User talk:Steven1991

Hello, I am Davey2010 and welcome to Wikipedia, Steven1991! Thank you for your changes. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or send me a message on my talk page. I like to help new people, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to change a page
• Help pages
• How to write a very good article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Brioche23 (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Steven, (CC @FusionSub), I was replying and the comment was deleted; Could be wrong but Corotenìa screams sock of Rapta999 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Rapta made it their mission to remove RFD tags from articles they written, Could be wrong though, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good observation, although there doesn't seem to be a topic overlap so I wont block them for now.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 20:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Someone has just templated the user, but the user does not seem to have the intention of desisting from his or her vandalism. Steven1991 (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay Fusion no worries, I just realised Coro hasn't created any articles yet; they're just edit warring over an RFD, still screams Rapta but yeah like yourself I'd rather see more than just RFD removals, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 20:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Davey2010 Hi Davey2010! the user (Rapta999) you mentioned is only active on Kurdish-related articles and does not even edit other topics, so the probability of them being the same person is 0%. Also Rapta999 is a sock of Bokak99, I have previously filed an SPI about them on the English Wikipedia. [1] Kajmer05 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is hard to tell. It is not uncommon for sock masters to make inroads into other topics to cover up their tracks, when they realise that focusing on the same topic area would easily get them spotted. Steven1991 (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Then I wonder about the CU result. Good night!! Kajmer05 (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Kajmer05, Steven has hit the nail on the head - Rapta may well be editing other articles in order to throw us off the scent .... or I/we could be 110% wrong on them both being the same person altogether, Still either way I don't plan on interacting with them unless they start creating non-notable articles and edit warring over templates on those they created, Thanks for replying and making me aware though it's much appreciated, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is Syxrt6333 in the request but I don't think it will match because Syxrt6333 doesn't even use the edit summary. I can say that Bokak99 and Corotenìa match, so somehow (I filed an SPI file about them before, so I know :D) I can't comment much here as I don't know how checkuser works in Simple Wikipedia but as I said let's wait for the CU results, good night! Kajmer05 (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have still not heard back from the CU yet. Steven1991 (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

An editor has requested deletion of Polocaust, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the page meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Polocaust and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the page during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. BRP ^ever 08:42, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I previously objected to your RfA, and you are declining my unblock request. I don’t want to assume bad faith, but this seems to be a conflict of interest that should have been avoided as it is possible that previous encounters could have affected administrative judgments. I would like to request intervention from oversighters @Eptalon @Fehufanga. I believe that there should be admins who are totally uninvolved to conduct an independent assessment and propose possible conditions for unblocking. Steven1991 (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't actually care about someone supporting or opposing me somewhere. That now is simply about facts, nothing more or less. Like every admin on the project surely had some sort of conversation with you at some point and would therefore be not neutral. -Barras talk 12:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, I would like to know if a probation period could be considered? Like being allowed to resume contributing under certain conditions? I do not understand the classification of some of my contributions as “original research”. Almost all of my edits in history-related articles are well-sourced, sometimes with sources from reputable academic publishers. These cannot be considered “original research” simply because of individual disagreements. Also, it’s not that I rejected community input. For the excessive footnote issue, I listened to admins’ advice and have removed most of them. It’s not that I am refusing to collaborate – quite the opposite. I believe that it is not ideal to judge me based on mistakes that I have shown the willingness to address. I would be open to a conditional unblock, and hope that this can be considered independently of the ENWP block context which is far more complicated. Steven1991 (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Davey2010 @NorthernWinds Would you mind providing input as well given that we edited the same articles to some extent in the past? Steven1991 (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Steven1991,

My interactions with you have been positive, specially with vandalism reversion. Admittedly our interactions have been limited, so I am not sure to what extent this will help you. I have checked one of your created articles. I checked the sources tagged with "better source needed", and could not find a reason to tag them as such.

Best, NorthernWinds (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Steven1991 (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ferien: Pinging you as the blocking admin, in case you would like to give input.

