User talk:Big Thumpus

Welcome!

Hi Big Thumpus! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! AntiDionysius (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AntiDionysius maybe you can help me understand what's going on with my block? I have tried asking a few other admins what it's about but for some reason they have given rather cryptic responses. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

AntiDionysius (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @AntiDionysius! Happy editing Big Thumpus (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Genuinely curious

Greetings and salutations @Yamla, I noticed that you have protected your own talk page and the talk page of at least one other administrator. I would have asked you about this on your own talk page but...I can't. To a less experienced editor, administrators limiting who can address them on their talk pages feels like it kind of defeats the purpose of being an administrator. Maybe I'm missing something? Thanks! Big Thumpus (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

A number of admins are being targeted by WP:LTAs. This includes rape and death threats. --Yamla (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 ~~~~}}.  Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Ponyo what is this about? Big Thumpus (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There is zero chance that this is anything but a trolling account. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean? Which edits are trolling? Big Thumpus (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ponyo Can you please clarify what this is about? Big Thumpus (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ponyo I'm not sure how to even appeal this, can you please give me some details? Big Thumpus (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Stop pinging Ponyo, it's abusive. WP:GAB explains how to contest your block. This was already pointed out to you. --Yamla (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I deserve the hostility? What is going on? I've read WP:GAB, I'm trying to understand why I've been blocked so I can appeal it. Ponyo has made over a dozen edits since I requested clarification, at what point am I allowed to re-ping the administrator who blocked me? Big Thumpus (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You've pinged Ponyo. If Ponyo wants to respond, they will. I'd strongly advise reading WP:PROJSOCK. --Yamla (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I'm reading WP:PROJSOCK and still having a hard time understanding the relevance - can you please elaborate?

And I would add respectfully that per WP:ADMINACCT administrators are "expected to respond promptly and civilly" in these situations. I don't feel like this has happened, I'm just trying to understand what's going on. Big Thumpus (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

No. I cannot help you further. --Yamla (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I really don't understand - I am kindly asking you to clarify why you directed me to that particular page. What am I missing? I'm feeling pretty stonewalled here at the moment. Big Thumpus (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, I will try my best at appealing this per WP:GAB although I still do not understand why I have been blocked. This is my only account. The blocking administrator accused me of trolling but has not responded to my request for clarification as to what qualified as trolling. Maybe someone else can help. Thank you. Big Thumpus (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have examined your edits and I agree with the conclusion of the blocking administrator. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

Request for clarification

Hello 331dot, can you please clarify which edits you are talking about??? Why am I being accused of something without any evidence? Big Thumpus (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I have examined all of your edits and the totality of them leads me to my conclusion. I don't wish to provide more detailed information than that. You are free to make a new request that someone else will look at. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I barely have more than 20 edits, now with a majority of them becoming requests for clarification about this indefinite block. I legitimately do not understand why multiple administrators will not provide any detail whatsoever, this does not feel like appropriate admin behavior. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@331dot, can you fill me in? By email maybe? I'm about as confused as the appellant here. -- asilvering (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is my only account. If an administrator would like to clarify the sockpuppet accusation I would appreciate it. I also am happy to revert any edits deemed to be "trolling" but as of right now no one will clarify which edits qualify as trolling.

I have previously asked for clarification here: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Thank you for your consideration. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please see detailed explanation below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

---

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're almost trolling with this very request. We don't need you to post diffs of your requests for clarification as they are visible on this page. I already said "the totality of" your edits lead me to my conclusion. It isn't one specific edit. If that's not good enough for you, well- sorry. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

331dot ...What???? I'm simply trying to follow the instructions on WP:GAB, please don't accuse me of doing something wrong. I see that it states "the reviewing administrator may not read your whole talk page" which is why I provided proof in the unblock request that I have indeed requested clarification and not received it, so as to not be accused of filing a frivolous unblock request. Please either provide some clarification or leave me alone, this is starting to feel like hounding. Big Thumpus (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I will leave you alone. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Big Thumpus (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I am reviewing this block. Please see below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I am extremely busy finishing off some projects for year end, so I'm not sure how much I'll be around until next week. I have 100% faith in Newyorkbrad and note that the questions he raised below were the same red flags I saw prior to blocking the account. It wasn't a matter of being precocious or the odd places they chose to make their first edits, or the pointedness and specific recipients of the questions asked, it was being precocious and the odd places they chose to make their first edits and the pointedness and specific recipients of the questions asked that led to me conclude with certainty that this was an account created specifically to troll. If Newyorkbrad comes to another conclusion based on the answers provided, then by all means unblock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ponyo But were they blocked for being a troll, or for abusively using multiple accounts? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Very confused, seeking clarification

Hello WhatamIdoing sorry to bother you but I'm just looking for an administrator who will provide some clarity. I was blocked for sockpuppeting/trolling but at this point the admins I've appealed to have not gone into any detail as to why. This is becoming very frustrating as I compare Wikipedia's stated expectations for admin conduct with how I feel I'm being treated. I'm now getting worried that even trying to appeal the block is going to garner further accusations of "trolling". Can you provide any insight? Thank you. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like a Wikipedia:CheckUser investigation has decided that you are using multiple accounts. Based purely on the public logs, my guess is that information about your account matches a previously blocked editor.

