HackerKnownAs

File copyright problem with File:4cc-mlp.png

Thank you for uploading File:4cc-mlp.png. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Vladlen Manilov ✉ / 06:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:4cc-mlp.png

Thanks for uploading File:4cc-mlp.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I have made a note at https://implyingrigged.info/wiki/File:Mlp_logo.png#Copyright_Notice that the file is available under CC-BY-SA, if this is to your satisfaction please remove the template on the file. 37.4.232.160 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 15.ai

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 15.ai you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SirGallantThe4th -- SirGallantThe4th (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 15.ai

The article 15.ai you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:15.ai for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SirGallantThe4th -- SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 15.ai

The article 15.ai you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:15.ai for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SirGallantThe4th -- SirGallantThe4th (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in 15.ai, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been following the Manual of Style closely, and I don't see how the other edits that were reverted deviated from the MoS.

I suspect that the revert was triggered because I included an external link in the image description in my latest edit. I've removed that and have re-reverted my other edits. HackerKnownAs (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for 15.ai

On 9 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 15.ai, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the developer of 15.ai claims that as little as 15 seconds of a person's voice is sufficient to clone it up to human standards using artificial intelligence? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/15.ai. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 15.ai), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Screenshot from The Tax Breaks.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Screenshot from The Tax Breaks.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. 9³ (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

File:4cc-mlp.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:4cc-mlp.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. 9³ (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

File:15 ai logo transparent.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:15 ai logo transparent.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hi 197.185.115.235 (talk) 10:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:15 ai logo transparent.png

Thank you for uploading File:15 ai logo transparent.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 15.ai

15.ai has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi, You recently reverted my 15.ai edit. We had a discussion at the DRN and thought that this would be the way to fix it- removing the current status as well as adding the thoughts of the community. If you want, here is the link Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Fifth statement by moderator (15.ai) for proof. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 11:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, HackerKnownAs,

Please do not make personal attacks or cast aspersions on another editor without providing evidence. Continuing to do so after being warned can result in a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I would appreciate you striking your last comment here which is a personal attack upon another editor, casting aspersions without providing evidence. You can't level accusations against another editor just because you disagree with them. That's not how things work here. That comment alone is enough to warrant a block and I recommend that you strike it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry to bother you, but what did you mean specifically about personal attacks? I am trying to write up an unban appeal and it was cited as one of the reasons why I should not be unbanned, but I do not feel as though I personally attacked anyone. When I created the AN/I, it was out of ignorance and because an admin had suggested that the discussion be moved to AN/I. I apologize for that but I did not intend for any personal attacks to be made. HackerKnownAs (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Liz, I see your comment above now, and I am sorry for mot doing this when asked. I was never given a notification and I rneglected to check my talk page. I understand why I was rejected for personal attacks now. My apologies. HackerKnownAs (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It's the part of the discussion that is "hatted" for being a personal attack. And the fact you claimed that BrocadeRiverPoems "had a history of sockpuppetry" which it was actually you who was doing the socking, makes it very unlikely that you will be unblocked outside of Wikipedia:Standard offer. No more socking for six months, try working on another Wikimedia project, without problems, and then try submitting another unblock request where you are honest and open about your past misbehavior. I see that as your only way forward right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi HackerKnownAs! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of 15.ai several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:15.ai, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, HackerKnownAs,