Steven: it is not necessary, and may be inappropriate, to ask specific admins to evaluate an unblock request. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Noted. Apologies. Steven1991 (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

As a note from the blocking administrator to the original request, it's clear the case on the Antisemitism article is not the only case of harassment, with an addition to the Wikipedia:Vandalism project page too and (imo) evidence of logged-out password resets of other editors as recent as today. There are also clear concerns about original research per the addition of the harassive content itself that was by no means reflected on in reliable sources. Both these behaviours are exactly what got Steven1991 blocked on enwiki so this is a classic case of WP:ONESTRIKE with way more leeway than would normally be given already. I do not support any unblock at this time. --Ferien (talk | join TBA!) 16:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I received a notification of that somebody has tried to get into my account nearly 20 times today alone. I strongly suspect that this is Steven trying to retaliate. Insanityclown1 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, I didn’t get blocked on ENWP because of the insertion those screenshots, which were not uploaded until months after my initial block in October 2024. The initial block was caused by a heated content dispute between me and certain non-EC users editing in EC articles against the bounds of their restrictions. I admitted that I didn’t handle it properly and got myself blocked. The plea could be found on the relevant user Talk page. Also, it is a very serious allegation that I am trying to crack someone’s password. I don’t believe such allegations can be taken at face value and turned into one of the criteria in assessing a block. Extraordinary claims (e.g. cyber-crime-related) require extraordinary evidence; making such allegations without clear evidence to vilify someone is a form of harassment itself. I don’t believe that this is appropriate at all. Can it not be that someone is impersonating me to do so in order to prevent me from getting unblocked? Why is this possibility not even considered? What is the reason to believe that I am behind all of those horrible actions? Steven1991 (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well for one, you’ve already demonstrated a strong pattern of harassment and trying to drag other people down. Baseless sockpuppet investigations on Wikipedia, bludgeoning, following, the list goes on. Insanityclown1 (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some of the alleged behaviour happened in October 2024 when my initial block had not even been issued. Since then, I haven’t engaged in those abuses. >90% of my interactions with other users on this project were very polite and restrained. I accepted community input whenever they disagreed with some of my formatting (e.g. highlights, spacing, excess footnotes). I always showed the willingness to address this and tried my best correcting them to others’ satisfaction. I don’t understand why this is being glossed over and treated as something I never corrected. This is not a fair representation of my contributions. I understand that you are upset with some of our ENWP interactions last year, but it’s important to be fair instead of erasing all of my contributions to this project over personal disagreements. I’ve to highlight that you didn’t become active until yesterday, so it’s fine that you’re not aware of it. Instead, I played an active role on this site in confronting IP vandalism, regularly alerting admins with sufficient evidence, most of which were substantiated and resulted in sanctions on relevant IP users. How many disruptive user bother to have done so much to protect articles (e.g. history-related and prone to IP disruptions)? Steven1991 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

because if you had corrected it, you wouldn’t have continued harassing people. Instead you seem to have doubled down. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Those screenshots were inserted months ago. It is not an ongoing issue. It’s a mistake from the past, which has already been addressed by those removing the screenshots. There is no definitive proof that I am still doing it until a day ago alike. Again, you seem to be upset with me over our past negative interactions and refusing to believe that I could ever be contributive no matter how much time and effort I devoted to this site. I know that you won’t appreciate it, and I won’t expect you to; but I simply feel the need to defend myself and justify that I deserve a conditional unblock without regard for the ENWP block which has a far more complicated context when it happened. Steven1991 (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It’s not just past negative interactions. You decided that you could just try and drag my name through the mud here, and very likely on Reddit as well. If you can’t understand why that’s a problem than I’ve got nothing for ya. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not associated with any profiles on any external websites. These serious allegations are extremely harmful to me when it is based entirely on speculations. I believe that these shall not be repeated as it is totally unfair to assume that I am A/B/C/D/E on a random site simply because some content criticisms exist there or elsewhere. I’d not like to argue, but I believe that it is necessary for me to defend myself against serious allegations of misconduct that are unfounded or speculative, which is what anyone else in my position would have done so. Again, many points I laud out in my previous responses do not seem to have been considered. Steven1991 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

They have. But they pale in comparison to the gravity of your actions here and on en.wiki. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not associated with any profiles on any external websites. I cannot agree with your framing even though I am sorry for having included some of the screenshots in relevant articles without due consideration few months ago, which, alongside those disputes on ENWP, are something in the past that should not be used to condemn me forever. Steven1991 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

