User talk:Spanky pic3

Block Appeal

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).

Spanky pic3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have absolutely no clue who the users Overthemoonandback and TVmovieHunter are. I made an argument for the page that I created (Which is currently being nominated for deletion, I might add), and I just let things run its course in this discussion. In fact, when I went back to check on the page for some other arguments about the article, I asked the admin who made the nomination to check a similar article based on one of these two users' points, and give me some feedback on it to see what it would take to keep my article. I have been on Wikipedia for close to five years now, and not once has something like this come up about me. I have made many positive contributions to Wikipedia, and continue to treat this like an encyclopedia. Most of the articles that I have contributed to are from the TV/Movie industry, the sport industry, as well as many geography related topics, all of these I am planning to continue contributing to. I kindly ask that you please listen to all the facts that I have stated and know that I never have, and never will, harm the world's largest free encyclopedia.

Decline reason:

So you have absolutely no clue why the only accounts that agree with you in the deletion discussion happen to be technically indistinguishable from yours? Sorry, I don't believe that. Huon (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2018 (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.

Admin note-- Check user positive at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Overthemoonandback. As KSportMGNT is the oldest account, I presume SPI will be moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KSportMGNT. The other two accounts SPA'd at the aforementioned AfD. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User has only been blocked for 72 hours, as seems reasonable given there prior history.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huon Well did you look at the fact that the IP Address that I use belongs to a university of over 4,000 people? I'm telling you, I don't know who these two people are. Obviously, they go to the same University that I go to, but I've already said that it wasn't me who did this. And if you're having a hard time believing that, then why am I the one who had a squeaky clean record before this incident today? Plus, why was I not informed about any of this until I came on here a little while ago to find out that I was blocked? I'm the one whose having the hardest time believing any of this, honestly. KSportMGNT (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of nowhere two new users appear and find there way to the AfD about a page you created and argue "keep"? This boggles the mind. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim Well it boggles my mind, too. But, like I said in my arguments about this on the nomination for deletion page, I was trying to clear up confusion about a well-known racing engineer named Pat Fry. When I created the page about the other Pat Fry, I included a link to it at the top of the former Pat Fry's page. That's probably the most likely way that they had access to it. KSportMGNT (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2018 (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).

Spanky pic3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First off, I was never even given a notice about any of this, which is the first red flag about all of this from my end, so I would like an explanation for that no matter which way this goes. But as I have stated before, I have absolutely no clue who the users Overthemoonandback and TVmovieHunter are. I made an argument for the page that I created on its nomination for deletion page, and I just let things run its course in this discussion, only checking every now and again to see if there were arguments about it. In fact, I asked the admin who made the nomination to check a similar article based on one of these two users' points, and give me some feedback on it to see what it would take to keep my article. I currently attend a University of over 4,000 people, so I can tell you that the reason all of the accounts came back with the same IP Address is because they obviously go to the same University as me. BUT, I was completely unaware of this until today when I unexpectedly found out that I was blocked when I went to make an edit with no explanation for me about it on my talk page. While I agree that it is odd that the first thing that they both edited was a nomination for deletion page, the most likely way that they had access to this was because, as I said in my arguments about this on the nomination for deletion page, I was trying to clear up confusion about a well-known racing engineer named Pat Fry. When I created the page about the other Pat Fry, I included a link to it at the top of the former Pat Fry's page. Also, I have made it clear what I intend to edit on Wikipedia (Stuff from the TV/Movie industry, the sport industry, as well as many geography related topics). I have also had a squeaky clean record for my entire time on Wikipedia (5 Years). I have always understood that this is an encyclopedia, and not a playground, and I kindly ask that you please listen to all the facts that I have stated and please know that I never have, and never will, harm the world's largest free encyclopedia.

Decline reason:

Your denials are not credible given the checkuser evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2018 (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.

