899:, the relationship between my accounts is clearly disclosed both on the userpage of the alternate account and on the "alternate accounts" subpage clearly linked from my main account's userpage. My signature includes a link to my main account and to the talk page of my main account. The username is a pun on the main account's username. It is trivial for somebody to see that we are the same person. Your alternate account is (officially) disclosed to one person, and if somebody saw both of your accounts they would have no way of knowing they're the same person. That is the difference here.
1213:
of all our time on a barely competent paid editor who does not understand that you cannot use two accounts and multiple IPs to avoid scrutiny of their edits. If I fuck up a template 10 times in a row because I didn't know what I was doing - after being told I was doing something wrong, I'd be blocked, not given a pat on the back and told "aw, it's okay, do better next time!" Our socking policy is also very clear, the fact that Sam chose to, not on one, but two projects edit about his company/his company's products without disclosure on at least one account is on him, not any of us.
774:, it was quite confusing from an outsider's perspective: you acknowledging receipt, one arb giving an opinion explicitly marked as their personal thoughts, then that getting retracted, then getting CC'd on the other reply-all. The latter in particular made me believe that I was going to be CC'd on further discussion (rather than an accidental click of the reply-all button), so I assumed that the lack of followup email meant that no further discussion had happened. Regardless, "ambiguous" was the wrong choice of word, and I'll just strike the comment.
1198:
with a policy (any policy) is not evidence of intent to avoid complying with that policy. Misunderstanding a policy is not evidence of intent to avoid complying with that policy - doubly so when many experienced editors do not agree with what complying with that policy means. If you can't share your evidence because it would out someone, then send it privately but you must send it. If, having presented your evidence (publicly or privately), you get told that no, it is not proof of your claims then you must stop making that claim.
1409:(so no WP:OUTING). That's clear flaunting of WP:COI/PROMO in my book. Good block by the way too. I was advocating for it in that thread as well because the behavior is not above board even if folks decide the alt account is OK and all of this is a massive time sink. Oddly enough if he'd stick to the alternate (which I do not know and do not wish to know), it is probably more anonymous than this account, so the OUTing concerns are odd as he has outed himself.
22:
757:
report/discussion going on. You were then included in a reply all by a different arb noting they disagreed with Arb 1. Our discussion was active and ongoing when this block was placed. I'm not suggesting there was anything improper with this block but I would instead suggest that you got no guidance from ArbCom, mainly because we hadn't reached a point where we were ready to offer it, rather than ambiguous guidance.
642:. Both Sam and his main account (as well as the IP that he fairly routinely edits from while logged out) have edited pages in the Knowledge (XXG): namespace. That seems pretty straightforward to me. I'm not getting my knickers in a twist over asking questions at the Teahouse here, my concerns are over his presence in AfD and COIN and him pushing his company's project in projectspace. I note as an aside that we have
96:. Best practice for complete transparency is that you archive everything, reserving blanking of comments for items that are offensive, harassment, vandalism, or the like. Especially given the commercial aspects of your account, and the fact that you have declined to identify your other account, I think you'll find that the more transparent you are, the more other editors will be inclined to work with you. --
809:
about their behaviour at a noticeboard, they are the victim of harassment or something similar. Policies absolutely must be interpreted with common sense, otherwise we will end up with some very bad results. I have not looked to see whether Sam has been (attempting to) appear as more than one person in discussions, but if they have not then I see no justification for blocking them for that reason.
516:. You have edited extensively in projectspace, including at AfD - no question about that part. The question, of course, is whether this constitutes an "undisclosed alternative account." You have disclosed the fact that this is a privacy alt, yes, and have apparently disclosed its existence to a checkuser. I believe, however, that the spirit of the policy is that alternative accounts must be
415:
1386:, where they've made a significant number of edits. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold people who're taking home a paycheque for their edits to a higher standard than the rest of us who do this in our spare time. This current nonsense all began with weirdly evasive answers about very reasonable concerns such as "What personal data does your tool collect?", etc. -- a
1086:
policy. It may also be that what they are doing is contrary to policy, but there has undisputably been a lot of confusion and disagreement about what the policy actually means in this area, but I see only attempts to comply with it (not always completely successfully, but again mistakes in complying are not evidence of intent to avoid complying).
