User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad/Archive 14

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your block of Winglebop Doodlepants
Hi,

I have been one of the main contributors to the article on August Ames and I recently noticed that one of the contributors, going by the handle of User:Winglebop Doodlepants had their edit summaries deleted and I could not see what they wrote. This, I assume, is because the edit summary contained some information that people on Wikipedia didn't want to appear on the history.

Based on the information that was not completely hidden from view, it seems to me that this user was adding accurate information that is publicly available in the form of Tweets. While I understand that we must reference everything that we put on Wikipedia, it is of note that what he said is publicly available and is completely accurate.

While I obviously can't say the same for the deleted edit summaries, because I can't see them, my suspicion is that that was factually accurate too.

I understand and agree with the decision to block this user for poor behaviour and for not adhering to guidelines, however, given that they appear to have been adding factually accurate, albeit unsourced, information, I think that an indefinite block is probably not warranted, and instead a shorter block would be more appropriate, perhaps of a week, or maybe even a month.

It seems to me that he came to Wikipedia with good intentions, to add accurate information, but didn't understand the need for sources, especially since anyone following the case closely, such as I have been, would know inherently that what he said was correct. It is, at least amongst people following the case, common knowledge, and he appeared to be quoting Tweets.

If you come with good intentions and find your accurate information treated as if it were abusive, I think most people would get upset.

This seems to me to be a bit of a misunderstanding, based on the perception of Wikipedia editors that the information added by this user was inaccurate, when in reality it was accurate.

I therefore do not believe that an indefinite block is warranted, and I think instead he should be given a shorter block and then, if he repeats the same kind of behaviour, it can be lengthened as appropriate. Going straight to an indefinite block seems to me to be a bit over the top.

Perhaps, with the new year coming up, a block that expires on perhaps 1st of January 2018 might be appropriate? Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Editors who start out with the word "scumbag" and then proceed to throw around the words "fuck" and "cuck" with every single comment are not editors who are likely to change or to be rehabilitated. The editor is capable of appealing their own block, via the template provided on their talkpage. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * My message was to the owner of this talk page, not a talk page stalker. I was merely trying to shed some light on what appears to be a misunderstanding.  There is no need for such rudeness from an uninvolved party.  Thank you. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * On looking at the user page, I see that he has blocked 1451 users, reblocked 129 and unblocked just 10, so the chances are pretty slim lol. People tend to have better responses when someone else stands up for them.  And the fact is that what he was adding was factual, even if it was a bit rudely done.  To go straight to indefinite block from absolutely nothing seems overly harsh to me, especially given he was falsely accused of adding in false information, when the information was in fact accurate, but was not sourced. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , as an administrator I can guarantee you that the redacted edits by Winglebop were very much not okay for Wikipedia. Not only was it full of profanity, but it made outrageous and quite frankly libellous claims about the subject. The revdel was completely justified. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Still no responses from the person I asked the question of. Incredible.  Bullying much? Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a talk page, not a phone call. GAB might be asleep, at work, driving, flying on a jet to Tijuana... Primefac (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * GAB is typically around later in the day, or what the day is for me anyway (it's 10am here). I'm sure they'll tell you pretty much what Softlavender and Primefac have already said. Far from bullying, the posts that Winglebop Doodlepants left on the article were grossly offensive and exposed Wikipedia to potential legal liability due to violations of our biographies of living persons policy. They have been removed under criteria RD2, RD3, and RD6 of the revision deletion guideline. It's rare for an editor to tick one of those boxes; Doodlepants hit three of them. An immediate indefinite block was absolutely the right call. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In any case, User:Mister Sneeze A Lot needs to drop these attacks on other editors which, ironically, might be seen by some as bullying. My earlier encounter was when I tried to explain to him that both "artefact" and "artifact" used in articles about archaeology were correct, one being primarily BritEng and the other American. He called this (with a section heading "That's very rude of you" "an ignorance issue" and said that all he "was doing was correcting a mistake, and you choose to be a whopping great jerk about it. It is a very minor thing, but I expect you to correct that mistake, because otherwise you look like an idiot.  Thank you for not being so rude and obnoxious."  Doug Weller  talk 15:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean falsely, not ironically. And they are not attacks.  They are requests for bullying to end.  Thanks. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * For the record (and I am aware that the OP is now blocked), GeneralizationsAreBad has a banner at the top of this page (which he placed on December 5 ) which says he will be away till December 19. Hence, one reason I replied to the OP. Softlavender (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all of you for handling this - I'm loving Tijuana. Just for the record, the material I revdelled is indeed why I blocked the OP WD in the first place. GABgab 01:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, have fun dude! Just for the record, I think you mean rather than the OP . -- Softlavender (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Outreach and Invitations:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
 * Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
 * If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: . Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive
 * A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
 * Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. —  TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 
 * ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
 * The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Removal of my comment
So your name is generalizationsisbad, not a good name for you sir. Why then did you remove my change from David Irving's wiki? Calling someone a holocaust denier without any evidence is absolutely repulsive and a libelous generalization. There is no footnote that cites the exact evidence that he is, in fact, a holocaust denier. Therefore, it is null, libelous and must be removed. I have direct evidence in multiple cases that prove this term is misleading, libelous, and fundamentally wrong. It is nothing more than a smear word that has too far of an ambiguous definition for a top line on a Wikipedia page. If you would like I can provide you with direct evidence straight from the horse's mouth. David Irving talking about the facts of the holocaust at length in several different sources. Holocaust denial means that you do not believe the holocaust happened. David Irving, in fact, believes that the holocaust happened. Just like Hannah Arendt, he has a different opinion about it than you but that does not give you the justification to judge him wrongly. History will rebuke you for your transgressions against it. Noting him as a World war II historian in the first line is absolutely more appropriate, and if there are any discrepancies on what should and should not believed about his role in denying the holocaust should be decided by presenting evidence in later paragraphs of the page and not a simple biased and fundamentally wrong statement at the top of the page. This is not an opinion. It is absolute fact that David Irving does not deny the Holocaust. I cite Hitler's War and his many discussions on youtube on the topic of the Holocaust. Some of which he goes into in-depth detail about Sobibor Treblinka and Majdanek.

