Administrators! If you're here to invoke WP:TPA on me for having 3 declined unblock requests, please read the 3rd declined unblock request! The unblock request is based off of off-wiki evidence, and as such has been forwarded to ArbCom and is waiting for review.
Hello, I'm FlightTime. Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Welcome to the Jungle even if you provide a/some source(s), you'll still need to start a discussion on the article talk page to allow editors who regular watch that page a chance to discuss the reliability of the source(s) you provided. One reason is, genre sources can easily be considered an opinion and not fact. Genre's are a touchy subject here on Wikipedia and without discussion/consensus, regardless of your source(s), your addition or removal will most likely be reverted. Your edit has been reverted and archived in the page history for now.
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).
Admin didn't explain why I was blocked, but I assume it was my tagging pages for speedy deletion. said that they blocked me because "WP:A3 does not apply to articles with infoboxes", but these were good faith RSDs that I believe were correct. In this case, a warning would have been much more suitable. This was a completely inappropriate action on Bbb23's part and should be reversed. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 17:56, 6 July 2023 (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 are a very new editor. You shouldn't be tagging articles for speedy deletion at all, but beyond that, your edits to date are highly unusual in many respects. Many are disruptive, and many are misguided. Have you used other accounts at Wikipedia? What's an "RSD"?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You returned to the same articles and edited them in the same manner as your prior account. Essentially, this was clearly a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny. WP:CLEANSTART goes into more details. --Yamla (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look shows FlightTime, Bbb23, Lennart97, tgeorgescu. I do want to be clear, I think you are an enthusiastic editor and have real potential. However, you aren't currently showing signs of understanding what you are doing incorrectly. This will be my last response. You are, of course, free to make a new unblock request. For any future reviewing admins, note that Bbb23 was the original blocking admin. As far as my block is concerned, you are free to ignore the checkuser part of it and just review it as a regular block. --Yamla (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Key of G Minor, you have made a mess of this page, hence my revert back to this point. First, you cannot remove declined unblock requests. Second, you can have only one unblock request at a time. Finally, you cannot alter declined unblock requests. Any more of this, and I will revoke TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes as long as you don't mess anything else up doing so. My warning was not to prevent you from making an unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock requests
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).
I was blocked because I "abused" multiple accounts. I haven't used the old one in 2 months and don't plan to. I have an alt account to use on less secure wifi. I have an even older account that I forgot the password to. I guess I didn't understand the clean slate policy, and I apologize for that. I was dumb. I was earlier blocked for requesting speedy deletion on numerous articles, per A3, which I also didn't understand. I apologize for that. I'm not necessarily asking to be unblocked, but I don't think I should be indef blocked. Give me ~a week to read up on all the policies and I promise to not do anything like that again. I'm a good faith editor 100% of the time, and I amhere to build an encyclopedia. If not, that's fine. However, Yamla, said
I think you are an enthusiastic editor and have real potential. However, you aren't currently showing signs of understanding what you are doing incorrectly.
I believe if my block is reduced, I can learn. Hell, I'll even take an SO. It was an honest mistake a never plan on doing again. I have read WP:SOCKBLOCK, so I understand I should put this on User talk:AugustusAudax, that account is, once again, unused. I'll answer any questions you have. Thank you, and I'm incredibly sorry. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 21:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC) Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 21:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I'm perplexed by this request. Below, and above, you list AugustusAudax as an 'unused' account - but that account has almost a thousand edits. I'm not saying that you necessarily need to wait six months for SO to kick in, but you are going to have to explain yourself a bit better. Why did you use multiple accounts in this way? Why are you saying that AugustusAudax was unused? Try again. GirthSummit (blether)19:42, 11 July 2023 (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.
That is not a complete answer to the questions I asked in my decline. You will need to post a new request, addressing those questions fully, and another admin will review it in due course. GirthSummit (blether)20:00, 11 July 2023 (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).
I do want to be clear, I think you are an enthusiastic editor and have real potential. However, you aren't currently showing signs of understanding what you are doing incorrectly.
However, if I'm unblocked, I believe I can learn what I'm doing wrong and continue to contribute constructively. In the time I've been blocked, I've noticed a large amount of corrections I should make. I've tried to edit them, only to remember I was blocked. I'm sorry for being an idiot and want to continue constructively editing. I can and will answer any questions. Some questions I have already been asked include:
Q: Why did you use multiple accounts in this way?
A: I just get bored of accounts on various things, abandon them, then make new ones. I don't know why I do this. ADHD?
Q: Below, and above, you list AugustusAudax as an 'unused' account - but that account has almost a thousand edits. Why are you saying that AugustusAudax was unused?
A: I want to clarify that I meant that I do not currently use it or plan to ever use it again.
