Jump to content

User talk:Lakeshook: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Lakeshook (talk | contribs)
Lakeshook (talk | contribs)
Line 26: Line 26:


{{unblock|reason=I lost my password to my previous account. I then opened a new account (with a similar name on purpose so as not to mislead), which is consistent with [[WP:CLEANSTART]]. It is even more acceptable because starting a user because of lost of password is very reasonable, even more than the traditional clean start of trying to hide old edits. I never used the account as a fake consensus socking and confirmed by checkuser Bbb23 below
{{unblock|reason=I lost my password to my previous account. I then opened a new account (with a similar name on purpose so as not to mislead), which is consistent with [[WP:CLEANSTART]]. It is even more acceptable because starting a user because of lost of password is very reasonable, even more than the traditional clean start of trying to hide old edits. I never used the account as a fake consensus socking and confirmed by checkuser Bbb23 below
Please unblock this account, which I have the password. I promise not to use the other accounts but they can't because they are blocked. *****CHECKUSER Bbb23 CONFIRMS THAT THE USERS WERE SERIAL USE AND NOT CONCURRENT USE EXCEPT ONE DAY. (AND FOR HOUSEKEEPING PURPOSES). NO SOCKPUPPETRY OCCURRED THANK YOU FOR KINDLY UNBLOCKING ME.[[User:Lakeshook|Lakeshook]] ([[User talk:Lakeshook#top|talk]]) 22:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)}}
Please unblock this account, which I have the password. I promise not to use the other accounts but they can't because they are blocked. *****CHECKUSER Bbb23 CONFIRMS THAT THE USERS WERE SERIAL USE AND NOT CONCURRENT USE EXCEPT ONE DAY. (AND FOR HOUSEKEEPING PURPOSES). NO SOCKPUPPETRY OCCURRED THANK YOU FOR KINDLY UNBLOCKING ME. User:zzuuzz agrees to unblock, he/she read my explanation and says to stick with one account (which I did). He/she did not stay "stick with zero accounts, which is what blocking is" [[User:Lakeshook|Lakeshook]] ([[User talk:Lakeshook#top|talk]]) 22:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)}}


See also [[User talk:Lakeshake]] which I admit losing the password and linking my account.
See also [[User talk:Lakeshake]] which I admit losing the password and linking my account.