613:
both accounts since the start of 2020 is a noticeboards and there the discussions were related to the edits from that account so switching to a "main" account would have been an improper use of multiple accounts. It also looks like this is the main account. Was there any discussion about the purpose of the two accounts before blocking?
1104:. However, as to your last comment, mistakes do happen. But we do require a level of competence that requires not continually making the same mistake over and over again. Such competence is expected from all editors and you do not get a free pass for making them just because there is no malice, particularly in areas where our policy
826:, I blocked Sam according to my read of PROJSOCK, which apparently does not agree with yours - I do not see any exceptions in it, and while I am willing to give some leeway for things like "reported to a noticeboard" or "asking a question at the teahouse/VPT", Sam's activity goes beyond that. If you want to unblock Sam, then do it.
1477:
Note, I see this as very different too to
Cyberpower/IABot. Sam seems to be doing this for his company's benefit, not Knowledge (XXG)'s, which is where it irks me and if the allegations of socking are legit, that concerns me even more. But I guess we'll see where it goes. Thanks for the background.
1212:
Sounds like you have a problem with GN's block. I didn't say the evidence would out someone, I said that any time someone attempts to bring up fair evidence of account abuse, Sam cries that he's being outed and demands it goes to arbcom. This is a massive time sink already, having spent several hours
1367:
What COI edits have they actually made though? How much time would actually have been "wasted" if established editors hadn't spent so long accusing them of various things and refusing to drop the stick when it is pointed out that they haven't actually done that? I've seen absolutely no evidence that
1316:
I don't see "someone who can't be bothered to abide by community norms" I'm seeing somebody who is actively trying to abide by community norms, and failing in part because they keep getting told different things about what those community norms actually are and then getting harassed with accusations
1247:
I don't really care what your issue is, Thryduulf. I was making a point about an editor who I have interacted with, about their competence and general activity. I am not the blocking administrator and have no control over what they do. I am free to note, however, that the issues from this account go
1197:
If you want to block someone for lack of competence, then do so but don't claim that you are blocking them for PROMO or COI. If you want to block them for PROMO or COI then you need to provide some evidence they have violated those policies and nobody has yet done. Incompetently attempting to comply
1085:
attempting to flaunt the intent of either WP:PROMO or WP:COI. I see lots of allegations that he is but no actual evidence. It might be that what he is offering is not wanted, either generally or on the terms offered (that's still up for discussion) but that is very different to attempting to violate
572:
are harmful (though the AfD ones are obviously a problem). And I think the difficulty in confirming an editor using undisclosed alternate accounts isn't violating policy also applies to (supposedly) 'legitimate' uses like non-projectspace editing (on talk pages). Still, unless I'm mistaken in policy
520:
disclosed in order to be allowed to edit in projectspace - not just acknowledging their existence, and not just emailing a checkuser/the checkuser list/the
Arbitration Committee. This is a matter of accountability to the body of editors as a whole, and we cannot expect that small group of people who
1360:
by editing on company time - I absolutely feel like that's an abuse of community goodwill. Even if the editor is making an effort to comply with policy and is just repeatedly making the same mistake over and over again, the fact that they are recieving compensation for wasting community time should
1304:
isn't a suicide pact. If you feel that I've somehow violated this, you're more than welcome to block me yourself and sort it out there. But this is a massive time sink to expect volunteer editors to go through the process of back and forth
Wikilawyering for someone who can't be bothered to abide by
1027:
I'm not connecting anything. However, I wanted to note that there is a difference between making a mistake and continually making the same mistake. Competency is still required, if you can't remember to login/login to the correct account a dozen times in compliance with our policies, that's also on
808:
is to prevent one person appearing to be more than one person, not to prevent all editing in one namespace - the only alternative is to force editors to out their privacy alts if an article they worked on is nominated at AfD, they want to nominate another article for deletion, there is a discussion
612:
