such, I have no desire to enter into an email correspondence with you. You can still take advantage of any of the regular unblock request avenues. I don't know what you would want to include in your unblock request, but I'd caution you against disclosing anything that really needs to be kept private, whichever channel you choose. Girth Summit (blether) 15:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, I should have been clearer in what I was trying to say. When I asked for your reconsideration, I meant if you could do so through either private ("off-wiki discussion" to use your terminology) or public ("on-wiki discussion") correspondence. So a final time: is there any way you can reconsider your decision to not hear my unblock request in our public correspondence here? Waskerton (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't made an unblock request. If and when you do, it will be put into the queue for consideration. I'm not going to commit to reviewing it myself, and I certainly wouldn't do so unilaterally since you have been blocked by multiple admins, but it will be considered in due course. Girth Summit (blether) 10:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks for your comments. Waskerton (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't made an unblock request. If and when you do, it will be put into the queue for consideration. I'm not going to commit to reviewing it myself, and I certainly wouldn't do so unilaterally since you have been blocked by multiple admins, but it will be considered in due course. Girth Summit (blether) 10:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, I should have been clearer in what I was trying to say. When I asked for your reconsideration, I meant if you could do so through either private ("off-wiki discussion" to use your terminology) or public ("on-wiki discussion") correspondence. So a final time: is there any way you can reconsider your decision to not hear my unblock request in our public correspondence here? Waskerton (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I was the last person to block one of your socks, but two other checkusers have also blocked accounts of yours; I wouldn't consider an unblock request without consulting them, and to be honest I think it should probably go to the community for review. As such, I have no desire to enter into an email correspondence with you. You can still take advantage of any of the regular unblock request avenues. I don't know what you would want to include in your unblock request, but I'd caution you against disclosing anything that really needs to be kept private, whichever channel you choose. Girth Summit (blether) 15:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response Girth Summit. The reason why I said I would like to communicate with you via e-mail is because there are some things in my prospective request that I would like to keep private. I was aware of and understood WP:GAB before I wrote my message, but the reason why I sent it to you anyway was because I was hoping that, as the last blocking administrator, you would be more familiar with the details of and hence more understanding of my case. I can make the appeal through the normal procedure, but before I do I would like to ask one final time: is there any way you can reconsider your decision to not hear my unblock request? Waskerton (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
unblock x2
editHi RoySmith, according to my SPI file, you were one of the administrators to block my sockpuppet accounts. Can I speak to you about this for an unblock request? If it's necessary I can do so via e-mail. I've taken some time to reflect on the history of my actions and I think I'm in a position to fully and faithfully explain my understanding of my wrongdoings and the steps that I will take to guarantee that I will not repeat them again. Waskerton (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Waskerton, I realise that you're addressing Roy here, but I'll repeat my advice to you: post an unblock request. I can't speak for my colleagues, but I would be surprised if any of them volunteered to enter into a private correspondence with you about it. If you simply post an unblock request, it will definitely be reviewed; if you badger the list of people who have blocked your socks, you risk testing their patience and adversely affecting any likelihood of your being unblocked. Girth Summit (blether) 12:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Girth Summit but now I am confused. In one of your earlier messages to me, you said you would not consider making an unblock request without consulting the two other administrators who blocked my sockpuppet accounts. I took this to mean your telling me not to post the unblock request without consulting them first. My message to RoySmith (who was one of the administrators who blocked my accounts) was my consulting him, so unless this is not what you meant by consultation, then I do not know what I have done incorrectly. As in my message to you, I brought up to RoySmith the avenue of communicating by e-mail because I did not want to foreclose the space that I thought I might need to make my case. But if what you are (and have been) basically saying is that none of the administrators are going to enter into private correspondence with me, then going forward I will not include that intimation any more in my future unblock requests. It was certainly not my intention to annoy your colleague with my unblock request and RoySmith, my apologies to you in advance if that's how you feel/felt. Waskerton (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- How it normally goes is that someone posts an unblock request, and an uninvolved administrator will evaluate the request. They have the discretion to decline it if they aren't convinced; if they think that it might be acceptable, they would then reach out to the blocking administrator to discuss the potential unblock. But it has to start with an unblock request: read the instructions at WP:GAB, and place your request in the appropriate template at the bottom of this page. Girth Summit (blether) 14:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Girth Summit based on your comments, I think I am going to need at a minimum a few days to gather the thoughts that I want to get across in my formal unblock request, especially as you've brought up points which I had not thought of before. A final question: as you are no doubt aware, I messaged the two other administrators who blocked my sockpuppet accounts but neither of them responded (or have yet to respond) to my inquiries. I understand you cannot speak for them, but as a general observation and based on your experience of having dealt with situations like this, is there anything that I should read into their silence as it pertains to my chances of getting unblocked? Waskerton (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want to speculate on their decision not to engage with you. Perhaps they feel they have better things to do with their time than spend it engaging with someone who has been blocked multiple times for sockpuppetry; perhaps they prefer to wait for you to post a formal unblock request under your own steam before commenting; perhaps they were just busy (as I was between 4 December and 9 January); I really don't know. Girth Summit (blether) 12:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Girth Summit Ok. Once again, thanks for your comments. Waskerton (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Would someone (not me) like to carry this to WP:AN? