User talk:Kbabej

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

February 2015[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kbabej (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I do not believe that I should be blocked. This is a legitimate account, and the one that I edit from. I created a new account to report another user for disruptive editing, believing that I would be harassed after the report. It turns out I was, and he quickly started removing things from other articles that I've written. On this account, and on the one recently created, I haven't made disruptive edits or votes. The new account was for my protection, which didn't work, since the wikihounding began soon after. Why is this account blocked then? Kbabej (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Undisclosed alternate accounts are prohibited from editing project space, see WP:ILLEGIT. That would include a prohibition against using an alternate account to file edit warring reports. Repeated violations of policy will get you blocked. Huon (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2015 (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.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kbabej (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I'm very confused and upset about this. I created an account to report User:Winkelvi for Wikihounding me. He is legitimately wikihounding me, and I was afraid of retribution from doing it on my account. Which is warranted, because when I signed on today he had edited every single page I've created. EVERY single update on my watchlist is from Winkelvi removing imformation from my articles over the last two days. The wikihounding continues even as I am blocked, and I feel that the wrong person is being punished for this. I was legitimately being harassed, and didn't know I couldn't report him that way. I contribute to Wikipedia every singe day, and I love it, and I think I make constructive edits. Is there anything I can do here? User:Another Believer, you are the only editor that I know on here. Is there some sort of recourse for this? I feel that I am being punished for reporting someone for hounding me relentlessly. --Kbabej (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Creating a second account to try to gt another user in trouble without it reflecting on you is a clear violation of our sock puppetry policy. I think your very best bet would be to convince the blocking admin that you understand our sock puppet policy(you do not seem to right now) and at it will not repeat. If you could make that clear then you may be able to reduced to a temporary block, other than that you can wait 6 months and ask for the standard offer. Chillum 05:11, 14 February 2015 (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.

It may also help your case if you discuss your own behavior instead of talking about Winkelvi. Chillum 05:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Chillum. I don't agree with Winkelvi's methods, but although you have made many valuable contributions to the project, your page creation output (and deletion of that content) shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's notability standards and what constitutes encyclopedic information, which is why I believe Winkelvi is going after your articles. Note I've proposed or endorsed deletion for several of your articles myself. I think you may have some undisclosed conflict of interest in some of those cases, which may be clouding your judgement about their notability, but I can't be sure. The undisclosed socking (you haven't addressed the other socks you created before the Winklevi incident), however, is *very* concerning so I endorse a block though perhaps not a permanent one. You have the makings of a great editor but you really need to heed the advice the others have given you and stop worrying about Winkelvi and think about how to be less defensive and combative in regards to your edits, come clean on any alternate accounts or COIs, and learn to accept community consensus. If I were you I would spend my block time reading the many essays and guidelines on how to build good Wikipedia community to better understand how you might do this. Good luck. Valfontis (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
If you want any hope of being unblocked, stop editing using IPs. Period. There is no deadline, and any edits to "your" (see WP:OWN for why that's in scare quotes) articles with which you disagree could receive a third opinion if you would stop shooting yourself in the foot. Valfontis (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


Forget the block.[edit]

Protection is a very good reason to use multiple accounts, as per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandKitty256 (talkcontribs) 20:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

SandKitty256, are we to understand that based on this [1] you are encouraging an editor currently indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry to violate policy by ignoring the block, the reasons for it, and continue using socks in order to edit and block-evade? -- WV 21:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh. Sorry. Kitty 56 (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Review[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kbabej (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Like Valfontis suggested, I reviewed the sockpuppetry articles and make the commitment to only edit under my username and no others. I wasn't thinking when I created the account to report another user, and it was a stupid mistake that I will not be making again. I also commit to being less defensive and combative, which I can see has happened. Is there any way to have the block moved to a certain time period or a temporary block? I feel like I can make some positive edits, and I love being a part of the Wiki community. --Kbabej (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As a checkuser has now confirmed that you made a sock after this request, I'm afraid that it's going to be hard to take your word for anything. Kuru (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2015 (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.

