User talk:WereWolf370

This is WereWolf370's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Re. ANI

Just letting you know that a comment like this, while obviously well-intentioned, does betray your lack of experience more than you probably intended. Icewhiz is one of this project’s most notorious sockpuppeteers, most infamously almost passing a WP:RFA as Eostrix. The idea that a veteran editor might be Icewhiz-zing is higher than for almost any other banned editor. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure since I would need evidence to suspect that someone is a sockpuppet. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. The accusation is far-fetched, but with the best will in the world, any evidence would not be the sort that you (or I) can spot. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I think it would be way too hard for anyone to spot an Icewhiz sock as persistent sockpuppeteers are good at deceiving users by not having clear editing patterns. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to avoid playing in an unmarked minefield in your third month of editing. At some point you may be up to speed on Icewhiz, but that isn't going to be in the near future. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse what Guerillero says and strongly encourage you to stop editing ANI for now, especially the Tamzin v Levivich discussion. This particular discussion has some context that goes back over a decade and requires 100s of hours of reading to completely understand. It's not fun, it'll give you a headache. As a "young" editor, I recommend looking but not touching such contentious areas and discussions. It's best to find your niche and come to an understanding of the site through that (this is what I did early on). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:05, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I just wanted to say that I'll simply stop editing the Tamzin vs Levivich discussion. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolf, I think you may want to take a step back from entering conduct-dispute discussions in general until you get more experience. Your talk page (prior to username change) recently contained multiple similar requests to slow down and take more care in this area. BugGhost 🦗👻 06:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WereWolf, comments like this are also unhelpful, and verge on personal attacks. Like everyone above, I would encourage you to avoid AN/I until you are more familiar with Wikipedia policy and norms, just as I suggested to you before regarding AIV. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to make personal attacks. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 15:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you weren't. But when you ask someone whether their edit was motivated by a particular political bias, when they've already explained their reasoning in the other thread and page history that they linked, that comes across as an accusation, and specifically as an assumption of bad faith. As you know, it's my opinion that there are times where it's appropriate to accuse someone of bad-faith editing, but in this case there doesn't appear to be any reason. You just leapt to a negative assumption and derailed the conversation by doing so. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 15:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, I will be more careful, I also now rarely report users to AIV as I have slowed down regarding AIV reports. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to comment on this post from the same discussion: telling an editor who has been here for almost 20 years, with hundreds of thousands of edits, that edit warring can lead to being blocked comes across as a bit naïve. I know you want to be helpful and that you are still learnkng the ropes – I suggest doing that away from AN/I, which is not a very pleasant forum. --bonadea contributions talk 16:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio in Nangula Nelulu Uaandja

I revdelled one revision from September 2025. Did you mean only that one, or were there others that needed RD? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging socks

Hi there! I appreciate your efforts to help, but in future please leave tagging socks to SPI clerks and administrators. Adding the correct sock tag can be quite a complex task and there are lots of reasons why an administrator may have chosen not to tag an account, so it's generally a task that's reserved for clerks and administrators. The tag you added here was not correct, as the user appears to be a sockpuppet of another user and shouldn't have been tagged as a sockmaster. If you have any questions about this, please just let me know. Thanks! MCE89 (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I just didn't know who the sockmaster was, I'll also leave the tagging to clerks and admins. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WereWolf370, you've already been asked to avoid clerking SPI cases before, so please take this as a formal warning: you are welcome to submit new SPI reports if you believe you have found evidence of sockpuppetry, or to add evidence to ongoing reports, but please avoid any other kind of SPI-related editing or you may be banned from the process altogether. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'll let the clerks and admins tag the socks. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 16:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WereWolf, I see you've had lots of visits from admins and experienced editors recently asking you to reconsider your participation in various parts of Wikipedia's inner workings. I don't think you're a problem editor but I do think your energies are perhaps misdirected. If you're looking for something productive but not too time-consuming to do, you could try recent changes patrol (looking for problematic edits and reverting them if necessary), or voting at WP:AFD to help decide whether articles should be deleted. Alternatively, you could find an unloved article and give it some TLC; there are seven million articles in the encyclopaedia and a huge number of them would really benefit from someone taking a few minutes to tidy them up, update them, or improve their prose. All of these things would be a big help, would gain you experience without causing problems, and most importantly I think you would be happier. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 2026

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces (Wikipedia) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then post an appeal to the administrators' noticeboard. Star Mississippi 03:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told by multiple editors that you are wading into areas where you do not have the experience. It is causing more harm than help and you are unwilling to change your behavior. As such you have lost access to edit project space. Please focus on content as you gain experience. Star Mississippi 03:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'll stop the disruption. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You've said that before, and didn't last and I have doubts you won't immediately return to the same behavior. I'd advocate against an unblock. We are here to edit articles. You are still free to do that. Star Mississippi 03:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I won't return to the same behavior, I also already slowed down before this block occurred. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 17 June 2026 (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).