I hadn't known that you also have been edit-warring on this article. You have been reverting and re-reverting other editors and your edit summary does not provide justification for edit warring. There are few exceptions to the edit-warring/3R guideline and thinking that you are right and other editors are wrong is not one of them. You are getting caught up with the status of this article and being so invested can lead to errors in judgment that can result in a block. Please step back and be more careful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry. I will try to be more careful next time. I genuinely was not aware that what I was doing was edit warring – I will be more cognizant. HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, it looks like some of the evidence that I posted related to my ban appeal was redacted by another admin. I am unable to post on their talk page due to the block. What can I do? HackerKnownAs (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I have created an unblock request. Thank you for your consideration. HackerKnownAs (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am writing to appeal a block that occurred just an hour ago on Wikipedia on our user accounts. I would like to clarify that while we (HackerKnownAs and User:SirGallantThe4th) do not dispute that we created the other account (Andthewinnerisme), we would like to say that we only felt pressured to do so because of all of the other IP accounts that seemingly were all in support of the OP instead, which felt suspicious to us. We realize that the Checkuser note came back positive because we were sharing devices. Indeed, we recently met up in person for the first time not a week ago, before any of the admin noticeboard drama happened (and are still meeting in person right now) - I can share the airplane tickets as proof if necessary ([redacted], please note the dates). However, prior to this, we had never met before. We are separate people, and you can check our edit histories to verify that we have never shared an IP address prior to this interaction. We apologize for the creation of the other two accounts that were flagged, but we would like to stress that we are different people. Punish us if you must for the other two accounts, but please reconsider the block you put on us. We have contributed many substantial edits to Wikipedia, and we have always tried to operate under good faith up until this interaction with someone who we felt were antagonizing us. To clarify, the account "Andthewinnerisme" was supposed to be a joke that SirGallantThe4th created because of the suspicious IP editor asking for a sanction on HackerKnownAs (he didn't realize that it would be considered sockpuppeting and is very sorry about it), and "Rin6626" was made by a friend of his who had a bad sense of humor who was also visiting us (I was not aware that he made this account until after the CheckUser block, as he usually posts as an IP editor). Again, we are sorry for the mess this has caused, but please note that we are all separate people. I was attempting to respond to a comment in the UTRS ticket, but an admin responded that there is no excuse for sockpuppetry and recruiting off-Wiki participants, and before I could respond, the ticket was closed. I would like to stress that we have never recruited off-Wiki participants ever, and the friend mentioned above was someone who already was familiar with the recent drama but didn’t have an account, as he posts as an IP editor. Neither I nor SirGallantThe4th had any malicious intent to sockpuppet. (Edited because I did not see the part about what constructive edits I would make) I would continue to make edits as I have done for four years on Wikipedia. I’ve mostly been lurking around articles related to Internet culture, and I like to think that I put in good work whenever I can, often going the extra mile. See, for example, on my work on the 4chan article &ndash I spent hours listing all of the 4chan boards in a Wikipedia style table. [1] My conduct in the AN/I board was because I am still woefully inexperienced when it comes to the rules of Wikipedia. When an admin advised to move the AN discussion about me to AN/I, I took this to mean that I should be the one to move it, which User:Liz then advised me that that was not she had meant. I’m still learning, and I apologize again for the trouble.

Decline reason:

This expanation stretches AGF beyond the breaking point, along with a fair helping of WP:NOTTHEM. It just doesn't add up, and coupled with the edit warring and personal attacks noted above, a block seems like the best thing for Wikipedia. You may want to consider the standard offer as your best path to eventually getting unblocked. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:28, 17 November 2024 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I am sorry, but what exactly about the explanation does not add up? I posted my plane ticket along with SirGallantThe4th’s, but it was redacted by another admin. I am happy to post more evidence that we are separate people (along with our messages over Discord if absolutely necessary, but those are largely private conversations), but I do not know how I am supposed to do this when all talk pages are blocked, I cannot access the Teahouse, my request on UTRS is getting stonewalled. Please see this from our perspective. All we wanted was to meet up, which we planned weeks ago. You can verify this by looking at all of our IP histories. I have nothing to hide here.

I do not think I have ever intentionally behaved in a contentious manner, and every time an admin pointed out my mistake, I am quick to apologize for my wrongdoings. I genuinely did not know what I was doing constituted edit warring, as I explained in my talk page above. I am asking you to believe me when I say I have always tried to contribute positively to Wikipedia.

User:SirGallantThe4th has also posted on their talk page regarding an unblock appeal as well. I’m asking the admins to please at least look at the evidence I have before rejecting this appeal.

