User talk:ClifV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, ClifV! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Ijeffsc per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ijeffsc. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not User:Ijeffsc. I have no knowledge of or association with the user in question, online or off, beyond reading the edits they made on the relevant talk page. I'm happy to extrapolate on the subject of how I am not them and they are not me, but I'd need to know how the claim that we are the same person is falsifiable first.

The main claim in the investigation--that User:Ijeffsc and I were arguing "in support of the exact same specific point"--is a false premise. At no point did I argue the application of the "far-right" label was inappropriate, and included its application to the Epoch Times in my proposed changes. This is in contrast to User:Ijeffsc, who specifically stated their objection to "the term 'far-right'". My proposed changes were additionally based entirely on the wording found in reliable sources, while the reliability of User:Ijeffsc's sources was in question.

In regards to the two writing samples, my respect for Firefangledfeathers lack of comment on why there were so many citations was genuine. I appreciated them expressing how things might be improved without speculating or ascribing motivations to how the issue arose. My expression of agreement was to the extent that I also would prefer to see fewer sources. The two segments otherwise have little in common stylistically, and--to be blunt--I suspect they were included solely because Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations states diffs as a requirement, and it was therefore a necessary box to check.

The characterization of my edits as "lengthy" or "verbose" seems especially uncharitable in light of one of my main criticisms, specifically that the large number of sources makes discussion unwieldy and compact assessment impossible.

Lastly, despite my reluctance to engage with the charade that "similar writing" is a basis for stating that I don't exist, I'll highlight that User:Ijeffsc's writing is characterized by an almost total lack of commas, hyphens, and parentheticals, whereas I commonly (perhaps excessively) use all three.

Decline reason:

Confirmed WP:LOUTSOCK, no comment as to the IP address or addresses involved. Yamla (talk) 10:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

In regards to the above denial of my block appeal, I'll assume(!) the alleged WP:LOUTSOCK violation concerns the IP edits I made as 104.232.117.132 and 204.131.217.130 at Talk:The Epoch Times. I can't account for any other edits, as I haven't made any.


  1. I'm a brand-new editor. I made my edits from different locations. When I identified that the differing IPs might make the source of the edits confusing, I registered a username. After registering my username, I made no further IP edits.
  2. I made no attempt to differentiate the focus, style, and structure of my IP and user edits. In some cases, I posted the exact same comment ("Please keep article talk pages clear of interpersonal comments and suggestions."), first under an IP, then under my username post-registration. Additionally, when adding the topic "Semi-protected edit request 28 February 2024", I referred to "my conversation with Firefangledfeathers above". The final two edits I made in the previous topic can hardly be characterized as a conversation, and I felt it was obvious that I was referring to the topic/conversation as a whole. That the IP edits and edits under my username were very likely made by the same user was remarked upon by others: User:Firefangledfeathers:"The IPs are almost certainly the same person", User:Bbb23:"104.232.117.132 is likely the same person" (note: these comments were made contemporary to/after my block). I would have been happy to confirm that relationship at the time of discussion if anyone thought the remaining margin of uncertainty was material.
  3. For anyone still suspecting I am User:Ijeffsc, I'd ask them to see my response to the investigation in my previous appeal. Additionally, User:Ijeffsc was strongly opposed to the application of the label "far-right" to the Epoch Times. Given that a significant portion of the IP edits I made were concerned with identifying, summarizing, and arguing for the inclusion of sources that supported that the term "far-right" was accurate (one of which is now included in the page[i.]), the IP edits contradict the claim that we are the same user.
  4. In retrospect, I should have been explicitly clear about my new username (for that I would have had to suspect what was coming--life is full of surprises) and request attribution for my IP edits, a mechanism of which I was unaware until after my block. At no point prior to User:Grayfell's edit here[ii.] was any issue raised to me about my identity or edit attribution[iii.], either in the discussion or on my user talk page, nor were the IP edits mentioned in the evidence given in the investigation. This suggests that either [A.] my alleged deception re:WP:LOUTSOCK was subtle enough to evade notice or [B.] the continuation of my identity was obvious/inconsequential enough to all involved that clarification was unnecessary. Given the edits referenced in bullet [2.], the limited number of users involved in what is a relatively obscure discussion, and the inference that my alleged deception was significant (in that's it's block-worthy) and obvious (in that a decision was made with little discussion), it's difficult to see how [A.] was the case. Any case other than [B.] is contradicted by the fact that somebody could have, you know, asked me if they felt clarification was warranted.


