Alachuckthebuck

Trouted

 Self-trout You have been self trouted for: not knowing about the email a Wikipedian page. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 05:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Alachuckthebuck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Whose sock are you?

Hi, Alachuckthebuck. Whose sock are you, please? Is your main account blocked? Bishonen | tålk 23:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC).

I am not a sock Alachuckthebuck (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is my main. What makes you think I’m a sock? My ip? Alachuckthebuck (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No. I don't have access to your IP. It was the nature of your edits, most especially this one. PS, you have to spell the username right if you want a ping to work. Bishonen | tålk 12:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC).

Forgot the stinking capital letters lol. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

And um can you have someone oversight the edit thank asked for my block and get me unblocked? Alachuckthebuck (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

"Oversight"..? No. And it was your edit that got you blocked, not Serial Number's. As for getting you unblocked, an uninvolved admin is going to evaluate your request for unblock. See the category at the bottom of the page. Quite a few admins follow the category, so I hope one will get around to you soon. Bishonen | tålk 16:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC).

would check user checking my logs for any links to accounts suffice to you as evidence that this a users primary account or would a sockpuppet investigation be the better idea? ps: do you know why they removed my statement? Alachuckthebuck (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a CU would be relevant, no. Or that you could get a CU to look at it. For the removal, see the edit summary by Beeblebrox: [1]. There, now I've pinged Beeblebrox for you. He's a CU, he can tell you about your logs etc. if he likes. Bishonen | tålk 22:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC).

February 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for editing project space without disclosing your main account. Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not a sock, this is my main account.

Decline reason:

Below this, you immediately declare you have edited before. Please appeal from your original account. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 23 February 2021 (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.

Alachuckthebuck (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)}

Have you edited before? PhilKnight (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I have (UPDATE: this was a mistake that I tried to fix but got reverted, so trying to clear it up, and that is not true, I misunderstood the question). Alachuckthebuck (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

So here's the thing. You created a Wikipedia account, went straight for an arb's talk page, and have displayed a good deal of knowledge of the behind-the-scenes parts of Wikipedia, so much so that it's pretty obvious you're not new here. Usually, that combination of factors means troll or sockpuppet. You said you've edited before...would you be willing to share the name of your previous account(s)? If you are not willing to do so publicly (such as if this is a new account for privacy reasons), I think it would be reasonable for you to email the Arbitration Committee with the name(s) and they can confirm publicly that you've disclosed them. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Clean_start#Contentious and scrutinized topics, I'd refuse any non-public disclosure in this case. It's either proper disclosure or the block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Um I meant I edited before on this account and before I ever made this account I read the policy pages and a large amount of arb com cases (including both the lightbreather case and brownhairedgirl.) I can see your points though. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I will if all other options fail out myself to arb com. I will willingly do a sockpuppet investigation or have a checkuser look at my IP logins. Will any of those options work to your satisfaction and/or be available in this case? Alachuckthebuck (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom does not deal with these regular blocks. Checkuser is not done on self-request. I simply don't believe you and would be surprised if anyone else does. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I've been watching this whole situation play out. For anything it's worth, I don't entirely see any obvious indicators here. Sure, they seem to have an advanced knowledge of the behind-the-scenes. But that doesn't mean that every single person who reads up on the policies and familiarizes themselves with the project is immediately a sock. I wouldn't be surprised if, as a hypothetical, the editor finds an arbitration case being discussed in a venue they run across, and decide to take a look at the current cases. They find the page, see that statements are allowed to be made, and then decide to chime in. The only suspicious edit I can see, is their first edit to make a section on Worm That Turned's talk page. This isn't to say that there's no possibility of sockpuppetry, it simply would seem to me that everyone is a bit too fast to call sock based on account age alone. So I ask, with the full assumption that the block was made in good faith, and per WP:ADMINACCT, what evidence remains of sockpuppetry that is sufficient enough to warrant a block? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

EggRoll97, there are two possible scenarios here:

• The case references at the end of Special:Diff/1007961231 are the culmination of a trolling attempt by someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia, and whose previous attempts to gain attention were not successful enough;
• This is a helpful new contributor who has taken the time to read through ArbCom cases including over 5 year old ones, familiarized themselves with functionary usergroups (CU, OS), all in absolute silence, before becoming active in a suddenly awakened interest to participate in highly controversial areas behind the scenes. They will, if unblocked, suddenly make helpful contributions to the encyclopedia, because their interest in stirring up attention behind the scenes has suddenly gone away with the block.