says discussions internal to the project. AFD is about specific content and about as internal as requested moves or other discussions on an article's talk page; it's only in project space so it doesn't get deleted if an article being discussed there is deleted. The only page with non-minor edits by
1488:
CopyPatrol and CVDetector are both active in use, AFAIK those two tools pretty much power the
English Knowledge (XXG)'s copyright detection efforts, and their operation depends on Turnitin's proprietary APIs. My understanding is that Turnitin has granted some free usage limits to the projects. I'm
1454:
a policy to ban it and such tools (though I don't see what good that does for the project). The COI/PROMO charges just don't make sense, unless the editor has been adding "Megaputer has partnered with
Knowledge (XXG) to powers its promotional content detection" to some article and I've just missed
1224:
My problem is with people claiming a block for being incompetent is a block for violating a different policy. I have seen many claims that there is private evidence of account abuse, but everybody who has actually seen the private evidence is saying it does not show that. So either submit evidence
1169:
I think Sam is saying that if someone has any evidence that they have broken the COI and/or PROMO but which would out them to actually send it to arbcom rather than just complain that they can't share it. If everything has been shared and you can say that it is not evidence of what is claimed then
1276:
violating policies (intentionally or otherwise) you need to show evidence of that and still nobody has. You must also not claim that any failures to comply with policy due to incompetently trying to comply are evidence of intentionally trying to avoid complying with policy. It's also important to
1476:
that those happened in ancient
Knowledge (XXG) history. Does that mean we should encourage someone who isn't an engaged member of the community to repeatedly post (there were at least three) to VP about their company's tool? Doesn't seem good practice to me. Maybe an RFC is needed, I'm not sure.
646:
blocked people who created privacy alts to start AfDs as PROJSOCKs. Again, to me this is a matter of accountability - the problem is not that Sam and his main account have been active in the same discussions, it is that the average editor has no way of knowing whether or not they have. The only
187:
Thank you for making me aware of this RFC, which I was not aware of previously. Looking at that RFC, it appears that it was only intended to apply to freelance payed editors. The RFC states 'This new requirement is intended only to apply to those who "advertise, solicit or obtain paid
Knowledge
966:
I'm not going to post details beyond this but the fact that you were also blocked on
Wikidata for editing about Megaputer under your undisclosed, disclosed accounts and IPs is more than just "I forgot to login". And even if so, that's on you. You don't get a free pass for evading scrutiny just
1502:
contribute as an unpaid volunteer on another account.) AI tools like these are not cheap to develop, and it's not unexpected that their underlying tech is proprietary and the company may look to monetise that in the future with other customers. That has nothing to do with us, though.
756:
you never got any guidance. You got an acknowledgement of the report from me which included the information that we were already talking about it. There was advice offered by an individual arb (and labeled as such), which was immediately retracted because there was already a separate
1028:
you. It's not outing because no one is tying anything together, I'm making a point - that should be clear to any admin who wishes to review your unblock that there is more than meets the eye and a pattern of disregard, whether intentional or due to carelessness of sitewide policies.
1317:
of bad faith because their attempts have not been perfect (even though nobody can agree what perfect actually is). This is not my wikilawyering, it's my attempting to get established editors to understand that conflating very different policies is not acceptable behaviour.
1025:"Although a privacy-based alternative account is not publicly connected to your main account, it should not be used in ways outlined in the inappropriate uses section of this page, and if it is, the account may be publicly linked to your main account for sanctions."
951:
a difference, but guidelines do not make the line clear. I do not appreciate that you have forced your personal interpretation of guidelines on me, especially when it involves the handling of my private information. Let's avoid outing, and leave this to arbcom.
875:
It says "a GN franchise" (with "GN" linking to
GeneralNotability's userpage) in the signature, the talk page links to GN's and the userpage has a big "alternative account" on it. That's hardly the same thing as disclosing the connection to a single individual.
1147:
Speaking only for myself and not for the committee or anyone else on it, I don't understand what you want ArbCom to deal with Sam. As I noted above to GN, ArbCom is aware of this issue but I'm not sure what in our remit there is to be done at this point.
