User talk:AT1(AW)HowellSock/meatpuppetry,WP:NOTHERE 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 ~~~~}}. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)  AT1(AW)Howell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I only have one account. I posted information on a stub with no sources. A user who didn't like the information (and had no sources) deleted my edit. I re-edited and started adding sources. That user deleted my stub expansion again, still with no sources of his own. I then established an account (this one, which is my only account so far) showing that I had first hand knowledge of the material, then posted my edits again. That user then cried to OhNoitsJamie that I had multiple accounts. N881SD So, the score is: (team 1) There is a stub article (with no sources), and Garuda28 (also without sources) is demanding that it remain a stub. (team 2) I have first hand knowledge of a subject, was a witness at the time, and I had three sources listed. When presented with this, OhNoitsJamie decided to support the guy with no knowledge or sources who wants to keep a stub as a stub (team 1). How that makes any sense is beyond me, but I guess that's how that admin rolls. And I can provide at least three other Navy veterans who remember this event at the time. This was before everyone had cameras with them, so I doubt any pictures exist, so we've got to go with witness statements on this one. I also provided three different online sources showing the validity of my information. Again, for those keeping track at home, the guy stopping my edits has zero sources and no knowledge of the subject, and somehow got an admin to back him. Decline reason: You "abused multiple accounts" by creating this account after your IP was blocked. We cannot accept personal knowledge as a source; we can only accept published independent reliable sources that can be verified. Even if you were willing to sit by a phone for as long as Wikipedia exists taking calls from Wikipedia readers to verify what you say, that's still personal knowledge. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC) 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.
AT1(AW)Howell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I only have one account. I posted information on a stub with no sources. A user who didn't like the information (and had no sources) deleted my edit. I re-edited and started adding sources. That user deleted my stub expansion again, still with no sources of his own. I then established an account (this one, which is my only account so far) showing that I had first hand knowledge of the material, then posted my edits again. That user then cried to OhNoitsJamie that I had multiple accounts. So, the score is: (team 1) There is a stub article (with no sources), and Garuda28 (also without sources) is demanding that it remain a stub. (team 2) I have first hand knowledge of a subject, was a witness at the time, and I had three sources listed. When presented with this, OhNoitsJamie decided to support the guy with no knowledge or sources who wants to keep a stub as a stub (team 1). How that makes any sense is beyond me, but I guess that's how that admin rolls. And I can provide at least three other Navy veterans who remember this event at the time. This was before everyone had cameras with them, so I doubt any pictures exist, so we've got to go with witness statements on this one. I also provided three different online sources showing the validity of my information. Again, for those keeping track at home, the guy stopping my edits has zero sources and no knowledge of the subject, and somehow got an admin to back him. Decline reason: You "abused multiple accounts" by creating this account after your IP was blocked. We cannot accept personal knowledge as a source; we can only accept published independent reliable sources that can be verified. Even if you were willing to sit by a phone for as long as Wikipedia exists taking calls from Wikipedia readers to verify what you say, that's still personal knowledge. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC) 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.
You're missing the pointAT1(AW)Howell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have been blocked because I made OhNoitsJamie's little buddy, Garuda28, mad. I have only one account. I didn't create it because I was blocked by Garuda28. I created it because I realized that Garuda28 would keep undoing my edits, despite my use of sources, so I would need a "real account" instead of an IP address that was being auto-generated by wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie blocked me for "multiple accounts". I never had multiple accounts. Still don't. I created a first account. OhNoitsJamie blocked me for creating a first account, because Garuda28 asked him to. When I appealed, OhNoitsJamie said I had an account, was blocked, then created another account. I encountered a STUB with NO CITATIONS. My improvements to the page included two points: (1)the widespread use of a term started in 2010/2011 (three sources), and (2)there were previous attempts at this in the past, one of which I was witness to. How does Garuda28 not require knowledge or sources to get me blocked from editing a stub, but my sources aren't "good enough" to edit that same stub? Garuda28 actually acknowledged that I had sources, but Garuda28 felt that no sources were better than those sources. I had three different online sources. I can also provide at least one print source. It's not my fault the stub had no sources for the information on it when I came along. It's not my fault that Garuda28 has no sources. It's not my fault that Garuda28 doesn't like my information (with sources). It's not my fault that Garuda28 made up a story to get OhNoitsJamie to block me. You can't block someone for creating a first account just because your little buddy asked you to. To sum up: I cannot expand on a stub article with my multiple sources because OhNoitsJamie blocked me for only having one account. I doubt he'd even be able to explain this block, and would try to write it off as trolling or something. Decline reason: Your addition of sources was good. Your addition of completely made-up pirate nonsense is not. Since you have yet to acknowledge that, combined with your combative nature, and WP:NOTTHEM issues, I am declining this request. Should you fail to address your fabrication of information, an admin will revoke your ability to edit this page. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC) 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.
