User talk:Meieet

Meieet, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Meieet! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Julius Evola has been reverted.
Your edit here to Julius Evola was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://i.imgur.com/UrqPd7k.jpg) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to an image file on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable image.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Protection

Hi

Amorymeltzer There is an editor accusing me of being someone else. He/she removed some edits I've made because for what I understand someone in the past was blocked for it. The user is not interested in discussing the quality of my contributions but to attack me instead. How can I protect myself from such people and why is he/she allowed to block me for being a socket if not only this is my first account here but the investigation is not finished? I have read people leave comments in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard regarding possible sockpuppet but as you can see I was blocked right away.Meieet (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Thanks

It's funny you should call on them when their userpage links to this as "the only essay you will ever need." See points 32, 37, and 74. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

SPI notification

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bcliot33. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

AmandaNP Hi. Since you are an administrator with SPI I thought I could ask your help. It's a long and boring situation. User Ian.thomson has reverted by edits, blocked me and accused me of being another user. All of this in 4 minutes.

11:25 JPT, I created the sockpuppet investigation page. 11:26, I notified you of it. 11:30, I first reverted you.

Before I was blocked I was able to use other places other than my talk page. When reverting my edits the user above was clearly on a personal level focusing on my person rather than my contributions. As you can see from the timeline above he created a ticket for SPI to check if I'm a socket then seconds later reverted my edits saying I was likely a socket. How can an editor do such thing before investigation is beyond me. He accused me of being someone else from the fact one edit I've made using primary source was used by a banned user one year ago. What can I do to prevent people like him/her to persecute me? If that's the standard here I do think this is absurd.Meieet (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You didn't just use the same primary source, you copied that blocked user's edits from a different article verbatim, and then proceeded to engage in the same behaviors I warned you were hallmarks of that user. If you can't see how that makes you look, WP:CIR would apply if WP:DUCK didn't. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson What's the problem of using the same source someone used before? Still why didn't you use the article's talk page before reverting my contrib? Why didn't you come here on my talk page to talk about that particular edit? Meieet (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Another flat lie like that and I'm going to revoke talk page access (which I probably should have done long before now). As I said before, you copied and pasted verbatim the blocked user's edit from a different article. Not simply the same source, but content. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson I just checked the supposed verbatim edit and it's not verbatim. Since it's a direct primary source quote it would obviously use the author wording but it's not verbatim. Regarding your threat to block me from editing my talk page, I'll ask another admin to look into this issue too. You should not be able to attack people on a personal level like you are doingMeieet (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

To claim that this and this aren't the same edit means that you are so incapable of truthfulness that you shouldn't be editing. Talk page access revoked. You will need to use the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System when your current unblock request is denied by a checkuser (though they will probably instead remove your email access as you need to appeal under your original account, Bcliot33). Ian.thomson (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing 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.

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 ~~~~}}.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm not sure what is going on. An editor is reverting my edits and he/she blocked me

Decline reason:

 Confirmed sock puppet of Bcliot33. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Yes, by all means draw more attention to the sockpuppet investigation where I show you restoring verbatim edits by a months blocked user.

If it was just a coincidence, consider that if ignorance was a valid defense for you, then you weren't in a position to lecture others on policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we both Ian.thomson are under the same rules by Wikipedia. You are not supposed to act like an activist. Hopefully we can get along since it seems you are starting a personal war with myself who is just contributing to the site Meieet (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make this about rules, then it was your responsibility to go to the talk page to explain your edits and wait for a consensus, and it's unwise to accuse others without good evidence (not just your failure to assume good faith). But those were things that Bcliot33 refused to understand as well, so by all means argue that point instead of getting it.

Oh, and if you want to quibble about my pointing out that you're a sockpuppet, on the SPI page I pointed to you restoring verbatim edits of a blocked editor. Going on to to edit war for those edits while making the same sorts of accusations that editor would make does not make you innocent or draw attention away from that evidence, it does quite the opposite. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson BRD is not only optional but it was you who should have gone to talk page to discuss reverts, not myself. The way you described it looks like I was supposed to explain the contributions before I make them in the talk page. This is false, obviously. I hope you correct yourself on this matter. Meieet (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, you give Bcliot33's exact misinterpretation of policy. Maybe that's a bad idea? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You are affirming that I should go to the talk page before making a contribution. Show me where it says it. As far as I'm aware, your mass revert is on a personal level. I also don't understand why you are accusing me of being someone else for the 4th time today.Meieet (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

And just like Bcliot33, you're assuming my actions are personal and not related to policy. BRD is part of the Wikipedia:Consensus policy (which trumps the essay you cite), and I gave reasons besides "you're a sock" in the reverts. Also, it's hypocritical of you to cite an essay saying "revert when necessary" when you've reverted without giving a reason.

If you can't understand how:

• restoring a verbatim edit of a blocked editor,
• misinterpreting essays as holding more power than policy in the same way as that blocked editor,
• editing warring to keep the aforementioned edits using said misinterpretations
• making the same accusations that blocked editor made

-- all make you look like that blocked editor, then you shouldn't be editing. At best, it shows that you don't understand how to avoid behaviors that will get you blocked. At worst, you're just insulting everyone's intelligence when it's damned obvious you're yet another sockpuppet. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like point out first all your accusation is based on your imagination that I'm someone else. Plus: WP:DONTREVERT I also would like to link to point out that according to WP:ASPERSIONS, you have broken the principle "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe". "If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI." Where can I report your behavior? I'm sure there must a place in Wikipedia where I can defend and protect myself from people like you.Meieet (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, now you're reaching "2+2=0" levels of lying. The Sockpuppet Investigation page has solid evidence (again, you adding verbatim material that only a blocked editor was interested in adding). That evidence is why I considered the possibility that you might be a sockpuppet, which is why I reverted you. You're talking about this as if I reverted you first and then threw the accusation (with no evidence) to justify the revert, which is the sort of lie we'd block a user for sticking since it shows that either they aren't going to work truthfully with others or they lack the capacity for truthfulness. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

"The Sockpuppet Investigation page has solid evidence" Did you wait for the investigation or you are the accuser and the judge at the same time? Ian.thomson "You're talking about this as if I reverted you first and then threw the accusation (with no evidence) to justify the revert" That's exactly what Ian.thomson have done and I'd like to report this to an administrator. How can I protect myself from this kind of behavior? Thank you Meieet (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

11:25 JPT, I created the sockpuppet investigation page. 11:26, I notified you of it. 11:30, I first reverted you. You are lying about the sequence of events. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson You are accusing me of lying but you are the liar since I have proved you were using the investigation to justify your reverts. The order does not matter since you have done everything in less than 4 minutes. You have created an accusation, notified me and before the investigation was finished you have already reverted edits I have done by pretending I was someone else. Meieet (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The order of events presented by WP:DIFFs says otherwise.

Your edit to New World Order (conspiracy theory) (and as I soon discovered, to History of communism) was clearly copied and pasted from Bcliot33's edits to a different article a half year ago. I can imagine a defense that would be very simple for you to realize and use if it were true. Although there are hints that maybe you wanted to try to lay tracks to that defense throughout this conversation, you've steered well away from it to instead engage in behaviors I explicitly warned you were hallmarks of Bcliot33 (indeed, doubling down on some of them). If that hypothetical defense (which I'm not going to spell out) were true, it would have been your first and primary defense. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ian.thomson I'm not that person you are referring to. I've made my first account here. I can't find a place to ask an admin to ask him/her what can I do to protect myself from editors like you. Do you know where can I find it? Thanks Meieet (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

There are some nuances missing from that claim that would have long ago made themselves present if true. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)