User talk:Palm Puree

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Palm Puree! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 23:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Comments about a user's race or ethnicity are completely inappropriate. Citing (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on your race is not a personal attack. You and the previous vandal on the Maxime Bernier page are editing in bad faith and have a conflict of interest. Palm Puree (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be commenting on the race of another user at all. You should also assume good faith in other editors and not engage in personal attacks (i.e. don't call them vandals for disagreeing with you, and don't suggest they have a conflict of interest for no reason). Citing (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but you're obviously not editing in good faith and have a conflict of interest so I don't care about your attempts to weaponize site policy that are also bad faith. Palm Puree (talk) 03:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to state that you should assume good faith in my edits any more clearly. I have no idea where you're getting the idea that I have a conflict of interest. Citing (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kauri dieback

You seem to be repeating the pattern of edits of blocked user User:FeijoaSalsa at Kauri dieback. Given the similarity of usernames, you may be the same editor, and the block on that account will apply to this one. If you wish to continue editing other articles on Wikipedia, I suggest you stay clear of this topic.-Gadfium (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who that is, this is my only account. I have reverted your reversion which doesn't address my point. Take this to Talk:Kauri_dieback if you dispute the reasoning behind my edit, rather than falsely accusing me of being other people. Palm Puree (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. Gadfium (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

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

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

Request reason:

An admin mistook me for a blocked user. I'm not User:FeijoaSalsa despite him having a similar username and me editing the same page, idk how I'm supposed to prove this. He seems like some old guy who doesn't know how to use the site properly, that's not me I assure you. Palm Puree (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Blocks are meant to be preventative, and based on compelling evidence, and I'm not convinced that this block was either of those. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 05:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admin: please note User talk:FeijoaSalsa where they repeatedly say that the scientific consensus on Kauri dieback is "scientific fraud", and their unblock request suggests there is a political conspiracy. Compare with Palm Puree's edit at Talk:Kauri dieback: "A classic example of selection bias and academic/political fraud".-Gadfium (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made that singular comment in January 2024, which was before FeijoaSalsa was blocked in April 2024, why would he need a second account to post that? I've had this account for over 5 years and don't have a particular interest in Kauri dieback or the Waitakeres, which that guy appears to exclusively be interested in. I only tried to make one small edit to the article. I don't follow most of what FeijoaSalsa is rambling about in his edits so I can't agree with whatever conspiracy he's alleging, I just have a general distrust of academics and politicians. He also doesn't format his replies properly and is likely from a different generation to me. Palm Puree (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gadfium: you indef blocked for "abuse of editing privileges" but you seem now to be saying this user is a DUCK. Is that correct?

And assuming it is, you are further asserting that the username is part of your reasoning? I do see that both involve food, but that seems a little thin to me. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 04:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: I used the standard {{uw-block3}} template, but the block log shows "Block evasion". I do see a resemblance in the user names, and there was another editor with the name of Tadarrius Bean who made an innocuous edit to the same subject in the Kauri dieback article.

The primary reasoning is that both editors are alleging scientific fraud in an article on a pathogen which doesn't appear to be controversial amongst current scientists. I find Palm Puree assertion above that they have no idea who FeijoaSalsa is unconvincing. It looks like a good hand/bad hand pair of accounts, with an accidental use of the good hand account to post to the Kauri dieback talk page in Jan 2024, and then use of the good hand account after the other was blocked. If you find this unconvincing, you are welcome to remove or shorten the block, or perhaps make it a partial block for the Kauri dieback article only. I did consider a pblock, but FeijoaSalsa jumped to other articles (Agathis australis and Mokoroa Falls) when they were pblocked.-Gadfium (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not outside the realm of possibility that two people could be influenced by the same source. One edit a year ago seems incredibly thin as evidence of ongoing disruption. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 05:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the unblock. I won't edit that article further to avoid conflict. Palm Puree (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why would he bother using multiple accounts *before* he was blocked? You're ascribing a lot of intentional malice to FeijoaSalsa, who looks to me like a belligerent and opinionated individual who refused to back down on a disagreement and follow site policy, not a troll who was editing in bad faith from the start. Palm Puree (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]