User talk:PJK 1993: Difference between revisions

Line 63: Line 63:

::::::::It may be best for [[User:PJK 1993|PJK 1993]]to remain with the block for now, I think. If he wishes to take further action, he can contact ArbCom directly by email and explain what happened. The confusion among the admins was for sure caused by the way my IPs were used. That confused other participants further which ArbCom may find useful to know. Good luck PJK and sorry about what happened. [[Special:Contributions/193.173.219.179|193.173.219.179]] ([[User talk:193.173.219.179|talk]]) 07:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::[[User talk:193.173.219.179|193.173.219.179]], thank you for coming forward and setting the record strait, though as for the 1 month block I think this is simply unfair how I was treated. I have a 2 week [[Gdańsk]] article block for prior editing dispute and I’m sitting this one out and not editing anything, period. However, this blanket 1 month block is specifically due to the IP sockpuppet accusation – this is what the description above states. This would be totally inappropriate if after discovering that I was wrongly accused, instead of removing the 1 month block, the 1 month block just replaces the 2 week Gdańsk block, this would be totally arbitrary and confused. The 1 month blanket block should be removed, and I’ll continue to sit out the 2 week Gdańsk block. –[[User:PJK 1993|PJK 1993]] ([[User talk:PJK 1993#top|talk]]) 08:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent}}[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] please remember, that the only reason that 1 month blanket block got applied was because of the wrong accusation that I was using an IP sockpupet. If not for that, I would have just been sitting out the 2 week Gdańsk block, but this accusation got everyone worked up and and past things were being raised. In simple terms if not for this IP sockpuppet situation, things would have been quiet as I accepted the 2 week block. –[[User:PJK 1993|PJK 1993]] ([[User talk:PJK 1993#top|talk]]) 08:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Daniel Case, this is just wrong, you are clearly misapplying your privileges as an admin. originally, despite both me and JeanClaudeN1 edit warring you only blocked me for 48 hours, now when I challenged JeanClaudeN1 for removing text with reliable reference sources and started a discussion on [1] which has gained attention from other editors, you blocked me for 2 week, again completely disregarding JeanClaudeN1 behavior. You basically killed that discussion, the optics simply project a one sided enforcement of the rules. —PJK 1993 (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are still free to use the talk page. Your assertion that by blocking you from that article, and that article alone, I “basically killed that discussion” is basically you admitting to a battleground mentality without admitting to a battleground mentality. You have the talk page, you have the project talk page, you have DRN. Your comments unequivocally indicate that you intend to resolve this issue through edit war and edit war alone, because you accept that you cannot prevail through any legitimate means of dispute resolution.

This is all the more egregious in that the area in which you have been doing this is one that you have been alerted is a contentious topic. In fact, you didn’t just pick a contentious topic area, you picked an article where we have a famous history of contention over an issue related to your edits going back almost 20 years (until the participants found a way to resolve it, and we had held a Wikimania there). Rather to the contrary to your claims of abuse, I would be delinquent in my administrative responsibilities if I did not do something.

And, by the way, I assume, because you have not yet totally exhausted my good faith, that the AN/I discussion notice you left on my talk page was meant to be for the NPOV/N discussion you started and you have just made an error. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, is JeanClaudeN1 also not displaying a battleground mentality? It is clear you are not taking into consideration the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and the prolonged edit warring that JeanClaudeN1 is engaged in, while at the same time taking advantage of my blocks to push through their changes without gaining a consensus. JeanClaudeN1 needs to pull back, restore the original text and talk, and you have not engaged JeanClaudeN1 to do so. —PJK 1993 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)JeanClaudeN1[reply]

“Restoring the original text” is what QUO, to which I have previously referred you, requires. To further elaborate, leaving text you disagree with in the article while you discuss it is a gesture of good faith that says more than any words could. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case , why are you writing in Polish to me on the English language Wikipedia, do you write in German to JeanClaudeN1? I find this gesture cynical and mocking in nature, so I’ll kindly ask that you do not do that again. Thank you. —PJK 1993 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because you apparently don’t understand English well enough judging by the fact that you have completely ignored every reference I’ve made to WP:QUO as a guideline you should follow/have followed. I don’t write in German to JeanClaude because he evinces no misunderstanding of English (and with a French name, why would I assume that anyway?). Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STOP with you disparaging comments! First “Polish IP” and now this. Do admins regularly refer to IPs with ethnic or regional identifiers? Also, when you say “and with a French name, why would I assume that anyway?” does my account name make you assume I’m Polish? On the Incidents noticeboard case I filed, it appears that other admins like Salvio also saw issues with your approach, so please don’t hold that I’m fully right attitude, and cynically suggest I don’t understand English because I disagree with your judgment calls on Wikipedia. —PJK 1993 (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit, then, that your English-language skills aren’t totally up to snuff here? (I did not, however much it may comfort you to think so, make that remark because you disagreed with my judgement call, but because of how you have chosen to disagree, which I have become so weary of restating that I’ll just leave to later in this post where it’s more relevant). Just like you were blocked initially not for what you were trying to put in the article but for how you went about it).

