User talk:TheThorLat
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]Hello, I don’t really have anything besides what I wrote in 2023. I think there are strong reasons for suspicion, but we will see whether the administrators are convinced. Best of luck. — Biruitorul Talk 11:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Izno (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
TheThorLat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked because I'm a suspected sockpuppet of TheLastOfTheGiants and many others in this investigation [1]. The reason I was blocked is because we share some edited pages as far as I can tell. But, one of the person I'm accused of being removed part of my content once [2] and the RFC issue I had with OrionNimrod that led to this accusation [3] had nothing to do with the issue TheLastOfTheGiants had, plagiarism.
- And in the RFC that led to this accusation, the uninvolved user was thorough and clear in favor of my edits[4]. Reading Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks it states that the reason for ban is to prevent damage or disruption, I understand that TheLastOfTheGiants may have, but I myself haven't caused any damage or disruption, despite being on Wikipedia for 1 year before being banned for suspected sockpuppetry as we share some edit pages that I haven't done anything wrong on.
- A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, yet I haven't done any. I had an Wikipedia account for 1 year and if I were TheLastOfTheGiants I would have made plagiarism or disruptive edits in that time but I didn't.
- These are some of my biggest contributions on Wikipedia [5], [6], [7], [8] where I haven't made any plagiarism or disruptive edits. I had 2 separate content disputes with OrionNimrod, which is what caused him to make the sockpuppet accusation, but in both of those instances the uninvolved users were in my favor, meaning OrionNimrod lost the RFCs both times despite his and his friend's insistence that my edits are disruptive or propaganda, the uninvolved users did not see it that way. What I aim to highlight with this is that I myself never had disruptive edits. The validity of my edits was never questioned by uninvolved users, I was only banned because I might be TheLastOfTheGiants based on sharing some edit pages that are unrelated to the reason TheLastOfTheGiants was banned.
- I would like to fix whatever there is to fix and address any conduct issue of concern so that I can participate on Wikipedia again. Since I am suspected, I would like to only be judged for my behavior and not the possibility of being TheLastOfTheGiants, what is it that I myself have done wrong in 1 year of Wikipedia? if I wanted to plagiarize somebody else's work the way TheLastOfTheGiants did I believe 1 year was more than enough. I tried to follow the rules and when there was a content dispute I eventually learned how to make an RFC and discussed the issue with uninvolved parties.
- I was not banned for bad content but for suspected being TheLastOfTheGiants who made bad content. But I was on Wikipedia for 1 year without doing any bad content. TheThorLat (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Socking is itself disruptive, even if you make good edits when you do it, otherwise blocks have little meaning. I think there is enough suspicion here that you are a sock to decline your request. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2025 (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.
331dot, what are the ways that I can prove I am not TheLastOfTheGiants? I acknowledge that socking is disruptive in itself as TheLastOfTheGiants was blocked for a valid reason, what I wished to highlight as behavioral evidence is that I never engaged in the sort of behavior that blocked TheLastOfTheGiants in over 1 year since I am on Wikipedia. We share some edited pages, that is normal, I think all users overlap at some point, but I did not broke any rules on the said pages.
I see there is a difference between confirmed and suspected sockpuppet, only me and QidditchCup53 are suspected, Quidditch also interacted with Aristeus01, could this be the reason? I met Aristeus01 while on the talk page and kept asking him for advice, including how to handle an RFC.[9]
I noticed OrionNimrod expanded the text in the investigation request somewhere during the discussions before I was blocked. This was the original investigation request that I replied to [10]. And this is what he added afterwards [11]. I will address what he added afterwards.
If we are to take Orion's words at face value this is indeed quite suspicious. But, regarding the "fake numbers population that I invented out of thin air" on the content dispute that me and TheGiant "was misled by" according to him. This is not the case. The numbers are not out of thin air nor fake, is is where they are from:
The historian Keith Hitchins summarised the situation created by the award in his book "Rumania: 1866-1947 (Oxford History of Modern Europe), Oxford University Press, 1994": Far from settling matters, the Vienna Award had exacerbated relations between Romania and Hungary. It did not solve the nationality problem by separating all Magyars from all Romanians. Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Romanians, or 48 per cent to over 50 per cent of the population of the ceded territory, depending upon whose statistics are used, remained north of the new frontier, while about 500,000 Magyars (other Hungarian estimates go as high as 800,000, Romanian as low as 363,000) continued to reside in the south.
They were already on the page, not only listed as a reference but the name of the source is written within the article and part of the source is quoted within the article, it is very hard to miss. I did not add it, you can check right now & before my first edit on the page to see that the source was already there.