There are sometimes false positives from these searches. These are most likely when using a shared internet connection or shared computers. For example, if a classroom has a set of laptops for students to use, then it may not be possible to tell the difference between two laptops being used by different students.

Whatever the actual truth, I'm sure that it's very frustrating. It doesn't matter if the truth is that you're an innocent victim of mistaken identity, or if the truth is that you had one or more previous accounts that were blocked. The path forward in both cases is the same, slow process: Spend at least the next six months showing us that you can be a productive contributor at some other wiki. I suggest that you read about the Wikipedia:Standard offer. Commons usually needs help. You might be interested in writing decent descriptions or finding images that are not in the correct c:Commons:Categories and fixing that, so people can find them better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, very much appreciated. I use 5G home internet, would that make any difference? I noticed that it tends to connect to wildly different servers.

To your point about the standard offer, I just don't understand why I should be indefinitely blocked from editing this encyclopedia at this point. Do you find my limited edit history to be demonstrative of trolling or some other violation of policy? I would happily revert any objectionable edit. I wish the blocking admin would clarify this decision, and I wish I didn't feel intimidated by another admin from pinging the blocking admin again. Big Thumpus (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

They might be talking primarily about the contributions from one of the matched accounts.

I don't know enough about 5G home internet to have a useful opinion. I only suggest that making yourself useful at a different wiki is the most compelling way to convince them that you're a desirable editor. Besides, the smaller wikis need the help, and everybody around the world wins when it's easier to find pictures on Commons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, interesting. Will you review my unblock request in your capacity as an administrator? I really don't know how to resolve this, it feels like a misunderstanding but it also feels like admins are not taking me seriously so far.

I appreciate the recommendation regarding Commons, and I don't really have anything against editing Commons, but I made an account here to edit in a constructive way and it's been blocked almost immediately. I want to be more confident in the fairness of the wikiverse if I'm going to continue. Big Thumpus (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I can't unblock you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for your input, either way. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! I also want to point out that United States politics are designed as contentious topics (see WP:CT/AP. As such, editors who contribute in this area may be more heavily scrutinized. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I am reviewing this block. Big Thumpus, please explain how, in your second hour of editing, you came to discover that two administrators, with whom you had had no prior visible interaction, had their talkpages protected, and decided to raise a concern about this as your fourth edit ever. Please further explain why, an hour later in your very next edit, you then raised the same subject with another editor, and also explain how you chose that particular editor as the person you would contact about it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Well. ("That escalated quickly", etc.) Before the blocks; before the "checkuser"ing; before the "sealioning"; before the multiple appeals... there was one, simple question. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 13:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your consideration. I'm a long-time Wikipedia lurker so I've spent a decent amount of time clicking around through talk pages and noticeboards. I understand that this isn't the typical edit history you might see for a "new" editor but personally I find the more technical, administrative side of Wikipedia very interesting and so that's where I directed my focus.

I came to discover that two administrators had their talk pages protected while following the rabbit hole of a since-blocked editor that one of them was involved with (I honestly don't recall who the blocked editor was but if you'd like further clarity I can go digging). I've never noticed administrators protecting their own talk pages, or talk pages of other administrators, so I was genuinely curious to understand why this might happen. In my view, administrators should be reachable by pretty much anyone, with their talk pages being the most obvious venue for contact, and protecting each other's talk pages has the potential to appear as if administrators are "closing ranks".

I raised the same subject with another editor after realizing that the first admin I had asked has a banner at the top of their talk page saying they "may not respond swiftly". The other editor I reached out to was one who stuck out to me as a prolific editor who responds quickly, and I trusted their knowledge of Wikipedia goings-on as they state on their user page that they have even worked for the Wikimedia Foundation.

