User talk:ConcernedDKfan

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Deprodding of James Underdown

[edit]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from James Underdown, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! jlwoodwa (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've listed it there even before proposing for deletion. Can you please assist in getting someone to check out the request? ConcernedDKfan (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think speedy deletion might work? I believe the article is unsalvageable and meets G11, unambiguous promotion without notability. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it meets the threshold for G11. I see that someone has already created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Underdown (2nd nomination) on your behalf, though. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. That would be my assigned mentor. As I'm a noob when it comes to this process, and this might seem like a silly question, do I have to participate at all? ConcernedDKfan (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

test 3

[edit]

Warning icon Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you...warning youself...? Sergecross73 msg me 20:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend testing at User talk:Sandbox instead. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was kinda funny to post it here, but that's a better suggestion thank you. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:VegitotheKnightmare per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VegitotheKnightmare. 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 ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit (blether) 15:49, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOT vegitotheknightmare

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

The main reason why I was blocked is because 1. I edited a video game topic 2. I also edited a Skeptics topic, and because I have those two interests, they say I'm the same user despite that user Vegito editing a myriad of other topics checking their history. xD There are zero technical reasons to believe I am that user (please do a device check and IP check, compare the typing style, edit summaries, etc). Furthermore, they call me "tendentious," but in reality, I was anything but. I was the one who actually stopped engaging in Talk before anyone even told me to, I accepted that I couldn't change people's minds and so I disengaged politely. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADonkey_Kong_Bananza. Scroll to the last topic which says "Unfortunately." I never caused any problems in Talk nor debated endlessly. You can check all my history on Wikipedia under this account, I've never been "tendentious" nor have I ever crossed the line into edit warring, insults, etc, hence why there are no warnings on my Talk. In actuality, I politely called out users who were doing so, as opposed to partaking in such behavior myself. Finally, during my time here I did not receive a single warning or anything of that sort, I am a user in good standing. Ferret is also alleging that I pressed for an AfD on Margaret Downey. This is absolutely untrue, please check my edit history. I know the woman, so why would I even do that? I only made an edit on her page to fix up an unclear sentence. Ferret also says I quote "VegitotheKnightmare" as the sole reason for the AfD on James Underdown's page; untrue. I also quoted the user Sgerbic. Sergecross's rationale for endorsing my block is because "I seemed like a sock." AKA, just a hunch, nothing technical. At the end of the day, if the reason for blocking people is because they share two interests, and "they kinda seem like they debate too," (everyone debates in Talk at some point) then why not block half of Wikipedia as socks? I vehemently deny being VegitotheKnightmare. This block is without evidence. It has no basis in anything other than speculation based on interests I share with Vegito, but did you know that video games are the top form of entertainment in the world? Is it really above chance that someone who's interested in Skeptics space would also like video games? Overall, this is completely unjustifiable. Thank you for reading, have a nice day. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's not enough information here to review the block. You need to disclose your previous accounts. You can do so using WP:UTRS if you don't wish to disclose publicly. Be warned, if you did indeed make use of WP:VANISH, this account would be abusive. If you make use of a courtesy vanishing, it means you personally will no longer edit Wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 11:05, 4 August 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.

That's not a very good recap of the SPI, which I'm sure the reviewing admin will review themselves. You directly stated you have edited under other accounts, and yet you have refused to disclose them. No less than 3 editors saw your edits and actions suspicious. And that's only counting SPI. You have...not been very subtle. Sergecross73 msg me 22:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I missed something from the SPI, please spell it out; I'll make sure to address it. Thank you!

I can disclose the accounts in private. There is no need to disclose the accounts in public. I do not want to disclose them publicly due to privacy, but I can disclose in private to an admin who is not you. As I believe there would be conflict of interest due to interactions we have had in the past day under this account. After all, I did rightfully warn you for assuming bad faith and personal attacks. Checking almost a day later, both warnings have been removed by you with an edit summary of "removing bogus warnings." Nevertheless, the history is still there and anyone can check your talk page's history.I am of the opinion that you should not be partaking in this investigation due to COI.