So its ok to try to destroy someone else's life but you think you deserve a pass. Got it. Insanityclown1 (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

How could I have destroyed your life? No one knows who you are, and content dispute happens all the time. Your reputation wouldn’t be destroyed by ordinary criticism, but your unfounded allegations of attempted hacking could. You have no evidence for it, but you continue spreading it as if it is something proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is effectively harassment conducted with the aim of driving me off the project. You cannot accuse me other of harassment while continuously doing it yourself. Steven1991 (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry for having included some of the screenshots in relevant articles relevant articles??? Polygnotus (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is the issue? Steven1991 (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you are, at this point, completely unaware what the issue is then maybe editing a wiki, a collaborative environment, isn't for you. Especially with a fixation on some very complicated and delicate topics. Polygnotus (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not ashamed of my political views. Contributing to relevant topics with well-sourced edits is more than normal. Just because you don’t like it, it doesn’t make the person “bad”. Focus on the content instead of making personal attacks, which you have been making throughout the thread. Steven1991 (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not ashamed of my political views They aren't your political views, someone else came up with them and you copied that guy. You should stop abusing simple.wikipedia to spread them. And you should stop using simple.wikipedia to harass and attack enwiki users. Polygnotus (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have said everything I need to. I cannot control how you and other admins perceive. I simply want to make it clear that some of the allegations are unfounded and speculative influenced by past disagreements – this does not translate to a denial of guilt – I certainly take responsibility for my flaws. Steven1991 (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Steven, the point is this was your second chance after being blocked on Wikipedia - and regardless of the specifics that triggered the indefinite block on the main Wiki you had shown a pattern of poor interactions with people and harassment. After months of good behavior here you again engaged in antisocial behavior and rather than just saying something rude in a spontaneous outburst, which may be forgiven, you engaged in a degree of planning and premeditation by taking screenshots and surreptitiously inserting them into articles with the intention of defaming and discrediting editors who you had negative interactions with *months* before. The fact that it took several more months for your behavior to be detected is not an excuse and does not give you a pass. This isn't a game where if you've gotten away with something for six months you've won.

As for the allegations about harassing people through password resets you're right, the allegation alone is not conclusive evidence - it could be a third party. I suggest if there is any thought of unblocking you here or on the main Wikipedia, Checkuser be employed to determine if there is any match between your IPs and the IP(s) used to request password resets. Perhaps Insanityclown1 can send a note to the ArbCom at the main Wikipedia asking that they run a CU so that if consideration is giving to unblocking you in the future, evidence regarding the password reset allegation be included if CU has found anything.

Similarly, the main WP arbcom intervened in your unblock request there and have taken over and reasserted your block due to off-wiki evidence that has not been made public.[2] If Simple Wiki admins are giving any consideration to unblocking you I suggest they both first engage CU to see if there is any evidence linking you to the password reset harassment of Insanityclown1 and that they also consult the main WP arbcom about what led them to reinforce your block there. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'll add that all the gap of several months between your posting of the screenshots and their detection means is that there are several months in which you could have undone your edit and deleted those screenshots, but that you chose not to. Had you reversed your edits yourself before they were detected not only would that have mitigated the offence but your original action might never have been detected in the first place. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

They are still wasting people's time with nonsensical unblock requests. They still try to minimize what they've done instead of accepting responsibility. Some people are just fundamentally incompatible with a collaborative environment, and they should move on. Polygnotus (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Another example of WP:NPA violation. You are accusing me of this or that while breaking the rules continuously yourself. I am sure that the rules only apply to those you don’t like. I don’t want to assume bad faith, but you seem to be targeting me over the sole reason of political disagreement. Just @Eptalon

