User talk:WWEJobber

December 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring on Template:WWE personnel. You know the rules, you've been blocked for edit warring before. I expect that if you edit war again, you'll probably be blocked indefinitely. It's really very simple: if you make a change, and someone reverts you, you have to go to the talk page and start the discussion, and not re-make the change until there is consensus in support of your proposed edits. If you feel like others aren't listening to you, then you pursue dispute resolution. But you don't just edit war to get your own way. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

My block ended two days ago. WWEJobber (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It didn't. It was extended for evading the original block. Kuru (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

No I did not. I already said it. WWEJobber (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please have only one unblock request open at a time. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2013 (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.

The original block would have expired 2 days ago. You took it upon yourself to evade the block, which meant you forced us to block you indefinitely. It even says so on this very page (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I did not evade any block. I even said so on this very page. WWEJobber (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts with User:Nomelck and having a long-term pattern of edit warfare. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

It was a request. It was not a random comment. And in fact I do not have to request anything since my block expired two days ago. WWEJobber (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(1) No it wasn't a request. it didn't request anything, but just made a remark. (2) I will try to make this clear, since you don't seem to have grasped the point: your original block would have expired two days ago, but the block that is in operation now is another block, so any request must address the reason for the current block, not the old one that no longer applies. (3) I have checked the relevant editing history, and it is blatantly obvious that you have abused two accounts. The one good thing is that you appear to be completely unaware of how you made it obvious, so you will be unlikely to be able to cover up any future attempts at the same thing. (4) If you make any more unblock requests that don't address the reason for your block then your talk page access may well be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

It is difficult to adress the reason for my block since there are none. I do not have any other account just this one. I do not know who the guy that you suspended is. There was no way of trying to avoid the block since this other user was active in a time period that I was not blocked. And this block is an arbitrary one as can be seen here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WWEJobber/Archive So what now? WWEJobber (talk) 5:39 pm, 31 January 2013, last Thursday (5 days ago) (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline (doesn't address reason for block); will happily consider a new request after answers to BWilkin's questions below. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:43, 5 February 2013 (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.