I hope this helps, let me know if you have any more questions. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. Can you also advise whether you are currently, or were recently, blocked or in a dispute with any of the admins/editors in question, under any other account name or IP address you may have used. Please note that I am not asking you to reveal any IP address. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure. I have had no previous interaction with any of these admins/editors under any other account names or IP addresses. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You missed part of my question (that is perhaps my fault for unclear wording): Are you currently or have you recently been blocked under any account name or IP? (Again, not requesting any specific IP information.) Thanks again, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see, apologies - no, I am not currently blocked and have not been recently blocked under another account name or IP. Big Thumpus (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Checkuser needed. I request that an uninvolved checkuser provide input on this block. Big Thumpus, please allow a bit of time for this check to be completed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: This has been looked at. Checkuser has nothing relevant to offer here at this time, either positive or negative (by default that's not a bad thing, then again it's not entirely positive, it's just meaningless). If you're looking for policy, WP:ILLEGIT seems to contain a few options, including editing internal discussions and avoiding scrutiny. Personally, I'm not one of those people who thinks that someone who has never edited will find their way to supporting a FRAM IBAN at ANI within their first few edits on the project, hence I'm going to defer on the unblock request. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I have spent a fair amount of time pondering this block. There is no clear checkuser result, so I have to evaluate the unblock request based on the edits. In doing so, I give no weight to the politics-talkpage edits. The question is whether Big Thumpus's edits asking about userpage semiprotections, and to a lesser extent his single comment in the Fram ANI thread, either impel an inference that Big Thumpus is continuing a dispute from another account, or independently constituted trolling or harassment.

It is important that editors not be blocked merely for "editing knowledgeably while new" or even "commenting about internal project matters while new." In and of itself, familiarity with internal issues within Wikipedia can often be explained by time spent lurking, by prior IP editing, or by participation on related projects; it does not always reflect impermissible socking. (And in particular, we encourage IP editors to register an account, and do not require them to disclose their prior IPs when they do so.) In general, we should not be hasty to block, and in doubtful situations, we should err on the side of counseling or warning rather than blocking. In this regard, I agree with much of what was recently written here.

In this instance, though, Big Thumpus's explanation for the edits in question is not fully credible. How did Big Thumpus even come to know that two admins' talkpages were (semi)protected at all, much less come to care enough about this fact to make it the subject of his second- and third-ever registered edits? As an innocent explanation, this might be understandable if Big Thumpus had tried to raise an issue with those admins while still editing as an IP, and was frustrated that he couldn't post on their talkpages because of the semiprotections. If that had happened, it is plausible that Big Thumpus might then have registered an account with its own talkpage from which to issue a ping and contact the admins. (Actually, once the Big Thumpus account was registered, it could then have posted on semiprotected pages; but plausibly Big Thumpus might not have realized this if he was editing registered for the first time.)

However, in response to my question above, Big Thumpus asserts that he had no previous interaction with any of these admins, which rules out that explanation. And, as far as I see, Yamla's talkpage does not say anywhere on it that it is semiprotected—so how would Big Thumpus, or his IP predecessor, even have known that it was? As I have said, the most likely way, short of poring through the protection logs, would be if an IP attempted to post to the page and couldn't. If Big Thumpus had explained that that was what happened, I would probably have believed it (being one of the more credulous people around here)—but he has said the opposite. And the fact that the admin who was pinged has been a frequent target of harassment by others, some much more serious than this, while hardly dispositive, is not irrelevant.

Certainty about another person's intentions is impossible, especially when we can evaluate only words on a screen; in cases like these, we all must do the best we can with the information we have. In my view, the circumstances make it implausible that Big Thumpus's edits in question originated from public-spirited concern about administrator accountability, or even innocent idle curiosity, rather than a less well-intentioned reason, such as—well, "trolling" is a much-overused word, and "harassment" is even harsher, so let's just say being annoying. As such, I find that the block and the initial unblock decline were reasonably justified, and I will decline the pending unblock request.

That does not, of course, mean that Big Thumpus must remain blocked forever for four troublesome edits. As an administrator I miss used to say, "indefinite doesn't mean infinite," at least not necessarily so. Any future unblock request, after a reasonable time has passed, should include a discussion of the positive substantive contributions that Big Thumpus would seek to make if later allowed to resume editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your thoughtful reply, but I can't help feeling pretty shortchanged here.

You ask how I would have known that the two admin's pages were protected, and my only honest answer is that the information is plainly, publicly available and I stumbled upon it. I believe that their talk pages displayed one of the typical "protected" emblems in the top right corner at the time of my browsing, and I could be mistaken, but even now you can see in the edit history for Yamla's talk page that they | protected it on November 10th. Am I mistaken? Is that not what that diff indicates?

