OGhosttly

April 2018

Your edit at User talk:Acroterion implies that you have previously used one or more accounts for vandalism. Please answer the following two questions.

1. What other account or accounts have you used?
2. Are any of your previous accounts currently blocked? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

1. I mostly used ISingOk, AviaRobloxis, CrackxSmh, GhostWhyPlanes190 and GhostlxSmh.
2. Yes. Mostly all vandalism-only account. I probably did the same vandalism to all C151A, C151B and C151C mostly C751B. But mostly this account is not a vandalism-only account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGhosttly (talk • contribs) 12:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have separated your answers to my questions out of my message. Putting each answer in the middle of my message after the corresponding question, as you did, is likely to cause confusion, as it makes it difficult for anyone to see which parts I wrote and which parts you wrote.

You say you "mostly" used the accounts you listed. Was CrackAPlanes another one of yours? If so, I am willing to believe that you simply forgot that one, but it would help to get it clear.

Your very first edit from this account effectively admitted that you had previously used other accounts for vandalism, and you answered my request for information about your previous accounts readily, so I am willing to believe that you are now being honest, and genuinely intend to leave vandalism behind you and edit constructively. However, when an editor who has been blocked wishes to come back to editing, policy is that he or she should request an administrator to allow him or her back, not that he or she should just ignore the block and create a new account. The reason for that is that very often even an editor who claims to be going to edit constructively in the future doesn't, so we can't just take it for granted. I am normally inclined to give editors who seem to genuinely intend to change their ways another chance, but in your case you were vandalising as recently as three weeks ago, using more than one account to do so, and I think it much better to consult the other administrators who have been involved rather than acting unilaterally. As you have honestly admitted to your previous abuse of other accounts I am leaving this account unblocked, but you are still subject to the block on your original account, and you should not edit until the matter is settled, except that you can make talk page edits in connection with your blocks.

The earliest account I know of is ISingOk, which was blocked in September 2017 by Acroterion, who may like to express an opinion. The reason given in the original block log is "Abusing multiple accounts", but from checking relevant editing history that seems to mean abusing this one account and the IP addresses 175.156.10.171 and 175.156.181.127.

Other administrators who have blocked one or other of your accounts, and who may like to comment, are Oshwah (blocked GhostWhyPlanes190), Ad Orientem (blocked CrackAPlanes), Widr (blocked CrackxSmh and GhostlxSmh), and C.Fred (blocked AviaRobloxis). Yamla declined an unblock request at User talk:ISingOk, and may also like to comment.

For the information of any other administrators who do choose to comment, I shall say that I am in favour of giving this editor another chance. I am aware from past experience that I am generally more disposed than many administrators to give another chance to past vandals who seem genuinely willing to change their ways, so I shall not be surprised if others don't agree with me. However, whatever has happened in the past, the present situation is (1) all appearances suggest that the editor honestly intends not to vandalise again, in which case maintaining a block will not serve the purpose of preventing future problems, which according to the blocking policy is the only legitimate purpose for a block, and (2) in the unlikely event that there is further vandalism the account can be blocked immediately without further warning, so at the worst virtually nothing is likely to be lost by assuming good faith and unblocking, and at the best we will gain a constructive editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I like to see people who have previously engaged in block evasion and sockpuppetry go six months without. Then there's the general competence issues. I wouldn't personally choose to lift this block, given the history of abuse, but have no objections if you choose to lift it. I mean that honestly. Had I saw the unblock request, I'd have declined but certainly have no objection to anyone else lifting it. --Yamla (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC) Okay so 2 IP's that I vandalised the bus page are not mine anymore. As I probably got a new IP at my house.

I concur that I would prefer to see six months of no socking before supporting an unblock, especially given their track record. Also we need to bear in mind that per the recent changes to our guidelines regarding serial block evasion, this user is CBanned and any unblock needs to go through either AN or ANI. That said, if they avoid socking for six months I would probably give serious consideration to supporting an unban request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• I had forgotten the recent change in the banning policy that Ad Orientem has mentioned. Personally I think that policy change is a mistake, but since it is policy I must accept it. In addition, two out of the three administrators who have so far commented here favour a 6 month wait. Putting those two facts together, I think it is so unlikely that you will get approval for a return to editing now that there is unlikely to be any point in waiting any longer, so I am going to block this account. You will be free to post an unblock request if you wish to, but I think it is so unlikely to be accepted that you will probably be better advised to come back in six months and ask for your ban to be lifted. I hope that after that you can edit constructively with none of the problems which have led you to this point. I strongly urge you not to edit during those six months, either by editing without logging in or by using another account, as doing so is likely to reduce the chance of your being unblocked to almost nil. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :I agree with the above suggestions. If you are serious about wanting to contribute to the project then wait six months post an unblock request on your first account. Be sure to link this discussion in your request write up and ping the admins that have been involved with you. Your request will then be copied and posted either at AN or ANI for community discussion. Please DO NOT try to edit between now and then as this will almost certainly torpedo any hope of being unblocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)