User talk:CaesarsTopGuyngl

December 2023

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pope Anacletus, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:ByzantineIsNotRoman per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ByzantineIsNotRoman. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request… I don’t understand???

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).

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

Request reason:

I don’t understand what I did wrong, I don’t even know anything about the users being mentioned, can someone please explain to me what I did wrong and provide me with any evidence that isn’t automated bot nonsense that I did any wrongdoing? How can a new user making edits that happen to be vaguely similar a user who was blocked recently constitute banning an innocent user who has nothing to do with them? CaesarsTopGuyngl (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This block is based on private technical evidence, not just your edits- though it's not a matter of "vaguely similar" edits, you reinstated the edits of a blocked user. It's difficult to accept that you found these randomly, and even if you did, that is called meat puppetry. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2023 (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.

Second request, hear me out

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).

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

Request reason:

Could you at least consider making this a final warning or at least make it a temporary ban instead of a permanent block out of the blue? I still do not fully understand how I did anything that constitutes anything near a permanent site wide block. I had no idea that you could be permanently banned out of nowhere with no warnings whatsoever for simply making similar or identical edits as a banned user. Pretty disgusting how new users are treated by Wikipedia admins… regardless, I understand my wrongdoing now (regarding meat puppetry) and I will not do that again. Moreover, there was nothing wrong with any of the edits I made, per Wikipedia policy itself. No vandalism, no disruptive editing. Nothing. CaesarsTopGuyngl (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to MoonMan829 as well as to the numerous ByzantineIsNotRoman socks. Clearly not a new user. Yamla (talk) 12:34, 25 December 2023 (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.