Then, I merely used the 3 simple rule to turn these absolute numbers in percentages, and after the uninvolved user said it’s synth therefore not allowed I stopped pushing for it.[12]
What I wish to say was that the weird source I have in common with TheGiant was already there on the page. I merely took the time to read what was already in the page.
To conclude, the "suspicious similar fake numbers" are not at all fake, the information was already published on the page, this is how I found the "fake numbers".
As for the other suspicious sources, I found them on the Romanian Wikipedia that is more expanded than the English version: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transilvania_de_Nord
I do not know what else to say to show that those numbers were not fake other that I made an RFC that OrionNimrod lost.
It is truly that unlikely and suspicious that 2 different users used the same source that was already posted on the page in a quote format? Maybe TheGiant added it, I do not know, but the source Hitchins was on the page before I started to edit, is valid and there is nothing wrong with it. Additionally, TheGiant was not banned for this edit.
It should also be very obvious from my discussion with OrionNimrod on the talk page that my main concern was not those numbers, I simply hoped converting them from absolute to percentages would be easier to the reader, but the moment I was told this is synth and not allowed (by another user, as Orion never told me this, he simply said no source[13], when there was in fact source that I just posted) I dropped it as I learned it's not allowed. I didn’t care much about those numbers and they were already on the page but in a different form. This was a small thing not my main concern. My main concern as you can see by the points raised in the RFC was OrionNimrod removing information about war crimes committed by Hungarians against Romanians, something the Giant had nothing to do with.[14]
As for knowledge about sockpuppetry. Orion called me a sockpuppet before, so I took the time to read what that is, this is how I know about it.[15]
I am accused of being TheGiant for making a similar edit to the giant on a page where I did not broke any rules and when it came to the RFC the other user agreed to my side of the content, and that had nothing to do with the reason TheGiant got blocked, which (plagiarism) is something that I didn’t do since I joined Wikipedia 1 year ago and I had plenty of time to do it if my intention was to be on Wikipedia to plagiarise.
Let me know if I addressed all the points and if there is more information you need for me or what sort of evidence is required to prove I’m not the giant. TheThorLat (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- My review puts an end to my involvement in this. I would suggest that you make a new unblock request in which you refer to the above comments(you don't need to copy them). 331dot (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
TheThorLat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please refer to the above comments. TheThorLat (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Sorry, but, no. I'm not going to read all that. Anyway, given Special:Diff/1211213672, I don't see any reason to unblock you even if by some crazy circumstance of fate you turned out not to be a sock puppet. Someone who goes around vandalizing articles to make words unreadable is not a good contributor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2025 (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.
NinjaRobotPirate, Special:Diff/1211213672 was one of my first edits on the site, I was still trying to understand how editing works, you can see that in the next edit after a few seconds distance I fixed those letters [16]. These are some of my later contributions: [17], [18], [19]. TheThorLat (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
TheThorLat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please see the previous message. A few seconds later I made an edit fixing that, those were some of my first edits when I was still trying to understand how Wikipedia works. And look at the last edits where I added massive content. TheThorLat (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No. Make a self-contained unblock request. Yamla (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2025 (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.
TheThorLat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
They were already on the page, not only listed as a reference but the name of the source is written within the article and part of the source is quoted within the article, it is very hard to miss. I did not add it, you can check right now & before my first edit on the page to see that the source was already there. Then, I merely used the 3 simple rule to turn these absolute numbers in percentages, and after the uninvolved user said it’s synth therefore not allowed I stopped pushing for it.[27] What I wish to say was that the weird source I have in common with TheGiant was already there on the page. I merely took the time to read what was already in the page. To conclude, the "suspicious similar fake numbers" are not at all fake, the information was already published on the page, this is how I found the "fake numbers". As for the other suspicious sources, I found them on the Romanian Wikipedia that is more expanded than the English version: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transilvania_de_Nord I do not know what else to say to show that those numbers were not fake other that I made an RFC that OrionNimrod lost. It is truly that unlikely and suspicious that 2 different users used the same source that was already posted on the page in a quote format? Maybe TheGiant added it, I do not know, but the source Hitchins was on the page before I started to edit, is valid and there is nothing wrong with it. Additionally, TheGiant was not banned for this edit. It should also be very obvious from my discussion with OrionNimrod on the talk page that my main concern was not those numbers, I simply hoped converting them from absolute to percentages would be easier to the reader, but the moment I was told this is synth and not allowed (by another user, as Orion never told me this, he simply said no source[28], when there was in fact source that I just posted) I dropped it as I learned it's not allowed. I didn’t care much about those numbers and they were already on the page but in a different form. This was a small thing not my main concern. My main concern as you can see by the points raised in the RFC was OrionNimrod removing information about war crimes committed by Hungarians against Romanians, something the Giant had nothing to do with.