User talk:CatCar28

Welcome!

Hello, CatCar28! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kerry Butler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rescue Me. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Baugh has been accepted

John Baugh, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:VentureKit per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VentureKit. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Cabayi (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

CatCar28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello. I am surprised and confused to see I have been blocked for sockpuppetry, as today is the first time I have ever heard of VentureKit or their potentially associated accounts. I am unaware of a way to prove it to you (please let me know if there is one), but I have never engaged in sockpuppetry and have no connection to VentureKit. The only connection I can find between my edits and VentureKit's edits is that we both edited Washington University in St. Louis, a month apart. I apologize if I am misunderstanding the investigation, but it doesn't appear that the investigators decisively found me to be involved. I sincerely enjoy contributing to Wikipedia, and I hope I can resume doing so soon. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. CatCar28 (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I am still trying to understand how I am a suspected sockpuppet of VentureKit. I know one investigator believes my account is "behaviourally very consistent with VentureKit", but I have no idea what sign(s) of sockpuppetry they see. A different investigator said it "[s]eems [u]nlikely" based on CheckUser evidence that my account is a sockpuppet of VentureKit, and another wrote, "I can't connect CatCar". I checked my edited pages against the edited pages of every single other suspected sockpuppet of VentureKit with Interaction Timeline, and we have zero pages in common. I am proud of the contributions I have made to Wikipedia (about 350 edits) on my one and only account, and I would never jeopardize my account or reputation on Wikipedia. Thank you again for reviewing this. CatCar28 (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. Is there any more information I can provide, or anything else I can do, to assist the administrator(s) reviewing my unblock request? It's my understanding that my unblock request can be procedurally declined if no action is taken within two weeks from the date I was blocked, so I want to make sure I've shared everything that may be helpful to you. Thank you. CatCar28 (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'm satisfied this block can be removed. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• SPI clerk note: Please note as well zzuuzz' comment right below; These three accounts are confirmed to each other, and for the record, differ slightly from CatCar28 from the previous report. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC) – "differ slightly" indicates a technical relationship. Can I also ask that the reviewing admin either contact me or Cabayi privately before unblocking? There is lots of very solid behavioural evidence here (though potentially a little complicated to parse at first), but on-wiki sharing is a bad idea per WP:BEANS. Overlap isn't the point, neither is technical data, at least not primarily. Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 20:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  I understand my comment may have been slightly ambiguous, maybe lost in translation. My point really was that the technical data differs, not that it differs slightly. Upon review, I would mention that the data differs consistently. One should otherwise disregard my comments about this account, and refer to the comments from other checkusers. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hello; it's CatCar28 again. I'm making this addition outside of the unblock-request template because I've found that some tables of unblock requests list the date of my request as the last date I added to the template (not the day I created it), and I don't want to lose my place in line, so to speak, if the reviewing administrators are working chronologically. I wanted to request that, should the reviewing administrator be leaning toward declining my unblock request, I be given the opportunity to respond to specific allegations about my account. In my unblock request above I have addressed the comparisons I can find between my account, VentureKit's account, and the other accounts listed in the sockpuppet investigation, but Blablubbs has since written, "[o]verlap isn't the point" and "neither is technical data". I have yet to be told why my account is a suspected sockpuppet beyond the general statement that "There is lots of very solid behavioural evidence here". I am very curious what, to quote WP:BEANS, "examples of how to cause disruption" Blablubbs would need to share to describe how my behavior is consistent with VentureKit's. I would be happy to explain any connections found between my account and VentureKit's, as I am not a sockpuppet and I have no idea who VentureKit is. Thanks again, and please let me know if there's any more information I can share that would be helpful. CatCar28 (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

  CatCar28, I'm really sorry if you're innocent, but I can't share this publicly. I've spent far too much time finding behavioural markers for this farm and others only to see massive shifts in behaviour in an attempt to evade detection. As for responding to specific bits of the evidence: While I really really do understand that desire, all people can ever say is "yes, but this isn't a unique behaviour" – but the determination of socking is made based on the assessment of whether two accounts share enough unique behaviours to almost certainly be run by the same individual. Again, I'm happy to provide these behaviours to the reviewing administrator. Best, Blablubbs|talk 07:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi again. I have continued to look at VentureKit's account and contributions to find any similarities between our behaviors, and I wanted to share my findings. From a review of VentureKit's edit count and my edit count, I've found that VentureKit's average edit size (294.7 bytes) is less than half the size of mine (654.8 bytes); VentureKit edited consistently between 13:00 and 21:00 UTC while my edit times have been much more scattered, but always between 14:00 and 8:00 UTC; and VentureKit has edited in their sandbox while I have never used mine.
  
