User talk:DubiousPuffery

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DubiousPuffery. 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 ~~~~}}.  firefly ( t · c ) 21:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is a clear mistake, those other accounts are not my sockpuppets, and since I don't know who they are, not meatpuppeting either. My sin is registering first? Please review. DubiousPuffery (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You don't have to know the others involved to be engaging in meat puppetry. Per WP:MEAT, "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." What is the source of your interest in Andrew Hollander? Agreeing to abandon, at least for now, editing about him, may help. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2022 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I definitely did not recruit anyone to edit this page, or any other. I was looking for links to a book and was very surprised to find that the author's page was up for deletion. Knowing about the history of the subject she wrote about, I noticed that the AfD nomination looked suspect, especially when I saw her husband was also nominated at the same time, by the same account. I decided to comment there as well. I also submitted an edit to the page on the topic of the book I was looking for, since I noticed an outdated portion with no citation. I have no plans to edit the Hollander page any further. DubiousPuffery (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I definitely did not recruit anyone to edit this page, or any other. I was looking for links to a book and was very surprised to find that the author's page was up for deletion. Knowing about the history of the subject she wrote about, I noticed that the AfD nomination looked suspect, especially when I saw her husband was also nominated at the same time, by the same account. I decided to comment there as well. I also submitted an edit to the page on the topic of the book I was looking for, since I noticed an outdated portion with no citation. I have no plans to edit the Hollander page any further. [[User:DubiousPuffery|DubiousPuffery]] ([[User talk:DubiousPuffery#top|talk]]) 23:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I definitely did not recruit anyone to edit this page, or any other. I was looking for links to a book and was very surprised to find that the author's page was up for deletion. Knowing about the history of the subject she wrote about, I noticed that the AfD nomination looked suspect, especially when I saw her husband was also nominated at the same time, by the same account. I decided to comment there as well. I also submitted an edit to the page on the topic of the book I was looking for, since I noticed an outdated portion with no citation. I have no plans to edit the Hollander page any further. [[User:DubiousPuffery|DubiousPuffery]] ([[User talk:DubiousPuffery#top|talk]]) 23:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I definitely did not recruit anyone to edit this page, or any other. I was looking for links to a book and was very surprised to find that the author's page was up for deletion. Knowing about the history of the subject she wrote about, I noticed that the AfD nomination looked suspect, especially when I saw her husband was also nominated at the same time, by the same account. I decided to comment there as well. I also submitted an edit to the page on the topic of the book I was looking for, since I noticed an outdated portion with no citation. I have no plans to edit the Hollander page any further. [[User:DubiousPuffery|DubiousPuffery]] ([[User talk:DubiousPuffery#top|talk]]) 23:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Pinging blocking admin @Firefly: - we do get incidents of this type with AfDs, from otherwise acceptable new editors. I'd be tempted to unblock with a pban on Hollander - thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • No objection to lifting of the site block with a pblock from Hollander (and Dana Parish, the other article concerned for good measure), Nosebagbear. I'm still skeptical given the influx of accounts with a laser focus on that AfD, but as you say these things do happen. firefly ( t · c ) 20:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

    @DubiousPuffery - are you willing to be unblocked with partial blocks on the Hollander and Dana Parish articles/talk pages (and related pages, such as any future deletion discussions)? These would be appealable after six months of productive editing, to me or any other admin. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

    Yes, that's acceptable, thanks. DubiousPuffery (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)