http_s://_youtu_.be/u9MckJcbs3w

Here is the first case, and probably the best, as the rest you will have to purchase to read. remove the underscores. blacklists mean nothing as wikipedia is not a credible source anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.154.2 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) I didn't revert you. 2) That's not a generalization. 3) It's well-sourced. GABgab 00:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in but this is clearly a troll post. I have blocked them for a week. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

A Favor
Would it be at all possible if I could ask you to block ? It's being used by the same vandal you recently blocked at --Mr Fink (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to be dealt with now. GABgab 01:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you anyhow.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

NP Ping
I'll email you some info within the next day as there's some info I don't feel comfy sharing on wiki. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Blocking tools consultation
Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.

We are specifically contacting you for your ideas because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on en Wikipedia. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. You can post to the discussion in the language that you are most comfortable expressing your ideas.

Other ways that you can help

 * Spread the word that the consultation is happening; this is an important discussion for making decisions about improving the blocking tools.
 * If you know of current or previous discussions about blocking tools that happened on your wiki, share the links.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

husainid dynasty
would you be able to add husainid dynaty on List of Turkic dynasties and countries, he was assimilated into turks but of orginally greek A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period', by Jamil M. Abun-Nasr, page 173 states, "He was an indigenized "Turk" of Greek origins, who had a Tunisian mother. Sazz10(talk) 22:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ... GABgab 18:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry involving IPs
Hi GAB. I've discovered evidence of an extensive pattern of a registered user editing as multiple IPs while logged out and then logging in and representing themselves as a different person in order to create fake consensus. I'd take them to SPI if it weren't for this. So if CU can't be used to connect registered accounts to IPs, then what can be done in these sorts of situations? This editor isn't exactly going to fess up after engaging in such extensive subterfuge. Should I open an SPI and ask for a behavioral analysis? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep - we can still connect named accounts and IPs, but only behaviorally. SPI is still an option GABgab 18:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Block of 113.198.233.46
Thanks for your quick action against vandalism from 113.198.233.46, but did you see the note at the top of his talk page? 113.198.233.46 is a university IP where the university admins have requested short blocks + contacting them in the event of vandalism. Iwilsonp (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The note at the top of the page seems to pertain to vandalism. The IP is blocked for being an open proxy / sockpuppetry. SQL Query me!  23:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems likely that the university admins didn't know the distinctions between just vandalism and sockpuppetry and meant abuse in general to keep their IP open (at least that's what I would mean if I was a university admin...) Iwilsonp (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've emailed the contact listed - I am not sure what proxy was detected, every scan I've run comes up with nothing. SQL Query me!  03:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspected it as a proxy, but I'd be willing to unblock if that conclusion isn't warranted. The suspicious behavior (socking) led me to that conclusion. GABgab 18:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW I dont think it is a proxy. Every check I ran came up negative. SQL Query me!  22:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked the IP. Whatever it is, it seemed suspicious to me at the time. GABgab 20:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably for the best for now, thanks! As to 'being responsive' to abuse reports, I still hadn't received a reply to my email as of today. SQL Query me!  20:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians
Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Block evading IP account
IP account 94.176.89.105 is from the same user as 94.177.76.53 and 94.177.75.219. Apparently a persistent block evader, simply hopping from IP to IP. Can you deal with that one? Regards, Akocsg (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but could you please specify the similarities between these IPs? Thanks, GABgab 20:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * That user is practically stalking me. One common point is that he's writing messages to mods/admins complaining about my alleged "disruptive edits" etc. The IPs are also practically the same. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
 Merry Christmas !!

Hi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello GeneralizationsAreBad: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

SPI help
Hi Admin! You said, "the next time you need to file an SPI, please just follow the directions… Otherwise, it just creates more work for the SPI team." It says, "The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected."

However, each time the user made his wiki account, he only seems to be creating only his userpage. Even he links facebook, twitter and may be personal blogs, he might thinks that the wiki is also a social media to have some personal info to be shared. If he is only editing his userpage, nowadays seems to be only one edit per page, is this still necessary to mention that edit? Isn't this enough to mention his similar birth-details in each userpage?

Is this necessary to check someone from tools if he is visibly sock, like SPI says, "A request for CheckUser can be helpful when abuse is likely but the visible public evidence alone is insufficient to show the underlying situation clearly." Further, it says that in these cases, do not request CheckUser:
 * Block. No checkuser is necessary.
 * Obvious, disruptive sock puppet
 * Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits

Please guide, Thanks! M. Billoo 04:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This person's socks are very obvious, so we are able to block them quickly. The issue is the formatting of the case filing, not whether the evidence is strong enough. Here is how to properly file an SPI:


 * 1: At WP:SPI, find where it says "How to open an investigation" in bold. Click the "show" button on the right.
 * 2: You'll see an empty box saying "Sockmaster's username." Since in this case, it's Shameel Done, that's what you should type in. Then click "submit."
 * 3: This will bring you to another page. Where it says "sock1=" put the username of the suspected sockpuppet. Where it says "evidence=" you put the evidence and other comments. Click preview to make sure everything looks good, then submit the case.
 * There's an alternate method that you can use if you have Twinkle installed; it will make life a lot easier. If so, you just go to the userpage of the suspected sock. At the top of your page, next to the search bar, you will see the "TW" dropdown tab. When you hover your mouse over that, you'll see the "ARV" button. Click it, then select the setting "Sockpuppet (WP:SPI)." Then, where it says "Sockpuppeteer," put in the sockmaster's username (in this case, Shameel Done.) Type your evidence in the "Evidence" box, then click "Submit."
 * I hope that this is helpful. Thanks, GABgab 17:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind response! When I became regular here in August 2016, I saw that the mobile version had not even option to view an edit history by comparing two. It also says that "Undo" is not supported in mobile. But may be just a few months back, this feature became available. As compared August 2016, now a lot of changes have been updated here to use wikipedia. Wanted to share this to just ask if this feature is available in mobile mode? I am a mobile user, should I use desktop version in my mobile? Because desktop version leaves so much cache in mobile to slow it down, I don't prefer using it until I have really a desktop machine. I have seen a lot of difference in both; my mobile and my computer. Thanks! M. Billoo 17:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not really use mobile, so I can't offer much advice here - sorry. GABgab 15:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