After not one, not two, but three separate checkusers have apparently evaluated this situation and found no credible evidence of what I've been accused of, this is feeling like I've been indefinitely blocked for what you've said - "being annoying". I think this sets a worrying precedent for future editors in my position, since "being annoying" is entirely up to the subjective interpretation of an administrator and not specifically enshrined in policy. Which action was annoying? Annoying to whom? How annoying does one need to be to deserve being indefinitely blocked without a single warning? There are countless examples of threads on talk pages and noticeboards where editors get into much more protracted bickering than anything I've done, and I don't see them experiencing the same treatment.

I also can't help but point out how the initial block was certainly not carried out according to policy. Per WP:SPI:

1. Evidence is required. When you open the investigation, you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected.

2. You must provide this evidence in a clear way. Vaguely worded submissions will not be investigated. You need to actually show why your suspicion that the accounts are connected is reasonable.

Aside from jumping straight to an indefinite block without actually opening a sockpuppet investigation, Ponyo asserted that they had concluded "with certainty" that I had created this account to troll. From what was this certainty derived? Ponyo is a checkuser, surely they understand the policy I've quoted above and its significance in the context of admin/checkuser accountability.

Examining how multiple admins/checkusers have treated me here, and seeing that you have now been awarded a barnstar by Yamla, my confidence that I am the recipient of an assumption of good faith is wearing thin. I hope you will reconsider keeping me blocked indefinitely. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The four edits were not troublesome, and Ponyo’s block said that BT was using multiple accounts abusively. Since then, Ponyo has said that the block was because BT's account was certainly made just to troll (really? after four non-disruptive edits?), and you say it’s for being annoying. No checkusers have validated the socking charge. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. This is truly bewildering. Big Thumpus (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

To any interested admins considering unblocking, I would be happy to mentor BT. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I think everyone might be jumping the gun a bit here. Somehow, an editor who has made no problematic edits and hasn't necessarily been given the good faith this community should be known for, is now blocked indefinitely. WP:AGF is a guideline for a reason. This block seems out of process. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 18:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I really don't know what to do. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

People in your position – regardless of whether they are truly the innocent victims of circumstances beyond their control, or they are technically guilty but don't view themselves as having done anything bad enough to deserve blocking – really only have two paths towards getting unblocked. You can take the Wikipedia:Standard offer, or you can keep begging for Wikipedia:One last chance. I suggest taking the standard offer, as the second option seems to frequently result in getting re-blocked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Given the disagreement, Big Thumpus is free to post another unblock request for review by someone else. If another admin reaches a different conclusion and chooses to unblock, I have no objection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Big Thumpus, if I may; it's possible the blocking admin inadvertently selected the wrong block reason (sockpuppetry rather than disruptive editing). I've asked a clarifying question on their talk page, but they appear to be travelling. In any case, things have moved on. Newyorkbrad gave you a detailed rationale for rejecting your appeal, but explicitly noted that you are free to make a new one, including a strong suggestion as to what you might include in it. He also explicitly said that he set aside ("g[a]ve no weight to") your edits to the talk pages of the political articles, so apparently he didn't consider them problematic/disruptive. So ... I differ here from WhatamIdoing. I suggest you carefully read over that response of Newyorkbrad's, including both the reasoning about your other edits and the suggestion for what else to mention, and try a new unblock request. If, that is, you really still want to help us out writing the encyclopaedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Big Thumpus, if you do choose to make a new unblock request, make sure it’s not about the faults in rationale for those who made and upheld your block. Instead, explain that you are not a sockpuppet nor a troll, and focus on how you would like to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

But, BR, if I were you, I would at least wait until Ponyo returns to comment on the block and the questions some editors have asked about it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, any future unblock requests will solely be focused on clarifying my intentions and actions. I will wait until Ponyo can provide any further comment. Again, thank you for your support. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and advice. I would of course love to continue helping to write the encyclopedia, which is why I originally decided to make this account and start editing. But this whole ordeal I think raises legitimate questions about the conduct of several administrators, some with high level privileges. People in my position should not feel intimidated from participating in internal discussions or appealing hasty indefinite blocks. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Patience please

Hello TarnishedPath, I noticed that you struck an edit of mine and would kindly ask that you revert your strike. If you examine the conversation above you will find that multiple admins/checkusers have not presented any credible evidence that I am a sockpuppet. At the very least, would you mind un-striking until the original blocking administrator can provide further input? Thank you. Big Thumpus (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Thumpus,

I only just logged on a little while ago and @Ivanvector has already unstruck the comment. TarnishedPath^talk 01:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I also just noticed that. Thanks for understanding. Big Thumpus (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, I would like to clarify that I am neither a sockpuppet nor a troll.

