User talk:Discret User

Discret User, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Discret User! 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 Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of PlayerSacha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is 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 sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not the sock puppet of anyone. I joined Wikipedia to complete pages about video games, especially Paladins and NEVER did a disruptive edit of any kind. I am being blocked and of course nobody spoke to me before. What is this website ? Soviet Russia ? Plus I'm blocked but I am actually "suspected" ? Makes no sense. --Discret User (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This website is not Soviet Russia but a private entity that has rules and policies, just as you can determine the rules and policies of your own private residence. This is a checkuser block, so the connection with other accounts is not in doubt. If you have nothing to do with the other accounts, you will need to give a plausible explanation as to why technical evidence would indicate otherwise. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I clearly made edits which are different from the user I am associated with. I only made edits about video games while this user was dealing with movies/series. I did not use several accounts, while this user created an account very often. Mine is still active. I edited some of the same pages, but clearly never added the same content. I saw the page of the person who blocked me, she/he thinks we are the same because we did edit maybe something like 2 same pages and because I made "big edits". Which is not true since I did edit some pages with a lot of information and some with a small amount of information. Most of my edits are centered on topics this user did not deal with. If we were the same, I would have continue to edit on some pages she/he took care of. --Discret User (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The boxed message below appears to indicate that you have no further interest in contributing here. As such, there is no reason to unblock at this time. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:41, 24 December 2020 (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.

@331dot: I performed the behavioral analysis for this case, before asking for a CU check. The unblock request itself has only strengthened my view that the correct sockmaster was identified. I recommend the user stop wasting everyone's time with these socks, take 6 months off, and try to Standard Offer appeal from their original account. The user could be a constructive editor if they would stop disruptively socking. I, however, hold a very poor view of users who waste time being dishonest in unblock appeals. -- ferret (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So sure that I am "suspected" to be someone and not "identified as...". Says a lot.
If Wikipedia's "justice system" was applied IRL, we would be putting people in jail even though we wouldn't be sure if they did something wrong.
Anyway, I won't waste my time on a website and improve it where people tend to be obsessed with some users, stalk or block them or whatever for fun. --Discret User (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]