User talk:1 Blue Monkey

Welcome!

Hello, 1 Blue Monkey, 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:

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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! జె.వి.ఆర్.కె.ప్రసాద్ 23:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to my talk page

Feel free to add your thoughts, concerns or discuss problems with me here. Respect me and it will stay. As usual, you don't get far with wishful thinking here, bring facts, evidence (in case of studies: Only peer-reviewed studies do count) and logic and I will listen to what you have to say, otherwise, piss off with your lies andor propaganda.

Joe-job (sock puppetry allegations) July 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I must also strongly advise you, after your block expires, to refrain from directly editing the Trans man article without first obtaining a consensus for your changes on the article's talk page. This is especially the case for that first sentence of the article, which was decided by an extended discussion on the talk page. You may be blocked again if you continue to make changes against consensus without discussing first. Mz7 (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7, GorillaWarfare, Huon, and TonyBallioni: No comment on the original block, except this: this user was 100% joe-jobbed: Ventvogue, Slipmost, SquantosRevenge are Architect 134 and not 1 Blue Monkey. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...at which, of course, Arch134 is a pastmaster by now. ——SerialNumber54129 09:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: I'd be interested in how you arrived at "not 1 Blue Monkey". Huon (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to sound cryptic, that's per CU (and of course the behaviour and responses are archetypal). I was actually sweeping out other Architect 134 socks when I came across this situation. As you may know, checkuser is never perfect, but technically any suggestion that it's the same user would be implausible. I'm certain in what I said (though second opinions are always welcome).

Just extending the comments a bit, if you take out any suggestions of sockpuppetry, exclude anything any A134 sock has done, include false and unfair (albeit well-intentioned and perhaps obvious) false allegations against the user, and ignore the original behaviour (which was dealt with), it seems to me we are left with an indefinite TPA-revoked block for one minor comment about free speech. We'd barely even warn someone for that normally. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still read “will have consequences and the internet is not a lawless region” as a legal threat, but I don’t mind TPA being restored for them to appeal/withdraw it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up the SquantosRevenge/Ventvogue sockmaster—I'd only compared Squantos to Ventvogue, and tagged the account accordingly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following what Tony said, I'll re-enable talk page access, though I'd encourage any other admin to go further to amend my action and do the right thing. To 1 Blue Monkey, to use a local phrase, you were done up like a kipper. It's unfortunate when something like this happens, and I'd like to see it fixed. I suggest you request unblock again. This time, there is no need to deal with the allegations of sockpuppetry - I think the only thing you'll really have to do is to remain civil. We have a local policy against legal threats, so it would be a good idea to 'withdraw' any perceived threat of legal action. Talk page access restored... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid that a joe-job might be the case when I made the original block, so I pinged a checkuser on IRC, who gave me a result of "inconclusive". In light of that at the time, I believed there was a preponderance of evidence to block based on behavior. To 1 Blue Monkey: I can only apologize. I would be very open to accepting an unblock request that is civil and withdraws any threat of legal action (per the no legal threats policy). Mz7 (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Mz7 Apology accepted - that's why I asked for hard evidence. I find it admirable that you admit your error (a trait that is rare in "modern" humans) o7. Legal implications are not necessary after your apology and the unblock. Thank you zzuuzz for checking this out with logic o7. [Formal: Request unblock as per discussion above here - please also tell me what I am allowed to delete of my talk page, I am not familiar with these Wikipedia rules]

Accept reason:

per discussion sorry for the aggravation other issues resolved user was "set up like a kipper"-- joe-jobbed Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't object to the CU evidence since I can't see it, but I'd like to note here that I had also blocked 92.106.62.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as 1 Blue Monkey's sock, and this predates any of the A134 activity as far as I'm aware. @Zzuuzz: you're 100% positive? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. On that, this COULD be me (the IP address), I edited the article, then like immediately afterwards I thought "wouldn't it be better to have an account here" - then I found out "oh I already had an account here (I requested password as you see)" - but it didn't credit it to me, despite immediate sign in (which is probably a system limitation or security feature). So this IP should be logged in my account! 1 Blue Monkey (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see your password request but zzuuzz could. No matter, this explanation is reasonable. I'm unblocking you per the discussion above and noting that the original block for edit warring would have expired by now. To answer the question in your unblock request, you may remove any notice on this page that does not pertain to an active block. Note that all edits are available in this page's history, and that discretionary sanctions notices are logged separately by the software. If you have any other questions please let us know: you can ask any one of us directly on our talk pages, use the {{admin help}} template on this page, or post at the administrators' noticeboard. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, zzuuzz and TonyBallioni, I'm unsure if either of your actions are meant to be checkuser blocks, so per the policy I'll defer to you. I recommend unblocking without conditions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone. And yes, my comments can be described as 100% positive. 1 Blue Monkey please do me the favour of not returning to an edit-war and getting blocked again. And anyone, feel free to drop me a note if there's any further issues of this type. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, I saw this late. No, this was not a CU block on my part. I always mark them as such. My action was because of the implied legal threat, and now that it's withdrawn, I'm glad to see the block has been lifted :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I didn't think that it was, but checkusers were involved, so just being cautious. Better to go slow and be sure, than act impulsively and have to defend an unblock later. Not that I think there ended up being anything to contest here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some final thoughts from me: The motifs for these allegations & allegations are interesting to think about:

Could be a misunderstanding
Is this the way of the left to get other opinions blocked? (by creating what seems like multiple accounts for the user that has a different opinion and intentionally breaching the rules to get them all banned?)
Some administrators quickly jumped the gun - already googling a bit around, it seems like the left is placing people into wiki admin positions so they can quickly get people with different opinions banned - also some rules are quite questionable, if there is no consensus, it just gets reverted to a point determined by someone, wtf? Logically you must go back to the time there was an undisputed consensus, otherwise, it should be deleted out. Anyways I don't see why 4 people can judge over an article seen by 1000s of people per day and can't even provide valid sources to their claims.

It is very concerning that groups (like trans activists, companies, political groups, religious activists, etc.) can come with lies to manipulate an article to spread their (on lies based) ideology. So many people believe what is written on Wikipedia, but these articles are often not representing what we know truthfully (or as good as we know scientifically). As of that, I will make recommendations to politicians to look into the issue and find a solution for theses "propaganda issues".

Since you brought up an interest in this issue, allow me add a response. I can assure you that you were not targeted for your views. This has happened many times before on many topics, and not only by a single perpetrator either. We are an incredibly large and complex site with a variety of sophisticated and experienced vandals operating. But no sort of politics figures into this. No, the sole trigger for you being targeted was you being reported to the edit-warring noticeboard, which is where this perpetrator, who is well known to admins here, picks their fresh excited inexperienced and slightly confused victims. It was either 'for the lulz', or to make a point about how new users can be treated sometimes, or to just be annoying for some other reason - I've not figured out which. If you wish to read a little more about this perpetrator - only a small proportion - you can have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Architect 134/Archive. We have some of the best and most impartial admins on the Internet, but even the best can be taken in sometimes. And that's all this is, people being taken in. And we got there eventually didn't we? Now, why any particular article is the way it is is not normally down to some conspiracy bollocks, but a matter of long discussions and hard work - and indeed people explaining why things should be different. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[NEXT TOPIC]