No, we don’t refer to IPs that way usually, but when an IP resolves to not only a country that relates to where the editorial dispute is happening, but the region of that country, and the other edits show a great deal of interest in that region, I think we are OK referring to it by a geographical adjective rather than the numbers, because that’s usually harder to remember.

I assume you are Polish because that is what all your edits have been about. Am I correct? Your ~~temper tant~~ complaint above about being communicated with in that language did not claim you don’t understand it or that I was mistaken, so I assume I’m right to believe that you are.

And your logic should embrace your own assertions as well. What, pray tell, leads you to believe JeanClaude is German just because his edits, in your opinion (and only your opinion), are impermissibly pro-German? All his user page tells us is that he is European. Conclusions like that are usually a sign of nationalistic editing, a frequent source of battleground mentalities. I would also add that by doing this you are also failing to assume good faith, yet another mark against you not just with me but, I’m sure, with other people here.

As for Salvio’s comments, I have responded to them here. I would add to what I said there that it’s clear Salvio didn’t look into the page history, because it shows that JeanClaude wasn’t the only one reverting you.

And lastly, in mentioning Salvio’s argument, once again you have conceded, by completely ignoring it, that I am right that you did not respect the status quo when you should have. This is undermining all your protestations here.

Frankly, we are at the point where your continued refusal to address this amid your blockheaded, obstinate jumping up and down, stamping your feet and holding your breath till you turn blue is going to result in not only losing access to this talk page but it having to be semi-protected as well given your tendency to use IPs to take up your cause (such as may be left of it). My reserves of good faith are exhausted, and my patience with you (which existed, whatever you may have believed) has worn thin.

As has that of the other admins commenting and responding here, it seems. I have had to spend a great deal more time these past few days responding to you, as have they, as you just repeat arguments and claims that have already been rejected here and at AN/I and NPOV/N, as you pretend QUO doesn’t exist and desperately try, to the point of transparent sockpuppetry, to make it all about what you want it to be about, regardless of how everyone else sees it.

When blocked users do this in repeated unsuccessful unblock requests it is considered to be wasting our time. Countless users before you have learned that this reduces them to having to request unblock through email, perhaps depriving them of the performative balm of carrying on like this in public view.

Have a nice day. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, c’mon really? When you write “you admit, then, that your English-language skills aren’t totally up to snuff here” based on your profile you are in the US, does everyone there speak proper English? So, why are you brining this up against me? As for the name thing, well JeanClaudeN1 primarily edits Germany related articles, and when they edit other articles related to Belgium, Poland, France, etc., they primarily focus on content related to either German history of that place or Germans living there, that’s why I have an issue with their editing on the Gdańsk article because of the balance issues created and one-sided interpretations of events. As for the actual name, I don’t know maybe they like Jean-Claude Van Damme movies, and that was the inspiration, JeanClaudeN1 being “Jean-Claude Van Damme number 1” – this was my first though. —PJK 1993 (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already noticed that for PJK 1993 anything that doesn’t align with their highly biased POV is considered “German.” My edits to the Gdańsk article were mostly based on sources from Polish scholars. The alledged “balance issues” exist only from PJK 1993’s perspective. What the user really means is that their POV — which isn’t supported by any reliable sources — is no longer represented in the article to the extent they would like (which is a good thing). The rest of their claims are, once again, baseless accusations meant to discredit me. PJK, your assumptions are wrong, and your constant speculation about me is inappropriate. Please stop that. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 09:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are discrediting yourself by constantly filing sockpuppet reports. You should know that when you edit contentious topics there are subtle details that make all the difference and Gdańsk article is one of those articles. Perfect example of this is… why does the Gdańsk article in the introduction paragraph have a German name for the city along the Polish name? Does Gdańsk officially recognize several names in different languages, like Brussels? No. Is there a German minority in Gdańsk? No. If this is a historical thing, than why even include the name? You don’t have such references for New York (New Amsterdam) or Istambul (Constantiopol). Perfect example of how content related to the German history, etc. is disproportionately included in some Poland related articles. See Britannica entry for Gdańsk: [2] —PJK 1993 (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely because the German name has very high relevance in the secondary literature, was the official name for centuries and hundreds of articles in which “Danzig” is mentioned link to the Gdańsk article. Are you arguing in the same way that the Polish name should be removed from the Lviv article? With your bizarre arguments, you’re only confirming the assumptions made about you above. I’m ending the discussion here. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s why you have the Name and History sections. Btw, Constantinople would have even higher relevance. So, this approach is strangely only utilized for former German place names in Poland. As for Lviv, the city still has a small recognized Polish minority, and I would not oppose this approach for places in Poland where there the is a recognized German minority like in Upper Silesia, where both Polish and German are recognized. However, spamming every municipality, like for example Niegoszów, with German place name is undue weight, does Nitschendorf have high relevance in the secondary literature? Not really. —PJK 1993 (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for Use of an IP address to support yourself in discussions, battleground mentality and edit warring, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of one month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: “No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see “Important notes“). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.”

Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2025 (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).

PJK 1993 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators’ noticeboard. I was blocked by Daniel Case for “use of an IP address to support yourself in discussions.” This arbitrary decision was made without opening a Noticeboard discussion and despite the fact that several sockpuppet investigations did not confirm this, Girth Summit was handling the last one. It is clear that now anyone with a IP in Poland who disagrees with JeanClaudeN1 is being accused of being a sockpuppet. Let me be clear, I did not use IP sockpuppets to bolster my argument on the Gdańsk page, as I was accused by JeanClaudeN1. This only confirms my previous feeling that Daniel Case uses poor judgment when dealing with the Gdańsk article content dispute. PJK 1993 (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed WP:LOUTSOCK. I make no comment with regard to whether or not you have done this to support yourself in discussions, only that you have logged out so you could continue editing in the same subject area you edited while signed in. I make no comment as to which IP address(es) are involved. I’ll note that WP:CHECKUSERs are never permitted to tie an account to an IP address, so your claim that no sockpuppet investigation had definitively done so, that’s not relevant. Given your logged out editing, I am obligated to decline to copy your appeal over. You are free to make a new unblock request, but I suggest any other admin would decline it unless you admit to your WP:LOUTSOCK. Yamla (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2025 (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.

Yamla and asilvering, from what I understand, this block resulted from this [3], this is the link listed by Daniel Case for “use of an IP address to support yourself in discussions”, and not WP:LOUTSOCK. If I was not connected to the IP why was I blocked by Daniel Case for that reason as stated above. This is what Daniel Case wrote [4] “🙄 I see you opened an SPI that got the Polish IP blocked, meaning PJK should also be blocked. So, I will be blocking PJK sitewide for a month for this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)” Was Daniel Case right to assume that I’m connected to the IP? Again, let me state for the record that I did not use an IP to bolster my arguments during the Gdańsk content dispute and there should be no footprint that has me connected to that IP in any way. I’ve started two RfCs without anyone else casting a vote in them except me. There did I drop in as an IP to write another favorable vote in to bolster my RfC… NO. But here, I was accused of running an IP sock on the Gdańsk dispute. —PJK 1993 (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers are not permitted to tie IP addresses to accounts. To be clear, I’m not permitted to say that IP address belongs to you and I’m not permitted to say that IP address does not belong to you. Nor is any other checkuser. —Yamla (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, what is going on here, why is Daniel Case writing this to JeanClaudeN1 “🙄 I see you opened an SPI that got the Polish IP blocked, meaning PJK should also be blocked. So, I will be blocking PJK sitewide for a month for this.” What is this disparaging reference to “Polish IP” so everyone in Poland a country of 38 million who disagrees with JeanClaudeN1 is being labeled as a sockpuppet, is this even inline with Wikipedia standards? —PJK 1993 (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved in that discussion so can’t answer the question. —Yamla (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A remarkable coincidence: an IP with no other edits just happens to show up in exactly those two discussions at exactly that time, repeating the same false claims as you.[5][6]

These are strong signs of sock- or meatpuppetry. This view is shared by others.[7]

