User talk:Seventh Ward Dragon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Important notice

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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

In case you wonder why you're receiving this message, the answer is "Because." ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that will also be the block rationale if they continue trolling... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WhichUserAmI. 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: {{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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Yes, it's true, I did make those accounts. However, it's extremely important to know that I never intended on using them maliciously, even if it may appear that way. My main account has never been blocked, I have never had a reason to make a second account in order to evade any ban. That was never my goal. Yes, there was an extremely short period in which I had a lapse of judgement and made an unconstructive edit on one of the accounts, but again that was never the purpose of the accounts in the first place. After the account was blocked for the unconstructive edit and having such long username, it immediately made me realize that having the accounts in the first place could lead that to happen to my main account. I haven't unconstructively contributed since then. My main account, WhichUserAmI, has contributed positively and constructively with every edit since July, and I don't want to destroy what little reputation I've established so far. As for why the names seem to be maliciously obfuscated, they absolutely are not. I was curious about the length/repetition username filters, hence their long, strange names. I understand that my actions were problematic, but please understand that they did not have malicious intent. I shouldn't have made the accounts in the first place. I'm sorry. WhichUserAmI 17:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no reason to unblock someone who creates a vandalism-only sock puppet account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2022 (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.

My account has been blocked before - but only for a specific article, Nintendo DS. When I started that my account has never been blocked, I was referring to a site-wide block, which my account has never experienced. WhichUserAmI 18:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It took me a moment to notice that not only have you created these accounts, you have also evaded a block for vandalism ([1], Special:Permalink/1115479560). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, technically that is what I just admitted to. I'm sorry, it was a poor decision and I understand why. I had the ability to contribute here on Wikipedia, but I've taken advantage of that by making separate accounts, even if the incident involving an unconstructive edit was isolated. I would love to be able to remain and continue contributing, especially to the New Hampshire State Department Divisions articles, as that is a newfound hobby for me, but if my actions warrant my permanent removal I understand. Again, I'm sorry for violating the rules, but if you spared me I promise that I would not make the same mistake again. WhichUserAmI 18:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Well okay. I'm not opposed to an unblock; someone else will decide about this. What leaves me puzzled though is your edit at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Isabelle Belato, which brought me here initially. It seems to have been made in the context of the current case request at WP:ARC (permanent link) and the message removed in [2]. The way you phrased yours seems to imply that it was meant to be a substitute. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I voted Oppose, with such a simple description, on that request for adminship simply because there was such a high level of support (99%) and my vote would not determine the outcome one way or the other. I had no affiliation with any arbitration request, nor did I know it even existed. Does that have something to do with the message I got just before all this about being interested in gender disputes? That seriously confused me, but I really had nothing to do with the ARC, my comment had no deeper meaning. WhichUserAmI 18:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the reason for the blue text box I had sent above. A case of colossally bad timing, but not an implausible one. Well then. No concerns from my side remain. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm cautiously relieved to hear that, thank you so much for leveling with me and hearing me out rather than acting hastily against a violation. Maybe I should've voted Support on that adminship request after all, we need more like you. WhichUserAmI 19:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Hold on; we're swallowing this!? I voted Oppose, with such a simple description, on that request for adminship simply because there was such a high level of support (99%) and my vote would not determine the outcome one way or the other.?? Yes, there was an extremely short period in which I had a lapse of judgement and made an unconstructive edit on one of the accounts?? I was curious about the length/repetition username filters, hence their long, strange names.?? Look, all of that makes zero sense. It is complete bullshit. Incompetence or trolling. Based on name and other equally implausible comments above, I have to believe trolling. But regardless, the solution is the same: indef block, no talk page access. It's a CU block, so a CU would need to OK an unblock, but I would really object to ever unblocking this account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I haven't explained thoroughly enough, but what I've said is the truth. My comment on that RfA discussion was sheer coincidence, I seriously had no clue what arbitration was until ToBeFree showed me what they thought I was associating with. I honestly am not sure how the word "Because" is being conflated with the discussion in the first place, but that's beyond me.

