User talk:JohnathonJ

Try asking at the Help Desk not the Main Page. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Art LaPella (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi JohnathonJ! You created a thread called New articles to improve? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}. MER-C 14:32, 9 February 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have made over 10 edits on wikipedia so far and they have all been of a non advertising manner so I don't understand how this user thinks this. Please look at all my entries and you will see they aren't advertising. I feel I am being unfairly treated on wikipedia as I am not very confident using Wikepedia's coding language so I only make small changes here and there. Please unblock my account as I was just getting the hang of things here and would like to continue to improve wikipedia. :) JohnathonJ (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The sockpuppetry issue seems to be addressed, but I remain unconvinced about the rest of your request. You also don't state what subjects you want to edit about. I am declining your request, but you may make another for review by another administrator. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2020 (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.

What is your connection to Gloss? 331dot (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have no connection with gloss, but thought it was a cool TikTok viral account and was surprised nobody had written about it before. I did quite a bit of research and learned how to use Wikipedia’s writing style and got mad when everyone kept on changing it when I worked so hard to write it following Wikipedia’s rules. Sorry, I won’t do it again. JohnathonJ (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't yet addressed the sock puppetry; the account Garyablett05 edited almost the exact same subject areas as you. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I had 2 different accounts (one on my home computer and one on my work computer) before I knew this was against Wikipedia rules. I won’t do it again as I understand this is not allowed and shut down the other account. If you could remove the block on this one, that would be appreciated. I’ve reviewed the wiki rules and understand what I am and aren’t allowed to do. Thanks JohnathonJ (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I am in Australia and there are quite a few Australian articles lacking coherent grammar and I would like to improve these. Particularly the articles on Australia rules. If you would like I can show you some pages I would like to edit. Again, I ask that you kindly remove my block as I now understand how wiki works and I would like another chance to be a member. Thanks for your consideration. JohnathonJ (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello again. Further to the above, I am in Australia and there are quite a few Australian articles lacking coherent grammar and I would like to improve these. Particularly the articles on Australia rules. If you would like I can show you some pages I would like to edit. Again, I ask that you kindly remove my block as I now understand how wiki works and I would like another chance to be a member. Thanks for your consideration. JohnathonJ (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having looked at your draft for Gloss (media) as part of reviewing this request I now have further concerns. The article appears to be a complete hoax - the sources used all referred to completely different websites (and in several cases, had been given false titles to make it appear that the references referred to Gloss when viewed in the article). Before even considering an unblock, I would like some explanation for this apparently deliberate falsification of sources. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:02, 27 February 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi admins. It has been over 6 months since my block so I would kindly ask to be reconsidered and have my account re-activated. I have been very heavily into covid-19 awareness in the last few months, so if I was able to be allowed to edit again I would concentrate on reviewing these articles on Wikipedia as there is a lot of mis-information being published. Thanks in advance for your consideration. J JohnathonJ (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2020 (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.

This note was removed by the blocked user. MER-C 09:03, 23 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi @Yamla:. Thanks for your guidance here. I can confirm that my wish to re-commence as a wiki member is made on the basis that I understand the reason why I was blocked to begin with, I promise to not cause damage or disruption, and will instead make useful contributions to Wikipedia going forward. Thanks in advance. JohnathonJ (talk) 2:43 am, 23 August 2020, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

The connection to Hazelsletterings has still not been addressed. The explanation of the connection between Johnathon and Gary that "I had an account on my work and home computer" that happened to edit the same article 3 minutes apart is also weird to me, but at least that was addressed. There are too many coincidences in timing and editing styles for there to be no connection to Hazelsletterings. only (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2020 (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.

