User talk:Anon385385

Welcome!

Hello, Anon385385, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not reliable sources

Blogs do not meet our standards for reliable sourcing. Do not remove the BLPPROD template again unless you can cite a professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic source. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing we are sourcing right now is whether she exists or not. And this is her personal blog. We can edit the physical information but this proves without any doubt that she 1) exists, which proves that she was also 2) an All Japan Women's wrestler and her wrestling name is 3) Jumbo Hori. Wikipedia says blogs can be used as sources.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_self-published_blogs 2nd source from a Japanese newspaper/magazine.

Existence isn't good enough, notability needs to be demonstrated.

Saying that there is a newspaper/magazine is absolutely useless. Is it a newspaper or a magazine? What's the name of said newspaper or magazine? What the date and number of the issue? What's the article's title and page number? Who's the author? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All here ^ 2012年11月14日付の日刊ゲンダイに掲載されたインタビュー記事では「（デビュー当時）175cmしかないのに、会社の命令で180cm、80kgを自称させられた」と答えている。

 I can translate it for you if you like.

I already did. That's not a citation, that's just another claim. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is from Nikkan Gendai 11-14-2012. We can edit out the height and weight if that is the issue. Their website is www.nikkan-gendai.com and this is their wiki https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/日刊ゲンダイ.

At this point we need specific complaints and solutions. Accusations and bannings are not going to get us anywhere. I'm prepared to spend as much time on this as necessary.

I am thinking we need to get a third party moderator involved as well.

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).

Anon385385 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unproven accusation and possible personal issue

Decline reason:

I didn't block you. My prior interaction was with Rzombie1988, and the block was justified because he act like a grown up, play nice, or follow simple instructions -- the only personal issues there were his own. Now, if you think that's a personal issue with you, that and your similar refusal to do your own work are proof enough. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It says this account is blocked.

Indeed it is. Wasn't me, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to accuse you of it baselessly since you have done that to me.

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).

Anon385385 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

no proven allegation and this user is deciding his own blocks. Third party needed. Would like to discuss but am blocked from other users talk pages. No idea how this ties into another user.

Decline reason:

You were blocked by a third party, at the behest of a fourth party, both of whom had no prior involvement with you -- not by me. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 actually would like to get this article up but this does not seem to be about the article anymore.

Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user is accusing me of being another user, user blocked me so I cannot talk to another mod about this and user is somehow involved with another moderator blocking me

I haven't accused you of anything. You were blocked by a completely different user, per the conclusions of this sockpuppet investigation. So that's a third party that blocked you based on the conclusions of a fourth party. Baseless accusations are rather in line with Rzombie1988, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has blocked me by accusing me of being another user. I am unable to discuss this with another moderator and Ian refuses to get another moderator over here to discuss this. I feel there is a big conflict of interest here.

But what you have done is you have blocked me so I cannot discuss it with anyone else.I have contacted Wikipedia about this.

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).

Anon385385 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User Ian.thomson has blocked me so I cannot discuss this issue with another moderator. There is a very clear conflict of interest here and Ian has seen to it that I was blocked without any facts, just accusations and personal issues. He is also relentlessly accusing me of being another user. Would like another mod to come here to discuss this as Ian.thomson has a conflict of interest here.

Decline reason:

You know, when you say stuff that is proven to be false, it doesn't make you look smart. If you click this link, it will show who blocked this account. The only person mentioned on this page who I blocked was Rzombie1988. Either I did not block you, or you are Rzombie1988 -- you can't have it both ways. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) Hi Anon385385. I am not an administrator, but I will see if I can explain what has happened. You were not blocked by Ian.thomson; you were blocked by another administrator named Oshwah for misusing multiple accounts based upon Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rzombie1988. You can verify this for yourself by looking at the top of your account's contribution page at Special:Contributions/Anon385385. Another editor named GeneralizationsAreBad is the person who started the sock puppet investigation (SPI) requesting that your account be checked, not Ian.Thomson. In fact, Ian.Thomson did not add any comments at all in that SPI. My guess as to why you were blocked is because Oshwah did a checkuser on all of the two accounts listed in the SPI and determined that techinical evidence existed to connect the accounts. This and the fact that there were other strong similarities between the two accounts based upon WP:DUCK are probably why Oshwah decided to block you. I have pinged Oshwah in this discussion, so perhaps he will post something clarifying why you were blocked.

So, what can you do now in the meantime. I think there are two possibilities.

If, by chance, you are the same person as Rzombie1988 and did create/use mutiple accounts in violation of relevant Wikipedia policy, then there is no chance for this account ever being unblocked. Additional accounts created for inappropriate purposes are never unblocked. What you will need to do is request that your original account be unblocked. An indefinite block does not mean forever, but you will need to convince the reviewing admin that you understand why you were blocked, now realize using multiple accounts inappropriately was wrong, and clearly state that you do not intend to do the same thing a good. If you do that, then it's quite possible that the reviewing admin will offer you some conditions on what you need to do to be unblocked and perhaps even Wikipedia:Standard offer.
If you are not connected to Rzombie1988 and have not been misusing multiple accounts, then you can request that this account be unblocked. However, since the account was blocked for sockpuppetry, that probably means that Oshwah did find strong evidence connecting the two accounts together, perhaps even stuff he is not allowed (per Wikipedia policy) to discuss on a talk page. If this is the case, perhaps you can request assistance per Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System.

When an editor has been blocked, it's important for them to try and follow Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and Wikipedia:Appealing a block, and more even importantly to try and remain calm. Lashing out at others, even if they have lashed out first, is not going to bring that editor any closer to being unblocked. If anything, such a thing is only going to have the editor's ability to edit their user talk page taken away. The only thing to do is follow proper process and see what happens. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Oshwah did not conduct a CU, as he is not a checkuser. He merely agreed with my assessment that these two accounts are obviously operated by the same person. GAB^gab 03:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarifying that. I didn't realize that this editor had their talk page access removed while I was typing the above, so it's probably a moot point now. If the same person is behind both accounts, they will have request that the Robzombie account be unblocked. If not, they will have to use UTRS to make an unblock request. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello, I'm Oshwah. An edit you recently made to Jumbo Hori seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am being targeted by Ian.Thompson. He has blocked me so I cannot talk to anyone about this and seems to have taken a personal issue with another user and involved me in it.

Congrats, you found Oshwah, who is the user who blocked you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

I've removed your talk page access since you apparently can't tell the difference between the names "Oshwah" (the person who blocked this account) and "Ian.thomson" (the person who blocked Rzombie1988), or else do understand the difference but are unable to comprehend that complaining about me blocking you is good evidence that you are Rzombie1988. Regardless, if you want to appeal, you need to wait six months without editing any part of the site, think really hard about what you did wrong, appeal under your original account (Rzombie1988), explain what you did wrong that got you justifiably blocked, and explain what steps you will take to make sure you do not do those things again. Trying to blame anyone else will only cause you to be ignored. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]