While a checkuser has already examined my account, I notice on the original blocking administrator's talk page that the IP ranges investigated were broad and some long term abusers have used them in the past. Perhaps it is helpful to a reviewing administrator for me to mention that I use a 5G home internet service, which I notice connects to wildly different servers day-to-day, but excluding that information I would like to state firmly that I am not an "abuser" of any type, not on Wikipedia and not in real life. I am here purely to help write an encyclopedia.

The comments on my previous unsuccessful appeals suggest that there is great curiosity regarding my first few edits, and why anyone but a troll would show up in an ANI case directly after creating an account. My only honest answer: I have lurked Wikipedia for a long time. Certainly long enough to understand a good deal of the typical lingo and code and what most of the various noticeboards are about. I find the administrative side of a project like this fascinating; the deeper discussions happening on talk pages and noticeboards are the inner workings of a greater machine created entirely to push the human understanding of the world forward. Before casting my vote in the Fram ANI discussion, I did indeed consider that someone might find it odd, but I also cautiously assumed that I would be offered the good faith of the community in my attempt to contribute to a rather convoluted case.

If unblocked I will continue trying to contribute to the encyclopedia in a meaningful way. My interests are not at all entirely centered around American politics, the topic of some of my first edits, and I always intended to edit a broad range of topics while participating in some of the deeper discussions behind the scenes.

Thank you for your consideration,

Big Thumpus (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Like the other checkusers who looked at this, I see no evidence of sockpuppetry (the stated reason for the block). Regarding the allegation of trolling, that is an assumption of your intent, which is impossible to prove, and a concern which has been adequately addressed by your more recent posts. I don't believe you continue to pose a threat to this project, if you ever did, and therefore I am accepting your request. – bradv 15:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Big Thumpus (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Confirming that I have seen this. It is after midnight here and I will comment in the morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad, my apologies for not waiting for you to comment, but I believe this has taken enough of the community's time. If you still have something to add please do – I am watching this page.

Big Thumpus, I don't believe anyone has ever answered your original question, but yes, user talk pages are allowed to be protected, per WP:UTPROT. – bradv 15:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Bradv. Big Thumpus (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy to see you unblocked, @Big Thumpus. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you have about Wikipedia. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Zanahary, I appreciate that. I would like to directly address my concerns regarding administrator conduct with the original blocking administrator and the others who were extremely unhelpful during this process but now I'm worried that they will just accuse me of violating another policy. What do you think I should do? Big Thumpus (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend moving on from that, and instead work on improving Wikipedia. That's the best way to prove any skeptical admins wrong. – bradv 22:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

My goal isn't to prove anyone wrong though, and I'm not looking to have anyone be punished or anything like that. But I feel that this block was entirely out of process and disruptive - the original blocking administrator, as a checkuser, should already know that jumping straight to an indefinite block for sockpuppetry without even opening an SPI case is improper. That's before even considering the replies that don't follow WP:ADMINACCT. Stuff like this materially undermines community trust in administrators, which we need in order to keep this place afloat.

I'm willing to follow your recommendation but I only ask about this specifically because multiple other editors have expressed concerns with this situation. Big Thumpus (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

While I understand your position and urge, I really wouldn’t. A number of editors have disagreed with the block, while a number of reviewing admins have agreed with the block. I encourage you to just move on from this ordeal and focus on encyclopedic content. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I do want to move on, and all I ever wanted to do was contribute to the encyclopedia, but if I'm being totally honest I feel mistreated by several administrators and it makes me uncomfortable here. Like I said, I'm not demanding that anyone be punished or anything, but accountability isn't punishment. It's a vital part of any project like this where a chosen few are granted higher level privileges than others. Big Thumpus (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand your feeling. My advice is still to leave it alone. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Bradv posted just as I was about to, but I am glad that he did, as successive unblock reviews should preferably be performed by different administrators.

Despite the concerns I previously expressed, I had intended to unblock this morning, without criticism of the initial block, based on Big Thumpus's stated intent to make positive encyclopedic contributions going forward.

I have granted several unblocks in somewhat similar situations in the past, and I recently look a look at those editors' recent contributions, out of curiosity about the results. It is a mixed bag: Sometimes the editor disappears soon after being unblocked, sometimes he or she misbehaves and winds up blocked again—but sometimes, he or she becomes a valuable long-term contributor. I find that there is enough chance of the last of these happening here that I concur in Bradv's decision.

Putting the previous disputed edits behind us, Big Thumpus is clearly capable of becoming a valuable editor if that is truly his intention. I hope that it is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)