User talk:CodeThornton

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for helping with the problems at David Hirlav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I hope you can respect that delays are going to happen, because of my own schedule and in order to address the disruptions.

There appear to be WP:COI problems of some sort going on with the article. Whatever those coi probelms may be, editors appear pressured to get the article fixed quickly despite not understanding the problems or how to fix them. I hope you can be patient with it and not get caught up in trying to meet others' schedules.

I put a note on the article talk page about the use of primary sources, focusing on the lede section though it applies to the overall article. WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:PRIMARY are the relevant policy sections. --Hipal (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Please remember to indicate why you are removing an article tag if you choose to do so. Removing one when there is a clear dispute over them is inappropriate. --Hipal (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It turns out that you missed some verification. Can you provide a reason for the ai-tag not being restored at this point? --Hipal (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:FactArchivist per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FactArchivist. 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) 02:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I hereby formally refute all allegations of sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is defined as the act of a single individual creating and operating multiple accounts in order to feign a consensus or create the impression of independent participation. I am one person with one account. An accusation of engaging in such activity is not a charge to be taken lightly but it demands clear and verifiable evidence. In this instance, no such evidence has been presented. As it currently stands, the allegations appear to be based solely on the fact that both edited the same article which is a common occurrence on a collaborative platform like Wikipedia, but by no means substantiated proof of sockpuppetry. My contributions differ both in content and style from those of the linked user, "FaktArchivist." I share neither the same views, communication patterns, nor editing preferences. This directly and severely contradicts the accusation that both accounts belong to the same individual. Given the gravity of this accusation, I request that correspondingly substantiated evidence be presented. I hereby formally request the restoration of my previous status and the withdrawal of the charges. I remain at your disposal should you have any further questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodeThornton (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You share the same IP as FactArchivist, you are technologically indistinguishable from FactArchivist, and you are engaging in the same discussions as FactArchivist. Refutation fails. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I kindly request a reconsideration of this block. The reason you name to enforce the block is "a shared IP" which I understand can raise questions but is no valid reason to deny me my individuality. The IP comes from a large corporations network that routes traffic from multiple offices through centralized gateways, even logging in from a building with thousands of individuals that share the same public IP. I understand that you made a quick technical check and concluded on what you saw. Though: A shared IP does not sufficiently establish that accounts are operated by the same person. My point is that my complete behaviour, writing, contribution and my viewpoints differ completely from the other user that I am not a sock puppet of. I have not once made the impression that I would try to evade policies or influence discussions. Please check my comments and contributions which are purely focused on improving content and making it compliant to Wikipedia guidelines. I am fully willing to cooperate to clarify this situation and provide any information that may help verify that I am an independent editor. Please let me know what would be helpful. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodeThornton (talk • contribs) 17:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not adequately address the technical evidence cited by a checkuser in the previous decline reason. Additionally, you have engaged in improper canvassing while blocked by emailing another editor a request to violate the policy against proxying on your behalf. Finally, the comments that both of your accounts posted at Talk:David Hirlav pointedly avoid disclosing your apparent LLM use; all LLM use is expected to be disclosed on the English Wikipedia. Any of these three reasons is sufficient to decline your unblock request, so I am declining it now. If you would like to request an unblock, please do so from your original account, FactArchivist (talk · contribs). — Newslinger talk 16:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

CodeThornton, IP data isn't the only technical data available. If you'd like to "clarify this situation," I think the minimum needed is a plausible explanation how you, and a completely unknown person using your same internet (and possibly other technical data such as user agent), on their own accord, somehow stumbled onto an obscure article, to make identical edits just minutes apart. This wasn't a random fishing expedition; technical data is only checked when there's compelling need to confirm clear behavioral information. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@PhilKnight @Jpgordon I have gotten an email asking me to partake in WP:PROXYING in the AfD discussion. I request that email be revoked from both accounts. I can forward the email if needed. – LuniZunie_(talk) 11:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Email revoked. PhilKnight (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I've simply asked you to state your opinion on the AfD page as you were generally contributing on the article and therefore have a well-founded impression of it. CodeThornton (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)