Paulk12

February 2023

{{unblock|reason= I don't understand what is happening :

I have created my first Wikipedia account a couple days ago. I am not a "sockpuppet" and I am not an "experienced Wikipedia contributor" neither as D. Lazard wrongly argumented to block me. This is ridiculous as everyone can check that I am just getting in touch with the WP vocabulary by looking at my edit justifications. I am not a "SPA" account, I did other edits on other page (like "Thomas Sankara" and "Frédéric Lordon" on french WIkipedia) before but it didn't need an account to do it, it is just since I tried to add infos and asked for more reference on tabloid/unreliable sourced infos on Juan Branco and Crepuscule Page that I have been asked to create an account to do it.

From my point of view and from what I have read in the discussions and history of the article edits, some contributors (including D. Lazard) of both Juan Branco and Crepuscule WP pages are actively preventing any changes to the wrong/unreliable/tabloid sourced infos on the pages. Either by reverting changes (with poor or no justification) when done by a person without account like I tried at first, or else (since I created an account and tried to get in touch with WP vocabulary and policy) by asking an admin to block my account with dishonnest argumentation (I am neither SPA, nor sockpuppet, nor an "experienced WP contributor").

Therefore, I appel the block because I am not a sockpuppet, it is my first account, and I also ask the admin that will read this to carefully look at what happened before judging, it seems that any changes to poorly/unreliable/unatteignable/tabloid sources (especially Paris Match that's aditionnaly in conflict of Interest with Juan Branco) information on this page is beeing very actively prevented by some accounts over the past months with dishonnest argumentation.

PS : I have tried to find consensus and discuss with D. Lazard, I did concessions, but at the moment he couldn't keep arguing (because he knows my edits were justified ?) he just asked a Wikipedia admin he seems to know to block me with false statements. This is arbitrary and unlegitimate. Didn't expect this from Wikipedia as I truly believe in the collective intelligence, but this article seems to be privatized by some people that do anything to prevent wrong/unreliable infos to be suppressed and other sourced infos to be added. Paulk12 (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You have never had a discussion with D.Lazard using this account; you did, however, attack D.Lazard at Daniel Lazard using your other account.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

On what base are you saying this ? I never did that it wasn't me ! You can't just throw random accusations like this without any proof. + I discussed with D. Lazard through my edits : you can see in the history that each time he objected an argument, I took it into account before reediting, at least that's what I call discussing. And eventually when he was out of argument he asked you to block me out of nowhere.

PS : You don't have anything to say about the rest of my appeal ? Paulk12 (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2023 (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).

Paulk12 (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 is happening : ::::I have created my first Wikipedia account a couple days ago. I am not a "sockpuppet" and I am not an "experienced Wikipedia contributor" neither as D. Lazard wrongly argumented to block me. This is ridiculous as everyone can check that I am just getting in touch with the WP vocabulary by looking at my edit justifications. I am not a "SPA" account, I did other edits on other page (like "Thomas Sankara" and "Frédéric Lordon" on french WIkipedia) before but it didn't need an account to do it, it is just since I tried to add infos and asked for more reference on tabloid/unreliable sourced infos on Juan Branco and Crepuscule Page that I have been asked to create an account to do it. ::::From my point of view and from what I have read in the discussions and history of the article edits, some contributors (including D. Lazard) of both Juan Branco and Crepuscule WP pages are actively preventing any changes to the wrong/unreliable/tabloid sourced infos on the pages. Either by reverting changes (with poor or no justification) when done by a person without account like I tried at first, or else (since I created an account and tried to get in touch with WP vocabulary and policy) by asking an admin to block my account with dishonnest argumentation (I am neither SPA, nor sockpuppet, nor an "experienced WP contributor"). ::::Therefore, I appel the block because I am not a sockpuppet, it is my first account, and I also ask the admin that will read this to carefully look at what happened before judging, it seems that any changes to poorly/unreliable/unatteignable/tabloid sources (especially Paris Match that's aditionnaly in conflict of Interest with Juan Branco) information on this page is beeing very actively prevented by some accounts over the past months with dishonnest argumentation. ::::PS : I have tried to find consensus and discuss with D. Lazard, I did concessions, but at the moment he couldn't keep arguing (because he knows my edits were justified ?) he just asked a Wikipedia admin he seems to know to block me with false statements. This is arbitrary and unlegitimate. Didn't expect this from Wikipedia as I truly believe in the collective intelligence, but this article seems to be privatized by some people that do anything to prevent wrong/unreliable infos to be suppressed and other sourced infos to be added. ::::Answer from BB23 : You have never had a discussion with D.Lazard using this account; you did, however, attack D.Lazard at Daniel Lazard using your other account.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC) ::::[reply] ::::My answer : On what base are you saying this ? I never did that it wasn't me ! You can't just throw random accusations like this without any proof. + I discussed with D. Lazard through my edits : you can see in the history that each time he objected an argument, I took it into account before reediting, at least that's what I call discussing. And eventually when he was out of argument he asked you to block me out of nowhere. ::::PS : You don't have anything to say about the rest of my appeal ? Paulk12 (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As you are evading your block by creating RoxxorOscar, your appeal is denied. Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 21 February 2023 (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.

