AOKuneff

Discussion Welcome

I am frustrated when people revert edits I make without first discussing it. Discussions here as well as in the relevant article's talk page are always welcome. Cheers! AOKuneff (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alerts

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 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 the 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.

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 shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. 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 the 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.

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 shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 the 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.

--Neutrality^talk 19:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Your editing

Please review the following pages: Wikipedia:Edit warring; Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Do not repeatedly restore, on spurious grounds, challenged edits. That behavior is not acceptable. --Neutrality^talk 19:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

As said previously on this page, I am frustrated when people revert edits I make without first discussing it. You have been pinged here -- Talk:Comet_Ping_Pong#Pizzagate. As per WP:RS, the mentioned source is a first party source, and since no 3rd party source exists with that claim, the claim that DC Metro Police has debunked pizzagate should not be added to wikipedia AOKuneff (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The use of a primary source is acceptable to source statements and actions by the producer of the source. In this case, we have a primary source from DCMPD that says Pizzagate is a fictitious conspiracy theory. We may use that source to say “The DCMPD says Pizzagate is fictitious.” NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

NBSB - you edit warred me Without any sources. Now, you claim your first party source doesn't need to be a third party source. You lack credibility. Either way, talk here -- Talk:Comet_Ping_Pong#Pizzagate and don't be optically blind. AOKuneff (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

This [1] isn't an acceptable edit summary, especially on a talkpage plagued by conspiracy theories. Repeating the same thing just above is equally problematic.The Metropolitan Police are a perfectly good source for what the Metropolitan Police say. If you edit war to remove that plain statement, you will face sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Laundering a plain statement through third party sources is not required in a case like this, but: CBC [2], the Guardian [3], Ohio State University [4], the MPD again ("a fictitious online conspiracy theory") [5], the wire service reporting that MPD statement [6], Washington Post [7]. Now stop trying to omit material that disproves a defamatory hoax. Acroterion (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Quick question

Which of these three words best describes your stance on Pizzagate or its general ideas: "debunked," "unproven," "plausible," or "reality"...? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know exactly. However, the important point made is that Metro DC Police has not issued sufficient statements for wikipidiens to claim they have debunked it. Frankly, the obsessive editing by people who do not want discussion of the issue is pushing me from "unproven" to "plausible". You seem to be a bit more thoughtful. Although we disagree, you haven't banned anyone nor closed discussions AOKuneff (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I was asking because if you said anything short of "debunked," I was planning to block you on grounds of WP:CIR, because the conspiracy theory is InfoWars levels of wrong. Also, I find it interesting that this (currently blocked) IP could only make the same arguments you do, had the same reaction you do to discussions being closed, basically acted like you -- happens geolocates to New York. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm User:158.106.215.138, and I am in Manhattan. He geolocates to Brooklyn.. AOKuneff (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being unable to recognize that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory is obviously false, which indicates that you lack certain competencies necessary to handle articles affected by the following policies and guidelines: WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:RS.

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 ~~~~}}.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have taken time away from wikipedia to consider the concerns about the community. In hindsight, I should not have edited the Comet Ping Pong page, since evidently the notion that the current Metro DC Police may not have debunked pizzagate is a very sensitive issue to members of this community. Having said that, the majority of my edits have been beneficial, and even on the Comet Ping Pong page, I did not vandalize. Instead, I encouraged the presence of sources which were not present when I began editing the article. My personal belief that the conspiracy theory is unproven (rather than debunked) as well as my evident frustration that discussions were being closed before consensus was reached and before a week had passed (per WP:Closing discussions) could explain my behavior. Still, I was erratic, and a ban only made sense. However, I believe a 2 week ban would be sufficient, whereas an indefinite one was excessive. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to discussing further about being a contributor to this site again. AOKuneff (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

At this time, you do indeed lack sufficient competence to be trusted to edit appropriately here. I suggest spending at least six months away, then coming back and applying under WP:SO. At that time, you'll have to provide reason to believe you properly understand WP:RS and WP:CITE and WP:FRINGE. Yamla (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2019 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

With respect to Yamla, I am applying for unblock after 1 month because I have made dozens of proper edits (both here and at 158.106.215.138). I am in keeping with the WP:SO in that I have not edited since my block, and I do not intend to ever edit the comet ping pong talk page again. My history's quite clear in using reliable sources (in line with WP:RS) and citing them properly (in line with WP:CITE). With regard to WP:FRINGE, I again reiterate my plan to avoid the comet ping pong talk page and similar articles. With regard to WP:CIR, I definitely have the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively. I also have the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. I typically communicate with other editors and prefer long talk page discussions to making wholesale changes of the article before discussing it. I also believe I now understand my own abilities and competencies, and should not edit the comet ping pong talk page.

Decline reason:

There is technical evidence in the form of checkuser data which links this account to that of DouggCousins, and which contradicts some of the statements which you have made on this page. For this reason you cannot be unblocked. ST47 (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2019 (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.

Please elaborate on "technical evidence". I am not the same user as DouggCousins. AOKuneff (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC) @ST47:

You have made edits from the same IP address. The specific technical details will not be shared publicly in accordance with the WMF's privacy policy. ST47 (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems unlikely.. Maybe we've interacted without knowing? How many edits are you talking about? AOKuneff (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Not quite understanding how DouggCousins and I could have made edits from the same IP; however, each of the IPs listed at DouggCousins' profile has had their edits deleted on grounds of sockpuppetry. Does checkuser data link these accounts to either myself or DouggCouns? Please confirm AOKuneff (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC) @ST47:

I realize editing wikipedia can be a thankless job, but the fact that other users' posts were deleted solely on suspicion of being either myself or User:DouggCousins means this information should be verified.. Please indicate if you have technical data linking me or User:DouggCousins to User:216.130.236.20, User:172.58.227.5, User:2600:1002:b01c:765b:ec7b:235e:9217:524e and User:69.200.249.164 AOKuneff (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC) @ST47: ST47