You also seemed to have very detailed knowledge about other disruptive edits from this IP range (which, coincidentally, all fall exactly within this topic area). JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, according to the block log, you weren’t sanctioned just for that, but also for your ongoing battleground mentality, most recently here. Despite having been given very clear warnings. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let the checks speak for themselves not your opinions. At this point, all you do is raise sockpuppet cases against every IP from Poland. Just a crazy though that in a country of 38 million there might be a few people who use Wikipedia. —PJK 1993 (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there may be some misunderstanding among the admins about this issue. 193.173.219.179 (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not connected to this IP it is not a sockpuppet of mine nor is this someone in real life I asked to enter the discusison. —PJK 1993 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t about opinions but about evidence. For the record: we’re not discussing “every IP from Poland,” but precisely one — the one specified in the investigation. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JeanClaudeN1 What specific evidence are you referring to? I’d really like to understand what this is based on, because I have no connection to this user or to the any other user. 193.173.219.179 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly doubt that. For the evidence, see above. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yamla I want to clarify, the comments I made in discussions this user was involved in were from me, not them. I am a completely different person and have no connection to this user. I regularly travel and have used hundreds of different IPs worldwide, none of which I am aware were ever blocked. If there is any doubt I suggest contacting the admin who blocked the IPs I used to clarify the reason. I also formally request a CheckUser comparison between the IPs I’ve edited from and those of this user, it will clearly show there is no association. 193.173.219.179 (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters right now, since you’ve been blocked, but as I’ve noted below a quick read of WP:CHECKME will show you we don’t grant requests of that type. You should have the time to read it, at least. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

PJK 1993 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand this block resulted from this [8], this is the link listed by Daniel Case for “use of an IP address to support yourself in discussions”, and not WP:LOUTSOCK. If I was not connected to the IP by asilvering the editor handling the case, then why was I blocked by Daniel Case for that reason as stated above. This is what Daniel Case wrote to JeanClaudeN1[9] “🙄 I see you opened an SPI that got the Polish IP blocked, meaning PJK should also be blocked. So, I will be blocking PJK sitewide for a month for this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)” Was Daniel Case right to assume that I’m connected to the IP if asilvering did not block me? Also, I will state that I am not connected that IP and did not use any IPs to bolster my case on the Gdansk content dispute. To answer Yamla “unless you admit to your WP:LOUTSOCK” if indeed a check found that I carelessly edited somewhere forgetting to log in or did so accidentally, thinking I was still logged in, I can admit that is a very real possibility and I’ll do my best to ensure that does not happen again. However, I am not connected to the IP in question.[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing “blocking administrator” with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I understand this block resulted from this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PJK_1993], this is the link listed by Daniel Case for "use of an IP address to support yourself in discussions", and not [[WP:LOUTSOCK]]. If I was not connected to the IP by asilvering the editor handling the case, then why was I blocked by Daniel Case for that reason as stated above. This is what Daniel Case wrote to JeanClaudeN1[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADaniel_Case&diff=1316372114&oldid=1316272100] "🙄 I see you opened an SPI that got the Polish IP blocked, meaning PJK should also be blocked. So, I will be blocking PJK sitewide for a month for this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)" Was Daniel Case right to assume that I'm connected to the IP if [[User:asilvering|asilvering]] did not block me? Also, I will state that I am not connected that IP and did not use any IPs to bolster my case on the Gdansk content dispute. To answer [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] "unless you admit to your WP:LOUTSOCK" if indeed a check found that I carelessly edited somewhere forgetting to log in or did so accidentally, thinking I was still logged in, I can admit that is a very real possibility and I'll do my best to ensure that does not happen again. However, I am not connected to the IP in question. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I understand this block resulted from this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PJK_1993], this is the link listed by Daniel Case for "use of an IP address to support yourself in discussions", and not [[WP:LOUTSOCK]]. If I was not connected to the IP by asilvering the editor handling the case, then why was I blocked by Daniel Case for that reason as stated above. This is what Daniel Case wrote to JeanClaudeN1[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADaniel_Case&diff=1316372114&oldid=1316272100] "🙄 I see you opened an SPI that got the Polish IP blocked, meaning PJK should also be blocked. So, I will be blocking PJK sitewide for a month for this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)" Was Daniel Case right to assume that I'm connected to the IP if [[User:asilvering|asilvering]] did not block me? Also, I will state that I am not connected that IP and did not use any IPs to bolster my case on the Gdansk content dispute. To answer [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] "unless you admit to your WP:LOUTSOCK" if indeed a check found that I carelessly edited somewhere forgetting to log in or did so accidentally, thinking I was still logged in, I can admit that is a very real possibility and I'll do my best to ensure that does not happen again. However, I am not connected to the IP in question. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I understand this block resulted from this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PJK_1993], this is the link listed by Daniel Case for "use of an IP address to support yourself in discussions", and not [[WP:LOUTSOCK]]. If I was not connected to the IP by asilvering the editor handling the case, then why was I blocked by Daniel Case for that reason as stated above. This is what Daniel Case wrote to JeanClaudeN1[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADaniel_Case&diff=1316372114&oldid=1316272100] "🙄 I see you opened an SPI that got the Polish IP blocked, meaning PJK should also be blocked. So, I will be blocking PJK sitewide for a month for this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)" Was Daniel Case right to assume that I'm connected to the IP if [[User:asilvering|asilvering]] did not block me? Also, I will state that I am not connected that IP and did not use any IPs to bolster my case on the Gdansk content dispute. To answer [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] "unless you admit to your WP:LOUTSOCK" if indeed a check found that I carelessly edited somewhere forgetting to log in or did so accidentally, thinking I was still logged in, I can admit that is a very real possibility and I'll do my best to ensure that does not happen again. However, I am not connected to the IP in question. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