(Redacted)

As for the personal attacks, I do not believe I have ever resorted to using ad hominems in any of my edits. The only time I brought in something that could be construed as such was accusing the person who created the AN notice against me of alienating editors like myself and SirGallantThe4th, but I am a bit confused by what you mean by personal attacks. I take full responsibility for the edit warring, just to be clear – I have learned my lesson there. But I have always tried to be respectful to others as long as they were respectful towards me.

(Edit: I see how what you are referring to. I did not see the comment from User:Liz about this, I am sorry. I would have struck out the comment if I had noticed her comment, but I am only now seeing it because I did not get a notification. I really am sorry for my negligence.)

Finally, I did not mean to violate WP:NOTTHEM. I was giving explanations, not excuses. I am not putting any blame on the admins or the OP, just disappointed that my legitimate criticism is now going to be looked at with scorn because of this. I have spent the last four years helping edit Wikipedia, and to see all of my effort get wiped out and put under scrutiny because of a stupid joke that I did not even make is really saddening.

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.

Administrator use only:

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 am sorry, but what exactly about the explanation does not add up? I posted my plane ticket along with SirGallantThe4th’s, but it was redacted by another admin. I am happy to post more evidence that we are separate people (along with our messages over Discord if absolutely necessary, but those are largely private conversations), but I do not know how I am supposed to do this when all talk pages are blocked, I cannot access the Teahouse, my request on UTRS is getting stonewalled. Please see this from our perspective. All we wanted was to meet up, which we planned weeks ago. You can verify this by looking at all of our IP histories. I have nothing to hide here. I do not think I have ever intentionally behaved in a contentious manner, and every time an admin pointed out my mistake, I am quick to apologize for my wrongdoings. I genuinely did not know what I was doing constituted edit warring, as I explained in my talk page above. I am asking you to believe me when I say I have always tried to contribute positively to Wikipedia. [[User:SirGallantThe4th]] has also posted on their talk page regarding an unblock appeal as well. I’m asking the admins to please at least look at the evidence I have before rejecting this appeal. <span class="history-deleted" style="color:#565656"><span title="Content was removed">(Redacted)</span></span> As for the personal attacks, I do not believe I have ever resorted to using ad hominems in any of my edits. The only time I brought in something that could be construed as such was accusing the person who created the AN notice against me of alienating editors like myself and SirGallantThe4th, but I am a bit confused by what you mean by personal attacks. I take full responsibility for the edit warring, just to be clear – I have learned my lesson there. But I have always tried to be respectful to others as long as they were respectful towards me. (Edit: I see how what you are referring to. I did not see the comment from [[User:Liz]] about this, I am sorry. I would have struck out the comment if I had noticed her comment, but I am only now seeing it because I did not get a notification. I really am sorry for my negligence.) Finally, I did not mean to violate [[WP:NOTTHEM]]. I was giving explanations, not excuses. I am not putting any blame on the admins or the OP, just disappointed that my legitimate criticism is now going to be looked at with scorn because of this. I have spent the last four years helping edit Wikipedia, and to see all of my effort get wiped out and put under scrutiny because of a stupid joke that I did not even make is really saddening.  |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 am sorry, but what exactly about the explanation does not add up? I posted my plane ticket along with SirGallantThe4th’s, but it was redacted by another admin. I am happy to post more evidence that we are separate people (along with our messages over Discord if absolutely necessary, but those are largely private conversations), but I do not know how I am supposed to do this when all talk pages are blocked, I cannot access the Teahouse, my request on UTRS is getting stonewalled. Please see this from our perspective. All we wanted was to meet up, which we planned weeks ago. You can verify this by looking at all of our IP histories. I have nothing to hide here. I do not think I have ever intentionally behaved in a contentious manner, and every time an admin pointed out my mistake, I am quick to apologize for my wrongdoings. I genuinely did not know what I was doing constituted edit warring, as I explained in my talk page above. I am asking you to believe me when I say I have always tried to contribute positively to Wikipedia. [[User:SirGallantThe4th]] has also posted on their talk page regarding an unblock appeal as well. I’m asking the admins to please at least look at the evidence I have before