User talk:Jarreeeid

June 2019[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2019 (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).

Jarreeeid (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 regular contributor at this wiki, but I heard about the Fram affair and read the page, and since there was no request at the top of the page that only regular contributors are allowed to participate in the discussion, I commented once on June 12, my comment didn't violate community rules and is still there. However, a few hours later user: Ivanvector partially protected the page to newly created accounts with the reason "persistent sock puppetry", which user:Bbb23's check confirms I wasn't at the time. I kept following the page and after two weeks I wanted to comment again but found out the page was protected against newly created accounts. Then I remembered I actually had an old account I used briefly last year, which is not subject to this protection. So I used it to comment again, again this comment wasn't in its content against the rules as you can see and no one claimed otherwise. I wasn't aware of the strict rules this wiki has regarding two accounts participating in the same talk page ever, even though my second comment was made two weeks later after the first was archived long time ago. While choosing to comment under a "red account" clearly signals to everyone that this is not a regular contributor but rather an outside commentator, I understand now that I should have mentioned that I technically had to switch users due to the partial protection. As a non regular contributor I'm not a great loss for this wiki, but as you can see from my contributions, I did make once in a while valuable ones.

Decline reason:

This does not mention your confirmed sockpuppet account, Yoohabina, at all. You will need to discuss that in order for an unblock to be considered. Yamla (talk) 11:51, 29 June 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.

@Yamla: Actually it does mention Yoohabina, though not by name, when they talk about how they commented on Fram (with a link to Yoohabina's edit) and later, after the page was semi-protected, remembered that they already had another account. That said, the Fram comments make me doubt these two accounts are the only ones. June 12 was way before the Fram incident had created any public waves, and it's not that well-published even within Wikipedia. Someone who hadn't edited at all for half a year would have been highly unlikely to have heard of the event within three days. Huon (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(responding to ping) My protection was in response to a known long-term abuse case, unrelated to this user. Personally I don't see any harm in letting this user choose which account they want to use, and blocking the other one so this doesn't happen again. This incident seems pretty innocent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to keep using this account which is older if possible, and not Yoohabina. As for Huon's question, I initially heard about the Fram affair by a comment published in the hebrew wikipedia on june 11. Ivanvector Yamla. Jarreeeid (talk) 07:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You never edited the Hebrew Wikipedia but you happened to follow their "town square" so closely that you saw a behind-the-scenes discussion of Fram, who isn't even mentioned by name and with whom you had never interacted. You thus created a new account (which never went to the Hebrew Wikipedia), figured out where on the English Wikipedia the community discussion about Fram's ban was, a discussion not linked from the Hebrew Wikipedia's town square, and commented there about the importance of a community with which your previous interaction had been limited to a single talk page comment. Did I understand that correctly? Sorry, I don't believe that's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Huon (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{checkuser needed}} These are checkuser blocks, so a checkuser will need to comment before any further unblock consideration. See also Huon's concerns. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector and Huon: it is an extremely common UA on a busy range, so there may be other accounts, but I couldn't say definitively without knowing what I was looking for. The best thing would be to talk to Bbb23 about his block. I agree with the findings that this is Yoohabina, but it looks like they admitted that above. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, I didn't say that I never edited the he wiki, I was a contributor there years ago. I didn't say that I follow their town square "closely". I also didn't say that I never interacted with Fram, though this is actually true. Sometimes, not very often, I still read the he wiki town square to know what's going on there, Obviously finding the main page about the affair was easy, from the link provided there I only needed to click on Fram's name and there was a link to WP:FRAM. It's a very simple explanation, and it happens to be the truth. Ivanvector Yamla Bbb23. Should I use the unblock template again, or there's no point? Jarreeeid (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing here that leads me to believe you should be unblocked, but you are welcome to request another admin review your block (via posting an unblock request). --Yamla (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process[edit]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]