User talk:Anon596

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Elielgu! Thank you for your contributions. I am Jonpatterns and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Jonpatterns (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your report to SPI[edit]

Elielgu, I have suppressed the report you recently made to SPI due to concerns related to outing. The report was received, and I am actively working with the Oversight team to determine whether to leave it suppressed or not. Please do not restore it at this time. If you wish, you can follow the instructions at the top of WP:SPI: If you suspect sock puppetry by an administrator, or if you need to submit off-wiki evidence for some other reason, you must email the CheckUser team to open an investigation. Private information, emails, logs, and other sensitive evidence must not be posted on Wikipedia. All evidence related to a sockpuppet investigation must otherwise be posted on the designated page. ST47 (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. There are two email addresses. Which one should be used? Elielgu (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can use checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org . ST47 (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it later but I have no more information. Elielgu (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) Good evening. I studied the matter further. As so I don't believe an SPI is necessary. I still believe their behavior was breaking the rules but it's not SPI category, that can be rescinded. Elielgu (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elielgu, under WP:PRIVACY, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for you to conduct or post "opposition research" on Wikipedia. It is a long established principle that we comment on content, not contributors. Since you have said yourself that you don't believe an SPI is necessary, I see no reason why you should make any further public comment on the matter. If you have a concern related to any part of WP:SOCK, send it to the checkuser list mentioned above, or to ArbCom, in private. From the harassment policy, Editors are warned...that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy. If you make any further attempt to "investigate" the real-life identities of Wikipedia contributors, you will be blocked. ST47 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for that. I did get familiar with this rule and made sure didn't point out anything specific or revail any private information in the redacted post. It was kept extremely nonspecific. It was also part of the SPI I was told above was still being considered which I finally completely rescinded after finding this. They ask for every single "diff" to be provided as part of the SPI which means I had to go find out every single one of the diffs and I used Google to help with that too because it's easier to use. It was also just stated outright in the earliest edits. It helped me rescind this so it did have a neutralizing effect in the end. All's good in the end. Elielgu (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elielgu. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2020 (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).

Anon596 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The rules very clearly say using multiple accounts is allowed as long as it’s not for illegitimate reasons. My accounts have had almost zero interaction. There are very few if any edits on the same articles. In the handful of cases it has happened there was no one else editing those dead articles and there was clearly no benefit to gain from it, it was simply a case of mistaken account. My reason for using multiple accounts is privacy. Already you showcasing these edits together can easily allow anyone to dox me. They dox my location, my foreign language skills, my university, my unique interests and hobbies, everything. For the sake of me not getting doxed, could something be done? --Elielgu (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

A single Privacy alt can make sense. 8 of them does not. Nothing that Pecanclops, Tiitibirdie, Sady26, Minnihines edits couldn't have been done on your main account --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:49, 18 February 2020 (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.

Really?[edit]

In light of what I've read here, I am puzzled about your concerns about you being doxxed. Looks like you've made an impressive effort to out others. If you have place sensitive information about yourself on Wikipedia, you can contact the oversighters to have it removed. I fail to see how blocking you for abuse of multiple accounts places you at risk for doxxing.-- Deep fried okra 04:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply ashamed of that and it was not my intention. I never revealed any truly sensitive information but that can no longer be seen so it looks like I did. Some of my sensitive information that I had accidentally edited I have already been in contact with oversight and it had been taken care of, thank you greatly. --Elielgu (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had abandoned an account on which I posted a URL that revealed too much about myself. On another account I edited a page that is somewhat linked to my university material but I can't ask oversight about that because they can't redact my name from the edit list, only the edit content. --Elielgu (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can remove your user name form any edit. That does not require oversight. If you give me the dif, I can do that, You can email me the dif if you prefer.-- Deep fried okra 04:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rename[edit]

@Masti: How has this come to pass? I don't think it wise to rename a user who is the sockmaster in a WP:SPI-- Deep fried okra 22:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC) @Bbb23: Heh, requesting feedback.-- Deep fried okra 22:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: sorry, I somehow missed the block info. Masti (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra and Masti: I don't like socks being renamed, mainly because it causes administrative headaches, but, Masti, I'll leave it up to you whether to undo the renaming. As far as I know, renaming a sock is not a violation of policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

@Deepfriedokra That was managed, my thanks to oversight. The name transition I am sorry for, I thought it would be a simple process and it didn’t quite meet my expectations either. I have a question or two to ask if you may. I found out that in a situation like this you can reapply to be allowed to edit again after some time and especially after you have shown you have learned from your mistakes. I have now learned well not to have so many accounts. I honestly first thought it was no problem, that was why I had been in the past messaging to administrators involved in these matters without a worry. In the future if I have a privacy issue on this account I can just ask oversight about it as I have now done! I would like to continue editing small niche articles and contribute to them with references as I have done before, and I am interested in creating a page for the fashion designer Junko Koshino. The guide says that edits on other Wiki sites is seen as a benefit in the meantime. Does this mean I can edit other Wiki sites? In the same line would editing as an IP be a benefit or a detriment? I have done nothing for now. --Anon596 (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are blocked globally, Bbb23, is that correct. Please do not edit logged out-- it would just be block evasion. Your best bet if blocked globally is to not try to edit for 6 months and then appeal.Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: They are not globally locked. Nor was there ever a request for them to be so that I'm aware of. It's disturbing for the user to ask if they can evade their block with IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the guide said editing other Wikis when your account is blocked on en.wiki is recommended to show good will, so I asked if the same applies to IP edits. --Anon596 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, you can edit on parts where you are not blocked, but you must be logged in.Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does that have any effect like the guide says? It says the time may be shortened. --Anon596 (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a strict process where certain activities can shorten the time. Six months is just a generally-accepted time as per Wikipedia:Standard offer where administrators and the community are likely to look favourably on an unblock if the user's been behaving themselves. Productive, logged-in edits on other wikis can only help that, but it must be emphasised that you're blocked from the English Wikipedia and any attempts to edit logged-out here would be viewed unfavourably. Find other wikis to edit, other things to do, for six months, then ask nicely to be unblocked on this account. ~ mazca ^talk 00:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Anon596 (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]