rejecting this appeal. <span class="history-deleted" style="color:#565656"><span title="Content was removed">(Redacted)</span></span> As for the personal attacks, I do not believe I have ever resorted to using ad hominems in any of my edits. The only time I brought in something that could be construed as such was accusing the person who created the AN notice against me of alienating editors like myself and SirGallantThe4th, but I am a bit confused by what you mean by personal attacks. I take full responsibility for the edit warring, just to be clear – I have learned my lesson there. But I have always tried to be respectful to others as long as they were respectful towards me. (Edit: I see how what you are referring to. I did not see the comment from [[User:Liz]] about this, I am sorry. I would have struck out the comment if I had noticed her comment, but I am only now seeing it because I did not get a notification. I really am sorry for my negligence.) Finally, I did not mean to violate [[WP:NOTTHEM]]. I was giving explanations, not excuses. I am not putting any blame on the admins or the OP, just disappointed that my legitimate criticism is now going to be looked at with scorn because of this. I have spent the last four years helping edit Wikipedia, and to see all of my effort get wiped out and put under scrutiny because of a stupid joke that I did not even make is really saddening.  |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 am sorry, but what exactly about the explanation does not add up? I posted my plane ticket along with SirGallantThe4th’s, but it was redacted by another admin. I am happy to post more evidence that we are separate people (along with our messages over Discord if absolutely necessary, but those are largely private conversations), but I do not know how I am supposed to do this when all talk pages are blocked, I cannot access the Teahouse, my request on UTRS is getting stonewalled. Please see this from our perspective. All we wanted was to meet up, which we planned weeks ago. You can verify this by looking at all of our IP histories. I have nothing to hide here. I do not think I have ever intentionally behaved in a contentious manner, and every time an admin pointed out my mistake, I am quick to apologize for my wrongdoings. I genuinely did not know what I was doing constituted edit warring, as I explained in my talk page above. I am asking you to believe me when I say I have always tried to contribute positively to Wikipedia. [[User:SirGallantThe4th]] has also posted on their talk page regarding an unblock appeal as well. I’m asking the admins to please at least look at the evidence I have before rejecting this appeal. <span class="history-deleted" style="color:#565656"><span title="Content was removed">(Redacted)</span></span> As for the personal attacks, I do not believe I have ever resorted to using ad hominems in any of my edits. The only time I brought in something that could be construed as such was accusing the person who created the AN notice against me of alienating editors like myself and SirGallantThe4th, but I am a bit confused by what you mean by personal attacks. I take full responsibility for the edit warring, just to be clear – I have learned my lesson there. But I have always tried to be respectful to others as long as they were respectful towards me. (Edit: I see how what you are referring to. I did not see the comment from [[User:Liz]] about this, I am sorry. I would have struck out the comment if I had noticed her comment, but I am only now seeing it because I did not get a notification. I really am sorry for my negligence.) Finally, I did not mean to violate [[WP:NOTTHEM]]. I was giving explanations, not excuses. I am not putting any blame on the admins or the OP, just disappointed that my legitimate criticism is now going to be looked at with scorn because of this. I have spent the last four years helping edit Wikipedia, and to see all of my effort get wiped out and put under scrutiny because of a stupid joke that I did not even make is really saddening.  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@Ivanvector: does this explanation seem remotely possible to you? 2400:79E0:8070:6AE:1808:F152:FEA5:9BB0 (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

There are parts that are plausible with the data, and parts that aren't. They have shared a connection before this week, for example. Let's say they're two editors: one is interested in AI, internet culture, and human speech, while the other has edited almost nothing other than chess. Yet, the chess editor has found their way to one particular article on an AI project heavily edited by the other, including a GA review when their account had barely 20 edits. The story just has too many coincidences - sure they could be two separate editors, but then they're two editors who know each other and work together. And in that vein: they have supported each other in project discussions, reviewed each other's featured content, and most recently they admit to creating sockpuppets to pretend to be sockpuppets of an opponent in order to get that editor in trouble. It doesn't really matter if they're one person or several people working together for these actions to be violations of the sockpuppetry policy.