PJK 1993 (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand why I’m being pinged here. I didn’t block you because you were already blocked – that’s what I said in the SPI. — asilvering (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, having reviewed the case, you currently have an AE block for battleground mentality and edit-warring. You will need to address that in your appeal if you want it to be successful. — asilvering (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I’m a completely different person and not his sockpuppet. I’m traveling and regularly connect from different IPs around the world, which might explain the confusion. I don’t even know why those IPs were blocked, but they have nothing to do with this poor person. You guys should really talk to the admin who blocked the IPs I’ve used and ask them why they were blocked in the first place. I would also request a CheckUser to compare the IPs I’ve edited from with those of this user. That will confirm there’s no connection or association between us. Thanks. 193.173.219.179 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry IP, we don’t CU on request. As I said in my previous comment, the IP editing was only part of the reasoning for the AE block, which I presume @Daniel Case would have made with or without the logged-out editing. — asilvering (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant shortcut is WP:CHECKME. The first IP, the 5.XX.XX.XX one, resolves to the area of Poland near Gdańsk, and has made many edits related to Polish locations in that particular voivodeship. As for 193.173 above, which resolves to the Netherlands, the “I’m traveling” defense doesn’t really work since there are IPs all over the world one can access without leaving home, not all of which would resolve as open proxies (as indeed this one does not appear to be). I see that Yamla has, indeed, already blocked it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Things were heading towards this end anyway (which was not, PJK, inevitable, as I have told you several times). The LOUTSOCKing just made the case for an AE block that much stronger and more urgent. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, this is my personal opinion that you are not being objective here. First of all, the optics of this whole thing come across like you just went with whatever JeanClaudeN1 claimed, also I don’t know of what specific LOUTSOCKing instance Yamla referred to. I though that I was logged in, however if you need me to write a long explanation, than fine here it is. Could LOUTSOCKing have happened? That is a possibility. After looking at how this could have played out, I have my web browser set to delete everything after closing, so if I clicked close instead of minimize and at a later time clicked to reopen the web browser, I would have been logged out while editing. Also, I’ll bring to your attention one other point about my intentions. I raised two RfCs recently, and you know what, NO ONE bothered to make a vote except me, did I go in with an IP and added a second vote in my favor to tip the balance? NO, I got over the fact that no one voted and the RfC expired. So why now would I do that on the Gdańsk article content dispute, but not for those straitforward RfCs? —PJK 1993 (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel CaseI understand your perspective. I just wanted to clarify that I am a completely different person and have no connection to this user. My edits and comments were entirely my own. Perhaps you might also consider shortening the block slightly in light of this because this poor person was really innocent other than perhaps his behavior (I never looked into it) Thanks. 193.173.219.179 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see Yamla has lifted your block; I defer to that judgment. But as I have written at length above, as much because of his behavior post-block as before, I am even less open to shortening the block than I was before. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best for PJK 1993to remain with the block for now, I think. If he wishes to take further action, he can contact ArbCom directly by email and explain what happened. The confusion among the admins was for sure caused by the way my IPs were used. That confused other participants further which ArbCom may find useful to know. Good luck PJK and sorry about what happened. 193.173.219.179 (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

193.173.219.179, thank you for coming forward and setting the record strait, though as for the 1 month block I think this is simply unfair how I was treated. I have a 2 week Gdańsk article block for prior editing dispute and I’m sitting this one out and not editing anything, period. However, this blanket 1 month block is specifically due to the IP sockpuppet accusation – this is what the description above states. This would be totally inappropriate if after discovering that I was wrongly accused, instead of removing the 1 month block, the 1 month block just replaces the 2 week Gdańsk block, this would be totally arbitrary and confused. The 1 month blanket block should be removed, and I’ll continue to sit out the 2 week Gdańsk block. —PJK 1993 (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla, please remember, that the only reason that 1 month blanket block got applied was because of the wrong accusation that I was using an IP sockpupet. If not for that, I would have just been sitting out the 2 week Gdańsk block, but this accusation got everyone worked up and and past things were being raised. In simple terms if not for this IP sockpuppet situation, things would have been quiet as I accepted the 2 week block. —PJK 1993 (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply