User talk:Getfit1980
Thanks for finding a source for the info on Amy Molen. Please note I reverted your other edits to Bill Phillips (author). If you wish to make widespread changes to the article in the future, please dicuss your edits on the articles talk page. Deleting material for which there is a reliable source could be considered vandalism. The Phillips article is the target of a number of "new" editors with a conflict of interest with the subject (ie: writing it like a press release, removing sourced information - usually to write the article so as to remove and modify any references to steroids, Muscle Media, TC Luoma, Dan Duchaine bodybuilding etc.), and as such sweeping changes should be discussed before being implemented. --Yankees76 (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Getfit1980 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, This concerns the Wikipedia page of the author Bill Phillips: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Phillips_(author) For more than four years, user Yankees76 has insisted on being the primary contributor to the page. In that time, Yankees76 has displayed extreme bias against Bill Phillips. As the Revision History clearly shows, Yankees76 promptly deletes/undoes any good faith additions to the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_Phillips_(author)&action=history Once these objections were raised on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Bill_Phillips_.28author.29 Yankees76 wasted no time in labeling them "ludicrous accusations." However, despite Yankees76’s aggressive response, there has been an interesting development. Over the past weeks, the Bill Phillips page has been edited to remove some of the more egregious claims. A happy ending, right? Wrong. As soon as my objections were raised on the BLP Noticeboard, Yankees76 wasted no time in accusing me of being a sockpuppet of Chloe81375. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chloe81375/Archive The charge is false. I have no idea who Chloe81375 is. Nevertheless I have been blocked. I understand Wikipedia’s policies regarding neutrality and biographies of living people. I also understand the futility of edit warring. But in the case of the Bill Phillips page, a single contributor has repeatedly added troublesome material over an extended period. And has now unfairly had me blocked. Your help in unblocking my account would be greatly appreciated.
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but your unblock request is focused too much on other editors. You request should focus solely on your behavior. Furthermore, you will need to discuss your relation to Chloe81375 (if any), showing how you are not her. TNXMan 16:37, 30 June 2010 (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.
Getfit1980 (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but my sockpuppet accusations are completely fair and founded. I went through the proper channels and an admin, looking at your edacted posts where you post my alleged personal information drew the obvious conclusion that you indeed are also Chloe81375, and since that user name was blocked indefinitely for releasing alleged personal information about me, you too are also blocked, along with a number of other confirmed sockpuppets who coincidentally have only edited the Bill Phillips article in the same fashion as you.
Posting another person's personal information is harassment and threats to out an editor are treated as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly. I'm not sure why you feel the need to have a personal vendetta against me, but I won't be intimidated by editors who do not assume good faith and who use threats and false accusations to get the edits they want instead of working with other editors to form a consensus. I'm more than happy to work towards consensus with any editor on any article, and since your wild and baseless allegations were first posted, some minor changes have been made to the Bill Phillips article, however they were done through civil discussion – not edit warring and not widespread blanking and censorship of sourced material (what you're calling "good faith" edits). --Yankees76 Talk 18:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Getfit1980 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
To update Bill Phillips' page with new book information
Decline reason:
Request does not addres the reason for your block.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:20, 30 June 2010 (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 apologies for focusing on other editors. My reason for requesting an unblock has to do with updating the Bill Phillips page with information about his new book and website. As for my relation to Chloe81375, I have none. I have no idea who this person is. I'm sure an IP check would resolve that. Also, I have no knowledge whatsoever of the above claim about posting personal information. Thanks for your time. Getfit1980 (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- It may be impossible to IP check, as all of Chloe81375's posts have been deleted/redacted from Wikipedia. However what's interesting is that the posts of Chloe81375 "outing" me as TC Luoma have been redacted, meaning that they have been removed from Wikipedia's history, so that only certain administrators can view what was posted - making the number of individuals who knew the content of what was posted there extremely small (mostly confined to the user who posted it, admins and myself). Chloe81375 was then blocked (14:14, May 31, 2010). Then on June 2, you insinuate that I'm TC Luoma while making the same accusations in the redacted posts by Chloe81375. Seeing as how there is no real evidence in either my editing patterns or evidence on my talk page to suggest that I am Luoma; then only the individual who posted the alleged personal information would know to insinuate a connection to that individual - meaning that you posted the alleged personal information and continued the outing during your personal attack on me here.[1].
- In addition, a number of user accounts did positively match IPs with Chloe81375 - including User:Susan6235 a virtually identical user name to another editor - User:Susan2341 who's edits and content removal patterns in the article are nearly identical to yours. This isn't even mentioning the suspected and checkuser confirmed sockpuppets of Chloe81375 [2],[3] who nearly all have user names with a word/name followed by a 3-5 digit number. Who else do we know who edits the Bill Phillips article, removes the same information and references, and has a word followed by a random number 3-5 digit number in their user name? I think you'll find that there is plenty of evidence that shows your Chloe81375. --Yankees76 Talk 22:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I think with an involuntary mentorship, you could be a respected editor here. However these accusations against me need to stop. The material I've added is not only verifiable, but it also represents fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the subject. So far you've painted the picture of my edits as being nothing but unsourced egregious claims - which is an outright lie and a personal attack. If you're Bill Phillips or your work for Phillips, you need to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or promoting yourself, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. A neutral point of view does not mean we remove all material that does not portray the subject as a saint. That in fact would violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy just as much as an article that focuses on just one negative aspect or event. There's a reason why Wikipedia has a Conflict of interest policy. You should give it a read and ask yourself if your edits, and your accusations against other editors are the result of a conflict of interest and wether or not your edits are entirely encyclopedic. Considering that they're confined (as are the sockpuppets you're accused of using) to one article alone are you here to improve Wikipedia or are you here to promote your own (or your employer's) interests?
I tell you what - if you pledge to take a mentor by joining WikiProject User Rehab and work as part of a collaboration with other editors on not just the Phillips article, but other articles as well, I would actually endorse you being unblocked. However, if you insist on following your current path of accusing me of adding "troublesome" material and continue to not assume good faith, I will continue to remind administrators about your attempted outing/posting of personal information of one editor and threats to post the personal information of another. Give me the go ahead, and I'll add you to the Candidates for rehabilitation section and hopefully we can work together to make the Phillips article even better than it already is. --Yankees76 Talk 23:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Getfit1980 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Accusations are false
Decline reason:
I've just reviewed every edit this account has ever made. I'm convinced you are either a sock of some sort or a troll whose only purpose here is to push a particular point of view. It doesn't really matter which since neither are welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2010 (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 been asked to discuss my relationship to Chloe81375, who was blocked. I have no idea who this user is. I've also been associated above with User:Susan6235 and User:Susan2341. Again, these users are unknown to me. I have never posted personal information about any user. A check of my IP address would make that clear. Please consider this a good-faith request to be unblocked.