User talk:Renamed user 54wf8v1v5fewvc5sdv4wf51

October 2021

Hello, I'm Ctrlwiki. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Andrea Brillantes, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ctrlwiki (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Ctrlwiki. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, ASAP (Philippine TV program), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ctrlwiki (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kim Chiu, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ctrlwiki (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Darna (2021 TV series), disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ctrlwiki (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Draftifying established articles

Looking at User:SeanJ 2007/Draftify log, I see:

• Draft:Eduardo Jose Jallorina was created 22 August 2010
• Draft:S.R.O. (radio program) was created 6 August 2012‎
• Draft:Action 9 was created 4 November 2016
• Draft:The Police Hour was created 4 November 2016‎
• Draft:Updates (TV program) was created 29 February 2016‎

Please note that per WP:DRAFTIFY, draftification is not intended as a backdoor route to deletion. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say the same thing. Please read WP:ATD-I and note the following: "If recently created, articles that have potential," and "unilaterally moving articles to draft space ("draftifying") should generally be done only for newly created articles (as part of new page review or otherwise) or as the result of a deletion discussion.". It is inappropriate to be moving years old articles to draft space. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from posting rumours

Wikipedia isn't the site to post rumours. This isn't a gossip site. I suggest you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thank you!TheHotwiki (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Not allowed?

I see your edits on two different pages, files are not allowed in "sandbox" and "draft" according to who? Ctrlwiki (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: Sorry to tell you, but I forgot what Wikipedia link talks about that because I only see it once from another user that do that a longtime ago. But that action I made is true. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Sean, please don't enforce policies that you don't know for sure exist. In this case, there is no such policy. You're likely thinking of Wikipedia:Non-free content, but that only covers a subset of images. I've reverted your edits. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Then how come when I moved an article to draft, the image was removed? It is similar to what I did on Draft:A23 (TV channel) and Draft:Studio TV, removing images because it is in draftspace. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: Did you know who removed the image and what their reason for removal? Or probably, the image has been deleted because of copyright. A bot will automatically remove the photo when it's deleted. Ctrlwiki (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: Yes I know, it can be an admin who will remove the image. Also your correct, it can be deleted due to copyright. You know I will share this, when I move an article to draft, I do it at the "Move to draft" button under "More" tab, and when I move it to draft, the image was removed automatically (if there is an image). So there is the clue why I am removing images from draftspace. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: You don't need to remove or hide files on other pages just because it happened to you. The questions are, who removed the images on the draft you moved, and how it is happened? Ctrlwiki (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: By itself. How?, if you use "move to draft" button under "move" tab. In that, first you will see a warning that if a page is reviewed, second, you will see the name you want to move to draft, the author who created the page and your draftmove message. If you move it to draft, all of these will be done by itself automatically (Moving the article to draft, inform author, removing image if there is and tagging "db-r2" on the previous article space). If you already did this, this is the thing I am doing. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: If it's automatically removed, there is nothing wrong with it. But if you remove the file manually just because it is in the draft space, there is no rule for that. What is that page you are talking about? Let me look at it. Ctrlwiki (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: EJ Jallorina, Flower of Evil (Philippine TV series) and Updates (TV program). These doesn't have images. But I have moved others using "move to draft" button under "move" tab but reverted back to article space that has images. see User:SeanJ 2007/Draftify log by checking the history page. I removed those because it was reverted back to article space. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@SeanJ 2007: You've already said that it was removed automatically so nothing wrong with it, I don't see any removal circumstances of images in edit summaries, probably because there are really no images before and after you moved the articles to draft. Next time, don't make your own decisions that against the rule of Wikipedia, just because the files in the articles that you moved was removed automatically, you will also removed files in other pages. If you think that is true, link me to that policy, saying that "files" are not allowed in draft space and personal sandbox. Thanks. Ctrlwiki (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Sean, I haven't seen the automated removal you're referring to, but I believe you that it happens. What I'm assuming happens is that the script removes non-free images. Again, see Wikipedia:Non-free content. There is a very important difference between free images and non-free images, as that policy/guideline explains. Fortunately for you, bots and scripts take care of that for you, removing non-free images from pages outside of mainspace. Policies involving non-free content are pretty complicated. You should not try to enforce them if you don't understand them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Reiterating what I said at SPI

You reverted a number of edits by Liberty1892 (talk · contribs) on the basis that they were a sock. They do not appear to be a sock. As explained at Wikipedia:Clean up your own mess, you now need to fix this.

