User talk:Newsjunkiect

Welcome!

Hi Newsjunkiect, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your warm welcome. Newsjunkiect (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Jonathanhusky per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonathanhusky. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

@The Bushranger: @PhilKnight: I really don't know where this all got started, but I graduated UConn in 2020 and edit Wikipedia from in and above a local café. I grew up in the Quiet Corner, I work for a local agency, and I'm a fan of the basketball teams. (Who isn't?) I joined the Wiki Project which seems to be dormant, because I'd like to improve articles related to UConn and Connecticut.

As for the articles I've chosen to edit so far, I don't care for the radio (too many commercials) except when I want to hear a UConn basketball game. They sold out to cable years ago, so the free option is the radio, but the so-called flagship station WUCS doesn't reach campus. I remember when CPTV had the TV rights and WTIC had the radio rights, until 2018. The article for WPOP, the old sports station, correctly identifies the name as meaning "Connecticut Sports" and if the name got changed in 2012 they couldn't have legally have it mean "UConn Storrs". Unless some major news comes out about a radio station, I'm not inclined to start editing those pages. I work in transportation.

There are people who ogle over old locomotives, and that's fine but that's not me, but I am invested in the future so I wanted to clean up that box. If you've ever taken the MBTA Commuter Rail you'd know CT is light years behind. I saw the box was a different way of coding and wanted to learn.

As for the big topic, the fact that I cite that Storrs exists "within the town" of Mansfield, well that's correct just like how the other villages on the page are also part of Mansfield. It's just that Conantville doesn't have it's own article - even one that's 95% a duplication of the main article on Mansfield. The merge proposal did not reach a consensus the last time, so I'm confused as to why I'm being villainized for suggesting a valid policy: WP:OVERLAP and WP:REDUNDANT.

UConn has thousands of students, some of whom I understand you've all had a run-in with, but I'm really just confused. I'm sorry some other user messed things up. Newsjunkiect (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the page you link says "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section" but I was barred from doing so. Newsjunkiect (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't see anything there that in any way addresses the reasons for this block, or tells me why it should be lifted.

Besides, you have been checkuser-confirmed as a sock, and we don't unblock sock accounts.

Consequently, I am declining your appeal. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2025 (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.

@DoubleGrazing: I appreciate your looking into this, but my initial reply does in fact outline what I have been told were the reasons for my block. I attempted to reply on the accusation page, but was prevented from doing so. Simply: It was concluded that I am the same person as a previously-blocked user because I have edited from the same location (in reality, a public restaurant), on similar topics (I am a UConn graduate and fan, and work for a local transportation agency, and a single edit on a UConn-related radio station was then explained), and that I attempted to "start up" something that was previously stricken down, which is plainly false since a prior semi-related discussion never reached any consensus and the closer recognized this. My use of common knowledge, that Storrs is a village within Mansfield, was looped in as "evidence" (just as Eagleville, Conantville, and the others are also villages?)

Like I expressed to the others, I am sorry that some other user(s) did not follow the rules at some earlier point but I have made every attempt to follow Wikipedia's social and writing practices to the best of my ability. Please lift my block so we can go back to legitimate discussion and improvement. Newsjunkiect (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger:, could you refrain from 1) closing a valid merge proposal (Special:Diff/1277795943 et al) and 2) continuing to conclude that I am some other user, which isn't true? Newsjunkiect (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were not barred from doing so. I chose not to drop a notification on your talk page for the SPI for a simple reason: if you weren't Jonathanhusky (which I honestly hoped you weren't) then all would be good and there wouldn't be a point to having potentially caused agitation. If you were (which CheckUser confirmed you are) then there would be no point for obvious reasons. Also you aren't being villainized - it's that you (a) edited from the same location as Jonathanhusky/UConnIPUser, (b) edited the exact same sort of topics as Jonathanhusky/UConnIPUser did, and most importantly (c) proposed the exact same merger that Jonathanhusky refused to drop the stick over using exactly the same language and citing the exact same reasons (note that neither WP:OVERLAP or WP:REDUNDANT is policy - OVERLAP is a help page and REDUNDANT is an essay on page creation). Given a+b+c and the fact that CheckUser

Confirmed you as Jonathanhusky (Not "likely" or "technically indistinguishable", "confirmed"), the conclusion is pretty obvious that you are, in fact, Jonathanhusky, and therefore the merge proposal was closed because it was not valid as having been created via block evasion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bushranger, this is simple: The "evidence" page says that I, being the accused, may comment. I attempted to do so and saw a pop-up message preventing me from doing so.

