User talk:Peachy1621

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

War over Mountainous Armenia

[edit]

How are you able to create War over Mountainous Armenia that is, in many places, word for word identical to the version created by blocked sockpuppet, AmanAmanAmaTurq? Either you are the same editor or you are illicitly copying content from a blocked editor. I see no third option but am giving you a chance to explain yourself. --Yamla (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's from the military wiki. i am not aman aman ama turq Peachy1621 (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/War_over_Mountainous_Armenia this is where i got the text from Peachy1621 (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not permitted to do that. That's a violation of copyright. I'll go and delete that article. You must tell us what other articles you've copied content into. --Yamla (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can i rewrite it then Peachy1621 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you absolutely must not violate copyright. That means rewriting it from scratch, not just simply rewording the content. Please be exceptionally careful here. Any further copyright violation may result in you being indefinitely blocked from en.wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok Peachy1621 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've moved your draft over to Draft:War over Mountainous Armenia. Once it is ready to be published, please submit it via the process outlined in WP:AFC. --Yamla (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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 ~~~~}}.

Yamla (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but the thing i copied it from is sourced- what do you want me to change? there's nothing i can possibly change or else it'd be innacurate Peachy1621 (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were warned about copying and pasting. You copied and pasted. --Yamla (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really, you shouldn't even have that other site open, let alone copy from it. If you are unable to edit without copying from another source, please refrain from any further editing. --Yamla (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so, what do you expect me to change? it is a template, there is nothing to change, because otherwise, it would be inaccurate... what do i have to change for it to not be copied?... Peachy1621 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be very, very clear here. I expect you to rewrite that article from scratch and never copy and paste content from elsewhere. If you are unable to do this, you should not be writing that article. --Yamla (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explain what was copied and pasted in the deleted revision. If this was about the numbers in the infobox, e.g. army size/casualties, then how exactly am I supposed to put those in? Peachy1621 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say this one last time. When the block expires, there had better be zero instances of you copying and pasting. If you are unable to rewrite an article from scratch without copying and pasting, you have no business writing the article. --Yamla (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then can i ask a friend to rewrite it? this is without the infobox of course Peachy1621 (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be dangerous. How would your friend not violate copyright? What about WP:MEAT? --Yamla (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By rewriting the page about the conflict Peachy1621 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May we continue this conversation? Peachy1621 (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? Can we resume this? Peachy1621 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: Please, take a look at this (Specifically the deleted contribution where I added the infobox on the deleted page. I think Admins should be able to see them. I can't). This was literally the stem of all my issues.
This 24 hour block happened, I assume, because Yamla saw the "War over Mountainous Armenia" infobox that I added, which he probably thought I copied from this [[1]]. I only took the numbers from the military wiki, and said numbers had sources. I don't how to thoroughly clarify this. I'm not sure if he thought me putting the same strength and casualties or combatants was a violation of copyright, but I even tried to change the style of the info boxes, because I was warned once (To clarify, I agree, that was a rightful warning. I did not understand how copyright worked at the time). In the end, I was permanently blocked for making an even more different (yet still staying accurate to the conflict's numbers) infobox. Peachy1621 (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Peachy1621, I'm not ignoring this, but I've asked you a bunch of questions about the sockpuppetry etc below that I'd like to get out of the way first - I started coming up with a response about copyright and then realized that you were saying the other copyright issues were by the other editor who was using the Frenchman account, so my answer wasn't relevant. If we can sort out the multiple accounts narrative first it'll make answering this question easier. -- asilvering (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of indefinite for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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 ~~~~}}.
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).

Peachy1621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to be unblocked so I can continue editing. I was blocked because I inserted an infobox that was referred to as copied. I will not insert that infobox anymore, or infoboxes in general that may be referred to as copied and pasted. I only want to rewrite the page I was originally working on. Thanks Peachy1621 (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your history to date shows that you do not understand copyright and that unblocking you would be a bad idea that could potentially expose Wikipedia to legal jeopardy. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 21 April 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.

