User talk:Jehmbo
Blocked as a sockpuppet
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Jehmbo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm not Zak Smith and I don't know Zak Smith either or any of these accounts. I have read his memoir and I do follow his work. I "fixated" on him because he's a subject in a screenplay I'm writing[1] (yes, we both live in LA--I like his work because he writes about the place I live) and I wanted to edit his page based on the research I'd done, but found it tied up in a mess of wikipedia stuff. So I learned about that stuff and tried to address it. As for a litigious tone, it's something I've adopted because I feel its encouraged by the form of this website. If it's like Zak's, I mean, I like his writing-style -- it's one of the reasons why I'm here in the first place... I wasn't doing extensive opposition research. That stuff took me 15 minutes to find. But I took my time writing it because I wanted it to go well. Anyways. I've used this username for decades online. Here are some other accounts. instagram[2] @jehmbo portfolio[3] jehmbo.com If I had to guess why I've been accused of this by the community its because of the aforementioned mess of wikipedia stuff on this subject's page. I'm not affiliated with anyone in that edit-war but I did try to do something about it because its led to the page getting tied up in misrepresenting a subject I know a little about. I still contend that there is an Apparent COI on the page [4] and that's why it's such a poor article. Pinging @TheSandDoctor: per their request on their talk page, if I'm understanding that correctly. I wish I would've been pinged. Jehmbo (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Whenever someone tries to get out of a sockpuppetry block with the "see, these are my other accounts with this name!", we have to basically say "So? What could that possibly prove?" C'mon, think about it ... it can only prove that those accounts exist. The same person trying to give us the impression you're a separate account from them could easily have created them to support that evidence. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2023 (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.
@Daniel Case: I suppose I can understand that, though it assumes a lot of conspiracy. However those links were shared in the spirit of "and the cherry on top is..." The primary portion of my request is providing non-sock puppet reasons for the "behavioral" evidence against me.[1] I'm sorry, but this decline is cherry picking.
Jehmbo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'd like to offer an explanation for the behavioral evidence levied against me. I'm not Zak Smith. I have read his memoir and I do follow his work. If I seem "fixated" on him its because he's a subject in one of the screenplays I'm writing and I wanted to edit his page based on research I did. There are other subjects I hoped to do that with (which is why this block is incredibly demoralizing...) I never got around to them though because I found this page a mess and being intimidatingly watched by someone I thought was breaking the rules--and then it turned out they were. If this is something FixerFixerFixer was looking at its because [someone should really give it a look]. Anyway my "litigious" tone , which supposedly I share with the person I'm accused of being, who happens to be jewish and why I find the characterization vaguely [antisemitic], is a tone I've adopted because I feel its encouraged by the form of this website. If I had to guess why I've been accused of this by the community its because of the edit-warring on the page. I still contend that there is an [COI] on the page and that's why it is such a poor article. Jehmbo (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Closing as unresponsive, you may make a new request if you would like to respond to the question below. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2023 (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.
What do you intend to edit about if unblock? Do you intend to write about Zak Smith or maybe something else? Vanjagenije (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would probably focus more on my other screenplay related topics of research— Greek Tragic Drama, Heian Era Japan, Early Internet Pornography. As for Zak Smith’s page I’d have to see the COI resolved before I felt comfortable enough to touch it. Jehmbo (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Would you accept a wp:topic ban on the topic of Zak Smith, wp:broadly construed, if unblocked? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for not responding - this has been kind of a frustrating introduction to editing on the website - I took a break.
- I don't understand - why should I broadly avoid an extremely niche page when it is one of the few topics I know about and it is clear I'm not there to disrupt it - I want to fix errors.
- I hadn't even made an edit yet - because it was so clear from the messy record of errors that people with notifications on watching it would accuse me of being a sockpuppet if they were contradicted. All I did was share readily-available proof that one of them bore the subject a grudge. The COI investigation, as a result of this block - instigated by the person with the COI no less - was ignored and has since been archived:
- [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=prev&diff=1136399785
- I feel like I'm being tested and I'm not sure if it is appropriate to do so. If I refuse the ban, then I must be a sockpuppet. But if I say yes, nothing is meaningfully adjudicated.
- I would consider a ban on the topic of MorbidThoughts' COI. But you must see this page is central to what I research in such a way that there's not much point to me editing at all if I can't do anything to bring it up to a professional standard. Jehmbo (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Would you accept a wp:topic ban on the topic of Zak Smith, wp:broadly construed, if unblocked? Vanjagenije (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)