250:
Although a privacy-based alternative account is not publicly connected to your main account, it should not be used in ways outlined in the inappropriate uses section of this page, and if it is, the account may be publicly linked to your main account for
679:
I have made the mistake of failing to check if I was logged in before making an edit. It is an easy mistake to make. I also went through a period about where edited from IP, rather than my regular account for reasons I have made clear on wiki. Does
1271:
If you don't care what my issue is then please refrain from making statements about what you think it is. It is indeed not unreasonable to expect a paid editor to be sufficiently competent to not violate policies, however if you want to claim they
1421:
Yes, some people keep repeating that quote as if there's something damning about it. Yet none of what Sam has done in relation to that tool violates any community or WMF policy. When I pressed someone to tell me which policy is being violated
1361:
be taken into account and they should be held to a higher standard as a result. Ignorant or malicious, their presence here as an operative of their employer is disruptive to the community, and they should be restricted to non-COI edits. -- a
224:
Actually, this is a disclosed alternative account. I just haven't linked it to my main. So I have to disagree on your interpretation of guidelines here. Since this is my work account, I would like for my right to privacy to be respected.
1450:. What a company does or doesn't promote itself as outside of Knowledge (XXG) is totally irrelevant. If it's a useful tool and given to Wikipedians for free, great. If it's a crappy tool, nobody will use it. If people dislike that,
1497:
can benefit from a collaboration; it isn't some kind of mutually exclusive thing. (Besides, Sam only said why his company is letting him working on this, he doesn't appear to say what his own motivations are, and it appears he
521:
are aware of your identity (or the identities of other editors in the same position -- this is not specific to you) to be watching your edits to verify that you haven't edited the same discussion using multiple accounts.
300:
Could you please consult this checkuser on-wiki for the sake of transparency since a policy clarification doesn't involve private information? Or would you at least be willing to disclose the identity of said checkuser?
542:
Well, SPI isn't my thing and I suppose CUs and SPI clerks are looking into this? But having seen/commented on the VPT section about the spam tool some day(s) ago I do have concerns on policy interpretation. Most of the
594:. To add to what I've said there, Sam's alt has repeatedly been the subject of rather intense community scrutiny. There's more than just the technicality of a refusal to completely disclose here. I support this block.
243:
alt, you're not saying whose, which is as good as not saying anything and still a violation of PROJSOCK. It's your right and your decision to edit projectspace with this account, but if you do, you have to disclose.
202:
That's not my read of it, given that it's is in a separate sentence. Either way, you'll have to disclose: you're reporting people to COIN, nominating pages for deletion and editing VPP using this account. Per
559:
of that case suggests that an editor used multiple accounts to influence policy debates in a manner that avoided scrutiny and split their history between their more controversial edits. The before text of
573:
or reasoning here, I think their contributions to non-consensus discussions don't violate the spirit of the policy and for this editor the ability to discuss as they work on their tool might be helpful.
1133:
You are not doing yourself any favors by repeating this. Arbcom is already aware of the evidence as far as I know but what I am discussing is absolutely permitted by
English Knowledge (XXG)'s policies.
555:
is looking to prohibit. Looking back to see when it was added for some context: It seems its existence is 'cited' to a 2007 ArbCom decision. Not sure how tight the wordsmithing was, but skimming over
853:
You are using an alternate account to edit this page, which you have also edited with your main. You have made not disclosed your alternate on this page, but that is OK because you have disclosed it
568:
was to limit this to consensus discussions? Which of course makes sense. But looking over this editor's editing history, I don't think their non-consensus-discussions contribs to (eg)
286:. Since the guidelines appear pretty complex in this case, I'm going to get a consultation from that checkuser by email. I'll avoid participating in community discussions until then.
1430:, specifically a portion about the licensing of article content... All this flies in the face of precedent, and (just as an example) the tools most used to detect copyright issues (
1493:
tool has benefitted this encyclopaedia greatly, yet it is proprietary and the company is benefitting from that relationship. I think what some editors are missing is the idea that
1170:
you need to be reminding those making the claim that they must either stop making it or submit new evidence that actually does show what they claim. What I see is someone who has
1260:
matter and are relevant when discussing blocks/unblocks. It is also completely reasonable to also expect a paid editor to be sufficiently competent to not violate policies.
647:
safeguard is the handful of people who "officially" know Sam's main account keeping an eye on the interactions of the two accounts, and that's not fair to anybody.
