User talk:Cocoa57

Please follow WP:BRD. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. J Pratas (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very aggressive message. You appear to be the only editor with a divergent point of view so I would suggest you look in the mirror and that you cease reverting the edits of others without discussion. Cocoa57 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocoa57: I’d like to respond calmly and constructively.

First, I respectfully disagree with your characterization of my message as aggressive. I was simply referencing WP:BRD—a standard Wikipedia guideline—to encourage discussion over continued reverts. It is a standard Wikipedia template, it’s a reminder of how collaborative editing is expected to work here.

Second, I am not "the only editor with a divergent view." Other editors have expressed concerns regarding your tone, overblown language and prose.

This isn't about personal views; it's about following Wikipedia’s core content policies and avoiding edit warring.

I remain fully open to improving the article collaboratively. If disagreements persist, we should follow the proper steps: continued discussion on the talk page, and if needed, a request for outside input through venues like the NPOV Noticeboard J Pratas (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be the person at war with everyone else. I am sure that if you stop reverting the edits of others that you will find peace and harmony. Cocoa57 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocoa57: I’ll refrain from responding to the personal tone in your latest message, as I believe it’s more productive for us to focus on content and policy. I want to reiterate that my intention is not to “be at war,” but to ensure that changes to the article comply with Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality, verifiability, and encyclopedic tone.

When edits are disputed, discussion and consensus-building are not only encouraged—they are expected. I’ve made an effort to back my edits with reliable sources, and I’ve invited collaborative discussion throughout. Other editors have also raised concerns about style, tone, and approach.

If the disagreement continues, I believe the appropriate next step would be to seek outside input at the NPOV Noticeboard, where uninvolved editors can help assess whether the article is reflecting a balanced view. Perhaps one of the experienced editors who has already offered guidance here on your talk page could also assist you as you become more familiar with how collaborative editing works on Wikipedia. J Pratas (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sad to say, but I don't think that consensus is achievable with you. Cocoa57 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to remind me of a similar discussion I had about ten years ago — also with an editor who happened to be a passionate musicologist and deeply in love with Sousa Mendes. That conversation eventually ended with the editor being blocked. for not following policies. Let’s try to stay focused on sources, policy, and collaborative editing. J Pratas (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about edit summary and substantive changes I noticed that your recent edit to the Aristides de Sousa Mendes deleted sourced content, but your edit summary (“She died in 1991, not 1954”) referenced only a minor factual correction. This makes it hard for other editors to follow the changes and assess them transparently. For changes that go beyond simple corrections, it would be helpful to first discuss them in the talk page and then to summarize the full scope of edits in the edit summary and open a discussion if the changes are significant or contested. I’ll be restoring the stable version per while we continue discussion on the Talk page. You’re welcome to re-propose your edits there. Thanks for understanding.

J Pratas (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not go around changing date formats unless there is a very good reason to do so. There is a section of the MOS about retaining the existing date format within articles that you can find at MOS:DATERET.

Please also note that encylopaedic language and phrasing is always preferred over some of the overblown prose that you have added to a couple of articles I have seen. - SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholly with SchroCat. Experienced editors like him and me are well aware of the good advice in Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers but if you persist in Americanising English prose and adding your own uncited spin, you must expect to have your personal contributions reverted. Tim riley talk 17:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your guidance and perspective. Every encyclopedia I am aware of (including Wikipedia) includes the reason for someone's notability in the introductory sentence. Cocoa57 (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articles where I’ve had to revert you have all already included their notability, but done it in an encyclopaedic manner, not using peacock language. - SchroCat (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example so we can discuss? Cocoa57 (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it and I'm grateful to you for taking this on. Cocoa57 (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Benji1207 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benji1207. 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 ~~~~}}.  qedk (t 愛 c) 16:47, 15 April 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).

Cocoa57 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not a "sockpuppet" as I have mentioned a few times already. Cocoa57 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Of course you are. You edited the same article, at the same IP, from what appears to be the same computer, as the other account. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:50, 15 April 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.

Cocoa57 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 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).

Cocoa57 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear jpgordon that's not possible because it's not true. Can you please provide evidence to back up this accusation, as there must be a mistake. Cocoa57 (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkusers are unable to provide their evidence beyond what they already said, even to admins like me. That said, I don't need to know what they know to see that they are correct. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 16 April 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.

User:Cocoa57 - Checkuser says that the technical data shows that you used the same IP address as Benji1207. That leaves four possible explanations:

• 1. The Checkuser is wrongly reporting on the technical data.
• 2. The technical data is incorrect, and you weren't using the same IP address.
• 3. One human is using two accounts on the same computer.
• 4. Two humans are using two accounts on the same IP address. They may be two people in the same household, or two employees at the same office.

I find explanations 1 and 2 to be incredible, unworthy of belief by a reasoning H. sapiens. Explanation 3 is sockpuppetry. So if you are two humans on the same IP address, make a statement to that effect, rather than just leaving the reviewing admin to think that you are arguing explanation 2. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert McClenon thank you for explaining the four possible scenarios. Our case is #4 on your list and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your consideration. Cocoa57 (talk) 12:51, 20 April 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).

