User talk:Wolfsden3
Wolfsden3, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Wolfsden3! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC) |
Discretionary Sanctions Notification - American Politics
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Wolfsden3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #23492 was submitted on Dec 06, 2018 12:33:57. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Wolfsden3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Your logic for blocking me is absurd and you make a ton of assumptions. You have my phone number and email. If you suspect me of malicious activity PROVE IT. You have none do you? Your actions seem to be nonsense and accusing me of sock puppetry. The mere fact I put in an unblock request should be proof enough. Also, just because you don't like my style shouldn't lead to a continued block. That's why I called you and other editors with God like power on Wikipedia to censor dopes or other names. My communication and reasoning on Wikipedia in the public forum has been acceptable and you only have one complainer...now maybe two (you and them). Please unblock me you have no right and to accuse me of sock puppetry with no evidence is criminal Wolfsden3 (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See WP:NOTTHEM. Unblock requests you make must deal with your behavior only. If you wish to review the sock puppetry case, it is located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redandready. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2018 (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.
Wolfsden3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #23497 was submitted on Dec 06, 2018 16:21:19. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Wolfsden3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Once again I'm requesting an unblock on all counts. You are being unreasonable. First the block is because I'm being accused of a sock puppet master which you send]t me a link to. I've reviewed the information on the link and it states that person is blocking "all three" even though they are all different ISP's and from my account specifically I've never done anything to mask where I'm from (this is the same ISP now from my office although I'm at a different site that uses that same ISP). Can you agree that the INITIAL BLOCK was not justified? Did you go review the original block offense reason? My account should NEVER have been blocked in the first place. You sir / madam are causing the problem and colleagues like you. The initial block reason was false which is why I got an attitude about things and now the reason for blocking me has changed because you don't like my tone? Unbelievable. Lets be reasonable and unblock me since the initial block was unjustified. You are now turning this into a personal attack and I gave you all my contact information id you'd like to discuss this as a reasonable person. You also have my email. Then you suggest for me requesting to be unblocked and escalate to other admins or a round table of admins will get me permanently banned? Do me a favor, put yourself in my shoes. Wikipedia and those who lord over it like yourself are utterly unreasonable it would seem. This is my first experience as a logged in wiki editor and I didn't realize what a dumpster fire it was on here. Yikes. A false block on an account just because it's new? Accused of sock puppet mastery without proof? This is the train wreck spurring on attitude and again, you put yourself in my shoes without the ability to have a civil discussion about it in email or phone is frustrating as tone and inflection are hard to put into words. I won't be donating any longer to Wikimedia Foundation if this is how they run the show. Wolfsden3 (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You've had one unblock request and two UTRS requests declined already, in a span of hours. You haven't addressed the behavioral issues that led to those requests being declined. You've announced your intent to continue the behavior that got you blocked in the first place ("I don't mind being in an edit war as long as what in advocating for is justified."). This is clearly a waste of time for everyone involved, so I've expanded your block to include this page. -- Scott (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2018 (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.
Someone else will review this, but your donations or lack thereof have no bearing on what happens here. The Wikimedia Foundation does not administer Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Great, no donations for you! (Soup Nazi). All the actions of admins on my account are unacceptable from the start by labeling me a puppet master of some sort. 100% unacceptable. I did what was asked of me originally and put in a request to have a higher admin of the page resolve a dispute between myself and one individual on some talk page somewhere. All my edits had comments and discourse. This doens't look like the work of a puppet master. If deemed a false block and then a false forever block / banned for life or whatever you call it then I'd like to escalate to have those admins admonished for breaking protocol if it's possible. Admins should not block new accounts or assume malicious intent just because they aren't old. This was noted in the original block reason that my account was new which has nothing to do with my edits, my comments or anything other than age. Admins should not be able to block accounts just because they aren't the oldest account (another argument from the account I was in dispute with was theirs was 11 years old and mine was new). That has nothing to do with the edits themselves or why the edits were made or if the edits are factual, which they are / were. This has been very frustrating. I suspect I'll continued to get banned because I used all caps in a few responses. I urge any admin to look past that since I'm new and only recently just read that's not appropriate to do in a response. Can I do italics for emphasis? I hope to be unbanned for life, it's just not fair and admins seem to be lording over new users inappropriately. What happened to me is clear evidence of that. Wolfsden3 (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- I never said that you were the master. Meatpuppet is more like it. Try reading the conflict of interest policy (you certainly have one) and WP:SOAPBOX. You acted in support of the others and there was certainly advocacy of which you are a part...you are/were actively working with others. What brought you to that page? Purely random? You have actively advocated a position campaigning for Bill Gelineau and Angelique Chaiser Thomas. You were here for them and the Libertarian cause and not Wikipedia. "I don't mind being in an edit war." 1, is treating Wikipedia as a battleground.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Well put
[edit]Well put. I don't mind being in an edit war as long as what in advocating for is justified. As a major party candidate the L should be in the info box and all those arguments have already been made. You banned me for partaking in something I didn't and that was some kind of puppetry which means I'm orchestrating something. I wasn't in support of other editors in fact, I think I was the only one editing and leaving detailed comments. That's how I understand it. I shouldn't be banned for an edit war and I followed the proper procedure to get it resolved and instead what happened is I got banned for something im not and because my account isn't old. That's what doesn't maje sense to me sir. I think yiu are accusing me of malicious intent when all my edits were proper edits. It's not as though I put up clown pictures for other candidates. I have also edited other pages anonymously so when you suggest I'm not here for Wikipedia i think you are making a baseless judgement on the only edit I've done logged in. I created an account because it wasn't a minor edit. I get punished for doing the right thing. Your actions are not acceptable since you never asked me what I was doing or why. You just acted and that's not right. Wolfsden3 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Have you read the conflict of interest policy yet? Do you recognize that you have one? We need to have your acknowledgement/explanation. Some form of communication took place that brought your attention to this article, right? You didn't just decide that you were suddenly going to become a Wikipedia editor for the betterment of Wikipedia and arbitrarily chose that article. You did, on the other hand, come here specifically to further a Libertarian cause before the election.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)- "I don't mind being in an edit war as long as what in advocating for is justified." This means that you will continue edit-warring when the opportunity arises? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Berean Hunter: Also, after reviewing the related, rational, and thoughtfully detailed unblock request at User talk:Redandready, I am convinced that Wolfsden and Redandready are not the same person, but there is still a behavioral issue to consider here with respect to WP:BATTLEGROUND. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- Anachronist, please see the last UTRS request again. MEAT is likely.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Anachronist, please see the last UTRS request again. MEAT is likely.