547:
examples are, well, illegitimate. In the sense that it's very intuitively obvious why they're disallowed. For example: using multiple accounts to avoid passing
92:. We allow editors great latitude in determining how they manage their own talk pages, so there's no real problem with this. However, please take a look at
1368:
they are attempting to do anything other than help the community, nor do I see much evidence of any goodwill from the community being extended towards them.
355:
I'm looking at it, and, as is our practice, I will ask my colleague checkusers for assistance if I have trouble figuring it out. It will take a few days.
1229:
show that or stop making the claim. And absolutely stop conflating competence issues with PAID issues they are not the same thing - especially when Sam
127:
1489:
not intimately familiar with how that partnership came to be, but it doesn't appear to be altruistic, or relevant tbh. The point is a highly useful
1074:, no less!) but allows them to contribute constructively on other topics from their main account, I think that's a block working as intended. -- a
1018:
The rules against outing trump all others. Please do not post any more information in a public forum which may allow others to connect my accounts.
440:
1423:
188:(XXG)-editing services"; it does not apply to employees editing Knowledge (XXG) in the normal course of their duties, or to GLAM editors'.
38:
551:, using "good hand bad hand accounts", supporting your own proposal with a second account, etc. But it's not immediately obvious what
1174:
to comply with policy (successfully or otherwise) and is getting mighty pissed off at being harassed with accusations of bad intent.
1508:
1460:
578:
393:
from DGG. He reports that this account has been disclosed to him (a checkuser), and that I have not violated the sock policy.
1447:
635:
537:
967:
because you've disclosed, further, alt accounts in this respect should avoid any overlapping edits, so that's also on you.
556:
1354:
Perhaps, then, we need new policies, in order to protect the project from editors attempting to use Knowledge (XXG) as
428:
423:
910:
837:
785:
734:
I don't lose all of my right as soon as I declare a payed connection. I would prefer that you stop acting on your own
725:
658:
526:
497:
460:
318:. My account was just called Megaputer then. I was forced to change it later for compliance with the username policy.
71:
1016:
please do not keep posting material that may allow people to connect my accounts. Please do take this up with arbcom.
1504:
1478:
1469:
1456:
1410:
587:
574:
1060:
PROJSOCK aside (good block by GN imo), If this block prevents this user from attempting to flaunt the intent of
50:
160:
If the paid editor has used or controlled more than one Knowledge (XXG) account, each account must be disclosed
478:
Could you unblock me if I promise not to edit project space? Also, could you please define "project space"?
861:
best understanding of the guidelines, and these are the standards that I would like to have applied to me.
640:
Project pages or Knowledge (XXG) pages are pages in the Knowledge (XXG) and Knowledge (XXG) talk namespaces
903:
848:
830:
778:
753:
718:
651:
561:
522:
493:
473:
456:
163:
1256:
fair to bring up when discussing their behavior and an unblock. This isn't a court of law, other actions
684:
here know the name of my main account? And honestly, do you want the people here to know where you work?
1120:
953:
896:
862:
739:
689:
618:
479:
394:
340:
319:
287:
226:
189:
123:
110:
1439:
1249:
805:
609:
552:
509:
433:
204:
93:
544:
283:
245:
1373:
1322:
1286:
1238:
1203:
1179:
1153:
1091:
881:
814:
762:
599:
306:
258:
216:
171:
1101:
891:
857:, and you are not attempting to trick others into thinking that you are multiple people. This is
134:
100:
56:
1061:
155:
627:
614:
446:
52:
21:
1451:
1301:
1278:
1065:
801:
569:
548:
109:
Alright. And I see that I also deleted my archive by accident. Thank you for being polite.
1382:
Are you sure we're looking at the same editor? I see a PAID disclosure from this user WRT
1306:
1261:
1214:
1192:
1135:
1109:
1029:
968:
514:
Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project
209:
Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project
89:
1399:
1369:
1349:
1318:
1297:
1282:
1234:
1199:
1175:
1164:
1149:
1087:
877:
823:
810:
771:
758:
595:
334:
302:
254:
212:
182:
167:
130:
to set up automated archiving. It's much easier than trying to manage it manually. --
152:
This is an alternate account that has been created for privacy reasons per WP:ALTACCN.
