apologies |
Fizzbuzz306 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
*I wish to apologize as well. I don't expect your forgiveness, but I am sorry. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 20:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
*I wish to apologize as well. I don't expect your forgiveness, but I am sorry. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 20:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
::Thank you to you both. I do forgive you, and my own apologies that I was not assuming good faith. [[User:Fizzbuzz306|Fizzbuzz306]] ([[User talk:Fizzbuzz306#top|talk]]) 20:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:09, 12 March 2024
Hello
March 2024
Sorry, the block was unnecessary. You may like to keep the discussion, optionally by undoing the edit that collapses it, or remove it entirely. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
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).
Fizzbuzz306 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Accusation of socking without evidence. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Decline reason: Either you are a bad-hand account as the blocking admin says, or there is some other, less charitable, explanation for your behavior this year. Let us know which it is. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2024 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
|
Unblocked
Hello Fizzbuzz306,
I've had a closer look at all of your contributions, most importantly those to articles. Your contributions have corrected actual neutrality and verifiability issues and fixed wording so that it actually matched the provided source ([1] [2] [3]). Your surprisingly competent first contributions were also constructive. I can additionally see how disagreeing about the reliability of a source (regarding Sweet Baby Inc.) can lead to an otherwise-experienced, helpful contributor starting an edit war in best faith, attempting to improve the encyclopedia in disregard to which method needs to be used to get there. That's disruptive, but it's nothing special. It's something a experienced sockpuppeteer would have avoided as it comes with a high block risk for the valuable multiple-years old account.
My first impression was that you had created the account only to fuel fires and jump into trouble on behalf of another ("good-hand") account that was meant to be kept clean of such troubles. The longer I look at your list of contributions, the less plausible this becomes. Additionally, the page you had been edit warring on is already extended-confirmed protected, so you couldn't continue even if it was the first thing you'd want to do after an unblock.
There are surely ways a new user can have been legitimately aware of {{tq}} before making their first talk page comment, and how indentation works can be guessed fairly easily where two levels of it are already present.
I'm sorry for the unnecessary block and for the more-likely-than-not incorrect assumption that this is a secondary account.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wish to apologize as well. I don't expect your forgiveness, but I am sorry. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you to you both. I do forgive you, and my own apologies that I was not assuming good faith. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)