• All of Liberty's reverted edits can be seen here.
• All of your reverts can be seen here and here.

Please find the cases where you've reverted Liberty, and either:

• Revert your revert, with a summary like Correction: Not a sock
• or, if you stand by the revert for other reasons, make a dummy edit saying something like Correction: Not a sock, but I stand by the revert because {your reason here}

I'm reaching out here because I see that you've been editing since I told you do that this is expected of you, but that you haven't done so. Please do so soon.

I'll also note, I was startled to see you had made one revert after you said at the SPI that you did not have evidence that Liberty is a sock. I had not realized that when I closed the SPI. So I want to be clear: If I see you again revert someone as a sock despite having no evidence for it, I will take you to AN/I. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 05:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

You've been cautioned before and blocked before for reporting users at SPI without evidence. Five months on and you're at it again. Tamzin requested over two days ago that you revert or clarify your reverts which you falsely justified as reverting a sock. You have edited abundantly since then and neither clarified nor reverted Special:Diff/1051700837 or Special:Diff/1051701165. In light of your previous block around this issue it's impossible to frame your conduct as anything but harassment of Liberty1892.

The next step would normally be a two week block. However your previous block has shown that you'll simply sit out that block and carry on where you left off. An indefinite block, forcing you to appeal for an unblock, seems to be the only way to get you to address the problems head-on. Cabayi (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Cabayi (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

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).

Renamed user 54wf8v1v5fewvc5sdv4wf51 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was warned by Tamzin after I reverted the edits non-confirmed sock Liberty1892, the user said if I revert it again that it is not even confirmed, I will be reported to WP:ANI. Since that warning, I just mind it and let Tamzin and WayKurat clearing the statement at the SPI. Then Cabayi will block me "INDEFINITLY" that is WP:HARASS, no I'm not. I am not harassing Liberty1892, I just reverted the users edit that it is not confirmed that it is a sock. Late message Cabayi, you just message me after I was warned. I am requesting to be unblocked because this reason is too early, warned to not do it again then blocked and message late after I was warned. I will fix this mess issue. If you guys don't want to unblock me, I will pass all of my jobs here on Wikipedia to Ctrlwiki. Thank you very much!

Decline reason:

This is incoherent, which supports your block from back in May on WP:CIR grounds. Yamla (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2021 (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.

I also report about this at [1] because I waited a long hour and no responses about this. Might want to just comment their (click here). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #50224 declined as you have an open request here. Cabayi (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• You were warned about filing SPIs without evidence on 21 March - "Please be careful Sean, naming users at SPI without providing evidence can be seen as a personal attack."
• You were blocked for a week on 6 May for messing around at SPI by Bbb23.
• You filed an SPI report against Liberty1892 without evidence.
• You were requested by Tamzin to wind back your accusations the first time at 18:33, 27 October 2021‎ - "please go revert all of your reverts of their edits—or, if you stand by the revert for another reason, make a dummy edit explaining the reason" - and a second time at 05:45, 28 October 2021 :

"Please find the cases where you've reverted Liberty, and either:

• Revert your revert, with a summary like Correction: Not a sock
• or, if you stand by the revert for other reasons, make a dummy edit saying something like Correction: Not a sock, but I stand by the revert because {your reason here}"

You ignored both requests.

I see no interpretation other than your wilful misuse of SPI to harass Liberty1892. Your failure to recognise that is in itself a significant problem. Cabayi (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cabayi: I just mind the SPI closed, Tamzin just gave me an additional information to prove that Liberty1892 is a sock of Ljlas20, please double check, I have added an evidence their but the evidence was "INCOMPLETE". Tamzin even warned me that if I reverted a socks edit that is not even confirmed, I will be reported to WP:ANI. But you blocked me after I was warned and its too early. WayKurat also this, reverting sock edits that is not even confirmed, the sock was JLS971 that was a sock of Joshua Saldaña, see Special:Diff/1051724059, Special:Diff/1051723047. During these diffs, the SPI is still open (no confirmation if it is a sock). This is the same as me, the SPI of Ljlas20 is open and I reverted the sock edits which is Liberty1892. Since I saw what WayKurat did, I also did it. Apologies to WayKurat, I have to report this so the admins will clearly know why I did this. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cabayi: You know, It is okay to block me because of these mistakes, but an "indefinite block" makes me bad because my job here is useless. Please re-consider my job and unblock me, these warnings you admins told me, some I don't know. And I am thankful that you messaged me about this. If you unblock me, please do not block me the next time I do it again (another Wikipedia violation), just message me. 11:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

