User talk:Archangel1966

November 2023

Since you claim at the Help Desk to represent several people in connection with Wikipedia articles, then you must make the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. This is part of the Terms of use for this website. This disclosure is mandatory and non-negotiable. Disclosure includes the names of all of your clients and whoever is paying you to represent these people. Cullen328 (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not paid by them. I am an associate that assists them voluntarily. What I am attempting to address is the abuse of your platform by this small group of sock puppet accounts and closely associated editors that control the entire topic of Ufology,all prominent people affiliated with them. My associates are not proposing legal action. They requested I try to appeal to management at Wikipedia to draw attention to this situation. My associates are Luis Elizondo, David Grusch, Jay Stratton, Congressman Tim Burchett, Ross Coulthart, George Knapp, Jeremy Corbell, Hal Puthoff, Jacques Vallee. Any pro edits are summarily removed, casting them in the most negative light possible.

The editor with the multiple accounts is Mick West. His first known alternate is Hers Of Swine,which both were banned in 2006 for sock puppetry. These two accounts were reinstated in July of 2023, which his page commenting he hasn't edited since his ban. This is not true. In can easily prove his primary sock puppet account which user:LuckyLouie

The other suspected accounts that in part are Mick and/or a close group of others,that if query will observe just how prolific their control of thousands of pages are. They are: Archangel1966 (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Herd Of Swine, not Hers... Archangel1966 (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, was the list of additional editors I included at the end of my reply removed out of discretion or otherwise? I wish to ensure you have those for consideration. Archangel1966 (talk) 08:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you the right to claim that you "represent" these people then? Do you have signed written agreements from each and every one of them agreeing that you have the power and authority to represent them on their behalf without compensation? What evidence are you willing to provide here that you actually have that authority? Here on Wikipedia, we insist on solid evidence for such sweeping claims. Cullen328 (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, you never included that list of "additional editors", Archangel1966. See your edit here: no list. But you have stated you "can easily prove" LuckyLouie, a prolific editor, is a sock of MickWest. Go ahead and prove it right here and now, please. You're not allowed to make aspersions without evidence on Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 10:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Based upon this editor's combination of WP:NOTHERE editing history, their not-so-subtle legal threat here their aspersions against LuckyLouie here and here, and their attempt to canvass a topic-banned editor here, I suggest that a block be applied now (and perhaps a check-user analysis would also be reasonable) to prevent further disruption. Or should I take it to ANI? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I'll take it to ANI in a moment... JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also Herd of Swine was never blocked, right? Bon courage (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never blocked. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Archangel1966 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was attempting to bring attention in good faith to a long studied concern I wished to address with admin editors. I followed the guidelines, to which the editor instead of allowing me to explain myself fully when questions were asked of me, instead the editor brought in the other two editors I had concerns with, of being sock puppet accounts of users blocked from the platform in 2007. They in my opinion acted in bad faith for reasons I cannot explain, especially if my concerns are unfounded. I cannot speak to specific policies this I do not think was appropriate, but blocking me as a new editor with a genuine concern for this entire platform which I hold a sincere interest in, instead of investigating my claims is not in the spirit of the policies, which I did spend a lot of time reading beforehand. I have no intention to openly air my grievances. I did write my concerns out without naming anyone again on my own page, somewhere? If inappropriate place, then please remove it. I would sincerely request I be given a private audience with an impartial admin editor to advance my evidence for why I suspect what I do. My suspicions can be located wherever it was archived, not by me.

Decline reason:

Unblock requests are not discussed in private, unless sensitive personal information is involved- in which case a request may be made via WP:UTRS. If you are not prepared to discuss your grievances here or on UTRS, there is nothing we can do for you. If you are alleging libelous statements against those that you represent, see WP:LIBEL for instructions on how to deal with it(you don't need to be unblocked to do that). 331dot (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2023 (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.

Please do not talk about other articles or canvas

I've removed your latest edit and will have to remove your talk page access if this continues. Doug Weller talk 08:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]