User talk:DoSazunielle

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

Welcome[edit]

Hello, DoSazunielle, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} 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 username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Your submission at Articles for creation: Omar Blondin Diop (October 2)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, DoSazunielle! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Swaziland News (October 6)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dutty Boukman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jamaican. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christian Thams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zambezia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John M Wolfson[edit]

I can see that you're a fairly new user, so I'd like to start by thanking you for getting involved with Wikipedia. That being said, I'd also like to respectfully request that you remove your question to John M Wolfson asking about his political beliefs. As a rule, Wikipedians focus on content, not the contributor. Asking about his political beliefs isn't really relevant to his abilities as an editor and RfA candidate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RfA candidate already answered your question, so my request for you to voluntarily remove it is a moot point now. That being said, I cannot stress this enough: Wikipedia is not a battleground and political views have no bearing on how an editor approaches their work. I strongly urge you to focus on content, not the contributor. OhKayeSierra (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused about the battleground thing, since I was not and (to my knowledge) have never been in some kind of conflict with the person being nominated. The third question asked was about editing conflicts and stress, which seems to suggest to me that it's okay to ask about how "personal" attributes affect work done on the site, so I'm a little surprised to be told it was wrong to even ask the question when the person is free to respond or not respond as they see fit. DoSazunielle (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@OhKayeSierra - DoSazunielle simply asked how the candidate's political views may affect their editing and you are accusing the user of treating Wikipedia as a battleground? Sorry, but you seem to be unreasonably assuming bad faith here. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Foxnpichu (and DoSazunielle), the first line of WP:BATTLEGROUND states that Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Although I sincerely doubt it was intentional, I still think that the question might fit the bill for that threshold. In my experience, users who view editing through a partisan lens tend to, more often than not, be on the receiving end of a disruptive editing block for it. My messages above were an attempt to encourage the user to avoid it, since I felt that it was an unintentional mistake. That being said, I apologize if I worded my message a bit too harshly. OhKayeSierra (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kaye. I appreciate your response. As far as I can tell, Sazunielle's question was asked in a neutral manner. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question was unfortunately totally inadmissible. The fact that you are a new user with little or no Wikipedia experience and not really enough to be participating in an RfA just yet is no excuse for what should be ordinary common sense and respect for people's privacy which we hold for sacred on Wikipedia. However, although we're mercifully tolerant here at Wikipedia, we do not aspire to being social educators, so while we need all the help we can get, please be mindful if you are going to be involved in our back rooms so early in your Wiki-career, choose something easier and/or more urgent to do and you'll enjoy your time here and get all he help you need. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read my post again Andrew nyr - it's got absolutely nothing whatsoever about him being a newbie or 'quirks of Wikipedia', and my comment was polite and helpful to the extent of being almost obsequious. Ask a question like that of a stranger in an English pub and you'll be told to mind your own f'ing business in no uncertain terms, if they don't actually escort you to the door to boot - provided you're your old enough to be in a pub in the first place... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ask a question like that of a stranger in an English pub ???? This is no pub, this is RfA! The election for one of the most important offices in Wikipedia!Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I see many AGF failures here. It is most certainly correct that editors who openly express views which go against equalities or human rights-based legislation are disruptive and may not be here to build an encyclopaedia. I seriously doubt DoSazunielle was being inflammatory with their line of questioning. Patient Zerotalk 17:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, when you are at a pub, you are generally minding your own business and not putting yourself forward for people to examine you. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That much is true, Foxnpichu. Although if the individual were not wearing a face covering then they should not be surprised to find themselves examined. I have no clue how this pertains to the analogy but it is rather apt for 2020. Patient Zerotalk 20:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose. Never thought about that. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Foxnpichu, Jeromi Mikhael, Patient Zero, Kohlrabi Pickle, and Andrew nyr: and others who don't grasp the analogy I was making, either do not understand the enormous importance in our Wikipedia culture of respecting people's privacy (that's one of the reasons why we misguidedly still allow editing by IPs), or they don't understand British social culture which may be an enigma for our cousins across the water, or Asia where I live and people don't give a damn either way, or just aren't old enough to enter a pub anyway - which leads me to believe that some editors are still in grade school or high school and don't realise that many Wikipedia editors are are old enough to be their grandparents and have a solid academic career behind them. Please, people, just look before you leap - Wikipedia is serious stuff, not a MMORPG or something to do on your knee with a hand-held while the teacher isn't looking. Anyway, it's all moot now because DoSazunielle has now been blocked. That said, to AGF a little bit, their lack of discretion in their RfA question was probably just due to naïvety. Before my retirement, I was one of the most committed editors to helping new users, and BTW, for years I also did more than any other single editor to try and get the venue of RFA cleaned up from all the nonsense that sadly still goes on there. See also: WP:Advice for RfA voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, I don't mean to undervalue your contributions to Wikipedia or support for new editors, which are clearly outsize on both counts. I was educated in Cambridge and am familiar with British social culture, but neither the British accent nor your seniority comes through on text, so I misread the tone of your message and I imagine the others did too. I joined in to add a voice of support for the new editor who was being pilloried on all sides both at the RfA and then increasingly on their own talk page too. Being a new editor on Wikipedia is overwhelming enough as it is. I thought it quite sufficient that we all agreed that John didn't have to answer the question (though he did in exemplary fashion) and that Sazunielle was informed that it was an inappropriate one to ask. As you say, the issue is now moot pending their unblock appeal. I hope you do continue to spend time on Wikipedia, perhaps with the newer editors who come with enthusiasm and without political baggage. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m 20 years old and from Scotland, so that doesn’t exactly apply to me. Foxnpichu (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in my twenties, from the UK, and don't appreciate the ageist and condescending attitude. I'm in my final year of an undergraduate degree and intend on applying for a PhD if I am able to skip my Masters. I've also been here for many years and certainly don't see Wikipedia as some sort of online game; I have always taken it rather seriously. I would also posit that, if anything, a lot of younger people tend to be more aware of issues in the world these days. I have younger cousins who surprise me with their political knowledge. Patient Zerotalk 14:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I think it's fair to say that, given that you could've just looked at the userpages of Foxnpichu, Kohlrabi Pickle and I, that your comments implying we are all children are uncalled for. Patient Zerotalk 14:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, come on. Just because we are young British people doesn't automatically make us clueless chavs. Regardless, can we please stop arguing? I feel this conversation is getting really silly. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for socking?[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't even know what socking is or what disruption I'm guilty of. The block says "no expiry set"—does that mean permanently? Is this ban global or just on English Wikipedia? Can someone please explain so I can either learn what rule I broke or appeal if it's not clear I broke any rules? DoSazunielle (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I looked into the common block reasons & am assuming "socking" refers to sockpuppetry. I don't have any other accounts, so I don't understand how I could be guilty of sockpuppetry. In terms of "Disruptive not new accounts", the only thing I could think of is the question I asked of the newly nominated administrator, which there is some discussion of on my talk page. I believe I explained clearly why I felt the question was relevant, and certainly didn't have any intent to do anything other than learn more about how the user operates on the site and what implications they may have for being an administrator. Other commenters also noted that there seemed to be a lack of assumption of good faith on the part of people who wanted to reprimand me for asking the question, and I would agree; I was not aware that any kind of question was forbidden in this process. I hope this further explains clearly why I don't believe this block is justified and would like to be able to edit Wikipedia once again. DoSazunielle (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a block for inappropriate use of multiple accounts, your other behavior is not relevant. Can you explain your relationship to any other Wikipedia accounts? In particular, this account is  Confirmed to 623mutaNadu based on technical evidence, you will need to explain why that is. ST47 (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2020 (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.