Block evasion

[edit]

User was caught evading their block as ArmoGaren to continue violating copyright. --Yamla (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this - i don't know who ArmoGaren is lol Peachy1621 (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

[edit]

You are not permitted to remove (or edit) declined unblock requests for your currently active block. You are also not permitted to solicit others to help you evade your block by editing on your behalf. If you do any of these things again, you will lose access to this talk page. --Yamla (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok Peachy1621 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's lonely here :(

[edit]

hi Peachy1621 (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wasting our time. --Yamla (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is there any way i can see if my appeal was accepted (i can't tell what happened to it.) if i lost my appeal key? Peachy1621 (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

[edit]
Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

Yamla (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TPA restored

[edit]

Following UTRS appeal #100737. Feel free to make an unblock request as normal. Admins will be able to read your previous UTRS appeals, so you can keep it brief and just refer to that if you like. -- asilvering (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Peachy1621 (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #100830 was declined. User was already told to make their request here, not on UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

[edit]
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).

Peachy1621 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello. I have been banned on Wikipedia for nearly half a year now; I've learned how copyright policy works here. I believe that the reasoning used to ban me was not correct, and was unjust, which I am up to discuss. My previous appeals can also be read for further information. I didn't mean to disrupt Wikipedia, and won't cause issues again. I just wanted to create and edit things I have a passion for. I'm sorry. Peachy1621 (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am confused by your unblock request. You say the block was unjust, but you also apologize. Are you saying that you did not violate copyright? Or that you did, but should not have been blocked? PhilKnight (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2025 (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.

I was apologizing for any trouble I caused. The fact that I was trying to get across was that I had 2 copyright violations. The first one I was banned for 24 hours for, the second I was banned permanently for. To me, it seems you didn't even glance at the conversations with Yamla I had, which are STILL there. All of my reasoning is in those conversations with Yamla. That's why in the middle of the appeal, I referred you guys to them. The whole point of my unblock request is that the "copyright violations" weren't valid. @PhilKnight: Peachy1621 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to state that your previous block was not correct, and was unjust is unlikely to help, given that the block isn't intended to punish you but rather to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade: How else may I prove to you guys that I will not disrupt Wikipedia when unblocked? When I was block evading, I do not remember violating copyright, doing any edit wars, or anything in general besides the block evasion itself. I created 4 pages, many of which were in the draft submission process. I want to be given one more chance to edit on Wikipedia. If I violate any rules after that, I'll accept my ban and won't come back. Peachy1621 (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You repeatedly violated WP:COPYRIGHT using Frenchman1953. Frankly, I think it's time to re-revoke talk page access. It's clear you still don't see the problems that lead to your block. I'll leave your access open for another 24 hours in case you want to make one final unblock request before I do so. --Yamla (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did i violate that? Peachy1621 (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to accuse me of violating copyright again and not give an actual instance of it, and revoke my talk page access, then go ahead. I'm sure you will. Otherwise, I am waiting. If you can show me where I violated copyright on that account, I'll shut up and leave Wikipedia for good. Peachy1621 (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Special:Contributions/Frenchman1953. Specifically, the deleted contributions were deleted due to copyright. Note they are deleted, so only admins can view the content. Two specific examples are here and here. Note that neither of these were deleted by me, I'm just pointing them out to you. I expect you to honour your word now. --Yamla (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that content was uploaded by AmanAmanAmaTurq/Movaigonel. We both used that account (I assume you can check the IP address for that edit?). Either way, I don’t see myself editing here again for the forseeable future. Bye. Peachy1621 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: to clarify, the copyright violations here were done by Mova. I told Yamla to check them too. I think you guys can see the IP for that edit. Peachy1621 (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Previous discussion at Special:Diff/1294123881.

@Peachy1621, this is my understanding of your story at present. Can you confirm this?

Some other questions, which will be helpful context and save me a lot of digging time if you can answer them:

Sorry, I know that's quite a lot. But if we can clear this up, we can find you a route back to editing in good standing. You may need to take the standard offer to get there, but we'll have to clear this up in any case, and "six months" is a lot sooner than "never". -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, Peachy1621 is my first account, and it was created on 05:28, on September 7, of 2023.
2. Yes, I ban evaded using Vasily1926. Also, I just remembered, I did make another account called "Boarduser91". I remember briefly fixing some grammatical error or info error on a draft page for some article. I actually forgot the password to that account and couldn't recover it.
3. Yes, I did, and I came in contact with Movaigonel, who shared the account with me later.
4. I don't know if Movaigonel created Slemaniye. However, I can literally ask him (I have contact with him on Discord. I will do that, I can confirm all of this). But, I am positive that AmanAmanAmaTurq is Movaigonel. ArmoGaren is a random person, who I assumed saw the revision deleted by Yamla, remembered the old one, created an account, and tried to restore it. I don't know who that is, or whether he has anything in relation to Movaigonel.
5. Yes, I have contact with him on Discord. I do not know him in person but I know him across some platforms.