I seriously did create the accounts out of curiosity about the username filters and why 85-character names are allowed at all (which is not an issue on its own), and I did not temper that curiosity, rather I let it get the best of me and I made some edits that were unconstructive. I'm owning up to that mistake and I've been extremely forthcoming, I'm not trying to hide anything. I'm sorry you think I'm bullshitting you, but I'm not. WhichUserAmI 20:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

WhichUserAmI, can you list all of the accounts you have created? Since this is an account for block evasion and sockpuppetry, it's important that you come clean so we can know the extent of it all before considering whether to honor your unblock request. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz, here is a list of all Wikipedia accounts I have created.

• WhichUserAmI
• OvxzEkB7LEDOchm6tUzaMtqPOQVsYSYSPR9WGpC8IEReJ0Re6ZqJlZXC937VoqNRzrAqSuAWRvBo8w6kjmnTt
• Loam6eoxiChrom4xej8Sting9a0xoTray90x7Lord8x092Bats8c62Singexv28Tether7xh3Light9c73h
• DrainexiPonder4xeScarves90xoLame90x7Providence8x0Chance8c6Ytterbiumxv28Train8fuw
• O! JLQcohlAljnGVFcMzR0BmOZIzVkH!! ZxPy5Z1UJ49KjbEBxyZxv2, 7kU6ordV0ndLUJP4ESc3tFtnR!

WhichUserAmI 20:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Liz, after thorough research I have become aware of two other accounts that I have historically created.

• Thegamerman365
• Blu koolaid

These accounts were created by me, but were made several years ago and are therefore unrelated to this incident. I've included them here for the sake of honesty and complete transparency.

In addition, I'm not entirely sure whether the last name on the previous list I provided, O! JLQcohlAl... has ever had an account here. I did generate the text with the intent of creating an account, and it was saved in my AutoFill information, but I can't positively confirm it as a real account. It's possible the username was denied by the username creation filters upon creation, but was still saved in my browser's AutoFill. It was included on the list for honesty and transparency. WhichUserAmI 16:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm pretty dismayed to see all this, especially after you proposing yourself as some sort of success story on my talk page. Particularly the RFA comment, which is pretty much the definition of trolling, even by your own accounts above. I don't know how you can concurrently make such a stupid decision and want to be taken seriously. Very bad judgment. Incredibly disappointing stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 23:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sergecross73:, No matter how many times I say, "I'm truly sorry" to you, it would never convey as much sorrow as I currently bear. I don't think I understood the magnitude nor the consequences of my decisions when I was making them. I sincerely regret making the accounts and the unconstructive edits, but I think I'm more disappointed in myself for blatantly lying to you. It wasn't intentional, it's not that I decided that I was going to deceive you, I sincerely wanted to check in and give you an update on how much better I'd been. These events were the very last thing on my mind when I wrote that talk page message to you. The articles included that I had authored had been my hobby for the past week, after countless hours and hours of research on questionably-notable, sometimes non-existent divisions within the State Department of a small, northeastern state. Still, they were my first articles, my pride and joy, and I was absolutely thrilled to be able to share them with you. I felt so proud of myself for that. Because of that, I don't think of myself as a troll and I'd absolutely hate if you did. I truly do have genuine good intentions, and I constantly expressed that with my constructive contributions, or attempts at them, prior to my blockage. Those who accuse me of being an "obvious troll" either don't see these efforts, or look past them, failing to realize their significance. Please, please don't be one of them. I didn't come to this site with the intention to cause disruption, I wanted to contribute and share knowledge. Along that path, I've allowed myself to become distracted and made poor decisions as a result. But above all, I genuinely think that what I'm most disappointed in myself doing, is betraying your trust and approval. I'm willing to face the consequences of those decisions, whatever the final outcome is. Sure, I'd love the privilege of being understood by everybody, or the blessing of an opportunity to prove myself worthy, but someone's got to pay for my mistakes, and I don't think I see anybody else stepping up to the plate. WhichUserAmI 08:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the allegations that I am an "obvious troll" and the backlash regarding my RfA vote. WhichUserAmI 16:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@General Notability: Hi, I'm sorry to bother you but would you be willing to review my unblock request? I'm willing to accept the consequences, whether that means I remain blocked or am granted another chance; I would just like to put this situation behind me and move on. Again, I'm sorry for bothering you, but my request requires a checkuser review to be processed. Thank you for your time, WhichUserAmI 06:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Jak Wilmot