"the next time I do it again" ??? There shouldn't be a "next time". Cabayi (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cabayi: I am just giving you a signal whether it will happen or not. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Then the block serves a good purpose in ensuring it does not. Cabayi (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I think, what Sean's trying to say is, if he will do it again, just warn him and don't block him. But if you look at his violation, there is no exemption to not block him. But if you look at his contributions, there are more clean edits that he made. What I'm trying to say is, blocking him indefinitely is too early, with his clean contributions, he can be a good editor, based on his age, he is very young to understand the policies in Wikipedia. And I notice that he can't speak English very well and it makes him hard to defend himself. — Ctrlwiki (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You mean WP:CIR? That's why the appeal was denied. Cabayi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: I can speak English well, and yeah, sometimes I cant defend myself but it depends on the warning that has been warned to me. (Redacted) SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sean, you were warned, with specific instructions regarding what you should do to rectify a mistake you made. You continued to edit without fixing the problem or even responding to the concern; that is why you were blocked. Your unblock request seems to boil down to "unblock me, and if and when I repeat the mistake, don't block me again" (if I'm parsing it correctly, at least); that response is concerning to me, and it is not one that will help you get unblocked. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies to all admins, these is the second time I was warned about this. The only reason here was I reverted an unconfirmed sock edits of Liberty1892 that is under Ljlas20. I was already warned by Tamzin that if I do it again, I will be reported to WP:ANI, but Cabayi blocked me indefinitely on a WP:HARASS reason. Does this look like a harass edit? I even saw other Wikipedians do the same thing. I have a clean contributions except for SPIs, and please unblock me, too early to be blocked indefinitely. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify a few things:

• Perhaps this was a misstatement on your part, Sean, but in response to Tamzin just gave me an additional information to prove that Liberty1892 is a sock of Ljlas20: I absolutely did not. I closed the SPI with prejudice, meaning that I found Liberty was likely not a sock of Ljlas20 (based on your lack of evidence; my being unable to find evidence; and WayKurat's assessment, as an experienced editor in this topic area, that Liberty is not a sock of Ljlas20).
• I issued you an "informal warning" for the bad filing because I was unaware you had been warned and blocked in the past for similar behavior, and unaware that you had continued to revert edits after admitting you didn't have evidence.
• If I had been aware of those things then, I would have gone to Cabayi and asked them what to do, rather than warn you. So once I did realize (after leaving you my most recent message), I did exactly that, and that's how we wound up here. I support their decision to block (not that it's really my call). I think a block was warranted just for the repeated no-evidence SPIs, let alone for the revert issue.
• I can't help but notice that a number of these issues seem to involve you misunderstanding things. I see that you're also somewhat active on the Tagalog Wikipedia. Do you think maybe you would be better off contributing there? To be clear, you would still have to abide by their local policies and guidelines, and some of the issues you've had here, you would also have there; but maybe there would be fewer communication issues when editors try to talk to you about these things.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: We had no deal that if I do it again, I will be blocked. You just warned me that I will be reported to WP:ANI. Base on this misunderstanding reason about just reverting an unconfirmed sock edit and I being blocked indefinitely, Cabayi, this is too early to block me indefinitely because I have clean contributions except for SPIs that some of it has no or incomplete evidence. I saw your edit summary that you will be giving me 2 days block, but you gave me an indefinite block. Its just like I am useless for all the jobs I made here. These is only 1 small mistake then you will block me indefinitely! I don't know if you guys will give me a chance to edit again, and I hope you all understand my reasons why I did this. Maybe if there is another day if I will report again at SPI, there is a proper evidence. That is the rule right? I am just not comfortable to be blocked indefinitely at this time by just a 1 small mistake at SPI. Please give me another chance to edit again. SeanJ 2007 ^{talk contributions} 01:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The two days referred to in the edit summary to this revision was the two days which had passed since you were asked to wind back your accusations and had failed to do so. I was considering a month long block, but I chose an indef block because you need to show you understand the effect of your edits on other users, and to convince the community that you will not repeat your misuse of SPI.

