User talk:Symes2017

Welcome!

Hello, Symes2017, 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! McSly (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

178.40.152.153 block evasion as 78.98.54.148 and possible sockpuppet of Symes2017

@Czar: @Ivanvector: Why is nobody doing something about it? 178.40.152.153 was blocked (and still isǃ

This IP address is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference: 15:24, 19 November 2019 Ivanvector talk contribs blocked 178.40.152.153 talk with an expiration time of 1 week (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Edit warring)

and evaded the block as 78.98.54.148 (other IPs previous to the block include 178.41.129.82 and maybe others). As I stated elsewhere,

Now this happened. I suspect that's the IP (the IP block also included the account creation block; and if that's really the IP, it violated that one too). The IP stopped editing or replying me and now suddenly there's this user, created seemingly on 23 November 2019, who supported the IP's edits. I'm afraid it's a sockpuppet of the IP, who isn't showing any good faith anymore, despite me explaining it to self-revert and notify the block evasion (why didn't anyone replied me here yet?

This is further proof Symes2017 is the blocked IP as the IP told me about "nominat[ing] this article for a peer review" here.

I wish the IP would have created an account, but this wasn't certainly the way to goǃ We have disrupting beahvior such as block evasion, edit warring multiple times while blocked and now sock puppetry as the blocked IP first evaded the block as 78.98.54.148 and now created an account when still blocked. All of this could have been avoided if the IP listened to me and my plea, not editing for the whole duration of the block and not doing what it did.--Davide King (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Prior edits?

Hi @Symes2017, I'd like to be able to work this out. Are you the editor who previously edited as 178.40 and 78.98? If so, it's fine/great to create an account (makes it easier to track edit history) but since you were involved in a prior discussion, we'd need to know whether you're the same editor as this edit summary makes it sound like the IP is someone else. We're able to confirm by IP lookup if needed but wanted to give you the chance to respond first. czar 18:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I can confirm that I indeed edited from the 78.98 IP address, though since my network has the DHCP protocol turned on, it is prone to changes from time to time. I created this account so that I can become a proper editor on Wikipedia and contribute to pages that would otherwise be inaccessible to anonymous editors (Such as semi-protected pages on topics that are of interest to me), and, like you said, to consolidate my edit history so it won't go blank in case my address changes again. And about that edit summary, I apologize. I should have been more clear when I posted that edit. I don't particularly see anything egregiously wrong with said revision, especially as it improved the quality of the article's prose and reduced longstanding clutter, especially the one that was present in the WW1 and interwar period section. I will revert it if neccessary, and I am sorry about my past edit warring. What do you think I should do now? Symes2017 (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for behing honest. I have sympathy for you, but I believe this is no longer good faith and you're risking an indefinitely block, which you may appeal and can get unblocked, but it may require time and basically all of this could have been avoided if you listened to me and didn't do what you did. As I stated elsewhere, we have disrupting beahvior such as blocked as IP for edit warring, then block evasion, edit warring multiple times while blocked and now sock puppetry as the blocked IP first evaded the block as 78.98.54.148 (which is still blocked, I think it would have ended on 26 November 2019) and now created an Symes2017 when still blocked. I have been more than forthcoming in including part of the IP edits and even told the IP many times that it shouldn't be editing, that it was still blocked, etc.; and that if it truly wanted to show good faith, then it should self-revert and notify the block evasion, but instead now created a new account and engaged in sock puppetry too. Even if you believed your edits were the right ones, it doesn't justify your behavior and Wikipedia's guidelines you violated in the process.--Davide King (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• To confirm, yes to 78.98 but what about to 178.40 and 178.41 (as linked above)?

To your other questions, the issue with your revision is threefold: (1) It was already contested and through our suggested editing cycle (known as BOLD), those edits should not be restored until there is talk page consensus. I recently left a comment that addresses how to find consensus (i.e., slowly). Your revision also made it appear as if you were a third party to the discussion to create an illusion of support (known as Sock puppetry on Wikipedia). (2) If you were the 178 range IPs, I recommend reading about Edit warring before continuing, as it is the reason why one of those IPs were blocked. WP editors use talk page consensus to determine the content of articles. Reverting to your preferred version—even when you're in the "right"—is known as "edit warring" and is always unproductive. Wikipedia:Edit warring has more on this. (3) Again, great to see you make an account and welcome to the community (I hope you'll have a long, successful stay) but if your account was created to evade a block on a prior IP, we need to work that out before continuing.

