User talk:Mongusius

July 2019

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).

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

Request reason:

The "sock puppet" classification was revoked:

> You know what, I don't even care any more. It's no longer a CU block, and I don't want to have anything to do with you any more. Please, no one contact me about this editor; I've washed my hands of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC) (diff)

This account was an inactive old account, undisclosed for privacy reasons. The account was declared as an alt to the Arbitration Committee on 28 June 2019 as per WP:ALTACCN ("Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or members of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny."), to prevent this from happening.
Mkdw acknowledged the declaration: "I have made a note of these accounts on our internal list."
The account was inactive since 1 April 2019, with a mistaken edit made on 20 April from a different browser, still logged in as this account (diff). The edit is a forgotten signature, precisely as it should be, if generated by 4 tildes: referring to the proper account that made the comment, with the exact timestamp of the original edit. No impersonation, or deceit.
The main account was active since 17 April 2019 (early history)
There was no inappropriate use of alternative accounts. — Mongusius (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline without prejudice. It is my understanding that you have appealed to the Arbitration Committee and therefore this appeal should not be concurrent.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2019 (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.

Can you confirm with a simple yes or no that you have appealed to Arbcom?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. @Berean Hunter: I made no appeal to ArbCom regarding this block. — Mongusius (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

My messages to ArbCom were behavioral complaints, and requests to remove private information. These were declined by an oversighter.

I did not intend to appeal, as NinjaRobotPirate promptly revoked his decision (block log of main account):

"You know what, I don’t even care any more. It’s no longer a CU block, [...]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)” (diff)

I consider the block still being in effect a procedural error. I've tried to contact NinjaRobotPirate about this, but he refuses to communicate:

"go talk to them and don't ping me (not that I'll receive your pings, anyway)." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC) (diff)

I've contacted ArbCom (message) with a behavioral complaint on 30 June, not to appeal. "Messages are normally acknowledged by an arbitrator within 48 hours." (WP:ArbCom#What_happens_to_incoming_ArbCom_email?). This message was not acknowledged in a week - despite repeated requests -, therefore I consider the report to be ignored or declined.

A related request to remove private information, and complaint - also not an appeal - (message), that I've sent to the Functionaries list - received by Arbitrators as well -, was declined twice. Answer: "The functionaries list [...] will not be further replying to your emails on this topic.

There is no further correspondence between ArbCom and me that I expect a response to. The last emails were not acknowledged at all, despite the urgency to remove private information linking these accounts, and harmful sockpuppetry allegations.

For privacy reasons these alternative accounts were declared only to ArbCom (acknowledged message). Please take care to redact the main account from the block log entries, and to delete the category that lists the alt accounts as sockpuppets. Thank you.

— Mongusius (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Request

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).

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

Request reason:

In response to the closing reason of the previous request: There is no appeal at ArbCom regarding this block. Request regarding the urgency of the matter: * This account was declared to ArbCom only, for privacy reasons. The private information linking the accounts was publicly visible since 29 June, more than a week. Please remove it from the public archives without further delays. A few days is a reasonable time-frame. * Please take care to redact the main account from the block log entries, and to delete the category that lists the alt accounts as sockpuppets. Thank you. Reason to remove the block: this block is a procedural error. * The "sock puppet" classification was revoked: > You know what, I don't even care any more. It's no longer a CU block, and I don't want to have anything to do with you any more. Please, no one contact me about this editor; I've washed my hands of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC) (diff) * This account was an inactive old account, undisclosed for privacy reasons. The account was declared as an alt to the Arbitration Committee on 28 June 2019 as per WP:ALTACCN ("Editors who have multiple accounts for privacy reasons should consider notifying a checkuser or members of the arbitration committee if they believe editing will attract scrutiny."), to prevent this from happening. * Mkdw acknowledged the declaration: "I have made a note of these accounts on our internal list." * The account was inactive since 1 April 2019, with a mistaken edit made on 20 April from a different browser, still logged in as this account (diff). The edit is a forgotten signature, precisely as it should be, if generated by 4 tildes: referring to the proper account that made the comment, with the exact timestamp of the original edit. No impersonation, or deceit. * The main account was active since 17 April 2019 (early history) * There was no inappropriate use of alternative accounts. — Mongusius (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2019 (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.

I have few questions for you:

Is this your oldest account?
What's the point of insisting on not publicly disclosing other accounts ([1]), since you used one account to sing the other [2]?
Why do you need several accounts? Vanjagenije (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser needed. This user sent me an e-mail claiming that he is not able to edit this page although the talk page access has not been revoked. Wha't going on? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a check. I have now revoked TPA and disabled e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #26037 was submitted on Jul 22, 2019 10:06:47. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]