User talk:IHateAccounts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, IHateAccounts! Thank you for your contributions. I am Bradv and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. If you wish to contact me on this page, please use {{Ping|Bradv}} such that I get notified of your request. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! – bradv🍁 03:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: ok fine, yes yes. I was bullied into making an account and I finally gave up so here it is. I'm not really feeling social right now and probably going to go to sleep in a short while. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important notices[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- SummerPhDv2.0 04:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- SummerPhDv2.0 04:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


A cup of coffee for you![edit]

I could use one too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


pronouns[edit]

Not sure if you're aware of this, perhaps you find this helpful: In their preferences, Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal editors can set a value for "How do you prefer to be described?". For example, my preferred pronoun can be used by including {{pronoun|Vexations}} which renders as they. There is a list of related templates at {{pronoun}} you may find useful. Vexations (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of it. Thank you! IHateAccounts (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion, we know the one[edit]

The goal appears to be exceedingly polite to the point of frustration, and provoke others into incivility. I'd honestly just let it die, and if there are attempts to re-insert without consensus to do so, go from there. ValarianB (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ValarianB: Yes, I've pointed out that they're sealioning, per WP:SEALION. Appreciate your thoughts on it! I'm still going to keep an eye on it in case they try to claim that lack of reply means they get to push the BLP-violating material into the page. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ValarianB: @The Four Deuces: Well... they seem to be violating WP:CANVASS now. [1][2][3] IHateAccounts (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

Well then. @GorillaWarfare: could you take a look at the above commenter perhaps? IHateAccounts (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the attack and warned. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retired and vanished. Rather curious situation from beginning to end, this was. ValarianB (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ValarianB: That is weird. Them asking for a rename hid some of their WP:BLP-violating sandbox pattern stuff from easy view by breaking the links. I've requested this one [4] be speedy deleted under G10, I don't know if there are others. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Powell talk page removals/hatting[edit]

Why do you do this: [5] [6] [7]? I don't understand what in that comment has anything to do with what is written at WP:FORUM, and also I don't understand why you take it upon yourself to repeatedly remove/hat it? Does the IP not have a say? Do I not have a say? Are you in charge of who can say what on this talk page? I don't understand your thinking on this. Levivich harass/hound 19:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I think IHA got the wrong idea from this hatting I did on Talk:QAnon. I was trying to explain the talk page guidelines to them.
@IHA: It's important that you recognize there are two kinds of roles: editors and admins. Editors contribute to the conversation while Admins (and some non-admins like myself) can close them. Admins are also generally the ones to make rulings on WP:FORUM material (assuming they are not WP:INVOLVED) and remove offending comments. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Setting time aside to talk[edit]

Just wondering if you were able to do that today or tomorrow? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Powell[edit]

I saw your crucial input on the Sidney Powell article and talk page. My news organization is looking to speak with a few Wikipedians anonymously about their thoughts and interpretations on this person for a story that covers current events like this alongside the birthday of Wikipedia and how wikipedians shape the discussion and shed light on the facts. Do you have a few minutes to spare over email to talk about your perspectives? Thanks very much. I look forward to hearing back from you. Kombucha Morning (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie?[edit]

I think this has gone on long enough and CatCafe has trended into sealioning.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Unless I'm mistaken you're a (less than 3 month) Newbie with the sophisticated wiki skills to post a warning on my page[8] and to lecture other editors. Are you really a newbie? I note that editor MJL is coaching, or "still working on" you as they put it[9] and "setting time aside to talk" to you personally[10]? Are you being coached by other editors as a puppet? And due to your WP skillset, have you really only been a WP editor for 3 months? CatCafe (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is unnecessarily antagonistic. It's also bizarre that you would suggest most people can't figure out a simple warning template within three months. Perhaps it would be better to heed the warning (and take it how I imagine it was intended: as a notice that you've breached 3RR) than make unsupported accusations against the editors you're in conflict with. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And same to you, I suggest you also stop the antagonism. And thank's for not answering the questions. CatCafe (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CatCafe: I have a Mentor and I enabled Twinkle, which has a function to automate (all I had to do was select the dropdown for "single-issue warnings" and 3RR was the first template option there). Thanks for your concerns, maybe you should stop edit warring and engaging in various violations of WP policy? IHateAccounts (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CatCafe: Why would I answer the questions you asked of IHA? If you have any questions for me that you would like me to answer, ask away, but I'm not IHA and I don't presume to speak for them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: you're seriously getting your wires crossed and please back off the antagonism as no-one was referring to you. I was talking about the skillset of IHA in posting a warning my talkpage.[11] Please take a breather and get your facts straight.CatCafe (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CatCafe: again, Wikipedia:Twinkle. Also, your unfounded accusing GW of antagonism is headed deep into DARVO territory. Not good. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK well I retract ,plus it would also have been nice if you retracted your personal insults of me when I asked.CatCafe (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I did not make any personal insults, I don't believe that's an issue. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find you said "It appears CatCafe is determined to edit-war misgendering into the article".[12] See it was your insults that aggravated the issue. So you're OK with other's accusing you of misgendering or similar insults? CatCafe (talk)
There isn't an eyeroll emoji large enough to express my reaction to your misrepresentation of the talk page, and attempting to blame others for your behavior. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, avoiding answering the question again. Not surprised. Anyway, I'm off that page now, and hopefully immune from any further personal insults. Good luck Newbie - and find some solid cites to support your position - that's what we do at WP. Not doing so causes conflict. CatCafe (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CatCafe: regarding this, I don't particularly understand why you are committed to having this conversation at IHateAccounts's talk page rather than your own.
Regardless, I highly encourage you to reconsider your current actions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy 20th anniversary![edit]

Celebration~!
Wikipedia will only ever turn 20 once! Hope you are doing well and have a prosperous onwiki experience in the future.
–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marge[edit]

Just a heads up, I have created Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene/FAQ. So next time a brand new editor or IP pops up on the talk page complaining about "bias", you can direct them to the FAQ and end the discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I think that looks good, thanks for the notification! :) IHateAccounts (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to AN/I[edit]

Jleel seems pretty ripe for an AN/I report. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: I reported them to WP:AIV previously today? IHateAccounts (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC duration on the reliable sources noticeboard[edit]

Hi IHateAccounts, I noticed your edit summary in Special:Diff/1001629073, and wanted to clarify a couple of things. A May 2020 RfC (WP:RSNRFC) abbreviated the default minimum duration of source evaluation RfCs on the reliable sources noticeboard to 7 days. The {{RSN RfC}} template inserts a hidden timestamp in the discussion that defaults to 2 days after the RfC was started; combined with the 5-day archive duration in the User:MiszaBot/config template at the top of the noticeboard, this prevents the RfC from being automatically archived in its first 7 days. Lowercase sigmabot III only archives a discussion on the noticeboard after it receives no new comments in 5 days, so RfCs on the noticeboard almost always run for longer than 7 days.

While Legobot automatically delists RfCs after 30 days, the 30-day duration is not a hard requirement. WP:CLOSE states: "Other processes, especially Requests for Comments (RfCs), have typical lengths but no mandatory minimum. It is unusual for anyone to request a formal closure by an uninvolved editor unless the discussion has been open for at least one week." When the consensus is overwhelming, an RfC can be closed in fewer than 7 days by invoking the snowball clause. RfCs can also be extended past 30 days when they receive too little participation, to solicit feedback from more editors.

