User talk:Fanny.doutaz

Welcome!

Hello, Fanny.doutaz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Maximilian Janisch does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 10mmsocket (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is not neutral is my edit? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"prodigy" seemed like too big of a term for that person (that I personally know). doctoral student is what he objectively is so I don't see what is not neutral. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fanny.doutaz, welcome to Wikipedia. I've reverted your edit (as explained in my edit summary)

Feel free to start a discussion on the article talk page with your reasoning for removing it. See also WP:BRD.

Happy editing! Knitsey (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Welcome

Hi. Since you're a new user, don't hesitate to ask me what you need; I'm available. Have a nice day. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you, will do! Have a nice day too. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advices

I would like to give you this advice: never respond to provocations (I'm referring to Talk:Imane Khelif). JacktheBrown (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will remember that. Indeed it wastes time and leads to nothing, lol. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. - MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out. I was not aware of it. I have retracted the message. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not permitted to remove other people's signed comments from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you wish to retract your message, please strike it or indicate that you unconditionally withdraw your legal threat. DO NOT touch other people's comments. --Yamla (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out, I was not aware of this rule as well. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 01:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Fanny.doutaz, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fanny.doutaz,

If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or its complex network of policies, guidelines and processes, The Teahouse is a user-friendly place you can bring them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz, thanks! I will look at the forum. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been canvassing which can result in a loss of editing privileges, just like making legal threats. For a new editor, you are making some serious errors in the 4 days you have been active. Please review the policy on canvassing and start abiding by Wikipedia guidelines if you want to continue to edit here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Thanks for letting me know. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notices on errors

Hi, this message is primarily for any admin who looks at this page (but also for anyone else). Some days ago I tried to edit 2 articles, and had a dispute about one of them against another person that I found disrespectful. Following that, people pointed out that I made some errors that were not conform to Wikipedia guidelines. There was no way for me to know all those guidelines in advance (well I could read all the rules in advance, but I doubt anyone does that). I corrected/retracted the errors and recognised the error. Please do not block me for making these errors the first time, as I was not aware that these were errors and will not repeat again after that people pointed it out. Thanks. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fanny.doutaz. You need not be concerned about this. Admins are very knowledgeable about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and how to apply them to experienced and brand new users alike. So, you needn't worry that an admin might overlook your situation, or that you would be treated harshly just because you don't know the rules. Admins are on top of the situation, and you will be treated in a disinterested fashion. And regardless how experienced you become, it's very unlikely you would be blocked for a first-time offense, with very few exceptions, and even then, it wouldn't be permanent. So, relax, don't be afraid to WP:BE BOLD in your editing, mistakes are how we all learn. Feel free to contact me anytime, or try the WP:Tea house for any editing question you might have. (Non-administrator comment) Mathglot (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mathglot, thank you! Fanny.doutaz (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:List of policies; read carefully

I also post the link here. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackkBrown thanks! Fanny.doutaz (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously also carefully read all the links on the page; with experience everything will be easier, for now it's very difficult to learn all this. JacktheBrown (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should be part of a welcome message, not sure if it is. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing your talk page comments

Practice on Wikipedia is that you do not edit your talk page comments after others have replied to them. In this case I'm going to have to insist. MrOllie (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happened on the other page was just an error. You could very well see the other subthread where he was accusing me of POVPUSH (and honestly, my comment does not make sense in the context of JSwift's talk, only in mine). If you do not believe me that I am another person, then just check my IP or if you really insist, I do not mind sending you my ID card privately to prove my identity. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie this kind of accusation is especially inappropriate when some people out there would use it to mislead others and support their own points. If you want to check my identity just tell me privately. No need to accuse me (wrongly )of being an alt account publicly Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get to decide what I need to do myself, thank you very much. MrOllie (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you do know that defamation is bad, do you not? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats, again? MrOllie (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No? Defamation is bad, even morally. It does not imply that any legal complaints will be made, but I am blaming you morally. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a new subsection on this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fanny.doutaz_and_legal_threats. MrOllie (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are bringing your own interpretation into this. I have never stated that I would take any legal measures against you, and only have blamed you morally. Furthermore, you are showing to the admins the oldest version, while I said clearly afterwards that I retracted. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about bludgeoning