To summarize: I appeal this block on the basis that [A.] there was no material doubt that the edits under 104.232.117.132, 204.131.217.130, and User:ClifV were made by the same user, [B.] there was no overlap in time between my IP edits and my username edits, [C.] there was no impact on the discussion from the authorship of those edits not being explicitly recognized, and [D.] a significant portion of the edits (specifically those concerning this source made under 104.232.117.132) were totally inconsistent with the views and motivations attributed to User:Ijeffsc.

I had no intention to be deceptive. My intention has always been the improvement of the page. I've only gone where the sources have taken me, and despite the overall tenor of the conversation I'm moderately surprised and moderately pleased that changes based on my input have happened at all. Trust me when I say this has been a rapidly educational experience in respect to wiki guidelines, procedures, and practices.

[i.] The source in question was described as a a great find and to look promising... it cites multiple sources which may be relevant to this discussion by User:Firefangledfeathers and User:Grayfell, respectively.
[ii.] The edit in question was made at 6:20 UTC, immediately after the creation (at 6:11 UTC, 28 Feb, also by User:Grayfell) of the investigation that resulted in my block. That investigation was concluded by User:Bbb23 at 14:57 UTC, 28 Feb, seven hours and forty-six minutes later. My timezone is PST. Whatever the procedures governing investigation timelines, a sub-eight-hour span between 10pm PST and 7am PST is not a realistic window in which to expect a reply.

[iii.] Users may wish to point to User:MrOllie's edit here as an example of situation where [A.] his comment made me aware there was confusion as to the number of users, and [B.] that I declined to clarify demonstrated duplicity on my part. It was indeed clear to me that MrOllie was not aware at the time that 104.232.117.132 and User:ClifV were the same user. Though I felt uneasy with the situation, I was unaware (again, brand-new editor) of any guidelines on the topic, had found the majority of my interactions with MrOllie to be terse and unproductive, and made the (possibly mistaken) judgement call to not continue an exchange that had already strayed off-topic by correcting him. It was clear to me from that point that editing with a single username (as I had already chosen to do before, and would continue to do after) was good practice, as the same confusion could have arisen between edits under 104.232.117.132 and 204.131.217.130.

