User talk:MoniqueMaple

May 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to David Justin Freeman, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Knowledgegatherer23 (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

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

Izno (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

> My husband and I both have accounts and use the same IP address. This was not sockpuppetry. Even if it were, or if we may be accused of Meatpuppetry, we were not editing for illegitimate purposes. New information had become available regarding the page for which we were editing and we wanted it to be available on that page.

> This block is no longer necessary as both my husband and I have delved deeper into the guidelines of editing and have a better understanding of the process. For example, discussions using the talk page, making edits using the sandbox before posting them to the actual page, and disclosing our connection.

> I would like to continue to use Wikipedia for the very reason that Wikipedia exists – peer edited content is more likely to be accurate and informative, making the internet a legitimate place to learn and research.

> I understand that the block was labeled for “sockpuppetry” but I also understand that there was disagreement about the edits with another editor. From my investigations page: “promoting the subject by adding material about how Freeman has been wronged by the government and removing material that shows Freeman in a negative light.” There was not adequate evidence of this accusation. The material added was well sourced, the material removed was not, and it was not an opinion about his mistreatment. However, I will be more cautious in the future about inserting subjective material or wording to any page. Either way, I understand that this should have been discussed using the talk page (which I didn’t know existed at the time) before edits were made.

> Overall, this has been a learning experience for me. I would like to continue to be able to edit Wikipedia pages and contribute to the community. I'm sorry I did not do more thorough research before I began editing, mistakes are often the best way to learn. Please reconsider the block. Thank you.

MoniqueMaple (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=:> My husband and I both have accounts and use the same IP address. This was not sockpuppetry. Even if it were, or if we may be accused of Meatpuppetry, we were not editing for illegitimate purposes. New information had become available regarding the page for which we were editing and we wanted it to be available on that page.
:> This block is no longer necessary as both my husband and I have delved deeper into the guidelines of editing and have a better understanding of the process. For example, discussions using the talk page, making edits using the sandbox before posting them to the actual page, and disclosing our connection. 
:> I would like to continue to use Wikipedia for the very reason that Wikipedia exists – peer edited content is more likely to be accurate and informative, making the internet a legitimate place to learn and research.
:> I understand that the block was labeled for “sockpuppetry” but I also understand that there was disagreement about the edits with another editor. From my investigations page: “promoting the subject by adding material about how Freeman has been wronged by the government and removing material that shows Freeman in a negative light.” There was not adequate evidence of this accusation. The material added was well sourced, the material removed was not, and it was not an opinion about his mistreatment. However, I will be more cautious in the future about inserting subjective material or wording to any page. Either way, I understand that this should have been discussed using the talk page (which I didn’t know existed at the time) before edits were made.
:> Overall, this has been a learning experience for me. I would like to continue to be able to edit Wikipedia pages and contribute to the community. I'm sorry I did not do more thorough research before I began editing, mistakes are often the best way to learn. Please reconsider the block. Thank you.
:[[User:MoniqueMaple|MoniqueMaple]] ([[User talk:MoniqueMaple#top|talk]]) 02:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=:> My husband and I both have accounts and use the same IP address. This was not sockpuppetry. Even if it were, or if we may be accused of Meatpuppetry, we were not editing for illegitimate purposes. New information had become available regarding the page for which we were editing and we wanted it to be available on that page.
:> This block is no longer necessary as both my husband and I have delved deeper into the guidelines of editing and have a better understanding of the process. For example, discussions using the talk page, making edits using the sandbox before posting them to the actual page, and disclosing our connection. 
:> I would like to continue to use Wikipedia for the very reason that Wikipedia exists – peer edited content is more likely to be accurate and informative, making the internet a legitimate place to learn and research.
:> I understand that the block was labeled for “sockpuppetry” but I also understand that there was disagreement about the edits with another editor. From my investigations page: “promoting the subject by adding material about how Freeman has been wronged by the government and removing material that shows Freeman in a negative light.” There was not adequate evidence of this accusation. The material added was well sourced, the material removed was not, and it was not an opinion about his mistreatment. However, I will be more cautious in the future about inserting subjective material or wording to any page. Either way, I understand that this should have been discussed using the talk page (which I didn’t know existed at the time) before edits were made.
:> Overall, this has been a learning experience for me. I would like to continue to be able to edit Wikipedia pages and contribute to the community. I'm sorry I did not do more thorough research before I began editing, mistakes are often the best way to learn. Please reconsider the block. Thank you.
:[[User:MoniqueMaple|MoniqueMaple]] ([[User talk:MoniqueMaple#top|talk]]) 02:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=:> My husband and I both have accounts and use the same IP address. This was not sockpuppetry. Even if it were, or if we may be accused of Meatpuppetry, we were not editing for illegitimate purposes. New information had become available regarding the page for which we were editing and we wanted it to be available on that page.
:> This block is no longer necessary as both my husband and I have delved deeper into the guidelines of editing and have a better understanding of the process. For example, discussions using the talk page, making edits using the sandbox before posting them to the actual page, and disclosing our connection. 
:> I would like to continue to use Wikipedia for the very reason that Wikipedia exists – peer edited content is more likely to be accurate and informative, making the internet a legitimate place to learn and research.
:> I understand that the block was labeled for “sockpuppetry” but I also understand that there was disagreement about the edits with another editor. From my investigations page: “promoting the subject by adding material about how Freeman has been wronged by the government and removing material that shows Freeman in a negative light.” There was not adequate evidence of this accusation. The material added was well sourced, the material removed was not, and it was not an opinion about his mistreatment. However, I will be more cautious in the future about inserting subjective material or wording to any page. Either way, I understand that this should have been discussed using the talk page (which I didn’t know existed at the time) before edits were made.
:> Overall, this has been a learning experience for me. I would like to continue to be able to edit Wikipedia pages and contribute to the community. I'm sorry I did not do more thorough research before I began editing, mistakes are often the best way to learn. Please reconsider the block. Thank you.
:[[User:MoniqueMaple|MoniqueMaple]] ([[User talk:MoniqueMaple#top|talk]]) 02:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

MoniqueMaple (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think for an unblock on both accounts, you would have to commit to edit separate topics from now on. PhilKnight (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]