I'm sure you and Davide will be able to find consensus and cleanup the article together, but let's clear the air by resolving this first. (I'll resolve Davide's other questions.) czar 19:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Davide, I owe you an apology for what I did on Social democracy. All I wanted to do was improve the article to a more professional standard so that it may one day attain a Good Article classification or even be promoted to "Featured Article", especially since the article itself has advanced well since it was first created all these years ago. I let anger and frustration get the best of me when my edits (Which took quite a good while to implement) were modified and some typos were inserted in (Which you did correct afterwards, so no hard feelings there) and now we are here, mediating an complex dispute that has dragged out for almost a week by now. I will refrain from editing the article for the time being, and you are welcome to restore your preferred contributions if you want. Once again, I deeply regret my ad hominems (Such as me accusing you of "trying to own the article because you are a socialist" on the talkpage and the foolish actions I did on the Gary Null (Yes, I also edited from 178.40 and 178.41) and Social democracy articles, and I will do my best to not repeat these mistakes in the future. I hope you don't bear a grudge against me, especially because my conduct towards you and the article was indeed improper. Symes2017 (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Symes. My suggestion is to respect the weeklong block on 178.40 that will expire this Tuesday (15:24 GMT, 26 November 2019) just to give some breathing room, though you can appeal this block if it's important to you. When ready, I'd bring your contested suggestions to the article's talk page one at a time, as sometimes it's hard to contest a single line in a large edit that moves many paragraphs. Once any major issues are addressed, I'm sure there will be no issue with implementing the remaining minor/cosmetic changes. Reach out to me if I can help with anything and I recommend minding the advice I gave on Talk:Social democracy, namely that this is a controversial topic space so stick to discussing sources (not each other) and give yourself space/bring in third parties when discussion gets heated. Happy editing, czar 19:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, given that the block is supposed to expire less than two days from now, I think it would be pretty redundant to try appealing it now. I will observe it, and accordingly, I shall refrain from editing articles until November 26th. And yes, the next time I add content that is likely to be challenged/contested by a particular editor, I will discuss it on the article's talkpage in case someone else objects to it. I am sorry for the inconvenience I inadvertently caused to Davide King and other editors, and rest assured that I will do my best to refrain from such conduct in the future. Symes2017 (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Davide King, I just wanted to let you know that your recent revision of Social democracy is fine by me, and I currently don't have major problems with it. I can't reply directly on the article's talkpage because I've been INDEF-ed for my earlier misconduct and I can only speak on my talkpage. All I have to say is: Consider the dispute to be over. I hope we can begin collaborating together someday if I am ever unblocked. Symes2017 (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

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 ~~~~}}.

Note that for the purposes of our policies, creating an account to edit while your IP is blocked is also considered abuse of multiple accounts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand. Is it still possible to appeal this block in the future? Or have I been effectively banned from Wikipedia? I am asking because I am unsure whether is it even possible for a block of this nature to be reversed. Symes2017 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is always possible to appeal blocks, and bans for that matter but the process is a bit more formal. I've blocked your account because you're clearly using it to evade the edit warring block of your IP, and our policy is that sanctions (blocks, bans, etc.) apply to the end user (you), not whichever account or IP you happen to be using at the time. But I see from the discussion above (which I was not aware of when Davide King left a note on my talk page yesterday and hadn't seen until after I blocked you) you seem to understand what you did wrong and have already explained that you will avoid doing it again. Another of our policies is that blocks are not intended as punishment but to halt disruption, and since I don't believe you will continue editing disruptively I don't see a reason why you should stay blocked for another day or two, and so I will lift the block on your account in a moment. Your IPs will remain blocked until those blocks expire but as long as you are logged in to your account you won't be affected.

If you have any questions about our blocking policies or anything else, please feel free to ask here (you can use the {{helpme}} or {{adminhelp}} templates to flag your request, see the links for instructions) or at the help desk. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: @Ivanvector: I accept the user's apology and I have sympathy because I was blocked too. While I absolutely agree that blocks should be "not intended as punishment but to halt disruption", this makes the IP and now the user's block worthless as it evaded the block for the whole week. On 20 November, the new IP continued exactly where it left and did the same edit warring despite me explaining that it's clearly a block evasion and that it shouldn't be editing any page or even talk page. Then here the IP says that "if you insist on me staying away for 7 days before you are willing to discuss anything with me, then fine", but the following day it created an account and made this edit with the clear intention of being two different persons. The IP's block is still pending, yet the actual user's still free and avoided the whole duration of the block this way.