Revision as of 00:21, 16 February 2017

Hello

I lost my password and there is no secret questions to answer to retrieve it. Lakeshook (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeshook, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Lakeshook! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Lakeshook (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I lost my password to my previous account. I then opened a new account (with a similar name on purpose so as not to mislead), which is consistent with WP:CLEANSTART. It is even more acceptable because starting a user because of lost of password is very reasonable, even more than the traditional clean start of trying to hide old edits. I never used the account as a fake consensus socking and confirmed by checkuser Bbb23 below Please unblock this account, which I have the password. I promise not to use the other accounts but they can't because they are blocked. *****CHECKUSER Bbb23 CONFIRMS THAT THE USERS WERE SERIAL USE AND NOT CONCURRENT USE EXCEPT ONE DAY. (AND FOR HOUSEKEEPING PURPOSES). NO SOCKPUPPETRY OCCURRED THANK YOU FOR KINDLY UNBLOCKING ME. User:zzuuzz agrees to unblock, he/she read my explanation and says to stick with one account (which I did). He/she did not stay "stick with zero accounts, which is what blocking is" Lakeshook (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I lost my password to my previous account. I then opened a new account (with a similar name on purpose so as not to mislead), which is consistent with [[WP:CLEANSTART]]. It is even more acceptable because starting a user because of lost of password is very reasonable, even more than the traditional clean start of trying to hide old edits. I never used the account as a fake consensus socking and confirmed by checkuser Bbb23 below Please unblock this account, which I have the password. I promise not to use the other accounts but they can't because they are blocked. *****CHECKUSER Bbb23 CONFIRMS THAT THE USERS WERE SERIAL USE AND NOT CONCURRENT USE EXCEPT ONE DAY. (AND FOR HOUSEKEEPING PURPOSES). NO SOCKPUPPETRY OCCURRED THANK YOU FOR KINDLY UNBLOCKING ME. User:zzuuzz agrees to unblock, he/she read my explanation and says to stick with one account (which I did). He/she did not stay "stick with zero accounts, which is what blocking is" [[User:Lakeshook|Lakeshook]] ([[User talk:Lakeshook#top|talk]]) 22:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I lost my password to my previous account. I then opened a new account (with a similar name on purpose so as not to mislead), which is consistent with [[WP:CLEANSTART]]. It is even more acceptable because starting a user because of lost of password is very reasonable, even more than the traditional clean start of trying to hide old edits. I never used the account as a fake consensus socking and confirmed by checkuser Bbb23 below Please unblock this account, which I have the password. I promise not to use the other accounts but they can't because they are blocked. *****CHECKUSER Bbb23 CONFIRMS THAT THE USERS WERE SERIAL USE AND NOT CONCURRENT USE EXCEPT ONE DAY. (AND FOR HOUSEKEEPING PURPOSES). NO SOCKPUPPETRY OCCURRED THANK YOU FOR KINDLY UNBLOCKING ME. User:zzuuzz agrees to unblock, he/she read my explanation and says to stick with one account (which I did). He/she did not stay "stick with zero accounts, which is what blocking is" [[User:Lakeshook|Lakeshook]] ([[User talk:Lakeshook#top|talk]]) 22:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I lost my password to my previous account. I then opened a new account (with a similar name on purpose so as not to mislead), which is consistent with [[WP:CLEANSTART]]. It is even more acceptable because starting a user because of lost of password is very reasonable, even more than the traditional clean start of trying to hide old edits. I never used the account as a fake consensus socking and confirmed by checkuser Bbb23 below Please unblock this account, which I have the password. I promise not to use the other accounts but they can't because they are blocked. *****CHECKUSER Bbb23 CONFIRMS THAT THE USERS WERE SERIAL USE AND NOT CONCURRENT USE EXCEPT ONE DAY. (AND FOR HOUSEKEEPING PURPOSES). NO SOCKPUPPETRY OCCURRED THANK YOU FOR KINDLY UNBLOCKING ME. User:zzuuzz agrees to unblock, he/she read my explanation and says to stick with one account (which I did). He/she did not stay "stick with zero accounts, which is what blocking is" [[User:Lakeshook|Lakeshook]] ([[User talk:Lakeshook#top|talk]]) 22:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

See also User talk:Lakeshake which I admit losing the password and linking my account.

I believe that problem is that I am being attacked for expressing views on blocking. Someone then violated my privacy by running a checkuser and then using that as an excuse to ban me forever. Those other usernames, I forgot the password. However, I didn't use them together. When I lost the password, I created a new user with a similar name and stopped using the old username (because I couldn't remember the password). This is permitted when you lose the password. Lakeshook (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not being "attacked". Altogether, since November 23, 2016, you have created seven six accounts. Most are similarly named. One, Ken Lou, is not. Mostly you edited them serially, but two had an overlap on November 29. That's a lot of passwords to forget. Nonetheless, I'll consider unblocking this one account, which is the latest in the series, but I'd like other administrators' input as to whether your editing of any of the accounts consitutes abusive behavior. I'll ping a few of them that commented at the Talk page of the blocking policy or were otherwise involved with you and see what they think: @NeilN: @Risker: @Zzuuzz: --Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've nothing to add to Bbb23's comments and suggested course of action. Please stick to one account. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was afraid of hackers so my password was too complicated to remember. But you are right, I never edited an article like "Hitler was good" and a sock writing "I agree". I agree to make the password less complicated so that I can remember it but not so easy that it is easy to guess. Thank you if you unblock. Sorry for my clumsiness but nothing sinister was done. Lakeshook (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seven accounts is a lot. And I'm not thrilled with your contributions at Talk:Trump. More comments similar to this will result in a quick reblock. --NeilN talk to me 22:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See, I was even open about it, writing that the oldest account is retired and that I found my password. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lake_of_Milk&diff=765520999&oldid=755025291 Also, it is six, not seven.
As to Trump, I hate that article and all the fighting and don't intend to edit it. Not a topic ban, but just general distaste for the article. Also note that NeilN's link is INACCURATE because I fixed it and made it much more polite. NeilN quoted the old, pre-revision version which I, myself, didn't like and fixed.