Note for admins considering the above unblock request

User requesting unblock for socking has a history of using 6 different (known) socks during both 2014 and 2015. The one he is currently blocked for was created to escape detection when filing a bogus 3RR report at AN3. The most recent was yesterday (2/16/15) -- it was created and used to circumvent his current block. See SPI here:[2]. In 2014, he was blocked for two weeks as a result of socking. This time it is an indef for repeat sockpuppetry. Summary: Last year's block for socking (four socks were found via CU); this current block for socking again (knew the drill about socks, created a sock anyway); socking just one day ago while blocked for socking; now asking for leniency one day after using sock #6. -- WV 21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Update; New SPI for this user filed here: [3]. -- WV 05:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • SPI result positive for new socks - See SPI result here [4]. Apparently, from time stamps, Kbabej submitted the above block review request and then created the new sock KittyKane UT. -- WV 16:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't create another sock after reporting you. Apparently it's inconceivable that out of the hundreds of articles I've helped on, an unregistered user would edit that same article. Especially considering you just changed content on it a few days ago. Remember when you went and edited something on every single article that I've created? Perhaps it was you. Who knows, and I really don't care, since your Wikihounding is childish and out of control. I'd rather have nothing to do with you. --Kbabej (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You're not even addressing the point Winkelvi is making. He's talking about User:Kittykane UT, not an "unregistered user". Kitty was created on February 17 at 16:16. Your unblock request above was on the same day about 4 hours later. As Kuru says, no one is going to believe anything you say in your defense, so I suggest you give it up.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I came to this page today because of the removal of a link in Anthony Hungerford of Black Bourton to a now deleted article Robert Hunkins, Sr.. This interested me because I had initiated an PROD on Anne Hungerford Lee using the argument Wikipedia is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. I had notice that Robert Hunkins, Sr. (which linked to Anne Hungerford Lee) was created by the same editor and had considered PRODing that, but as it was not directly related to articles about the Hungerford's I let it be (more interesting articles to deal with), but I would have expressed a yes in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Hunkins, Sr. if I had known of its existence. So enough on my reason for coming here at this time.

I have been looking at the explanation that Kbabej gave above for using a sock puppet, and AGF it seems reasonable particularly given the various recent reports about this being an unfriendly environment for women. However now that I have dug deeper I do no think that the explanation hold water because of Kbabej's activities just over a year ago. This edit made at 05:02, 10 March 2014 shows clearly that, nearly 1 year before the current block, Kbabej abused a sockpuppet account and quite categorically stated "AndyR112 is a different person than I am." With the block that accompanied the abuse 1 year ago, the statement above "I wasn't thinking when I created the account to report another user, and it was a stupid mistake that I will not be making again." is not mitigation. If Kbabej was not thinking when creating this account then how can Kbabej be trusted not to make similar unthinking stupid mistakes in the future? -- PBS (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Great catches on your part, PBS. Yes, how can Kbabej be trusted again? Indeed, I expect he's created yet another sock (or more than one), is either sitting and waiting to start using it to escape detection, or is using it now on articles he thinks aren't watchlisted and being scrutinized. Many eyes are on his articles because of his socking and dishonestly, no doubt. I sincerely doubt he's been able to just stop editing cold-turkey. He admitted himself (without saying it) that he needs Wikipedia and before his block edited daily for several hours a day. At any rate, I believe he's still around, and no doubt, in time, his sock(s) will be discovered and tagged and blocked once again. And on and on it will go. -- WV 00:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
PBS, I'm curious what Wikipedia being considered an unfriendly environment for women has to do with Kbabej's socking. I'm female, BTW. Valfontis (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Kbabej, you obviously have a lot to offer Wikipedia content-wise, you've gotten barnstars from other users who appreciated your work, and you enjoy editing Wikipedia. As long as you continue to create socks and IP edit (somewhat) under the radar you will have to "look over your shoulder" rather than edit with ease and complete enjoyment.

Another editor (Chillum) suggested the following back in February: "I think your very best bet would be to convince the blocking admin that you understand our sock puppet policy(you do not seem to right now) and at it will not repeat. If you could make that clear then you may be able to reduced to a temporary block, other than that you can wait 6 months and ask for the standard offer." I think this is sound advice and would give you an "out" when it comes to your struggle to edit via socks. When you sock and then get discovered, every edit you've made can be reverted (within reason) per WP:DENY. Every article you created while socking can be deleted per WP:G5. Once everything you've done is deleted, it is as if you were never here. Every bit of effort and time you put into those edits and creating articles will be for naught.

Why continue down this road? Why not turn your efforts the right direction and make things good again? Why continue to waste so much energy on something that is very likely going to be deleted and will just dig you into a deeper hole? I can't guarantee or even speculate what administrators would say to you now because of all the socks you have created (and socks you likely still have that are not yet discovered and/or blocked), but it's worth a try to find out, isn't it?

