Mosasauroides
July 2022
edit | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC) |
Mosasauroides (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I very much question the decision to not only block me but to revert all my edits - especially since no evidence has been presented against me and I have received no communication on this (no chance to give any input). Not a single one of my edits were unsourced or based on unreliable sources. Reverting my additions to the List of mosasaur genera, Liodon, Prognathodon and Harranasaurus, to name a few, has once again placed Wikipedia in an outdated position on these topics. I request not only to be unblocked but also for my edits to be reinstated. What is going on Bbb23? I think the least someone can request before being immediately blocked on baseless accusations is for their edits and editing patterns to be reviewed. I can for instance see that no investigation was conducted... Mosasauroides (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
That's an impressive piece of rhetoric, clearly expressing your indignation at how grossly unreasonable Bbb23 has been in blocking you from editing on the basis of "baseless accusations". It is also interesting to learn that "Not a single one of [your] edits were unsourced or based on unreliable sources." Somehow, however, you managed to overlook a few little details such as your citing as a reference a paper which doesn't even mention the subject for which you gave it as a reference. (Did you think nobody would check?) I could go on, and give other justifications for the block but I've got far better things to do with my time. Maybe if you put your mind to it you too could find better things to do with your time than idiotic attempts to vandalise Wikipedia. (Incidentally, where did you really get the information you posted about "Harranasaurus"? Did you copy it from some children's fantasy site such as Fandom, or are you the person who made it up and posted it to those sites?) JBW (talk) 13:35, 15 July 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.
- @JBW: (Am I allowed to respond to this?) Sorry in advance for the length of this response. Even if every single one of my edits had been based on unreliable sources that would not in my opinion (obviously Wikipedia administrators know more about policy than I do, but I want to understand what is going on here) warrant a block for being a sockpuppet - this is what I meant by a baseless accusation since no evidence was presented and (as I mentioned) no investigation appears to have been conducted. If my conduct, edits and editing patterns had been properly investigated beyond the observation that I created an article that happened to have been created previously by a banned user I think it would be obvious that I am not a sockpuppet of said user. I.e. even if my edits had been low quality or unsourced that is not enough to block me based on something completely different, surely?
- I also find it rude that call my edits "idiotic attempts to vandalise Wikipedia". Was adding in the list of extinct species of Panthera (sourced in the article itself) to the infobox idiotic vandalism? Was expanding the short article on Amphekepubis with more reliable sources idiotic vandalism? Was adding in information on the classification of Xenodens based on what the paper says idiotic vandalism? Was expanding the timeline of mosasaur research to cover research conducted since the time the timeline was last updated (2019) idiotic vandalism? Was editing the article on Liodon to be more in-line with what has been going on with the genus since 2008 idiotic vandalism? The Liodon article now falsely ascribes the genus species that have been classified as Prognathodon since 2008 and falsely includes L. asiaticum as a species with a source that states it is in fact not valid. I am curious as to which edit you are referring to with Somehow, however, you managed to overlook a few little details such as your citing as a reference a paper which doesn't even mention the subject for which you gave it as a reference. (Did you think nobody would check?). Check any of the edits I mentioned and you'll see that they hold up.
- Re: Harranasaurus: as I pointed out in the (now deleted without responding to my objections) talk page of the article - Kaddumi (2009) named many new genera and species in the same publication; Wikipedia already accepted some of them as valid before I began editing (see his Carinodens palistinicus being mentioned in the article on Carinodens). Here are two later papers (no chance these can be classed as unreliable) that view his C. palistinicus as valid: 1, 2 and one that views his Tenerasaurus hashimi as valid (reassigning the species to Prognathodon): 3. The conclusion one has to draw is that the publication is a source of valid taxonomic descriptions. Since I do not have access to A new durophagous mosasaur (Squamata: Mosasauridae) from the Maastrichtian Muwaqqar Chalk Marl Formation of the Harrana Fauna I got the information from the Italian Wikipedia, which does keep an article on Harranasaurus (link) not from a "children's fantasy site". The paper is a real paper (see the table of contents of the book it is from here, image 2) and it does name the new genus and species Harranasaurus khuludae (this other paper from the same publication explicitly mentions this).
