User talk:DecisiveDomination

Block[edit]

DeltaQuad this is a new account, and you have no evidence of any wrongdoing. I've edited for years, in different locations, and I was not blocked indef. I just used an IP instead of an account, so I am violating no policies. Primefac you just reverted one of my edits that corrected obvious vandalism. The US has 435 congressional districts, yet the article said 270. If you check the revision history you will see that an IP vandal put in the inaccurate info. As for why I immediately edited the RfA's after making the account-- I went to edit the three RfA's because I checked my watchlist and saw "Three requests for adminship are open for discussion." I did not make an account specifically for the RfA's, since that would break the rules of voting. I would like to be unblocked because I am innocent of what you are accusing me of doing. Decisive Domination 00:13, 5 August 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have stated my reason above, which is that I coincidentally made an account when the three RfA's opened. I made the account, made an edit, changed my preferences, and then checked my watchlist to see if my preferences were good. In the watchlist I saw "Three requests for adminsip are open..." so I went and voted on them. I would like a Checkuser to investigate, because I have not done anything wrong, and my IP history will prove that. Decisive Domination 01:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The first concern is the juxtaposition of "I am new to Wikipedia" with "I've edited for years." Then there are the opinions of two CUs that indicate this is likely a secondary account. Each individual piece of editing and commenting, by itself, is perfectly normal and acceptable, but when combined together turn into a roadmap for socking. Primefac (talk) 03:53, 5 August 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.

Comment. I obviously am not able to see everything a CU might be able to see (or even an admin), but this user did privately share an IP address with me that didn't seem entirely problematic in its edits. As a regular user, I can't tie it to this account definitively, but taking their word at face value I believe they are telling the truth. From our chat on WP:Discord, this user essentially seems to be an archetypical lurker. After reading a bunch of article talk pages for awhile, according to DD they wanted to get involved. They saw the RFA notice in their newly minted watchlist and cast a few !votes. It's a believable story, but I am not the expert with the tools here. I'm just throwing in my two cents. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: While someone can share an IP with you, it takes the expert knowledge (and some checkuser) to figure out that they only have used this account for a very short amount of time and that it's not a home IP address, but a shared IP address that they gained access to. Yet, they have been "editing for years", but in your discord conversation claim "Nah I read a lot of wikipedia and I normally don't edit it" (their emphasis not mine). Another problem is is you aren't disclosing the full conversation from discord, and with good reason, but it leaves out that they know Wikipedia way too well. In the copy of the conversation that I obtained, they additionally threatened to make new accounts to continue editing. They also claim that they read certain Wikipedia pages and that's how they learned how all these policies worked already. If they were so aware of the inner workings of WP and have "read about sock puppet abusers", they would also be aware that making an account and jumping into RfA and the Arbitration enforcement area of AP2 is about the easiest way to get yourself blocked. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: [Thank you for the ping] I didn't notice that contradiction in the story (which I suppose is the attention of detail needed to be a superuser). My impression was that they have gotten a lot of the lingo down, but they really don't understand the policies as well as they think. I will say that, unlike IRC, WP:Discord is publicly logged (and thankfully so tbh). From that chat about the WP:SO, well... that was kind of silly to suggest creating an account after 6 months. They did share the circumstances behind the IP though, so I wasn't blind in that regard.
Also, is this a CU block? I only commented based on the understanding no one had run CU yet. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: It is not a CU block, but CU was ran without enough of a conclusion, so that is why there is no {{checkuserblock-account}} in the block reason. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeltaQuad For starters, I never threatened to make other accounts, since that would obviously be creating sock puppets. I said that I might just come back in six months and ask to be unblocked. Second, I have "read about sock puppet abusers", as in I saw specific people on talk pages who had 20 or so sock puppets, and I read through their archives. And I have been editing Wikipedia for years on numerous IPs, but I mainly just read things on Wikipedia. I rarely make edits, I normally just enjoy reading content. I know Wikipedia "too well" because it's fun to read all about things like WP:FRAM and the Donald Trump talk page, but getting involved in the first one is something I have never done, since it is contentious, and as far as I know I only edited the Donald Trump talk page a single time. I have read 100s of hours of Wikipedia arguments on userpages, since it can teach you a lot about topics, for example whatever they are arguing about, and it teaches you about Wikipedia policy, like when someone says "if you violate the 3RR again I will report you at ANI". But again, I mainly just read a lot of articles on user groups or talk pages for entertainment, I rarely get involved. Decisive Domination 02:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I have read a lot about sock puppets, I didn't read about how people were caught for being sock puppets, so I never realized that editing in an RfA soon after making an account could get you blocked. And what I read about Standard Offers made me think that if I came back in six months and had created no sock puppets, I could make another account, but obviously I was completely wrong. Decisive Domination 02:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I mean I guess I can just leave this account and try to make a new one later. I do realize it's super suspicious" No you can't. WP:STANDARDOFFER is an unblock, not permission to recreate. You are indefinitely blocked and therefore WP:CLEANSTART does not apply to you and you will be reblocked. The block is always intended for the person, not just the account. That's what I refer too. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I was allowed to do that, and obviously I was wrong. I did not mean that creating a new account would be suspicious, I was saying that me editing three RfA's with a new account was suspicious. Decisive Domination 03:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be declining this request or running CU as I am the nominator in one of the RfAs, but I endorse DeltaQuad's block. People often misunderstand the sockpuppetry policy and how the CheckUser extension works. It is impossible for CheckUser to prove that someone has not abused multiple accounts. Neither logical reasoning nor how people connect to the internet works like that. CUs are probably the individuals who are most familiar with the limitations of this tool, and if you ask any of us we will tell you that just because CheckUser does not return any evidence of abuse does not mean abuse has not occurred. In these cases, behavioural evaluation is needed.
In terms of how blocks are made: neither our blocking policy nor our sockpuppetry policy require that a master account be identified. The blocking administrator simply needs to have a reasonable belief that it is more likely than not that an abuse of multiple accounts has occurred and that the continued use of the account will be disruptive to Wikipedia. We regularly block accounts without knowing the specific master. While this is normally done with long-term abusers and obvious vandals, it can also be done in cases like this.
In this case, we have a user who is clearly daring us to find out the master: he voted in all three open RfAs, dived headlong into one of the most contentious AC/DS areas on the project, and shows a multitude of other signs of socking. Additionally, in at least one of the cases, his vote in an RfA could have an impact on the outcome.{[pb}}Tl;dr: Blocking here was the correct choice, and if I had not been a nominator of an RfA, I would have blocked as well, regardless of what CheckUser said. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really the policy, to indef block on such shoddy evidence? If so, I must express my opposition. No wonder Wikipedia has such poor editor retention. Benjamin (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac I meant I was new to editing with an account, but that I have read and edited the wiki for a long time. I just didn't edit very often. Decisive Domination 03:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]