User talk:Iuscaogdan

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Viviocon, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Nardog (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've said "I've registered this account to be easily contacted". If you're the person behind an account blocked for sockpuppetry and wish to continue editing, the correct route is to ask for an unblock. Nardog (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y NOT the user you accused me to be! I was the one who talked to Aeusoes1 in his talk page as an anonymous, NOT that sockpuppetteer! Too bad for me that I dared ping you alongside the other users, and shame on you for your first reaction being reporting me as a sockpuppetteer instead of replying in the discussion where you were pinged to ask for your opinion!

If what you're saying is true then you have nothing to worry about. I was going to submit the request anyway even if you didn't ping me, by the way. Nardog (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the first sentence: very well, if checkusers control my logs they'll have the proof I'm innocent, unless they want to frame me. About the second sentence: actually I don't put my finger on it, by the way I'll go on discussing as an IP if this account is blocked, as I'm not doing anything wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iuscaogdan (talk • contribs) 12:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think thinking of requests for sockpuppet investigations as "accusations" helps you. If you haven't done anything wrong and other people think you might have, SPI helps you clear your name. So think of the admins and fellow editors as your peers, not enemies.

I don't think you are a sockpuppet, I just have a suspicion, and I want it cleared. It is timing that makes it all suspicious. Like I said on my talk, which you quoted on the SPI page, there could be coincidences, and people might have been incited by the same thing. So do you have any clue as to why all of a sudden all these IPs and accounts are popping up arguing that ⟨ɱ⟩ should be used in transcriptions, specifically for Italian, within a matter of a month? What were you driven by? If you can give us an answer to that, I think that would help the situation tremendously.

Also, name-calling seldom helps if you want to be taken seriously. Nardog (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I wasn't born yesterday, spare me your lamb play... I've put my trust in you once, but I'm not stupid. I haven't done anything wrong and you know, the fact is that you consider my discussion in the linguistic project as new user's intromission in your territory. You'd already had your suspicion cleared but you're still pushing this. You're a liar. I've read a large part of your talk page, you say certain things to other users but when it's me at stake you change your mind. To the sockpuppet you're accusing me to be you said that "it is inconsistent to use [ŋ] but not [ɱ] when both are allophonic in Italian" but in the linguistic project you're using all you have to claim the opposite; about IPA editor, who was accused to be another sockpuppet (every new user is a sockpuppet here...), you said that "It's not at all inconceivable that multiple people have similar thoughts and decide to do something about it on Wikipedia within a short period of time" but after a week during the which I hadn't done a single edit you're still accusing me to be the same sockpuppet as before... I won't put my trust in you once again, so please spare me this ridiculous recital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iuscaogdan (talk • contribs) 13:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you wanted to end the off topic. I have nothing to do with that SI report and it's none of my business.

I'm not the best person to give anyone behavioral advices, but you're not handling this well. Anyone has a right to report anyone as long as the evidence is solid. We're not mind readers and even if you know that you're not a sockpuppet, he doesn't. Does WP:NPA cover Nardog's behavior? If not, you should let it go. You'll eventually get blocked for personal attacks, regardless of whether you're a sockpuppet.

Again, Nardog isn't a mind reader. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you read his recent messages in WikiProject Linguistics you'd know that he may support the proposal (whether others will is a different story). Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Iuscaogdan (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that

Iuscaogdan, I've unblocked the IP range you used earlier today; you were right on the underlying subject matter, and a misunderstanding spiraled out of control. However, I'm pretty disappointed in this comment. In particular, it is not OK to have an account, but devolve into name calling while editing in the same subject area logged out. Feel free to restore the pronunciation thing (over my head). Sorry you were mistakenly reverted, but please try to handle such disputed with more grace. Easier said than done, I know, but please try. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. 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.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]