1068:
by oh so benevolently offering their employer's software to the enwiki community (to
362:
166:). Could you please disclose your other Knowledge (XXG) account(s)? Thanks and best,
131:
97:
688:
take your concerns strait to arbcom rather than continuing this discussion on-wiki.
1431:
1427:
54:
1512:
1483:
1464:
1443:
1415:
1387:
1383:
1377:
1362:
1326:
1311:
1290:
1266:
1242:
1219:
1207:
1183:
1157:
1140:
1128:
1114:
1095:
1075:
1034:
973:
961:
914:
884:
870:
841:
818:
789:
766:
747:
729:
697:
662:
622:
602:
582:
530:
501:
487:
464:
402:
366:
348:
327:
309:
295:
261:
234:
219:
197:
174:
137:
118:
103:
239:
No, this is not a disclosed alternative account; you're disclosing that you're
88:
Hi Sam. I've noticed that you've deleted some comments that were left here by
282:
Alright. I did email a checkuser when I made this account, as recommended per
253:
The prohibition on editing projectspace is one of those inappropriate uses.
1300:
I'm not going to keep repeating myself, I'm not violating any policies and
708:
due to some confusion on my part (detailed in my response to Barkeep below)
414:
1474:
This page is mostly outdated: the proposal and planned RFC were in 2012...
439:
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
357:
315:
1403:
My company let me work on this because they are hoping to make the news.
443:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
712:
that's why I don't edit on topics at all related to my employer
57:
15:
492:
Project space is any page that starts with Knowledge (XXG):.
1014:
Am I not allowed to make honest mistakes? And one more time
413:
1100:
There is evidence but everytime it's brought up, Sam cries
710:. (and no, I don't want people here to know where I work...
339:
I have emailed DGG. I will inform you when he responds.
1406:
1356:
1070:
591:
565:
390:
1081:
I see no evidence in any of the discussions that Sam
211:– that applies regardless of paid or unpaid status.
1446:, proprietary APIs where the former page explicitly
1435:
150:Hi Sam, I noticed that your userpage says that
65:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
128:User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo
1108:terms of use are very strict and clear.
1448:details Turnitin's commercial interests
1277:remember that there is no exemption to
1119:Send any evidence you have to arbcom.
1024:
804:? It's very clear that the purpose of
639:
631:
513:
249:
208:
159:
151:
7:
704:, and got rather ambiguous guidance,
146:Your main account on Knowledge (XXG)
1305:community norms, so I'm done here.
1281:because someone is a paid editor.
706:but chose to act on my own accord
14:
1020:Please take this up with arbcom'!
636:Knowledge (XXG):Project_namespace
126:, You might also want to look at
69:may be automatically archived by
736:and take your concerns to arbcom
20:
1233:disclosed who his employer is.
1405:is a direct quote from Sam in
1:
1428:the WMF's mission statement
432:from editing for violating
1533:
1513:21:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1484:20:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1465:18:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1416:18:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1388:21:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1378:20:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1363:18:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1327:20:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1312:20:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1291:19:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1267:19:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1243:19:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1220:19:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1208:19:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1184:19:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1158:18:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1141:18:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1129:18:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1115:18:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1096:17:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1076:16:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1071:combat promotional editing
1035:16:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
974:15:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
962:15:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
915:15:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
885:15:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
871:15:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
842:15:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
819:14:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
790:17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
767:17:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
748:14:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
730:14:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
698:14:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
663:14:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
623:13:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
603:08:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
583:03:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
531:01:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
502:01:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
488:01:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
465:01:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
441:guide to appealing blocks
403:18:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
367:05:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
349:00:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
328:22:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
310:22:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
296:22:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
