TheEditor22
Welcome!
Hello, TheEditor22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
edit
Blocked: Indefinite. 
Confirmed sockpuppets <redacted> and Martin Ford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 
Likely CabbageMan57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Blocked indefinitely as a disruptive single purpose attack account. There are other ways to address alleged conflicts of interest. You can appeal the block, any admin who wishes to unblock is advised to ensure you are prepared to comply with Wikipedia policies on civility, no edit warring, etc. Thatcher 00:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realise I was doing anything wrong. I apologise however, for using sockpupppets. The Martin character is my brother. I told him that I was editing on Wikipedia and he independently decided to join in. I have absolutely no idea who the cabbage character is. Could I please be unblocked as I can assure you that I will only be using this user account in the future, and should my brother join in any discussions that I am involved in he shall make the fact that we share the same IP address known. Thanks...--TheEditor22 (talk) 06:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
TheEditor22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Decline reason:
- Umm, above: I didn't realise I was doing anything wrong but yesterday, I have not been using sockpuppetry and have been acting entirely independently. Thatcher 11:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not to mention creating a sockpuppet in the real name of the pseudonymous editor you were fighting with and impersonating him by posting under his name as if he agreed with you. Thatcher 11:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
TheEditor22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
(I'm sorry, I didn't understand the rules and I wouldnt do it again! I also have contributed a lot to wikipedia. I dont set out to cause trouble. So, please unblock me
Decline reason:
I'm not willing to accept this. It should be common sense that impersonating someone else to make it seem as though they agree with you is disruptive. Declined. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:07, 3 July 2009 (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.
I've restored the content you removed from this page; if you are requesting unblock, you need to leave previous requests in place, and the discussion you had is useful context for administrators who are looking into the reasons for your block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't inpersonating anybody! That is absolutely ridiculous, and lies. Have you any proof of this? I'm really bemused why you'd make something like that up :| --TheEditor22 (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please unblock me? I've apologised, it was a single act, and I'm not going to be doing it again. I have made good contributions to wikipedia and I did not set out to be disruptive. I really think that an indefinite ban is unfair. I obviously want to continue being a part of improving wikipedia. Nobody seems to be reading this talk page, and I can't even write on any administraters pages. --TheEditor22 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
TheEditor22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm sorry, I won't do it again, and I want to contribute to wikipedia. I did not realise I would be blocked, and although I recognise I was being disruptive, I did not realise at the time that it was a disruptive act. It was never my intent to cause trouble
Decline reason:
You won't do it again?? You already did it again: see User:TheEditor23, which I have just blocked. Even had I not realized about that account, I would have denied this request, because even just your main account's editing has been quite opinionated and that is your single purpose. If you want to get a legitimate hearing for your promises, you're going to have to show us that you really mean it and that you will abide by blocks and not try to evade them by creating new accounts. Mangojuicetalk 17:23, 6 July 2009 (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.
.
I created the new account because nobody was listening to me here. And it's not like I tried to hide or anything. I created a similar username and declared on my page that it was me. I have been editing in the discussion of ACN and I have not been opionated in doing so. A user did ask a question and I provided a point of view. And if you had looked at the edits I made in the article you'd have seen that I maintained NPOV at all times. I'm not trying to cause trouble, and I intend on having fair discussions and complying with the wikipedia rules. I dont particularly want to have to create multiple usernames with multiple IP addresses, but what choice do you leave me with here? And if you want my opinion, mango juice is a very dull, bitter, unyielding and characterless drink that makes me want to retch.--TheEditor22 (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would find that a lot more believable if you had used the new account only to try to discuss your block. I acknowledge you don't have a lot of options. You can become a dedicated sockpuppeteer, cause big problems for us, and be blocked every time it's discovered... or you can acknowledge that the community has for good reason lost trust in you and attempt to reestablish that by refraining from evading the block for a while. Let's say 2 months. (Note: this is generous; the "standard offer" is 6 months.) Request unblocking then, and you'll have a chance to be trusted. Mangojuicetalk 03:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I think that considering I didnt understand the rules fully and because it was a single occurance that I should be unblocked immediately. I'm extremely unlikely to do it again, and you know it. You can monitor my account if you want, and you'll see. If you don't unblock me then i'll be forced just use a different IP address (which is not going to be difficult) and create a completely different persona on here, thereby making it impossible for you to know who I am. You know as well as I do that I did not intend to cause trouble, and that there is a very low chance of me breaking the rules again. In fact, I think you just enjoy exerting control over others. That is a personality disorder by the way.