User talk:ShashakiroSH

Welcome![edit]

Hi ShashakiroSH! 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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! RFD (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

This block is based on mistaken premises; I have no alternate accounts and indeed have barely even edited on the one I do have. I go by "Shashakiro" on nearly all other websites (it was taken on this one back in 2009 when I made the account). My reddit account is https://www.reddit.com/user/Shashakiro/ and my Bulbapedia account is https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Special:Contributions/Shashakiro. I've edited the most recent post made on my Reddit account and my Bulbapedia userpage https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/User:Shashakiro to hopefully help show that I'm "real". Additionally, this post https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrownHairedGirl&diff=prev&oldid=1020394877 made in April explains my interest in Arbcom and why I watch the case pages. I welcome a "CheckUser" on myself as well, which should not show any other account on this IP. While I have not edited Wikipedia mainspace very much as of yet, I would appreciate having the ability to do so in the future. Thanks for your consideration. ShashakiroSH ShashakiroSH (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't like to play guess the sockmaster either. Even if I assumed good faith and believed this explanation(I'm not sure if I do or not), I would concur with TonyBallioni that NOTHERE applies, at least right now. Perhaps if you described some contributions you might make to the main encyclopedia, that would help. I'm declining your request, but won't stand it the way if you make another and another admin accepts it. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2022 (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.

We don't need to play the "guess my main account game". these are obviously the contributions of someone who is deeply familiar with Wikipedias sanctions regime who is editing under an undeclared alternate account to engage with those participating in backend discussions about sanctions and other internal items. Most likely to evade a block. If you prefer, I have no problem changing the rationale to WP:NOTHERE, but the ultimate thought process is the same: an account that only exists to comment on user talk pages about arbitration matters is not an account that is participating in building up the project. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my main account. I won't deny being familiar with the sanctions regmine due to the aforementioned interest in Arbcom and its sanctions regimes, but I certainly deny having any other account or having any disruptive purpose whatsoever in mind. All I did these past few days was suggest a correction to Barkeep and correctly answer El_C's question, things I hoped would be considered unambiguously helpful. If there is a rule that inexperienced editors are not permitted to make such comments, I will certainly follow it if unblocked. However, I would first like to persuade you of the fact that this is in fact my first and only account, and I'm not sure how else to go about doing so beyond what I've already provided. ShashakiroSH (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If another admin is convinced you are not a previously blocked user after reading your explanations, they can unblock. I won't stand in the way. I just personally am not one to play the "guess which blocked sockmaster I am" game. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that checkusers are not done to prove innocence, because they don't. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

To address the NOTHERE component of the block as 331dot suggested: if unblocked I intend to make improvements to articles in my current areas of interest, such as NFL football, video games, and puzzle hunts such as the MIT Mystery Hunt. I will pledge not to make any further unsolicited comments of any kind on "backroom" elements such as Arbcom cases or discretionary sanctions until I have first made article-space contributions sufficient to demonstrate that I am here to build an encyclopedia. I have no other account and wish to edit constructively, so I request the block be lifted. Thanks again for your consideration. ShashakiroSH (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Okie dokie. El_C 01:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've on-and-off edited enWp for a few years (more off than on, lately), but I have personally known ShashakiroSH for a while and can vouch that they are not a sockpuppet. I've definitely have had multiple in depth discussions with them about Wikipedia, so while their WP knowledge is unusual, it's not really out of the blue. And they'd then previously shown interest in editing segments of wiki before, so I don't believe WP:NOTHERE applies either. Hence would request an admin to at least check the account instead of keeping the ban just arbitrarily.

Additionally, I think it's rather curious and kinda baffling that someone would be blocked as a sockpuppet despite clear evidence to the contrary and no actual checks done. The lack of process in the appeal is similarly confusing to me. Admittedly I've not been around for a few months now, but surely the wiki has not changed that much that we ban people just because they seem to be articulate?

Soni (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni and 331dot: I realize you both said that you wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock, but I'm placing it on-hold and will nonetheless hold-on (← see what I did there?) in case either of you have any concerns. With ShashakiroSH's new commitment and with Soni's vouch, I see no harm in giving them a chance. Also, they seem to be a pretty chill person (/biased). Thank you. El_C 18:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No concerns here, thanks. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, they're obviously an LTA, and everything on this talk page after they've been blocked screams it, but I'd be fine with an unblock restricting them to only edit mainspace until they're extended confirmed. That'd be a de facto indef anyway if I'm right, and if I'm wrong, we get a valuable contributor. If they're actually here to build an encyclopedia, they'll have no problem doing that. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, Tony. ShashakiroSH, what do you say? El_C 22:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I'd consider article talk to be within the scope of what they could edit if they accepted. Not trying to be a jerk here (really), but ordinarily this would be my posterchild for 'admins should block obvious LTAs without CU data.' My counterpoint to why that is okay is that if it actually isn't that obvious, someone will unblock, so I suppose here we are :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to add *slap!* ;) El_C 23:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C, I have absolutely no problem at all with a formal editing restriction that essentially enforces the pledge I made in my second unblock request. An unblock with that restriction is an ideal outcome as far as I'm concerned. Thank you. ShashakiroSH (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. You're good to go. El_C 01:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you El_C for helping resolve this! You are very kind. This overall restriction makes perfect sense to me, and is a very sensible resolution.

I am quite concerned by TonyBallioni and their judgement ability based on their tone (changes) through this page. Between "I will not stand in the way" to their "everything on this talk page after they've been blocked screams it"... I'm not quite sure how well they handle new information. Between me saying "I have known Shasha for N months" (ergo, either I have been fooled for a long while, I myself am an SPA, or that should count as some consideration), the fact that they were clearly trying to explain themselves here (instead of, say, burning the account and moving on), and the entire evidences given above... I would assume that even if they had such strong convictions till now, at the very least it'd be less so after the back-and-forth. So you can understand my confusion why (I presume) an experienced admin is so sure of things in the face of evidence.

I'm just going to note that if this is the standard applied throughout all of SPA, I find the current state of enWp quite concerning, especially if there's other good faith users who do not have others to vouch for them.

Like I said though, it's been a few months since I've been active on the projects, so I cannot comment on much other than what I directly see. But maybe with Shasha around, I might join the projects back hmm. (Sorry I might have rambled instead of keeping my comments brief like I like to)

Once again, thank you though! Soni (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]