User talk:ElPasoWalt
Welcome!
[edit]
|
—Sadat (Masssly)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
April 2014
[edit] | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. DP 16:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC) |
ElPasoWalt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
My account is not a "sock Puppet" account and should not have been blocked. I am an individual with an opinion who came here to express my beliefs about an action I believe to be contrary to the apparent purposes of Wikipedia, which seems to be the dissemination of factual and informative information to the public. According to the guidelines provided, Blocking should not be punitive. I see this action as punitive for 1. In being in retaliation to me for stating my opinion on a particular subject. 2. It seems to be done specifically as a warning to others to not express their opinions on a particular posting. 3. It appears to be punishment for expressing my opinion about the deletion of a particular page, and 4. This could even be for my accidental deleting of a page, for which I have requested undeletion and explained that that action was totally an accidental act. Your guidelines state that "Blocks should be preventative. 1. "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia:" No such 'imminent or continuing damage' has occurred. 2. "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior:" there is no 'present, disruptive behavior,' including offensive language, or name-calling, which I have observed in numerous posts which are allowed to continue. 3. "and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms:" If my "intelligently" written thoughts and comments do not 'encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms,' then please explain to me what does. The only possible controversy I can see is in the accusation of "sockpuppetry." Wikipedia has defined sockpuppetry as "persuading friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute." I have done no such thing. I am a single entity individual who has opened one account here, and one account only, to argue against a deletion that I find unnecessary and unfair. I have neither asked or encouraged any other person to come here and make any comments on any subject whatsoever. For anyone to say that my comments appear to indicate sockpuppetry indicates that that person is simply unaware, has not checked facts (such as IPs,) and has no idea whether such an accusation is true. Such an accusation appears to me to be more of an attempt to silence a contributor than to be an actual real and true evaluation of a specific contributors validity. Simply because others come here and express a like opinion in no way indicates that I had anything whatsoever to do with those people coming here, or that I even know those people. ElPasoWalt (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC) To any one who will listen. I cannot believe that this has reached this depth of insanity. It seems to have started when I was informed that a certain page had been (unfairly) deleted. I came here to post reasons why I feel that the deletion should be rescended. Several others apparently came here and opened accounts for the same purpose. So apparently, someone at Wikipedia attributed all of those pages to me and blocked me, labeling me a sockpuppet - without even checking to see if that might be true. It was an arbitrary action apparently by one member of Wikipedia. So now I can't even defend myself, except here. I accidentally deleted a page. When I realized my mistake, I looked around and found a page to request an un-deletion. I did so. Now I find that someone who did not sign his comment basically stated several total untruths and denied my request. His statements: 1. "Seriously, you never even edited that page using this account...." Seriously? To you? This is the comment (edit) that I made to the subject page. "- Keep - As a personal friend of Sara Jay, I find her to be a deep and warm and caring person. She has worked hard to get where she is and has earned numerous awards in her chosen industry. She is notable in the industry for her accomplishments. If someone doesn't want to review her page, they are free to go somewhere else. Personally, this seems to smack of censorship. I never thought Wikipedia would stoop to censorship. There was nothing vile or dirty or offensive on her page. I don't know all of the acronyms and legal hoopla people are using, but I know that Sara deserves to have her page, as a notable person in her chosen industry. ElPasoWalt (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)" A check of the date/time stamps will show that I made my edit before you made your comment. You didn't even look over the article to see if I had "edited." 2. " - but then again, you have multiple accounts, don't you." I do not have multiple accounts at Wikipedia. This person has made this accusation without even checking into the facts. It appears to me that Wikipedia has the ability to check IP addresses (IPADDS.) It would seem to be a simple action for Wikipedia to check the IPADDS of myself and whatever other accounts he is talking about. If he would, he would find out they are all different, as I only have the one account. He has basically accused me of wrong doing with no facts to back himself up, and with no attempt to actually check the facts. 3. "On top of that, you have zero access to a "delete" button...." Again, as he likes to say, Seriously? This is the exact copy of the location where I found the "delete button." "Comment to closing admin I have added above single-purpose accounts created for purpose of voting 'keep' here to CheckUser request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ilovepitts. jni (delete)...just not interested 09:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)" In the actual post, the delete button is very small and is next to the "jni" notation. I was going to click on the Ilovepitts link to read about that user. My hand moved a bit as I clicked and I hit that "delete" button. And yet, the above individual states that I "...have zero access to a delete button." If this is a Wiki administrator, does he even know the site he is supposedly administrating? Did he even look over the page to investigate whether or not that might have been possible? As an added note, I sit in my easy chair, with my mouse on the arm (laptop,) not at a flat, level hardtop desk. So, sometimes this happens. It has just never happened before with these results. This is the page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sara_Jay" Scroll down to the first "Speedy Delete" and you will see, at the end, another small "delete." Keep going down to "Comment to closing Admin" and you will see where I made my mistake. 4. "Finally, that article was subject to WP:MFD because of sockpuppets and recreation multiple times. DP 16:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)" I really have no idea what that last comment even means. "recreation multiple times?" What does that mean? "Sockpuppets?" Where are they? Where is your investigation and where are your facts? Lastly, user ″Fuhghettaboutit″ came there and defended me, and I truly appreciate that. However, because I have been blocked, I cannot go to his page and make an entry thanking him. Hopefully he will see it here. Thank you for listening. It is a shame that a supposed trustworthy site like Wikipedia seems to depend on such loose journalism as this. They are not only deleting pages they don't like, based on a few small-minded individuals, but are attempting to quiet and actually belittle anyone who speaks against that. Pretty sad. ElPasoWalt (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have confirmed above that you registered an account solely at the request of another editor, solely to take a side in a deletion dispute. Wikipedia's policy is that this is not acceptable.
You have also confirmed that you came here to support a friend, which means that you had a conflict of interest in the topic under discussion. That is also unacceptable.
Nothing in your unblock request suggests that you are here to improve Wikipedia in accordance with its policies and guidelines. On the contrary, you describe the deletion of a repeatedly-deleted page as "a few small-minded individuals", which suggests a disregard for Wikipedia's policies add for our decision-making processes. Since you ae not here to build an encyclopedia, I see no reason to remove the block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 14 April 2014 (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.
Um... Fuhghettaboutit was being sarcastic, because we know full well that there is no way that you could possibly "accidentally" delete a page, because you are not an administrator. The "delete" next to jni's signature is simply a link to jni's deletion log. Jni is an administrator. You are not. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)