Further, I am not "Jonathanhusky". As I explained I edit from and using the Wifi of a popular, public location in my down time. If you know the campus, it's the best soup-and-sandwich shop. I'd hazard to guess a student or grad with a laptop may have edited there too. Clubs meet there. People do their work there. It's where I am now, if you're in the area - we can each enjoy a cup of coffee.

I shouldn't be penalized for starting to edit on Wikipedia with topics I know: UConn and the Beach Boys. Sorry that some other guy makes you skeptical of every UConn fan who edits here. I was attempting to improve the place and noticed a pretty obvious issue: the two pages are mostly word-for-word identical.

I respect that some prior discussion occurred about a separate issue, but the merge proposal did not reach a consensus and I believed it was a fair issue to suggest. I read the prior rationale and extracted the small part I agreed with under the context of what I understood Wikipedia practices to support. And, I will admit, I was under the assumption that any page link beginning with "WP" was either rule or fair guidance.

Is WP:OVERLAP not truly applicable? Or will anyone who suggests that be tied up like me? Newsjunkiect (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to do so and saw a pop-up message preventing me from doing so. Because you are blocked per CU confirming you as a sock.

Is WP:OVERLAP not truly applicable? At this point, even if you weren't Jonathanhusky (which, again, CU confirmed that you are, and "I am not a sock" is the argument of every sock ever), the well on merging Mansfield and Storrs has been absolutely poisoned. The Bushranger _{One ping only} - 21:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling me, in your capacity as an administrator, that any user who ever suggests merging those two articles, primarily due to their near-identical text: will be immediately blocked forever because of some other bozo?

I respected and understood that there "may be controversy" due to said bozo's prior "poisoning", as you put it, and decided to start a proposal discussion instead of doing the merge. There is just cause for a merge at this current time: If there suddenly becomes enough encyclopedic material on Storrs that shouldn't be in the main article for Mansfield, then I suppose a stand-alone article would be fine, but that is highly unlikely.

I am not "Jonathanhusky". I was not presented with the damning evidence you say you have, and since it isn't true anyway, it mustn't be that damning. And as I said before, the page clearly says the accused can reply, and to prevent me from doing so isn't right regardless of your opinions. Newsjunkiect (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

any user who ever suggests merging those two articles who by behavior is Jonathanhusky and who CheckUser confirms is Jonathanhusky will be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"who by behavior is Jonathanhusky", Bushranger? What does that mean, really? The only reasoning I've been told is that because I chose to start improving articles related to UConn and their basketball stars, that makes me a "target" for impersonating this other guy.

"and who CheckUser confirms is Jonathanhusky" Once again, I haven't been presented with any of this "damning evidence" you say you have. Do I have to provide the exact coordinates from where I have edited to clear this up? Newsjunkiect (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Per my replies above, I am not "Jonathanhusky" or any other user. I edit from a public location and on coincidental subjects. Newsjunkiect (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC) @Newyorkbrad: They speak of "evidence" that they have not shown me, and have made a further incorrect conclusion. Why am I being penalized for telling the truth? Newsjunkiect (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The section below removes any and all remaining doubt that this is Jonathanhusky. TPA removed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 27 February 2025 (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.

@PhilKnight, The Bushranger, and DoubleGrazing: I'd appreciate your commenting on the current unblock request. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: The more they argue the more clear it becomes - even leaving aside the confirmed CU - that they are, in fact, Jonathanhusky. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: - the checkuser evidence is good, combined with the behavioral evidence makes this a high confidence block. PhilKnight (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. It sounds like an independent checkuser will need to review the unblock request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin, but this user pinged me to the merge discussion they started, and I've dealt with them previously - I don't need CU tools to tell you this is painfully obvious socking and the appeal should be denied. Endless arguing and wikilawyering (while not understanding what the things they reference actually mean) are this sock's MO. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much like Trainsandotherthings, I was also pinged to the merge, also dealt previously with him. I wasn't originally going to respond in this section, though I agreed with everyone, just thought I had nothing to add, but that has changed. I got pinged in the § Unexplained Revert section below, where I tried to help, but it turned into a sad kind of slow, but familiar implosion.

