User talk:AmishPete

Welcome and a note about the articles you are editing

Hello there, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I must caution you that several of the articles you are editing are under a special probation by this site's dispute resolution body, the Arbitration Committee. In particular, editors are prohibited from editing these articles with more than one account (a practice we call sock puppeteering), nor are editors allowed to edit the articles using internet proxies. Because you have started out editing these topics almost exclusively, your editing will naturally attract attention. Editors must be especially careful not to promote advocacy on either side; our editorial policy on neutrality should strictly followed.

I believe you ought to be aware of the probation on these articles are under—whether your contributions are cause for concern or not.

I assume not. Again, welcome. Cool Hand Luke 14:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, sir. I know how careful editors are in observing your neutrality policy, and hope to live up to their standards throughout my days. AmishPete (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you disclose your other account?

AmishPete, for an editor with only 23 edits before you came to the current AFD, you sure know a lot about wikipedia.

Can you disclose your other account?

Your very first edit was on Lehman Brothers, adding a reference.[1] same with your 3rd, 4th edit.[2][3]

Seventh edit was adding a tag, (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)[4] Something I don't even know how to do after 4 years.

22nd edit was a more sophisticated reference.[5]

Edit 26: Familar with the term "off-wiki" and the acronym "COI".[6]

I have worked with a lot of newbies, holding their hands, I am working with one now, you are not a newbie. Ikip 22:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, sir. I edited Wikipedia a long time ago, not in this subject area. At the time, I'm not sure this subject area even existed on Wikipedia. I don't even remember if I had a user account. I'll see if I can find it. If I did, I'll disclose it here, and will have somebody delete it. On the tagging: that wasn't me tagging that edit. AmishPete (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know

I, Andy, THF, and DGG appear to be working on this matter. Whether true or not, the rumors of your identity will cast a cloud over the debate, and I think we have it in steady hands. Cool Hand Luke 21:50, 3 January 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not and never have been a "sockpuppet" of anybody. This is my one and only account. I began contributing a couple of months ago becuase the state of your articles relating to Byrne/naked short selling are atrocious. That does not make me guilty of anything. My contributions have been positive and constructive. I have added sources and corrected errors. Yes, I am a single purpose account and that is permitted by your rules, which I have abided by. I took it upon myself to declare my possible conflict of interest. "Behavioral" evidence simply means that I disagree with the administrator who blocked me, Lar. Lar is openly engaged in editing the articles that I've edited that touched off this block, and I find it amazing that he would have the audacity to use his ban against someone with whom he disagrees. He is one of the most active persons pushing for the bogus "Robertson vs. McGraw Hill" article, and the tone and content of his comments in every respect has been extreme and show a complete bias. He recently was cautioned by Cool Hand Luke under the terms of your policy WP:BATTLE [7]. I'd like an unblock for the purpose of defending my editing and your meeting your burden of proof that there has been a problem with my editing. I stack up my edits against anyone editing these artickes, and then some. Let's not be hypocrites about this: if I were editing in agreement with Lar, I would not have been blocked.

Decline reason:

The evidence indicates that you are a sock of mantanmoreland, who is banned by the community from editing here. A community ban applies equally to your socks, of which you have several. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:22, 6 January 2010 (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.

Repeating my reason below, as it is not appearing in the form: I am not and never have been a "sockpuppet" of anybody. This is my one and only account. I began contributing a couple of months ago becuase the state of your articles relating to Byrne/naked short selling are atrocious. That does not make me guilty of anything. My contributions have been positive and constructive. I have added sources and corrected errors. Yes, I am a single purpose account and that is permitted by your rules, which I have abided by. I took it upon myself to declare my possible conflict of interest. "Behavioral" evidence simply means that I disagree with the administrator who blocked me, Lar. Lar is openly engaged in editing the articles that I've edited that touched off this block, and I find it amazing that he would have the audacity to use his ban against someone with whom he disagrees. He is one of the most active persons pushing for the bogus "Robertson vs. McGraw Hill" article, and the tone and content of his comments in every respect has been extreme and show a complete bias. He recently was cautioned by Cool Hand Luke under the terms of your policy WP:BATTLE [8]. I'd like an unblock for the purpose of defending my editing and your meeting your burden of proof that there has been a problem with my editing. I stack up my edits against anyone editing these artickes, and then some. Let's not be hypocrites about this: if I were editing in agreement with Lar, I would not have been blocked.

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).

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

Request reason:

You say that the evidence indicates I'm Mantanmoreland. I'd like to have the opportunity to challenge that evidence. If your rules let an administrator block someone he's squabbling with in an article that is your business, but you're making a mistake on this one and I want to have a chance to show that. By the rationale that you're employing in this block, anyone who disagrees with Lar is going to be blocked if he hasn't been editing for very long. That is going to skew your content beyond imagining. if a person joins Wikipedia tomorrow and agrees with Lar on the Rockefeller/McGraw Hill article it's OK. He can edit. If he disagrees, he can't edit. Do you have any idea how this makes Wikipedia look?

Decline reason:

Blaming other editors will not result in your block being lifted. Discuss your behavior and actions, not the behavior of others. TN X Man 17:19, 6 January 2010 (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.