  • I had asked ST47 for their opinion just before I made the block myself, not realizing there was cross over on End SARS with these two users. But yes, the user involved is 623mutaNadu. This can always be identified by looking in my block log and see if there is a user blocked with the same reason. Beyond that, it is also clear, these two accounts aren't the person's first accounts. While I don't have any checkuser evidence beyond the one account, there were indications also through checkuser that also back that theory that this is not their first round of accounts. Either way, for now we can just let the original question play out. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:59, 20 October 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

(I don't know if I need to make a new request to respond to the question, but doing so just in case…someone can correct me if there's a different code to use.) In response to ST47 and AmandaNP's notes, since again I have never had any other accounts I don't know how "technical evidence" could make me the other user you pointed out. Is this an IP address thing? If so, not sure how that's anything I can control—I have been the only person who uses the computer I'm currently on for at least a couple of years at this point. I also thought it was known that IP addresses aren't exact matches with individuals. Regardless, I have no idea who the other user is & am not sure why I should be forbidden from editing based on some technical evidence I don't understand. I took a brief look at their contributions and they all seem to be mobile device edits; I find editing on mobile a pain due to my workflow & would rather not even try. I guess it is possible that this person might have had previous accounts but I have no idea how I would have gotten caught up in this & don't know how to prove I have never had an account before (or after) making this one at the beginning of the month. I think that answers most of the points brought up but if there is some kind of evidence or something that I can present to somehow prove I only have one account I would be happy to present it, if anyone would let me know exactly what it is I need to do. DoSazunielle (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well, either you and your really close personal friend took up the same hobby of editing the same Wikipedia page, or it’s the same person. I tend to go with Ockham’s razor. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2020 (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.

