User talk:Pris La Cil

Hello, Pris La Cil, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. We're so glad you're here! Dolberty (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Pris La Cil (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

[1]- think I messed up the ping, and ironically got an edit-conflict with the close. Sorry about that. However, deletion review is still an option if you wish to contest the close. Take care, — fortunavelut luna 17:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was a very sudden close indeed, while before the discussion stayed open forever when it could have been closed as keep. I would take it to deletion review, except that Dolberty just asked to continue the article in draftspace. Pris La Cil (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I confess to not using the word 'sudden' :) cheers! — fortunavelut luna 17:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I've no idea what is going on. What is a sockpuppet and how am I one? Why was my draft deleted? I have nothing in common with the user named by Floquenbeam below.

Decline reason:

"No shared interests"? Practically every single edit of yours represents a shared interest. Huon (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2017 (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.

Info for reviewing admin:

I wrote this at WP:REFUND, but I'll put it here. User:Dolberty is a new account who shares an interest in User:Guido den Broeder's invented micronation, Paraduin, and is apparently the only person on WP who thinks Guido was railroaded in his recent community ban (posting about it at Paraduin's AFD and the Teahouse). They "share an IP" with User:Pris La Cil, another new account who shares an interest in an actresses (article now deleted) related to Guido's favorite upcoming movie, and two child models and actresses who are also past editing interests of Guido's. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which explains exactly nothing. I am my own person. One of my friends is a Ukrainian actress working here, and she suggested Oksana Orlan. I don't know anything about this upcoming movie except that it is mentioned on her IMDB page. Pris La Cil (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? I have no shared interests with these guys, but if I had - I only have two interests so far, Thylane Blondeau (with many editors), and Draft:Oksana Orlan (just me) which you deleted without discussion - what precisely is your problem? Are we not supposed to work together on this project? Pris La Cil (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, you are not objective. My only two interests so far are Thylane Blondeau and Oksana Orlan, and I supported Dolberty at Light (fantasy). Show me how they are Guido den Broeder's interests on Wikipedia. Pris La Cil (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See three edits before your first, here editing in May, and also interested in Oksana Orlan. That objectively establishes connections between your main interests and den Broeder. Huon (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your synthesis, not reality. Adding a link to his girlfriend's page is not showing an interest in Thylane Blondeau, and including Oksana Orlan in a list is not showing an interest in Oksana Orlan. He also didn't write Draft:The Russian Bride, Lyrda did, he only made a few trivial changes, none of them involving Oksana Orlan. All other mentions of Oksana are also by Lyrda. Undoing a mess made by an inexperienced user (a single edit by me) is not showing an interest in Anastasia Bezrukova. Pris La Cil (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we did share a topic - we might in the future - that would still be meaningless. We're supposed to work together, remember? Pris La Cil (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser[edit]

Guido den Broeder was so kind to send me a checkuser result from Wikisage. We are very different. Pris La Cil (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Floquenbeam and Huon failed to use the checkuser tool. Now that there is a checkuser result, it should be clear that I am not the same person.

Decline reason:

Checkuser data shows a very clear Confirmed connection between this account and User:Dolberty. The link to Guido den Broeder is less obvious, but definitely Possible. Given the behavioural similarities, I see no compelling reason to believe this argument. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:54, 31 July 2017 (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.

Yunshui, that Dolberty and I are on the same system is mentioned on our user pages. It's allowed, and Dolberty is a good user. So this leaves a theoretical link to someone else, which we all have. I have a possible link to you, too. Why am I blocked? Pris La Cil (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have a possible link to me in the same way that you have a possible link to Guido den Broeder; without giving away any specifics the two of you share a remarkable geographical closeness which, combined with your interests, is more than enough for me to perceive a connection. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui, no, we don't. Pris La Cil (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beg to differ. Aside from one re-routed IP address, all of the networks you've used to access Wikipedia were within a few miles of those used by Guido. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where he lives, but our school is in a city. There are a million addresses within a few miles from here. Pris La Cil (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dolberty says the Paraduin article mentions Rotterdam. Is that where you think my networks are? Pris La Cil (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Checkuser clearly shows that the block reason is false. I am not a sockpuppet of Guido den Broeder, and neither is Dolberty. Using networks in the same geographical area as another user (with a million other people, mind you), if that is even true, is not forbidden. Users are real people and will have connections to other real people. Some of these connections they may not even be aware of. It is none of your business. Checkuser is not meant to satisfy your curiosity regarding my personal life. Once you have established that the internet address is different, it ends. You should unblock and move on, and respect my privacy.

Decline reason:

None of this is relevant to your unblock appeal - the facts, including but not limited to the Checkuser information, very clearly show an obvious link between yourself and a blocked editor who has used many sockpuppets in the past to evade a block. The chances of such account(s) appearing two days after User:Guido den Broeder was blocked, to vote on an obscure AfD about one of his articles, and editing further very obscure articles, all of which are linked to that blocked editor, as well as being in the same locality, are effectively zero. There are further inconsistencies with your link with User:Dolberty which again have been answered in an completely unconvincing manner. Strangely, Dolberty also made an unblock request tonight - which was practically identical in wording to yours. Whilst WP:AGF is a policy here, there is a certain limit after which we have to assume that we are being taken for fools, and these unblock requests fall well past that line. I have thus removed your talkpage access. If you wish to make further unblock appeals, please see WP:UTRS. Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2017 (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.