So let's say we consider them two users. Both will need to appeal separately, and convince a reviewing administrator (other than me, I don't review my own blocks) that they understand why they were blocked and what they will do differently if unblocked so that they do not continue to be disruptive. I will also strongly recommend that they both be topic banned from the 15.ai article and all discussions on the topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand why this might seem like a strange coincidence, but I can answer that simply: we are both from the /g/ board (Technology) on 4chan and specialize in AI. SirGallantThe4th is a chess AI enthusiast and is one of the contributors to open-source chess engines like Stockfish and Leela Chess Zero. We both independently found the article at different times, we did not know each other before 2024, and only recently did we find each other on a Discord server totally unrelated to the subject (I recognized their username and inquired whether they were the same person who did the GA review two years ago) and decided to go to an AI meetup together with several others from /g/. This is what I meant by "a friend who has a bad sense of humor", as you can expect from someone from 4chan.

If we have shared a connection, then that is purely a coincidence, but not impossible because we have both been avid convention goers for years. We probably stayed in the same hotel multiple times without knowing it. HackerKnownAs (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

On that note, I do not believe this ordeal should invalidate the work we did elsewhere and the GA review itself, since at the time of that review, we genuinely did not know each other. If we had been coordinating since then, I would not have had to post on their talk page to consider helping with an AfD request, or if anyone still believes that we are the same person, it would imply that I would have had to keep up the same writing styles for four years while only editing articles that I have no familiarity with (chess). I do not think this is any more plausible than my explanation.

I do not mean this as a slight to anyone, but people do have lives outside of Wikipedia, and it should not interfere with how other editors perceive our contributions to Wikipedia. We have already been hounded for “suspicious inactivity”, and I do not want our edits from 2020 to 2024 to be scrutinized just because we attended an event together after the fact. HackerKnownAs (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Let me see if I can get this story right:
  • HackerKnownAs and User:SirGallantThe4th created a sockpuppet account Andthewinnerisme.
  • HackerKnownAs and User:SirGallantThe4th were sharing devices.
  • HackerKnownAs and User:SirGallantThe4th were meeting in person 'right now'.
  • Rin6626 was made by a friend who was visiting.

So three people (and a sockpuppet) in the same location brigading an editor on wiki. How did the IPs 12.188.169.2 and 198.136.190.5 get involved? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not permitted to give any information on which accounts use which IPs. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The question was aimed at HackerKnownAs hence I started with a new bullet point rather than replying directly to you. Perhaps I should have been clearer by including HackerKnownAs username. Apologies for that. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Threading has never been my strong suit. I kind of have to point that out anyway when it comes up, in case someone reads what we both wrote and draws a conclusion I did not intend to make. More of a general notice than a reply, I guess. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

“Visiting” is probably not the right word, and I apologize for using that term, because it makes it sound like a small private get-together. It was more like everyone congregating together to attend the same private event.

But to clarify, I had nothing to do with the creation of Andthewinnerisme, but no one is seeing the human side of this. Yes, it was a bad joke, but that's all it was – a joke. SirGallantThe4th thought it would be funny to pretend to be like one of the many IP editors hounding us (just look at this thread alone) as a tongue-in-cheek move without thinking of its consequences (they were intoxicated at the time of writing). Of course, it was a stupid move, but I would appreciate it if we could stop assuming malice from that action, especially since only a single post was made on that account. HackerKnownAs (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

And the IPs 12.188.169.2 and 198.136.190.5 who commented at WP:ANI? How did they get involved? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Like I said above (awkwardly) checkusers are not permitted to share technical details that reveal an account's IP address, but looking at the public edits of 12.188.169.2, I don't think they're the same person. They don't share the same interests as either of the main blocked accounts, and the IP gives the impression of someone experienced in sockpuppetry and Wikipedia policy. Also, their talk page response to the IP being blocked suggests they're already banned. 198.136.190.5 looks like a different user again from their public edits, but it's curious how they found ANI when they have never edited outside of article space ever. I'm also pinging Izno who actually blocked those IPs.