  Next, comparing VentureKit's contributions and my contributions, I see that VentureKit consistently started their edit summaries with lowercase letters and varied their use of commas and semicolons to separate clauses describing their edits, whereas I have always begun my edit summaries with capital letters and have used semicolons to separate clauses since my 23rd edit (when I decided it was clearer to use semicolons than commas, especially when including a list within my edit summary). Additionally, VentureKit often used section-title markers in their edit summaries while I have never done so. I haven't looked through all of VentureKit's edits, but it looks like most of their last several-hundred edits were to pages about healthcare companies, and I have never edited a healthcare company's page.
  
  Finally, I found that VentureKit added userboxes to their user page in August 2018, and you can see that I tried and failed to add userboxes to my page in August 2020 as a beginning editor. I hope this information is helpful, and, as always, I'm happy to share more information or further explain something if needed. Thank you. CatCar28 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  Just noting that there are over a dozen VentureKit accounts, operated by two people at the very least. Blablubbs|talk 21:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  
  Here are my abbreviated analyses of VentureKit's 15 confirmed sockpuppet accounts listed in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of VentureKit, in alphabetical order:
  - Accountmetric (edit count): Similar to VentureKit, this account began their edit summaries with lowercase letters and often used section-title markers (unlike me). Accountmetric usually edited at a time similar to the time VentureKit did, and their average edit size (154.5 bytes) is even smaller than VentureKit's (and therefore further away from my average edit size). Accountmetric's average number of edits per page is 3, while mine is 1. Accountmetric appears to have edited primarily the pages of businesses and businesspeople, which is unlike me.
  - Balle010 (edit count): Balle010 also began their edit summaries with lowercase letters and used commas to separate clauses, and many of their edit summaries are a single word (my edit summaries are much longer and more thorough). Their average edit size, -173.2 bytes, is extremely different from mine. Balle010 edited many articles-for-deletion discussions, and I have never edited one.
  - Boothit11 (edit count): Boothit11's average edit size, like VentureKit's, is less than half of my average edit size, and Boothit11 edited within a similar time frame as VentureKit (which is very different from when I edit). Like Accountmetric and unlike me, Boothit11 edited primarily the pages of businesses. Instead of using commas or semicolons to separate clauses in their edit summaries, Balle010 used periods, which I have never done. They inconsistently capitalized the first letter of their edit summaries, while I have always begun with a capital letter.
  - Deadbolt44 (edit count): Deadbolt44's average edit size, like that of most of the other sockpuppets, is significantly smaller than mine. They also edited at a similar time to VentureKit and other sockpuppets. Deadbolt44 inconsistently capitalized the first letter of their edit summaries and ended some summaries with periods, which I have never done. Some of their edit summaries begin with a noun (like "Missing details", "Small update", and "copy edits"), while my mine always begin with a verb.
  - Drkknght21 (edit count): Drkknght21 used a section-title marker in almost all of their edit summaries and ended almost all of their edits summaries with periods, whereas I have never done either. Like other sockpuppets of VentureKit, Drkknght21 edited many pages of companies, which is unlike me, and they edited at a similar time of day as the others (which is different from the times I edit).
  - Eagernewsbeaver (edit count): Eagernewsbeaver, like several other sockpuppets and unlike me, used section-title markers in almost all of their edits and edited in about the same time frame as VentureKit. Eagernewsbeaver also edited many pages of businesses and businesspeople, which is unlike me.
  - EdiTHORial (edit count): EditTHORial, like other sockpuppets, used section-title markers in almost all of their edit summaries, ended many of their edit summaries with periods, edited many company pages, and edited around the same time as VentureKit (behaviors I've established are inconsistent with me).
  - Greente28 (edit count): Greente28's average edit size (122 bytes) is less than a fifth of my average edit size, and Greente28, like many other sockpuppets here, edited around the same time as VentureKit. They edited the pages of many businesspeople and philanthropists, which is unlike me. Most of Greente28's edit summaries are significantly shorter and less detailed than mine, with many of them being only one to three words. The verbs in their edit summaries are in present tense, while mine are in past tense.
  - GroundFloor (edit count): GroundFloor's edit summaries begin with lowercase letters and often use section-title markers. Most of their edit summaries include only one clause, while almost all of my edit summaries include at least two clauses. GroundFloor's edited pages appear to be mostly healthcare companies (like VentureKit edited) and yachts, neither of which are topics I have edited.
  - JP Miller1 (edit count): JP Miller1 edited within the exact same time frame as VentureKit (which, again, is different from when I edit). Their edit summaries almost always begin with lowercase letters and use section-title markers, and their average edit size is less than half of mine. The majority of JP Miller1's edited pages appear to be businesses and businesspeople.
  - L0calh0$t (edit count): Like several of the sockpuppets mentioned thus far, L0calh0$t has edited primarily the pages of businesses and business people. Their edit summaries are inconsistent in the capitalization of the first letter, some end with periods, and they use commas instead of semicolons to separate clauses. L0calh0$t edited at about the same time as VentureKit, and their average edit size is also less than half the size of mine.
  - Marginofinterest (edit count): Almost all of Marginofinterest's edit summaries begin with lowercase letters, some end with periods, and their average edit size is less than a third of the size of mine. Marginofinterest, like several of their fellow sockpuppets, edited many pages of businesses and businesspeople, and they edited in the same time frame as VentureKit.
  - QuibbleCod (edit count): QuibbleCod's edit summaries begin with lowercase letters and often use section-title markers, and they edited within the exact same time frame as VentureKit. It looks like the majority of QuibbleCod's edited pages are businesspeople and politicians (which are both topics I don't edit).
  - Quorum816 (edit count): Quorum816 is yet another sockpuppet who edited within the same exact time frame as VentureKit and used section-title markers in almost all of their edit summaries. Their average edit size is less than a quarter of my average edit size. It looks like Quorum816 almost exclusively edited the pages of politicians.
  - WonderfulWorld (edit count): Finally, we have WonderfulWorld, who edited within the same time frame as VentureKit (and many other sockpuppets, as we've seen). WonderfulWorld edited primarily the pages of businesses, businesspeople, and politicians. Their edit summaries begin with lowercase letters and often use section-title markers.
  