To Trains's well put last sentence characterizing them, I might add the following pattern: a kind of forest-for-the-trees arguing singlemindedly about relative trivialities while in grave danger for more serious matters. That is, he storms full speed ahead about some minor issue like whether an edit should be reverted or not and even pushes back at admins about some triviality while facing longer blocks or while TPA revocation is hanging over their head. For example, this example by Jonathanhusky while on a 2-week block pushing back on Ponyo at User talk:Jonathanhusky#Block modified on 22:07, 5 December 2024 (diff), or this example by Newsjunkiect while cu-blocked and facing TPA warnings but pushing back on DoubleGrazing at User talk:Newsjunkiect#Unexplained Revert on 20:40, 27 February 2025 (diff) regarding a revert (by me) of an edit at a Connecticut transit navbox. I could add more, but the WP:QUACKing is so deafening and so identifiable, there can be little doubt. (Non-administrator comment) Mathglot (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My comment now appears to be moot; TPA was revoked below while I was composing it. Apologize for any unnecessary pings. Mathglot (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained Revert

@Mathglot: Would you be able to explain the revert you performed at the Connecticut transit navbox: Special:Diff/1277890861? I am attempting to see how it follows Wikipedia's standards - the informational WP:RVONLYNEC would suggest that reverts are primarily appropriate for vandalism and truly disruptive edits, not one which improves an article/feature.

Since my additions were article-supported and not disruptive, it would be appreciated if you could restore them or restore my ability to edit it back under the correct method. Newsjunkiect (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked; that means no editing. You're only allowed to edit this page, and only for the purposes of appealing your block or discussing matters directly related to it. Do not make unnecessary edits or you may lose your right to edit this page as well. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleGrazing, on the one hand I understand that but on the other we have an issue over Mathglot's reversion conduct. The edit linked in the post here, and another that has come to my attention: Special:Diff/1277890446 have been reverted unnecessarily.

I respectfully linked to the informational in an attempt to understand why Mathglot reverted, but once again, both edits here were actually improvements and ineligible for reversion. If you look at the second edit, on the article CT Transit Hartford I accurately improved the text in regard to a UConn-related express route and, a frankly obvious change at the start of the article to correct the erroneous (but close) name of "CT Hartford".

That essay states clearly:

Reversion is not a proper tool for punishing an editor or retaliating or exacting vengeance.

Because I am otherwise blocked, I cannot use the correct method: Editing the article page directly. Hence, I asked for an explanation.

Would you be able to cite the rules which specifically states that I am not allowed to ask such a question or defend my reverted edit? Newsjunkiect (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't wikilawyer. Editing your user page is left open so you can appeal your block. If you're not appealing your block, you're abusing that right. I'm quite happy to block you from editing this page as well, if you'd prefer to make your unblock appeals by the UTRS method instead? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that every single edit I have made is in furtherance and improvement of articles?

I am being a responsible editor in asking questions of the reverting editor, and now yourself, to support your claim that either 1) the edits I made were not improvements and to justify why or 2) I made them while blocked, which is impossible.

Usually, I would restore with edit summary (or additional necessary improvements) on the article itself, but since you have blocked me, I cannot.

Similarly, per the policy WP:BLOCK and especially its subsection WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE your suggestion of further blocking my access to my talk page is, in fact, punitive. I'm not "wikilawyering" by calling you out on your threat. Newsjunkiect (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsjunkiect, every edit of yours in this section gets you one step closer to removal of talk page access and decline of your open block appeal, which is all but a sure thing. For your own sake, please stop shooting yourself in the foot. The extremely slim path you still have for recovery from this mess is outlined below. I wish you the best. Mathglot (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict), Newsjunkiect, I will respond to you, although I am not sure that I should, but please carefully read the caveats at the end of this message before replying back to me on this subject, or any subject other than your block appeal.

To your question: the template edit revert is already explained in the edit summary. Perhaps I could have also included in the edit summary that the changes were unsourced. True, changes to an Infobox generally do not require citations in the Infobox itself, however there is no reason not to include them, either, especially if requested by another editor, or if your edit is reverted. Although the main reason for your current block is socking, related to your previous activities at Storrs-related articles, you also have other edits that have been reverted at article topics related to Connecticut transit such as at Westerly station (which I take no position on). I might have let that unsourced edit slide, but frankly given your history, imho the bar for adding material to Connecticut-related topics is much higher for you and requires impeccable sourcing. I am well aware that as you are blocked, so you are now unable to add such footnotes, and were you not blocked currently we could discuss this further, but that seems pointless to me now, as there is nothing to be gained and you have far bigger fish to fry.

