User talk:Known Rod

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Known_Rod.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Star Mississippi 15:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet 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 sockpuppet, 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. Courcelles (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not a sockpuppet. I'm just an IP, who got a new computer, made an account, used those row-things in {Ryanverse} to split the table, used {The Office} to make another template and copied the user page template from another user I saw because I liked the quote and how it looked and didn't want my account to have that weird red text. Then I kind of just rambled around looking at different articles, looked into people's editing history, came across someone named User:Dusti who only seemed to edit articles for deletions and began voting keep/delete on some of those. I had worked through figuring out 19 keeps was about to vote delete on another keep before looking for 20 deletes and another topic to edit, and then I got a message from User:Star Mississippi asking if I was a The Office sockpuppet, and this block came in before I could respond to say I wasn't. Known Rod (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't find this convincing. Yamla (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2023 (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.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Known_Rod User:Courcelles "That user page was a good indicator that trolling would be forthcoming" No, I just thought it was a funny quote and copied it from another user's page. Unusual like User:ScottishFinnishRadish said, but not illegal. I did not trolling, and did not intend to troll. Known Rod (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)User:Courcelles "That user page was a good indicator that trolling would be forthcoming" No, I just thought it was a funny quote and copied it from another user's page. Unusual like User:ScottishFinnishRadish said, but not illegal. I did not trolling, and did not intend to troll. Known Rod (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), User:Courcelles is wrong. Please don't delete Template:In Therapy. Nine pages in English, twelve in other languages. Known Rod (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Consulting Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks now. 1. State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration. It is not enough if you just say that the block was "wrong" or "unfair", or another user violated a policy first. You must explain why it was wrong to block you, or why it should be reversed. :It was wrong because I am not a sock puppet, and should be reversed because I am not a sock puppet. User:Mathnerd314159 claimed that "99 edits in 5 hours 18 minutes works out to about 3 minutes per edit, which is rather hard to beat without automated scripts". I don't even know what automated scripts are, let alone how to use them on Wikipedia. I just type fast and copy/paste a lot, which is difficult sometimes because the command key on my Mac keeps popping off. "hard to beat" does not mean impossible. I beat it. 2. Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block). As explained above, you have been informed about the reason for your block. You must address this reason in your request. This means that you must either explain why the block reason is incorrect or not applicable to your conduct, or you must convince the reviewing administrator that you won't do it again. :User:Courcelles claimed that "this account had been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy". I've done nothing to violate Wikipedia policy that I know of, and User:Courcelles said in discussion on the incident page that "That user page was a good indicator that trolling would be forthcoming." I took that user page (User:Known Rod) from User:Mandarax, and they're not a sock puppet I don't think. I hope they aren't. When previewing I accidentally left their signature in and had to take it out. If administrators can access preview history you can see it. When asking I be looked into, User:Star Mississippi thought it was strange I could create a template? I took the The Office template, cut the shows, and inserted the series of In Therapy. I used the template as a template. I could never do that from memory. That was copy-paste and still took me 22 minutes, User:Mathnerd314159 said. Known Rod (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC) 3. Give evidence. If you state that you did or did not do something, or that the blocking administrator is missing something important, please provide brief details and a link in the form of a differential edit ("diff") if possible, or other evidence showing that you don't (or didn't) do what the block reason states. :User:Courcelles noted they assumed that "trolling would be forthcoming" based on my user page (which is User:Mandarax's, and they're not a troll), and User:Star Mississippi mentioned they've "definitely run into" a The Office sock, but that was not me. [1] The most I added was that Michael Scott had produced, written, directed, and acted in an independent film called Threat Level: Midnight, starring the people he worked with. And he did! That was an episode! There was no trolling from me, or any intent to troll from me, but them saying they thought it was "forthcoming" means they knew I hadn't done any trolling, and I don't think blocking someone because you think they might be about to troll is allowed. I voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valnet Inc., Google Directory and all those because I agreed. I really did just look for 20 topics where I agreed with the "keep" option after reading through everything written, then was going to look for 20 more options where I agreed with the "delete" option. User:Star Mississippi called my voting "poor !votes"? They were well-thought-out votes. Known Rod (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I concur with Yamla - this is not persuasive. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:57, 28 July 2023 (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.

Repeat copy pasting of per above/per editor are not well-thought-out votes. I'm ignoring the rest as continued poor trolling. You are not a new editor. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Star Mississippi 17:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is if you mean what you say. The points were already made, I could not put it better, so I agreed. I did not say I had never edited before, just that I have not had an account before. Before I was an IP-only editor. I created an account today, and all of a sudden boom, an editor I've never seen or heard before going off like a lead balloon. Known Rod (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]