- I would contend that describing the creation of a Harranasaurus page, and all my other edits, as "idiotic attempts to vandalise Wikipedia" hardly abides by WP:AGF. If I am not getting unblocked (even if I were to this situation doesn't exactly inspire one to help contribute to the encyclopedia) I at least ask that my edits (I did not make that many) are reviewed for their merit individually - I don't think you can seriously contend that none of them were improvements. Mosasauroides (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, it looks as though you may have been editing in good faith after all. It is unfortunate that you took information for an article you created from Wikipedia, rather than from reliable sources, and that you posted material closely related to material previously posted on numerous even less reliable sources, such as Fandom, and that a substantial part of what you posted was very similar to material previously posted to Wikipedia by an editor who performed unambiguous vandalism, using numerous accounts. Several other features of your editing also made it look as though you were likely to be that editor. Unfortunately, the fact that many of your edits did seem to have been constructive did not contradict the appearance that your purpose here was vandalism, as it is a very common trick for vandals who have a prolonged history of blocked accounts to start out with some "good" edits in order to camouflage the destructive edits which are their real purpose on Wikipedia. However, thanks to links you have provided above, I see that there is at least one apparently reliable source for Harranasaurus, and I no longer see the evidende of vandalism as persuasive. Nor do I see any compelling evidence of sockpuppetry, though that does not, of course, rule out the possibility that there may be such compelling evidence, if I were to look in the right place. Bbb23 are you willing to look again at the evidence, and consider whether the evidence is still compelling, or whether you and I may both have been mistaken on the basis of initial impressions? JBW (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @JBW: I blocked the user for socking, not for "vandalism". The article the user created has been created multiple times by socks, and the versions are similar enough, regardless of whether it is a hoax or vandalism or a distortion or whatever. AFAIK, the data on the sockmaster is stale. However, the CU log data may be useful - hence Checkuser needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, Bbb23, re-reading my post above I realise that I missed out a significant part of what I was thinking. I too saw the similarity of the article to earlier versions as convincing evidence of sockpuppetry, but I have now seen that there are other possible explanations for the similarity, such as copying from unreliable sources, such as Italian Wikipedia and other user-edited websites. I meant to mention that, and forgot. Nevertheless, I have thought again about the relevant editing history, and there are certainly features which are surprising if this really is a new editor. I'm really unsure. JBW (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @JBW: I blocked the user for socking, not for "vandalism". The article the user created has been created multiple times by socks, and the versions are similar enough, regardless of whether it is a hoax or vandalism or a distortion or whatever. AFAIK, the data on the sockmaster is stale. However, the CU log data may be useful - hence Checkuser needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, it looks as though you may have been editing in good faith after all. It is unfortunate that you took information for an article you created from Wikipedia, rather than from reliable sources, and that you posted material closely related to material previously posted on numerous even less reliable sources, such as Fandom, and that a substantial part of what you posted was very similar to material previously posted to Wikipedia by an editor who performed unambiguous vandalism, using numerous accounts. Several other features of your editing also made it look as though you were likely to be that editor. Unfortunately, the fact that many of your edits did seem to have been constructive did not contradict the appearance that your purpose here was vandalism, as it is a very common trick for vandals who have a prolonged history of blocked accounts to start out with some "good" edits in order to camouflage the destructive edits which are their real purpose on Wikipedia. However, thanks to links you have provided above, I see that there is at least one apparently reliable source for Harranasaurus, and I no longer see the evidende of vandalism as persuasive. Nor do I see any compelling evidence of sockpuppetry, though that does not, of course, rule out the possibility that there may be such compelling evidence, if I were to look in the right place. Bbb23 are you willing to look again at the evidence, and consider whether the evidence is still compelling, or whether you and I may both have been mistaken on the basis of initial impressions? JBW (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's a little bit of data in the CU logs, and a bit more in cuwki. Both of those say Mosasauroides is
Unrelated to Lapitavenator. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: Thanks! Given that socking is, as I said above, the principal reason for my block, I've unblocked the user and removed the sock tag from their userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: I have reinstated my edits (presuming that is okay since the excuse for reverting all of them was the accusation against me) and have recreated the Harranasaurus page in a much shorter version sourced to a more accessible reliable source. Sorry if you got a lot of notifications from this. Mosasauroides (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)