WereWolf370 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

I wasn't trying to be disruptive, I will be constructive and avoid disruption. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You say you weren't trying to be disruptive, which implies that you were being disruptive without realising, which then makes your trying to avoid being disruptive going forward inherently problematic – how can you avoid behaviour which you cannot recognise?

This block seems entirely warranted, and in the best interests of the project. Had you waited a few weeks or months, I might have believed that you've learned your lesson, but seven minutes (!) doesn't quite cut it.

You can still edit in all other name spaces, and I suggest you do so for a while at least, until you have demonstrated that you can be more of a net positive for the project. (Besides which, the project is all about content, not inner machinery and kremlinology, so please take this as opportunity to focus on what actually matters.)

I'm declining your appeal, and suggest that you don't lodge another one immediately. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2026 (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.

Could you explain, in your understanding, how you were disruptive and what you should do instead? If you weren't trying to be disruptive before, then just saying you'll try to be constructive now doesn't indicate what you'll do differently. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made messages on WP:ANI that didn't seem to assume good faith, I'll make sure to assume good faith in discussions from now on and also avoid disruptive behavior. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good sign that you do not understand that your participation in Wikipedia-space is often disruptive, so I'd advise against an unblock for the time being. You can show that you can contribute constructively in talk page discussions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Updated block notice

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. 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.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are using this account as a good hand/bad hand account, logging out to make disruptive edits, then logging back in. On at least one occasion you used this account to revert your own disruption and have temporary accounts that were under your control blocked for disruption. Normally I would give a timed block for a first instance of this type of behaviour, but, combined with the excessive disruption from this account, I think you need to blocked indefinitely to prevent further disruption. You ignored all the advice provided with this account, under multiple usernames, to the point of being partially blocked from project space. Your next move after the partial block were to start messing about with SPI templates (such as here). I believe that all of this nonsense that eats up valuable volunteer time, combined with the outright deception in your logged-out edits, merits an indefinite break from this project. You have the opportunity to prove you can edit productively elsewhere. I suggest you do so.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will make constructive contributions to the other projects, I will also avoid further sockpuppetry. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Werewolf, you don't have to answer, but could you explain why you did this? What Ponyo has said surprised me. BugGhost 🦗👻 22:32, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why this happened, also, I would like to note that the template Ponyo linked to is a template sandbox. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What Ponyo said was:

Your next move after the partial block were to start messing about with SPI templates (such as here).

So why is there also a sandbox for sockpuppet user tags? WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think BugGhost is asking about the good-hand/bad-hand sockpuppetry. That's often been considered one of the greatest violations of trust possible on Wikipedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did abuse temporary accounts, I regret it and am currently contributing to other Wikimedia projects. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The question you were asked was why. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because I didn't think I would be caught, I thought making disruptive edits on temporary accounts would not get me blocked, I now know it does because I did get blocked. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't actually explain why you chose to do it, but I at least appreciate the transparency about your thought process. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why I did it is because I was making disruptive edits but didn't want them on my account, so I logged out to make the disruptive edits before logging back in. WereWolf (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why were you making disruptive edits in the first place? It's not a super difficult question. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Aesurias, are you asking about my edits to WP:ANI? WereWolf🐺 14:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin asked about the sockpuppetry, where you used temporary accounts to make disruptive edits. You explained your reasoning for using temporary accounts, but I don't understand why you were compelled to make disruptive edits at all? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did make disruptive edits using TAs, I was compelled because I didn't think I'd be caught. WereWolf🐺 14:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
still not an answer. the question is to what ends? i have to say im disappointed as i thought a lot of your AV work was valuable despite admin warnings. there is rarely good reason for disruptive editing, but if you can't answer the simple question of why then i can only assume you do not have one. InRRainbows Lets chat! 14:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's not much further explanation werewolf wants to give about this. There's no point beating a dead horse and dog piling.

Lets leave this conversation here. BugGhost 🦗👻 15:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there isn't really much more to explain, and I was doing plenty of anti-vandalism work before I got blocked. WereWolf🐺 17:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I regain editing privileges? WereWolf🐺 04:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, but my advice is to contribute to another wiki project, avoiding all the mistakes you have made here. No sock puppetry, no disruptive edits of any kind (either logged in or logged out), and making sure you are not involving yourself in project-space or user-conduct matters. Make sure you are not causing problems or confusion for other editors. Do not edit war. If you can do that successfully for a year or two, and prove that you were successfully helping that wiki project, someone may consider unblocking you here. In the meantime, you should not interact with English Wikipedia. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]