User talk:Pizzaonpineapple

I note that the investigation states that Notorious Digital Media claimed they “helped Lewis Raymond Taylor get on Wikipedia.” It also concludes that the other pages mentioned are sockpuppets of adnanjavidkhan1. Could it not be possible that this information was already added to that website while the sockpuppet account was still active and engaging in undisclosed paid editing on Wikipedia such as Taylor and others?? I created the Lewis Raymond Taylor article through AFC draft over a year ago after i watched his documentary on Netflix and that’s where my contribution journey began. I do not believe this was properly investigated, and I was not given an opportunity to demonstrate that I have no connection to the other articles or any websites in question. I have been contributing to Wikipedia in good faith for over a year and I was blocked before I had a chance to respond to or address these concerns which are not even mine to be concerned with.Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 16:52, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I've spent quite a lot of time and effort digging into this, and this looks like a good block to me. There are behavioural clues which I'm not going to detail per BEANS, but I'll just say this: the Taylor draft you created (on your first day of editing, which in itself is remarkable) is substantively identical to the previous deleted version, so much so that I don't believe this could be just a coincidence. I was actually hoping to not find this to be the case, but there it is.

As for your appeal, this is a thoroughly unconvincing nothingburger. You say you created the "Taylor article through AFC draft over a year ago", and you've been "contributing to Wikipedia in good faith for over a year". So? What does either of those have to do with your block, or the sock allegation against you?

You also say you've not been "given an opportunity to demonstrate that I have no connection to the other articles or any websites in question"... and yet you still don't even attempt to do that, I note.

The closest you get to making an actual defensive argument is where you try to cast doubt on one minor aspect of the case ("Could it not be possible that this information was already added to that website while the sockpuppet account was still active and engaging in undisclosed paid editing") which, when dissected, doesn't really say or raise anything of substance.

In short, I'm unpersuaded to lift your block. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concerns raised in this SPI. I do not operate multiple accounts, evade scrutiny, or influence discussions. I understand that bans are imposed to protect the encyclopedia from further disruption. I respectfully request that my behavior and contributions be evaluated as I have always acted in good faith and have not engaged in any intentional or harmful conduct.

Any technical overlap may be explained by shared ISP infrastructure or dynamic IP routing, which I do not control.

Behaviorally, my edits are focused on similar areas due to genuine interest and my participation in AFC/NPP, i spent much and most of my time improving drafts with structures and issues as well as reviewing New Pages which may naturally lead to similar patterns. I did not coordinate accounts or misuse Wikipedia processes.

I accept the community’s decision and request consideration for unblock under appropriate restrictions if deemed necessary. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 11:07, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with my colleagues. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I would like my previous unblock requests be thoroughly reviewed and i request for a chance to prove that i mean no harm to Wikipedia nor any disruption to it, i have never violated any guidelines with my account and only contributed in good faith, please give this a proper review, this will be my final unblock request, Thanks

That isn't a convincing unblock request. Declined. PhilKnight (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)