--TheEditor22 (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you want an opinion from someone else, post a new unblock request. I am happy to back off and let others decide. But you should know that making personal attacks and threatening to create more sockpuppets is probably not going to get you your way. Mangojuicetalk 15:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I attacked anybody personaly. I merely described a personality disorder. Perhaps you take things too seriously. That can be a sign of insecurity. Just an observation, I could be wrong. Anyway...like i said before, I made one mistake on here and now i'm supposed to be banned indefinetely? it's ubsurd. You know that I'm not going to be breaking the rules again, so what is your problem? If i dont get unblocked then i'm going to have to change my IP. I'm not going to be disruptive, but one way or another I will be editing on here again. Not causing trouble...editing. --TheEditor22 (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Also...my editing on the ACN inc article wasnt inherently wrong. I was providing NPOV from what I sourced and I engaged in discussions in the talk. I admit I went against the rules when I used sockpuppets. I never realised how serious that was. Had I realised I wouldnt have done it. Aside from that, I think I have been helpful on the articles that i have edited. There are people who edit pages and put in a bunch of crap. Just look at the ACN history. People have edited recently and just inserted a lot of complete ACN Propoganda. Essentially vandalism. And yet nobody seems to care. I consider that to far worse than what I did, and whats more, that was clearly a deliberate act against wikipedia. I am clearly being unnecessarily repremanded here --TheEditor22 (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I was trying to avoid commenting on you further but you seem to really want me to. Ok, I recognize you are promising to refrain from sockpuppetry. I have a hard time believing you for many reasons. First, you have used a sockpuppet to evade your block, and you have implied multiple times that you will continue doing this if you aren't unblocked: so I have little confidence that you wouldn't resort to sockpuppetry again if you are blocked again or put under stress in some other way. Second, you know what you are doing on here - Wikipedia takes some getting used to but you got off to a good start on things like formatting, use of sources, and so on. So I don't believe you could have thought sockpuppetry was not a problem, though I do believe you that you didn't realize how seriously we take it. Third: this is a single-purpose account with a battleground mentality and an agenda. I don't mean to imply that covering the controversies involving ACN isn't in Wikipedia's interests, but the problems were caused by you being overzealous in the conflict... and the fact that this is your sole aim on Wikipedia so far makes me concerned that there will be other problems in the future. I hope this clarifies that I do feel concerned you will break rules again. Mangojuicetalk 21:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- PS, the vandalism you pointed out on the ACN article has been reverted but I agree that is very concerning; I'll see what I can do about that. Mangojuicetalk 21:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I recognise your concerns Mangojuice. First off, I would like to clarify that I have contributed to other articles. IE the article on thorns. The purpose of this account is not to write about ACN, and in fact, you will notice that the first articles I edited on were unrelated to ACN. Regarding my knowledge of the wikipedia rules: I am fully aware of formatting and sources because I have been through university and am currently doing a postgraduate course. This is second nature to me. The spefific rules related to wikipedia I was not aware of, although, I'll grant you it is fairly obvious that sockpuppetry is not allowed. I guess I was not aware of the significance of this. You mention that I used a sockpuppet to evade my block. That is true, but I made no attempt to hide and I deliberately declared who I was. I didnt want to hide, I just wanted to be given a second chance. Anyway... whats with mango juice? It's not that bad, but i'd rather have orange juice.--TheEditor22 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Have you used any accounts previous to this one? Or were you previously editing without an account? Because although this account was created 1 May 2008, the only article you have edited is ACN Inc., and you only started on June 26th. Look for yourself: [1]. If you have privacy concerns, feel free to email me. Mangojuicetalk 22:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Got your email. I acknowledge you have made a couple of edits while not logged in, to pages other than ACN, Inc., but just a handful. Still, your primary purpose here is to edit about ACN. I also recognize you weren't trying to hide your block evasion, but you have subsequently threatened to change IPs in order to keep future block evasion from being detected. Mangojuicetalk 00:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It was an empty threat, and only in face of the prospect of an indefinite ban. Which is what I have. I think you're looking for excuses to keep me blocked. And if I really wanted to change IP's I would have done it already and I wouldnt be sitting here chatting to you. My primary purpose is not to write about ACN and that should be clear because I created the account over a year ago, and only recently started editing the ACN article. I don't edit wikipedia often, but obviously once i'm engaged in a discussion I will visit more frequently. I can see that you are determined to use anything you have, no matter how wooly, and escalate it into something you can use against me. Just unblock me, monitor my account if you wish, and you'll see that I follow the rules.