User talk:Beefcakeyt

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Beefcakeyt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm L293D. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to The Dillinger Escape Plan— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. 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/Beefcakeyt, 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. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beefcakeyt. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 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).

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

Request reason:

I attend a university where the IP address is shared amongst multiple users. I am not the host/owner of the accounts in question. The people who own those accounts are not editing the article in question because of any influence by me. Their decision to edit the article was not made by me, but them. They have minds of their own and I did not decide whether or not they make an account, edit the page, etc. Please see the submitted appeal for more details. I would also like to point out that the above statement shows I had no purposeful personal influence on these users, which should clear the suspicion of meatpuppetry. If I am unblocked, I will part ways with the article in question and make myself more useful on other pages, avoid conflict whatsoever, and be nothing but a positive impact in the Wikipedia community. Apologies to staff for the inconvenience. Also, can you advise me how I can better address the situation next time? The user who submitted the report has stopped making constructive and helpful statements on the talk page ever since the page was protected, and is now just reverting any changes that aren't his without responding to the discussion. Being met with no resistance, multiple users felt it was appropriate to edit the article since their opinions on the matter were not challenged or questioned. I feel as if the details of my block have been vastly overlooked, or rather 'assumed' by the user who reported me and the admins. Though there is evidence support my block, it is not concrete, and I can prove myself innocent through many methods if given an option to personally direct message/email the staff member in charge of this case. If not necessary, I would like the opportunity to make myself useful on the site anywhere but the page in question. Beefcakeyt (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After looking at the timeline, I'm inclined to believe that this was indeed either coordinated activities or is the same person. Either way, there was more intent than has been owned here. Rabbitgears was created one minute after you made this edit and were in an edit war. They jumped right in. I think that the standard offer applies.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2018 (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.

unblock discussion[edit]

I'm pretty easily taken in by explanations most of the time. Here I'm incredulous at the lack of ability to hold water. The evidence against is pretty compelling. I cannot unblock you at this time. My advice is to list all accounts you have been using or coordinating edits with. Address the concerns with the behavior that led to the socking. Wait 6 months. Abstain from editing for six months. Apply for the WP:standard offer. Leaving it open for further review and discussion.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Accounts that are personally mine: beefcakeYT Accounts that people I know own: RabbitGears

That is all I know. I apologize if you feel I do not own up to my mistakes. The only reason my statement is written as such is because this was not done on my terms or discretion. I have also not been 'coordinating edits' with anyone. RabbitGears (and whoever else may know of the situation, there was another account mentioned but I'm unclear as to who is behind it) are/is people/someone I know, but have not purposefully been influenced by me. I want to be clear in stating that I am apologizing for the inconvenience of staff and unintentionally starting trouble, but seeing as this issue was unintentional and not a doing I commanded of other users, I will not hold responsibility for their actions. On top of that, their actions don't break the guidelines, all they did was edit the page like DannyMusicEditor and all the rest were doing. I can fully admit to taking part in an edit war, and apologize for that, but others actions do not reflect that of my own, and what's most important to note is that I am not the creator of any of these accounts. I plea both innocent of guilty of the meatpuppetry claim, seeing that it wouldn't have started if not for me, but was not an independent doing.

I want to formally state that I, beefcakeYT, promise to not partake in sockpuppetry OR meatpuppetry, and be fully aware of the Wikipedia guidelines going forward. I also would like to state that I promise to avoid conflict as best as possible on Wikipedia going forward, and will only edit things once. If reverted, I will seek a resolution ONLY on the talk page until the issue is fully resolved by either the community or a staff member. I seek to help the community, not harm it, and now that I know how far a single users reach is, I will use my editing power more responsibly.

If Wikipedia staff does not find my statement either compelling or in coordination with their request to address the alleged sock/meatpuppetry I'd be happy to form another statement. I will await Dlohcirekim's reply in hopes for a lesser punishment, seeing as I only mean well in the Wikipedia community and will leave the article behind going forward. I will take measures after the unblock is lifted (whether it be today or 6 months from now) with staff directly to make sure such a mix-up never occurs again. Rabbitgears is also innocent. If I am being accused of meatpuppetry, I'd rather take that full punishment than someone who is new and was just try to support both of our beliefs in a format they felt was innocent. I am not sure who the third account mentioned is so feel free to keep that blocked unless they come forward to staff.

I would like to leave the discussion open following the next staff response, or have the opportunity to privately message them to counter any of the compelling evidence against me. I hope my statement speaks well of my intentions, but I want to be as honest as possible in my personal beliefs regarding the situation. If my opinions/beliefs are considered wrong or unproductive, I will take my punishment as is and start anew six months from now, but I'd rather prove myself a productive member of the community going forward as soon as possible. Apologies for the inconvenience.

Additional note: @RabbitGears: has informed me, as I finish writing this, that they have been blocked and have written on their talk page as well. Beefcakeyt (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more note: On the WP:standard offer article, it states that you must provide a reason as to why you feel you should be unblocked. I might as well do that now. I know for certain I can be, and have been (before the The Dillinger Escape Plan controversy) a constructive member of the Wikipedia community regarding music-related articles. I will stray far from conflict, as stated above, and will only make edits that are informative, insightful, correct and non-opinion based (such as the genre of a band).

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #21099 was submitted on Apr 05, 2018 15:58:05. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. I can understand this. I also edit at a University about half the time, and often new editors or IPs from here can result in unintentional meatpuppetry. Would endorse unblocking, but can't do it myself. This, however, also doesn't excuse your edit warring; I think a reduction in sentence would be warranted for you in particular, an unblock would not be. I've also left a message on Rabbit's page. I'm not an admin, but I'll say what I can since I was involved. dannymusiceditor ^oops 19:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor: I appreciate the empathy. I would also like to point out that, though it may have been unintentional meatpuppetry, there was only 1 user involved because of me (RabbitGears). The other user was not influenced on my behalf. I didn't know that was RabbitGears's roommate, never even spoken to them more than once or twice. So if influencing one single other person still counts as meatpuppetry, my apology still stands, but I would like to make clear that it was 1) unintentional, and 2) only involved one person, not multiple. Though I continue to discuss, I'm not sure if this case is going to be shown any further leniency, so you don't have to defend me in any sort of way going forward if you don't want to @DannyMusicEditor:.