A commonly applied principle when dealing with such accounts is "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck", as cited at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Administrators_instructions#Non-CheckUser_cases. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree Thank you for the quick response, and my apologies for questioning it. It actually took me a while to figure out which case references they were referring to, before it very suddenly dawned on me. This now leads me to the same camp as you and GeneralNotability, wondering which account they previously contributed on. In my case, simply out of pure curiosity to see what kind of...I suppose the only word would likely be unsavory, contributions they made before this account. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

No worries – assuming good faith is normally correct, and I'm always disappointed when the principle fails. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

As you have said, I have read large amounts of arb com cases. Why do you think I want attention? And to give you the reason I made that first edit was to ask about adoption (ask him if you want to) and not seem like an idiot by talking about it on his talk page. And I’m just saying it can’t hurt to check as checkuser is mainly used in sockpuppet investigations. @ToBeFree: I gave my consent (as if it matters anymore) and I regularly check the arb com cases list and that’s how I found it and thought it would be a good idea to add my 2 cents to that case. One last thing, can you give me one single piece of concrete evidence that I am not telling the truth? Alachuckthebuck (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Response from WTT

Since he's been emailing me, I replied the following to Alachuckthebuck

I understand why our community members are concerned. You've acted in a manner that implies you have a lot of knowledge of Wikipedia behind the scenes - knowledge that generally comes from years of experience. I've looked at your edits and I have to agree, I would assume you've previously had an account. Given that you have edited "project pages", and appear to have significant knowledge of Wikipedia, it appears that you are breaching our policy on "illegitimate uses of alternate accounts".

Can you please explain, on wiki (or to me by email if the reasons are private) - how you have so much knowledge of the inner workings of wikipedia, including history of individuals. I don't accept "I have read many Arbcom cases" without further explanation - why exactly? There's far more salacious areas to investigate, even on Wikipedia. The vast majority of Arbcom cases are dull, due to the diversity. Different people find different ones interesting, depending on where their area of interest lies. Worm^TT(talk) 10:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: I have sent you an email with the whole picture. Please let me know any questions you may have. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Response from Ritchie333

Hi, thanks for your email, but I prefer to communicate on-wiki when possible. I'm not really the best person to ask about proving whether or not you have any alternate accounts, as I don't get involved in that area. I declined your unblock request because you appeared to assert that you did have multiple accounts. I have to endorse WTT's views above, that the administrative side of things is dull. The fun stuff is writing content. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC) Thank you for reading it, and I apologize for confusing you about that, it's very frustrating to not be able to edit and do the fun stuff so I have to the not-fun stuff first sadly. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Self wikiwhale

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

You have been whaled for: Getting your self banned for making a statement to arbcom great job Chuck, great job. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

can someone do me a solid and add this to my user page?

put the code in the userbox on the right.

Committed identity: bc36274c4d830bf79d6cfd50f2bc62aa8dc6f29399bec86a7f3c01f4ee7fec42687846cf4613bfb06312bc0b5bf7c76eac8b0e11911ff4c8bb815f261f136378 is a SHA-256 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

please let me know if that isn't allowed. thank you. Alachuckthebuck (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added it to the page where it usually goes, at the top. Bishonen | tålk 09:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC).

Thank you. Ps: sorry about this whole mess but I want to improve Wikipedia and definitely made some mistakes but I stand by what I said aside from my first response witch was a mistake on my part Alachuckthebuck (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Georgegod245 (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)sad