User talk:Gdohgsd

It might be a good idea for you to add a Portuguese-language version of the Moises Lino e Silva article to the Portuguese-language Wikipedia at https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moises_Lino_e_Silva Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gdohgsd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects:

Commons
Free media repository

MediaWiki
Wiki software development

Meta-Wiki
Wikimedia project coordination

Wikibooks
Free textbooks and manuals

Wikidata
Free knowledge base

Wikinews
Free-content news

Wikiquote
Collection of quotations

Wikisource
Free-content library

Wikispecies
Directory of species

Wikiversity
Free learning materials and activities

Wikivoyage
Free travel guide

Wiktionary
Dictionary and thesaurus

--Gryllida (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gdohgsd I have added projects

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moises Lino e Silva is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moises Lino e Silva (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gdohgsd. 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:

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.

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:52, 28 June 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here: blocking works like censorship in this instance. Apparently, there are ideological reasons here, bias against the LGBTQ community.

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:54, 28 June 2023 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here: multiple users sharing the same computer/network is common in the Global South and not enough proof of abuse.

Decline reason:

The block is based on checkuser evidence and behavioral evidence as explained at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gdohgsd. Your explanation does not outweigh this evidence. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2023 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

What you call "behavioral evidence" I call prejudice. I'm accessing the web from what we call "

LAN house

" in Brazil. These are public spaces with shared use of machines. Not everyone has the same access to infrastructure as you. Many people use the same device/network as me and it's impossible to know them all. This is where your prejudice lies. Not many people in the favela where I live might edit on Wikipedia. You say one other did, so what? Look, if you want to be biased and elitist, go ahead. I never thought this was the spirit of Wikipedia and it is very disheartening and humiliating to be begging to stay. If you want to be fair, please, trust me (or at least give me the benefit of the doubt) and unblock my account?

Decline reason:

It's very inconvenient for you that the two editors are never onwiki at the same time, no? I particularly like the one morning (well, morning my time) a couple of days ago where there's a 20-minute or so lacuna in your edits, during which Mles just happens to pop by and make their AfD !vote. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2023 (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.

Ignoring the behavioural evidence, the technical evidence is clear. You and the account Mles2022 used the same IP address and device model with a few hours between the use by each account.

You were blocked because that either you or a person sharing your device voted on the deletion discussion using these two accounts. Doing this suggests to other users that you are two different people and, without a clear disclosure of operating two accounts, this suggests that you attempted to skew the vote by double voting.

Asserting that this is prejudice is not enough for this unblock request to be accepted. This block was made because you used multiple accounts in a disruptive way. If another user uses multiple accounts to vote delete on the deletion discussion, they would also receive a block.

If you truly do not know about the account Mles2022, you should explain why it used the same device and IP address to edit the same topic as you did. Simply saying "I don't know" isn't likely to be enough to counteract the evidence. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• First a correction: deletion discussions are not resolved by the number of votes, "please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors."
• To answer your question: I'm accessing the web from what we call "
  LAN house" in Brazil. These are public spaces with shared use of machines. Not everyone has the same access to infrastructure as you. Many people use the same device/network as me and it's impossible to know them all. This is where your prejudice lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdohgsd (talk • contribs) 21:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • While you are correct that deletion discussions are decided on consensus, a viewpoint shared by multiple users is more likely to be given more weight in closing because two users have come to the same rationale when voting. Just because it's not a majority vote also doesn't mean that two accounts controlled by the same person voting in the discussion isn't disruptive.
  • There are no other users using this particular IP range in the last 3 months. Furthermore, I found an example from a different occasion where this account and Mles2022 have made actions logged by the servers within a minute on the same single IP address.
  • In the cases of a shared device, such as a library or LAN house, the other users using the shared devices are likely to edit in a wide variety of topics. In this case this account and Mles2022 nearly entirely have made edits related to Moises Lino e Silva. Even if the other account is controlled by a different person, this level of single interest in one person strongly suggests some level of coordination which is a
    violation of policy. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Not many people in the favela where I live might edit on Wikipedia. You say one other did, so what? Look, if you want to be biased and elitist, go ahead. I never thought this was the spirit of Wikipedia and it is very disheartening and humiliating to be begging to stay. If you want to be fair, please, trust me (or at least give me the benefit of the doubt) and unblock my account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdohgsd (talk • contribs) 00:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not up to me to accept or deny the appeal to provide proper accountability in appeals. My questions and thoughts have been to allow you to detail the explanations to the common questions often asked by the reviewing checkuser. The next checkuser will be around to review this request. You can also appeal this to the Arbitration Committee who are an elected panel who can receive appeals for blocks such as these ones. You can do this by emailing [email protected] with your appeal. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]