User talk:Symes2017

Welcome!

Hello, Symes2017, 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! McSly (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

178.40.152.153 block evasion as 78.98.54.148 and possible sockpuppet of Symes2017

@Czar: @Ivanvector: Why is nobody doing something about it? 178.40.152.153 was blocked (and still isǃ

This IP address is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 15:24, 19 November 2019 Ivanvector talk contribs blocked 178.40.152.153 talk with an expiration time of 1 week (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Edit warring)

and evaded the block as 78.98.54.148 (other IPs previous to the block include 178.41.129.82 and maybe others). As I stated elsewhere,

Now this happened. I suspect that's the IP (the IP block also included the account creation block; and if that's really the IP, it violated that one too). The IP stopped editing or replying me and now suddenly there's this user, created seemingly on 23 November 2019, who supported the IP's edits. I'm afraid it's a sockpuppet of the IP, who isn't showing any good faith anymore, despite me explaining it to self-revert and notify the block evasion (why didn't anyone replied me here yet?

This is further proof Symes2017 is the blocked IP as the IP told me about "nominat[ing] this article for a peer review" here.

I wish the IP would have created an account, but this wasn't certainly the way to goǃ We have disrupting beahvior such as block evasion, edit warring multiple times while blocked and now sock puppetry as the blocked IP first evaded the block as 78.98.54.148 and now created an account when still blocked. All of this could have been avoided if the IP listened to me and my plea, not editing for the whole duration of the block and not doing what it did.--Davide King (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Prior edits?

Hi @Symes2017, I'd like to be able to work this out. Are you the editor who previously edited as 178.40 and 78.98? If so, it's fine/great to create an account (makes it easier to track edit history) but since you were involved in a prior discussion, we'd need to know whether you're the same editor as this edit summary makes it sound like the IP is someone else. We're able to confirm by IP lookup if needed but wanted to give you the chance to respond first. czar 18:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I can confirm that I indeed edited from the 78.98 IP address, though since my network has the DHCP protocol turned on, it is prone to changes from time to time. I created this account so that I can become a proper editor on Wikipedia and contribute to pages that would otherwise be inaccessible to anonymous editors (Such as semi-protected pages on topics that are of interest to me), and, like you said, to consolidate my edit history so it won't go blank in case my address changes again. And about that edit summary, I apologize. I should have been more clear when I posted that edit. I don't particularly see anything egregiously wrong with said revision, especially as it improved the quality of the article's prose and reduced longstanding clutter, especially the one that was present in the WW1 and interwar period section. I will revert it if neccessary, and I am sorry about my past edit warring. What do you think I should do now? Symes2017 (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for behing honest. I have sympathy for you, but I believe this is no longer good faith and you're risking an indefinitely block, which you may appeal and can get unblocked, but it may require time and basically all of this could have been avoided if you listened to me and didn't do what you did. As I stated elsewhere, we have disrupting beahvior such as blocked as IP for edit warring, then block evasion, edit warring multiple times while blocked and now sock puppetry as the blocked IP first evaded the block as 78.98.54.148 (which is still blocked, I think it would have ended on 26 November 2019) and now created an Symes2017 when still blocked. I have been more than forthcoming in including part of the IP edits and even told the IP many times that it shouldn't be editing, that it was still blocked, etc.; and that if it truly wanted to show good faith, then it should self-revert and notify the block evasion, but instead now created a new account and engaged in sock puppetry too. Even if you believed your edits were the right ones, it doesn't justify your behavior and Wikipedia's guidelines you violated in the process.--Davide King (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• To confirm, yes to 78.98 but what about to 178.40 and 178.41 (as linked above)?

To your other questions, the issue with your revision is threefold: (1) It was already contested and through our suggested editing cycle (known as BOLD), those edits should not be restored until there is talk page consensus. I recently left a comment that addresses how to find consensus (i.e., slowly). Your revision also made it appear as if you were a third party to the discussion to create an illusion of support (known as Sock puppetry on Wikipedia). (2) If you were the 178 range IPs, I recommend reading about Edit warring before continuing, as it is the reason why one of those IPs were blocked. WP editors use talk page consensus to determine the content of articles. Reverting to your preferred version—even when you're in the "right"—is known as "edit warring" and is always unproductive. Wikipedia:Edit warring has more on this. (3) Again, great to see you make an account and welcome to the community (I hope you'll have a long, successful stay) but if your account was created to evade a block on a prior IP, we need to work that out before continuing.