Hello, WhichUserAmI. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jak Wilmot, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jak Wilmot

Hello, WhichUserAmI. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Jak Wilmot".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Standard Offer

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

requesting unblock as per WP:OFFER, and I would like to ask the checkuser who reviews this to please read my original statements and explanations before making a decision. I understand the severity of my actions, I deeply regret them and I whole-heartedly promise that I will never again create another account for malicious purposes. However, I do not believe that I should be considered a troll, especially if that view is based on an RfA vote that was assumed to be implying or emulating something that it really wasn't. I genuinely do care about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not as a tool to facilitate sock puppets; and I have a desire not only to learn more, but to assist others in learning by improving existing articles and creating new ones. I feel as though I have been overlooked and that any attempts I try to explain myself are regarded as "bullshit", "incompetence" (??? Calling my explanation 'incompetent' is alarming considering the amount of ACTUAL incompetent content on this site) or "trolling", and I would just appreciate to be taken at face value, because I'm not lying and I'm not trying to get away with anything. I've admitted to my actions, I've taken the blame and I've served time away from the platform to grow as a person and mature beyond my flaws that allowed me to create these sock puppet accounts. I am truly sorry for any damage that my actions may have caused, I promise to never make the same mistakes again, lest I be blocked permanently with no chance of appeal, and I look forward to a brighter future, whether this request is approved or not. Thank you for your time.

Accept reason:

Meets the requirements set out in WP:OFFER. But note that there are no second chances on WP:OFFER. Any further problems will likely result in a permanent ban and with little hope of finding any admin who's willing to unblock you.

WhichUserAmI 23:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Checkuser data is clear. I think this is a particularly poor unblock request, but I'm not absolutely certain it should be declined so I'm leaving that consideration to another reviewer. --Yamla (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@WhichUserAmI: You have never even tried to explain this. You claim that you are serious and not trolling, but how can we trust you if you make such edits? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Port City Nissan

Hello WhichUserAmI,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Port City Nissan for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Port City Nissan to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

greyzxq ^talk 19:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your vigilance but I just wanted to let you know that I was in the process of using Twinkle to mark it as R2 when you tagged it. WhichUserAmI 19:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Thanks for your query. The guidelines say that if one's normal talk page is protected, one should provide another pseudo talk page that is unprotected. That's why I have that unprotected page, and I expect to keep it unprotected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Amateurism from your part and read wp:good faith

The edits that you reverted @ Cruel World Festival in a biaised way and in a very condescending way were valid and supported by wp:reliable sources. If you are using a twinkle, it is worse, people who are using twinkles in a bad way are a plague. They should be kicked out wiki. Next time you edit, either untie your twinkle or think twice before reverting. Now go doing your homework and read wp:good faith, that won't be luxuary. You should have never threatened an ip who contributed well. Kempsir (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

And you tagged their edits with the label "vandalism", your edit on that article was vandalism -Kempsir (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kempsir

I apologize, as it seems I have made a mistake. As a recent changes patroller, I revert a large volume of actual IP vandalism every day. Therefore, I already have a thorough understanding of AGF and exercise it with every edit. Unfortunately, I must not have reviewed the changes made to that article closely enough, and simply assumed they were vandalism on account of being made in rapid succession by an IP user with no edit summaries, as is frequently the case with vandals. In this instance, this was not the case and I have reviewed all of the revisions that I reverted and you are correct that the additions made are properly sourced.

