User talk:Eashleyfox
Eashleyfox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
In details issues on the block decline unblock rational:
- disruptive editing — I did not intend for any disruption, I will no longer have disruptive editing and I actually did try really hard not too and did a 99.999% good job on this. The .0001 was not intentional.
- Failure to explain COI — The only COI (Conflict of interest) is that I am detailed about text and being accurate. I am the editor and proofreader on much of the Ted Stamm text and have been for years, unpaid completely, non for profit.
- logged-out editing — This was a misunderstanding, I thought it would be better if I was logged out and now I understand I should be logged in. I will only be logged in, for future edits.
- edit warring — No intentional to be confrontational at all, I tried to keep all communication clear, objective and to the point. Some of the feedback in dialogue was confusing because it made topical inferences in the content topic that were not logistically plausible or with context. This of course could be discussed in length polite talk sessions and explained in a pedagoical environment style to help assist the users to understand the language suggestions.
Eashleyfox (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It seems fairly clear to me that there was logged out editing going on, and, partially because of information I am not allowed to disclose, a COI also strikes me as essentially proven. As such, I am declining this request. You are welcome to review the guide to appealing blocks and make a new unblock request. --Blablubbs (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
Eashleyfox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am writing to appeal to the block. I am genuinely expressing regretful acknowledgement of an offense or failure for the previous mistakes and responding below to each again based on your feedback. # Disruptive editing — After my 1st warning and block, I did correct mostly much of the disruption. The small disruption of a few words, which was immediately regretted and withdrawn. # Failure to explain COI — If writing on a topic and not profiting is a COI violation, then I am in violation without knowing so. If I was a master mind, I have only created one Wikipedia page in 2013 and that took me a long time and many speed bumps. I would only wish to contribute in a smooth non-disruptive method in the future if unblocked. # Logged-out editing — I thought logged out would be safer, this was naive and would not occur again of course now that it is clear that I should do this. Once I was told to be logged in always, I did login very soon after. Of course, in the future I would always be logged in. # Edit warring — I will keep all future communication clear, objective and to the point. # Suggestions: What would you suggest I do to be unblocked, I have admitted all the wrong doing above and stated clearly they would not occur again. Thank you in advance for your time and looking forward to your feedback. Eashleyfox (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Being a Wikipedia editor requires a minimum level of competence in following straightforward instructions. The exchange below suggests that level of competence is lacking here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
Eashleyfox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User:eashleyfox is writing to request an unblock on the "Failure to explain COI" claim. Upon finding on the "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest" page, the WP:CURATOR and Wikipedians in residence WP:GLAMWIKI section that these categories fit the context of the situation outlined below.
- User:eashleyfox is an archivist in an unpaid capacity for the Ted Stamm Archives and the Ted Stamm Catalogue Raisonné. This is online project link, Ted Stamm Catalogue Raisonné Research Project. User:eashleyfox is glad to take part in assisting in contributing to the Stamm Wiki page content, currently the text on the Wiki page is not representative of the Stamm's series of work in a capacity consistent with the actual research and source material on each series. Examples of current research is on each series is here, with all cited reference material on the past page of each pdf: The Dodgers series, the Street Art Designator series and the Chance series for examples. User:eashleyfox would like to assist in improving the accuracy of the content on the Stamm Wiki page. User:eashleyfox is sorry for the time spent on my previous messages and questions. Looking forward to feedback and thank you again.Eashleyfox (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In general, we don't get to cite our own work or link to our own work on Wikipedia. I propose that your interaction with articles with which you are so closely linked be limited to article talk pages. This would mean, for example, an article ban (but not a talk page ban) from Ted Stamm. It is entirely unlikely you will be unblocked without such a concession on your part. I know it must seem unfair; you are, after all, an acknowledged expert in the field. Other editors will be able to guide you through the process. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
Eashleyfox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User:jpgordon Of course, I would never ever cite my own work. Purely, I was sharing the links because I wanted to remove COI tag from the Stamm page and based on the COI page under the WP:CURATOR and WP:GLAMWIKI sections it stated "share their information in the form of links to their resources" on the topic in question. Each of the links I shared has a list of citation references on the last page of each pdf. I would mainly be interested in being a page contributor and on the talk as an expert. As a contributor it would be more efficient and effective. I could also assist in the talk to provide guidance to the contributors to neutral relevant sources and help clarify questions. Currently, the page on Ted Stamm is a shell and needs to be filled in very much. It does seem unfair especially since the WP:CURATOR and WP:GLAMWIKI sections state contributors with said knowledge can directly contribute to build better content. For example Ted Stamm is listed on the the Guggenheim project WP:GUGG and should be list on the GLAM MoMA project Wikipedia:GLAM/MoMA as well, it would be great to contribute from an expert perspective. And link the content and context better. The topics are complex with language, reading materials, source materials and of course I can assist to educate other editors but that is not my goal especially since this is unpaid. I would love to build back better and help contribute. Looking forward to feedback. Eashleyfox (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Decline due to checkuser confirmed block evasion. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
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.
