WereWolf370

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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