Lakeshook (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about one thing. It's six accounts, not seven. I've struck and replaced the number up higher. Doesn't change anything, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the above comment, I'm leaning towards thinking dealing with this editor would be a timesink. Another editor removed the comment: [1]. Lakeshook characterized it as a personal attack [2] and then complained, "If you remove comments, not only is that against Wikipedia practices, but is also something evil the Devil would do. You are a Christian." --NeilN talk to me 23:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not minded to unblock given the editing history of the accounts identified so far. Also, I'm not convinced that you are being honest with us. Is it really only 6 accounts? Given your contributions have been predominantly to change the blocking policy to allow indefblocks to expire after 1 year, I presume you have (at least) one account that was blocked over a year ago that you're trying pave the way towards having unblocked. How about telling us a bit more about your history of editing Wikipedia? WJBscribe (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Only Lakeshook as discussed indefinite blocks. All the other Lake-something before did not. So this is not a fixation. What is my edit history. I probably have about 15 users over the past 3-4 years. I edit for a few days and then forget the password or forget the user name. However, there is never any socking because I don't even remember what I edited (I have no agenda). Thank you for asking @WJBScribe:, but there's nothing sinister. Lakeshook (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please

Oh my, Bbb23, you just outed me when you mentioned my real name Ken. Lakeshook (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is consistent with your troubles on Talk:Trump. Having a little knowledge of policies and guidelines and misapplying them. Bbb23 mentioned an account you registered. A list of them is here: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lake of Milk. He said nothing about it being your real name. --NeilN talk to me 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are not sockpuppets because sockpuppets are multiple accounts to fake a consensus. They, as the checkuser Bbb23 states, are serial users which I created due to lost passwords. Please unblock. This is too much when you block and then walk away and don't unblock when the reason to block is found to be faulty.
I looked and I see that one user, Ken Lou, is not me. I did not make that edit. However, not surprising as this is a lounge computer. Luckily, Ken Lou has not edited anything bad. Lakeshook (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Risker is going to comment anytime soon as she hasn't edited Wikipedia in a few weeks. Based on Neil's comments and my own analysis of the evidence, I am not going to unblock you. I would reconsider, though, if others disagree.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Oh my, Bbb23, you just outed me when you mentioned my real name Ken". "I looked and I see that one user, Ken Lou, is not me". What? --NeilN talk to me 16:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN:, my name is Ken. Ken Lou is not my user, though. This is a lounge computer. Good thing that user did not write hate edits or vandalize or racist stuff. Lakeshook (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SUMMARY

@Bbb23:, this looks very bad for Wikipedia and transparency. I comment on Wikipedia talk about indefinite blocks and the real danger that they become permanent banning. Risker commented months ago in the same talk page that most indefinite blocks are never undone and occur at a rate of 250 per day. So tens or hundreds of thousands of blocks (eventually a million) will be for life. When I make these comments, I am blocked and NeilN, who has been in that WP talk discussion, is given a vote, which is giving an involved user a vote.

No sockpuppetry is found. Rather it is found that there is serial use of usernames. One username edits, but the password is lost. Another user is created and used. Like Bbb23 states, there is no fake consensus, which is what socking is. User A says "This is the way it should be" and Sock B says "I agree". This never happened.

Please, Bbb23, unblock me. I have already been blocked more than 24 hours so that is punishment enough.

Also review the blocking policy which is that blocking is to prevent disruption and is not punishment. I am not and will not be disruptive. I have been punished enough. Thank you for reading. I was blocked and then Bbb23 realized I was not a sock but just lost my complicated password and had to do WP:CLEANSTART and am being permanently blocked because I utilized CLEAN START. This is not right. Use of clean start because of password loss is entirely reasonable.

EVERYONE, PLEASE BE REASONABLE. I edited and someone didn't like my policy discussions so they ran a checkuser on me. Proper??? Anyway, they wrong suspected socks and blocked me. Now that I've explained, you don't care. You don't unblock. That isn't very nice. Lakeshook (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]