I am not one to wish ill or bad results on anyone. I take no pleasure in filing SPIs on you. To me, it's a shame to see a good editor's efforts and knowledge wasted over something so silly. Only you can decide what you are going to do: put your efforts in the right direction or in the wrong direction. I hope you choose the former rather than the latter. Sincerely, -- WV 22:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kbabej (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I would like to take the standard offer. Initially, I created another account in good faith to report what I genuinely believed to be inappropriate behavior. That was the wrong course of action to take. After getting blocked, I continued to sock evade because I wanted to continue writing articles for Wikipedia. Never once have I vandalized an article or tried to undo work others have worked on. When I evaded, it was because I believed my blocking to be an oversight and I wanted to still contribute. I realize that evading was wrong, and I have committed to no longer trying to go around Wikipedia rules. They're there for a reason, and WP works best when everyone follows the rules and standards. I would like to contribute to WP again in a constructive way. I am sorry for the evading I've done; it's taken time away from other editors and kept me away from WP. I believe I have a lot to offer, and I would like to constructively come back to WP and earn the trust back from the people I've disappointed. Thank you. Kbabej (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am a believer in giving second chances to blocked editors who come back later and indicate a change of heart, and even though the extent and nature of your sockpuppetry gives me pause, I would be prepared to consider your request, but the "standard offer" applies only after six months of staying away, and since you were using sockpuppets as least as recently as September 2015, it does not apply. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2016 (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.

Kbabej, I hope you will consider re-submitting this request once 6 months has passed. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kbabej (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I would like to take the standard offer. Initially, I created another account in good faith to report what I genuinely believed to be inappropriate behavior. That was the wrong course of action to take. After getting blocked, I continued to sock evade because I wanted to continue writing articles for Wikipedia. Never once have I vandalized an article or tried to undo work others have worked on. When I evaded, it was because I believed my blocking to be an oversight and I wanted to still contribute. I realize that evading was wrong, and I have committed to no longer trying to go around Wikipedia rules. They're there for a reason, and WP works best when everyone follows the rules and standards. I would like to contribute to WP again in a constructive way. I am sorry for the evading I've done; it's taken time away from other editors and kept me away from WP. I believe I have a lot to offer, and I would like to constructively come back to WP and earn the trust back from the people I've disappointed. Thank you. Kbabej (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Before we go any further, I want you to provide a complete list of accounts that you've created. PhilKnight (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2016 (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.

I don't know if non-admin opinions matter or not, but for the record, I'd like to see this editor given another chance. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: Responding here because I'm not sure how to respond within the unblocking request. The list of what I can remember:

I genuinely do want to contribute constructively again to WP; never have I tried to deface or otherwise ruin articles. I have only wanted to contribute, but I want to do it the right way. --Kbabej (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

As Winkelvi has noted on my talk page, Helpmechoose54 was active in November, so it'll be May before 6 months have elapsed. PhilKnight (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Gibsonson27 does not exist. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kbabej (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I would like to take the standard offer if possible. After being warned about creating multiple accounts, I created another account to report what I believed was wrong behavior. I didn't do it through my account since I was afraid of retribution, but that was the wrong course of action to take, which I realize now. After being blocked, I created socks because I enjoyed editing Wikipedia, but that was also wrong. It goes around WP rules, it takes time away from other editors, and shows a disregard for the formal process. I have never vandalized or ruined an article in any way and have no desire to. I see no joy whatsoever in seeing a page vandalized; it's petty and doesn't serve the WP mission. My only intention - always - has been to add relevant content and to put good, sourced information on WP. What I would like to do is go back to editing in a productive, positive way, and would like to be given a chance to do that. I've abused socks and different accounts, for which I am sorry. I truly do want to be a productive member of the WP team again. Thank you.

Decline reason:

After consulting with JamesBWatson, I find the circumstantial evidence of recent socking convincing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2016 (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.

