User talk:Superfactual

Welcome!

Hello, Superfactual!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 01:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet 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 sockpuppet, 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. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a sock puppet account. Superfactual (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange that you can just arbitrarily ban someone by claiming they are a sock puppet without an evidence. Superfactual (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I find it strange a brand new editor creates an account, and less than half an hour later is writing responses on article talk pages and understanding how protection works. Right. Sorry, good block. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And who are you? What do you have to do with this discussion? I'm talking to the admin here. Also, what are you so upset about? Superfactual (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flaps like a duck, it probably is a duck. Jdcomix (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry we need hard evidence here not baseless allegations. Superfactual (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The behavioural evidence is sufficient. That would be (scans participants) an additional two admins who agree with the one who placed the initial block. —C.Fred (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What behavioral evidence? Who are you claiming me to be? And what did I do on this account that warranted a block? If the Sonya Massey page is protected and I haven't done anything abusive in the talk page, wby the hell ban me? Superfactual (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's blatantly obvious you're a sockpuppet. As Jdcomix noted, WP:DUCK applies here. Four different editors, including the original blocking admin, are concluding the same thing. Times up. You can create another sockpuppet if you want, but that one will be blocked too. Of course, you could make a legitimate unblock request per the instructions above. If you want it to be successful, I strongly suggest you consent to a topic ban of the subject of the Killing of Sonya Massey and any related topics, broadly construed. With that, you might have a chance of being unblocked. Failing that, any further meta discussions about whether you are a sock or not are not pertinent. If you're not interested in being unblocked via making such an unblock request, there's no reason to continue to grant you the privilege of access to this, your user talk page. Clear? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Because it is blatantly obvious you're a sock puppet." And it is blatantly obvious you don't understand the concept of evidence. Here's what happened: I made an edit on the Sonya Massey page using just my IP address, then the article was reverted and protected. I then proceeded to make an account in order to discuss the topic on the talk page rather than just remaining anonymous with my IP address. How does that make me a sock puppet? Am I not allowed to create an account? Am I obligated to continue on as an anonymous IP address once I started using Wikipedia as such? Superfactual (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final chance. Make a legitimate unblock request (and I recommend doing what I said above about TBAN), or lose talk page access. Meta discussions about whether you are a sock or not are not helpful. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I then proceeded to make an account in order to discuss the topic on the talk page rather than just remaining anonymous with my IP address. How does that make me a sock puppet? Because you (well, the IP) were blocked for your conduct while you were editing with the IP. You cannot evade the block by creating an account, which you have attempted to do. Thank you for admitting that you are evading a block; this is progress. —C.Fred (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address was not blocked. If you knew how Wikipedia works, you'd know that a person cannot create an account with an IP address which is blocked. The fact that I was able to make an account and proceed to make additions to the talk page are evidence that the IP address was not blocked. Superfactual (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, which edit was yours, then? I'm trying to find the edit you claim to have made from an IP that is not blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I blocked the editor as a duck of IP 216.15.49.222, who was blocked for trolling. This account was created 1 minute after the IP was blocked, and 30 minutes later decided to bother me and Ad Orientem concerning the aforementioned article, same as the IP. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a single edit to the Wikipedia article, how is that trolling? Also the IP was not blocked. After I made the edit, the article was reverted and protected. I received no notice of a block. After the article was reverted and protected, I decided to make an account to continue on the topic. If my IP address was blocked, I would not have been allowed to create the account. Please explain to me how I was able to create an account and make posts on the talk page with the blocked IP address. Superfactual (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

This is not a sockpuppet account. I made an edit on the Sonya Massey page using just my IP address, then the article was reverted and protected. I then proceeded to make an account in order to discuss the topic on the talk page rather than just remaining anonymous with my IP address. Superfactual (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Obvious block evasion. Blocks apply to you as a person, not the underlying IP address. As long as any block against you remains in force, you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:10, 10 August 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.

At a stretch, one might consider me WP:INVOLVED, so I'm not going to deny this unblock request. However, I recommend declining the unblock request. Superfactual hasn't taken my advice to voluntarily agree to a topic ban on the subject of the Killing of Sonya Massey and any related topics, broadly construed. Instead, they've chosen to continue the argumentation they had been engaging in before about whether or not they are a sockpuppet. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to not edit the Wikipedia page (it's protected anyway), but I do want to participate on the talk page. Please see my (now deleted) posts on the talk page. What was wrong with anything I said there? It wasn't abusive, trolling or anything. Superfactual (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If any administrator considering this unblock wishes to see evidence regarding the sockpuppeting of this account, it can be found by looking at the contribs of the 216.15.49.222 and 216.15.48.236 IPs. It is rather blatant and obvious. That it is so blatant and obvious and that they are unwilling to consent to the TBAN for the subject they are focused on is telling. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle did not claim that I was a sockpuppet of 216.15.48.236. They claimed I was a sockpuppet of 216.15.49.222. The fact that I agreed with the contribution of 216.15.48.236 does not mean I am literally them. Also, Isabelle is falsely claiming that I made this account AFTER the IP address ban, which is literally not possible and I find it highly suspicious they are making this claim as an administrator. They should know, as any other administrator would know, that if an IP address gets banned, that IP address cannot go on to create an account and make contributions. If the IP address was banned, per Isabelle's claims, then I would not have been able to make contributions to the talk page after creating this account. Nevertheless, making a single edit to the Wikipedia page does not warrant a ban.

Regarding the TBAN, I already agreed not to edit the page. You have failed to articulate how my contributions to the talk page are abusive and warrant a TBAN. Superfactual (talk) 03:12, 10 August 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).

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

Request reason:

I can't reply to NinjaRobotPirate for some reason so I'm putting in another unblock request. "Obvious block evasion." Based on what evidence, exactly? Also are we going to gloss over the fact that Isabelle abused her authority when she lied and claimed that she blocked my IP address before I made this account? Clearly that's a lie as it would not have been possible for me to create an account and use the talk page. Certainly there are repercussions for mods who abuse their authority, right? Superfactual (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request; it's a rant. I revoked talk page access; this is just a time sink. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 10 August 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.