  In conclusion, my editing behaviors have clear differences from the editing behaviors of all 15 confirmed sockpuppets of VentureKit, not just VentureKit. The edit summaries written by all 15 sockpuppet accounts have characteristics distinguishing them from my edit summaries; all of the sockpuppets have average edit sizes smaller than mine (most of them are significantly smaller); most of the sockpuppet accounts edited primarily the pages of businesses, businesspeople, and/or politicians (which are not topics I edit, with the exception of five or so company pages I have edited during my year on Wikipedia); and the sockpuppet accounts were used during the same or very similar time frame as when the VentureKit account was used, which is quite different from when I edit. Thank you for reading this — I hope it can clear some things up. CatCar28 (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  I reviewed the investigation of VentureKit's suspected sockpuppets to see why the initial suspected sockpuppets were connected to VentureKit, and the "three main reasons [ Blablubbs is] reasonably certain that they are related" are (1) "extremely strong timecard overlap", (2) "Gnoming, updating and referencing company pages and BLPs (and only those)", and (3) "extremely quacky similarities" in their edit summaries. In my analyses above I have pointed out how my timecard is very different than those of VentureKit and the confirmed sockpuppets; the confirmed sockpuppets edited primarily the pages of businesses and businesspeople while I have edited no businesspeople and have edited only a few business pages (I have edited many BLPs, but the majority of those have been performers, which is not a trait I saw when reviewing the confirmed sockpuppets' edit histories, and many of my edited pages are not companies or BLPs); and all of VentureKit's sockpuppets' edit summaries have obvious differences from mine.
  
  Oshwah and AmandaNP, it appears from the investigation page that you looked more at CheckUser evidence than at the alleged behavioral similarities with which I have been linked to VentureKit, but would you be willing to weigh in on how it "seems Unlikely" that I'm a sockpuppet of VentureKit, Oshwah, and how you "can't connect" me, Amanda? I sincerely appreciate your time, and I hope this misunderstanding can be resolved soon. CatCar28 (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  This is not a CheckUser based block, and CheckUser can never prove a negative. So my usefulness here is close to zero. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for administrator assistance

Hello. I am requesting assistance regarding my unblock request above. I was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:VentureKit on April 9, which is now 35 days ago. I have provided extensive evidence and analysis showing differences between me and VentureKit (and the 15 confirmed sockpuppets of VentureKit), even though I have been told no specifics about the "lots of very solid behavioural evidence" linking me to VentureKit. I understand that my case may be more complicated than other unblock requests, but it's frustrating to not receive any indication that a reviewing administrator has looked at my request in the 35 days since I created it when other unblock requests are receiving administrator responses in less than a day. Thank you for looking into this. As always, I'm happy to provide any additional information the administrator(s) reviewing my request may find helpful.

--CatCar28 (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Your request above is showing up at Category:Requests for unblock. Unfortunately, that category is backlogged right now. Excessively lengthy, borderline, or complicated requests can take far longer than clear-cut requests to be accepted, or declined by a volunteer administrator. SQL^{Query me!} 06:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ricky Ubeda

Hello, CatCar28. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ricky Ubeda, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ricky Ubeda

Hello, CatCar28. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ricky Ubeda".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Scotland, PA (musical)

Hello, CatCar28. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Scotland, PA (musical), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Scotland, PA (musical)

Hello, CatCar28. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Scotland, PA".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ricky Ubeda

Hello, CatCar28. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ricky Ubeda".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)