Before WP:RSNRFC, RfCs on the reliable sources noticeboard were indefinitely pinned with {{Pin section}}, and not archived until they were formally closed. This led to complaints that there were too many RfCs on the noticeboard. The abbreviated RfC duration reduced the number of RfCs on the noticeboard by allowing the inactive ones to be cleared out, which also reduced the number of complaints. Because the 7-day duration is much better-received than the old 30-day duration, I tag active RfCs on the noticeboard with the {{RSN RfC}} template to ensure that they are not kept on the noticeboard longer than they need to be. I've tried to document some of these practices at WP:RSNPATROL to allow others to take over noticeboard maintenance in the event that I am unavailable. Hopefully, this clears some things up. — Newslinger talk 12:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: that seems... unfortunate. Given what I've already seen where getting actual closure on RFCs is taking far longer than it should (submit a request at WP:AN/RFC, wait well over a week or two...), and watching RFC's get archived off by badly programmed and overly aggressive bots without closure, I think this needs changing. As absurd as it sounds, if that takes another RFC, I'll submit one. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what the noticeboard looked like one year ago. Some editors were unhappy to see 7 indefinitely pinned RfCs at the top of the noticeboard, and the abbreviated duration in WP:RSNRFC was the compromise that made RfCs more palatable. The last thing anyone wants to deal with is an RfC like this, which was time-consuming and exhausting, and resulted in no changes. Reversing the changes in WP:RSNRFC would, in my opinion, destabilize discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard by upsetting the editors who do not want to see stale RfCs piling up on the noticeboard. It is common for RfCs to be closed weeks or months after being listed on the requests for closure noticeboard, and for the RfCs to be automatically archived prior to closure. I wouldn't be too concerned about that part. If you would like to speed up the closure of these RfCs, the most effective way to help is to perform closures of RfCs in other topic areas (for which you are uninvolved) on WP:RFCL. — Newslinger talk 12:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger: respectfully, the solution to "Some editors were unhappy to see 7 indefinitely pinned RfCs at the top of the noticeboard" ought to have been to get RFC's closed properly, rather than institute a frustrating system that nobody new coming in could possibly know about. What wikipedia implemented here is a hack, not a solution. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SkepticAnonymous, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

gnu57 09:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021[edit]

For admins that are patrolling: while checkuser data informed this block, it is not a checkuser block. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Wait, I thought you weren't confident the two were related? I had more evidence for why I felt the two were different.. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following Guerillero's initial determination of "Likely," additional behavioral indicators were provided [13]. Presumably the additional indicators were sufficient to crystalize certainty. It did for me, anyway. This seems like a good block. Chetsford (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: I'm not familiar with the procedures and guidelines around user blocks, but I am surprised that this has proceeded so quickly and without much discussion, especially given the hesitation expressed on the SPI page and the small amount and seemingly poor quality of evidence against IHA. Is there a measure in place for third-party comments on block appeals? Unless there's damning private evidence, I have a very hard time believing that these two accounts could belong to the same person, and if it would make a difference I'd be more than willing to spell out why. (@IHateAccounts: I hope that my commenting here is not unwelcome. If it is, I'll stay out of this.)Srey Srostalk 03:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SreySros and MJL: (edit conflict) I suggest that you both email either Guerillero or the CU team at checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org with your evidence. From a cursory glance at the SPI, it seems like there was some uncertainty wrt the behavioral evidence presented. I’m sure any additional evidence to show would be appreciated by the functionaries. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2021 (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).

IHateAccounts (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. It's that simple. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The behavioral evidence presented at the SPI, combined with the technical match, leave little room for doubt. Everything from the way you react to conflict to even more subtle editing manners (such as italicizing quotes and inserting unformatted links on talk pages, see [14] [15]) only convince me even more. I don't feel comfortable unblocking at this time. Sro23 (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2021 (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.