However, there's no need to attack me and suggest that my edits were 'biased and condescending', that I go do homework, and that I should be 'kicked out of wiki' for protecting it against those who have no intention of contributing constructively, when it is likely you who should brush up on your guidelines (2). As a human being, just like you, I am bound to make mistakes every now and then. There's no need to harass over a simple misunderstanding.

PS: If you're nice, informative and understanding, you will find a lot more people take the time to pay attention to what you're saying, and more people might actually take note. WhichUserAmI 19:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Revert

This says you need to slow down and pay more attention to what you're reverting. – ².O.^Boxing 19:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Article was on my watchlist for an IP edit yesterday which changed the height and weight of the subject without citing a valid source. It is understandable given that context why one may assume your very similar edit could have potentially been vandalism. I am aware of the fact that infoboxes of BLPs typically have information about nationality. There is no need for your attitude when I was extremely polite. WhichUserAmI 19:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

An IP changing height and weight isn't similar to an experienced registered account removing nationality with the relevant guideline linked in the edit summary. You need to slow down because the comment above by Kempsir is of the same nature; reverting an edit under the rationale of vandalism when it isn't vandalism. Repeated instances are often dealt with by way of sanctions. – ².O.^Boxing 20:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

In regards to the fact that you are an experienced editor, see WP:DTTR#AGF. Height, weight and nationality are all characteristics of the subject in question, and they are both qualitatively listed in the infobox; therefore your statement they they are dissimilar has no merit. There is no issue here that would result in sanctions, you are just really taking this too seriously. Out of the hundreds of similar edits I make a day in defense of the encyclopedia, two edits that were later revealed invalid are not cause for sanctions whatsoever. I saw an edit that appeared to potentially constitute vandalism on an article which I had recently reverted similar vandalism on, and reverted it out of caution. I left a (polite) notification of this on your talk page, and you have since become offended. WhichUserAmI 20:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Your response only affirms the issue; you weren't paying attention to what you were reverting. If you had, you would have noticed the edit summary with the relevant link, eliminating any possibility of vandalism. It doesn't matter how many times your reverts are correct, there's now three instances of you making accusations of vandalism where it's not vandalism (the IP you mention made an unsourced change, which is not vandalism). If you think repeating these mistakes won't lead to sanctions then by all means, crack on. – ².O.^Boxing 21:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

It was not an unsourced change, it was a change which was contradictory to the source provided immediately next to the content which was modified. You can continue to be obtuse and drive home your point all day, but this conversation is over. Good luck with your experience. WhichUserAmI 21:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Article was on my watchlist for an IP edit yesterday which changed the height and weight of the subject without citing a valid source (emphasis mine). It was an unsourced change, as you already stated. WP:NOTVANDALISM, A user who, in good faith, adds content to an article that is factually inaccurate but in the belief that it is accurate is trying to contribute to and improve Wikipedia, not vandalize it. But you crack on. – ².O.^Boxing 22:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

height_in = 5 (His official listed height barefoot with the Cavaliers is now 7'6 https:\\stats.nba.com/player/1629605) There is a wikitext comment stating his factual height immediately after the data which was altered which states the factual height of the subject and a reputable source from which the data was acquired. There is no way that could be a good faith edit under the assumption the user is trying to improve the encyclopedia using what they believe to be accurate information, if the accurate information is right there to see and they went against it.

It was not just an unsourced change, it was also contradictory to factual information and it was vandalism. There should have been no assumption of good faith based on the fact that the user had already received a final warning at the time that they made the edit.

Please see the Talk page of the IP user responsible for the edit.

But it's all in good faith, no worries. WP:NOTVANDALISM. WhichUserAmI 22:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You're gonna last long. Toodlepip. – ².O.^Boxing 23:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Your user page

In Special:Diff/1155675106 you added some fancy CSS which makes your user name invisible. Please remove that, it makes it difficult for other users to interact with you. Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Removed (WP:SMI) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding reason for discussion. The thread is User: Seventh Ward Dragon and their user pages. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. — -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TalkPageArchives

Template:TalkPageArchives has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 192.76.8.82 (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TalkPageArchived

Template:TalkPageArchived has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)