User talk:MountClew

Welcome!
  Hello, MountClew!  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Getting Started

Tutorial Learn everything you need to know to get started. Introduction to contributing • Editing

• Referencing

• Images

• Tables

• Policies and guidelines

• Talk pages

• Navigating

• Manual of Style

The Teahouse Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips 
 * Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
 * It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
 * If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
 * Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
 * When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
 * If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
 * Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/JoinFluffy250. Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear @Cabayi. I am requesting that an admin with check-user capabilities checks my IP to confirm that I am not a sockpuppet. It is egregiously unfair that I have been blocked as a  suspected  sockpuppet with zero evidence to back this up, other than a 'hunch' on your behalf. The page I created, 'Leon Emirali', was done so on my own accord. The page is not 'identical' to previously deleted versions. I did use the previously deleted version as a template, as I believe that it met the general notability guidelines. However, the page I created also included criticisms of the subject and additional information to make it a well-sourced page that meets all Wikipedia policies. I am an active and fair user of Wikipedia and insist that further substantial evidence is presented to justify the blocking of my account and the speedy deletion of a page I created. MountClew (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am CC'ing @Firefangledfeathers into this conversation. I insist that a check-user is done on my IP to dispell your suspected hunch that I am a sockpuppet. You have acted with an assumption of bad faith. This is in breach of Wikipedia policies. Using a previously deleted article as a basis of a new page does  NOT  constitute evidence or proof of sockpuppetry that results in a ban. MountClew (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Further, I wish to include @David Gerard who has recently edited the 'Leon Emirali' page to contest its Speedy Deletion in light of my erroneous blocking. MountClew (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll be able to look into this more in a few hours. It would help if you could detail the history of how you decided to create the Emirali article and how you collected the information you used in it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I reviewed my notes on this, and I'm still interested in a response to the above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers. I am a new Wikipedia user - but have been keen to be involved for a long time. I eventually took the plunge and began with minor edits, as per the Wikipedia home page suggestions. I felt confident enough to make my own page. I reviewed on Reddit, previously deleted pages (as I thought this was a good place to start for a newbie). On the sub-Reddit r/WikipediaAfDWatch, I found Emirali's page. He's someone I came across before and have read articles of his, so I thought he'd be a good place to start as I have a knowledge of the topic, albeit somewhat limited. I then went to Internet Archive and found the original page that had luckily made 15 captures. I made a judgement that I felt the page met General Notability Guidelines, but also made a couple of tweaks/additions to improve on the article. In my view, with my changes, it ended up a well-sourced Wikipedia page that met GNG and other guidelines for page creation (other experienced Wikipedia editors seemed to share that view, so I was pleased).
 * Even after this page was created and approved, I continued to be an active Wikipedia user. Any suggestion that I 'gamed' auto confirm or otherwise is an assumption on your part that I acted in bad faith. This is against Wikipedia policy. I am not a sockpuppet. I have no relation to JoinFluffy123.
 * What evidence do you have that I am a sockpuppet? If you are merely going on a 'hunch' due to my user contributions, that is deeply unfair, a gross violation of Wikipedia policies and an over-reaction to block my account and speedy delete an article I made and was proud of.
 * The links to each of the external pages referenced in the above are below. If you are not able to produce evidence, then I look forward to my account being reinstated and my article restored.
 * Internet Archive: Leon Emirali*
 * Go to wikipediaafdwatch
 * r/wikipediaafdwatch MountClew (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @331dot This process is unfair. "Recreating an article a blocked user is attempting to create is sufficient grounds to block for sock puppetry." is admission that you are acting in bad faith. See above for explanation. I find this incredibly disheartening and I am losing faith in the Wikipedia project. I hope this can be resolved. MountClew (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your above statement still boils down to "I'm not a sock puppet" which is insufficient, as every sock puppet denies being one, since that is the whole point. You are free to offer your explanation in a new unblock request to see if a different admin finds it credible. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would welcome your response @Firefangledfeathers to the further information I provided at your request. I remain incredibly disappointed to have been caught up in this heavy-handed and erroneous blocking. MountClew (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your response made me slightly more sure that you are a sockpuppet. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Leon Emirali


A tag has been placed on Leon Emirali requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Articles for deletion/Leon Emirali (2nd nomination). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cabayi (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear @Cabayi. During the period where my erroneous block is appealed, I request that this article has its Speedy Deletion revoked. I believe this was not justified in the first instance. The page I created is substantially different to the previously deleted article. It has different sourcing, different narrative, includes criticisms and, in the opinion of more experienced Wikipedia editors than myself, meets the requirements of an encylopaedic article on Wikipedia. Further, I am not a sock puppet and expect to be exonerated as such once my block is reviewed by non-biased administrators. The subject, though notable (IMHO), is not 'famous' and therefore has limited information to include in the article. Therefore it is likely that there may be some overlap with previously created articles - plus I used the template of previous iterations of this article to base my new article on. I do not believe this justifies the requirements for a Speedy Deletion. I would suggest it is nominated for AfD, if you see fit. MountClew (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If you are unblocked you can ask for a deletion review. Until then you have access to your user talk page for the purpose of appealing your block, not to ask other users to edit on your behalf. If you misuse the access to your user talk page that access will be revoked.
 * While I can accept that you believe Emirali to be notable we have objective criteria by which we decide. It's not a matter of personal opinion. The matter has been through a deletion discussion once before. While it was deleted under WP:G5 (the work of a sockpuppet) I nominated it under WP:G4 (recreation after an AfD) and G4 still applies. Cabayi (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Cabayi for your helpful response. I'd contest that this article is "substantially identical to the deleted version" and therefore is excluded as a candidate for a G4 speedy deletion. After careful review of Wikipedia policies, I am firmly of the belief that a speedy deletion is heavy-handed in this instance. The article in question was well-referenced and met WP:GNG. It would have been more appropriate that this article were placed into WP:AfD and a proper discussion be had as to whether it was A.) Substantially identical to the deleted version and B.) Meets criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Given the article was approved and since edited by multiple more experienced editors than I, it is not fair to deem unilaterally that the article stands no practical change of surviving discussion, see WP: Snowball clause. MountClew (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It was not a unilateral decision. I nominated the article for deletion. Another admin deleted it. Cabayi (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Forgive me. The decision was taken bi-laterally. Regardless, given the article is "not substantially identical to the deleted version" (see WP: G4) and that the article "stands a practical chance of surviving discussion" (see WP: Snowball clause), there are grounds, substantiated within Wikipedia policy, that the article is recovered and either placed into AfD or kept in the Mainspace. MountClew (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of &#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/JoinFluffy250. 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:. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The sockmaster here is dedicated, and I'd rather not tell them where to put the beans. If the reviewing admin wants more info, I'm available via email. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)