User talk:Plastermoth

NinjaRobotPirate

NinjaRobatPirate (blocked)
NinjaRobetPirate (blocked)
NinjaRoboticPiracy (blocked)
NinjaRebetPirate (blocked)

TonyBallioni

Beyond My Ken
MjolnirPants

Andrewa

Chire
Zac67

Lourdes

Jjjjjjdddddd
Mjolnirpants

Your talk page

Your talk page is a bit confusing to me. I bet @Beyond My Ken, NinjaRobotPirate, Andrewa, Lourdes, Jjjjjjdddddd, MjolnirPants, Chire, and Zac67: would likely be confused by it too. Mind explaining? TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: please keep your comments in your respective section of my talk page for organization. I went ahead and moved your comment for you :)Plastermoth (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, please do not edit my comments or move them to their own section: I like them right here. It makes MPant's reply look like it is coming out of nowhere, and while we give people lots of leeway as to what they can do on their own talk, forcing sections like on an arb case isn't normally within the realm. As MPants below has noted, you really need to explain this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes recently had a successful RfA. It's one of only two I voted in. But I have no idea why they'd draw a connection between you and I. I think we've only interacted once or twice. It doesn't make sense as a pseudo-SPI, which is what the first section suggests. I think we're all registered on Wikipediocracy, though that doesn't explain the list of apparent impersonators under NinjaRobotPirate.

Plastermoth, you really do need to explain this. So far, this is the entirely of your editing, and WP:NOTHERE is a valid reason to block an account.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

02:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not registered on WPO, though I do lurk on occasion. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Plastermoth: "Your" talk page does not belong to you. It is provided to you to facilitate discussions between you and other Wikipedians. You have a limited scope of things you can do with it, such as deleting comments made on it or warnings left for you on it. When the choices you make about organizing your talk page serve to make discussion more difficult -- say, by interrupting threaded discussion to move comments around to individual sections for each editor, I would say that you have gone over the line of what is permitted.

For instance, on the policy page WP:Talk page guidelines, we read at WP:OWNTALK:

User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively.

In my opinion, your re-organizing comments into sections dedicated to each commenter is a violation of that policy. I would strongly suggest that you stop doing so, unless you wish to see yourself as the subject of a report on WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see while I was composing and posting that last comment, that Plastermoth was blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Architect 134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure on this, but it seems to fit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the second you blocked, I remembered that sock family and thought it was a match. Good catch. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for the ping. I was wondering why I was included in this list above. My best bet is Pillzyx is another of this sockpuppet family. Because if you check User talk:Pillzyx, it has Zac67 and me there, and Andrewa blocked that account. That is my guess at the connection between the user names he listed... I added a sock puppet note to that account, but I wasn't sure whether to set "blocked" or not - that account is already blocked, but for vandalism, not as sockpuppet. Chire (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]