I could understand if the IP just merely told me about proposed edits or correction to its or mine talk page, or if it merely continued the discussion at Talk:Social democracy, although in my case I was told not to edit any page and talk page, but the IP did the exactly same thing it was blocked for and for a whole week. Once I was made aware of the rule, I clearly stopped violating that; however, you can see at Talk:Social democracy that I clearly told the IP it was evading the block and that it should refrain from editing any page or talk page; indeed, that the whole discussion should have been postponed until the block was fully over; and I clearly didn't expect the IP in violating my will to give good faith in creating a new account, with the clear intention to act like two different persons, when while I didn't mention sock puppetry, I believe I have been clear that the IP shouldn't be editing in any shape or form for the whole duration of the block and I also told the IP I was afraid the block would now have been much longer, if not indefinitely, for evading the block to edit war again; but now basically the block has been made worthless.

That's why I believe the user should have been indefinitely blocked according to the rules and should have applied the block like in any other indefinitely block case, showing a clear understanding that what it did was wrong (not merely saying that it understood, but clearly stating the reasons why, like I did here). I believe the user should have been welcome back, but not this way; not when it basically made the previous block's worthless (and I haven't heard anywhere that the block wasn't warranted in the first place or anything like that; it was issued multiple warnings, etc.). I think the user should have applied the block and in the waiting should have proved to have learned by not using any IP to edit any page and talk page to truly show understanding and that it won't happen again. So I'm a bit astonished that the block was made worthless, but I respect and understand the blocking editor if that's the correct decision and I'm glad to welcome you back.--Davide King (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Yes, the editor wrongly circumvented the IP block but as already established, the editor has shown contrition and wants to edit productively, which should be encouraged. If our good faith has been misplaced, happy to revisit in the future. But for now, take the olive branch—it's astonishingly similar to the one recently paid forward to you. Let's get back to editing. czar 02:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Democratic socialism

Hi, regarding this, while I agree with your understanding of Thrid Way, it's my impression that you also conflate social democrayc with it, apparently just because self-professed social democratic party and governments underwent austerity and neoliberalism (in practice, the Third Way), which I agree with.

I think the issue is that I see democratic socialism also as part of social democracy, but by no means not all; just like libertarian socialism isn't just anarchism, but also libertarian communism and Marxism, social democracy isn't just the Third Way; and democratic socialism include both revolutionary and reformist social democracy. I dispute your wording that social democrats [...] are opposed to ending capitalism. While that may be true for supporters of the centrist Third Way, it just isn't true of social democracy. The sources I added were the ones used to describe the Third Way not just as anti-socialist and neoliberal, but also as anti-social democratic in practice, exactly because the Third Way fully endorsed capitalism and doesn't want to abolish it whereas social democracy endorsed it, just like Keynesianism, as part of a compromise and because many social democrats, just like the original revisionist Marxists and evolutionary socialists, believe that capitalism itself would lead into socialism. Just because, since they're reformist and gradualist, their policies may not be called socialist or because the economic system remained capitalist, it doesn't mean they aren't committed to socialism, whether you or I may personally think otherwhise.

I think the consensus is that social democracy is still part of socialism as an ideology. Because socialism is both an economic systen and an ideology whereas capitalism is the economic system and liberalism has been turned into its ideology. So you may see socialism only in terms of an economic system, but that's not how it's been done here on Wikipedia; and we have to respect the consensus or find a new one.--Davide King (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I also don't understand your issue with wording such as meliorist, reformist and Third Way social democracy. I mean, I understand you because I didn't understand either why the comma's added, but the thing is that there's no issue with adding a comma in big, beautiful car, hence why gradualist, reformist socialism and reformist, evolutionary social democrats such as Marxist revisionist Eduard Bernstein. Meliorist and reformist social democracy is the social democracy that supports progressive reforms to humanize capitalism and curb its excesses while remained committed to socialism whereas Third Wayers are opposed to ending capitalism.

Thus, with both democratic socialists and social democrats committed to socialism, the difference is that modern democratic socialism are more concerned about building a socialist society today whereas modern social democrats are more concerned about curbing capitalism's excess and propose progressive reforms. In this sense, Third Way social democracy isn't social democracy but social liberalism. The difference between social democracy and social liberalism, besides coming out from different tradtion while at the same time being influenced by each other, is that social liberalism isn't really concerned about capitalism as an economic system (i.e. they don't want to abolish it or truly change it) whereas social democrats have proposed a democratic socialism as alternative; this is also the difference between a social liberal like Elizabeth Warren and a social democrat like Bernie Sanders. What they agree is on their means with progressive reform and so on, but they disagree on the ends.

