User talk:Paperpencils

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Paperpencils. You have new messages at Moosehadley's talk page.
Message added 17:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Moosehadley 17:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent AfD votes[edit]

Hey there,

Looking at some of your recent AfD votes, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as several of the type of votes you are making are mentioned in here. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I'm a new user. I'll read it. Should I revert my previous recommendations then?

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting an unblock because the reasons for which the block was effected are no longer operative. The issue regarding multiple accounts was due to a legitimate intent to keep edits separate by time and subject. Desktopx5 was used to make adjustments to the film page. Paperpencils was used as a clean account for MERGE and AFD-related discussions so that no retaliation would be made to the film page in an uncivil debate. Paperpencils1 was created because I was unable to log in. The username Marian1981 shares the flat and IP. Not knowing the rules, Marian1981 was asked to comment on the AFD since he created the initial article. I acknowledge the violation of the following rules, in Wikipedia terminology: WP:CAN and WP:MEAT. Those rules were violated due to a lack of awareness of the Wikipedia rules. There was no questionable intent on my part. Apologies for the violations. For the record, your work in keeping Wikipedia clean and professional are admirable, and we should all do our best in this regard.

Decline reason:

I agree with Bbb23. The meat and sockpuppetry going on here is in clear violations of our rules from an account that has provided not a lot of contributions outside of the matter at hand. I agree that a WP:Standard offer could apply here 6 months down the road. only (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2015 (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.

The timing of this unblock request is interesting as it comes on the heels of my CU-blocking a sock account created today, CheckSpeare (talk · contribs). Must be a very crowded flat.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- I saw from your actions that that was in violation of WP:BE, and that’s why I am requesting the unblock at this time. I'm new to Wikipedia and I have never violated a rule after having been notified of it. Is there any way I can provide you with greater comfort that these violations won't be repeated? Paperpencils (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Paperpencils[reply]
- Also, BBB23, I should add that CheckSpeare was not a sock. He was under my influence but not a sock. And if I was willing to wittingly violate your rules, I would've created a sock account, because my IP address ban expired already. I haven't used any alternative accounts since you blocked me.Paperpencils (talk)Paperpencils
- To answer your question, there are two people in this flat. Marian was a WP:MEAT or a WP:CAN violation. And he didn’t do much to back up my point in the AFD. Quite the contrary, actually. The alternate accounts were desktopx5 and Paperpencils1. Neither of those accounts were ever used for deception. The violation was canvassing, and in fact, after taken to ask for canvassing in the AFD, there was never any canvassing done after that. You can check my history, the AFD in question, and any AFD on any place in Wikipedia.
  - Under your influence? I don't even know what that means, but the technical evidence indicates that the Paperpencils account and the CheckSpeare account are the same person. Even if I were to assume that you were using CheckSpeare as meat, how would such a claim persuade me that you deserve a second chance? Meat puppetry is prohibited along with sock puppetry. In any event the only way you could possibly be allowed to edit at Wikipedia is (1) to wait six months and (2) come cleaner than you have in disclosing alternate accounts, meat, whatever. As of now, I would not recommend an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for full disclosure, to recap: Marian1981 (asked him to chip in, ineffective MEAT), Desktopx5 (alternate account, NOT used for deception or disruption), Paperpencils1 (alternative account, NOT used for disruption or deception), Checkspeare (asked as a favor to make a redirect).

As for persuading you, it's not so much a matter of persuading you to unblock me but of knowing that if I am to be blocked, then I should be blocked for the right reasons. I love Wikipedia and the Wiki community, though I am admittedly a novice user.

Actually, let's not drag this out. I know what the violations were. They weren't made with bad intentions, and I've done some good work for Wikipedia too. I also know that six-month bans are typical. I wish you'd look beyond the "letter of the law" and take into account "the spirit of the law," but to you I'm an anonymous troublemaker, a bunch of lines on a screen.

If you could change my ban from "indef" to one-month or two or whatever you want, that would help me feel more at ease. It's a weird feeling to be on bad terms with admins of the website that I visit the most, and the "indefinite" aspect of it is hurtful and punitive.

