User talk:Patgregs88

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Dorothygordz per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dorothygordz. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. UtherSRG (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2025 (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).

Patgregs88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. I believe this user might have some sort of personal vendetta against Dorothy. I am a completely new user and have followed all necessary protocols when creating this account and posting this page content. Is there a problem with the posted page content? I would like proper review by an admin. There is nothing tying me to this user. It seems that the only thing i actually did wrong here was use the incorrect page title that had previously been blocked. I am happy to change it. As far as the text, it was heavily borrowed from other similar pages. Also, per the claim "New user, as their first edit drops another copy of Draft:2024 Snowflake data breach, previously created by at least two socks from this farm" - This is correct. I did this intentionally. Is there a problem with dropping a page that has legitimate value? Or do you have a problem with the page itself? Further, if i was Dorothy (which i am not) it appears, that all of her accounts have been banned. Is she not allowed to have an account, or does Wikipedia now ban for life? It seems there is some sort of personal vendetta going on here which i was now mixed up with.

Decline reason:

So, blocks are on the person behind the account, regardless of what other identity they choose to go by, a message the original account really should have picked up on by now as over dozen of their block-evading accounts have been blocked themselves over the last month or so. So yes, so long as the orignal account remains blocked "Dorothy"is blocked.

You seem awfully confident that that is their real name and you seem to want to defend them personally, which would be very odd if you just happened to wander in and innocently posted the exact same content, but you've now stated this was deliberate. Acting a proxy for a blocked user is considered functionally equivalent to the user evading the block themselves, so it doesn't actually matter if you are the same person as Dorothy or not, you are pursuing their agenda on their behalf while they are blocked. If that's all you are here to do, you will need to remain blocked. . Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:31, 8 January 2025 (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.

CU note: The results are Inconclusive. The IPs differ from others I checked in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dorothygordz, but there is some peer-to-peer proxy use and an overlap in a common UA. This will have to be reviewed based on behaviour.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 7 January 2025 (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).

Patgregs88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In response to your comments, I don't have any confidence that the person's name is Dorothy, other than their username starts with DOROTHY. I determined this by looking at the block notice and the person's page. Do you think I know this person's real name because I took a minute to read why i was being banned? Regardless, the point i made was only an example. I am not Dorothy (the person behind the DorothyG) account, nor am I affiliated with this PERSON. As the other reviewer's deemed the block was inconclusive, I am having a fair amount of trouble understanding how you could make a conclusive determination that i am this person simply because I called them by the first name used in the username? Regardless, I am not here to pursue anyone's agenda. I used the blocked example to make a misguided point. Regardless of that, I am stating that if someone actually reviews EVIDENCE related to my account, they will see i have no connection with this PERSON.

Decline reason:

Sorry but I'm not buying any of this, your explanations have more holes than Swiss cheese. Every comment of yours has inconsistencies, non-sequiturs, fuddles, or red herrings, and I'm thinking there's a reason for that. You're welcome to lodge another appeal, and I will quite happily recuse myself from reviewing it, but I'd say you need to come up with something far more convincing than this. DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2025 (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.

Are you telling us that you're a brand new user who has never edited Wikipedia before, and whose very first edit is a fully-fledged article draft? No newcomer tasks, no 'hello world' on your user page, no question at the Teahouse – just drop a complete draft, and then submit it to AfC for review? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so, yes. I started doing the suggested edits from the front page. I did a good chunk of them. You can see them in my history. I don't know what teahouse is, and sorry i chose not to edit my user page. I haven't decided what to put on there yet. Patgregs88 (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like i've made 19 page edits so far. Isn't that a good start? Please just give me a chance and see how I do. Patgregs88 (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I guess that's not impossible, even if it seems implausible.

And did you create the entire draft yourself, from scratch? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said I didn't. I mostly copied it from other sources already on wikipedia. I am in cyber security so was already looking up this topic for something else. I am going to be completely honest, I saw the page originally not long ago, then I came back to reference it and saw it was gone. I have seen enough pages get deleted / moved in wikipedia and I actually thought this would be a good opportunity to kick start a wikipedia account by re-creating the page. I don't think this goes against any rules since, based on my understanding, it seems like the page was only deleted because of the user. Sorry if this was the wrong approach, but I don't think i was doing anything against regulations and took a shot for an easy win. Patgregs88 (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, you created your draft two days ago. It cited many sources, most of which had access-date timestamps from a week or two before your draft was written. Why might that be? It's certainly possible to manually edit the access-dates, but this is totally unnecessary extra effort, when you can get the edit date's timestamp with the click of a button. And if you did edit them manually, why give different citations different access-dates? And BTW, those dates match those on the earlier drafts, which were deleted by the time that you say you were writing this draft, so you couldn't have copied them from them (if that's what you mean by "other sources already on wikipedia". That's quite a coincidence, isn't it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your view point and why it could seem like a crazy coincidence. Let me paint you a different story. I mentioned I happened to be on that page earlier for research. I am in the middle of working on research for my MBA and as part of my process, i copy/paste a lot of text from different places and put it into a big document that i can shuffle through later. With respect to this article, I specifically copied the source because I need the references for use on my own paper. I went back to the page for whatever reason and saw that it had been removed. So why not capitalize on someone else's mistake? The work was already done, so I decided to start a wikipedia account and literally re-create it. Please look at this objectively and tell me this isn't the perfect storm? Patgregs88 (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Patgregs88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Asking for another appeal review. I don't understand why any of my reasoning "has holes" as you put it. What happened is actually quite simple. You asked me why I had access to the original page, it's because i copied it as part of my MBA project research so i can get to it later. I specifically copied the source code so i could have the reference data with me for easy access. I then came back, saw the page was removed and took an opportunity to repost it. What exactly is wrong with that? If reposting a page is wrong, then i messed up but from what i can see the page was only removed becasue of the association with that other account.