Meat Puppetry
[edit]I am being accused of being a meat puppet again, without evidence. I never recruited not do I know anyone on Wikipedia. Your COI section is lengthy but i just read it and if I were editing Gretchen Whitmers page that would be a COI. I was not, I was editing a general election page that did not accurately reference all major party's in a single info box. The dispute is about info box status and you are making it look lime i defaced the page with totally false information. I think your accusations are baseless on COI although I am a libertarian i never attacked a political page. This was a general information page. I think you are accusing me of something im not and it could be said that if you are a democrat or a republican that you are working to keep that page historically and factually false by not representing all the major partys in the info box which was the reason I created the account. Of course, you don't need to recruit meat puppets because you are an admin with a hammer. Would I get into an edit war again? I wouldn't go pick a fight but I can see how you might think that. I'm sure as I become more versed on wiki protocol I would approach things differently but I think your accusations and hammer on my account are baseless and wrong. I think what you are now doing is resisting lifting a ban on my account out of principal and it seems malicious again because you assume my account is malicious and you now have a bias against me which is why I asking for other armins to chime in. I didn't know about any of this until someone mentioned my user account today and I got an email about it. This whole thing should have been handled differently and if you unblock my account you would see. Wiki admin behavior is unbelievable. I could just go make another account to another email but in not. Seriously this is almost a waste of time to try and get you to admit that what you did was wrong to any degree and overkill. You can't even admit that because you seen to assume malicious intent from the start and draw conclusions with zero evidence. Do whatever you want this is a pointless conversation. I will go edit anonymously in the future likebive been doing for a decade without problems. Wolfsden3 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Blocks are on the user, not the account. If you edit under any name or IP before being unblocked, that is block evasion. 331dot (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- Gidebwe na? I don't think so. Just a libertarian? That's all, huh? I think you are in the organization more than the average bear but haven't been forthcoming about it. Are you saying that you weren't campaigning for Gelineau and the Libertarians. You had that interest in mind. "I think your accusations are baseless on COI..." <== You are digging a deeper hole.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Last post
[edit]You still aren't even following your own policy trying to call me out. COI has exceptions and I wasn't editing a political party page nor was I editing my own. It was a general election page and the question is whether all major party candidates should be represented in the info box. All you want to do now is play a game of gotcha. I'm not hiding who I am. You have my phone number if you want to call me to discuss and you have my direct email. Perhaps you will disclose who you are sir / madam? You are now clearly playing games. It's also not evasion to edit if I edit with another email or from other IP's, one can not edit any other way once they have been banned forever so what's your point? I'd rather edit with my account than anonymously going forward like I did the past decade. The past decade i wasn't evading i just had no reason to make an account because they were minor edits and clearly less controversial. Again, you still have yet to prove the original offense as me recruiting pupoets with zero proof because there is none. Please offer up proof that I recruited anyone to edit a single info box entry. You are now clearly making this a personal gotcha on a CIO that you think i have and you are now tip toeing on breaking Wiki policy yourself by trying to out me. Think about how far you want to dig your own hole. This entire issue is this:
1 - I and apparently others with the exception of one user think that all major party candidates should be in the info box. That still holds true. I also noted that other party's reaching major party status should be represented in the future so there is no bias. This is all logical and common sense as well as fair. 2 - this is a general election information page, there is a lot to edit and I only edited the single info box entry and justified why I did so in the edit and comments page on multiple occasions. This resulted in an edit war with one user where I sought resolution as best I knew how 3 - Determinations are being made that are not backed up by evidence that led to banning my account. You still have yet to prove the original ban as any kind of puppet tactic which is what the ban was for apparently and nothing was discussed until today to resolve any issue. I did no recruitment. I wasn't the one who put the original picture there, go look at the history. I saw it weeks before then visited the page for information and saw it was gone. I then found the last version with the picture & undid the edit that took it out and the rest is history. 4 - You are also making your own determination that my edit violates COI when in my view it does not regardless of whatever authority you think i have in a political party. I should be so honored you think I'm even well known in those circles! I would suggest everyone has a political affiliation editing that page regardless of status in said party. Again, this is a general election page and a single info box edit with a history of dialogue. COI here in my view is moot unless I were editing something to be factually false.
Get back on point please and stop deflecting and trying to call me out on a supposed COI. You banned me as a puppet of some kind so please prove it or release the ban.
What you are doing to my account is unfair and without evidence. This isn't a court preceding as one wiki article states but wiki has seemed to make you judge and jury.
Other admins should review what you are doing and suggest you lift the ban.
Then perhaps we can discuss the topic of info box inclusion for all major party candidates. If Wikipedia wants to be credible it should consyhow it includes candidates in the info box.
My case rests. Wolfsden3 (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)