However, as I explained above, because most social democrats in practice are reformist and gradualist, their policies may not be called socialist (indeed, their policies are closer to social liberalism in practice) or because the economic system remained capitalist, it doesn't mean they aren't committed to socialism or still part of socialism. The so-called pink tide, where social democrats are called democratic socialists, is nothing but a more populist European-style pre-1970s social democracy. Their economies are all still capitalist (just like pre- and post-war European social democracies), despite what some people may think or say about them being socialist because some of them are failing or went authoritarian. That doesn't mean many of their leaders are also socialists who are committed to a socialist society.--Davide King (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words, Davide, and while one may claim to be seeking a "socialist" society, it is ultimately their actual policies and legislative record that determine whether or not can they be reliably classified as "socialist". We don't say that someone is a member of the Mensa Society just because they said so for example, so why should we say someone is a "socialist" because they claimed so? Reliable sources determine what we post on Wikipedia, not our personal analyses, someone else's claims, or original research. And the vast majority of reliable sources clearly place social democracy within the capitalist camp, and yes, that also includes actual socialists, who generally don't regard socdems as their fellow "comrades". Symes2017 (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, I actually agree. However, this confirms that you see socialism merely as an economic system and thus reject social democracy just because in the actual matter it retains the capitalist economy (that's because it's reformist and no longer revolutionary). Do you also consider people like Hugo Chávez social democrats? Because in practice they were simply a more populist, Latin American variant of pre-1970s social democracy. I think you're making original research out of it, because reliable sources say that social democracy retains a capitalist economy, not that it isn't part of the socialist tradition, which includes also ethical, reformist and utopian variants of socialism. Then Communist states were nothing but authoritarian social democracies, for after all they had a state-capitalist planned market economy instead of socialism. You're ruling out all the hundreds of reformist socialist parties that governed much of the world since the 20th century just because they kept a capitalist economy (either because they believed that capitalism would lead to socialism or because they were reformists and not revolutionaries). Either way, I don't consider myself the ultimate authority, so I hope other users can state their thoughts. I suggest you to also talk about it to The Four Deuces.--Davide King (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

third opinion request

Hi! I can see you've added a summary to the 3O template on the talk page of Social_Democracy. Thanks for doing that. From the summary, I can see that you've highlighted the conduct of another editor as what you are seeking opinion on. Third Opinion requests supply a third opinion on article content and not editor conduct. If you would still like an outside opinion on the article content, I ask that you rewrite the summary to explain the specific changes you are seeking an opinion on, and your reasoning why you think those changes should stand. Thanks! PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it quite hard to thoroughly explain the whole dispute given it has dragged out for weeks by now and the edits are all over the place, but I'll do my best to explain why they should be allowed to stand. Symes2017 (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

you don't need to do anything, but for a moment please consider my perspective: I don't know what you want to change, nor why. I can't provide an opinion without seeing that. The more specific you are, the clearer the changes proposed, the easier it is to discuss those changes for future editors. Thank you. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand. I have done my best to explain the dispute at hand in my statement, and Davide King has provided a more extensive summary, although slightly slanted towards his side. Just in case, I also provided the relevant diff URL so that you can check what exactly was changed yourself. I hope we didn't frustrate you too much. Symes2017 (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adrian Fey, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. BiologicalMe (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Disclosing the accounts that I used

I was asked on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adrian Fey to provide a list of the accounts that I've used to demonstrate honesty and reassure the community of my willingness to reform, and I am able to do so. Without further ado, this is a full list of the accounts I created after being blocked as Adrian Fey:

User: Sanation

User: Scott Shelby

User: Alexander Zubatov

User: InitiateOrwell

User: Kaltionis

User: Symes2017

User: Boško Obradović

And lastly, User: Anthere II.

As for the IP addresses that have been reported for vandalizing the talkpage of HIV/AIDS denialism, I can confirm that I have never used these specific addresses, because I live in a completely different continent and country than Argentina (The country that the vandal IP addresses came from, seen on WHOIS), and thus I couldn't possibly have edited from them. Symes2017 (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

An apology to Davide King

@Davide King: Hello, Davide, its me again. Sigh... I assume you must have seen the recent edits I attempted with my IP addresses to social democracy and other affiliated articles. I am sorry, I am not sure what was I even thinking... I got so addicted to editing Wikipedia that I couldn't help myself when I tried to contribute again in spite of the block, only to get discovered each and every time. The fact that I am not allowed to even request an unblock until 6 months have passed makes this an even more demoralizing occasion, especially since its so difficult to completely avoid Wikipedia for a period of over 182 days, during which time I may relapse again, thus resetting the duration and setting me back to square one. Frankly, I am not even sure what to do now, especially since my actions have almost completely shut me out of Wikipedia altogether, and there are so many articles out there that need improvement. I hope you can forgive me for my recent mistakes. Symes2017 (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)