[29] As for knowledge about sockpuppetry. Orion called me a sockpuppet before, so I took the time to read what that is, this is how I know about it.[30] I am accused of being TheGiant for making a similar edit to the giant on a page where I did not broke any rules and when it came to the RFC the other user agreed to my side of the content, and that had nothing to do with the reason TheGiant got blocked, which (plagiarism) is something that I didn’t do since I joined Wikipedia 1 year ago and I had plenty of time to do it if my intention was to be on Wikipedia to plagiarise. NinjaRobotPirate looked at this diff Special:Diff/1211213672 and said that even if I don't turn out to be a sock puppet this is evidence of vandalizing articles, but this was one of my very first edits on the site, I was still trying to understand how editing works, you can see a few seconds later I made an edit fixing that [31]. These are some of my later contributions: [32], [33], [34]. TheThorLat (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)The historian Keith Hitchins summarised the situation created by the award in his book "Rumania: 1866-1947 (Oxford History of Modern Europe), Oxford University Press, 1994": Far from settling matters, the Vienna Award had exacerbated relations between Romania and Hungary. It did not solve the nationality problem by separating all Magyars from all Romanians. Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Romanians, or 48 per cent to over 50 per cent of the population of the ceded territory, depending upon whose statistics are used, remained north of the new frontier, while about 500,000 Magyars (other Hungarian estimates go as high as 800,000, Romanian as low as 363,000) continued to reside in the south.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request. Before setting out the reasons, may I ask you please not to expect any more administrators to keep reading very lengthy requests or comments. Unblock requests need to be set out using just a few paragraphs, perhaps with some additional detail in bullet points.
Your unblock request addresses a number of irrelevant issues. The issue that should be addressed is that you have exhibited the same disruptive behaviour as previous sock puppets. Taking just one aspect of the behaviour, your appeal addresses that aspect by pointing out that the Hitchins source is available for anyone to find at the article. That fails to explain why you have the same singular interest in that particular source and the particular view that work takes of the subject matter. This request is completely unconvincing and I would encourage you to consider any further unblock request carefully. Arcticocean ■ 21:33, 13 June 2025 (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.
TheThorLat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As per Arcticocean's feedback, I will be brief, I did not exhibit the same disruptive behaviour as previous sock puppets. They were banned for plagiarism which is something that I did not do. I was on Wikipedia for 1 year and never engaged in plagiarism.
Hitchins source was already available for anyone to find at the article, and my interest in that particular source & the reason I included it in an edit was a tangent, the source itself clearly lists some population numbers (the numbers themselves posted on the page) but they were not included in a table about the population, although a population table was likewise already available for anyone to find at the article.
Thus, I found it natural to take the numbers from there and include them in the table, I did not think much of it. I was banned for having this coincidence with TheLastOfTheGiants, but it's worth pointing out that:
- - The source and population tables were already on the page, they may have been added by TheLastOfTheGiants or someone else, I do not know, but for me, I found a population table & a source mentioning population numbers, so I added the population numbers from the source to the table. This seemed like a natural thing to do.
- - TheLastOfTheGiants was not banned for this edit, but for plagiarism on a completely different page. I did not do any plagiarism and never visited that page.
- - My main interest in that page, if you can see my edits previously posted, was not even those numbers. You can see the roughly 90% of my edit was in the "Hungarian rule" section unrelated with said numbers. And when we were discussing in the RfC, you can see that my responses were once again focused on the "Hungarian rule" section. The said numbers were not my point of interest.
- - I came on the page to write about the "Hungarian rule" section, and while I was there I noticed the source with the numbers and their lack of presence on the population table, this is why I added them. This is the interest. As for the view, I believe adding a number in a table can hardly be called a view. Why would I not have that view? the author was already there on the page, if there way any doubt about his views he would have been removed, correct? but he was not removed even today when I was banned.
- - As you can see from the RfC, the unrelated user agreed with me regarding the content, even criticized the other user for going over the top, as all content was sourced and relevant, what is the same disruptive behaviour I am being accused of? as I haven't made any plagiarism and don't know what is disruptive about my additions on the Second Vienna Award, I am serious, what precisely was disruptive in my behavior?
- - My interest isn't singular, the only thing related about this interest is that is about "history", which I think "people interested in history" is a very large number of people, my interest was not even said numbers themselves, I just found them while on the page. Here you can see examples of big contributions that took me a lot to make that had no relevance with the subject at hand: [35], [36].
- - Maybe I didn't know the rules and didn't act by the book, but if I did so please tell me what and where, there are many rules and I do not know them all, but I tried to act in good faith and to read the big pages of rules when possible, I even asked for guidance from other users when in doubt.
Decline reason:
We just blocked Welcometothejungle007 in conjunction with this case. asilvering (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2025 (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.