So far your comments have focussed entirely on the effect on you. Your responses have more than implied that you will make more bad SPI reports and that you see no harm in doing so. Nowhere do you show any intent to modify your behaviour or that there is a benefit to the community in lifting your block. Cabayi (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cabayi: I am out of my mind, it is like you don't want to unblock me or any admins until I realize this mistake. Now, my job here on Wikipedia is useless. SeanJ 2007 ^{talk contributions} 11:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

To the admins, until when I will be blocked, usually the block is indefinite? Please reply to it, I don't want to waste my job here just for this 1 mistake. For now, my job here is useless until I am like this. It is just too early to block me indefinitely no matter how many times I will tell this. SeanJ 2007 ^{talk contributions} 03:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Already explained - "I chose an indef block because you need to show you understand the effect of your edits on other users, and to convince the community that you will not repeat your misuse of SPI.". Cabayi (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Cabayi: I am truly convinced to not do it again as what I did at SPI. If I will report again, I will add a "proper evidence" like what I did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nic.cartagena12/Archive#07 October 2021. If the SPI is still open, I will not revert first, I will do the action if it is confirmed. Trust me. SeanJ 2007 ^{talk contributions} 08:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Renamed user 54wf8v1v5fewvc5sdv4wf51 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I will truly convince to all of you that I will not do it again as what I did at the SPI and reverting the edits of Liberty1892 w/o being confirmed that it is a sock. I understand the effects of my edits to other users and I will make sure to be careful with my edits. Trust me, if you will unblock me, I will follow all of your messages to me

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I will truly convince to all of you that I will not do it again as what I did at the SPI and reverting the edits of [[Special:Contributions/Liberty1892|Liberty1892]] w/o being confirmed that it is a [[WP:SOCK|sock]]. I understand the effects of my edits to other users and I will make sure to be careful with my edits. Trust me, if you will unblock me, I will follow all of your messages to me |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I will truly convince to all of you that I will not do it again as what I did at the SPI and reverting the edits of [[Special:Contributions/Liberty1892|Liberty1892]] w/o being confirmed that it is a [[WP:SOCK|sock]]. I understand the effects of my edits to other users and I will make sure to be careful with my edits. Trust me, if you will unblock me, I will follow all of your messages to me |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I will truly convince to all of you that I will not do it again as what I did at the SPI and reverting the edits of [[Special:Contributions/Liberty1892|Liberty1892]] w/o being confirmed that it is a [[WP:SOCK|sock]]. I understand the effects of my edits to other users and I will make sure to be careful with my edits. Trust me, if you will unblock me, I will follow all of your messages to me |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• (Non-administrator comment) Personally, I would support an unblock with a logged restriction from filing SPIs or accusing editors of sockpuppetry (perhaps with an allowance for contacting admins/clerks/CUs by email within reason). However, I think it's important that Sean recognize that there are other concerns about his editing, and that he needs to slow down and make sure he has a better grip on the policies he's interacting with. Otherwise, even if unblocked for this, he's liable to be re-blocked for CIR editing in not too long. (And I'm heartened to see, Sean, that you've heeded my suggestion to spend more time on tlwiki. I'd encourage you to keep up your work there even if unblocked here. There are some global Wikimedia norms that may be easier to learn in your native language.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Sure! SeanJ 2007 ^{talk contributions} 07:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• • (Non-administrator comment) Well, being an admin at tl.wiki, I have encountered had an issue while SeanJ is editing there. A user noticed that one of his created articles there was Google translated and he thought that SeanJ is a sockpuppet of a longterm user that creates articles using Google translated text from en.wiki (see comment here). I have also mentioned his editing issues on the Ljlas20 SPI page (carelessly requesting protection removal on articles with vandalism issues, moving old articles to draftspace with no consultation, among others). Please consider the issues I mentioned here if an admin plans to lift the indefinite block on SeanJ. -WayKurat (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Unrelated discussion, while I am blocked, I saw a likely sock of KapamilyaAdventurer that is TheGeoAdventurer. The edits are similar to the main and the word "Adventurer" is the same to the main and the username violates WP:USERNAMES. SeanJ 2007 ^{talk contributions} 13:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)