Hi, Fanny. I'm concerned about your input on Maximilian Janisch and its talkpage. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources; this is one of our most important principles. See also the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability. It doesn't go by your opinion, or my opinion. When User:Knitsey and others tell you this, it's like you don't hear it; you simply repeat that "prodigy is not an objective term. Media can claim what they want with exaggerations, but this is not an appropriate term as there is no objective definition of prodigy. For me, prodigy would be someone who would be able to contribute substantially to science, which he is not. Everyone can have a different definition." My bolding, to show where you egregiously ignore our verifiability policy. As you also do in the post "Can we make a vote somehow to let the community decide if "prodigy" is a subjective term?". No, we can't; articles aren't written from votes, but, again, from reliable sources. And the day before yesterday, you posted "Should we make a pool about which term to use? I could ask the opinion of some other friends", etc. Please read the policy, and listen better to people like Knitsey, who is an experienced editor, instead of insisting on your own opinion. If you continue ignoring our policies and bludgeoning the discussion, you're likely to be blocked from Maximilian Janisch and its talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 08:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. What I did not understand was why people insisted to use the term "prodigy" to describe him, other than the media saying it. No one explained where this necessity comes from, and also not why it is not better to just objectively describe: "he is cited as a prodigy by media, and is currently a doctoral student". My disagreement comes from the fact that in the first place, I struggle to understand the hype about this person, as I have friends who have started studying at university at a similar age. I know the person and multiple of my friends also do, as in knowing him in real life at university and not just from media. Our common point of view on him is that he is extremely smart but nowhere close to a "prodigy", at least to how this word would sound to us. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can take a look at this list to get something of an impression of which media are considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia. Dismissing all media ("just from media") and preferring the opinion of your friends at university won't fly, I'm afraid. You can also follow the link I gave you to Wikipedia:Verifiability (you haven't, have you?) and read just the first paragraph, to see where the necessity comes from. Bishonen | tålk 09:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I think maybe what I said wasn't clear: my question is rather "why insisting about calling him in the way media calls him instead of stating that media call him such"? Fanny.doutaz (talk) 09:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See "Avoid stating facts as opinions" here. If you feel strongly about getting your opinion (=that it's inappropriate to call Janisch a "prodigy" even though reliable media sources say he is) into the article, you'll have to find a reliable source that explicitly agrees with you. Bishonen | tålk 12:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Username fanny.doutaz suggests association to the Swiss table tennis player

Dear User:fanny.doutaz, first off thank you for your suggestions aiming to improve the Wikipedia page Maximilian Janisch !

I have noticed that you are editing under the name fanny.doutaz.

As you may be aware, there is a Swiss table tennis player with that name.

Per WP:REALNAME I recommend you confirm to the Wikimedia team that you are the table tennis player Fanny Doutaz, if that is the case. Otherwise, I suggest you write explicitly on your userpage that you are not associated with her, but you may consider changing your username in this case.

Happy editing, --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Janisch, this does not really seem like a useful line of questioning; this editor has made no edits or other indications that they are the tennis player, and the name does not seem like that uncommon of a name. Your question might be reasonable if Fanny Doutaz were a bluelink, but otherwise it just seems like a borderline outing-type question. I would suggest/ask that you retract it (you can remove my statement as well should you go down that route). Feel free to drop a note on my talk page or email me if you wish to discuss this sort of thing further in a different location. Primefac (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Primefac: Thank you for your Remarks, I was worried that User:fanny.doutaz may imply, by their own voluntary choice of user name, that they are editing as Fanny Doutaz, and I saw under WP:REALNAME the demand Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name, of which I wanted to let User:fanny.doutaz know.

I apologize if there is a misunderstanding on my part. If this rule does not apply or is irrelevant in this case consider my original request irrelevant.

If you deem that my demand staying on this page is harmful, feel free to remove it, I have little experience with retracting statements. It is not my intention to harass anyone or to expose their identity (my request here was only meant to inform User:fanny.doutaz that their username may be ambiguous).

Sorry once again for the confusion, --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maximilian Janisch I am not sure what your intentions are. It seems like doxing, and I will not answer whether that is me or not. Having a personal website and a few articles about one does not make one a well-known person. As someone in Switzerland, you should be able to know that table tennis here is clearly not something that will make you known outside of the table tennis circle. The fact that you have information about me or a person with my username is clearly because you have looked it up online. This seems like an attempt to giving personal information of another user on purpose, and it is especially doubtful given the context of my talk and suggestions about your wiki page. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that my initial demand gives the impression to you that I was trying to dox you, I assure you this was not my intention.

Your suggestions on the page Maximilian Janisch do not impede me for acting in WP:GF.

Considering WP:REALNAME, especially the line Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name, I am worried that you are claiming to make edits under the real name of a person which may not be you, and I wanted to inform you of that guideline.

If you feel harassed feel free to delete my original comment and this ensuing discussion on the talk page.

