Call-me-Ishmae1

November 2022

Hello, I'm Mako001. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Telegony—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trusci. 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 18:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

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).

Call-me-Ishmae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello Admin, I'm sorry to hear that Wikipedia classified my account as multi-account. First of all, I am not the same person as Trusci. I'd like to request a deeper multi-account inspection of Trusci and myself in this regard. I don't know who Trusci is. However, it cannot be denied that Trusci and I are related in some way. Because I emailed Trusci using a different account[1] on the Korean Wikipedia.[2] -- To let they know of theirs mistakes that I have identified. It's because the act of pointing out mistakes in public is hard to tolerate in Korean culture. Plus, I didn't want to reveal my primary email. As you can tell if you can see my email, my primary email is connected with my own domain. If someone can get my email, they can easily figure out my personal information. But that's all. Trusci didn't answer emails. and The topic I contributed to recently became an issue on the Korean web for a while(Telegony(Korean: 감응유전[3]), Please refer to the search trend of Naver, the search engine mainly used in Korea.[4]), and I think that's why Trusci and I have a common interest. Here's my contribution to the Korean Wikipedia. [5] I am a migrant to Wikipedia from another Korean wiki, and this account was never created for a single purpose. PS: I'm not fluent in English. I would like to apologize in advance for this. Please understand this.

Decline reason:

I find your explanations regarding the sockpuppetry plausible, but am concerned by your engagement around Telegony (inheritance). Given that the sockpuppetry concern is that this account coordinated with Trusci to edit this topic, I think the best solution would be to offer you a conditional unblock, where you would be unblocked, but topic-banned from making edits to content or discussions related to telegony, with the t-ban appealable following evidence of constructive editing in other areas. If you agree to these conditions, please post a new unblock request saying so and ping me. Otherwise, you are free to make a new unblock request at your discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:05, 30 December 2022 (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.

Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not surprised at this block. I very nearly commented to you that you seemed to be unusually experienced for a new editor. Is this really your oldest account? Also, you need to address the account you created to evade the block on this account. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced that this user and Trusci are the same person. The editing on ko.wiki would suggest that they are two different people. There may be off-wiki coordination though. Giffs3 may be the same person, but hasn't edited here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 03:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving your comments. However, this account is indeed my oldest account on English Wikipedia, and it should be noted here that MediaWiki is a generally widely used wiki engine.

Perhaps you thought that Giffs3 was the same person as me just by looking at the edit history of the Korean Wikipedia's Telegony article[6], which is linked by Interwiki.

However, a closer look at the edit differences[7] shows that this is not the case. Giffs3 added a "Pseudoscience(Korean: 유사과학[8])" category to the Korean Wikipedia Telegony article. You can refer to the discussion at WP:FTN#Telegony on what this means.

If Wikipedia applies the same criteria that it did for me and Trusci, then maybe Giffs3 is Kid990's Sockpuppet. Because they have the same view[9][10], and one side is obviously WP:SPA. But I don't think so. As noted in my review request, this topic has been an issue on the Korean web for a while recently.[11] This controversial topic must have drawn many people to the wiki. --Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so you are saying that you have got lot of experience with MediaWiki, but not so much en.wiki? It would not have mattered too much if Giffs3 was the same editor as you, they have not edited here so it does not matter.

I would like to see direct answers to these two questions:

1. Did you ever engage in off-wiki collaboration with Trusci?
2. Why did Trusci show up at en.wiki at the same time as you?

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, as an aside, the discussion on en.wiki has no effect on the policy of ko.wiki. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. I have experience with other MediaWiki-based wikis, but little experience with en.wiki.

1. What kind of cooperation are you talking about? When it comes to dialogue between individuals, no cooperation has taken place. The only influence I had from him was watching him discuss, edits.
2. I do not know. However, as mentioned previously, the fact that this topic has been an issue in Korea for a while can serve as valid evidence. It is also in the same context that I quoted the cases of Giffs3 and Kid990, who can be thought of as my opposite. I have no intention of "attacking" them, I just wanted to show that this controversial topic can bring many newbies to the wiki.

--Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@DatGuy:, @Firefly: I recently noticed that another admin blocked my other account User:C1d7d0 as sockpuppet. I also verified that this account is classified as a "checked" sockpuppet via WP:CHECK . I think this is pretty absurd. As you can see from the block review request I wrote above, I used User:C1d7d0 for one purpose only: avoid to reveal my primary email. And User:C1d7d0 has no contributions to en.wiki. This is obviously not a sockpuppetry, and I've only been using my new account for "Privacy" legitimate use as defined by WP:SOCKLEGIT. However, User:C1d7d0 was classified as a sockpuppet without considering the context for one reason that someone reported "confessed"[12], and eventually this account, User:Call-me-Ishmae1 through WP:CHECK The account has been classified as a sockpuppet owner account verified by evidence of WP:CHECK. Please review this clearly. --Call-me-Ishmae1 16:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thought the block on C1d7d0 was a little questionable. Their first and only edit was to state that they were the same user as Call-me-Ishmae1. I'm not sure what legitimate reason they have for the second account, but by declaring it openly, I don't see how they're in violation of WP:ILLEGIT. As for Trusci, I ran the original CU check and came back with "possible". I just took another look; I'll stand by my original "possible", but I'll add that it's really no more than both being on IP ranges in the same largish country. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reply. So what classifies Trusci and me as "possible" is both technically within IP ranges in the same country and behavioral evidence that we have the same POV? If so, I'll add my block appeal here for other admins to review.

First of all, if the technical evidence shows that me and Trusci are on the same national IP ranges, this could support my block appeal. As I wrote in the Request reason, the topic I contributed to has been a controversial topic for a while in Korea. Evidence for this is that the Interwiki-linked Korean Telegony article was recently translated, and Telegony(Korean: 감응유전)'s search volume soaring briefly[13] in the search trend of Naver, the most commonly used search engine in Korea.

Controversial topics can attract many newbies to a wiki. In particular, the topic I contributed to, Telegony, attracted many newbies to Wikipedia at the same time, regardless of POV. The revision history of Telegony (inheritance) confirms this clearly. In early November 2022, Trusci edited this article. And Kid990 reverted it. And then I edited the same article. You can also check Korean Telegony articles linked to Interwiki. IP(maybe Trusci) edited the article, Giffs3 reverted it. The POVs between them are all different. However, they do have one thing in common -- they all originate from ko.wiki, and are Koreans (or Korean speakers).

This is probably why me and Trusci appeared around the same time, with the same POV, and why other SPA's appeared around the same time, with opposite POV. And it wouldn't be unusual for them all to originate from ko.wiki. Please consider this together. Thank you. --Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Call-me-Ishmae1, I'm sorry, but as a rule, I do not respond to e-mail appeals. Please be patient; I'm sure someone will review your appeal here soon. Roy: When C1d7d0 started editing, Call-me-Ishmae1 had already been blocked for cause; whether that was a good block or not, I don't know, because I haven't looked, but I don't see how blocking a disclosed alt of an indeffed user is questionable. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for my impatience. (I have emailed a total of 3 CheckUser Admins.) As long as my account is in "suspicious status", I do not wish to contest the blocking of other account of mine that I have identified as the same person. However, I think that the "reason" the account was blocked, and the "status" that my account was changed to as a result, could be a sufficient object of protest.

My second account, User:C1d7d0, did not do any puppetry on en.wiki. I just revealed in User talk that User:C1d7d0 is the same person as me. However, this caused my account to transition to a status of "checked sockpuppet owner". I just think this is odd. --Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It's already been 6 days since I posted a block appeal. In the meantime, thankfully, some users and administrators took an interest in my block and left some comments. --Thank you very much. But still my block was not reviewed. I've come to understand this as probably because my block is classified as a fairly complex case and requires a deeper review. Here's a summary of my responses to comments made by several people, as well as my comments to help with your review.