Since you have doubled down and deny that the other accounts are yours, I've changed your block to indefinite. We need more honesty and trust than that. I have no problem letting other checkusers review this and stand by my results.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even check the IP Address, Berean Hunter? You can claim that I’m lying all you want, but I’m telling you everything, so why don’t you go ahead and check what I’m telling you about the IP Address because I guarantee that you didn’t even after I told you it was from a University. KSportMGNT (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the IP address before you were ever blocked....and there aren't that many people editing on this network.
  — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Here’s the Wiki Page to my University. Would you like to see my Student ID, too? I’m telling you the entire truth about all of this, but nobody is listening. KSportMGNT (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Berean Hunter I think at the very least I’m due an explanation for why I wasn’t warned about any of this before it happened. KSportMGNT (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - We're due a truthful explanation for what happened from you and we don't have that so why are you due an explanation about not being warned? What difference would a warning have made?
    — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Berean Hunter Maybe I could have gotten a chance to state my case before winding up in the mess I’m in now if I got a warning about this. Since I didn’t know there was a chance I was going to be blocked before it happened I didn’t get a chance to state my case on the investigation page for all of this. But since none of you are listening to me and not taking into account the fact that I had a clean record before today, I’m just ready to never use Wikipedia again, which will suck for all of you since you’re showing the door to a legit contributor/editor rather than trying to help me. KSportMGNT (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've read everything you have written here, so I have been listening...you just aren't convincing. "...not taking into account the fact that I had a clean record before today". Yes, I did. I originally blocked this account for 72 hours which would have probably been the end of it but you chose to be recalcitrant and deny it. Under that condition, we have little reason to trust that you wouldn't do it again.
      — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Spanky pic3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21405 was submitted on May 03, 2018 03:10:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2018 (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).

Spanky pic3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked after being accused of sock puppeting. After a long conversation with the admin who blocked me yesterday, I now understand that this is a very serious violation of Wikipedia's guidelines for editing. This all started last week when I created a new page, which was ultimately nominated for deletion. After putting an argument on the nomination for deletion page and not getting too many answers back about how to fix the page so it can be kept, I decided to make two new accounts to try and get more answers out of this. I was unaware that what I was doing was sock puppeting, but now I am aware of it. For the record, I have gone in and changed the passwords on the other two accounts to something that nobody, nor myself, could ever remember, so I will never go into those accounts ever again, even though they were also blocked indefinitely, too. I have been on Wikipedia now for almost five years now, and had a squeaky clean record before yesterday. I have made many positive contributions to Wikipedia, and continue to treat this like an encyclopedia. Most of the articles that I have contributed to are from the TV/Movie industry, the sport industry, as well as many geography related topics, all of these I am planning to continue contributing to. Please understand that I never meant any harm, and at the very least, if you don't want to unblock me completely, I ask that I at least be taken off from being blocked indefinitely. I have always understood that this is an encyclopedia, and not a playground, and I kindly ask that you please listen to all the facts that I have stated and please know that I never meant any harm, and I will never again harm the world's largest free encyclopedia.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but you really can't play the "I didn't know" card when you carried on blatantly lying after you were blocked. Your dishonesty means I can not trust you and that I why I am declining this request. I suggest the WP:Standard Offer. Also, your username is not allowed as it appears to represent a company or group, so you would need to request a rename. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you would need to declare any paid editing you are doing, in accordance with WP:PAID. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2018 (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.

Goodbye Fellow Wikipedians

Since I have done nothing but try to clear my name for the past day now with absolutely no success, I have decided to call it quits. It's sad that it had to come to this considering how genuine I have been to everyone involved in this, plus the fact that I have continued to tell the truth about everything, but nobody is listening. First off, thank you Berean Hunter, Dlohcierekim, Huon, NinjaRobotPirate, and Boing! said Zebedee for doing nothing but waist the five years that I have contributed to Wikipedia. It has been said that for every five people who are unblocked, one of them is a true contributor to Wikipedia. Well, you might just want to change that, because you're losing a true contributor to Wikipedia right here. All I wanted to do was clear my name, but the only thing that all of you wanted to do was burn my reputation and make sure I'd never come back. So while you're all getting what you want with me leaving, just know that I gave you all the upmost respect through all of this, yet you still weren't cooperating with me. Also, Boing! said Zebedee, I disagree with the fact that my username is not allowed, which I don't even know why you decided to bring up since that wasn't even the issue here. I am not representing a company or group. The K is the first letter of my name, and the sportMGNT represents what I am majoring in (Sport Management) at the college where the IP Address for all this mess came from. So while all of you are probably ruining someone else's time on Wikipedia in the time that it has taken me to write this, I hope I have taught you all a lesson about truth and lies. With that said, goodbye to everyone who has been there for me for the past five years. And for anyone and everyone who comes across my page in the future, please learn from this and know that Wikipedia is a one way street. The only ones who get what they really want here are the admins, and eventually they'll stab you in the back, too. This was also my 100th edit, too, so you should all be ashamed of that as well. KSportMGNT (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already told you once that you must not remove declined unblock requests while you are still blocked. You removed them again, so I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page again. Should you decide some time in the future that you wish to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner, please see WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Spanky pic3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23835 was submitted on Jan 26, 2019 02:39:36. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page access has been restored so that you and others may discuss WP:OFFER as you requested in your UTRS appeal. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

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).

Spanky pic3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It has been almost a year and a half since I was blocked. I feel as though I have had more than enough time to gather my thoughts, and I feel as though I am now ready to return to Wikipedia in a positive way. I sincerely want to apologize to all of the admins that I gave living hell to last spring when I was blocked. I was in some depression from personal things going on in my life at the time, and the untimeliness of the whole situation sent me over the edge. I know already that you are all just going to give me the generic "no apologies needed" response, but I really do mean it, and if anyone wants to talk about this whole situation, I'm all ears. KSportMGNT (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. As per below, user plans to apply under WP:SO in six months. Yamla (talk) 16:30, 14 October 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.

You will need to propose a new username. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, would it be possible to change my username to KDP3? KSportMGNT (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's taken, I'm afraid. You may use Special:CentralAuth to see if a potential choice is available. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, I just requested a new username that has not been taken (I checked to make sure). Just waiting for approval now. KSportMGNT (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last declined unblock request on this talk page, you had another sockpuppet, KP95. That hasn't been explained to our viewers at home. Would you care to elaborate?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was me being stupid and still in denial about this whole situation. As I previously said, I was going through depression last spring due to some personal things that were going on in my life at the time. Because of how the whole situation went down, I decided that I wanted to start fresh with a new account, which I now regret doing. I still don’t know how that Binksternet guy figured me out, especially since he is not an admin. Spanky pic3 (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read and understood our policy on sockpuppets and block evasion? Please explain so that we know that you understand.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just read over the policies. I understand that, while I can have multiple accounts, I cannot use another account to, "log out to make problematic edits as an IP address, create new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions, use another person's account, Reviving old unused accounts and presenting them as different users, and persuade friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute." In addition to this, I understand that because I evaded this block, I was subject to having further action taken against me. Spanky pic3 (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any other accounts?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do have one other account that I use for college education purposes only. I have not done anything abusive with that account, and I don’t want to disclose my username for that account unless I absolutely have to because I don’t want it to get tied up with this mess. Spanky pic3 (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to know about the other account so that we can decide whether further sockpuppetry and/or block evasion has occurred. Please explain how it was used for school as well.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since my trust in you has greatly increased in the past 24 hours, I will tell you that my other account is KP9834595. I have been using this account to take educational things learned in the classroom, particularly sport and communication related (I am majoring in sport management with a minor in communications), and contribute these things for Wikipedia. For example, I created this page, which discusses information from a research project done by me about a controversial issue that arose in youth sport five years ago. I also made a lengthy edit roughly a month and a half ago that used, what I though, was a reliable source for the changes that I made. As it turned out, the information from the source was false, and my edit was reverted by Mvcg66b3r. Instead of attacking Mvcg66b3r, I left a kind message on Mvcg66b3r's talk page asking what was wrong with my source for this edit, and Mvcg66b3r gave me an honest response. You can talk with Mvcg66b3r to confirm everything I have said. So like I've said: I've been using the other account to add things learned in the classroom onto Wikipedia. Spanky pic3 (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You claim you "have not done anything abusive with that account". I count 98 violations of WP:EVADE on that account, each one an abuse. I'll note that you've also acknowledged a warning about adding unsourced or improperly cited information, albeit only a single warning. Still, on that basis, I strongly oppose unblocking you but will certainly yield to Berean Hunter's better judgment if they disagree with me. --Yamla (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think your interpretation of what I explained to Berean Hunter, Yamla, is one that is coming from an admin who is more worried about whether or not I have a squeaky clean record to this account. The warning I received from Mvcg66b3r was an honest mistake on my part, and I should have looked into that source further to make sure that it was accurate. If you had dug a little deeper, you would have seen that that was the only time anyone had reached out to me on that account to let me know about an issue of that nature. I personally don't see my use of that account as a form of WP:EVADE on the basis that I was not using the account for the purpose of avoiding detection or sanctions by anyone of the admins I have been dealing with here for the past year and a half. If I was honestly trying to evade this block, I would have created another account separate from that one after KP95 was blocked to try and make more changes to the articles that got this account blocked in the first place. But because I needed an account for the reasons that I explained to Berean above, I created the account that I did for the purposes of using it for my legitimate reasons with school, NOT to further evade this block. It's obviously up to you all on whether you think I deserve to come back, but I want to make that known so it is not misinterpreted by anyone. Spanky pic3 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Since my trust in you has greatly increased in the past 24 hours..." Ditto. If you would have answered that you didn't have another account or refused to share it with us, it would have been checkuser blocked and the two static IP addresses that you use at school would have been hardblocked for a year. I've known about this account for the last few days but was waiting to see if you were going to be honest with us. This is also why I asked you to explain how it was being used for school because I don't fully understand that. It doesn't look like it was being used for particular assignments. You do not appear to have been at school over the Summer but were in different states.

