Jimbob6658

January 2025

Hello. Your recent edit to Falmouth High School (Maine) appears to have added a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

It does not say a pre-existing stand-alone entry for the subject is required in the guidelines you linked to. It says this:

Lists of people

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Lists of people, Wikipedia:ALMAMATER, and Wikipedia:Namechecking

Many articles contain (or stand alone as) lists of people. Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the normal criteria established for that page. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including Wikipedia:Trivia sections).

The definition of "notable" is: worthy of attention or notice; remarkable Jimbob6658 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:WPSCH/AG#OS, which states that "notability" (ie. a Wikipedia article) is required for inclusion. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

Hello, Jimbob6658, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Tristatedist845 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimbob6658. 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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

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).

Jimbob6658 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I apologize. I did misuse multiple accounts in that deletion discussion. Frustration got the best of me. I've been a user for almost 10 years and this is the only case of misconduct. I will not do this again. For what it's worth, the runner archive account is not mine. I feel bad that my misconduct has resulted in their block. I appreciate you reviewing my block status. Again, I will not engage in this behavior again.

Decline reason:

I recommend taking the standard offer: do not edit the English Wikipedia at all for at least six months -- no IP editing, no new accounts. During that time, you are free to edit other Wikipedia projects, such as Simple Wikipedia or Wiktionary. After at least six months has passed, request an unblock from your preferred account addressing the reasons for your initial block. The six-month break from English Wikipedia helps us gain trust that you will not continue to abuse the system if unblocked. If you are uninterested in the standard offer at this time, you can submit another unblock request, which another administrator will review. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

(Non-administrator comment) I'm afraid that your argument that your behaviour should be excused because you've been editing for a decade falls a bit flat when we look at your editing history. You've only made half a dozen edits in 2023, then everything else is from the past year.

Wikipedia is a community project that runs on collaboration and trust. Sockpuppetry breaks trust in a big way - you pretended to be different people in other to get your way and create a false sense of collaboration & consensus. You used multiple accounts for the majority of your active editing history.

I really want you to understand just how much of a problem this causes and how antithetical it is to Wikipedia's function and purpose.

Whilst I can't speak for the admin who will review your appeal, please be prepared for an admin to decline your appeal and recommend the WP:Standard offer.

This is where you edit at another Wikipedia project for at least six months, in order to build up evidence for a future appeal and prove that you can be trusted.

When you break someone's trust, you need to put in a lot of work to regain it - Wikipedia is no different in that respect.

That said, its not the end if your appeal is declined - not by a long shot. You can continue to edit at another project (e.g. Simple English Wikipedia) and build up evidence for a future appeal. There are some incredible editors who were in the same situation you are now, followed the Standard offer and are now a true asset to Wikipedia. They used their block as a learning experience, re-examined their view towards Wikipedia and found a true passion for the project. I see absolutely no reason why this can't be the case for you as well. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)