User talk:ClifV

Welcome!

Hello, ClifV! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Ijeffsc per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ijeffsc. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not User:Ijeffsc. I have no knowledge of or association with the user in question, online or off, beyond reading the edits they made on the relevant talk page. I'm happy to extrapolate on the subject of how I am not them and they are not me, but I'd need to know how the claim that we are the same person is falsifiable first.

The main claim in the investigation--that User:Ijeffsc and I were arguing "in support of the exact same specific point"--is a false premise. At no point did I argue the application of the "far-right" label was inappropriate, and included its application to the Epoch Times in my proposed changes. This is in contrast to User:Ijeffsc, who specifically stated their objection to "the term 'far-right'". My proposed changes were additionally based entirely on the wording found in reliable sources, while the reliability of User:Ijeffsc's sources was in question.

In regards to the two writing samples, my respect for Firefangledfeathers lack of comment on why there were so many citations was genuine. I appreciated them expressing how things might be improved without speculating or ascribing motivations to how the issue arose. My expression of agreement was to the extent that I also would prefer to see fewer sources. The two segments otherwise have little in common stylistically, and--to be blunt--I suspect they were included solely because Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations states diffs as a requirement, and it was therefore a necessary box to check.

The characterization of my edits as "lengthy" or "verbose" seems especially uncharitable in light of one of my main criticisms, specifically that the large number of sources makes discussion unwieldy and compact assessment impossible.

Lastly, despite my reluctance to engage with the charade that "similar writing" is a basis for stating that I don't exist, I'll highlight that User:Ijeffsc's writing is characterized by an almost total lack of commas, hyphens, and parentheticals, whereas I commonly (perhaps excessively) use all three.

Decline reason:

Confirmed WP:LOUTSOCK, no comment as to the IP address or addresses involved. Yamla (talk) 10:29, 29 February 2024 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

In regards to the above denial of my block appeal, I'll assume(!) the alleged WP:LOUTSOCK violation concerns the IP edits I made as 104.232.117.132 and 204.131.217.130 at Talk:The Epoch Times. I can't account for any other edits, as I haven't made any.

I'm a brand-new editor. I made my edits from different locations. When I identified that the differing IPs might make the source of the edits confusing, I registered a username. After registering my username, I made no further IP edits.
I made no attempt to differentiate the focus, style, and structure of my IP and user edits. In some cases, I posted the exact same comment ("Please keep article talk pages clear of interpersonal comments and suggestions."), first under an IP, then under my username post-registration. Additionally, when adding the topic "Semi-protected edit request 28 February 2024", I referred to "my conversation with Firefangledfeathers above". The final two edits I made in the previous topic can hardly be characterized as a conversation, and I felt it was obvious that I was referring to the topic/conversation as a whole. That the IP edits and edits under my username were very likely made by the same user was remarked upon by others: User:Firefangledfeathers:"The IPs are almost certainly the same person", User:Bbb23:"104.232.117.132 is likely the same person" (note: these comments were made contemporary to/after my block). I would have been happy to confirm that relationship at the time of discussion if anyone thought the remaining margin of uncertainty was material.
For anyone still suspecting I am User:Ijeffsc, I'd ask them to see my response to the investigation in my previous appeal. Additionally, User:Ijeffsc was strongly opposed to the application of the label "far-right" to the Epoch Times. Given that a significant portion of the IP edits I made were concerned with identifying, summarizing, and arguing for the inclusion of sources that supported that the term "far-right" was accurate (one of which is now included in the page[i.]), the IP edits contradict the claim that we are the same user.
In retrospect, I should have been explicitly clear about my new username (for that I would have had to suspect what was coming--life is full of surprises) and request attribution for my IP edits, a mechanism of which I was unaware until after my block. At no point prior to User:Grayfell's edit here[ii.] was any issue raised to me about my identity or edit attribution[iii.], either in the discussion or on my user talk page, nor were the IP edits mentioned in the evidence given in the investigation. This suggests that either [A.] my alleged deception re:WP:LOUTSOCK was subtle enough to evade notice or [B.] the continuation of my identity was obvious/inconsequential enough to all involved that clarification was unnecessary. Given the edits referenced in bullet [2.], the limited number of users involved in what is a relatively obscure discussion, and the inference that my alleged deception was significant (in that's it's block-worthy) and obvious (in that a decision was made with little discussion), it's difficult to see how [A.] was the case. Any case other than [B.] is contradicted by the fact that somebody could have, you know, asked me if they felt clarification was warranted.