@Fehufanga@Auntof6 @FusionSubthat the user above is also involved in several violations related to personal attacks on good-faith users: 1, 2, 3 etc. Steven1991 (talk) 11:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Grasping at straws. Kinda sad really. Anything but taking responsibility. Polygnotus (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ferien is this something you can look into? Since this whole debacle started, I have received notifications of 234 attempted logins to my wiki account. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello all, Steven1991 asked me by mail for a comment about his block.Note though: as to not get into what isa calle wheel-warring, only the blocking admin can change the block. I need to read up on the situation to be able to give a decent, helpful comment. I will come back once I have done this--Eptalon (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Eptalon See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antisemitism_on_Wikipedia#WTF Steven1991 has been blocked for his campaign of harassment on enwiki, and then Steven1991 decided to falsely accuse one of the people involved in his block on enwiki of being an antisemite and another of tendentious_editing. Steven1991 then spread the false accusations to simple:Antisemitism

simple:Vandalism simple:Wikipedia:Vandalism simple:Vandalism on Wikipedia simple:Online antisemitism simple:English Wikipedia simple:Disinformation. They are still trying to act as if they did nothing wrong, while being indeffed from simple and enwiki. On enwiki they had their email privileges revoked for continuing to annoy people there, perhaps that should happen here too. Polygnotus (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some of the alleged behaviour happened in October 2024 when my initial block had not even been issued. Since then, I haven’t engaged in those abuses. >90% of my interactions with other users on this project were very polite and restrained. I accepted community input whenever they disagreed with some of my formatting (e.g. highlights, spacing, excess footnotes). I always showed the willingness to address this and tried my best correcting them to others’ satisfaction. I don’t understand why this is being glossed over and treated as something I never corrected. This is not a fair representation of my contributions. I understand that you are upset with some of our ENWP interactions last year, but it’s important to be fair instead of erasing all of my contributions to this project over personal disagreements. I’ve to highlight that you didn’t become active until yesterday, so it’s fine that you’re not aware of it. Instead, I played an active role on this site in confronting IP vandalism, regularly alerting admins with sufficient evidence, most of which were substantiated and resulted in sanctions on relevant IP users. How many disruptive user bother to have done so much to protect articles (e.g. history-related and prone to IP disruptions)? Steven1991 (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Eptalon @Auntof6 @Davey2010 Pinging you in so that you could be made aware of my side of the story rather than someone who suddenly shows up for the sake of damaging my reputation to prevent me from getting unblocked. Steven1991 (talk) 11:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Steven, You're already in a large hole so I would strongly suggest you stop digging. You were blocked on Enwiki for harassment etc and you exhibited the same behaviour here (Why you would ever think including that screenshot was a good idea I will never know! especially when that person was involved with your en block!),

Anyway please stop pinging me as I have no nothing else left to say. I wish you all the best, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It’s fine if you don’t want to get involved. I simply believe that my side of the story needs to be heard and that I cannot let those targeting me dictate what they consider the truth and prevent me from getting unblocked. Steven1991 (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not someone who "suddenly shows up". I am the person who discovered what you did... You keep trying to act as if you were a productive user here, but a quick look at a contrib like this one for example shows what you were doing here.

Some of the alleged behaviour happened in October 2024 when my initial block had not even been issued. Since then, I haven’t engaged in those abuses. So you got busted and now we have to feel sorry for you because it took a while to discover what you did?

The list is publicly available.

• edit warring and editing logged out to evade scrutiny
• Disruptive editing edit warring, deceptive summaries, battleground territory
• Disruptive editing: Deceptive edit summaries
• Disruptive editing: Deceptive edit summaries, block evasion with both an IP address and a sockpuppet account, User:Zerpatidal
• Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: excessive WP:BATTLEGROUND (still) and now also WP:FOLLOWING
• Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: revoking email access, see Special:Diff/1263816641

Pretty sizable block log for someone who "accepted community input". Polygnotus (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The sockpuppeting allegation was later found to be a misjugment when the CU got involved: 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Again, you are presenting half truth. Apologise for the false accusation. Steven1991 (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Steven1991 What false accusation do you falsely accuse me of? You are not making any sense. Polygnotus (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sockpuppet investigations on ENWP also vindicated me in the past: 1 and 2.

