BowlerJasper

January 2021

Hello, BowlerJasper, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Ifnord (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No I don't operate other accounts, and I would appreciate if guidelines such as WP:AGF and WP:BITE are still practiced here. BowlerJasper (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

How do you know what those are? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Being brand new to the website and quoting policies while asserting your newness is incongruent. But, I see you're not so experienced that you did not recognize this template as the AGF one. There is another, more stronger wording, for cases of obvious sock puppetry. Ifnord (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This isn't 2007, Wikipedia is no longer some obscure website. It's not farfetched that people can be aware of its policies before getting involved in the project. BowlerJasper (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Were you editing Wikipedia in 2007? What is the significance of that year. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you serious? I'm pointing out the fact that this website was more obscure back in the 2000s. BowlerJasper (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

How do you know what the user experience was like back in the 2000s though? You said "This isn't 2007” which suggests that you know what 2007 on Wikipedia was like. You obviously know more than me about wikipedia in that era. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No I don't, I wasn't aware of Wikipedia in the 2000s which is why I pointed out its obscurity. It's different now in 2021. BowlerJasper (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't see any evidence of a sockpuppet. We shouldn't adopt this pseudo-policy of "if they're new, assume they are an idiot". Unless their edits are problematic, I don't see why anyone is concerned about their account age. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 22:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@WhoAteMyButter: we’re only asking these questions because their edits are problematic. They nominated two brand new (like minutes old) pages for deletion within 15 minutes of creating their account. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Who's "we", and are you basing my edits as "problematic" just because I started AfDs through the proper channels for the military contractor articles that you created? BowlerJasper (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I've looked over their edits, I don't particularly view any as bad. They've tagged articles for deletion, and it seems you are in discussion with them over the reliability of some sources. For specifics, can you point any specific edits to me that you view as being a problem? Again, don't treat new people as idiots. He obviously knows what he's doing. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 22:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@WhoAteMyButter: they made their wikipedia accounts very soon after those articles were created and went immediately to them, how did they know they existed? It will be weeks before they’re indexed by google and a direct search here wouldn’t even have returned the right page when they first accessed it... They beat the new page patrollers there. How does that happen? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Why does it matter? Stop treating him like some sort of IP user from an island vandalizing noticeboards. He's not, he's following Wikipedia policy and procedure just fine. The fact he beat NPP there isn't a bad thing. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 22:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess I can just ask... Hey BowlerJasper, how did you become aware of the existence of Atlantic Diving Supply? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can nominate an article for deletion. (Check mine, I have no association with 99.99% of the articles I've submitted for CSD) It doesn't matter in this case. WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 22:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Let them answer the question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to demand answers and interrogate others just because you disagree with them. I had no obligation to respond to your allegations in the first place, and it's appropriate enough to say that this conversation has run its course. BowlerJasper (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Call it curiosity then, how did you do it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If I had to guess, it's likely through the new articles page or recent changes page. Even then, why does it matter? WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 23:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

BowlerJasper, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi BowlerJasper! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  Sro23 (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It's obvious you are not a new user. Please log into your original account. Sro23 (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

But I AM a new user. There is no "original account" for me to log in into. I see you also claimed that I am an "obvious harassment sockpuppet". Who? What exactly did I do wrong here?

Decline reason:

I concur with Sro23 and the others above; you are clearly not a new user and until you choose to be more forthcoming, there is nothing more to do here. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2021 (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.

Enough of this. There will be no interaction bans. The user needs to log into their original account.

