User talk:Cicnus82

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Julio189red per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Julio189red. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying, I only have one account. What is the real reason for your censorship ????

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).

Cicnus82 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Cicnus82 (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Your reason here" is not a reason to unblock you. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2022 (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.

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).

Cicnus82 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

a socket is the use of several accounts. What are my other accounts? I have only put references to the sources of the ancient text by classical author, and additions of archaeological finds. Cicnus82 (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Why are you talking about sockets? This does not address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Julio189red. Yamla (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2022 (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.

a socket is the use of 2 accounts at the same time, but the Julio189 account no longer exists. What's the relationship with my account? Moreover the accounts which pose problem by deleting references and by asserting nonsense coming from the French page are known => LambdofGod, Toulousien-ancien, Perrens2. And it's the same user.--Cicnus82 (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is called a "sock", not a socket. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for the info, but that doesn't answer my problem.--Cicnus82 (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the sockpuppet investigation if you haven't already, and craft an unblock request that addresses the evidence given there. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

isn't it quite the opposite? This explains why I was blocked why the user with the LambdofGod, Toulousien-ancien, Perrens2 accounts is having fun lying and asking to block me. There is no reason for my blocking, it is a total abuse of power by an administrator. I did absolutely nothing. I would like the user DatGuy to recognize his error and unblock me.--Cicnus82 (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make an unblock request and argue that the admin abused their power, that is your option, but I would highly advise against it. If you don't wish to discuss the merits of the block or what you see as the lack thereof, there is nothing more to do here. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok let's discuss the reason for the blockage. Why did he block me? Sockpuppet it is the use of 2 accounts at the same time. What is my second hidden account? there's no shame in making a mistake but either he unblocks me or he explains why he blocked me--Cicnus82 (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what more you want him to say that isn't at the sockpuppet investigation page. If you find that unsatisfactory, or believe a gross error was made, your path forward is an unblock request for an heretofore uninvolved administrator to review. I don't think there's an error here, but maybe I missed it. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So an administrator blocks someone at the request of a user and that's normal? No one tries to understand anything? and therefore I am censored from wikipedia? So I have to create another account or I have to ask to unblock my account or I'm never allowed to write on wikipedia again? I don't understand, is my Cicnus account blocked or is it me who no longer has the right to write on wikipedia? So if I create another account because my Cicnus account is blocked then they will block my new account because Cicnus is blocked?? Wouldn't they laugh at me? This story is endless. It's a disguised form of censorship in fact you have to think about it.--Cicnus82 (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After being blocked, the recourse to edit again isn't to create a new account and do the same thing. It's to appeal the block on that account. You've dug yourself a hole. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 16:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References are constantly deleted without anyone intervening. Those who try to stop are immediately blocked because impersonators know much better how wikipedia works. Am I deleting the references? Besides, I'm not the only one wondering why the references leading to the source texts of the classic authors are removed and then write the reverse of the source. It's not complicated to understand just read the source. There are things that have been taken for granted since the 19th century making up stories in a nationalist era that are totally wrong. Those who erase this data should be blocked. Users invent or repeat propaganda stories claiming that the texts say this or that without having read them, when nowhere is this written in the historical text. And then they answer that a 19th century poet said this or that. What relationship with the original text dating from antiquity?--Cicnus82 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The block is on you as an individual, not just your account. You may not edit under any account or IP address until this block is removed. The place to get us to understand something when you are blocked is an unblock request. As with any private entity, Wikipedia can determine what content is on its computers and who has access. Again, if you don't wish to make another unblock request, there is nothing else to do here. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok but wikipedia is not yours too. It's not up to you to decide who should be censored or not. You are ridiculous in this stupid censorship incapable of saying in what way what I have done is wrong. We can't censor a person if I could block your account for you to re-create one right away. And I'll reblock you because you recreated one without even understanding why. It makes no sense. You are the definition of an idiot. and this is an abuse of power--Cicnus82 (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't seem interested in requesting unblock, and have now resorted to personal attacks, I have decided to remove your access to this page. Should your views and attitude change, you may use WP:UTRS for further appeals. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cicnus82, you were blocked for repeatedly breaking Wikipedia policies, then making sockpuppets to continue breaking those policies. You kept adding unsourced content and your own mis-interpretation of ancient sources to push your view, then edit-warring with anyone who tried to correct you. See this discussion for an example. If you edited in line with Wikipedia policies there would be no problem, but it seems you don't know or don't care about them. Please read the following:

Wikipedia:Content policy in a nutshell and Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset
How to deal with primary sources (like ancient texts) – "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so".
How to deal with conflicting sources

– Asarrlaí ^(talk) 09:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]