Well, I'm not opposed to unblocking, though I'd like to hear if Yamla, Bbb23, and Girth Summit are pleased with the way this request is phrased. I think it addresses the salient points; I also think that many of the troubling edits are related to musical genre, and perhaps it would be wise to stay away from that--a thing we could enforce with a topic ban for six months, for instance. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The block has since been escalated to a CUblock. Key of G Minor has proffered a defense that is based on off-wiki evidence. Per WP:UNBLOCK § Other methods of appeal, such an unblock request must be made to the Arbitration Committee, so this request is procedurally declined in favor of that route. If the sockpuppetry angle is resolved, per below I see a rough consensus to unblock with a ban on music genres. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:40, 6 August 2023 (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.
Drmies, I'm not keen on unblocking this user, although I wouldn't object to extending the standard 6-month offer. However, if Yamla (he keeps taking vacations, sounds like the earliest he would chime in is tomorrow) and GS are in favor, I agree that a topic ban should be imposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not fully back yet. And for the record, more vacations planned. :) I'm... mostly ambivalent here. I think if an unblock is to happen, a topic ban should be imposed. I also think a single-account restriction would be a good idea. I think these lead to the best chance of success in the immediate future. To be clear, this is mostly Bbb23's block and I'm offering suggestions, not requirements-from-the-blocking-admin. Anyone lifting this block with whatever terms they think appropriate will see no objection from me. --Yamla (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) My conditions if I were an admin would be a topic ban on music genres for 6 months, a permanent cease-and-desist on the use of JamesTheBold and AugustusAudax, using Key of G minor as the main account, and the only exception being Key of B Flat Major as a public WiFi/unsecure connection account, as that is allowed by policy per WP:PUBLICSOCK provided that the account connections are clearly stated on the userpage. Any disruptive edits, especially from the public WiFi alt, would result in a block. I’m not opposed to a SO either, but the above would constitute my conditions for a non-SO immediate return to editing. DrewieStewie (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: KoGm's explanation for the Rheighway account seems at least plausible. My instinct says it's at least true that they didn't register that account and know the person who did. I'm less convinced that they're not the one operating it currently, but I'll grant that they have no clear motive to sock in that manner. However, their explanation relied on off-wiki evidence and that's had to be OS'd. Since appeals based on off-wiki evidence must go to ArbCom, do you have an objection to procedurally closing this in favor of an ArbCom appeal, with an understanding that, if the sockpuppetry side is resolved, there's a rough consensus for an unblock with a full TBAN from genre changes? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It happens. The real lesson here is you really shouldn't add tags like {{nacmt}} to other users' comments. If you feel someone's actually misrepresenting themself as an admin, that's one thing, but generally it's up to an individual user whether they wish to note what perms they do or don't have. (P.S. That userbox rotates out at random, so here's what we're referring to for others' context.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my apologies for the delayed response. The decline came to me at ~3:45 AM local time. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs)
Leave the requests. Even if we didn't have a policy about that, TPA isn't revoked on a strictly numerical basis. I've seen people get to 10+ consecutive unblocks because they were making gradual progress. As to ArbCom, you should email User:Arbitration Committee. You can say the same thing you said here. Just note that emails are plaintext, not wikitext, so you'll want to format it as The evidence at <https://www.example.com> shows that Rheighway and I are who I say we are. Make sure to include a link to this thread.Also, don't worry about response time here. Slower is better, within reason. Take time, think things through. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KoGm, far be it from me to tell someone how to handle their own unblock request, but I really don't think treating admins like we're idiots is going to help your case. You have 1 decline for socking, 1 "Try again" with further questions, and 1 procedural decline, and you're not insulting anyone or otherwise violating user conduct policies. No one's going to revoke TPA on you.I'll be honest, if it weren't for the socking angle, I'd be inclined to commute this to a tempblock of 2–4 years and give you some time to, frankly, become the kind of person who doesn't leap into things impulsively. (Not intended to speculate as to your precise age; this is advice I might give to anyone under 25.) There's a point in one's life where it seems like everything is the most important thing in the world. That's often a bad point at which to be editing Wikipedia. And if that seems preachy, I did edit Wikipedia at that point in my own life, and did get blocked for bad decisions, and only got unblocked because I applied the lessons I'd learned from a run-in with the cops when I was 14, which is the kind of trial-and-error experience from which maturity is wrought. Even then I have a lot of regrets about silly immature things I did in the following years. So just... something to think about. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I take that to mean I will post a reply here and you will put it there in my place, as I’m blocked, so thank you. The defense I would like you to place is:
I am not these IPs. These IPs track to Manitoba and Alberta. I live in Indianapolis, 2000 miles away from there, and I don't know anybody outside my state, let alone a foreign country. CheckUser evidence can confirm that those aren't me. However, I would also like to apologize if I brought on this horde on genre-warriors, but I would also like to say this too in my defense: My evidence has already gone to ArbCom, and I’m fairly close to getting unblocked. I have no motive to block evade, especially for an argument this dumb. I opened an RfC, consensus was gained, and I accept that. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 20:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please just assume good faith and believe me when I say that's not me. I would've had to make that account when I was 3. Again, I apologize for my idiocy. But my grandpa (who has completely different interests than me) is being caught in the crossfire. You know that I know that doing something like that would completely ruin my chances of getting unblocked. And I want to keep this account. If you do decide to decline my unblock and invoke WP:TPA, please replace the contents of my talk page with the apology I wrote previously. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 22:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I do believe Key of G Minor to be a good-faith editor, who has contributed constructively to several areas, including RfD and AfD. They were originally indef blocked by Bbb23 for "disruptive editing", a block which, as they stated (1), was not adequately explained. I was surprised by this block, and asked Bbb23 for explanation on that user's talk page, receiving, in my view, no satisfactory answer (2). Then Key of G Minor found to be a sock of AugustusAudax. I'll restate my opinions here again; I believe that Key of G Minor is a good-faith editor, and that Bbb23's initial block could use with some more scrutiny. No comment on this "Rheighway" affair. OK, I will comment. Rheighway's account was created in 2012, (3), eleven years before AugustusAudax. (Non-administrator comment) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]18:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. All I can do is hope the evidence I gave is good enough to prove that we're not the same person. Same family? Yes, but not the same person. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 19:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This whole situation is just one, big misunderstanding. I thought A3 meant no real content, but I was wrong, so I was blocked. Then, my old account which I have no intention to ever return to (I don't even think I still have the password) was thought to be a sockmaster, because people thought I was under scrutiny when I left. I didn't think I did, and just left and made a new account. Then, I kid you not, my grandfather's account was confused with a sockpuppet of mine (of which I have none) because we I occasionally used his computer, and I made one or two edits on it, so it got auto-blocked too. I don't know why they thought this, because I was so close to getting unblocked, and I wouldn't want to ruin that. But that's not important. I still don't quite understand why making a new account and abandoning the old one is a problem in this case, but I believe I can learn if I'm unblocked. Honestly, this block has done more harm than good. I've noticed so many mistakes I could've corrected in the time I've been blocked. This whole situation is a confusing mess, and I believe it should be resolved as soon as possible. I just hope that Yamla is convinced by my evidence that Rheighway is not my sockpuppet. I'm really just venting/summarizing here, and I apologize for any inconvenience to any readers of this, but I just wanted to get it out. Honestly, I'm just a little stressed, as school starts back up in a little over a week. My hands are getting tired, so I oughta stop typing, but thanks for reading this rant, and I wish myself luck in this hellishdumpster fire of an over-extended month-long journey. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 01:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I would describe KoGM's (this seems to be the preferred acronym) edits as "problematic", not necessarily "disruptive", and certainly not "abusive". Their abandoning of the AugustusAudax account sounds... odd... and JamesTheBold looks like a WP:LEGITSOCK. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]16:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skynxnex: As I am blocked, I cannot defend this redirect, so I will do it here.
I see you tagged Martina Princess for deletion, the rationale is it being a misnomer. You cited CBR, yet it appears that CBR is incorrect. I believe the actual episode itself says Martina Prince, but this might be wrong, as I haven't watched it in a while, but I feel like I distinctly remember it being Martina Princess rather than Marsha. Martina would also make more logical sense, given that it's the direct female equivalent of Martin.
I'll film the clip in question tomorrow for further review, so for now, I feel it would be best to temporarily withdraw the nomination. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 02:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 02:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for this process while blocked. The discussion will last for ~7 days so I'm not sure there's any reason to withdraw or pause. CBR isn't the only page that mentions it but just one example; there's no equivalent level of source for the current redirect, 8 hits in google for "martina princess" "simpsons" and those are a couple of tweets, a couple of FB comments, and a couple of forum posts. (But I'll watch the segment as well.) Skynxnex (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|Just wondering - can anybody explain how topic bans are enforced? Is it a bot that looks at each edit made and reverts it if it's under the topic in question's umbrella, or do admins manually go through each and every edit made during the duration of the topic ban? Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 18:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ArcticSeeress: I noticed you added [1]Slaewaz to RfD. I would like to say I support deletion, and let me explain why it was created.
If you look in the page history, you can see at the time of the redirect's creation, slaewaz was actually listed as the proto-Germanic name for slow living, which led me to believe that the proto-Germanics created the lifestyle, without actually reading the article. Had I actually done some digging, I guess I would've found out that it's both irrelevant and incorrect. Oops 🤷♂️ Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 03:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, it was also not until recent and after I was blocked (I've appealed to ArbCom, though, hope I get a response soon) that it was removed and I discovered the error. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 03:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Tips