• According to the CheckUser admin, the only technical evidence that I am Trusci is that I am editing in the same country. I don't think this should be conclusive evidence. As you can see from the original block appeal and the reply to RoySmith, this may rather support my block appeal. The subject I have contributed to has been a controversial subject for a while in Korea recently, and naturally, many Koreans have tried to edit the article about it.
• The "behavioral evidence" I've identified appears to be threefold. One is that I have the same POV as Trusci, the other is that I joined at the same time as Trusci, and the last is that I and Trusci are WP:SPA.
• I think the reason Trusci and I came around the same time, and have the same POV, can be fully explained by the reply to RoySmith, as mentioned earlier. This topic has attracted many contributors without a POV, some of them WP:SPA. It's no wonder that all new contributors on this topic originate from ko.wiki.
• Please check my ko.wiki contributions here[14]. This account is by no means a WP:SPA. If you have a background in computer science and can read Korean (you can also use Google Translate[15]), it may sound a little arrogant, but my contributions to ko.wiki are more than just translations and typos. You will be able to easily figure out what it is. I'm here obviously to make an encyclopedia.

If you still suspect that me and Trusci are the same person, I'll add more "behavioral evidence" of what I think to this.

• On ko.wiki, I emailed Trusci that it may be violating the ko.wiki rules.[16] If I and Trusci were the same person, or if Trusci was recruited from outside the wiki, this would obviously be unnecessary. And since I'm not sure Trusci is trustworthy, I created a new Wikipedia account User:C1d7d0 and emailed Trusci anonymously. I don't have much experience with Wikipedia, but I do have a lot of experience with other wikis. As such, I clearly understand that the act of creating a new account can be "suspicious activity" in and of itself. If me and Trusci were the same person, or had a close relationship, I wouldn't have to take this risk at all.
• As you can see from SPI[17], I had another account for sending emails. If I were a Sockpuppet master, I would definitely bring a new account to Sockpuppetry. However, I only used the new account to send emails from ko.wiki, and as soon as my account entered a "suspicious state", I identified my other account as the same person. Is this behavior the Sockpuppet master might be exhibiting?
• Please note that I am citing a number of Wikipedia rules. Although I'm a newbie, I looked around some of Wikipedia's rules before starting to contribute. And I have a clear understanding of what WP:SOCK is and what WP:MEAT is. It is also clear that when multiple new accounts contribute to the same topic, the votes from the new accounts should be largely ignored and may be treated as one user. Given this, it seems pretty absurd for me, as a new user, to mobilize Sockpuppet. The benefits I get from using Sockpuppet are virtually non-existent, and I know this all too well.
• I was able to send the evidence I researched to Trusci (who appears to have the same POV) using an anonymous account. As I mentioned earlier, I'm well aware of how absurd it is to mobilize WP:SOCK. Also, as you can see, my English is not that good. Then the best thing for me (if Trusci checks my email) is to give Trusci the evidence in my native language, Korean, and watch Trusci use it in the discussion. If I behaved like this, I would never be suspected of being WP:SOCK. However, this is against Wikipedia's transparency. I strongly agree that all knowledge discussions should be held in a public space. That's why I gave up the safe and comfortable solution of sending the evidence to Trusci, choosing to compile the evidence and publish it on the talk page.

Finally, someone says my contributions fringe POV. However, I should make it clear that the topics I have contributed to, especially "Recent Developments"[18], have been written by many experienced contributors. An experienced contributor suggested a connection between Telegony and the Maternal effect[19][20], just like my POV. Telegony was published on WP:FTN#Telegony, but many agreed that Telegony was not pseudoscience, and some agreed that it deserved further discussion of "Recent developments". I'm not trying to say that my contributions are non-fringe. Because it has to be decided according to Wikipedia's decision-making process. I just want you to know that my contribution deserves enough discussion to make it into an encyclopedia, and no discussion has progressed to conclude that this is a fringe POV.

--Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It's already been two weeks since I filed a block appeal. But in the meantime, no admins have reviewed my block appeal. In the meantime, I looked at other block appeals by block history and category. And I have also confirmed that most appeals are usually processed within two weeks. So why has my block appeal not been reviewed yet? I'll be patient, but I don't think it will be difficult to get an explanation for this. --Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith:, @Blablubbs:, @Firefly: Sorry for the multiple pings. However, my appeal was left unattended for almost a month, and in the meantime I saw several other appeals being processed. You do not necessarily have to directly review my block. However, as above, I would like you to let me know what is preventing my appeal from being reviewed. --Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

---

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Call-me-Ishmae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@Rosguill: Procedural unblock request according to Admin review[21]. I have confirmed the conditions offered by Admin, and I accept their offered "t-ban appealable for topic telegony". Here again, I promise to continue constructive editing of Wikipedia.