I'd really hate to drag DoRD out of semi retirement, but his opinion on this matter would be invaluable. He seemed to be somewhat of an expert when it came to identifying SkepticAnonymous socks. Sro23 (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's unfortunate. I'm sorry to see that your unblock request was unsuccesful. I can imagine that you're pretty cheesed off at Wikipedia at the moment, and I can certainly understand why. If you do decide that you'd like to continue editing, I highly recommend that you consider taking the standard offer. I also highly recommend trying to keep your cool when things get heated. Sometimes stepping away and doing something other than editing really helps to put things in perspective and helps one realize that this absurd little encyclopedia is hardly worth getting worked up over. If you do decide to take my advice (and I truly hope that you do), there are numerous other editors here that want you to succeed and help build up the encyclopedia, myself included. OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Elizium23 (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: Per their user page, IHateAccounts uses they/them pronouns. Srey Srostalk 06:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Elizium23 (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: Believing a user to be a sockpuppet is no reason to misgender them. It would probably be best to edit your original comment. Srey Srostalk 06:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is disappointing to see. I'll admit I'm a little confused at the reasoning behind the block, Guerillero. I haven't run a check myself (and won't, because I consider myself to be involved with respect to IHA), but from the outside looking in it sounds like the checkuser evidence didn't rule out a connection between IHA and SA, but also didn't really contribute towards the decision that they were one and the same, either. (Though I have asked for clarification at the SPI since this comment may supersede the statement that this isn't a checkuser block.) So that leaves me to assume that the block was based solely (or almost solely) on behavioral evidence, and I'm not seeing any sort of smoking gun here. I won't pretend I'm an expert in SA's behavior, but the link here appears to be fairly strong left-leaning beliefs, a distaste for the right-wing, and somewhat heavy-handed reversion of posts on their talk pages. This seems enormously broad to me, especially when combined with MJL's analysis. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, I am of a mind to unblock here. I respect your CU, but having just finished an in-depth check myself, I think the finding may not be as strong as you think. The UA and ISP are very common, and I think some of the other details just don't add up. IHA has edited for long enough that if they were a sock I would expect a more glaring lapse, but I don't see it in the CU data or their behavior. The behavioral evidence does it for me: IHA's stated positions and word use just do not line up with the often very nasty language used by SA. SA's use of various slurs and their rather un-lefty positions on gender seem in stark contrast to IHA. Having seen other users pretend to be queer leftists, they usually have a hard time keeping up the front, as they lack the lived experience. But IHA is pretty convincing to me. Plus, IHA has shown they are willing to be a positive contributor and have worked with a mentor. As GW points out, we have no shortage of strong willed leftists that are kind of angry, I think that is not strong enough evidence to link them. Full disclosure, MJL asked me to take a look because they were concerned CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If all "strong willed leftists that are kind of angry" are socks of SA, I'll expect my block to arrive soon Just wanted to say I particularly agree with Having seen other users pretend to be queer leftists, they usually have a hard time keeping up the front, as they lack the lived experience. I have not had any impression that IHA is faking this, and I agree it's not an easy thing to fake if one edits in those topic areas or discusses their identity any substantial amount (and IHA has done both). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: As Sro23 noted on the SPI page, the IP editor who made the comment about deadnaming was found not to be a sock of SkepticAnonymous. Cheers, gnu57 19:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: Not sure how those views are relevant. The editors who have faked to be queer leftists (ModerateMikayla555 comes to mind) have been right-wing editors who have done that because they wanted to avoid detection or to troll. SkepticAnonymous, on the other hand, was pro-LGBT editing the Chick-A-fil same-sex marriage controversy back in 2012. There is no inconsistency in their views, as I stated in the SPI too, other than perhaps calling someone "aspie".--Pudeo (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[16] Just leaving this here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In the rationale for declining the unblock request, Sro23 pointed to these edits [17] [18] by IHateAccounts and Morty C-137, and mentioned their habit of italicizing quotes. If I understand correctly, Sro23 provided this as a piece of behavioral evidence that IHateAccounts and Morty C-137 are sockpuppets. But edits like these are actually evidence that they are NOT sockpuppets. Yes, both users have particular formatting habits, but their habits are significantly different. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Details: Let's look at how exactly IHateAccounts and Morty C-137 format quotes.
  • IHateAccounts consistently keeps the double quotes inside the formatting, i.e. ''"quote"'' (as can be seen here, here, here, and probably many other edits).
  • Morty C-137 usually keeps the double quotes outside the formatting, i.e. "''quote''" (as can be seen here, here, here, here, and probably many other edits), but not always (as can be seen here).
Both seem to be picky with their formatting. (IHateAccounts probably more so than Morty C-137.) They both stick to their chosen style. But they chose different styles. To me (a fellow picky person) this looks very much like they are two different people.
In conclusion: This piece of alleged behavioral evidence is flawed. I'm new to this investigation. I'm sure the users involved worked diligently and in good faith, but we all make mistakes. And I don't know anything about the technical evidence. But if it is similarly weak and ultimately flawed as this bit, I'd say the investigation should be reopened and IHateAccounts should be unblocked.
P.S.: Just like IHateAccounts and Morty C-137, I almost always italicize quotes. (I use the same style as IHateAccounts – I want the double quotes to be italicized. It just looks better. But I'm not a sockpuppet of IHateAccounts!) I'm picky with such things, and that's why immediately noticed that the edits provided by Sro23 are different in this regard. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be blocking users if the evidence is not beyond reasonable doubt. If IHA's editing is disruptive then they should be sanctioned, rather than be indefinitely blocked based on limited circumstantial evidence. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia, While I think IHA should be unblocked, I do note that our standard on Wikipedia is probably more analogous to a preponderance of the evidence (used in civil cases) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt (very high standard, criminal cases). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hate that that's our standard. If someone is contributing productively, why do we care SO MUCH that they might be a sock that we're willing to throw away a currently-good contributor for a preponderance of the evidence, especially when (as I understand it, which is likely iffy) we don't allow people the opportunity to prove they aren't socks. (That said, IHA, if you are a sock: admit it, apologize, and there's a fair chance we can move on. If it's true, it's more likely you'll eventually get unblocked if you come clean.) —valereee (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