1. No. I've only done this on Wikikpedia, and only on the English version. If it helps, I do use Armenian Wikipedia too.
2. No, but I have seen Sam and Tuff from somewhere. I remember seeing them in some deleted page's revisions I think. I don't know who they are or who really owns them.
3. I do not know Armenian from Artsakh, but his level of English contribution seems to be similar to Fr4you's. Look at Fr4's talk page, here is an excerpt: "You event don’t respect the second rule, i put my argument and you didn’t respond, you always remove my request for deletion, we can debating here". I do not know JR either, but the Draft:Battle of Karamaryan (1918) page is something Movaigonel also had interest in, as evidenced through his talk page. To me, that hints to a synthesis between the two.
4. Shnorakalutsyun must be a SP of Mova. It means "thank you" in Armenian, and, another account of Mova, AmanAmanAmaTurq (yes, the third Aman is spelled without an N) is also spelled in Armenian, which, the name is typically used as an insult against Turks.
5. You guys should keep an eye on User:AlbertLT. I know some stuff about him that I don't know if I'm allowed to say (his ethnicity—look at his contributions—go ahead and make a wild guess). He has, as far as I know, edited, and even created some pages that Mova and I personally talked about, like Battle of Sadakhlo and Battle of Ayrum. I'm not saying he's Movaigonel, but it looks suspicious. Armenian from Artsakh made the Template:Campaignbox Armenian national movement (1862-1921), which later included the battles of Sadakhlo and Ayrum, which, as mentioned earlier, AlbertLT created. Peachy1621 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Mova would also like to return to editing at some point, I'd recommend that he log back in to that account and corroborate the story from there. He's going to have a harder time of unblocking, looks like, since I see a lot of WP:AE stuff in here and he's surely hit WP:3X by now, but a helpful statement at this point would probably help. -- asilvering (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to tell him? Because he did express a lot of sentiment toward coming back and editing. That's why we shared the Frenchman account; he edited there. Peachy1621 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. I can't promise it will be easy, or that it will be quick, and a lot depends on any blocked editor's self-presentation and willingness to change their previous behaviour. But I can promise that there's always a way forward for a blocked/banned editor willing to take it. Unless you're Foundation-banned, which neither of you are, and which is very rare indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Peachy1621, I just want to say, digging through this kind of thing requires a high level of "being awake", and I am a person who is very often asleep. You're free to send me a ping if I appear to have forgotten about you. I probably haven't, but I'd hate to, and I don't mind the reminder. -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: That's okay, take your time. And I typically sleep after midnight and wake in the noon lol, I'm no guest to that. Anyway, I notified Mova on Discord, and he's not responding. I just wanna let you know that I did. P.S. does this count as an edit? Hopefully it doesn't mess with my standard offer wait time. Peachy1621 (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edits to this page are fine, don't worry about that. -- asilvering (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something wrong with me??? AlbertLT (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AlbertLT, if there is, an admin will ask you about it directly. Don't worry about it. -- asilvering (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okak AlbertLT (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: Following up on my earlier note, I just found some additional information relevant to the account User:AlbertLT.
Like I said (but just to remind you), Albert has revived and edited Battle of Ayrum and other pages that were previously deleted and later recreated/edited by sockpuppets. Additionally, on many occasions of Battle of Ayrum being recreated, its page included text that was copied and pasted from the Military Wiki.
However, the reason why I revived this old discussion is because I managed to find his TikTok profile in a comment section. How do I know it's him? Well, first off, with his name, which included extremist and far-right symbols, along with Armenian and Ukrainian flags. And the cherry on top was the inclusion of his Wikipedia username, which spelled out Albert in Armenian script. Now, I wanted to check his user contributions to see if there was even more of a connection, and there was. I found a contribution to the page, Armenian Legion (Ukraine) (which has been moved, thus, check the revision I linked below). He also edited the Armenian Legion page, a page about a legion of Armenian soldiers created in Nazi Germany's army during World War II, which connects us to his TikTok username, full of extremist symbols.
Now, I am not sure if personal beliefs like his are allowed on here, but I know that non-neutrality is banned, along with racist behavior and promoting extremist behavior. I don't know if Albert has done any of those actions on Wikipedia, though. However, I believe that now, with all of this information presented in front of us, he should have an eye kept on him. I'm not sure whether he knows that we can see his display of extremist symbols on his publicly viewable profile.
