User talk:HostDavid

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, HostDavid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Armbrust

Again, welcome! Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, HostDavid. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 10:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, HostDavid. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 18:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 18:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Yvonne green

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Yvonne green requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. VIVEK RAI 16:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability of Yvonne green

The article Yvonne green has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for this specific type of article, you may want to check out our criterion for biographies. JohnCD (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yvonne Green, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gaza and Sean O'Brien. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 8 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Yvonne Green page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Aoidh (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I have no association with that account. I have now read the guide and I can see that I need to prove:

1. That the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead.

I do not fall under this category, as I do not understand why I've been blocked, I have only made productive contributions (please let me know if you disagree and if that's part of why I've been blocked.

2. That the block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy)

This too, doesn't make sense, as I do not believe there is any evidence that I've been damaging or disrupting anything. Please provide evidence of you disagree.

3. That your conduct (under any account or IP address) is not connected in any way with the block (this can happen if a block is aimed at resolving a separate situation and you are unintentionally blocked as a result because you use the same IP range).

I think this is the main one the accusation falls under, but how can I prove that I'm not connected to the account you mentioned? How can I prove I have no association to that account when I don't know what it is or how you've linked it to me? This is the most bizarre accusation, and I don't know how to refute it. How can I get help about how to refute something like this?

HostDavid (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh

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).

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

Request reason:

I've been sent a message about being blocked. I originally thought it was some kind of spam or scam, but I've checked the database and apprarently it's true. :I checked the reason and apparently it's because "Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively". However, this is not an appealable reason. :I need to know the actual reason why my account has thrown an indication that it's being used abusively. :Please either remove the block, or detail what activity is abusive. HostDavid (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to blocked user, ElderOfZion. That means you've been violating WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. Yamla (talk) 17:27, 27 January 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.

Unblock request: attempt #2

@Yamla Hi Yamla,

I haven't heard anything since January. Has this block been lifted yet, or is there any further update on this?

I tried submitting a ticket, but I'm not sure if that progressed and I'm in the same situation since January.

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).

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

Request reason:

The reason I was blocked is still invalid; I own no other Wikipedia account but am still unsure how I can 'prove' this. I have tried to raise a formal ticket but that has gotten nowhere. I'm actually getting quite frustrated as someone who historically has been a donor to Wikipedia. It shouldn't be this hard to sort this mistake out, please can I get some further guidance how to fix this situation. I have tried to message you (Yamla) on your talk page to understand how to fix this. However, I've learnt that because I'm blocked, this isn't possible. Therefore, the only way I appear to be able to message (since the ticket went nowhere) is by using this unblock tag again. Please remedy this situation and if you are going to deny this request again for whatever reason, please help me to understand what I should do next to get this ban lifted. Thanks, David. HostDavid (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, meaning that it is supported with private technical evidence(that even I as an admin cannot see). If this is just a mistake or misunderstanding, you would need to speak to why technical or other evidence would indicate a connection if there isn't one. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 9 April 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.

Unblock request: attempt #3

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).

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

Request reason:

@331dot I appreciate you taking time to review the history and respond. However, what I understand so far is that an internal Wikipedia mechanism believes me to be either a sock puppet of another person, or another person evading a block.

I think the sock puppet accusation is the easiest to dismiss as there is nothing in my history of actions that can be considered to "deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies.".

The accusation about being another person who is evading a block is impossible for me to disprove unless I can understand the reason why Wikipedia thinks I am linked to the Elderofzion account. For example, if it was my public IP is linked to the user, reasons for that could be: (1) My home IP is not static so I may be assigned an IP that blocked users have used. (2) My home IP may be shared with other users by my ISP. (3) I may have been at a public location, like a library or coffee shop with a shared public IP. (4) I may have been using my mobile network with a shared public IP. (5) I may have been using a VPN with a shared public IP.

But even then, it's still very difficult for me to pinpoint exactly the reasons why your systems have flagged this. I'm still feeling helpless on this and I don't feel like I'm being judged on my actions, but instead an erroneous flag is being treated as gospel without a channel to apply human reasoning. I mean, I can't even respond to your message without raising a fresh appeal which is also very frustrating. HostDavid (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your denial and explanations do not outweigh the technical finding. I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 23:22, 27 April 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.

You can respond to me without a formal appeal, simply write your message without the unblock request formatting. You have stated possible reasons this could be a mistake, but not said which one or ones apply to you. I don't and can't know the specific reasons for the block as I am not a checkuser. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser data is becoming stale. The best I could do for the 2 accounts was a

Possible connection. PhilKnight (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I can provide additional information via email if requested. - Aoidh (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: - yes please. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh am I able to see the additional information as well, over email is fine too. HostDavid (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are suggesting that you are not the same person that was operating the other accounts, then I cannot share any non-public information about those accounts with you per policy. - Aoidh (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh I'm looking for information that can help me prove I'm not this other person, whatever form that takes. HostDavid (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have shared the information that I can with User:PhilKnight and can share it with any other checkusers on request, but unfortunately I cannot share that information with non-checkusers per policy. - Aoidh (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser contact

@331dot Wikipedia doesn't allow me to send a message in reply to your response, probably because of the account block? I'm trying now to see if I can start a new thread without the unblock request.

It sounds like I need a check user to tell me the reason and time so I can try and reduce from that information where I was and see if I can work out why this false positive has come up. how can I get this information from a check user? HostDavid (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're sending a message to me here and now; it doesn't have to be on my user talk page.

A checkuser will eventually review your request. They are limited in what they can say, see WP:CHECKUSER for more information. They can only speak generally. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh and PhilKnight: I came across this pending request in the unblock queue. When you have a chance, can you provide any update or comment on the current request? Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I provided the requested information to PhilKnight on 9 April, I can provide that information to other checkusers as well, but as the blocking checkuser I cannot review the block. I will say that the checkuser information does not give me any doubt that this user engaged in sockpuppetry. - Aoidh (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: - HostDavid shared an IP address with ElderOfZion at the time of blocking. This is reasonable evidence of sockpupppetry that hasn't been negated by the denials or explanations. PhilKnight (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight Thanks for this information, I am struggling to understand how I shared the same IP as another user since my calendar shows I was home all day on Jan 27th, when I was banned. I do not remember there being anyone else in my home aside from my family.

If the 27th was for definitely the day that I shared an IP address with this user, then please can you check if there is any evidence that this was a one-off match i.e. check that this other user was only ever on my WiFi network once, in case someone did come round but I have forgotten since this was a while ago now. Could you also please check if there is any evidence that my IP was reassigned by my ISP since I have a dynamic IP address which could mean the 'shared IP' is the fault of my ISP.

I'm surprised at this reason and date, because I genuinely think I was home all day, while I expected this mistake to have happened because I went to a coffee shop, library or a friend's and joined their network. HostDavid (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know the exact date of the overlap in IP addresses. PhilKnight (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight Oh, I thought you were saying that it was at the time of the blocking.

I do join public WiFi networks, WiFi networks at work, WiFi networks at friends. I also sometimes utilise a VPN.

If you are logging my IP, this will be clear. Please check if this IP match/sharing is a one-off, as I strongly suspect that it is a one-off match while I was on a public (or semi-public) network, or if someone else was at my home network.

Please check this, as I'm sure it will exonerate me. HostDavid (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]