I double-checked and I add that the english Juan Branco page is very different from the french Juan Branco page. On the french page you have a lot of sourced infos that D. Lazard is preventing anyone to add to the english page (e.g. additionnal education infos). Same for the unreliable/tabloid sources that have been removed on french page but are still on the english page and they prevent any change to them. Paulk12 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• You can't remove a declined unblock request. If you do so again, your access to this page will be revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Ok sorry I didn't know, I thought it would allow the admin to find the new unblock request more easely. I should post it on top or below the 1st request ? Paulk12 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Below.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, done Paulk12 (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2023 (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).

Paulk12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Acknowledgment and apology for block evasion First I recognize, and want to apologize, for having created RoxxorOscar to evade the block, I will never do it again. Creating multiple accounts has never been my goal on Wikipedia, I just want to contribute to the collective intelligence and work on the encyclopedia. I have always believed Wikipedia is an amazing place, a new Great Library of Alexandria. After beeing blocked because of a Suckpuppet assertion I knew false (see SPI result below), on some of my honest first contributions, by a encyclopedia I admire and I started to contribute to, it is true that I was very frustrated and created another account, I apologize for that and I will never do it again.

Clarification of my goal on wikipedia and how I intend to contribute

I already contributed on french Wikipedia in the past without account : I tried to add a new picture for Thomas Sankara and added a "critics" section and paragraph on the "eco-anxiety" page, I don't know how to prove that since I didn't have an account back then. But if posible to find a history or something, it would prove that I am an honest contributor and not a single purpose person.

The reason I created this account is because it was needed to make resolve some of the big differences and/or lacking content between French Juan Branco page and the English Juan Branco page. I had to create an account to make these contributions, which I did, but it was the first time I edited the page in my life (see below SPI result), as you can see from CheckUser Ponyo below I have no evidence of any link with Salmasalma2.

If unblocked, I intend to contribue even more to Wikipedia by specializing in French politicians, I have seen that many infos could be translated from their french page to their english page that often lack content, for example in infoboxes as I already did (you can see on my RoxxorOscar account that I did it for example with Jean-Luc Mélenchon page [1] or here on JB english page[2]) I intend to keep doing if unblocked.

SPI result with Salmasalma2 : "inconclusive"

CheckUser Ponyo provided the following SPI result :

"Paulk12 and RoxxorOscar are Likely from a technical standpoint, and I think behaviourally they're quacking. I couldn't conclusively tie them to Salmasalma2, though. There's evidence of VPN use with the Salma account which makes the connection Inconclusive.-- Ponyobons mots 23:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)"[[3]]

Therefore, I appeal the block as the assertion of D. Lazard and BB23 to block me (sockpuppet of Salma) revealed inconclusive.

Risk of a blocking loop and WP:POV on JB page

Please also note that :

I was blocked just after adding content and sources from the more detailed and accurate French Juan Branco page to the English Juan Branco page. Maybe Salma did the same, it would not be a surprise since both pages are so different that many french people are very disturbed about the english version of the page [[4]][[5]] lacking a lot of key infos (infobox, education, books, involvement with Assange...) and on the opposite showing infos that have been proved wrong/poorly sourced by tabloids and deleted on french page.

This might explain why many French new accounts/SPA are trying to do the same edits as I did with translated french material when they arrive on the english version and see that many differences/lacking infos/unsourced/poorly sourced infos. Nevertheless, blocking an account as Sockpuppet because of this : trying to add translated sourced infos from the French Juan Branco page to the english version and because other unrelated (or at least "inconclusive") users with VPN did the same before, would be a dangerous precedent causing a blocking loop.

Doing that would mean that every person wanting to add content from the more detailed french page to the english page will instantly be presumed sockpuppet of the last person that did it, preventing any improvment to the english page based on the detailed and sourced content of the french page (of a prench personnality), because anyone doing it would be presumed sockpuppet of the last person doing it with VPN. At the end, the only contributors able to edit the page would be the few ones that already made it so different (to say the least) from the french page,

Thus leading, if this block precedent is made, to an increasingly WP:POV on JB english page, making it increasingly distant from the french detailed/sourced/consensual JB page elaborated by many more contributors.

Thanks for your patience and your consideration. --Paulk12

Decline reason:

The number of people who think they can argue they're not a sock puppet while engaging in sock puppetry is rather mind boggling. Arguing with someone like this a waste of our time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2023 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

UTRS appeal #69992

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

"The number of people who think they can argue they're not a sock puppet while engaging in sock puppetry is rather mind boggling." -- NinjaRobotPirate -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)