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Could I further explain the things that I would do to address the problems which I laid out in my formal unblock request? I wouldn't be able to comment if my appeal was to be carried over to WP:AN so I want to preemptively address here any concerns or objections that potential reviewers may have there. Waskerton (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Would someone (not me) like to carry this to WP:AN? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Girth Summit Ok. Once again, thanks for your comments. Waskerton (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want to speculate on their decision not to engage with you. Perhaps they feel they have better things to do with their time than spend it engaging with someone who has been blocked multiple times for sockpuppetry; perhaps they prefer to wait for you to post a formal unblock request under your own steam before commenting; perhaps they were just busy (as I was between 4 December and 9 January); I really don't know. Girth Summit (blether) 12:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Girth Summit based on your comments, I think I am going to need at a minimum a few days to gather the thoughts that I want to get across in my formal unblock request, especially as you've brought up points which I had not thought of before. A final question: as you are no doubt aware, I messaged the two other administrators who blocked my sockpuppet accounts but neither of them responded (or have yet to respond) to my inquiries. I understand you cannot speak for them, but as a general observation and based on your experience of having dealt with situations like this, is there anything that I should read into their silence as it pertains to my chances of getting unblocked? Waskerton (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- How it normally goes is that someone posts an unblock request, and an uninvolved administrator will evaluate the request. They have the discretion to decline it if they aren't convinced; if they think that it might be acceptable, they would then reach out to the blocking administrator to discuss the potential unblock. But it has to start with an unblock request: read the instructions at WP:GAB, and place your request in the appropriate template at the bottom of this page. Girth Summit (blether) 14:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Girth Summit but now I am confused. In one of your earlier messages to me, you said you would not consider making an unblock request without consulting the two other administrators who blocked my sockpuppet accounts. I took this to mean your telling me not to post the unblock request without consulting them first. My message to RoySmith (who was one of the administrators who blocked my accounts) was my consulting him, so unless this is not what you meant by consultation, then I do not know what I have done incorrectly. As in my message to you, I brought up to RoySmith the avenue of communicating by e-mail because I did not want to foreclose the space that I thought I might need to make my case. But if what you are (and have been) basically saying is that none of the administrators are going to enter into private correspondence with me, then going forward I will not include that intimation any more in my future unblock requests. It was certainly not my intention to annoy your colleague with my unblock request and RoySmith, my apologies to you in advance if that's how you feel/felt. Waskerton (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra I am not sure if you were notified of my response to your comment, but in the event that you were not, would it be possible if you could reconsider your decision to not post my appeal to the administrator's noticeboard? As I said I would be willing to further explain the things that I would do to address the problems which I laid out in my formal unblock request. I understand that I suffer from a trust deficit given the history of my actions on the encyclopedia, so I am trying to bridge that gap by being as honest and transparent about my intentions and motivations as possible. I understand that I have a long way to get others to entrust in me their good faith, but I also know that that process needs to start somewhere. Right now, my request is in a state that I'd prefer it to not be in where it is just stuck in this twilight zone between rejection and approval. I don't know how common my situation is, but based on the other unblock requests I've seen, the only appeals which have been left open indefinitely have been the ones where the appellant filed an unsuccessful request immediately prior to their extant one. As far as I can tell, that would not apply here as my current unblock request is the first and only one that I've filed on this account. Waskerton (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Gah. Surprised no one carried this over. I should be available tomorrow afternoon. I'm sorry this has dragged on. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response Deepfriedokra. Assuming that you or one of your colleagues do decide to carry my request over, would it be possible if I showed you or them beforehand a dry run of the steps that I would take to resolve a hypothetical content dispute? My inability to properly handle content disputes in the past was the ultimate reason why I was (got myself) blocked. I understand that I need to show learning from my past mistakes if my block is to have any chance of being lifted, but I am also aware that I will not be able to do so directly on the administrator's noticeboard. As such, I think the best time to demonstrate self-reflection and evidence of reform of my content dispute resolution approach is here on my talk page before my case goes before the community for consideration, and, with your permission, I would be more than willing to provide such a demonstration. Waskerton (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy notifications @ST47, Girth Summit, and RoySmith:. Later today i should do this. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Will need check user clearance. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. Thanks for your comments once again and above all else your willingness to reconsider your earlier decision to not post my appeal to the noticeboard. As I said (and cannot reiterate enough), I am willing to provide a demonstration of my reformed content dispute resolution approach, so hopefully this is something you and your colleagues will allow me to do. Waskerton (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm looking into this now. I hope to be able to respond by the end of today. RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Will need check user clearance. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy notifications @ST47, Girth Summit, and RoySmith:. Later today i should do this. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response Deepfriedokra. Assuming that you or one of your colleagues do decide to carry my request over, would it be possible if I showed you or them beforehand a dry run of the steps that I would take to resolve a hypothetical content dispute? My inability to properly handle content disputes in the past was the ultimate reason why I was (got myself) blocked. I understand that I need to show learning from my past mistakes if my block is to have any chance of being lifted, but I am also aware that I will not be able to do so directly on the administrator's noticeboard. As such, I think the best time to demonstrate self-reflection and evidence of reform of my content dispute resolution approach is here on my talk page before my case goes before the community for consideration, and, with your permission, I would be more than willing to provide such a demonstration. Waskerton (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Gah. Surprised no one carried this over. I should be available tomorrow afternoon. I'm sorry this has dragged on. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra I am not sure if you were notified of my response to your comment, but in the event that you were not, would it be possible if you could reconsider your decision to not post my appeal to the administrator's noticeboard? As I said I would be willing to further explain the things that I would do to address the problems which I laid out in my formal unblock request. I understand that I suffer from a trust deficit given the history of my actions on the encyclopedia, so I am trying to bridge that gap by being as honest and transparent about my intentions and motivations as possible. I understand that I have a long way to get others to entrust in me their good faith, but I also know that that process needs to start somewhere. Right now, my request is in a state that I'd prefer it to not be in where it is just stuck in this twilight zone between rejection and approval. I don't know how common my situation is, but based on the other unblock requests I've seen, the only appeals which have been left open indefinitely have been the ones where the appellant filed an unsuccessful request immediately prior to their extant one. As far as I can tell, that would not apply here as my current unblock request is the first and only one that I've filed on this account. Waskerton (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Formal unblock request
edit{
Waskerton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Per the related discussion above, I am filing this appeal to formally request that the block on my account be lifted. I have taken time to reflect on the history of my actions and I believe I am in a position to fully and faithfully explain my understanding of my wrongdoings and the steps that I will take to guarantee that I will not repeat them again. I understand from WP:GAB and my review of unblock requests by other users that the opening statement should be concise and there will be follow-up discussions, so, in that vein, I understand the root causes of the problems to be violations of WP:AGF , WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:BLUDGEON and WP:CIVIL and (in that order), and will agree to the baseline restrictions of WP:1RR, an account creation block on the IP address from which I am editing and a ban with no possibility of appeal if I am caught engaging in sockpuppetry again as the core prophylactics against any future disruptive editing and attempts at sockpuppetry. Waskerton (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waskerton#12 February 2024 RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
A question
editHi Deepfriedokra can I ask you something in connection with my abortive unblock request as detailed above? You were the last person to comment on it so I'm reaching out to you to see if you could, hopefully, answer a question that I have. Waskerton (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: OK to unblock???? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra Well, I'm not sure how to respond. The last time I was involved in this case (see #unblock x2 above), I was asked to review their previous unblock request and and found that they were actively socking, at which point they were WP:3X banned. So, I'm not real enthusiastic about putting them back in circulation. But, to answer your specific question, I just ran some checks and I can see no evidence of socking right now. This discharges the responsibility to
consult with a CheckUser before unblocking
. I guess the next step would be to start a thread on WP:AN to see if the community wishes to lift the ban. RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- @Waskerton: Please make a new unblock request, addressing all concerns, and suitable for a member of the unblock review team to carry to WP:AN. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra with respect I hesitate to follow your instructions. In my last unblock request I said I would accept a ban with no possibility of appeal if I was caught engaging in sockpuppetry again, so as, a matter of principle, filing a new one is not something that I think I can do. Instead I want to ask if my ban can be temporarily lifted so that I can make or ask the community to make changes to a few articles that I have had a deep interest in. I'm not sure if what I am asking for would be considered an unblock request/appeal and I'm not even sure if the arrangement I'm proposing would be allowed, so please don't hesitate to make the necessary clarifications and provide the necessary guidance. Waskerton (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Waskerton: Please make a new unblock request, addressing all concerns, and suitable for a member of the unblock review team to carry to WP:AN. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra Well, I'm not sure how to respond. The last time I was involved in this case (see #unblock x2 above), I was asked to review their previous unblock request and and found that they were actively socking, at which point they were WP:3X banned. So, I'm not real enthusiastic about putting them back in circulation. But, to answer your specific question, I just ran some checks and I can see no evidence of socking right now. This discharges the responsibility to