Notable contribs (that connect him to his off-wiki account):
a. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Legion_(Ukraine)&oldid=1283487166
b. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Legion&oldid=1267272444 Peachy1621 (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see Yamla has already got to this, but to add: if you have off-wiki evidence that clearly links a current wikipedia account to a blocked/banned editor, please email that to checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org. As for the rest, extremism of any kind is rarely compatible with Wikipedia editing, but in general, unless someone is actually disrupting Wikipedia, we don't really care who they are either way. If you think someone is stealthily POV-pushing something horrible (say, systematically downplaying evidence of Nazi war crimes) and you have related off-wiki evidence and think it is really quite serious and urgent, ie that it is dangerous to the encyclopedia in general, you should be contacting Arbcom with your case. If you have very clear evidence of POV-pushing on-wiki, sure, we can do something about that (but please be sure you've got very clear evidence). If it's more a general "I think this person is lowkey misbehaving on Wikipedia and I don't like it, and my off-wiki evidence makes me like it less", my honest advice is, for now, to keep your mouth shut about it. You're trying to get out of a block, not dig yourself deeper into a WP:BATTLEGROUND-shaped hole. -- asilvering (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, one thing to clear up that's pretty simple: when you copied from [2], you violated the licensing agreement of that wiki. Are you familiar with what Creative Commons is? The CC-BY-SA license on the fandom.com article does not allow you to copy directly unless you credit that source and its editors specifically, but if you do, it's fine. So your edit itself was fine, but what you needed to do was write an edit summary like "content in this edit is copied from https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/War_over_Mountainous_Armenia see that page's history for attribution". That's it - that would be totally kosher. It looks like you ran into extra issues because the multiple+shared accounts stuff already wore through responding admins' patience. -- asilvering (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: So the severity of the block I got—the permanent one—was solely because of the lack of attribution? The edit I was blocked for was me adding an infobox containing numbers and names related to the war that article was about. Since those are factual details, I didn't alter them (you can't) and simply included them for clarity. I didn’t realize that even copying such factual info without attribution could cause a block. Could you please confirm if the block was because of the infobox itself, the text I put in the edit (which I carefully paraphrased) along with the infobox, or the contents of the infobox? Peachy1621 (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I think if it had been nearly any other topic area you probably would have simply gotten a slap on the wrist, but we're on a bit of a hairtrigger with WP:CTOPs, especially Armenia-Azerbaijan, and you appeared to be yet another incarnation of someone who had already been sockpuppeting for nearly a year. At least one of the articles created by that editor had been deleted and recreated five times. @Yamla, @331dot, I'm not sure if there's something I'm missing here? -- asilvering (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that covers it. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've had a look through your edits on this account and Vasily, and I didn't find anything that's a barrier to returning or that would necessitate any topic bans. Which, by the way, is not exactly common, and speaks very well of you. In the future, please be sure to view content from places like military-history.fandom.com skeptically, and always verify the sources yourself if you're going to copy any of it over (with attribution!). Often, content on those wikis comes from Wikipedia originally, and has been removed because it didn't meet our guidelines for one reason or another. Or it's hopelessly partisan, which obviously we try to avoid. I would also suggest that in future editing you always a) use an edit summary, even for edits you don't think really need "explanation", just to describe what they were, and b) add sources in the edit where you add the text itself. -- asilvering (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and the advice. Should I be unblocked, I'll be more careful with sources and summaries. Peachy1621 (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see you say that you use Armenian Wikipedia as well, but I don't see any edits from Vasily on that wiki, and not much from Peachy. Do you use a different account for editing there, or just the Peachy one? -- asilvering (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@asilvering Just Peachy. And that was me wanting to edit, since I was really bored. Peachy1621 (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unblock This account is one of the at least 39 socks of commons:user:Crimea Republic. A local CheckUser or Steward view the technical evidence at https://checkuser.