User talk:Neo Trixma

Welcome!

Hello, Neo Trixma!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Nemov (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. MOS:BQ about quotation marks; MOS:EMDASH about spacing. Thank you. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Juan Branco. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Don't call other editors liars. Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Brancojuan per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brancojuan. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. firefly ( t · c ) 21:34, 24 August 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Neo Trixma (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC) Hi, I'm French, and in French the translation for "wording" is "formulation", so yes, I might have used it sometimes, but I don't see how that makes me a "sockpuppet" of Juan Branco? If you look at the talk page of the article, three other editors also use the term "formulation", are they also "sockpuppets"?[reply]

I came to the Juan Branco article when I saw the news about his arrest three weeks ago, and started adding content about it, just as I add content about news in general (2023 Nigerien coup d'état, 2023 wildfires, Fukushima water release...). ), but when my additions to this article were reverted more often than to other articles, I started digging deeper, checking other sources, and saw that a lot of information about his education, career, etc. was missing, while accusations that had a single article, sometimes not even dedicated to them, were included, which is a double standard. So I tried to add content and neutralise the article by using reliable secondary sources, which a couple of editors contested for a while. And yesterday, when I found out that they were violating WP:BLPPUBLIC and removed the accusations, I got banned...

Neo Trixma (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the sockpuppetry claim described in the SPI. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2023 (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.

Definitely a sock-puppet !
There is not much doubt that this is another sock puppet of Branco.
This user was created shortly after the previous sock-puppet (Imagritte) was blocked. His activity in number of edit is about 1/3 on Branco's page in number. But considering the amount (in characters) is about 2/3. Edit on other articles are mostly specious and just a mere disguise.
As to edits on Branco's page, they gradually removed most content that could cast a negative light (entire sections disappeared) while on few the remaining contentious topics, most/all information on the substance of the cases held against Branco disappeared and was replaced by lengthy descriptions of the arguments/ claims made by Branco in his defense, even some that are stated to be untrue by the mere source used as "proof" (eg. Abdeslam case: the newspaper says that Branco's defense is factually untrue and disproves his arguments, but it is a thorough presentation of his arguments that make their way into the WP article without any mention of the newspaper's conclusion that it is an obvious misrepresentation of facts)

Ebtpmus 20:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]