To summarize: I appeal this block on the basis that [A.] there was no material doubt that the edits under 104.232.117.132, 204.131.217.130, and User:ClifV were made by the same user, [B.] there was no overlap in time between my IP edits and my username edits, [C.] there was no impact on the discussion from the authorship of those edits not being explicitly recognized, and [D.] a significant portion of the edits (specifically those concerning this source made under 104.232.117.132) were totally inconsistent with the views and motivations attributed to User:Ijeffsc.

I had no intention to be deceptive. My intention has always been the improvement of the page. I've only gone where the sources have taken me, and despite the overall tenor of the conversation I'm moderately surprised and moderately pleased that changes based on my input have happened at all. Trust me when I say this has been a rapidly educational experience in respect to wiki guidelines, procedures, and practices.

[i.] The source in question was described as a a great find and to look promising... it cites multiple sources which may be relevant to this discussion by User:Firefangledfeathers and User:Grayfell, respectively.
[ii.] The edit in question was made at 6:20 UTC, immediately after the creation (at 6:11 UTC, 28 Feb, also by User:Grayfell) of the investigation that resulted in my block. That investigation was concluded by User:Bbb23 at 14:57 UTC, 28 Feb, seven hours and forty-six minutes later. My timezone is PST. Whatever the procedures governing investigation timelines, a sub-eight-hour span between 10pm PST and 7am PST is not a realistic window in which to expect a reply.
[iii.] Users may wish to point to User:MrOllie's edit here as an example of situation where [A.] his comment made me aware there was confusion as to the number of users, and [B.] that I declined to clarify demonstrated duplicity on my part. It was indeed clear to me that MrOllie was not aware at the time that 104.232.117.132 and User:ClifV were the same user. Though I felt uneasy with the situation, I was unaware (again, brand-new editor) of any guidelines on the topic, had found the majority of my interactions with MrOllie to be terse and unproductive, and made the (possibly mistaken) judgement call to not continue an exchange that had already strayed off-topic by correcting him. It was clear to me from that point that editing with a single username (as I had already chosen to do before, and would continue to do after) was good practice, as the same confusion could have arisen between edits under 104.232.117.132 and 204.131.217.130.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2024 (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.

Further thoughts:

If CheckUser found a connection between the previously mentioned IP edits and User:Ijeffsc, then it is evidence that User:Ijeffsc has committed the WP:LOUTSOCK violation (likewise for a relationship between User:Ijeffsc and User:ClifV in respect to WP:BADSOCK)[i.]. If CheckUser found no connection between Ijeffsc and the IP edits, but did find a connection between the IP edits and User:ClifV, all that's been confirmed is that a person (me) made IP edits prior to registering as User:ClifV.
My assessment of my obligation to connect my username to my IP edits, and presumed wrongdoing in failure to do so, was far more rigorous than the reality: "To protect their privacy, editors who have edited while logged out are never required to connect their usernames to their IP addresses on-wiki" and "If you have concerns that an IP editor is actually a user with an account who is editing while logged out in a way that is inappropriate, you can give the IP editor notice of this policy".
Given that that ship has obviously sailed, I would like to state clearly that I give permission for information obtained by CheckUser on the activity of User:ClifV to be released, per the privacy policy which "requires that identifying information not be disclosed except... with the permission of the affected user". I understand that I am prohibited from making CheckUser requests for myself, and additionally cannot mandate that the information in question be released.
User:Ijeffsc appears to be active again. Maybe we can all talk this out?

[i.] If either was the case, why was the responsible party/connection between the two named accounts left unconfirmed in the appeal rejection, and the new allegation of WP:LOUTSOCK applied to User:ClifV?

@Deepfriedokra: I'm crying out for some skepticism here.

ClifV (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hello User:Ijeffsc, I'm tracking. ClifV (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Timepiece Goes To Washington

Hello again User:Ijeffsc. To any interested parties, I contacted Ijeffsc off wiki via email (post-block, of course). I'm making this edit simultaneous to his to confirm that we are, in fact, not the same person. ClifV (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation on synchronization of User:Ijeffsc's message and my previous message is shown to the left. Time was synchronized with [1]https://clock.zone/. At the time of the conversation we were approximately 14,500km/9,000mi apart, give or take a few k. ClifV (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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

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

Request reason:

Taking a cue from: "Verbose or undetailed appeals may not attract administrators to review. In these cases requests may be closed as {decline stale} if nobody decided to act within two weeks. Appeals that are brief and focused on the concerns of the blocking admin will help administrators decide more easily." Brief summary of past requests and edits:

Original sockpuppet investigation was circumstantial at best
First checkuser did not address violation
I'm in contact User:Ijeffsc and we've made simultaneous edits on our respective talk pages
I give permission for checkuser results on my account to be disclosed

Accept reason:

Insufficient evidence of socking to sustain the block. See discussion below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This long-pending unblock request needs review from uninvolved admins. Substantively, and subject to input from others, ClifV's explanation for what occurred appears to be at least plausible (although I am not being critical of the initial suspicion, nor am I an expert on the subject-matter of the page ClifV was editing when he was blocked).

Procedurally, it appears that ClifV's second unblock request, which contained a detailed response to the grounds for the initial decline, sat unreviewed for three full months, and then was procedurally declined merely because no admin had reviewed it; and that ClifV then posted another, much shorter unblock request that has now sat unreviewed for close to another three months, without a word of comment on it from anyone.

If I am reading the page-history correctly that this is what happened, this clearly is not how our unblock review process is supposed to work. We call Wikipedia "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"; in practice this means "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit unless there is a good reason under our policies to stop them"; but it is never supposed to mean "the encyclopedia that you can't edit because no one has bothered to take another look at your case." Of course, I accept that I am as responsible as any other administrator for not addressing these unblock requests sooner.

@Bbb23 and Yamla: I would appreciate your input on the merits of the unblock request(s). Please also advise whether you believe input from an uninvolved checkuser is necessary to review the block, in which case I will post a request for it.

I acknowledge I learned of this block via a thread on an external site. While posting on that site forms no part of our unblock review process, in this instance it seems entirely understandable given the blocked user's inability for six months to obtain a reasoned response to his points from anyone here on Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. ClifV, your patience is... incredible. And all for the dubious, if selfless, pleasure of expanding access to mankind's knowledge :) Best of luck with the appeal. SerialNumber54129 14:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No CU evidence of recent block evasion. It's a noisy range, but I don't think we need a second checkuser to take a look. I have already reviewed an unblock request from this user and strong custom says that rules me out from anything more than procedural declines. The problem is, there just aren't enough unblock reviewers. We probably need 4 - 10x as many in order to keep up. We get most of the straight-forward cases, but if you take a look at Category:Requests_for_unblock, a lot end up just languishing, even with the stale declines. It's made worse by many unblock requestors making the same garbage requests, over and over and over again, or people making requests that clearly show the user hasn't bothered to read the policies they violated. This request isn't one of those, but it's a significant reason why we end up with so many languishing requests. Newyorkbrad, I have no objection to you lifting the block, though obviously it isn't my block. I would suggest (not demand) that ClifV and Ijeffsc commit to only coordinating edits on-wiki, though. --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, thank you for the input. I'll leave this open another day or so to allow Bbb23 or anyone else to comment if they wish to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the admins, throughout the last year there has been waves of new accounts and IP addresses at Talk:The Epoch Times, all challenging the "far-right" label using similar arguments. Is it possible that they're the result of some sort of off-site coordination?--202.53.36.47 (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I have reviewed ClifV's unblock request and the discussion on this page. With regard to the initial block, while I can understand the reasons for suspicion in February in light of the editing history on Talk:Epoch Times, after considering everything that has been posted, I do not find sufficient evidence of sockpuppetry to sustain the block.

The initial unblock request was declined based on a finding of logged-out socking. However, ClifV has explained that he made the IP edits before registering his account, and indeed that he registered this username precisely to avoid further confusion resulting from editing from different IPs. This explanation seems credible and has not been rebutted, and hence the IP edits do not appear to support the block either.

Accordingly, I am granting the unblock request and lifting the block. As non-binding advice to ClifV, you may wish to avoid any suspicion of being a single-purpose account with an agenda by broadening your editing interests to include other, perhaps less controversial areas—something I understand you have not had the opportunity to do so far.

Finally, while as I said above I understand why you expressed strong feelings about this block on another site after the unreasonable delay that occurred here, I disapprove of the crass language ("limpwristed," "post-coital") in your first post on that site. While it is axiomatic that off-wiki postings are not governed by the same standards that apply here on Wikipedia, that sort of comment strikes me as undesirable in any context.

Best wishes for your future editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Messages received. Thank you for your time taken to address this. You are a load-bearing figure. ClifV (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ClifV. I hope you're not suggesting that the load that Newyorkbrad bears is the result of one-too-many Law Society Dinners^[FBDB] ;) SerialNumber54129 15:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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. — Newslinger talk 03:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 03:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to Falun Gong. This is a standard message to inform you that Falun Gong is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 03:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 'Slinger. ClifV (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]