Eashleyfox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
User:jpgordon Of course, I would never ever cite my own work. Purely, I was sharing the links because I wanted to remove COI tag from the Stamm page and based on the COI page under the WP:CURATOR and WP:GLAMWIKI sections it stated "share their information in the form of links to their resources" on the topic in question. Each of the links I shared has a list of citation references on the last page of each pdf. I would mainly be interested in being a page contributor and on the talk as an expert. As a contributor it would be more efficient and effective. I could also assist in the talk to provide guidance to the contributors to neutral relevant sources and help clarify questions. Currently, the page on Ted Stamm is a shell and needs to be filled in very much. It does seem unfair especially since the WP:CURATOR and WP:GLAMWIKI sections state contributors with said knowledge can directly contribute to build better content. For example Ted Stamm is listed on the the Guggenheim project WP:GUGG and should be list on the GLAM MoMA project Wikipedia:GLAM/MoMA as well, it would be great to contribute from an expert perspective. And link the content and context better. The topics are complex with language, reading materials, source materials and of course I can assist to educate other editors but that is not my goal especially since this is unpaid. I would love to build back better and help contribute. Looking forward to feedback. Eashleyfox (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline Close duplicate request. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
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.
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/Eashleyfox, 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.
Vexations (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Eashleyfox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to unblock my account, is there a way to do this? Eashleyfox (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Confirmed block evasion as Danesarehappy. Additionally, you've been so abusive that you are now banned, not just blocked. See WP:BAN. Yamla (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
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.
Eashleyfox (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
How can I request to have my account unbanned? Eashleyfox (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Not an unblock request. Instructions for appealing your ban may be found at WP:BAN. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
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.
User:Vexations How can I request to have my account unbanned? Eashleyfox (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Stop posting duplicate open requests, only one open request is needed. Subsequent comments should be standard, unformatted comments. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- My advice is that you not appeal your ban in the near future. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I have appealed and never heard back. What do you suggest? I wanted to be able to contribute through the talk pages but I can't since I am blocked and banned. Eashleyfox (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I see a number of unblock requests by you that were answered. You have been evading your block very recently using Danesarehappy (talk · contribs) (and then lied about it in your appeal), and it appears that you also convinced (paid?) others ([1][2]) to make edits on your behalf. That is a massive breach of community trust, and your best bet is appealing after at least 6 months of making no edits whatsoever (and not having anyone else to edit on your behalf either). --Blablubbs (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I did wait actually since October approx. 6 months in total already and nothing has moved the appeal process. Then the page was vandalized by an anonymous IP that was blocked recently and the destructive changes were not reverted. I have been very patient but the appeal system is failing. Out of desperation I created the other account and the others just helped out of interest unpaid. Eashleyfox (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I see a number of unblock requests by you that were answered. You have been evading your block very recently using Danesarehappy (talk · contribs) (and then lied about it in your appeal), and it appears that you also convinced (paid?) others ([1][2]) to make edits on your behalf. That is a massive breach of community trust, and your best bet is appealing after at least 6 months of making no edits whatsoever (and not having anyone else to edit on your behalf either). --Blablubbs (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes I have appealed and never heard back. What do you suggest? I wanted to be able to contribute through the talk pages but I can't since I am blocked and banned. Eashleyfox (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
is closed. As your most recent check user confirmed sock is from May 11, you are not eligible for unblocking till six months from now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra When I appeal in 6 months what is the best approach or method? Also I would like my user name to be more unique because this user name is asociated with my identity and I would like a name that is more anonymousness but every time I try to do that it is seen as a socketpuppet even if I just want my user name to be different. --Eashleyfox (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh good grief. Nothing has moved because you keep evading your block. No one is entitled to some sort of automatic unblock. You have never adequately addressed the reasons for your block. You will not be unblocked to edit about Ted Stamm. You will need checkuser approval to be unblocked. You will then need to have your request carried to WP:AN. Potentially, you could do both by emailing the ArbCom. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Deepfriedokra Thank you, should I do the "checkuser" unblock and WP:AN request in 6 months or anything I can do in advance? I am trying to adequately address the reasons for the block. I will not edit the page of course and only use the talk section to assist. Another issue has occurred a few unknown users are attacking the page which is also a pity. Is there a way to change my user name? I really do not like having my private name because I am a teacher and it is not good to have it associated with this process if my students see the talk. --Eashleyfox (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
SPI[edit]
{{SPI case status}} I noticed I was recently accused of being others users and that is not the case. I have not used Wikipedia for a long while. It would appear a consensus of edits are taking place and I have nothing to do with the edits. Eashleyfox (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Here is the case link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Eashleyfox
Blanking[edit]
As per WP:BLANKING, you are not permitted to modify (or remove) declined unblock requests for your currently active block. Do not do so again. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- With due respect, BLANKING refers to whole-scale removal; I advised slight modification specifically to avoid that issue. I do agree that some of the removals were unnecessary (and have left those reverts) but the remainder can be left in the article history without losing any of the intention or explanation behind the unblock. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)