Stop making false accusations against me. Steven1991 (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

That is the third time you've repeated yourself. But your comment still makes no sense. See [3] and [4] Polygnotus (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Connecting IPs to users is not something checkusers normally do, but I can take a lead from the user here. Steven1991 has been consistently editing from one country (not the USA) for the duration. Meanwhile someone has been editing consistently from California on related topics via Template:Range vandal, perhaps more specifically Template:Range vandal, for a very long time. There's no other crossover; I'd call that strongly unrelated. I've also taken a look at Zerpatidal, who was editing via proxies. Given the issues we have generally with joe-jobs and PIA trolls, I think the assumption that it's the same user can be at best weak. It could literally be anyone. Firing up a sockpuppet in these circumstances would be an incredibly unintelligent thing to do - I find it hard to consider possible. and zzuuzz, if you are confident that this is a Joe job or some kind of troll butting in, then I do not object to the indefinite block being returned to the original 72 hour block duration. Steven1991, I want to warn you that lying in edit summaries is disruptive and counterproductive. Do not ever do that again. I don’t need to make it clearer when you do not appear to be arguing in good faith. Steven1991 (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yet another false accusation. Keep going. Keep insulting and harassing everyone. Keep pinging and emailing every admin and lying to them. Demand that they unblock you. It will surely work. Or, you know, calm down. Go for a walk. Chill out. Polygnotus (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep making personal attacks when someone presented evidence, i.e. highlighting the exact wording for you, to show that part of your claim is wrong is not a good idea. You need to acknowledge that your accusation of me sockpuppeting is simply wrong. It’s OK to make mistakes and acknowledge it. It won’t discount your criticism of my other misconduct. Steven1991 (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

How many false accusations are you at now? I used all my fingers and toes and then I lost count, sorry. your accusation of me sockpuppeting Ah, yes, that fictional mistake of mine that does not exist in the real world. And would be completely irrelevant if it did. Keep clinging to that, it must be a winning strategy. Polygnotus (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

your accusation of me sockpuppeting So your tactic is falsely accusing me of a false accusation? Really? How would that help you? Where did I accuse you of sockpuppeting? Polygnotus (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You stated that I used a sockpuppet that started the letter Z: 1 by quoting information without due verification. You may not have intended to do so, but it is advisable for you to acknowledge that you made a mistake. Everyone makes it and it is fine, except for those who never admit that they are wrong, who may be more unsuitable for collaborative environment than they try painting others as. Steven1991 (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Steven1991 So you admit that you were wrong and I did not accuse you of using a sockpuppet? Will you now apologize to me? I simply listed the block reasons in your block log on enwiki. And I didn't even mention Reciprocal block: Violating the "one-strike" rule: Examples of harassment and original research, much past the boundary of ONESTRIKE here Polygnotus (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep making personal attacks when someone presented evidence, i.e. highlighting the exact wording for you, to show that part of your claim is wrong is not a good idea. You need to acknowledge that your accusation of me sockpuppeting is simply wrong. It’s OK to make mistakes and acknowledge it. It won’t discount your criticism of my other misconduct. Steven1991 (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are now copypasting your comment from here. But I already replied to that comment. Polygnotus (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Copy it for you again – read it yourself and making false accusations:

Connecting IPs to users is not something checkusers normally do, but I can take a lead from the user here. Steven1991 has been consistently editing from one country (not the USA) for the duration. Meanwhile someone has been editing consistently from California on related topics via Template:Range vandal, perhaps more specifically Template:Range vandal, for a very long time. There's no other crossover; I'd call that strongly unrelated. I've also taken a look at Zerpatidal, who was editing via proxies. Given the issues we have generally with joe-jobs and PIA trolls, I think the assumption that it's the same user can be at best weak. It could literally be anyone. Firing up a sockpuppet in these circumstances would be an incredibly unintelligent thing to do - I find it hard to consider possible.