Now, the promised caveats, and please read this carefully. As dire as your situation is, it can get worse: your ability to respond here on your Talk page can be revoked, if you are seen to be using your Talk page contrary to guidelines. My understanding is that the proper use of a talk page while you are blocked is that it narrows to appealing your block, asking an admin to explain why you are blocked (n/a here; you already know why, regardless whether you agree with the reason or not), or asking how to prepare a block appeal (possibly relevant, as your previous efforts were declined at least partly for non-compliance with block appeal requirements). That means, imho, that your legitimate use of this page does not include asking me (or anyone) questions about reverts or anything else. To be clear: if you respond to me regarding the template edit or revert, you place yourself in jeopardy of having your Talk page access revoked by an admin for failure to use this Talk page for the one thing you are allowed to do here, namely, deal with your block. So, for your own sake, please do not respond to me about the revert. If you do, I will not respond to you about it, as I will not be drawn into WP:PROXYING.

So, what should you be doing now? You should start by educating yourself about § Sockpuppetry blocks (note bullets #1 and 2). You have been checkuser-blocked, so your situation is very dire, and the wiggle room for recovery from it is extremely slim. The slim path I still see available to you is as follows. Normally, per bullet #2, your path to recovery would begin by abandoning this Talk page permanently and making your block appeal only from the sockmaster account Jonathanhusky (talk · contribs). However, your Talk access at User talk:Jonathanhusky has been revoked, so you are unable to do that. In theory, that leaves you only the WP:UTRS system, or this page, where per bullet #2 you shouldn't be editing; a bit of a Catch-22. I am not an admin so you may have to ask an admin if this avenue is even possible for you, but were I an admin, I might respond to a request by you on this page, acknowledging the socking and requesting Talk page access be restored to your main account at User talk:Jonathanhusky for the sole purpose of acknowledging the socking and making your block appeal there at the sockmaster page instead of here. Imho, you could attempt that, and it's possible an admin might grant you that, or they might not.

Whatever path you decide to take, note that it is also possible that TPA could be revoked for too many or disruptive use of the unblock template, so use your unblock appeals wisely. Somewhat unfortunately, you have issued another unblock appeal on this page, still open at this moment and entirely uncompliant imho, and doomed to certain decline. You are lucky that it has gained only informal reply comments in the discussion below the appeal so far, and has not been formally responded to. You would increase your extremely slim chances slightly, imho, by withdrawing that appeal before it is formally answered, and instead following the steps I have outlined above. To withdraw it, edit your unblock appeal comment, striking the {{unblock}} template (without removing it) if you know how to do that while leaving it still visible on the page; if you don't know how, you can just respond to the discussion, adding a new comment at the bottom saying, "I withdraw my unblock appeal of 01:34, 27 February; please strike it," or words to that effect. Other than that, you have the UTRS system, or waiting for six months and trying again. Best of luck. [Note: this message was composed in direct reply to your message of 19:54 today, before the other responses above were saved.] Mathglot (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, thank you for your reply and explanation. However, both reversions should have been content-based, not discriminatory toward me individually.

You say "the bar for adding material to Connecticut-related topics is much higher for you". How is that, Mathglot? I'm not Jonathanhusky, so what real issue is there? I haven't knowingly edited anything to be false. I have respectfully participated in a responsible discussion at multiple pages regarding potential changes.

I extended the courtesy to start a merge proposal on the Storrs and Mansfield articles (yes, Storrs, just Storrs) because they're obvious duplicates. It doesn't matter who makes that proposal or when, if the articles qualify at the time of proposal.

What kindness have I received from wanting to improve things? The baseless accusation that I am some other user's "sock puppet" with no proof. I asked the "Check User" for what evidence you all seem to be going off of, and no one has provided it. Don't I have a right to see it, if the consequences are so dire?

While I expect it to fall on deaf ears, I will kindly request that you provide an example of a navbox with references because I have never seen one. Further, if the changes are article-supported, including the same or additional references in the navbox is not necessary no matter who makes the edit. As well, since the edits on the navbox and at CT Transit Hartford are not appropriate for reversion, please restore them, or improve them, but don't restore inaccurate text. Newsjunkiect (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your kind request is kindly refused, secondarily per WP:PROXYING, but primarily because you have no business discussing anything here other than your block. It is clear that you have either not read the blocking policy links I left you or the admin warnings you just received above, have not understood them, or are ignoring them. Whatever the case, I fear you have used up all of your WP:ROPE now, and your precious last seconds are now ticking away. Best of luck to you. Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

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 posting of this notice.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]