User talk:Mopswade/Archive 18

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Block

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for allegedly abusing multiple accounts. A few things 1. SOCK policy refers to misuse and abuse of multiple accounts only.

a. The two accounts had no overlap at all in terms of editing (except one minor edit within the first 20 edits of the other account), including articles, drafts, all AfDs/any other deletions, (user)talk pages etc.

b. The SPI notes the redirects I create. Yes, it is true that I had [some of my https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_23&diff=prev&oldid=952664996 redirects listed at RfD by Cabayi] and got a warning for wasting their time, there was no other concern with any other page I created, nor were there any evasion by using a second account nor were there any other issues with helpful, legitimate, and policy conforming redirects or creations in general. Redirects created from the other account were endorsed and unquestioned by others.

c. The SPI rightly notes that I have an interest in China related topics. At the same time, the other account has never been used to create any form of content whatsoever; its purpose is limited strictly to anti-vandalism, associated warnings, new page patrolling, redirecting, and user creation patrolling (and associated, albeit limited, welcomes), and other general maintenance (tagging etc.)

d. In essence, there was no abusive or illegitimate use of multiple accounts, which were there for legitimate purposes, nor was there any disruptive editing. Other points mentioned on the SPI such as welcoming one's self, having a eccentric zhwiki user page and using twinkle shouldn't be a problem.

2. Blocking policy on Wikipedia explicitly states that blocks are preventive, not punitive. They are there to prevent disruption.

a.Under this case there doesn't seem to be any disruption.

b.Nor any other breach of policy, whether under the sock policy or other policies.

if there are any further concerns do let me know, I am happy to answer any further questions that may arise. Mopswade (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Splitting contributions, especially at administrative noticeboards means anyone reviewing your edits with the two accounts won't get the full picture, in violation of WP:SCRUTINY. This expands to the fact that you are doing the same things (creating redirects, editing China related topics on both accounts) in the same areas as the other account. If you applied for say a permission like rollback with your anti-vandal work, then we can't see the full picture of your editing history. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:24, 27 April 2020 (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.