In any case, I stated that all past accounts been willfully deleted, which was glossed over in the investigation. To this day, VegitotheKnightmare is an open account. If you are taking my word for it (what was done in the rationale for suspension), then I can't possibly be that user's alt, because that account is not deleted. Important to note: You say 3 editors saw my edits as suspicious, but that doesn't seem to be entirely accurate. Only ferret raised the investigation, you agreed on a hunch (I knew he was a sock of someone), and then the blocking user, seeing that 2 people had agreed, decided to block. It was like a domino effect; an unfair one at that. As far as I can tell, the conclusion was not reached independently by 3 separate users. Important to note I was initially accused of being Carloseow's sock too, and that ended up not being true.

Once again: If I missed something from the SPI like you allege, please spell it out; I'll make sure to address it. Thank you! ConcernedDKfan (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you warned a number of editors yesterday, and you were ignored every time because they were incorrect interpretations on policies and guidelines. Much like your accusation that it was a "COI" to comment at your SPI. That's not a COI, and anyone is free to comment at an SPI, which is all I did here. It's just one misguided comment after the next. It's nonsense like this that would have gotten you blocked sooner or later anyways as you seem to refusal to drop the stick. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly were your accounts deleted? The WMF doesn't allow accounts to be deleted because of our licensing requirements. See [1] CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for my past accounts to be deleted; I have a record that can be shared privately through email. The username was posted privately in UTRS. It begins with M and ends with a number. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A more appropriate term for what I did, rather than "delete", would be courtesy vanishing. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Serge I warned only two editors, you and another administrator for combative language. Please do not make misleading statements like that. "A number of editors" has the potential to mislead. Anyone can check my contribs and see what actually occurred.
Important to note that yet again, we have another instance of combative language in your latest response. "It's nonsense like this that would have gotten you blocked sooner or later anyways."
For reference to administrators, here are the two warnings I gave out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sergecross73&diff=prev&oldid=1303945583#Warning
The second one was after Sergecross accused me on WT:VG of "changing the subject" for no reason at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#c-SilviaASH-20250803005800-ConcernedDKfan-20250803003900

Due to me pointing out certain behavior yesterday, I believe that Serge could have an unintentional bias in the investigation. It is not certain, but I have reason to suspect it. For now, this is my last reply on the matter. I still have not received any answer as to what I missed from the SPI like Serge alleged. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much wrong here, I don't know where to begin. Not that it matters, this isn't anywhere near a valid unblock request. I'm not responding further. You're not listening to what anyone tells you, so there's no real point. Sergecross73 msg me 00:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not listening to what "anybody" tells me? You are the only person who has interacted with me about this matter. Please stop making misleading statements that paint me in a bad light. In any case, I agree, there is no point in continuing this conversation. Best of luck. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{CU needed}} to look for any obvious evidence of sockpuppetry or block evasion. Yes, I'm aware the master is likely stale. -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This will need to proceed on behavior. We have no data for the earlier accounts and nothing of particular interest on the relevant range for this account. Izno (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before taking action, please consider my arguments against behavior and consider the incorrect accusations on the investigation page. Thank you. I only wish to contribute to Wikipedia. My good faith edits have proven that much. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins

[edit]

The AfD on James Underdown passed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Underdown_(2nd_nomination)

More proof that I was not acting to fulfill any vendetta and that I am not VegitotheKnightmare. An administrator pinpointed the same issues I did, most likely after I brought attention to said article.

I'll also say once again that I never, ever, ever pushed for an AfD on Margaret Downey, despite being accused of doing so in the SPI that led to my unjustified block. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal key

[edit]

@Ohnoitsjamie

Hello, I lost my UTRS appeal key due to my clipboard glitching out.