, I've taken a much closer look and my conclusion stands where it was before. I know that Icewhiz can sometimes make things appear as they're not, but I've not found any inconsistencies in Steven1991's technical data. The data are broadly consistent with what Steven1991 has said above, and I'd consider it pretty difficult (though not entirely impossible) to pull off such a purported deception. I'm more than happy to hear other CU opinions, but it's a nay from me on the technicalities. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC) and Case closed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Where is the “confirmed sockpuppeting” you accuse me of? Steven1991 (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You keep posting irrelevant quotes. You keep claiming I "accused" you of sockpuppeting. That is of course irrelevant, but IIRC I did not. So where is your evidence? Polygnotus (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is the issue with this? You disagreed with a well-sourced edit and so it’s “wrong” ? Rejecting well-sourced content over individual disagreements is a form of tendentious editing itself. Calling it “wrong” to elicit a sanction (or rejection of sanction lift) on others is a form of WP:GAME. You are the one engaging in harassment, bludgeoning etc. here just as you did as per 1, 2 and 3. I am not sure who is the one not feeling remorseful for their mistakes. Steven1991 (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Haha. Well, if you honestly think that was a good edit then you shouldn't be editing sensitive topics, especially not unsupervised. You keep making accusations against me without evidence. Which is weird because that tactic hasn't worked so far and is unlikely to work in the future. Polygnotus (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You don’t like it? You can remove it (which you did, and thanks). Refusing to assume good faith, casting aspersions and using it to justify sanctions on someone (WP:GAME as mentioned) are clearly violations of site rules. You know it. You are even more familiar with the rules than me, so just admit that you made a mistake here just as you demand me to. You cannot demand full policy compliance from others while refusing it yourself. Steven1991 (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You keep accusing people of stuff. I do not think it is working for you. I gave some advice: calm down. Go for a walk. Chill out. It is pretty good advice, if I may say so myself. Polygnotus (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

So if there is actually no conclusive evidence that I was behind any of those alleged actions, should those making the allegations apologise to me instead? Should they acknowledge that I could have been wrongfully blamed? Or are they getting a free pass because they happened to be on the “right” side over a certain dispute? Policy compliance is a two-way street. They cannot accuse me of harassment while continuously doing it by making those serious allegations themselves without regard for my well-being. Had this done by a newbie on any other projects, he/she could have been boomeranged and indeffed. I want to make sure that things are fair and that I be treated with dignity. Steven1991 (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is what is known as the little brother defense. It was your account who did it. And it was you who had a clear motive to do what you did. So if you want to blame someone else you need to explain why you've given your password to someone else who then tried to fight your battles for you. Polygnotus (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You have no reliable evidence. You continue repeating unfounded allegations for the sake of damaging my reputation and swaying opinion to prevent me from getting unblocked. This is itself a form of serious personal attack constituting harassment. I believe that the rules must be enforced equally. @Auntof6 @Eptalon @Fehufanga@FusionSub Steven1991 (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep pinging and emailing every admin and lying to them. You must think they are stupid. Polygnotus (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not lying. I am rebuking unfounded allegations concocted with bad faith. You know what you are doing. Your motivation seems to be driving me off the project over political differences. Steven1991 (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Steven1991 And now you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS again. I don't think continuing the harassment, insults, block evasion, battleground mentality, editwarring, personal attacks et cetera is a winning tactic. Polygnotus (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, I am disproving your false accusations of me sockpuppeting on ENWP, which have been disproven by their own CU investigations: 1 and 2. You keep repeating the same allegations that have been disproven for the sake of painting me in a bad light and swaying opinion against unblocking me. If this isn’t harassment, what is it?

Apologise. Steven1991 (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Steven1991 I didn't say you did, did I? And those links do not show that that was disproven by their own CU investigations, as you falsely claim. For example the block in 2019 lists the block reason as edit warring and editing logged out to evade scrutiny Polygnotus (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You forgot what you alleged in another comment: Disruptive editing: Deceptive edit summaries, block evasion with both an IP address and a sockpuppet account, User:Zerpatidal This is disproven by the CU investigations. They found no evidence for Cullen328’s suspicion and released me from a block misapplied by Cullen328 back then. You need to look up what happened instead of doubling down on your false claim of me having ever sockpuppeted. Steven1991 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are not making sense. Click this link and read. Polygnotus (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You got it wrong and you do not want to acknowledge it. Instead of admitting that you are making false accusations that constitute serious personal attack and harassment, you are doubling down and hurling insults. I presented evidence to disprove part of your claims. Apologise for making a mistake just as you expect me to. Steven1991 (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

You are not making any sense. I listed the block reasons from your block log. Why do you think anyone should apologize because you got blocked? that constitute serious personal attack and harassment Yet more false accusations. Why do you keep doing that? Polygnotus (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