For the sake of moving forward, I'm willing to accept that HackerKnownAs and SirGallantThe4th are two separate individuals, but then that still leaves us with a group of users involved in a dispute who thought they could settle it by pretending to create sockpuppets of their opponent to make them look foolish; see WP:TAGTEAM, WP:MEAT, and WP:STRAWSOCK. I don't really care who actually created the account, you're going to have to take responsibility for your part in it, as well as the edit warring and personal attacks which seem to have led to the ANI thread in the first place, if you want to be unblocked. You mentioned above that "no one is seeing the human side of this" - which part of that perspective on humanity inspired you to team up with the people who created these attack socks? Do you not think there are humans behind the other accounts you interact with? Do you think they find your "joke" at their expense funny? I don't, I find it insulting in fact. Passing off your actions a joke is a cop-out and you know it is. Every Wikipedia editor deserves dignity and respect. Period. Please have a glance at the civility policy. Maybe making stupid jokes at others' expense is how 4chan operates but that's not going to fly here.

Here's how Wikipedia block appeals work: we are not in the game of punishing users, we would rather you contribute than stay blocked. But we need you to recognize and explain what it is that you did wrong that led us to this point - you've been given plenty of links on this page to policies and guidelines that you violated. By taking responsibility for your actions and explaining what you will do differently from now on, you go a long way to convincing us that this block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. That's the key to getting unblocked. I especially would like you to explain what courses of action are available to you if you find yourself in another content disagreement with an editor who undoes your edits. I'll be looking forward to reading what you come up with. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Both IPs were reported to the relevant SPI and I had meant to issue a proxy block for both (as I said at the SPI) and my brain went too quickly to using spihelper for it instead of issuing the blocks via Twinkle. I made an internal notch not to do that in the future. I didn't take any time to investigate whether they were the user (group) otherwise. Izno (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

You say I had nothing to do with the creation of Andthewinnerisme but in the initial unblock request you wrote I would like to clarify that while we (HackerKnownAs and User:SirGallantThe4th) do not dispute that we created the other account (Andthewinnerisme). I just wanted to point out the glaring inconsistency. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because we collectively are being accused of sockpuppeting. I had nothing to do with the creation of the account, but I am happy to take part of the responsibility as User:Ivanvector suggested. It was also my fault for not being aware that this could end up happening. But I do not see what is inconsistent about collectively taking responsibility of the actions but also noting that the account itself was not created by myself.

I will give a more detailed response to the above later because I would still like to enjoy the rest of this meetup. HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are different people, the inconsistency is you are saying we do not dispute that we created the other account and also I had nothing to do with the creation. You're saying, in essence (and possibly unintentionally) that you do not dispute that you both created the account, and then you are saying that you had nothing to do with the creation of the account. Even taken in the sense of collective responsibility, saying later you had nothing to do with it is negating that collective responsibility and instead asserting you have no personal responsibility. I mean this in literally the friendliest way possible because, and I cannot stress this enough, I wasn't even proposing that either of you be blocked from the site.

To address your confusion about personal attacks and what was a personal attack in an edit summary, WP:NPA#WHATIS Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor. Linking to the WPO thread and accusing me of socking, etc. in the edit summary at 15.ai is what they are referring to. That edit summary has since been redacted.

I would appreciate it if we could stop assuming malice from that action, especially since only a single post was made on that account

I'm going to break down the sequence of events to you because you have said at least one of y'all was drinking that night, so you can possibly see it from an outside perspective as to why it appears malicious.

• Your friend made an account, from a phone you all used, which you swear you were unaware of.
• This friend proceeded to make a claim on said account that I was running socks and directing a discord to attack people on Wikipedia.
• You later used this very claim said friend made in your ANI complaint.
• Your other friend then made a fake account to essentially pretend to be a sock of mine to (intentionally or not) substantiate that claim.

I sincerely hope this information helps you out in figuring out how to address your appeal in a way that is satisfactory to whomever addresses it, and I'll leave you alone now. I hope it goes well for you.

All the best, Brocade River Poems (She/They) 09:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)