Then as a result of my reposting it, some other overzealous wikipedia person assumed that because i made the post, i am somehow associated with this other Dorothy account. This is actually a very simple and logical story, all of which has been extremely consistent with EVERYTHING I have been saying since the very beginning. Can you please explain specifically what "holes" you are referring to? I said from the beginning that intentionally reposted the page and I have never swayed from that.

Is it that hard to fathom that i would have kept a copy of the source code because i wanted a quick way to reference the links and text offline as part of my MBA project research? Based on the last admin's comments, it sounds like the worst thing i did in all of this was forget to update the media access dates before i re-published the article - but if we are being honest, those are all when they were accessed, so it's not exactly wrong.

Anyway if it would help prove my case I am happy to privately provide the next reviewer with information on my class information so you can validate who i am and which class i am taking

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Asking for another appeal review. I don't understand why any of my reasoning "has holes" as you put it. What happened is actually quite simple. You asked me why I had access to the original page, it's because i copied it as part of my MBA project research so i can get to it later. I specifically copied the source code so i could have the reference data with me for easy access. I then came back, saw the page was removed and took an opportunity to repost it. What exactly is wrong with that? If reposting a page is wrong, then i messed up but from what i can see the page was only removed becasue of the association with that other account. 

Then as a result of my reposting it, some other overzealous wikipedia person assumed that because i made the post, i am somehow associated with this other Dorothy account. This is actually a very simple and logical story, all of which has been extremely consistent with EVERYTHING I have been saying since the very beginning. Can you please explain specifically what "holes" you are referring to? I said from the beginning that intentionally reposted the page and I have never swayed from that. 

Is it that hard to fathom that i would have kept a copy of the source code because i wanted a quick way to reference the links and text offline as part of my MBA project research? Based on the last admin's comments, it sounds like the worst thing i did in all of this was forget to update the media access dates before i re-published the article - but if we are being honest, those are all when they were accessed, so it's not exactly wrong. 

Anyway if it would help prove my case I am happy to privately provide the next reviewer with information on my class information so you can validate who i am and which class i am taking |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Asking for another appeal review. I don't understand why any of my reasoning "has holes" as you put it. What happened is actually quite simple. You asked me why I had access to the original page, it's because i copied it as part of my MBA project research so i can get to it later. I specifically copied the source code so i could have the reference data with me for easy access. I then came back, saw the page was removed and took an opportunity to repost it. What exactly is wrong with that? If reposting a page is wrong, then i messed up but from what i can see the page was only removed becasue of the association with that other account. 

Then as a result of my reposting it, some other overzealous wikipedia person assumed that because i made the post, i am somehow associated with this other Dorothy account. This is actually a very simple and logical story, all of which has been extremely consistent with EVERYTHING I have been saying since the very beginning. Can you please explain specifically what "holes" you are referring to? I said from the beginning that intentionally reposted the page and I have never swayed from that. 

Is it that hard to fathom that i would have kept a copy of the source code because i wanted a quick way to reference the links and text offline as part of my MBA project research? Based on the last admin's comments, it sounds like the worst thing i did in all of this was forget to update the media access dates before i re-published the article - but if we are being honest, those are all when they were accessed, so it's not exactly wrong. 

Anyway if it would help prove my case I am happy to privately provide the next reviewer with information on my class information so you can validate who i am and which class i am taking |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Asking for another appeal review. I don't understand why any of my reasoning "has holes" as you put it. What happened is actually quite simple. You asked me why I had access to the original page, it's because i copied it as part of my MBA project research so i can get to it later. I specifically copied the source code so i could have the reference data with me for easy access. I then came back, saw the page was removed and took an opportunity to repost it. What exactly is wrong with that? If reposting a page is wrong, then i messed up but from what i can see the page was only removed becasue of the association with that other account. 

Then as a result of my reposting it, some other overzealous wikipedia person assumed that because i made the post, i am somehow associated with this other Dorothy account. This is actually a very simple and logical story, all of which has been extremely consistent with EVERYTHING I have been saying since the very beginning. Can you please explain specifically what "holes" you are referring to? I said from the beginning that intentionally reposted the page and I have never swayed from that. 

Is it that hard to fathom that i would have kept a copy of the source code because i wanted a quick way to reference the links and text offline as part of my MBA project research? Based on the last admin's comments, it sounds like the worst thing i did in all of this was forget to update the media access dates before i re-published the article - but if we are being honest, those are all when they were accessed, so it's not exactly wrong. 

Anyway if it would help prove my case I am happy to privately provide the next reviewer with information on my class information so you can validate who i am and which class i am taking |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}