--TheEditor22 (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- If I could be convinced that you know better ways to handle a dispute or frustrations like whatever it was that led you to sockpuppetry, that would help. Mangojuicetalk 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I've already explained myself on these issues, so i'm not going to keep repeating myself. I notice how you ignore things that don't agree your personal motivation to keep me blocked. --TheEditor22 (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I can unblock you if you can agree to the following. (1) If there are any more accounts you have that I'm not aware of, please reveal them. (2) Try to assume good faith of other users, especially the ones whose edits you oppose. A lot of times during the discussion you made unproductive comments that seem designed only to irritate or criticize the other editors, superfluous to the discussion. From the talk page archive, some examples: If this was the cold war I can tell that you would be Russia., to suit your purpose...which clearly is to hide the truth, I am going to take you down Insider..., In your face, What is wrong with you?, it goes on and on. Those comments are all inappropriate. See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and especially remember to comment on the contribution, not the contributor. If you have a legitimate complaint, there are channels. (3) Review WP:HARASS carefully and never cross that line again. You apparently violated WP:OUTING with your alternate accounts (I can't tell because those edits have been oversighted), and I noted you threatening Insider at one point to WP:STALK him to other articles he's interested in. That's also unacceptable. (4) Instead, if you reach an impasse in a discussion, pursue dispute resolution; there are ways to bring uninvolved editors in and seek additional opinions which can help break a stalemate.
- Obviously, all you can do at this point on these is agree to try your best, but I do want you to read the policy pages I've linked for you. You've already promised not to abuse multiple accounts again, and I acknowledge your latest comment as a retraction of your threat to evade the block. Mangojuicetalk 16:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, I should have gone through proper channels. I was very frustrated though, because of Insider's clear personal motivation to avoid any negative information being presented in the article. For example, I included a source of a Fox 11 news broadcast and sourced a youtube video (the only source of the video i could find at the time). I read in wiki rules that youtube videos are allowed if no other source can be found. Insider reverted it immediately, claiming I couldnt cite Youtube. When this attack failed, he the argued it was a copyright violation. Any normal and civil wiki editor would have helped me find the original source. Indeed, I did find it in the end. Once he couldnt argue for the broadcast not to be cited, he then critizes my representation of the video because I didnt include the views of two random people in the video who proclaimed that ACN was "a wonderful company". I represented NPOV by including the views of the company's lawyer. He was free to edit the article and expand on areas, but it was clear that his goal was to remove the reference. I don't have any other accounts. My brother has an account, but whether or not that's been removed I don't know. Like I said before, if my brother edits on any articles that im editing on then he will declare that we are related and using the same IP. This is in the wiki rules. I don't think I said I would stalk him. I declared that I would be editing in the Amway article. I have no idea whether or not he normaly edits this article. However, I feel very certain that my presence there would draw him to respond to my edits. Perhaps that would make him stalking me. I definetely had no intention of looking at articles that he edits or has discussion on, and then joining in. I didnt violate the outing rule, and I asked before for any evidence of this (I'm yet to receive it). Anyway, I've read through the wiki rule links I agree with all the points you've made.--TheEditor22 (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, then I'm unblocking. I noticed that exchange about the youtube video... Insider was getting two guidelines mixed up. Youtube is not an authoritative source, but Fox News is. And yes, we do try to substantially discourage the use of Youtube as a convenience link when there's a copyright violation... but it's just a convenience link in those cases. (After all, if you had provided no link at all, the source would still have been a good one.) I had assumed Insider edits the Amway article or related ones without looking. But whether he edits that article or not, it was clearly a retaliatory threat, so I hope you see my point anyway. Mangojuicetalk 20:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I see your point :) Thanks Mangojuice--TheEditor22 (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)