By "harassment sockpuppet", I mean this account was seemingly created for the purposes of stalking and harassing User:Horse Eye's Back. Sro23 (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Sro23, I was wondering whether, if the user is indeed a new user, an interaction ban between Bowler and Horse would be a good start to get the perma ban lifted? Then if this indeed a genuine user, Bowler can make other constructive edits to Wikipedia. I'm a third party and I am just giving my two cents. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC) @Tyw7: BowlerJasper has never made a constructive edit to wikipedia so I’m confused about what you mean by "other constructive edits” etc. Are you really championing my abuser instead of apologizing for how you treated me? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back, well in my eyes you have accused Bowler of being a sock based on the fact that "they know too much." That's why I was suggesting that if there is an interaction ban between you two, then they can't harass you without facing a permanent block. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Next time please review their edit history before templating a long term user. Just FYI this isn't my first dedicated attack account, its close to a dozen confirmed now. Thats also not an apology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back, I have. And all I see is them raising 2 articles to AFD supposedly minutes after you created them. To be honest that, in my opinion, is not strong proof of being a harassing sock. If you see above, User:WhoAteMyButter also don't see Bowler as an obvious sock. They maybe verse with a few Wikipedia policies but I don't think "knowing too much" is strong evidence a user is a sock. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC) There literally isn't a conceivable way for them to have stumbled across those pages without already having been stalking me... Just because you are incapable of identifying a blatant attack account don’t make other editor’s lives miserable. To be clear I am asking you for an apology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back, well I believe you were indeed casting aspersions and I don't see evidence that Bowler taking two articles to AFD soon after you created them to be proof of them being a sock. I had a look at your proofs and you seem to imply they're a sock just because they "know too much." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC) What proofs? Yes I imply, you are in fact allowed to imply. Thats not casting aspersions. Also don’t make administrative edits to my (or other user’s) talk pages, if you do that again your talk page privileges get revoked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back, I thought it was an extraneous section that you forgot. Anyway, that was perhaps an overstep. Anyway, I still think you posting the same message on multiple places look to be casting aspersions without strong proof. You can't change my mind otherwise. I was just posting here to suggest maybe an interaction ban will keep you apart and allow Bowler one more chance to prove themselves. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Why in the world is offering what is at best an SPA with a history of harassment and disruption another chance something you think is a good thing for wikipedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back, maybe you think I'm being too lenient but wouldn't an interaction ban prevent them from harassing you? If this is indeed a single purpose account, then further harassment will attract a perma ban. If this is not a single purpose account, then the interaction ban will keep you two apart. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Thats not an answer to the question I asked. Why would that be a positive thing for the project? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back, because I am assuming that this is not a single purpose account. That was why I wanted to give them a chance to prove that they're not a single purpose account made to harass you. I feel that I'm just repeating myself and I have already said what I have to say two replies ago ago. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I cannot find any evidence they're a sock other than you seem to be angry they tagged pages you have involvement in for deletion. This talk page reeks of WP:BITE. The only two proof's I've seen they're a sock are: They know their way around Wikipedia, even though they're new They know how to tag articles for deletion that you made Regarding the second point, note the article is not immediately deleted (of course not, it's a discussion and consensus), and the articles they tagged had some independent support for deletion, and against. FWIW, all they've done is raised experience discussion about two articles you've made that they think are low-quality. If you genuinely want to check for realsies, maybe involve a CU at some point if it gets that bad? But, all in all, I can't find any evidence they're "harassing" you, or that they're a sock. And it turns out they really are a sock, then shame on me for not murdering a newcomer.WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 04:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sro23, You keep telling me to "log into their original account" but I have repeated that I do not own one. As WhoAteMyButter and Tyw7 had said, admins could literally check if a user is indeed a sock or who they are a sock of, but there has literally been no evidence whatsoever except the fact that I'm being pushed off Wikipedia as a new user just for starting 2 reasonable AfDs that are not even vandalism. How does that constitute harassment exactly, considering there are also other users who are also for deletion? The fact that the discussion above is being suppressed as "unhelpful discussion" with no further input from you is incredibly absurd, not to mention that a solution of an interaction ban is being brushed off, which would have solved your concerns that I'm "harassing" Horse Eye's Back. There is literally zero evidence that I'm a sock, because logically if I were, you would know. But all you're saying is "log into your original account". There. Isn't. One. It's truly eye-opening that an admin on Wikipedia would be that trigger-happy to ban users just like that without a shred of evidence, and reinforcing the criticism of Wikipedia of and I quote "clique behavior" and "social stratification between a guardian class and newer users". BowlerJasper (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It's clear this isn't your first account. Either you have another account and are hiding behind this sock to evade scrutiny, or your previous accounts/IP's are blocked and you're block evading. Genuine newcomers do not immediately start targeting specific users by nominating their articles for deletion within minutes of them being created and accusing long-term users of paid editing. That's called harassment, and I have no tolerance for it. I'm not opposed to a CheckUser being run, but know that "innocence" checks are usually declined. It wouldn't make much sense to take advice from the one under suspicion, for all we know, you could be using a proxy or something that would make CU useless. Sro23 (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)