User talk:FosterHaven

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, FosterHaven. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, FosterHaven. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, FosterHaven. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Seems to be based on something I matched with or close to. I would like to know what "confirmed" the block if anything. Thank you in advance!

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2019 (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.

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

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked indefinitely because an admin used the CheckUser function to prove that I was a sockpuppet of a known block evader named Tyciol. I believe this to be in error because CheckUser doesn't provide the whole picture. What most likely tripped up the system was the similar IP addresses that we shared in addition to the pages we contributed to; we have similar interests, so it's reasonable to think that a block evader would use two accounts in the same geographic location on similar pages. But this is shortsighted. I will attempt to explain why from my perspective, but an anecdote isn't everything. I just want to be heard out. I'll start by saying I've only ever had two accounts on Wikipedia; this is my second. Since Tyciol was first blocked, he's had a number of accounts; Wishfart seems to be his latest. My first account, Dmports, was blocked in 2009 because it violated Wikipedia's rules on advertising and promotion, prompting the administrator Mfield to block it on spamusername grounds. (It was a result of not ever thinking about WP:ONEDAY. I didn't really have a good grasp of reality at the time.) But since I'd made this account, I've had the goal of contributing to Wikipedia in the hopes that I could improve it however possible without getting back into that behavior in any way. I've been reworking citations on pages, even reworking entire articles in some cases, and have been preventing bad contributions from sticking around. Curiosity got me in trouble in 2014 when I decided to log back into Dmports, which then got my IP autoblocked, and I had to explain it to an administrator. Thankfully, he was understanding and let it slide because I'd already learned so much about Wikipedia at that point, that he allowed me to continue editing under this account and disabling the autoblock that was in effect for Dmports (but keeping the standard block for obvious reasons). That event taught me that I should not have made a second account because it constitutes block evasion, and so I've only ever used this one since. I believe I've learned from my mistakes, but fear that my good behavior isn't enough to justify that I'm not an elaborate cover for Tyciol, because one unsuspecting admin who isn't aware of this situation could easily come to the same conclusion Bbb23 did with CheckUser and reblock me. I didn't join Wikipedia to its detriment, and I certainly didn't join to continue the behavior that originally got me blocked in the first place. I've been trying to be in good standing here, but right now that can easily be doubted. One thing I noticed was that Tyciol likes to organize user talk pages, and I don't think I've ever done that; if I have, I certainly haven't done it his way before. I do think there's a sliver of hope though, it just depends on the very function that got me blocked in the first place. CheckUser could prove my innocence if it's used on Dmports and Tyciol, but that's all I can suggest here. I was using Dmports in New Brunswick in 2009, which means I would have had New Brunswick IP addresses. If Tyciol was also in New Brunswick at that time, then CheckUser did spectacular work and I'm absolutely screwed. If Tyciol wasn't, I couldn't have been his sockpuppet and IP disparities would confirm that. Other than that, I feel as though I've learned from my mistakes and am asking to be unblocked because I can still contribute, but it can only go so far and I'm willing to accept consequences if need be. Again, I'm not looking for trouble. I've just wanted to help the project, and there's no way I could undercut it when there's so much else I could be doing with my time, like helping it. I'm hoping an admin will understand.

Accept reason:

I've decided that there is a reasonable possibility that my check resulted in a false positive and that, behaviorally, it is unlikely that you are Tyciol. I have therefore unblocked you. Thank you for your patience. Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to a CheckUser to evaluate this request and will just note that firstly, the tool does more than just compare IP addresses, and secondly, for privacy reasons logs are not kept for ten years. There's no way to tell who used what IP address back in 2009. Huon (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: CU data is retained for 90 days. However, CU logs are available "forever". Thus, for example, if an account was checked nine years ago, it's possible to know what IPs were used (I say "possible" because sometimes the logs aren't always clear). However, the rest of the data is unavailable. Sometimes the log IPs can be helpful, sometimes not. The biggest problem with FosterHaven, though, is not technical, which is compelling, not just to Tyciol but to more recently blocked non-stale socks where I had all the data available to me. FH's behavior has some minor similarities, but mostly it's quite different. I'm not an expert, though, on Tyciol, and it would be helpful if someone more knowledgeable could review FH's behavior and tell me what they think.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Thank you. Looking back at my recent contributions, it seems I was undoing edits too often. I'm wondering if that was a factor in this, because if so I'll try to avoid it from now on. -FosterHaven (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]