I'm sure you and Davide will be able to find consensus and cleanup the article together, but let's clear the air by resolving this first. (I'll resolve Davide's other questions.) czar 19:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Davide, I owe you an apology for what I did on Social democracy. All I wanted to do was improve the article to a more professional standard so that it may one day attain a Good Article classification or even be promoted to "Featured Article", especially since the article itself has advanced well since it was first created all these years ago. I let anger and frustration get the best of me when my edits (Which took quite a good while to implement) were modified and some typos were inserted in (Which you did correct afterwards, so no hard feelings there) and now we are here, mediating an complex dispute that has dragged out for almost a week by now. I will refrain from editing the article for the time being, and you are welcome to restore your preferred contributions if you want. Once again, I deeply regret my ad hominems (Such as me accusing you of "trying to own the article because you are a socialist" on the talkpage and the foolish actions I did on the Gary Null (Yes, I also edited from 178.40 and 178.41) and Social democracy articles, and I will do my best to not repeat these mistakes in the future. I hope you don't bear a grudge against me, especially because my conduct towards you and the article was indeed improper. Symes2017 (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Symes. My suggestion is to respect the weeklong block on 178.40 that will expire this Tuesday (15:24 GMT, 26 November 2019) just to give some breathing room, though you can appeal this block if it's important to you. When ready, I'd bring your contested suggestions to the article's talk page one at a time, as sometimes it's hard to contest a single line in a large edit that moves many paragraphs. Once any major issues are addressed, I'm sure there will be no issue with implementing the remaining minor/cosmetic changes. Reach out to me if I can help with anything and I recommend minding the advice I gave on Talk:Social democracy, namely that this is a controversial topic space so stick to discussing sources (not each other) and give yourself space/bring in third parties when discussion gets heated. Happy editing, czar 19:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, given that the block is supposed to expire less than two days from now, I think it would be pretty redundant to try appealing it now. I will observe it, and accordingly, I shall refrain from editing articles until November 26th. And yes, the next time I add content that is likely to be challenged/contested by a particular editor, I will discuss it on the article's talkpage in case someone else objects to it. I am sorry for the inconvenience I inadvertently caused to Davide King and other editors, and rest assured that I will do my best to refrain from such conduct in the future. Symes2017 (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Davide King, I just wanted to let you know that your recent revision of Social democracy is fine by me, and I currently don't have major problems with it. I can't reply directly on the article's talkpage because I've been INDEF-ed for my earlier misconduct and I can only speak on my talkpage. All I have to say is: Consider the dispute to be over. I hope we can begin collaborating together someday if I am ever unblocked. Symes2017 (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Note that for the purposes of our policies, creating an account to edit while your IP is blocked is also considered abuse of multiple accounts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand. Is it still possible to appeal this block in the future? Or have I been effectively banned from Wikipedia? I am asking because I am unsure whether is it even possible for a block of this nature to be reversed. Symes2017 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is always possible to appeal blocks, and bans for that matter but the process is a bit more formal. I've blocked your account because you're clearly using it to evade the edit warring block of your IP, and our policy is that sanctions (blocks, bans, etc.) apply to the end user (you), not whichever account or IP you happen to be using at the time. But I see from the discussion above (which I was not aware of when Davide King left a note on my talk page yesterday and hadn't seen until after I blocked you) you seem to understand what you did wrong and have already explained that you will avoid doing it again. Another of our policies is that blocks are not intended as punishment but to halt disruption, and since I don't believe you will continue editing disruptively I don't see a reason why you should stay blocked for another day or two, and so I will lift the block on your account in a moment. Your IPs will remain blocked until those blocks expire but as long as you are logged in to your account you won't be affected.

If you have any questions about our blocking policies or anything else, please feel free to ask here (you can use the {{helpme}} or {{adminhelp}} templates to flag your request, see the links for instructions) or at the help desk. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: @Ivanvector: I accept the user's apology and I have sympathy because I was blocked too. While I absolutely agree that blocks should be "not intended as punishment but to halt disruption", this makes the IP and now the user's block worthless as it evaded the block for the whole week. On 20 November, the new IP continued exactly where it left and did the same edit warring despite me explaining that it's clearly a block evasion and that it shouldn't be editing any page or even talk page. Then here the IP says that "if you insist on me staying away for 7 days before you are willing to discuss anything with me, then fine", but the following day it created an account and made this edit with the clear intention of being two different persons. The IP's block is still pending, yet the actual user's still free and avoided the whole duration of the block this way. I could understand if the IP just merely told me about proposed edits or correction to its or mine talk page, or if it merely continued the discussion at Talk:Social democracy, although in my case I was told not to edit any page and talk page, but the IP did the exactly same thing it was blocked for and for a whole week. Once I was made aware of the rule, I clearly stopped violating that; however, you can see at Talk:Social democracy that I clearly told the IP it was evading the block and that it should refrain from editing any page or talk page; indeed, that the whole discussion should have been postponed until the block was fully over; and I clearly didn't expect the IP in violating my will to give good faith in creating a new account, with the clear intention to act like two different persons, when while I didn't mention sock puppetry, I believe I have been clear that the IP shouldn't be editing in any shape or form for the whole duration of the block and I also told the IP I was afraid the block would now have been much longer, if not indefinitely, for evading the block to edit war again; but now basically the block has been made worthless. That's why I believe the user should have been indefinitely blocked according to the rules and should have applied the block like in any other indefinitely block case, showing a clear understanding that what it did was wrong (not merely saying that it understood, but clearly stating the reasons why, like I did here). I believe the user should have been welcome back, but not this way; not when it basically made the previous block's worthless (and I haven't heard anywhere that the block wasn't warranted in the first place or anything like that; it was issued multiple warnings, etc.). I think the user should have applied the block and in the waiting should have proved to have learned by not using any IP to edit any page and talk page to truly show understanding and that it won't happen again. So I'm a bit astonished that the block was made worthless, but I respect and understand the blocking editor if that's the correct decision and I'm glad to welcome you back.--Davide King (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)