Yamla is technically correct that you were evading your block and socking. This is why I specifically asked you about both policies above. I believe that you have a flawed understanding of policy in believing that you could have another account despite your main account being blocked. This is not so. It isn't just that you cannot be disruptive with another account under those conditions.

I had read the Jackie Robinson West article a couple of days ago and had to wait to make the couple of changes that I've now done.

While you were technically in violation of policies, I take your honesty as a good sign and remain open to discuss unblocking. I would like to hear more about the school use of the account. With Yamla's objection noted, the merits of unblocking may be best for Wikipedia as a project but I'm still considering this situation and think an admin chat is in order. With the other account on the table, other admins such as 331dot who commented above can now understand the situation and their views and discussion would be appreciated. @Huon, Deepfriedokra, NinjaRobotPirate, 5 albert square, Anachronist, and Seraphimblade: also as active admins that have participated in this case for their views preferably after you have explained more specifically how the account was used for school.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm a believer in redemption, so I'm open to unblocking, although I too have concerns. What legitimate purpose is there for having two accounts, particularly one at school that doesn't seem to be used for school assignments? So why not just use the school account as the primary account? Why bother with two accounts? Why not abandon this one and continue with the other one? It seems to me that maintaining two accounts is more trouble than it's worth. I mean, I can still log in as my former username Amatulic, it's a legitimate account for non-admin purposes, but if I ever find the need to make an edit outside of my current Anachronist username (like if I'm on a public computer) I'll just do it as an anonymous IP user. I've probably done that an average of once per year in my history here. I've never found a reason to log in with my other username. I realize other people do have their reasons, but I would ask this user to consider just moving on with one account from now on.

If this user insists on having multiple accounts, then the accounts must be disclosed publicly. That is not optional. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to further elaborate on how I have been using the other account for school, I understand that Wikipedia does have an educational aspect to it where teachers/professors list assignments for students to complete. However, my professors do not use that. We just simply share with them every now and again what we have been doing in terms of editing through assignments outside of Wikipedia. And to explain why I was in multiple states during the summer, I left my college in New Hampshire in early May to go to my home, which is in Connecticut, for approximately a month. After Memorial Day, I started an internship on Cape Cod, in Massachusetts, that lasted for the rest of the summer. Spanky pic3 (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my goal with coming out clean now through doing this was just to prove to you all that I felt ready to come back and edit freely without the supervision I have with my professors on the other account versus not coming out about the other account and my uses for it and digging myself in an even bigger hole. Spanky pic3 (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, to respond to to what Berean Hunter is asking, I would tend to say "Six months with no socking means six months with no socking", and ask to see that first. That said, it does appear that the other account has been able to more or less stay out of trouble, and the indication of being honest about its existence is a positive one. I would agree with Anachronist that if an unblock is granted here, all future editing needs to be done on this account, no exceptions. So, certainly a very clear understanding that getting caught socking (or even just using an alternate account period) one more time would be an immediate indef, and that one will probably be final. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is socking throughout the unblock process, that should be an automatic decline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in two minds about this. I can see where Berean Hunter is coming from but at the same time you have socked. While I think that your attitude towards editing has changed for the good, the Standard Offer is quite specific. It states no sockpuppetry "with no edit, using any account" - you haven't done this.-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is the apparent consensus here that you should follow the standard offer and do not sock for six months. I have blocked the other account. I would recommend that you contribute to one or more of the sister projects in the meantime. Simple Wikipedia, Commons and Wikibooks are some of the projects but there are also others. Your contributions on these related projects should suffice for school purposes and as you may see on the standard offer page, good contributions and behavior on those projects help your chances when you appeal again. An admin still needs to close the unblock request above.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and will take your advice until April. Spanky pic3 (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spanky pic3: Not trying to offend anyone, but you said April. Now it is May. 2601:8B:C300:4A70:5875:4D0D:6779:AF50 (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I do not know who 2601:8B:C300:4A70:5875:4D0D:6779:AF50 is, nor do I know why that person (or persons) decided to target me so randomly. I did see your post that you later took down, Yamla, and you have my word, this was not done by me. With everything going on with the Coronavirus right now, I honestly have a lot more important things to worry about than coming back to Wikipedia. Believe me, when I’m ready to come back, we’ll have another conversation. Spanky pic3 (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I obviously can't say for sure, I'm sufficiently convinced the IP address is someone else. That's why, as Spanky pic3 noticed, I took down my earlier comment. --Yamla (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]