Please email it to me at my email or guide me otherwise ConcernedDKfan (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your last UTRS appeal was declined with the following message: "Please see <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_vanishing>, particularly, the part in the nutshell about it being a permanent leave." I'm not commenting further, other than to suggest you stop blaming other editors and stop trying to twist Wikipedia policies. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with the loaded language. I will resubmit the UTRS appeal ConcernedDKfan (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notably, that page you send me to does not indicate that an account may not return ever again after vanishing. There is no statement saying this, I absolutely guarantee this @Ohnoitsjamie. If you denied my appeal on the grounds of the courtesy vanishing issue, your denial is, in my opinion, absolutely unjustified as per policy. I have managed to prove I am not a sock, denying my appeal because of the vanishing issue is not fair. I misunderstood the point of vanishing; I ask for you and other admins to take it easy on me and give me another chance. I've provided high quality edits to the project and even my AfD on James Underdown passed "from the grave," because I understood policy quite well.

The ban is due to an SPI. My name was cleared in that regard. It is not fair, in my view, to deny the appeal due to an unrelated courtesy vanishing problem that doesn't even have written policy for us to rely on to say that "courtesy vanished users may never return." My previous account was in very good standing and I made an impact on various articles too.

@Asilvering, can you assist in guiding me on how to resubmit the UTRS for maximum chance of success? ConcernedDKfan (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs As you were the administrator who revived my AfD (thanks for that, I am happy I could help improve Wikipedia,) I hope to ask for your opinion on this problem, which is an unfair ban on my end, it is no longer being held up due to the sockpuppet issue (which my name was cleared on) but due to my having previous courtesy vanished accounts. If this counts as CANVASSING, please forgive me and simply do not engage in this discussion. It's not my intention to sway things in my favor, just to have someone level headed explain to me if I'm actually in the wrong or my ban is unjustified.
I just would like some administrators I perceive as "level-headed" to join in and give input to me. Especially as the essay on your page says the following:
"Sysops are going to make terrible blocks and deletions."
I consider this to be one of those, especially since the SPI has.... some interesting "facts" about my trajectory on the site, such as an inaccurate accusation of pressing for an AfD Margaret Downey's article. Verifiably false. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ConcernedDKfan, I don't know where you're getting the impression that it's acceptable for a vanished account to return. The various policy pages state the contrary several times in different language. For example, WP:VANISH says, Vanishing is a last resort, intended only for those who wish to stop editing permanently and minimize their visible past associations. You're definitely not supposed to come back if you've had a courtesy vanishing! But I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything at this point. And it's not like Wikipedia policies are signed in blood or anything. Whatever it is, we can work with it.
Regarding resubmitting a UTRS appeal, my advice is the same advice I'd give anyone: start from the beginning, explain what happened in your case clearly, apologize for whatever happened, and make some kind of assurance that whatever it was won't happen again. Whoever reads your appeal is going to read that before they read anything else, so make sure it would make sense to someone who is hearing about you for the first time. -- asilvering (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. The reason why I bring up the past courtesy vanishing is because my ban, which was for sockpuppetry got the appeal denied due to courtesy vanishing, even though my name was cleared from the sock accusations.
If I quit due to genuinely not wanting to edit, but changed my mind, is that still bad? I didn't courtesy vanish abusively. After all, the track record on my previous account is visible to administrators, and it is clear that I was editing in good faith. So it wasn't a vanish to hide myself and to come back later, it was to protect my mental health. I even said so in the vanishing reason if I recall correctly.
So this is the only reason why my UTRS got denied. Is this justifiable? And if so, am I screwed, is there nothing I can do? If that's the case, I'm happy to let it go. I would only want to know that there is nothing else left to do before calling it a day. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ConcernedDKfan, I don't think there's nothing you can do. It's not like we don't believe that people can change their minds. Just open a UTRS appeal, start from the beginning, and explain what's going on, and someone will be able to handle it. There's not really anything more specific I can say without seeing the appeal itself. -- asilvering (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you using UTRS, anyway? Your talk page access has not been revoked. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There's not enough information here to review the block. You need to disclose your previous accounts. You can do so using WP:UTRS if you don't wish to disclose publicly. Be warned, if you did indeed make use of WP:VANISH, this account would be abusive. If you make use of a courtesy vanishing, it means you personally will no longer edit Wikipedia. Yamla (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)" @Jlwoodwa ConcernedDKfan (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]