As I understand your claims, there are three different people. One is you and you used three accounts, this one, Paperpencil1 and Desktopx5. The other is a flatmate, Marian1981, and the last is whoever CheckSpeare supposedly is. You have two requests. The first is to change the basis of the block because it supposedly unfairly stigmatizes you. According to you, you're not malicious; you're a good person who just happened to break many rules. The second is to change the block from indefinite to one-two months because "indefinite" is "hurtful and punitive". I would not recommend granting either of your requests. You can still visit Wikipedia; you just can't edit. And I don't reduce block lengths for these kinds of repeated violations. At best, you may be unblocked in the future, but, as I said, this is way to early to consider that. This will probably be my last comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbb23, I have a question. I saw this earlier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Scope_and_reciprocity Does that apply to me? I thought it did and went ahead and made some edits on Wikisource, so just making sure...Paperpencils (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Paperpencils[reply]

You haven't been banned; you've been blocked. If you had been banned, as the policy states, it would apply only to Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BBB23, I want to become a Wikipedia user of good standing again in the future. In the standard offer, it says that it's best if someone makes the best of their Wikipedia block in order to help out the other WMF-related sites, as opposed to sitting and waiting.

I got the idea that a block is a technical means to enforce the ban. It says on WP:Block that "Blocking is different from banning, a formal retraction of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. Blocks disable a user's ability to edit pages; bans do not." The way I see it, a block is a way to technically enforce a ban. I thought that the proof of that was that I'm technically not prohibited from editing Wikisource. I'm not "global-blocked." The policy doesn't state that a block is wider than a ban. If anything, it sounds like the opposite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Difference_between_bans_and_blocks). A block simply a way to enforce the ban. Would it be possible for you to check with your colleagues on this distinction?

I have a lot to offer, and I want to make it up to WMF. I thought that's part of the point of the block. The poem I translated was the first public-domain English language version available in the history of the internet. It took work and effort to do. Note: I just saw now that my edits are still there. I thought that you had deleted them at first. Paperpencils (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Paperpencils[reply]

I really don't understand what it is you want. You're not banned. Your account is not globally locked. You can edit on other Wikipedia projects. As for teaching you the distinctions between bans and blocks, I don't see why that's necessary or why I should spend my time doing it as it sounds more academic than relevant to anything you are doing or want to do in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I am requesting to be unblocked under WP:STANDARD. A block was placed in April of 2015, over two years ago. In the time since then, I have tried to make it up to the Wiki project by translating poetry on Wikisource from the greatest Spanish language poets into English, so that translated works of these literary giants could be in the public domain for the first time. I have translated the entire book Los heraldos negros by César Vallejo as well as many poems by Antonio Machado. I also have translated several poems by Federico García Lorca, but I was not allowed to post them as his poems are still under copyright in the United States, although not in the rest of the world. These poems were consequently removed. I hope that this effort will prove to Wikipedia that I am serious about the integrity of the website and that the actions that led to the blocking are a matter of the past. If unblocked, I plan to improve the pages of Antonio Machado and César Vallejo, which are woefully lacking in the English Wikipedia, considering the importance of these poets. César Vallejo does not even have a page for Los heraldos negros in the English Wikipedia.

Accept reason:

Having reviewed, and consulted upon, your appeal I have decided to unblock you because I think that the Project will benefit from your contributions. Happy editing! Just Chilling (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo and Bbb23: FYI —User:DoRD (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo, Bbb23, and DoRD: If there is no evidence of subsequent socking and no strong CU objection then I am prepared to AGF and unblock. Just Chilling (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Chilling: Thank you for unblocking me! Would it be possible to have unblocked one of the associated accounts (i.e. one of the other accounts blocked originally). The username is Marian1981. What I mean is, can you retire or even block PaperPencils and restore access for Marian1981 instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paperpencils (talk • contribs) 08:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For obvious reasons you must, in the future, only have one account. Consequently if Marian1981 were to be re-enabled then Paperpencils will be reblocked. Further, in the interests of transparency, you must agree to a box remaining on the top of your talk page (including after any archiving) saying "This user was previously known as PaperPencils". Further, this will be the last change of username. If you agree to all this, with a signed acceptance, then I will swap the blocks. Just Chilling (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]