The best road to progress is freedom's road. - JFK
Texas
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)[reply]
This is not a sock. Do you have evidence, did you do an investigation, or are you just assuming? Clearly an abuse of power. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, not every incorrect action is an "abuse of power"- a phrase used too much around here. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either they are abusing their power or they are careless with it by wielding it without regard for the evidence or the truth. Let us know which it is. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is listed at Special:Contributions/Fizzbuzz306; parts of it can be accessed by clicking "diff" next to the timestamps. For example, your first contribution was joining a discussion about US politics with proper indentation (back when there was no reply tool to automate this task) and most interestingly using {{tq}}, which hadn't been present on the page before. The account seems to have been created solely to participate in discussions about American politics by someone who already regularly edits Wikipedia using other usernames or while logged out. This may have been legitimate for privacy reasons, but it stopped being a legitimate secondary account at least when you edit warred in clear knowledge of the edit warring policy (Special:Diff/1213316198). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Competence is not a punishable offence. Knowing WP is not equal to sock puppetry. Provide your evidence or reverse the block. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Operating an account primarily for disruption rather than improving the encyclopedia is reason enough. Perhaps your appeal would be more convincing if it was sent from your main account or if it explained in which ways this one would be used in the future. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting every edit I've ever made is disruptive? Once again, just no concern for truth. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest that you explain how you gained your competence if you have no other account(which you haven't denied yet}. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gained it by reading. I have no other account. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2024 (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).
Accusation of socking without evidence. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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.
False dichotomy and you know it. If this was a legitimate block you'd actually do the investigation. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing process and not the merits is a big clue that the block is correct. You may ask someone else to review this. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There *are* no merits here - it is just an accusation. How can I argue against a blanket assertion of "yes you are"? Baseless accusations without evidence deserve only an immediate dismissal. Provide your evidence. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence has already been provided. This is not a legal proceeding. If you find the evidence insufficient, then make another unblock request where you make that claim and someone else will review it to see if they agree. Keep in mind every sock puppet denies being one so just saying "I'm not a sock" is insufficient. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.