User talk:Plantaest

Help with an illegitimate accusation as sock puppet with infinite ban, please?

Good morning, Mr. Plantæst,

I am a wikipedian for 10 years, recently joined the Vietnamese project since this year. Two days ago, I saw a mass deletion of 55,944 characters tracing back to over 4 years ago to revert all the 19 edits since 11 May 2021 without any explanation in the summary nor in the article's Talk page yet, therefore I followed the Wikipedia's regulation to undo the suspected removal with a proper explanation on June 6, but was reversed by accusing me as a sock puppet of another user "MiG29VN" without reason, including my 3 previous simple edits providing basic data updates for 3 irrelevant articles dated back to March 25 were also reverted.
The original applier removed the account ban quickly after two other editors posted reminders for the mis-judgement clarafication; but an administrator still put a indefinite ban on my account next morning with the reason "Puppet has thousands of edits on other projects with nothing new.", which was an mistake without proper investigation on the facts on different people, but further denied the justice by preventing me from any text input nor making an appeal on the local platform ever since

1. As the investigation archive reveals, these IPs are completely different from my account, country nor location. How could we be related?
2. The referred user's contribution history shows a fluent native Vietnamese speaker with total 1,196 edits in only two languages. This behavioral pattern is different from my historical pattern in English, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese and some other languages, and merely 10 out of my 19,573 edits (till today) are in Vietnamese – obviously I am a different person.
3. Wikimedia has the clear rule that a sock puppet is to be instantly banned from all projects, certainly not just in one-language platform – so what am I doing here?! Because hundreds of Wikipedians and administrators from over a dozen of language projects have known me for past 10 years. Were I a sock puppet, this account would have been long gone, not under the watch of so many IT specialists, LOL.
4. After the strange sudden ban, I read the referred history then realized that the user conduct code might not be followed in the local project for instance, while administrators took sides; so it seems that I have been caught in the middle of cross-fire hence wrongly accused to set for another example?

If the administrative error is not fixed, It would leave me no choice but to report the issue to the Wikimedia Foundation board. I saw your title on the local administrator list as "sysop, interface administrator" so it would be easier to apply the professional IT software skills in this case? would you like to help clarify the misunderstanding, please?
Thank you very much, and hope you have a great day! ~ Sincerely yours, Mickie-Mickie (talk) 04:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mickie-Mickie: We are discussing your case here: vi:Thảo luận Thành viên:Nguyentrongphu#Thành viên:Mickie-Mickie.

I have a solution for you to be unblocked: vi:Thảo luận Thành viên:Nguyentrongphu#c-Plantaest-20250609165300-Plantaest-20250609164600.

I think you should be more cautious when making changes to local wikis—not everything is as straightforward as it seems in textbooks.

There are several valid reasons why we consider your edits to be harmful:

• You restored the content that violated the rules.
• You edited a politically sensitive article.
• You reverted the edits of a user with the autopatrolled right—meaning they are trusted by administrators.

For now, please read the discussion I shared and consider the solutions I suggested. Thank you. Plantaest (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mickie-Mickie: Hello, I just wanted to check if you're still pursuing this matter. If not, I will archive this discussion. Thank you. Plantaest (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Good morning, Mr. Plantæst,

To answer your questions: "consider your edits to be harmful", I made totally 9 technical edits in the Vietnamese Wikipeia, all followed the regulations with proper explanation in the summary; Five of them were instantly reverted together without any explanation at all, including that 4 of them are the timing membership updates of the international organizations, following the latest development recorded in the English or French Wikipedias, The critical one is that I ask an explanation on the single mass deletion of over 55,900 characters to revert all edits back to the version over four years ago without any explanation neither on the summary line nor in the Discussion page as the Wikipedia procedure standard requires – how could any of my edit "to be any harmful"? Yet I am immediately banned for being as a socket puppet of an ancient user banned in four years ago in 2021 for the only reason that I am suspected to recover his edits? How could this accusation sustain while their IPs are completed different, these users had different behavioral patterns, language usages, and there is no signs of them being related, but with the only reason for one undo asking for following the proper procedure?

