HamHammm
Joined 10 June 2022
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Deepfriedokra in topic UTRS appeal #59792
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:HamHammm reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Multiple accounts
editYou were warned by EdJohnston regarding edit warring via your account Tsarisco, blanked your talk page, and created this accounta short time later. After letting this account sit for 10 days, you've logged in to start additional edit wars while falsely claiming to have had an old account unused for "many years" for which you've lost the password. All of this is a violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding the use of multiple accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have never started any edit war all I did was add sources and clarifications to the articles, I added multiples sources to the subjects in question, I do not remember the password of my previous account as I just reset my pc. And I have never been blocked from editing...
- How is adding new academic sources from various universities and academic sources constitutes "me" starting and edit war? Did you at the very least check my the history of the changes? HamHammm (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- You could have at least le me defend my claim in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard this quite unfair as it took multiple hours of research... HamHammm (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- You did not attempt to reset your password prior to (or since) blanking User talk:Tsarisco and creating this account. You were absolutely edit warring, just as you did with you other account. It's pretty much the only thing you've done with this account. The content of your edit is absolutely irrelevant if you are violating multiple Wikipedia policies in order to make it. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- That account was multiple year old, I created it with an email address that I cannot access anymore, I'm therefore not in the possibility of resetting the password...
- I communicated with the editor (M.Bitton) who was involved with me in this edit war and the last one on the previous account various times, in the talk page and tried to reason with him from the very beginning without any success as all kept repeating was the world "anachronism" without a argument to back up their claims.
- From the edit warning page : "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring" : my last edit did not involve any "undo" it involved the addition a new plethora of academic level sources that took me multiple hours to find to add more clarifications to subject in question.
- How am I the one starting an edit war when the original person reverting my edits was not even clarifying what they were saying, all they were doing was add the word "Anachronistic" over and over again? They were removing sources without adding new ones until much later, sources that do not contradict my initial assertion but simply present in more vague way...
- It seems weird that the User in question seems to be camping always on the same type of articles and be the only one starting an edit conflict with me. HamHammm (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- You edit warred on your previous account, blanked your talk page when you received a final warning from an admin and created this account, sat on it for 10 days, then used it to edit war in the same topic area. These are the policy violations that you need to address in any appeal, and the instructions for making an appeal are included in the block message below, though it should be made via your main account. I have no intention of responding here further.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- More lies just make your case worse:
I have been using Wikipedia for quite a while as an editor from a previous account many years ago, but I forgot my login information, that is to say I'm not a new user!
is what you wrote.- I left two comments on your talk page that you ignored. I then moved the comments to the article's talk page and pinged you (you ignored that too and kept edit warring).
- The fact that you had to resort to socking and lying means that you knew that what you were doing wasn't right. M.Bitton (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- It seems like you are the one lying here as pretty much all edits can be verified by any Wiki admins, you claim that I did not communicated with you on the talk page initially is a pure lie and a fabrication that can be easily verified. Before you even report me... But I'm not really surprised as you are a master of misleading claims... HamHammm (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- You did not attempt to reset your password prior to (or since) blanking User talk:Tsarisco and creating this account. You were absolutely edit warring, just as you did with you other account. It's pretty much the only thing you've done with this account. The content of your edit is absolutely irrelevant if you are violating multiple Wikipedia policies in order to make it. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- You could have at least le me defend my claim in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard this quite unfair as it took multiple hours of research... HamHammm (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)