User talk:Mariolovr
Blocked[edit]
You have been blocked indefinitely for persistent tendentious and disruptive editing. See [1]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 15:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC).
Mariolovr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi, I definitely was not expecting this. First, I appreciate your position, but I feel like it needs reconsideration. As I said during the ANI, I am very sorry. My disruptive behavior was definitely a big mistake, and resulted from a severe misunderstanding of the rules, but I won't do it again. In fact, I had already stopped that behavior even before the ANI, and I had been trying to do more constructive things before this block (like starting an RfC to get consensus and fighting vandalism. All I ask is that I can get a second chance. Mariolovr (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The block is warranted and appropriate. Salvio 17:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
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.
- The way you framed and went about that RfC is more evidence of tendentiousness, if anything, and the block is warranted and appropriate, as far as I'm concerned. However, I propose you a partial unblock: if you accept an indefinite ban from the topics of veganism, vegetarianism, animal rights, animal welfare, and the use of animals for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation, all topics to be broadly construed, I am willing to unblock you. Note that, should you accept the topic ban, making edits about animal rights everywhere on Wikipedia would lead to escalating blocks. Salvio 16:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- That was my first RfC, so I apologize if I mistakenly framed anything. I just wanted to avoid edit warring.
- And unfortunately, that is a very extensive topic ban. I am only really interested in and knowledgeable about animal agriculture since I have experience working as a farmhand and at a meat packing plant. So if I am to be banned from contributing to those kind of articles, then that's equivalent to banning me from this site. And that, in my opinion, would be very unnecessary. Mariolovr (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- In that case, I am declining your unblock request. Your editing style is definitely tendentious and pugnacious and, as such, an indefinite block is the only way of stopping disruption. Salvio 17:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, could you explain why you think that? I thought the only issue was the edit warring, which I had stopped. If I've violated some other rule, then I do not know about it. I really just want to be positive contributor. Mariolovr (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Also, I never declined your offer. I just wanted you to reconsider it. If that is my only option, then I will accept it. @Salvio giuliano: Mariolovr (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- In that case, I am declining your unblock request. Your editing style is definitely tendentious and pugnacious and, as such, an indefinite block is the only way of stopping disruption. Salvio 17:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation[edit]
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zalgo, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Psychologist Guy: what happens now that you've rescinded your investigation of me? Mariolovr (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- The fishy thing about your account is you started from a Pro- animal rights viewpoint [2], [3] on articles such as animal slaughter, poultry farming, Smithfield Foods, chick culling, murder etc. You then shifted gears and put all these pro-meat userboxes on your userpage [4] and claimed to work in a slaughter house [5]. Zalgo is the only user on Wikipedia I have seen who edits these fields but flip-flips his position on the subject like your account that's why I suspected you might be this user but this was only a suspicious. I agree that I cannot back it up with solid behavioral evidence. However, as several users wrote on the administrator board you are unlikely to be a brand new account as you have in depth experience with editing and formatting on here. You say you edit other wikis, well other users may not buy that. I think you have been here before but this cannot be proved without technical data so the SPI will likely be dismissed for you. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your edits show otherwise, you inserted images of illegal practices of animal slaughter obtained by animal rights activists onto Wikipedia articles. A slaughter house worker would not be doing this. You have uploaded hundreds of images of animal abuse to WikiCommons from the website of the French animal rights group L214.
- Look on the artificial insemination talk-page [8]. Your edits [9], [10], [11] were defending a pro-animal rights point of view which you deny is fringe, even linking to the PETA website. On Smithfield Foods you wrote "Doesn't removing undercover footage amount to censorship and "pro-meat POV pushing"?" On that article you first included criticism in the lead [12] "It has faced criticism, fines, and lawsuits for animal cruelty, environmental pollution, and poor working conditions." A slaughter house worker would not make this kind of edit. A few days later and you are a meat lover (even deer meat?) and a worker in a slaughter house. It doesn't add up. BTW I am pro-animal rights and actually agree with many of your early edits but I would never do that sort of editing myself, you need to read Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV. Your edits violated a number of policies. Animal rights is not mainstream and has never been mainstream, I wish it was but it isn't. Because of your problematic edits it's unlikely your ban will be lifted. I don't think any editor who is reading this page is under the impression you are a new editor. I know you will not disclose your previous accounts but you are not a new here, that is for sure. I suspect we will see you editing under another account in the future. Hopefully by then you will at least keep a consistent viewpoint and not post contradictory information. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- First, I do obviously want to show the opinions of animal rights folks because I do think they are significant, and I want to show the actual conditions of farm animals. I'm not denying that. However, that doesn't violate any policy, nor does it mean I agree with every stance taken by animal rights activists (ie I think we can treat animals well but still eat them. We just don't right now.).