  • NOTE In order to have available some relevant and recent history with this user, reviewing admin(s) really should see the version of this page and the last unblock/standard offer request as well as that reviewing admin's response(s). Link to previous, unscrubbed page version here: [5]. -- WV 05:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
    I restored contents of this page that were removed. You are not allowed to remove declined unblock requests from your talk page wjile you are blocked (see: WP:BLANKING). Vanjagenije (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realize that. Won't happen again. Thanks for restoring. --Kbabej (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Like your previous unblock requests, this one is disingenuous. Six times now you have posted unblock requests which explain how your only offence was making the good-faith mistake of creating a second account to report unacceptable behaviour and avoid facing up to the unpleasant response you thought you might get. Unfortunately, each time you conveniently forget to mention other relevant facts, such as the fact that you had previously used sockpuppetry before that incident. You have also removed from this page comments mentioning those other inconvenient facts. I have also seen evidence which encourages me to think that you have probably continued to use at least one sockpuppet account within the last month. When I declined an unblock request about five and a half months ago, I said that I "would be prepared to consider your request" if the standard offer applied, but it doesn't. Since then, your continuing unblock requests which tell an incomplete version of the story have changed my mind, and if I had not already declined one of your unblock requests I would be declining this one. Perhaps you will be lucky and your latest unblock request will be assessed by an administrator more inclined to be lenient than me. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You're right about the not mentioning relevant facts. My intention wasn't to mislead, however. I assume(d) that all that information is readily available to the reviewer and they can easily see it. You're right about needing to address those points, though, and I've edited my request above. As for editing within the last month, that point is incorrect. You should run a check on the user and you'll see it wasn't me. --Kbabej (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
A few points in answer to your last sentence.
  1. I can't do that, as I am not a Checkuser.
  2. Even if I could, there isn't any need to do it, as a CheckUser has already done so.
  3. No technical check can prove that two accounts are not used by the same person. There are numerous ways of avoiding providing the sort of evidence that CheckUsers rely on. CheckUser evidence can sometimes produce evidence that two accounts are run by the same person, but it can never produce evidence that they aren't.
  4. Since I wrote the message above, more information has come to my attention, which has moved me from about 95% sure of the latest sockpuppet to 100%. You are still using sockpuppettry, despite your disingenuous claims that you are really sorry and won't do it again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Coming clean[edit]

After talking with JamesBWatson, I have come to the realization that what I've done on WP has basically ruined the chances for me to edit on WP again. I am extremely remorseful about that fact, as I do believe that I can contribute in a productive way again if given the chance. I love WP. I love the mission, the accessibility that people have to information, and the fact that anyone can contribute to an ever-expanding knowledge base. I originally socked to keep an article up that I created when I didn't want to see it come down. That was wrong, and it was my ego that didn't want to see something I had worked on come down. That isn't what WP is about, though, and if an article can't stand up against scrutiny then it shouldn't be on WP to begin with. I created the sock that got me blocked to report what I believed to be inappropriate behavior by another editor but was afraid of the repercussions of doing it from my account. I was afraid of wikihounding and having the articles I had worked on gutted, as I had seen that behavior before from that editor. Regardless, I shouldn't have been worried: again, if the content of articles is strong, there is nothing to worry about, and if they can't stand up to the scrutiny of other editors then they shouldn't be on WP to begin with. Again, creating that sock was wrong. I didn't create it maliciously; I created it thinking that it was justified since the other user's behavior (in my mind) was inappropriate. I thought that was fine under WP rules. Then after I was blocked, I kept creating socks because I thought the ban was wrongly applied. In my mind, I should have been able to keep editing. During that time, however, I never once retaliated against another user, gutted an article, maliciously edited, or tried to ruin WP articles in any way. I only wanted to contribute content, and what I believe was well sourced content. Again, that was wrong. I should have followed the WP rules and regulations, the irony being that if I had adhered to them from the beginning I would likely have been editing long ago. JamesBWatson was correct in saying that I was disingenuous with my attempts at trying to edit WP again. I wouldn't address what had originally gotten me into this situation, I kept socking, and I flouted the WP rules. I want to say that he is correct in his assessment of what I've done: I have been disingenuous. I have kept socking. And I have flouted WP rules. I want to come clean and address what I've done so that some time in the future I can appropriately edit at contribute again. I really want to. I really, really want to be a constructive, above-board, regular editor again; someone who can add to a knowledge base without looking over their shoulder.

I need to be patient. I need to not thwart the WP rules, and live up to what I've been saying. I need to abide by the WP ban and not sock. And I'm going to. That is why I am coming clean today. I am listing out the accounts I've created in the hopes that I can one day edit again, like I should have done on March 31. And I don't mean that I will request an unblock request the moment six months is up. Instead, I am going to say away from WP for a while, like I should have done to begin with. What I am sincerely, genuinely hoping is that I can gain back some of the trust that I know I have lost from editors in the WP community. I would like to come back again. I would be devastated if I were blocked forever, but I also know that would be my own doing. I am begging for one more chance to prove to you that I can abide by WP rules and show you that I will stay away for a good period of time in hopes of one day returning.

The accounts I created, all of which are from last year:

And an IP address that I edited from. Only the edits from Oct 2015 on are from me; the others are from someone before me:

  • 164.165.145.21

My sincerest apologies to those I've disappointed. Please believe that I am sincere in no longer editing pages while I am on a ban, and please give me one more chance to prove that to you.

--Kbabej (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

(Pinging @JamesBWatson)