HaizadSys
Hi GAB. As soon as your two week block expired, is at it again at. Best of the Season to you by the way. Dr.  K.  04:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Final warning issued... GABgab 15:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you GAB. Best regards. Dr.   K.  16:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Muboshgu
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg None

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news
 * The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
 * The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration
 * Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , ,.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Jason Rich Smith needs merging with an older case
On further investigation, this needs to be merged with Sockpuppet investigations/JaySmith2018/Archive. I may have a couple to add. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. GABgab 01:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks like at least some of them are globally locked. Doug Weller  talk 13:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI
Saw. You may want to compare. If so, maybe add to the list? (I think I saw the other account you may have had in mind also) I see a familiar pattern. And, there will be more. Montanabw (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta
Tito Dutta (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Page-move vandalism
Do you know who the master of this account is? It seems there is history here. Either way, their sandbox is G5 worthy. Home Lander (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleted. There could be a couple of different masters here, but it doesn't really matter. GABgab 02:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good enough, thanks. Home Lander (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

New account
Hello there! I would like to create a new account, but last time I did so it got permanently banned and this account got a temporary block for sockpuppeting. I appealed the decision, explaining that I would not be using this account again, but the appeal was rejected and so I suppose I'm stuck with this one for now. Do you know how I'd be able to go about creating a new account? Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry for the delay - things have been hectic lately and are just starting to calm down. I advise you take a look at WP:CLEANSTART. Best, GABgab 03:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

SPI case name
I have question about the naming conventions for SPI case pages, and this case in particular. The listed master account is actually unrelated, and the names of all the accounts that are linked to each other are references to racist meme that I'd rather not give visibility to if I can help it. What do you make of it? Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Which is the most innocuous username of them all? BTW, I wouldn't advise having any of the unblocked accounts blocked, or tagging anyone. Regards, GABgab 21:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Of the ones listed, it's probably Knuckles667. Without the context of the other usernames, there's nothing really wrong with that one. However, there's probably more socks out there. I'm still waiting for input from The Bushranger regarding the account they blocked. Maybe a better option will present itself. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Reminder about Blocking consultation
Hello again,

The discussion about new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools is happening on English Wikipedia and is in the final days. Also there is a global discussion about the same topic on meta.

We contacted you because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on this wiki. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. Thank you if you have already shared your thoughts. There is still time to share your ideas.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or by email.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Query about sockpuppets
Hi there

I'm getting in touch because you're a clerk for sockpuppet investigations.

I am new to Wikipedia (since December 2017) and didn't realise until today that the guidelines were to have only one account. I have kept more than one so that I could keep different projects clear in my head and to keep separate watchlists (although these started to overlap). When someone suspected I was using more than one account (because I was), they said I was a 'sockpuppet', which I had to look up.

Now that I know better, I am only using this account. My query is that, since I have three accounts, how can I be open about this? Or can I shut the other two down? The intention hasn't been a deceitful one, but I'd like to clear it up.

Any advice much appreciated!

Fugitivedave (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

SPI already filed, there is zero chance this guy has only been around since December, I busted him and now he's hoping to cover his arse Darkness Shines (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I really have only been here since December! I'll wait to be contacted, then. It's a shame it's come to this but I'll do what I'm asked. Fugitivedave (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , you need to make a statement at the SPI, disclose all your accounts, and explain why you think you did not abuse your multiple accounts. You need to do this asap, before any action is taken. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. How do I do that? Sorry, I don't know where to find that page. Fugitivedave (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)