If I were considered as "making harmful edits", shouldn't I be charged so properly by following the existing procedure step-by-step, instead of another global Wikimedia of sock puppet violation? What kind of legal concept and logics is it?

About the reasons you listed:

• "You restored the content that violated the rules."
  

There was no Wikipedia policy shortcut or tag stated on the summery lines of the reverted 19 edits since the referred Nguyenmy23 version in 2021. On the Discussion page, there was only one topic with four users talking about the content details in 2011 with the last status update in 2018. With no sign nor mention about anything about the rule violation, what content is the violation referring to?!

• "You edited a politically sensitive article."
  

Since when it is interdit to edit on this article in question as "politically sensitive"? If so, why is there no advice tag emplaced on top of article as needed, and if considered of potential risk, shouldn't there a half- or full-protection measure being implemented on this article to prevent average users from make unexpected vandalism? Otherwise these random gang-like conducts turn into political persecution without clear and proper definition and discipline. I don't understand this point of your logics now... Please also note that I did not make an edit changing on the content, but merely undid a very abnormal mass deletion without an explanation as required by the rules to maintain the status quo. There was not an edit war!

• "You reverted the edits of a user with the autopatrolled right—meaning they are trusted by administrators."
  

I checked the user page where five regular userboxes with humors are implemented below the top animation, followed by one quoted poem and five pseudo-devices links – none of them reveals the administrative identity, then I only followed the regulation demanding for explanation for the mass deletion either on the summery line on the discussion page, yet my account is immediately banned for an unrelated felony charge of sock puppet, so the unrevealed trust among administrators overrides the standard procedure and regulations? – not to mention that four of my legitimate edits of routine status updates have been also cancelled again for no reason ever since, as all the article back to show the outdated informations to the public now. How could the unreasonable reprisals help improve the quality of articles?!

Anyway, hereby still appreciate for your inquiry and feedback. Please feel free to archive this discussion. Thank you very much, and wish you having a happy weekend! ~ Sincerely, Mickie-Mickie (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mickie-Mickie: The reason is very simple: You restored an edit made by a dangerous sockpuppet in our community, so you're under suspicion and may be blocked. This follows the vi:Wikipedia:Nhận dạng vịt (The duck test) guideline—"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." I agree that this approach can lead to errors, but it's part of the Vietnamese Wikipedia community's subculture, as we've had to deal with many issues caused by sockpuppet accounts over the years.

You need to understand Vietnamese language and the local community culture before making major edits, especially to sensitive political articles. Members of the Vietnamese Wikipedia community are well aware that the article you edited is a sensitive one, and it has been heavily targeted by dangerous sockpuppets. They understand Vietnamese language and can recognize this—but you don't. If you don't understand the meaning of the content, please refrain from taking any action!

To check a user's rights, you should use CentralAuth (vi:Special:CentralAuth/Chó Vàng Hài Hước), not visit their user page. Plantaest (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

One more issue: The Vietnamese Wikipedia community does not trust IP-related data, because we've dealt with sockpuppets using thousands of VPNs and proxies to evade blocks. I have personally issued 10,000 blocks against VPN/proxy servers. This is a very large number compared to the current VPN/proxy blocks on Meta. Plantaest (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

"The unreasonable reprisals"? Well, it's not about revenge—it's a community convention: If an account is identified as a sockpuppet, all of their edits are reverted. We simply don't have enough manpower to review everything, so we choose a straightforward solution. Many sockpuppets in the past have mixed good and bad edits, which caused great frustration in the community, to the point that no one could bear cleaning up the mess they left behind. Plantaest (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

There are still some other issues you've mentioned that I can further explain. However, you need to engage with our community for a sufficient amount of time to truly understand things on a deeper level. You may have experience elsewhere, but on the Vietnamese Wikipedia, you're still a newcomer. You don’t understand the local language and culture, and that can cause problems—not only on Vietnamese Wikipedia, but potentially on other wiki projects in the future as well. Sometimes there are conventions and precedents that exist only within a specific community, and we must be cautious before making changes—especially major ones. Plantaest (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)