Does the block say "didn't like one of the things he posted on a a stub, so I blocked him" or does it say "multiple accounts"? I mean, the block I see says some nonsense about multiple accounts that never existed, but you're defending blocking me because one of the two things I added to a stub (that had no sources in the first place) you didn't like. Which is it, OhNoitsJamie? You don't have to keep coming up with excuses for why you blocked me. Just change the block from the imaginary "multiple accounts" and put me on the "I didn't like one of the two things he added to a stub that had no citations to begin with" block. Or, is that not a thing? AT1(AW)Howell (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
While you're at it, you may as well start deleting things from the article that are still on there. The stub still doesn't have a source listed at all, but it does have random information that has been added without citation. Who are you about to block for adding that information? Or is OhNoitsJamie waiting for Garuda28 to tell him who to block and what information Garuda28 thinks is good enough to be posted without sources? Prove me wrong, OhNoitsJamie. How about you, 331dot? Is my ban for mulitple accounts, despite me only having one? Or, is it a block in place because OhNoitsJamie didn't like my post? Is there a "I didn't like the sources used so I blocked this guy" block?
That's a great idea, 331dot. Let's focus on my "actions". I created an account. I was perma-blocked for "multiple accounts". Do I have multiple accounts? Do i? If I don't, then we can turn off the perma-block for "multiple accounts", right? AT1(AW)Howell (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Where are we at, 331dot? I still only ever had one account and am sitting on a perma-block for multiple accounts. Assuming you can count, you know that block isn't above board. So, why am I on perma-ban? AT1(AW)Howell (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we should take OhNoitsJamie to arbitration, and he he can say "I blocked this guy for multiple accounts, but when I realized he only had one, I decided I didn't like one of his edits on a stub. That's exactly the same as multiple accounts, right?" What do you think, 331dot? Do you think an admin can justify a "multiple accounts" block on someone who only ever had ONE ACCOUNT? Is there a point at which you would like to admit you were mistaken, jumped the gun, and would now like to apologize? Or, are you still going with "I gave your single account a permanent multiple account ban because in one edit you mentioned a battle cry campaign that can't possibly be real"?
AT1(AW)Howell (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I am currently blocked for having multiple accounts. The trouble is, I have only ever had one account. An admin admitted as much when he defended blocking me for "multiple accounts" by saying he really didn't like an edit on a stub article that I wrote, so he made up the "multiple accounts" block. As I have only ever had one account, my "multiple accounts" block needs to be removed. Blocking for "multiple accounts" and then admitting that an admin really just wanted to block someone for an edit, so they made up a story about multiple accounts is pretty much the definition of Admin Abuse. If I have only ever had one account, then how can I be blocked for "multiple accounts"? You'd think that would be pretty easy to spot as fabricated. Decline reason: Using multiple IPs and getting others involved from outside are violations of WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. Based on your edits and your commentary here, this is an appropriate block to prevent further disruption. only (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC) 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.
Yeah, the article is "hooyah", not "hoorah". Does OhNoitsJamie even know what article we are talking about, or is he just obsessed with the idea that my single account is a multiple, that way he can justify his block? That dude can admit at any time that he was wrong. AT1(AW)Howell (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hey, look! It's OhNoitsJamie, the guy who blocked me for "multiple accounts". He still hasn't actually found multiple accounts (because I've only got the one), so he is desperately trying to turn his "multiple accounts" block into a "I didn't like one of the two things you added to a stub article" block. He's doing all of this because he can't admit he was wrong. That's the kind of admin the wiki needs! AT1(AW)Howell (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
|