Please be more specific about each of those points, in order to demonstrate your understanding of them. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Appreciate the opportunity. I understand that editing wiki is an important role in documenting facts and that you should only do so where there is documented, reliable references that your change or article is true and notable. Further, you should not have any bias or personal or business relationship with anything or anyone that you write about. It’s a wonderful community of non-paid contributors and it should be tested with the respect it deserves. :) JohnathonJ (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What subjects do you want to edit if unblocked? PhilKnight (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I have been very heavily into covid-19 awareness in the last few months, so if I was able to be allowed to edit again I would concentrate on reviewing these articles on Wikipedia as there is a lot of mis-information being published. Thanks in advance for your consideration.JohnathonJ (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: - would you object to an unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The problem is that Garyablett05, Hazelsletterings and this account showed up in July-August 2019 to write an article about Foodporn the company. Pretty much a year later, Hazelsletterings comes back to continue to promote this company. It is probably not a coincidence that this account is asking for an unblock not long after I blocked Hazelsletterings. Garyablett05 also managed to find Special:Undelete/Draft:Gloss (media) three minutes after it was created by this account. The most likely explanation is spam/PR/marketing/freelance meatpuppetry. MER-C 08:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I already addressed the sockpuppet issue above, to 331dot’s satisfaction. I have no relationship with anyone else. The only coincidence is that it’s been 6 months since I was last allowed to use Wikipedia and thought it was about time I re-applied to have my ban lifted. I ask that I kindly have my editing privileges re allowed. Thanks. JohnathonJ (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: Hi again. Is there anything else you need from me? Everyone needs a second chance and all I want is to be part of the wiki community again. I see several articles in the covid-19 space of wiki with inaccurate information and references as I’d love to fix them up to make wiki a better and more accurate place! Please let me know what else I can do to put your mind at ease that re-enabling my account is the right decision. Thanks again for your consideration. :) JohnathonJ (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: @331dot: I haven’t heard anything from anyone and I really would like to be a useful resource to the wiki community so I hope one of you can find it in yourself to reactivate my profile. It was my understanding that the block was initially placed on my account as a wiki safety and corrective precaution and not to be punitive, so given I have shown my willingness to make wiki a better and more accurate space and I have otherwise answered all your questions, I would be extremely appreciative if I could be unblocked. I’m happy to undergo a probationary period or you can keep a close watch on me to make sure I am good to my word. Please let me know! :) JohnathonJ (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight and MER-C: I declined the unblock request above. However, I wanted to add additionally for potential future reviewers: in a previous unblock request, JohnathonJ was asked about fabricated sources. JohnathonJ deleted that unblock request prior to making the unblock requests this week. That feels more than a little shady and dishonest to me. The fabrication of sources has not come up in the discussion this weekonly (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They also deleted a note I left about a third sock/meatpuppet. Certainly feels like a pattern... MER-C 11:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garyablett05, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Slashme (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello everyone. I just checked my messages and see that slashme conducted an SPI on my account which found that I am not associated with hazelettering as was the accusation. Also just to clarify, I did not deliberately delete comments on my talk page. I am currently typing this on my phone which makes it difficult to reply to this thread and I must have done so incorrectly. Sorry for that. Anyway, now that I have cleared this up, I would ask that my account be unblocked please. @331dot: @PhilKnight: JohnathonJ (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are still completely ignoring the questions about your fabrication of sources. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2020 (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.

@PhilKnight: All has gone quiet in my application to be reinstated. I have stated my case, and the independent SPI conducted against me found that I was not related to other users. I therefore kindly request that I be unblocked. I wish to be a part of the wiki community, and know I could have simply opened another account and you would be none the wiser, but I’d much rather clear my name here and be unblocked. If you would be so kind to do so, that would be appreciated. Thanks in advance JohnathonJ (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are volunteers just like most other editors; they do what they can when they can, so you will need to be patient. Saying that you could go open another account- which we already know- doesn't really help you. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: sorry that came out wrong. What I meant to say was that obviously I could stop annoying everyone in this chat and simply open account, but I really was determined to clear my name after the SPI found I wasn’t related to the account I had been accused of being related to. I thought this would mean I would be reinstated pretty quickly, but it’s been over 20 days since the SPI was completed and nothing has happened. I’m just keen to get back to editing as I had a lot of fun doing it and hope to get the opportunity to do it again soon. Sorry for being impatient. Thanks! JohnathonJ (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that Hazelslettering also says I could have just opened another account. Weird that the person you're being linked to would make that same kind of statement. Also interesting? Hazelsletterings is also "...just keen to get back into the community in any way I can." And note: while both you and Hazel are concluding that the SPI said you're unrelated; the SPI actually said it's possible you're related. I'll leave it to another admin to decide of course, but combining a possible connection through technical data plus a significant amount of behavioral connections seems like a clear case to me. only (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Why is this community so into its conspiracy theories? It’s is quite obvious that I could just open another account. I’m sure lots of the people who come on here as paid editors or whatever just write something or edit something, then make a new account if they get banned. It seems simple and obvious. 331dot said as much by saying “we already know”. This isn’t a behavioural connection at all, its a pure fact that anyone would know. Aren’t you supposed to be without bias? And what technical data? The SPI couldn’t conclude we were related other than we both came from Australia. Australia has like 30 million people! The SPI couldn’t match up our accounts, or our IP addresses, or login information or anything. Because there is no connection! All I want to do is go back to editing, and surely the amount of effort I have put into getting my account back proves this. Although how I’ve been treated here is giving me second thoughts. JohnathonJ (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]