  • Answering your question, DoSazunielle, some users have access to a tool called CheckUser, which allows them to view IP addresses and such of users. Honestly... it is capable of making mistakes. I was once "confirmed" as a sockmaster I had never even heard of prior. Unfortunately, these things are expected to not be displayed publicly, so users are expected to simply trust those with the powers.
Regardless of whether these two users are the same or not, I find it difficult to see why DoSazunielle should be blocked? If we were almost completely certain that they are definitely part of a sockmaster, then I would understand, but CheckUser apparently just thinks they are alternative accounts of somebody? The whole CheckUser systems is weird if you ask me.
If we find out that DoSazunielle is a sock, but of a non-blocked user, can we unblock the user under the condition that he/she can only use one account? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, they are both editing End SARS, which is a violation of the sock policy. If they are going to edit the same page, the disclosure is required, as noted in the policy. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AmandaNP, respectfully, I feel compelled to draw your attention to the optics of this block and its detrimental effects on the Wikipedia project as a whole. Sazunielle has, since asking an inappropriate question on an RfA, been blocked from Wikipedia following a "random spot-check" of his edits which yielded an unrelated and harmless instance of editing involving multiple accounts. (I call the edits harmless, because on the End SARS page, it made no difference whether those edits came from one account or two.) Remedying the harm takes little more than a stern warning on Sazunielle's talk page and a block of the other account, with a promise that if it happens again, that Sazunielle and any sockpuppets would be blocked permanently. A permanent block sends the message that:
  • Any new or junior editor who wants to voice an opinion or participate in decision-making must be prepared to be investigated and have the rule-book thrown at them.
  • Mistakes, even if both innocent and harmless, are impermissible.
I think that given the breadth and complexity of Wikipedia's rules and policies, this creates a punishingly high bar to editing. Sazunielle's confusion and bewilderment at the block only enhances this perception. I write this with the best of intentions and I hope you will not mistake my concern for disrespect. Considerations like this are frequently accounted for in courts of law, and I feel that they should figure in an administrator's decision-making as well. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC) CE'd comment at 04:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should use the term "indefinite", not "permanent". Foxnpichu (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ProcrastinatingReader: (I apologize also, I did not recieve this specific ping) No. While the initial edits at RfA are what brought it to my attention, there are several other things I always check for. Please note that now in listing these, I show sockmasters how to continue socking without being caught. Since the whole reason why we are here is RfA, yes, editing an RfA within 2 weeks of your first edit seems improbable for a first time editor. Beyond that, RfAs are targeted by banned users from an offwiki site on a regular basis, and as I linked, you can see a direct threat to sock on a thread about this RfA. This is a regular occurrence. Beyond that, this user had several additional signs that this was not their first account. I'm also sure that I'll be mocked on their site at somepoint for bringing this up. We can start with their first edit which was to add a reference with full template knowledge and using a ref "name" which is advanced wikitext. I wouldn't have known how to do that when I started. Their third edit was to use a script to make an assisted edit. New editors never know how scripts work. They also were aware of other wikis (like French and Commons). In this edit, they show intricate knowledge of infoboxes. Then they began to engage in requested moves. They also knew how to add categories. In this edit, they mention naming conventions which is a category we have full of policies that newcomers don't regularly know about. From there, they began to use hotcat to add categories, something someone who is only familiar with the edit interface could do. This is all just 5 days after starting to edit. They do this continually up and to the RfA. For me, this is way beyond justification to run a check as it's a returning editor causing disruption at an RfA with a lot of already existing Wikipedia experience. I'm sure you could find many more by cirtically analyzing their edits via the advice at Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry. I would hope that you come to the same conclusion that this check is justified as it's a regularily ran check. If not, I always feel the need to mention that you can invoke the audit function of the Arbitration Committee or the Ombuds commission (I'm part of the 2nd group but I never participate or talk about issues against myself). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, there is an entire forum website dedicated to making fun of Wikipedia? Wow. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AmandaNP:: just a final, gentle ping, in case our messages got lost in the stack and you'd like to address our concerns. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the delay in getting to your concerns. I haven't particularly had the energy to sit down and think about what to say and write in detail, and it was still on my list. I'll try to do so now. With absolute respect, the optics of any block are not my issue. I am following community established policies and procedures based on what is an is not allowed. I see you also quote the words random spot-check to talk about my reviewing of this users contributions and I don't see anywhere where I have mentioned that. When I consider matters of sockpuppetry and blocks, I take the time to go through contributions to ensure there are policy violations. Given my explanation above, I think it's clear to indicate that I didn't preform a random spot-check in this case. As directly noted at WP:ILLEGIT, contributing to the same page is listed as an inappropriate use of an alternate account. The fact that there was no 'true' disruption outside of the fact that they didn't disclose accounts is like saying there is no victim to funds stolen from a community organization. In fact, I dispute that outright. If we allow that type