I'm asking Reaper Eternal for more details. For myself, I probably don't believe you when you say you don't know who Nomelck is, but I'm looking for more info. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely I do not care in what you believe or not. I am not this Nomec guy. It is a fact and I already said it a lot of times. My block finished two days ago and I am still unable to use my account. This is just not right. Who will punish the arbitrary ones? WWEJobber (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is indefinite. What makes you think it "finished two days ago"?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WWEJobber was legitimately confused. I had blocked for a month; that should have finished two days ago. But during that month, Reaper Eternal reblocked WWEJobber for sockpuppetry with intent to continue the same edit war that I blocked him for in the first place. WWEJobber claims the alleged sock was not his; I'm currently following up with Reaper Eternal, though both myself and JamesBWatson are inclined to believe that they are the same person (or, my personal opinion, they may be meatpuppets). But discussions are ongoing. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"WWEJobber was legitimately confused": perhaps yes, with the emphasis on "was". However, it has now been explained several times that there is a new block which has not expired, and yet he or she continues to play I didn't hear that. WWEJobber may have originally been legitimately confused, but continuing to think that the block has expired has now clearly become just trolling. I think removing talk page access should be considered, to prevent more of this deliberate nonsense. 79.123.81.63 (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I really have to answer to a user that does not want to identify himself? I am not trolling. There was a reason to be blocked. This block expired. The second block is an arbitrariness. Just this. WWEJobber (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WWEJobber, in the meanwhile, let's assume that we either ignore the socking or we decide there's reason to doubt it was you. What do you intend to do on Wikipedia if you are unblocked? In what way will you behave differently than before you were blocked? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to help here to improve the articles. To edit them with real information. Just facts. Not "thinkings" or "assumings". I will try to keep myself from edit warring and not go against the 3RR. WWEJobber (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I do not understand is why I was blocked for edit warring alone. If I was in a edit war I was with someone not with myself. The other guy ("vj-something") was adverted a lot more than me. He went against the 3RR and edit warred a lot. He even used the talk pages to discuss the users not the articles. And he likes to do POV-pushes. With all of this he was not blocked. This is unfair. And who will punish the ones responsible for the arbitrariness of blocking me for something that is not right? WWEJobber (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you for edit warring because you never learn, and because I repeatedly see you making changes even when half a dozen people are objecting on the talk page or are reverting you on the article page. When 4 people revert you, and you keep reverting back, that doesn't mean all of them are edit warring--just you. There was no arbitrariness--I blocked the person causing the disruption. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrariness that I was talking about is the second block. Not the first one. WWEJobber (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've talked to Reaper Eternal, and it wasn't arbitrary. The initial checkuser showed the two accounts to be unrelated. However, as the Nomelck account continued to edit, it became clear that they were, in fact, being operated by the same person (you). The edits were the same, and the two accounts were operating from the same general location. Plus, the AIV report your made under the Nomelck account, especially in comparison with what's written here, makes it abundantly clear these are the same person. Okay, technically that's not true--it could well be that Nomelck is being operated on your behalf, by a friend of yours...but WP:SOCK says that since it's generally impossible to distinguish between two people acting in concert and one person acting with two accounts, we can treat the two situations the same (especially since they both damage the encyclopedia in basically the same way). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Same general location"? The CU just said that he is from Brazil. Brazil has 8,515,767km². As I could see in his contribs he was editing the Itamaracá article. I never touched that article. And probably he is from there. Itamaracá is 2,332km from here. It is not even near: https://maps.google.com.br/maps?saddr=Duque+de+Caxias+-+RJ&daddr=Itamarac%C3%A1+-+PE&hl=pt-BR&ie=UTF8&ll=-13.902076,-41.308594&spn=11.923998,21.51123&sll=-22.786825,-43.313106&sspn=0.70902,1.344452&geocode=FfdMpP4dLhhr_SkNs6n58XKZADFOM-U64wWUNA%3BFeTDif8d8p3s_SlJ1Slo6EGrBzEJGBA-_jyeeQ&t=h&mra=ls&z=6 It is the same thing to say that you and Reaper Eternal are the same person since both of you are from the "same general location" (United States). I am not this guy. WWEJobber (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I edit from Japan, but that's not relevant The fact that he's editing one article says nothing about where he is located—I edit articles about topics on every continent. In any event, we don't block based on strictly technical evidence--we also look at behavioral evidence. And to me, it's extremely obvious that the two accounts are the same, because of the content and style of the editing, along with the fact that the Nomelck account directly reverted (not re-edited, not slightly changed, but reverted) to the version of the template you prefer. Obviously, this is not an exact science, but to me the probability that you don't either know that controller of that account or are the controller of that account is extraordinarily unlikely. Another admin may see fit to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I simply don't believe. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A task/WP:AGF

WWEJobber, it appears you have dug yourself into a rather deep hole here. In order to WP:AGF a little here, I need you to understand some things:

Wikipedia does not WP:PUNISH - blocks are preventative
Checkuser information uses more than just IP address - it includes Operating System and patch level, Browser, Browser patch level, and much more. It's not arbitrary at all
We even have something called the WP:DUCK-test, which is a behavioural test for blocks - that might appear to be arbitrary, however, it's not
In any case, the Guide to Appealing blocks and About Appealing Blocks pretty much advise you to do the exact opposite of what you're doing.

Here's where my AGF is really going to kick in - as I'm going to presume innocence, and attribute this to a lack of understanding. As such, I need you to understand why WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT are bad for this project - and even if you're NOT socking or MEAT. So here's your task:

Read WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. Explain in your own words why sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are bad for this project
Read WP:DUCK and explain in your own words why anyone would/could believe that the accounts were related
Read WP:BLOCK and explain how blocks are preventative, not punitive.

Once I (or other admins) see good responses, I believe that we will have succeeded with exactly the purpose behind blocks: prevention of possible future issues, and a better-educated editor. Indeed, once you've done the above, I'll expect to see you fighting sockpuppetry across the project as a whole! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NXT Wrestling.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NXT Wrestling.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]