Cocoa57 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Two humans, the other of whom was banned for a week and myself blocked indefinitely, both for something we didn't do. Seems both draconian and random. And yes we do know each other and we share some interests, and we once met over my kitchen table. That hardly seems like a punishable offense under any scenario. Cocoa57 (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Benji1207. Yamla (talk) 16:55, 19 April 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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Cocoa57 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't know how to prove to you that we are two separate people. How can I do that? It's true that I know the other user who, on one occasion, used my Wifi (apparently leading to an IP "match" in your system on that one occasion). But that user did NOT ask me to make any edits, and I was definitely not editing on that person's (or anyone's) behalf. (In other words, not a "puppet.") I jumped into the fray of my own accord, with my own knowledge and opinions. I did not *knowingly* violate any rules and would respectfully request a second chance. Thank you for your consideration. Cocoa57 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I don't know how to prove to you that we are two separate people. How can I do that? It's true that I know the other user who, on one occasion, used my Wifi (apparently leading to an IP "match" in your system on that one occasion). But that user did NOT ask me to make any edits, and I was definitely not editing on that person's (or anyone's) behalf. (In other words, not a "puppet.") I jumped into the fray of my own accord, with my own knowledge and opinions. I did not *knowingly* violate any rules and would respectfully request a second chance. Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Cocoa57|Cocoa57]] ([[User talk:Cocoa57#top|talk]]) 17:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I don't know how to prove to you that we are two separate people. How can I do that? It's true that I know the other user who, on one occasion, used my Wifi (apparently leading to an IP "match" in your system on that one occasion). But that user did NOT ask me to make any edits, and I was definitely not editing on that person's (or anyone's) behalf. (In other words, not a "puppet.") I jumped into the fray of my own accord, with my own knowledge and opinions. I did not *knowingly* violate any rules and would respectfully request a second chance. Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Cocoa57|Cocoa57]] ([[User talk:Cocoa57#top|talk]]) 17:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I don't know how to prove to you that we are two separate people. How can I do that? It's true that I know the other user who, on one occasion, used my Wifi (apparently leading to an IP "match" in your system on that one occasion). But that user did NOT ask me to make any edits, and I was definitely not editing on that person's (or anyone's) behalf. (In other words, not a "puppet.") I jumped into the fray of my own accord, with my own knowledge and opinions. I did not *knowingly* violate any rules and would respectfully request a second chance. Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Cocoa57|Cocoa57]] ([[User talk:Cocoa57#top|talk]]) 17:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

The block notice includes a link to the sockpuppetry policy; you should read it, especially the section Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC) Hi there. I read the link but it does not describe my actions. How can I defend myself, and why the discrepancy between the ban of the other user (one week) and myself (indefinitely)? If you thought we were the same person I would understand it, but we are not. Thanks for your consideration.[reply]

I'm not sure there even is a possible explanation, but just to assume good faith, I imagine it would have to start with presenting an administrator with at least a slightly plausible scenario in which you independently, and without any knowledge of their involvement, created an account at the exact same time your acquaintance, Benji, with the same interests who was using your internet connection, was involved in a dispute and supported their exact argument in an obscure RFC on a 21-year-old article that receives less than half an edit per day about a Portuguese diplomat who died more than 70 years ago. See WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY. If this fantastically unlikely scenario were in fact true, you didn't act in a manner consistent with the tale being the truth. If that story were the truth, you would have already known that it was the truth, and not claimed complete ignorance about how it could possibly have happened. Telling the truth, even about breaking the rules, is a far better approach on Wikipedia.

Sockpuppet accounts are usually indef'ed, so there's nothing random about it. Nor is it draconian; you're not in prison, you haven't been fined, nor have any of your rights been violated. You simply are not allowed to edit on one particular private website after breaking the rules. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained that I am acquainted with the other editor in real life. It happens that the other editor made one edit, one time, at my kitchen table, with no nefarious intent on either of our parts. Nobody asked me to jump into the fray. That's something I chose freely to do. A second chance would be really appreciated. Thank you for your consideration. Cocoa57 (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cocoa57 - I am not an administrator and cannot unblock you, and if I could, I would not unblock you without verification with a Checkuser. You haven't given the full explanation that you need to provide to explain situation 4, to explain why two humans with two accounts are logging in from the same IP address. You say that you were editing Wikipedia from the kitchen table of User:Benji1207. That is meatpuppetry right there. But were you using Benji's laptop computer, or desktop computer? I am not a Checkuser, and I have not worked with WMF technical data, but I am familiar with technical data, and it provides other details about your computer besides its dynamic IP address. You will need to explain in more detail what you were doing and how. If there are privacy considerations so that you do not want to explain in this user talk page, I think that you can follow the instructions for filing an unblock ticket by email. You have not explained why you were using the same IP address. If you are saying that the Checkuser is incorrectly reporting what the technical data says, or that the technical data is erroneous, I don't believe it. I don't believe that the Checkusers are lying, or that their data is lying. You have already said that there was meatpuppetry. You will have to give a better explanation to be unblocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon and thank you for responding. I thought that "Meat Puppetry" had to do with "user A" asking "user B" to make a particular edit. Isn't that correct? If I am mistaken please correct me. However no one asked me to do anything. I made edits all on my own, unasked and unprompted. Yes, I was aware of the other user's concern about this page but I chose, on my own, to jump into the fray. In answer to one of your questions, neither one of us used the other person's computer, but the other user did use my Wifi on the one occasion I mentioned, which (I am presuming) is the reason that the IP data matched on that one occasion. I would be happy to answer any other questions and would be grateful for a second chance. Thank you for your consideration. Cocoa57 (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]