262:22:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
235:22:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
220:22:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
198:21:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
175:21:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
138:23:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
119:23:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
104:23:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
1440:Knowledge (XXG):Turnitin
1124:
957:
866:
743:
693:
630:, the bullet point says
483:
398:
344:
323:
291:
230:
193:
114:
566:original interpretation
562:Special:Diff/622482650
418:
72:Lowercase sigmabot III
1505:ProcrastinatingReader
1470:ProcrastinatingReader
1457:ProcrastinatingReader
1426:the answer I got was
632:Editing project space
588:ProcrastinatingReader
575:ProcrastinatingReader
451:Your reason here ~~~~
417:
800:So what happened to
508:To expand on this,
1472:it seems based on
419:
314:The checkuser was
1438:) are powered by
1357:cheap advertising
907:
895:
849:GeneralNotability
834:
782:
754:GeneralNotability
722:
655:
541:
523:GeneralNotability
494:GeneralNotability
474:GeneralNotability
457:GeneralNotability
84:Userpage blanking
79:
78:
44:
43:
1524:
1359:
1353:
1309:
1264:
1248:beyond a simple
1217:
1196:
1168:
1138:
1121:Sam at Megaputer
1112:
1073:
1032:
971:
954:Sam at Megaputer
911:talk to the boss
901:
897:Sam at Megaputer
889:
863:Sam at Megaputer
852:
838:talk to the boss
828:
786:talk to the boss
776:
740:Sam at Megaputer
726:talk to the boss
716:
690:Sam at Megaputer
659:talk to the boss
649:
535:
480:Sam at Megaputer
477:
454:
395:Sam at Megaputer
341:Sam at Megaputer
338:
320:Sam at Megaputer
288:Sam at Megaputer
227:Sam at Megaputer
190:Sam at Megaputer
186:
124:Sam at Megaputer
111:Sam at Megaputer
74:
58:
35:
34:
24:
16:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1432:meta:CopyPatrol
1355:
1347:
1307:
1262:
1215:
1190:
1162:
1136:
1110:
1069:
1030:
969:
908:
846:
835:
783:
723:
656:
471:
468:
467:
444:
437:
411:
332:
180:
148:
86:
70:
59:
53:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1530:
1528:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
900:
887:
827:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
775:
750:
715:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
648:
607:
606:
605:
564:indicates the
506:
505:
504:
438:
421:You have been
420:
412:
410:
407:
406:
405:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
330:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
147:
144:
143:
142:
141:
140:
85:
82:
77:
76:
64:
61:
60:
55:
51:
49:
46:
45:
42:
41:
31:
30:
25:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1529:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1501:
1496:
1492:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1482:
1481:
1475:
1471:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1414:
1413:
1408:
1404:
1401:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1358:
1351:
1346:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1310:
1303:
1299:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1275:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1265:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1218:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1194:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1166:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1146:
1142:
1139:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1113:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1084:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1072:
1067:
1063:
1036:
1033:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
975:
972:
965:
964:
963:
959:
955:
950:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
916:
912:
905:
898:
893:
892:edit conflict
888:
886:
883:
879:
874:
873:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
850:
845:
844:
843:
839:
832:
825:
822:
821:
820:
816:
812:
807:
803:
799:
791:
787:
780:
773:
770:
769:
768:
764:
760:
755:
751:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
732:
731:
727:
720:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
664:
660:
653:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
626:
625:
624:
620:
616:
611:
608:
604:
601:
597:
593:
589:
586:
585:
584:
580:
576:
571:
567:
563:
558:
554:
550:
546:
539:
534:
533:
532:
528:
524:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
490:
489:
485:
481:
475:
470:
469:
466:
462:
458:
452:
448:
442:
435:
431:
430:
426:
425:
416:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
391:this response
388:
387:
368:
364:
360:
359:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
346:
342:
336:
331:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
311:
308:
304:
299:
298:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
263:
260:
256:
252:
247:
242:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
223:
222:
221:
218:
214:
210:
206:
201:
200:
199:
195:
191:
184:
179:
178:
177:
176:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
145:
139:
136:
133:
129:
125:
122:
121:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:
106:
105:
102:
99:
95:
91:
83:
81:
73:
68:
63:
62:
48:
47:
40:
37:
36:
33:
32:
28:
23:
18:
17:
1499:
1495:both parties
1494:
1490:
1479:
1473:
1411:
1402:
1398:
1273:
1257:
1253:
1230:
1226:
1171:
1105:
1082:
1059:
1019:
1015:
948:
858:
854:
752:I'd suggest
735:
711:
707:
703:
685:
681:
643:
557:the evidence
517:
450:
429:indefinitely
427:
422:
356:
240:
158:states that
149:
87:
80:
66:
26:
1444:iThenticate
1407:this thread
1384:PolyAnalyst
1308:TAXIDICAEđź’°
1263:TAXIDICAEđź’°
1250:WP:PROJSOCK
1216:TAXIDICAEđź’°
1137:TAXIDICAEđź’°
1111:TAXIDICAEđź’°
1031:TAXIDICAEđź’°
970:TAXIDICAEđź’°
806:WP:PROJSOCK
628:Peter James
615:Peter James
610:WP:PROJSOCK
553:WP:PROJSOCK
510:WP:PROJSOCK
434:WP:PROJSOCK
205:WP:PROJSOCK
94:WP:BLANKING
1436:CVDetector
1193:Praxidicae
644:definitely
545:WP:ILLEGIT
409:April 2021
284:WP:ALTACCN
251:sanctions.