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons/Crimea_Republic. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see Boarduser91 is also in that list, actually, so when I mentioned Frenchman1953 as the connection, that wasn't quite right. @Peachy1621, Crimea Republic is globally locked, which presents some additional issues. Are the accounts at commons:Category:Sockpuppets of Crimea Republic yours? -- asilvering (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @asilvering @The Squirrel Conspiracy Well, first of all, thanks for showing me that list. Second, I honestly do not recognize any of the accounts mentioned there (besides Frenchman1953, Boarduser91, and this account). However, I'm sure you guys are aware that Frenchman1953 and Boarduser91 are indeed my sockpuppet accounts. I want to clarify that these accounts are or were solely operated by me, and aren't connected to any other user or group, with the exception of Frenchman1953, which was used by me and Movaigonel, another blocked editor. But seriously, how on earth am I connected to this user, "Crimea Republic"? By IP? I've genuinely never even heard of this guy before. I have zero association with them or any of their socks. I'm really confused about how they made that connection. Could someone explain what's going on here? Because from my side, it just doesn't add up. Thanks. Peachy1621 (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible that they were connected via Frenchman1953. Since multiple people used that account, technical data associated with that one could have linked it to accounts you never created. If Movaigonel shared accounts with more people than just you, a bunch of different people could plausibly all be technically confirmed as a single person. A good reason not to share accounts! I'm not a Commons admin so I don't have the tools to establish whether your two accounts are also behaviourally linked to the others in that group, and that's about all I can say there. In any event, provided that henceforth you only edit from this account, the standard offer would be open to you regardless of how many sockpuppets you had in the past or where.
    However, Crimea Republic is also globally locked. Since you are confirmed as technically connected to that one, that does make this lock evasion, and at any moment someone could refer your Peachy1621 account for a global lock. Which would be annoying. And you won't be able to edit here, even if unblock, if there's a global lock on your account. So you're going to have to appeal your Commons block at some point. You can't usefully do that right now, because you've got a Commons admin in this thread who's already opposed, but provided you don't evade your Commons blocks, you'll be able to appeal it eventually. @The Squirrel Conspiracy, does commons have something like en-wiki's WP:SO? -- asilvering (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @asilvering That actually makes a lot of sense, thanks. I hadn't known that shared use of Frenchman could've caused this kind of cross-linking, especially if Movaigonel may have used it with other people too (though I personally was only aware of it being shared between me and Mova). That being said, I'm wondering what my realistic options are now. Is The Squirrel Conspiracy likely to be permanently opposed to any future appeal I make? And more importantly, how do I prove I'm not connected to Crimea Republic, if the technical evidence already says otherwise? How exactly do I navigate myself out of this? I'm assuming just good behavior on Wikipedia for a while will solve it? Peachy1621 (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the much-belated response, @Peachy1621. I was hoping for a response from TSC here would remind me about this thread. (fwiw, I'm counting the standard offer timer from 5 June, so delays at this point only "matter" insofar as they're personally annoying; I'm also inclined to cut the SO short in your case because I think we jerked you around with the initial blocks.) I asked some Commons admins and the truth is, I'm not sure; it seems that Commons doesn't have a "standard" way forward for ex-sockmasters. I think the way forward here is, as you say, good behaviour here: that you get unblocked on en-wiki, edit here for a while to demonstrate that you're a constructive editor acting in good faith, and then appeal the Commons block with that history as your evidence that you aren't the person they think you are (or that, at least, if you are that person, you've reformed). If you get globally locked on this account, you'll have to request unblock via WP:UTRS. -- asilvering (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering: Sounds good! Peachy1621 (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING

[edit]

Stop icon Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia without their explicit permission. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information that appears to be about another user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy whether or not that information is correct. Wikipedia's policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors will result in being blocked from editing. Yamla (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Thanks for the heads up. Peachy1621 (talk) 03:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]