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= In regards to the above denial of my block appeal, I'll assume(!) the alleged [[WP:LOUTSOCK]] violation concerns the IP edits I made as 104.232.117.132 and 204.131.217.130 at [[Talk:The Epoch Times]]. I can't account for any other edits, as I haven't made any. <br> # I'm a brand-new editor. I made my edits from different locations. When I identified that the differing IPs might make the source of the edits confusing, I registered a username. After registering my username, I made no further IP edits. # I made no attempt to differentiate the focus, style, and structure of my IP and user edits. In some cases, I posted the exact same comment (<q class="inline-quote-talk ">"Please keep article talk pages clear of interpersonal comments and suggestions."</q>), first under an IP, then under my username post-registration. Additionally, when adding the topic "Semi-protected edit request 28 February 2024", I referred to <q class="inline-quote-talk ">"my conversation with Firefangledfeathers above"</q>. The final two edits I made in the previous topic can hardly be characterized as a conversation, and I felt it was obvious that I was referring to the topic/conversation as a whole. That the IP edits and edits under my username were very likely made by the same user was remarked upon by others: User:Firefangledfeathers:<q class="inline-quote-talk ">"The IPs are almost certainly the same person"</q>, User:Bbb23:<q class="inline-quote-talk ">"104.232.117.132 is likely the same person"</q> (note: these comments were made contemporary to/after my block). I would have been happy to confirm that relationship at the time of discussion if anyone thought the remaining margin of uncertainty was material. # For anyone still suspecting I am User:Ijeffsc, I'd ask them to see my response to the investigation in my previous appeal. Additionally, User:Ijeffsc was strongly opposed to the application of the label "far-right" to the Epoch Times. Given that a significant portion of the IP edits I made were concerned with identifying, summarizing, and arguing for the inclusion of sources that supported that the term "far-right" was accurate ([https://www.com.cuhk.edu.hk/publication/fang-journal-2023-dark.pdf one of which] is now included in the page[i.]), the IP edits contradict the claim that we are the same user. # In retrospect, I should have been explicitly clear about my new username (for that I would have had to suspect what was coming--life is full of surprises) and [[Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit|request attribution for my IP edits]], a mechanism of which I was unaware until after my block. At no point prior to User:Grayfell's edit <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Epoch_Times&diff=prev&oldid=1210761156 here]</span>[ii.] was any issue raised to me about my identity or edit attribution[iii.], either in the discussion or on my user talk page, nor were the IP edits mentioned in the evidence given in the investigation. This suggests that either [A.] my alleged deception re:[[WP:LOUTSOCK]] was subtle enough to evade notice or [B.] the continuation of my identity was obvious/inconsequential enough to all involved that clarification was unnecessary. Given the edits referenced in bullet [2.], the limited number of users involved in what is a relatively obscure discussion, and the inference that my alleged deception was significant (in that's it's block-worthy) and obvious (in that a decision was made with little discussion), it's difficult to see how [A.] was the case. Any case other than [B.] is contradicted by the fact that somebody could have, you know, asked me if they felt clarification was warranted. <br> To summarize: I appeal this block on the basis that '''[A.]''' there was no material doubt that the edits under 104.232.117.132, 204.131.217.130, and User:ClifV were made by the same user, '''[B.]''' there was no overlap in time between my IP edits and my username edits, '''[C.]''' there was no impact on the discussion from the authorship of those edits not being explicitly recognized, and '''[D.]''' a significant portion of the edits (specifically those concerning [https://www.com.cuhk.edu.hk/publication/fang-journal-2023-dark.pdf this source] made under 104.232.117.132) were totally inconsistent with the views and motivations attributed to User:Ijeffsc. <br><br> I had no intention to be deceptive. My intention has always been the improvement of the page. I've only gone where the sources have taken me, and despite the overall tenor of the conversation I'm moderately surprised and moderately pleased that changes based on my input have happened at all. ''Trust me'' when I say this has been a rapidly educational experience in respect to wiki guidelines, procedures, and practices. <br><br> <small>'''[i.]''' The source in question was described as a <q class="inline-quote-talk ">a great find</q> and to look <q class="inline-quote-talk ">promising... it cites multiple sources which may be relevant to this discussion</q> by User:Firefangledfeathers and User:Grayfell, respectively.<br> '''[ii.]''' The edit in question was made at 6:20 UTC, immediately after the creation (at 6:11 UTC, 28 Feb, also by User:Grayfell) of the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ijeffsc/Archive|investigation]] that resulted in my block. That investigation was concluded by User:Bbb23 at 14:57 UTC, 28 Feb, seven hours and forty-six minutes later. My timezone is PST. Whatever the procedures governing investigation timelines, a sub-eight-hour span between 10pm PST and 7am PST is not a realistic window in which to expect a reply. <br> '''[iii.]''' Users may wish to point to User:MrOllie's edit <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Epoch_Times&diff=prev&oldid=1210660500 here]</span> as an example of situation where [A.] his comment made me aware there was confusion as to the number of users, and [B.] that I declined to clarify demonstrated duplicity on my part. It was indeed clear to me that MrOllie was not aware at the time that 104.232.117.132 and User:ClifV were the same user. Though I felt uneasy with the situation, I was unaware (again, brand-new editor) of any guidelines on the topic, had found the majority of my interactions with MrOllie to be terse and unproductive, and made the (possibly mistaken) judgement call to not continue an exchange that had already strayed off-topic by correcting him. It was clear to me from that point that editing with a single username (as I had already chosen to do before, and would continue to do after) was good practice, as the same confusion could have arisen between edits under 104.232.117.132 and 204.131.217.130.</small>  |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= In regards to the above denial of my block appeal, I'll assume(!) the alleged [[WP:LOUTSOCK]] violation concerns the IP edits I made as 104.232.117.132 and 204.131.217.130 at [[Talk:The Epoch Times]]. I can't account for any other edits, as I haven't made any. <br> # I'm a brand-new editor. I made my edits from different locations. When I identified that the differing IPs might make the source of the edits confusing, I registered a username. After registering my username, I made no further IP edits. # I made no attempt to differentiate the focus, style, and structure of my IP and user edits. In some cases, I posted the exact same comment (<q class="inline-quote-talk ">"Please keep article talk pages clear of interpersonal comments and suggestions."</q>), first under an IP, then under my username post-registration. Additionally, when adding the topic "Semi-protected edit request 28 February 2024", I referred to <q class="inline-quote-talk ">"my conversation with Firefangledfeathers above"</q>. The final two edits I made in the previous topic can hardly be characterized as a conversation, and I felt it was obvious that I was referring to the topic/conversation as a whole. That the IP edits and edits under my username were very likely made by the same user was remarked upon by others: User:Firefangledfeathers:<q class="inline-quote-talk ">"The IPs are almost certainly the same person"</q>, User:Bbb23:<q class="inline-quote-talk ">"104.232.117.132 is likely the same person"</q> (note: these comments were made contemporary to/after my block). I would have been happy to confirm that relationship at the time of discussion if anyone thought the remaining margin of uncertainty was material. # For anyone still suspecting I am User:Ijeffsc, I'd ask them to see my response to the investigation in my previous appeal. Additionally, User:Ijeffsc was strongly opposed to the application of the label "far-right" to the Epoch Times. Given that a significant portion of the IP edits I made were concerned with identifying, summarizing, and arguing for the inclusion of sources that supported that the term "far-right" was accurate ([https://www.com.cuhk.edu.hk/publication/fang-journal-2023-dark.pdf one of which] is now included in the page[i.]), the IP edits contradict the claim that we are the same user. # In retrospect, I should have been explicitly clear about my new username (for that I would have had to suspect what was coming--life is full of surprises) and [[Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit|request attribution for my IP edits]], a mechanism of which I was unaware until after my block. At no point prior to User:Grayfell's edit <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Epoch_Times&diff=prev&oldid=1210761156 here]</span>[ii.] was any issue raised to me about my identity or edit attribution[iii.], either in the discussion or on my user talk page, nor were the IP edits mentioned in the evidence given in the investigation. This suggests that either [A.] my alleged deception re:[[WP:LOUTSOCK]] was subtle enough to evade notice or [B.] the continuation of my identity was obvious/inconsequential enough to all involved that clarification was unnecessary. Given the edits referenced in bullet [2.], the limited number of users involved in what is a relatively obscure discussion, and the inference that my alleged deception was significant (in that's it's block-worthy) and obvious (in that a decision was made with little discussion), it's difficult to see how [A.] was the case. Any case other than [B.] is contradicted by the fact that somebody could have, you know, asked me if they felt clarification was warranted. <br> To summarize: I appeal this block on the basis that '''[A.]''' there was no material doubt that the edits under 104.232.117.132, 204.131.217.130, and User:ClifV were made by the same user, '''[B.]''' there was no overlap in time between my IP edits and my username edits, '''[C.]''' there was no impact on the discussion from the authorship of those edits not being explicitly recognized, and '''[D.]''' a significant portion of the edits (specifically those concerning [https://www.com.cuhk.edu.hk/publication/fang-journal-2023-dark.pdf this source] made under 104.232.117.132) were totally inconsistent with the views and motivations attributed to User:Ijeffsc. <br><br> I had no intention to be deceptive. My intention has always been the improvement of the page. I've only gone where the sources have taken me, and despite the overall tenor of the conversation I'm moderately surprised and moderately pleased that changes based on my input have happened at all. ''Trust me'' when I say this has been a rapidly educational experience in respect to wiki guidelines, procedures, and practices. <br><br> <small>'''[i.]''' The source in question was described as a <q class="inline-quote-talk ">a great find</q> and to look <q class="inline-quote-talk ">promising... it cites multiple sources which may be relevant to this discussion</q> by User:Firefangledfeathers and User:Grayfell, respectively.<br> '''[ii.]''' The edit in question was made at 6:20 UTC, immediately after the creation (at 6:11 UTC, 28 Feb, also by User:Grayfell) of the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ijeffsc/Archive|investigation]] that resulted in my block. That investigation was concluded by User:Bbb23 at 14:57 UTC, 28 Feb, seven hours and forty-six minutes later. My timezone is PST. Whatever the procedures governing investigation timelines, a sub-eight-hour span between 10pm PST and 7am PST is not a realistic window in which to expect a reply. <br> '''[iii.]''' Users may wish to point to User:MrOllie's edit <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Epoch_Times&diff=prev&oldid=1210660500 here]</span> as an example of situation where [A.] his comment made me aware there was confusion as to the number of users, and [B.] that I declined to clarify demonstrated duplicity on my part. It was indeed clear to me that MrOllie was not aware at the time that 104.232.117.132 and User:ClifV were the same user. Though I felt uneasy with the situation, I was unaware (again, brand-new editor) of any guidelines on the topic, had found the majority of my interactions with MrOllie to be terse and unproductive, and made the (possibly mistaken) judgement call to not continue an exchange that had already strayed off-topic by correcting him. It was clear to me from that point that editing with a single username (as I had already chosen to do before, and would continue to do after) was good practice, as the same confusion could have arisen between edits under 104.232.117.132 and 204.131.217.130.</small>  |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= In regards to the above denial of my block appeal, I'll assume(!) the alleged [[WP:LOUTSOCK]] violation concerns the IP edits I made as 104.232.117.132 and 204.131.217.130 at [[Talk:The Epoch Times]]. I can't account for any other edits, as I haven't made any. <br> # I'm a brand-new editor. I made my edits from different locations. When I identified that the differing IPs might make the source of the edits confusing, I registered a username. After registering my username, I made no further IP edits. # I made no attempt to differentiate the focus, style, and structure of my IP and user edits. In some cases, I posted the exact same comment (<q class="inline-quote-talk ">"Please keep article talk pages clear of interpersonal comments and suggestions."</q>), first under an IP, then under my username post-registration. Additionally, when adding the topic "Semi-protected edit request 28 February 2024", I referred to <q class="inline-quote-talk ">"my conversation with Firefangledfeathers above"</q>. The final two edits I made in the previous topic can hardly be characterized as a conversation, and I felt it was obvious that I was referring to the topic/conversation as a whole. That the IP edits and edits under my username were very likely made by the same user was remarked upon by others: User:Firefangledfeathers:<q class="inline-quote-talk ">"The IPs are almost certainly the same person"</q>, User:Bbb23:<q class="inline-quote-talk ">"104.232.117.132 is likely the same person"</q> (note: these comments were made contemporary to/after my block). I would have been happy to confirm that relationship at the time of discussion if anyone thought the remaining margin of uncertainty was material. # For anyone still suspecting I am User:Ijeffsc, I'd ask them to see my response to the investigation in my previous appeal. Additionally, User:Ijeffsc was strongly opposed to the application of the label "far-right" to the Epoch Times. Given that a significant portion of the IP edits I made were concerned with identifying, summarizing, and arguing for the inclusion of sources that supported that the term "far-right" was accurate ([https://www.com.cuhk.edu.hk/publication/fang-journal-2023-dark.pdf one of which] is now included in the page[i.]), the IP edits contradict the claim that we are the same user. # In retrospect, I should have been explicitly clear about my new username (for that I would have had to suspect what was coming--life is full of surprises) and [[Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit|request attribution for my IP edits]], a mechanism of which I was unaware until after my block. At no point prior to User:Grayfell's edit <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Epoch_Times&diff=prev&oldid=1210761156 here]</span>[ii.] was any issue raised to me about my identity or edit attribution[iii.], either in the discussion or on my user talk page, nor were the IP edits mentioned in the evidence given in the investigation. This suggests that either [A.] my alleged deception re:[[WP:LOUTSOCK]] was subtle enough to evade notice or [B.] the continuation of my identity was obvious/inconsequential enough to all involved that clarification was unnecessary. Given the edits referenced in bullet [2.], the limited number of users involved in what is a relatively obscure discussion, and the inference that my alleged deception was significant (in that's it's block-worthy) and obvious (in that a decision was made with little discussion), it's difficult to see how [A.] was the case. Any case other than [B.] is contradicted by the fact that somebody could have, you know, asked me if they felt clarification was warranted. <br> To summarize: I appeal this block on the basis that '''[A.]''' there was no material doubt that the edits under 104.232.117.132, 204.131.217.130, and User:ClifV were made by the same user, '''[B.]''' there was no overlap in time between my IP edits and my username edits, '''[C.]''' there was no impact on the discussion from the authorship of those edits not being explicitly recognized, and '''[D.]''' a significant portion of the edits (specifically those concerning [https://www.com.cuhk.edu.hk/publication/fang-journal-2023-dark.pdf this source] made under 104.232.117.132) were totally inconsistent with the views and motivations attributed to User:Ijeffsc. <br><br> I had no intention to be deceptive. My intention has always been the improvement of the page. I've only gone where the sources have taken me, and despite the overall tenor of the conversation I'm moderately surprised and moderately pleased that changes based on my input have happened at all. ''Trust me'' when I say this has been a rapidly educational experience in respect to wiki guidelines, procedures, and practices. <br><br> <small>'''[i.]''' The source in question was described as a <q class="inline-quote-talk ">a great find</q> and to look <q class="inline-quote-talk ">promising... it cites multiple sources which may be relevant to this discussion</q> by User:Firefangledfeathers and User:Grayfell, respectively.<br> '''[ii.]''' The edit in question was made at 6:20 UTC, immediately after the creation (at 6:11 UTC, 28 Feb, also by User:Grayfell) of the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ijeffsc/Archive|investigation]] that resulted in my block. That investigation was concluded by User:Bbb23 at 14:57 UTC, 28 Feb, seven hours and forty-six minutes later. My timezone is PST. Whatever the procedures governing investigation timelines, a sub-eight-hour span between 10pm PST and 7am PST is not a realistic window in which to expect a reply. <br> '''[iii.]''' Users may wish to point to User:MrOllie's edit <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Epoch_Times&diff=prev&oldid=1210660500 here]</span> as an example of situation where [A.] his comment made me aware there was confusion as to the number of users, and [B.] that I declined to clarify demonstrated duplicity on my part. It was indeed clear to me that MrOllie was not aware at the time that 104.232.117.132 and User:ClifV were the same user. Though I felt uneasy with the situation, I was unaware (again, brand-new editor) of any guidelines on the topic, had found the majority of my interactions with MrOllie to be terse and unproductive, and made the (possibly mistaken) judgement call to not continue an exchange that had already strayed off-topic by correcting him. It was clear to me from that point that editing with a single username (as I had already chosen to do before, and would continue to do after) was good practice, as the same confusion could have arisen between edits under 104.232.117.132 and 204.131.217.130.</small>  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

ClifV (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts:
  1. If CheckUser found a connection between the previously mentioned IP edits and User:Ijeffsc, then it is evidence that User:Ijeffsc has committed the WP:LOUTSOCK violation (likewise for a relationship between User:Ijeffsc and User:ClifV in respect to WP:BADSOCK)[i.]. If CheckUser found no connection between Ijeffsc and the IP edits, but did find a connection between the IP edits and User:ClifV, all that's been confirmed is that a person (me) made IP edits prior to registering as User:ClifV.
  2. My assessment of my obligation to connect my username to my IP edits, and presumed wrongdoing in failure to do so, was far more rigorous than the reality: "To protect their privacy, editors who have edited while logged out are never required to connect their usernames to their IP addresses on-wiki" and "If you have concerns that an IP editor is actually a user with an account who is editing while logged out in a way that is inappropriate, you can give the IP editor notice of this policy".
  3. Given that that ship has obviously sailed, I would like to state clearly that I give permission for information obtained by CheckUser on the activity of User:ClifV to be released, per the privacy policy which "requires that identifying information not be disclosed except... with the permission of the affected user". I understand that I am prohibited from making CheckUser requests for myself, and additionally cannot mandate that the information in question be released.
  4. User:Ijeffsc appears to be active again. Maybe we can all talk this out?
[i.] If either was the case, why was the responsible party/connection between the two named accounts left unconfirmed in the appeal rejection, and the new allegation of WP:LOUTSOCK applied to User:ClifV?

@Deepfriedokra: I'm crying out for some skepticism here.
ClifV (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit]

Hello User:Ijeffsc, I'm tracking. ClifV (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Timepiece Goes To Washington[edit]

Hello again User:Ijeffsc. To any interested parties, I contacted Ijeffsc off wiki via email (post-block, of course). I'm making this edit simultaneous to his to confirm that we are, in fact, not the same person. ClifV (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatsapp conversation
Conversation on synchronization of User:Ijeffsc's message and my previous message is shown to the left. Time was synchronized with [1]https://clock.zone/. At the time of the conversation we were approximately 14,500km/9,000mi apart, give or take a few k. ClifV (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClifV&oldid=1213362897"