246:WP:PUBSOCK
241:somebody's
162:(see also
90:Praxidicae
1400:Thryduulf
1370:Thryduulf
1350:Thryduulf
1319:Thryduulf
1298:Thryduulf
1283:Thryduulf
1235:Thryduulf
1200:Thryduulf
1176:Thryduulf
1165:Barkeep49
1150:Barkeep49
1102:WP:OUTING
1088:Thryduulf
906:franchise
878:Blablubbs
855:somewhere
833:franchise
824:Thryduulf
811:Thryduulf
781:franchise
772:Barkeep49
759:Barkeep49
721:franchise
682:everybody
654:franchise
596:Blablubbs
335:Blablubbs
303:Blablubbs
255:Blablubbs
213:Blablubbs
183:Blablubbs
168:Blablubbs
154:However,
39:Archive 1
1252:, which
1062:WP:PROMO
538:watching
518:publicly
449:|reason=
164:this RfC
132:RoySmith
98:RoySmith
27:Archives
1491:offwiki
447:unblock
424:blocked
248:states
156:WP:PAID
1452:WP:RFC
1434:&
1424:at VPT
1302:WP:AGF
1279:WP:AGF
1066:WP:COI
947:There
802:WP:AGF
686:Please
634:, and
590:, see
570:WP:VPT
549:WP:3RR
135:(talk)
101:(talk)
67:5 days
1480:StarM
1412:StarM
1225:that
1172:tried
702:I did
638:says
512:says
363:talk
1509:talk
1500:does
1461:talk
1455:it?
1374:talk
1323:talk
1287:talk
1239:talk
1227:does
1204:talk
1180:talk
1154:talk
1125:talk
1092:talk
958:talk
882:talk
867:talk
815:talk
763:talk
744:talk
694:talk
619:talk
600:talk
592:here
579:talk
527:talk
498:talk
484:talk
461:talk
436:.
399:talk
389:Got
345:talk
324:talk
307:talk
292:talk
259:talk
231:talk
217:talk
194:talk
172:talk
115:talk
1274:are
1231:has
1106:and
714:)
455:.
358:DGG
316:DGG
1511:)
1463:)
1376:)
1325:)
1289:)
1258:do
1254:is
1241:)
1206:)
1182:)
1156:)
1127:)
1094:)
1083:is
1064:/
960:)
949:is
913:)
904:GN
902:a
869:)
859:my
840:)
831:GN
829:a
817:)
788:)
779:GN
777:a
765:)
746:)
738:.
728:)
719:GN
717:a
696:)
661:)
652:GN
650:a
621:)
581:)
529:)
500:)
486:)
463:)
453:}}
445:{{
401:)
365:)
347:)
326:)
294:)
233:)
207:,
196:)
117:)
1507:(
1459:(
1442:/
1372:(
1352::
1348:@
1321:(
1285:(
1237:(
1202:(
1195::
1191:@
1178:(
1167::
1163:@
1152:(
1123:(
1090:(
956:(
909:(
894:)
890:(
880:|
865:(
851::
847:@
836:(
813:(
784:(
761:(
742:(
724:(
692:(
657:(
617:(
598:|
577:(
540:)
536:(
525:(
496:(
482:(
476::
472:@
459:(
397:(
361:(
343:(
337::
333:@
322:(
305:|
290:(
257:|
229:(
215:|
192:(
185::
181:@
170:|
113:(
75:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