of behavoir, people could sneakily edit for years providing false information on the same article and edit war without anyone knowing (See also WP:SCRUTINY). I understand that has yet to happen here, but it is what happens on a regular basis and I block on a regular basis for this. I also strongly dispute that my actions or investigations send a negative message to new contributors or say that mistakes are inpermissible. Mistakes can be explained and dealt with. The thing here is this, on weight, is not a mistake. It is someone who has edited beyond these two accounts and has violated the sockpuppetry policy, who should be seemingly aware of it given their extensive Wikipedia knowledge so far. So as I noted, I can understand it may not look like the best action at first glance, but this is not something I take lightly. I have also blocked people in the past for similiar behavoir (Examples DecisiveDomination and AurumPower), though it is a rare action I take. If there is still a concern that my block is out of line, I feel obligated to point out that WP:AN is an option if you think that I have stepped outside of existing policies, the spirit of them, and discretion. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay in replying. I had sent AmandaNP a Wiki email suggesting that the diff with her reply be hidden if she feels that it shows sockmasters how to sock without being caught. I haven't received a reply but I leave the decision to her better judgment and enough time has now passed that I think I should wrap up here. AmandaNP's explanation was helpful and I appreciate that she acknowledged our concerns. I understand now that her check on DoSazunielle was motivated by the RfA, but that there was good reason to investigate suspicious entries on the RfA. The check then revealed tell-tale signs of sockpuppetry that made it exceedingly unlikely that the question and multiple accounts were innocent or accidental.
A negative message to junior contributors can be conveyed with even the best of intentions and I think I should reiterate what prompted my message. At least three contributors on this page were disturbed by the optics of the block, which would (at least for me) have had a chilling effect. I'm the most junior editor in this discussion, and I vividly remember what it felt like to be a new editor, overwhelmed by the rules and policies of this page, many of which (including the ban on having multiple accounts) are not intuitive. This explanation was essential for me not to come away with the perception that it was an improperly targeted investigation. As I suggested in my email, if the risk of publicly explaining is that it would embolden sockmasters, then there should be an option for Wikipedia editors to request explanations privately (maybe on Wikimail) for administrative decisions. This is so that one isn't left needing to engage in the acrimonious process of complaining to an ombudsman, audit committee or administrator's noticeboard when it really isn't necessary. I thank AmandaNP for her time in replying to us. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kohlrabi Pickle - Yeah, honestly, I would have probably never began contributing to Wikipedia in the first place had I known about all the policies from the get-go. When I first began, I started adding tons of original research into articles and being so confused why they were getting reverted. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something I forgot to mention, for DoSazunielle, I am really sorry for all the needles flack and scrutiny you have had to go through. I genuinely trust you as an editor and I honestly admire you, as I feel you have handled this in a mature manner. Unfortunately, regardless of whether this is your only account or not, it is going to be very difficult to convince the admin that the former is the case. Your best bet is to go inline with the standard offer, which involves waiting six months, and then try to discuss things with the admin team. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The no connection argument doesn't hold any water with me. Yes, this connection is made via an IP address which is registered to a company that has extremely static single-user (or household) residential IP addresses. You are right that 623mutaNadu almost exclusively edits from mobile devices and ranges. In fact, it looks to be setup that way so that there is never a connection to a house on that account. The problem is, a mistake was made and an edit was made from the same internet connection you have. Your account seemed to be setup for completely home use. Had that mistake not been made, I wouldn't have drawn the connection. Throw on top that you decided to edit the same article, and that just about guarantees it is the same person. Beyond that, if you weren't the same person (which I can't believe right now), then ArbComs ruling on meatpuppetry applies. I'm going into WP:BEANS territory to explain this. So therefore, based on the evidence before me, can't go with your assumption that you aren't the same person. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know anything about this other person, so I don't know why they would or wouldn't use any specific kinds of internet access? If I understand what WP:MEAT is correctly, you're saying that if this isn't me, this is someone who I've…been bothering to take my side in things on Wikipedia? I reviewed WP:BEANS also but frankly the reference is lost on me. As mentioned in my unblock request, I don't know anything about this other user's life (I definitely haven't attempted to "recruit" anyone to win an argument for me on Wikipedia) or editing habits (other than what's been told to me in the course of my unblock request) & can't take responsibility for it, but you seem convinced I am responsible. It sounds like this would likely just become an eternal loop of "I'm telling you, I don't know who this is" & "You totally know who this is because it's you". Therefore, I think all I can do is ask again if you and any other administrators who review unblock requests have specific steps I can take to demonstrate that I have & have ever had one and only one account. I would be more than happy to engage in them, if anyone would just tell me what they are. DoSazunielle (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, I can see why it appears to be the case that these accounts are related. I can also see why it may be possible a mistake has been made. “End SARS” is a highly trending topic right now on Twitter and other social media. Patient Zerotalk 10:57, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Omar Blondin Diop has been accepted[edit]