I hope that everything is clear now, —-Maximilian Janisch (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete this conversation. I am not sure why you hinted that this might not be my real name. To me it seems that the wp:realname article is primarily targeted at people who use the name of a well-known person, be it themselves or another person. Therefore I do not think this concerns me as neither me nor anyone else named fanny doutaz is known outside of a small circle, as far as I know. I could have used an username that does not give as much information, but I assumed when joining wikipedia that people do not use online names for this community. The level of information given out by this talk is fine for me, but remember next time not to dox another user, even if that is not your purpose. @Maximilian Janisch Fanny.doutaz (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you are not in favor of a retraction of my original comment.

You are correct that in WP:REALNAME there is the section If a username implies that the user is, or is related to, a notable, identifiable or well-known person, the account may be blocked as a precaution against impersonation until the user's proof of identity is provided.

Indeed I agree with you that the table tennis player I mentioned above does not satisfy notability in the sense of Wikipedia and one may also say she is not well-known. However, she is identifiable and furthermore there is another line in WP:REALNAME: Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. which does not mention notability at all.

So my original intention to make you aware that you may be, by accident, in violation of that policy.

Based on the comment by @Primefac, my intention is probably misguided as the way that policy is actually handled on Wikipedia may be different from the literal interpretation that I have followed above.

I apologize for the confusion and appreciate your understanding, --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maximilian Janisch, one more question: why do you assume / imply that it is not me? Although you have mentioned that your statement only applies to one case, it seems by your way of putting it that you assume the webpage that you have found is not me. I am curious why you think that. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if that is you, based on If a username implies that the user is, or is related to, a notable, identifiable or well-known person, the account may be blocked as a precaution against impersonation until the user's proof of identity is provided I recommended you provide a proof of identity if you are, indeed, the identifiable table tennis player.

But I myself am not very confident that my interpretation of that guideline is close to how it is actually enforced on Wikipedia so you can probably safely ignore my original request. --Maximilian Janisch (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fanny.doutaz. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, here is my defense. First, the original point of TarnishedPath was that I supposedly responded defensively to his message targeted at JSwift49. However, as you could see on the history of that talk page, he answered similarly to my message and the one of JSwift49, and given that I had notifications on for everything on that page, I thought that he was answering to me. TarnishedPath did not highlight this fact. Second, as Dreamy Jazz checked, JSwift49 is not my account. This means that the original accusation of TarnishedPath was wrong. Third, you can see that all my other accounts that Dreamy Jazz had found were created after this one, which means that this account is not a sock. I had started creating those only after being accused of using sockpuppet accounts wrongly, so I created them defensively in case my accounts get blocked, but as you can see, I never used them to edit a Wikipedia main article. Therefore, these accounts are not instances of the illegitimate accounts as listed on the page Inappropriate use. I agree that it is not the best thing to start creating accounts after being accused of my account being a sockpuppet, but it was out of frustration. As you have checked, this one was the first of my accounts and therefore not a sockpuppet.

For the context, the whole story summarizes as follows: I joined Wikipedia to engage in a conversation about a controversy about the Olympics. An old editor (JSwift49) had similar points to mine and I have been accused of being his sockpuppet account, which frustrated me and led me to create accounts defensively, in case my accounts gets blocked unfairly. I did not use any of those accounts except one, that I actually told a friend to create to defend me in a fight on a talk page. After a check, it has been found out that JSwift49 is not my account. Still, I have been blocked for having created the other accounts. It can be seen that this account is my first one and that none of my other accounts or my friends' accounts that I told them to create was used illegitimately, except Alex's that was used only once. None of the recently blocked accounts had been used illegitimately. Therefore, I am requesting an unblock. I an a new user and was frustrated that people defamated me by saying that my account was a sockpuppet of another user and acted defensively.

Thanks for your consideration. (@Dreamy Jazz pinging you for the reference.)

Decline reason:

Clearly not here to create an encyclopedia. I joined Wikipedia to engage in a conversation about a controversy about the Olympics. no thanks. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Fanny.doutaz (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff for the first point, where he answered similarly to me as to JSwift49 in the message he listed, and my answer: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia Fanny.doutaz. It can be seen that I intended to reply here. (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fanny.doutaz, the Alex161616 account that you created edited Talk:Imane Khelif as shown by the account's contribution history. That was a page that you were also editing. That is clearly an imappropriate usage of multiple accounts. TarnishedPath^talk 02:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath, as I said: I did not edit any Wikipedia main article. Yes technically a talk page is also a Wikipedia page, but I meant to say a main article, fixed the message. I did make an edit to a talk page in response to people being aggressive after wrongly accusing me of being a sock account. I did not contribute negatively to any main article, and the conversation on the talk page was just part of a dispute, after that I have been wrongly accused. Also, when you said that I don't know if it is appropriate to run another check user or not on the editor as they have stated in a comment at Special:Diff/1243753747 that they have started creating more accounts as consequence of this SPI, that was misinterpreting my statement. From my comment above the one that you have listed in the diff, it should have been clear that I meant creating the accounts that Dreamy Jazz had listed after that I have been accused of being a sockpuppet account by you and some others, and not as a consequence of the current block. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 02:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz Sorry for the multiple pings, I just want everything to be clear. This will be the last ping. On the page about the investigation @TarnishedPath claimed that "I don't know if it is appropriate to run another check user or not on the editor as they have stated in a comment at Special:Diff/1243753747 that they have started creating more accounts as consequence of this SPI." It is a misleading claim as you can see from the context of the diff itself that I meant the accounts that you have found, not that I will create more as a consequence of this procedure. It was a misinterpretation of my statement.