- As to the argument brought by Normal Op's suspected sockpuppet, I didn't know that some of the photos were taken of illegal animal abuse when I used them. There is nothing in the images' sources to indicate that. The IP had to link years old news articles to prove it. Don't you think it's highly suspicious that a previously dormant and shared IP went to such effort to research these images on behalf of Normal Op? As I said below, they'd never edited this article before (or any animal agriculture article), and they'd never participated in an RfC before. Suddenly they're experts? Something does not add up here. Mariolovr (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation/Normal Op[edit]
| Hatting trolling by Mariolovr |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
@Psychologist Guy: @Salvio giuliano: @AmandaNP: @Cavalryman: @Flyer22 Frozen:So I got bored, and I think I found out that Normal Op is using a sockpuppet. What do you think? Summary of findings[edit]
Suspected sock[edit]The suspected sock is IP address 192.76.8.79, which is located in Oxford, UK [13] and is owned by Oxford University [14]. It looks like a shared IP with random, inconsistent, and very occasional usage (about 3-4 edits max) on a wide variety of articles that would interest various Oxford students. These include, but are not limited to: UK politics [15], UK geography [16], microbiology [17], geology [18], computer science [19], ancient byzantine history [20], finnish construction companies [21], Bangladeshi economists [22], Romanian politicians [23], and Arabic grammarians [24]. It has even done some edits in other languages like Russian [25], German [26], Swedish [27], and Chinese [28]. The account only had about 50 edits in total over a course of 2-3 years before showing the current signs of sockpuppetry. [29] Signs of sockpuppetery[edit]Before the start of the suspected sockpuppetry, this IP’s last edit was on April 18 [30]. 5 months later, on September 15, the suspected sockmaster (Normal Op) started an ANI report [31]. For full disclosure, this report was brought against me. The very next day, the previously inactive IP participated in the ANI (their first time doing anything like that), unexpectedly cited complex policy (such as WP:NOTHERE, WP:SYNTHESIS, TBAN), and sided very strongly with the suspected sockmaster. ([32], [33], and [34]) This is made even more suspicious by the fact that prior to the IP’s appearance, the consensus seemed to be on the fence ([35] and [36]), making it look like the potential sockmaster used the sock to influence the results of the ANI. Additionally, the IP had absolutely no connection to the article it referenced (ag-gag). They had made no edits to it or its talk page at all prior to their participation in the ANI. In fact, the IP made no edits on anything related to animals rights or animal agriculture before this ANI (even before going dormant). Two days later, the IP participated in an RfC (another first) that was never specifically mentioned in the ANI (but still involved Normal Op), once again citing policy (MOS/images), and only supported the suspected sockmaster. ([37], [38]). Just like with their previous edits, the IP conveniently appeared after it seemed like consensus wasn’t in Normal Op’s favor and the IP also had absolutely no connection to this article either. (These are also the most talk page edits the IP has ever made.)[39] That same day, the IP made their very first user talk page edits to again support the suspected sockmaster with a discussion they were having with admins regarding the result of the ANI, and once again the IP very conveniently appeared to support Normal Op only after the admin mentioned they were on the fence regarding the outcome. ([40]). During these events, the two accounts have edit histories that consistently show sets of edits made around the same time, one after the other, often just minutes apart, but never at the exact same time([41], [42], and [43]), and in the past week, the IP account has made more edits (17) than it had during the rest of 2020 (12).[44] Furthermore, the attitude and tone of the IP is almost identical to Normal Op but is completely different than the rest of its edits, and the IP edited between about 19:00 and 0:00 UTC, which is also very abnormal from the rest of its edits, but matches Normal Op’s usual time of writing, as shown by their xtools time card. [45] |
Response to anticipated objections[edit]
The sockmaster may argue geography and claim they are in the US, not Oxford, using some photos from the US they uploaded to the commons as evidence. However, those photos were uploaded in July, which still provides plenty of time to fly to Oxford as a student or professional by September. (Side note, a mention of the Covid 19 travel ban would also be irrelevant, since the travel ban allows students and professionals.)
Mariolovr (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I am flattered that someone thinks I am a student at Oxford University. I freely give permission for any CheckUser-authorised editor to check my account's IP address logs for the purpose of excluding me from ever having used the IP address 192.76.8.79 prior to today, or any similar IP address that would lead to Oxford or, indeed, England. That said, I am grateful for any similar opinions posted by whoever it is who posted from Oxford. Normal Op (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's also suspicious that Normal Op just tried to hide this with a collapse template.[46] Mariolovr (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
September 2020[edit]
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
September 2020[edit]
While you are blocked, your talk page is for the purpose of requesting or discussing an unblock. It is not for the purpose of pursuing a vendetta against another editor. Accordingly, I have revoked your talk page access. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System if you want to be unblocked. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)