Accept reason:

Accepting and imposing an indefinite t-ban on Telegony per the rationale I laid out in the prior unblock request. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

There is one thing missing. Can you unblock my second account User:C1d7d0 as well? As you can see on my Talk page, another admin has openly declared that they cannot find a reason for User:C1d7d0 block. As you can see from the block appeal, there is an email associated with this account that can identify individuals, so I am using User:C1d7d0 only for sending emails. I also understand that Wikipedia's restrictions apply to editors, not accounts. Please review this. --Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC) edit 05:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Confirmed unblocked. Thank you for handling it. --Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for review appeal

It's been over a week since I was blocked for sockpuppetry. My block appeal has not yet been reviewed. But thankfully, in the meantime, several experienced editors and admins have taken an interest in my block and left comments.

• An experienced editor made the comment that me and the other editor were supposed to be two different people.
• The CheckUser admin confirmed that the technical evidence for me and the other editor being the same person was really no more than editing in one big country.
• And the admin publicly declared that they couldn't find a reason for the second block that made my account a "confirmed sockpuppeteer".

I clearly understand that Wikipedia administrators are volunteers. And I understand clearly that they will handle this request when the time is right, and I have decided to be patient. But my block was triggered by fairly fragmented information. My SPI case was concluded in just over an hour, and I only found out about this when I got a block notification email. Since then, I have been waiting for a week without a promise. Please consider this together. Thank you. --Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Firefly: Please see the conversation above. Your block, which changed my account to "confirmed sockpuppeteer" status, was obviously wrong. As long as my account is in "suspicious status", I can accept blocks on my other account User:C1d7d0, but I cannot accept the disgrace of having my account classified as a "confirmed sockpuppeteer" due to a wrong block. Please correct this. --Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

DS notice: Fringe science and pseudoscience

The following is a standard notice of discretionary sanctions measures regarding editing contentious topics. It is typically given to editors who have expressed interest in a given topic affected by these measures. Telegony, as a fringe science topic, falls under these measures. While the above topic-ban was imposed as an unblock condition and thus is not subject to discretionary sanctions procedure, you should nevertheless be aware of sanctions related to the topic at-large. While you are only topic-banned from telegony, and not fringe science generally, you are advised that edits to other fringe science topics will be subject to significant scrutiny and, if subpar, may be taken as evidence that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving a notice. However, it is quite a disgrace to me that my interests are classified as fringe science and pseudoscience. First of all, have you read all of my Talk pages? There was a consensus[22] on the absurdity of classifying Telegony as pseudoscience. There are a few editors who oppose the consensus, but they have not presented scientific evidence and are not the majority.

A t-ban on Telegony is acceptable, as me and Trusci are on the same topic, and some contexts can be misleading. However, it would be quite offensive to label my contributions and edits as pseudoscience. If possible, can you explain why my contributions can be classified as fringe science and pseudoscience?

--Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you're misconstruing the message. Any overlap with the subject matter of fringe science is subject to the sanctions--that includes any and all discussions about whether something qualifies as a fringe science or not (and it is such discussions that are often the most contentious on Wikipedia). Moreover, this is not to say that your interests writ large are pseudoscience, simply that you have expressed interest in the topic at some point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I understand that you are not classifying Telegony per se as a fringe science, but that the discussion of classification is of interest to fringe science and pseudo science. If so, I would like to ask you the following question.

1. It is undeniable that I am interested in fringe science and pseudoscience. Because I want to strongly oppose anyone who makes an opinion in favor of Climate change denial, Creation science, Chemtrail conspiracy theory, etc. fringe science and pseudoscience. Would this also fall into the broadly interpreted t-ban category?
2. When I appeal to t-ban, is it also a discussion of telegony to show that my contribution to Telegony is not pseudoscience, that there is a consensus, that it is worth discussing fringe science or not on this topic?

--Call-me-Ishmae1 (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The t-ban only applies to telegony. The template in this section is a warning concerning further rules that apply to fringe science and pseudoscience broadly construed, and should be heeded if you intend to make any edits related to those topics. A successful t-ban appeal will focus on your demonstrated ability to edit other topics well, particularly your ability to engage constructively in the consensus-building process. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)