Omar Blondin Diop, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Swedish slave traders[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Swedish slave traders requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 17:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Swaziland News (December 19)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SL93 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
SL93 (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock review: The reasons for the block are false or unexplained[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm requesting an unblock review for my account. There are two reasons listed for my block: "Disruptive not new accounts, socking". In regards to "Disruptive not new accounts", there was never any explanation as to what actions I took that were so disruptive as to require an indefinite block, even though I specifically asked. One admin posted a strange theory about how I must have been a previously blocked user because I was too competent. I thought being willing to learn how editing tools work early on would help show that I am serious about contributing to Wikipedia, but apparently it's actually a point against me. In regards to "socking", in the discussion above I explained at length that I don't know who this other account is and repeatedly offered to take any steps requested to demonstrate my account is my only one. My offers were ignored. The other supposed evidence that I was this other user was that we both edited the End SARS page. This struck me as ridiculous; End SARS, as someone pointed out, was a social movement receiving widespread media coverage at the time and therefore many people would (and did) have interest in editing the page. Finally, in the discussion above, Kohlrabi Pickle and Foxnpichu raised important points that should have been taken more seriously. DoSazunielle (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sockpuppetry was confirmed and is not in doubt. Yamla (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2021 (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.

  • I find it amusing how Do is going out of his/her way to try and demonstrate how he/she is not a sock, yet the offer just gets blatantly ignored. At the same time, when Do tries to question anything about the block, he/she gets a really vague answer, or no answer at all. Just because the user has been "confirmed" by somebody they might not be does not mean he/she deserves this lack of respect. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:The Swaziland News[edit]

Information icon Hello, DoSazunielle. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Swaziland News, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:The Swaziland News[edit]

Hello, DoSazunielle. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Swaziland News".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DoSazunielle&oldid=1090219255"