On advice, I am writing this second request. I am not a sockpuppet. I believe my contributions to wikipedia have been positive, and I try to work on talk pages first if I believe something is controversial or could use help in determining wording to be included in an article. I believe I have given extra effort well beyond what was required, time and again, to show good faith. If there are questions to be asked of me, please respect that it will probably take me a while to reply, as this ordeal and the on-wikipedia and off-wikipedia messages I have received due to it have affected both my physical and mental well-being.

Decline reason:

Thank you for your patience and I apologize for the delay in processing this request. Please be assured it has been thoroughly and carefully reviewed. While there is an outstanding question (below), I am closing this unblock request now on the basis of information received from an editor you’ve previously self-identified as your mentor indicating that you are no longer editing Wikipedia. You continue to enjoy Talk page access on this account so, if this information is incorrect, you may file a new unblock request at any time.

Since this account is a sockpuppet of SkepticAnonymous, it cannot be unblocked. Per WP:SOCKBLOCK, you must register your unblock request through your master account. For that reason, I regret that I am required to decline this request.

Though you are not currently able to edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to continue to participate in the Wikipedia project as a non-editing reader. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia! Chetsford (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2021 (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.

  • Note to patrolling admins. Please be sure to review all the conversation above and here before deciding on this unblock request. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Thank you for your willingness to consider questions and I regret this process has created real-life stress. IHateAccounts, do you have a relationship with the owner of IMadeThisStupidAccount (renamed to 6YearsTilRetirement) — that might cause editors to wrongly assume both accounts are controlled by the same individual — the existence of which you'd like to voluntarily disclose prior to action being taken on this unblock request? For example, sometimes flatmates, acquaintances, or persons who come to know each other through editthons might be mistaken as sockpuppets. (If you choose to respond, please don't disclose personally identifiable information.) I hope this message finds you well and remember that WP is not worth letting real-life stress invade your life over. Chetsford (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Chetsford: I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your rationale for declining (which is not to say that I disagree with declining an unblock, just that I have issues with this particular decline). You're declining based on what appears to be off-wiki discussion with a third party rather than discussion with the blockee, and frankly I do not think that's okay. I'm pretty confident I know who you talked to and I'm pretty sure I know what they said, but someone else telling you off-wiki that a blocked editor doesn't plan to come back should not be sufficient to decline an unblock. Also, given that they're pretty clearly arguing that they aren't a sock, the standard "you're a sock, go request an unblock from your main account." Given all of the fuss surrounding this block, I will be reviewing it in my role as an SPI clerk in the next few days, and I hope to have a good answer for everyone then. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GeneralNotability - I apologize if I expressed myself imperfectly. To be clear, the only reason I declined the unblock was due to WP:SOCKBLOCK, namely, that it was not made from the master account; there was no other reason behind my decline other than that.
"You're declining based on what appears to be off-wiki discussion with a third party rather than discussion with the blockee, and frankly I do not think that's okay. " The discussion with the third party, which occurred on-Wiki and not off-Wiki, only made me decide to close the request today (rather than wait several days to give the blockee an opportunity to first respond to the above question). It had no effect on the decision to decline, only on the timing of the decline. I declined it only because it was not made from the master account and for no other reason.
"Also, given that they're pretty clearly arguing that they aren't a sock, the standard "you're a sock, go request an unblock from your main account."" I would disagree that merely repeating "I'm not a sock" constitutes an argument, or at least one that requires a point-by-point rebuttal. The evidence is so clear and overwhelming that to torture the editor with a further dissection of the case seemed, to me, to be callous and unnecessary particularly given the problems with their "mental well-being" they've reported as having encountered over this. It would be presumptive of me to assume such claims were merely manipulations and I think we should err on the side of caution with respect to the wellbeing of editors, even those editors who are blocked, and not draw these cases out interminably when the outcome is clear. Again, I apologize if I didn't express myself well. Chetsford (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford, thanks, I wasn't aware of that sidebar on the SPI's talk page, so strike what I said about off-wiki. And my apologies to you - re-reading that a day later, my comment has an annoyed tone to it that I didn't intend. I'll still be doing a full behavioral workup on this SPI since it seems to be more than a little contentious and I'd like to put this to rest. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability - there's no need to apologize, I read no annoyed tone in your comment at all. I should apologize for being a little verbose in my reply, which was intended to disambiguate any vagueness in my original comment but could have unintentionally come off as preachy. Thanks again for your work on this. Chetsford (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

No actually don't bother. You can harass me, you can lie about me, you can attack me, you can doxx me, your Arbcom can give my email away so that your abusers can send harassing messages to my email telling me to kill myself...and I'm 100% sure that they did it deliberately. I won't be taking their "advice" to kill myself, and I certainly won't trust your nonresponsive "trust and safety" team nor the abusers at your arbcom with anything. Creating an account was the worst experience of my life, and I now fully understand how you generate people who are willing to vandalize wikipedia, because with as little good faith as you show and the level of harassment you throw at LGBT individuals, wikipedia doesn't deserve to exist. Especially when abusers and worse like Chetsford are applauded and encouraged to harass and doxx and attack.

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:13, 9 March 2021 (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.

@CaptainEek: I want it noted I hold you personally responsible for the mass of email harassment I received over the past month, and the complete not giving a fuck of your so-called "trust and safety" team. Goodbye. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC) @Valereee: no, I'm not a sock, no matter what liars and serial harassers claim. I'm just one more abused LGBT person who's gotten the wrong end of wikipedia's culture of abuse, which really made it fucking laughable when I saw that wikipedia supposedly now has a new "conduct" standard even while I'm getting emails telling me to kill myself thanks to arbcom revealing an email address to someone. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr. Michael Roizen" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dr. Michael Roizen. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 23#Dr. Michael Roizen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. jp×g 02:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IHateAccounts&oldid=1048427019"