08:43, 30 September 2024 Zzuuzztalk contribs changed block settings for Steven1991 talk contribs with an expiration time of 2 days and 14 hours (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing: Deceptive edit summaries ) following the ENWP CU findings that I did not engage in sockpuppeting: Connecting IPs to users is not something checkusers normally do, but I can take a lead from the user here. Steven1991 has been consistently editing from one country (not the USA) for the duration. Meanwhile someone has been editing consistently from California on related topics via Template:Range vandal, perhaps more specifically Template:Range vandal, for a very long time. There's no other crossover; I'd call that strongly unrelated. I've also taken a look at Zerpatidal, who was editing via proxies. Given the issues we have generally with joe-jobs and PIA trolls, I think the assumption that it's the same user can be at best weak. It could literally be anyone. Firing up a sockpuppet in these circumstances would be an incredibly unintelligent thing to do - I find it hard to consider possible. Steven1991 (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't have to read a bunch of irrelevant stuff but thank you I guess. Polygnotus (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is relevant as it contradicts your claim that I used a sockpuppet starting with the letter Z. Gaslighting is manipulative. Doubling down on it to further damage someone’s image to prevent them from getting unblocked is more so. I have said everything I wish to. I will avoid bludgeoning the same way you seem to be doing here. Have a good week. Steven1991 (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! You too! Probably best you stop before your talk page access gets revoked. Polygnotus (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please do not edit comments I have already replied to, like you did here. Polygnotus (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please avoiding diverting attention, thanks. Steven1991 (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Steven1991: Stop pinging people. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I would stop. I simply want them to know the full picture. Steven1991 (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

For everyone's info, checkuser is unable to determine the IP address of someone trying to login:it only works on edits. I have now removed talk page access from the user so I think we can all now call this situation as closed. As an aside, Steven 1991 you were found to be editing from an IP account just today, please do not try to evade your block and I'd also advise that doing so or engaging in sock puppetry will only harm any chances of being unblocked in the future. Regards, fr33kman 17:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

An editor has requested deletion of Dark-ego-vehicle principle, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the page meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Dark-ego-vehicle principle and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the page during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. CountryANDWestern (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

An editor has requested deletion of Antisemitism in Europe, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the page meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Antisemitism in Europe and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the page during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Polygnotus (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

An editor has requested deletion of Holocaust denial in post-war Romania, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the page meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Holocaust denial in post-war Romania and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the page during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Polygnotus (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

An editor has requested deletion of Nation of Islam and racism, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the page meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2025/Nation of Islam and racism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the page during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Polygnotus (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for deletion of Online antisemitism, a page you wrote. We thank you for your changes, but the nominator doesn't think that the page meets Wikipedia's rules for inclusion and has said why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

You are welcome to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2026/Online antisemitism; please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the page during the discussion to bring it in line with our rules. But you should not remove the requests for deletion flag from the top of the page; doing so will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you very much. Eptalon (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

(This message was sent to User:Steven1991 and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

An editor has asked for deletion of Antisemitism in Europe, a page you wrote. We thank you for your changes, but the nominator doesn't think that the page meets Wikipedia's rules for inclusion and has said why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

You are welcome to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2026/Antisemitism in Europe; please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the page during the discussion to bring it in line with our rules. But you should not remove the requests for deletion flag from the top of the page; doing so will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you very much. Eptalon (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for deletion of Hierarchy of victimhood (identity politics), a page you wrote. We thank you for your changes, but the nominator doesn't think that the page meets Wikipedia's rules for inclusion and has said why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

You are welcome to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2026/Hierarchy of victimhood (identity politics); please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the page during the discussion to bring it in line with our rules. But you should not remove the requests for deletion flag from the top of the page; doing so will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you very much. CountryANDWestern (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

An editor has asked for deletion of Antisemitic violence in Bielsk County, Poland (1941), a page you wrote. We thank you for your changes, but the nominator doesn't think that the page meets Wikipedia's rules for inclusion and has said why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

You are welcome to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2026/Antisemitic violence in Bielsk County, Poland (1941); please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the page during the discussion to bring it in line with our rules. But you should not remove the requests for deletion flag from the top of the page; doing so will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you very much. Yeatglazer (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2026 (UTC)Reply