Also technically, I talked indirectly through my friend Alex who was on the same network and asked him to create an account and help me fight against others on Wikipedia who defamated me. I guess that it is not really different to a sockpuppet account, but I am still a bit surprised that it was identified as mine, as the device he used was not the same as mine and only used the same network. In all cases, that was the only one case of using multiple accounts, I did not use any other account to talk or ask any friend to use another account to support me after that, because I had read that it was not allowed and therefore do not have the intention of doing it again. As one can see, it did not happen any again. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath, also, you are able to see that your original claim was wrong and that I am not an account from JSwift49. The creation of the other accounts can also therefore be explained by the fact that I was frustrated by the baseless accusations of being an alt account. It can be seen that I am not creating accounts in the intent of misusing them, but only defensively. Fanny.doutaz (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The administrator above has declined because I worded it wrong. I joined Wikipedia after seeing that the article subject to controversies at the Olympics was subjective, so I discussed it on the talk page. That is what I meant by "I joined Wikipedia to engage in a conversation about a controversy about the Olympics.". Here's the rephrased request:

Hi, here is my defense. First, the original point of TarnishedPath was that I supposedly responded defensively to his message targeted at JSwift49. However, as you could see on the history of that talk page, he answered similarly to my message and the one of JSwift49, and given that I had notifications on for everything on that page, I thought that he was answering to me. TarnishedPath did not highlight this fact. Second, as Dreamy Jazz checked, JSwift49 is not my account. This means that the original accusation of TarnishedPath was wrong. Third, you can see that all my other accounts that Dreamy Jazz had found were created after this one, which means that this account is not a sock. I had started creating those only after being accused of using sockpuppet accounts wrongly, so I created them defensively in case my accounts get blocked, but as you can see, I never used them to edit a Wikipedia main article. Therefore, these accounts are not instances of the illegitimate accounts as listed on the page Inappropriate use. I agree that it is not the best thing to start creating accounts after being accused of my account being a sockpuppet, but it was out of frustration. As you have checked, this one was the first of my accounts and therefore not a sockpuppet.

For the context, the whole story summarizes as follows: I joined Wikipedia to try to make an article subject to a controversy about the Olympics more objective. An old editor (JSwift49) had similar points to mine and I have been accused of being his sockpuppet account, which frustrated me and led me to create accounts defensively, in case my accounts gets blocked unfairly. I did not use any of those accounts except one, that I actually told a friend to create to defend me in a fight on a talk page. After a check, it has been found out that JSwift49 is not my account. Still, I have been blocked for having created the other accounts. It can be seen that this account is my first one and that none of my other accounts or my friends' accounts that I told them to create was used illegitimately, except Alex's that was used only once. None of the recently blocked accounts had been used illegitimately. Therefore, I am requesting an unblock. I an a new user and was frustrated that people defamated me by saying that my account was a sockpuppet of another user and acted defensively.

Thanks for your consideration.

Decline reason:

I suggest you take the standard offer and re-apply in 6 months time without using any other account or logged out editing. PhilKnight (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Fanny.doutaz (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I joined Wikipedia to engage in a conversation about a controversy about the Olympics.": I meant that I joined Wikipedia after seeing that the article subject to controversies at the Olympics was subjective, so I discussed it on the talk page. I did not express it in a way that would seem more correct to you, but you can see from my past edits that it was the case that I was just discussing on how to improve the article. Sorry if my way of saying it was misleading @Jpgordon Fanny.doutaz (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fanny.doutaz, it doesn't matter if you didn't edit an article in mainspace. You used a sock account to edit Talk:Imane Khelif to make it look like the positions you were pushing had more support. That is an inappropriate usage of multiple accounts. TarnishedPath^talk 05:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath I was not even aware that I could not use multiple accounts/call a friend for more support on Wikipedia. After that I learned it, I have not done that again Fanny.doutaz (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: ok, thanks.