User talk:Arenwils

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Factorhk (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) 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 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is my only account. I lost the password to my previous account and cannot reset it. I do not have access to that any other accounts apart from this one (unless I created another account and of course as we all know there's no point in having more than one account). I would like to see any evidence of me using two accounts at the same time (there isn't any), usage of the previous account was never concurrent with this, or any attempt to 'pretend' to be someone else/more than one person. There, of course, is none. How can you be a sock puppet if you're only actually using one account?!

Decline reason:

There is sufficient evidence that you used multiple accounts against our policies. I have given you a link to the evidence below. I will however look into the fact that you were meant to have a 1 week block on your main account, and that this is now your main account. HighInBC 16:48, 23 April 2016 (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.

@Vanjagenije: Given their claim that their old account has a lost password, do you think it reasonable that this account be considered the master and given the 1 week block, and their older one indef?

Arenwils the evidence is detailed here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Factorhk/Archive. This is a good example, where you vote to keep an article created with your prior account without disclosing your connection. HighInBC 16:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Thank you. The point is that there was never an attempt to do any of the things people use sock puppets for. If you lose your password you lose your password. No attempt to deceive but obviously should have been aware of the policy.

@HighInBC: So what does that mean for the ban? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenwils (talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 April 2016‎

Except you did. You supported keeping an article you wrote at AfD without declaring that you were the author. This gives the false appearance of support. Best case scenario is that this account is blocked for one week and in the future you avoid things like that. HighInBC 17:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Noted. Apologies. I do not know what AfD is but I will take your word for it.

Accept reason:

See below The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

No disagreement with the ban itself. I would politely request that edits made with both accounts not be removed as User:DaltonCastle has attempted, as explained it is the only account used since the previous account's password was lost. There was no attempt to deceive. I note that User:DaltonCastle has attempted to remove edits that disagree with his opinions. It is only User:DaltonCastle who does not seem to find these edits reasonable and informative. User:DaltonCastle has exploited the password misfortune as justification to block edits he/her disagrees with. All the more reason to keep track of your password

Accept reason:

I have not actually unblocked, but, as you can see below, the lengths of the blocks between this account and Factorhk have been exchanged, so that you will be able to edit from this account from 22:57, 28 April (GMT). Assuming that what you say about losing passwords is true, being blocked for a week may be a little unfair, but, as has been explained to you, the way that you edited looked like an attempt to give the impression of independent support from another editor. If that was not what you intended, I can only suggest that you need to be careful about such things in future. If you are unwilling to wait out the rest of the week, you are still free to make another unblock request, but I can't say how likely it would be to succeed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you lost your password on both of your other accounts? -- GB fan 17:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Have made a note of this one. Use different passwords for every email/banking/other account, as recommended by an IT expert. If you have access to the passwords you will see. I think there should be a feature where you can reset by answering 'security questions' like they have on other websites. That would have helped here!Arenwils (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think if someone hacks into a site and they can get your password then they can search through other sites and get into your account from there is you have the same password for all different sites. That is why you should never use the same password twice.Arenwils (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know Arenwils, you can avoid this problem altogether if you would just specify a valid email address in your account settings. Then, if you lose your password, you can request a password reset link to be emailed to you. And then you would never need to create a new account if you lose your password.

I am uncomfortable unblocking you until you do this simple configuration step. Otherwise, you will continue wasting administrator time in the future with sockpuppet blocks and unblock requests. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favour of swapping the indefinite block and the time limited block between the two accounts, so that you can edit using this one. I can't see how the blocking administrator (Vanjagenije)could object to that, since the effect of that would be to enable you to edit again with one account when the time limited block expires, which is exactly what he intended when he placed the blocks, but we should wait to see whether Vanjagenije has anything to say about that suggestion. I do recommend taking the advice to enable email on your account, which you can do from the "preferences" link at the top of the page when you are logged into your account. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: I have no objection to that. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: Thanks. I have gone ahead and done it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Koch[edit]

If you disagree with the close of the AFD you have two options. It is recommended that you do these in order. First option is to talk to the closing administrator on their talk page and try to convince them that the close was wrong. If you are not satisfied with that option our you do not want to discuss it there you can take it to WP:Deletion review. If you continue to restore the article you could be blocked for disruptive editing. -- GB fan 15:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]