User talk:My name is not Alexander Hamilton

Luis Elizondo

I've noticed your many edits today to Luis Elizondo and am leaving two templates below for your information. I want to emphasize what is also said in the templates: I am not saying there's anything wrong with your edits. This is just a cautionary advisory that you are editing an article that falls into two distinct areas of contention: a biography of a living person that is fringe-related. If any editors object to your edits, please discuss it at Talk:Luis Elizondo to get consensus. Cheers. Schazjmd (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I tried to just do a lot of clean up and removal of biased/unsourced material. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you that if other editors objected, you needed to take it to Talk. NOT revert in turn. That's how edit wars start. I suggest that you undo your revert and concentrate on discussing on the talk page until consensus is reached. Also, this is not the start of a talk page discussion, it's inaccurately accusing another editor of vandalism, which can be considered personal aspersion. Please read WP:VANDALISM and learn what Wikipedia considers vandalism to be. Schazjmd (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169289811&oldid=1167347555

I mean... is that not a BLP violation I removed here? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a note here so as not to get lost in the jumble below. I've noticed your repeated mentions of "lifetime ban". That's not what's going on. Please see WP:INDEF for an explanation of what "indefinite" means in this context. Schazjmd (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite does not mean "infinite" or "permanent"; it just means that no automatic expiration time (or duration) for the block has been set. An indefinitely blocked user may later be unblocked in appropriate circumstances. In particularly serious cases in which no administrator would be willing to lift the block, the user is effectively banned by the community.

Well, if I'm blocked I won't make another account (because I assume that would make things worse, even if it's shown my ban was completely wrong) and I can't anyway as new accounts are blocked from me in the ban notice from being made (I assume by IP address filtering as cookies and other technological profiling can be trivially manipulated). And I like this username.

So until and when I'm unbanned, it is a de facto lifetime ban. If I ran around blowing up rules then sure, nuke my ass from orbit. But I literally can't find a single rule violation in my edits beyond getting snippy right back at someone who attacked me initially. That's it. We both got warned. Then some hours later, new person arrives out of nowhere, insults me further, drops some tirade about pseudoscience, and yes, lifetime bans me. Or "indefinite". An apple with blue food die injected as it matures from a flower into a blue apple remains an apple.

But the more I read about these policies today and the histories around that 'fringe' message board, I'm increasingly convinced I stepped in a wasp nest and am now getting attacked for, I guess, making effective policy-compliant edits. Which, again, once asked to "take it to talk", I readily did. I still got banned anyway, and again, for what seems to be a bad out of policy ban. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Schazjmd (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Schazjmd (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have no authority here. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have 85 edits, I have over 42,000. I have way more authoritiy than you do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't outrank the BLP policies kiddo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo

Reported. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are irrelevant, sorry. Reported. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the personal attacks, please. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 22:18, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you restore BLP violations? Did you read what you were restoring? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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 ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your on,y purpose here appears to be to normalize pseudoscientific nonsense. This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and I find the idea that this is your first account to strain believability beyond its breaking point. Even if I’m wrong on that, I’m not wrong about the effect of your edits and the amount of battleground mentality you have exhibited. Courcelles (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me one bad edit that I made to any article? What did I do? I made a bunch of tiny documented edits, some dude undoes them all and tells me to fuck off, and *I'm* the problem because I wanted to know what was going on? What did I do? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 03:33, 9 August 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).

My name is not Alexander Hamilton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have violated no rules. I spent several hours carefully fixing POV, neutrality and BLP issues on one article. Then one user reverted all the work without discussion, then personally attacked me. I Googled and looked up where to get help and then got attacked again for that. It was explained how some things work, I said awesome, and said I'll happily go through a slower line-by-line itemized way to fix the article, hence my properly asking (I thought) for a protected edit with careful policy-based explanations. Then this guy comes out of nowhere and blocks me not for any rules violation but because I am apparently "pushing pseudoscience" by making an article more neutral?! Can I please be unblocked? I just want to fix this article, make it a Good Article (now that I know about that) and then fix more articles after. Why am I blocked? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. Other users don't need to first discuss your proposed changes before removing them. It's up to you to discuss them to get them included. I'm not sure you're ready to edit in such a contentious area yet. I also have difficulty believing that this is your first account. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 9 August 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.

Requesting review by other people.

User:Courcelles has blocked me from editing Wikipedia? Because my first "project" was trying to make a single article neutral and better sourced, and then being baffled when multiple users dog piled and attacked me, including personal attacks?

See also blocking person getting questioned about this: User_talk:Courcelles#Another_block_query ... was I seriously blocked for trying to make this article neutral and citing the rules? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking admin is personally attacking me

See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Courcelles&curid=14414163&diff=1169438471&oldid=1169438377

Seriously, what the fuck did I do? I'm getting accused of I'm not even sure what, what POV am I supposedly pushing? Making the article match what sources say?

Please audit every single edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=1169365169&oldid=1167347555

The article was a non-neutral mess of what seem to be BLP violation until I did those 58 edits. That's it. There wasn't even anything else to do. Then some random guy accuses me of "white washing" (??) and calls me trash.

I am totally lost why I'm blocked. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t call you trash. I called the UFOs-are-real agenda bullshit, and it’s the most common type of pseudoscience being pushed here these days. You’ve been POV pushing a UFO narrative the entire time you’ve been here, at least under this username. Courcelles (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you called me trash. The other first guy who attacked me did. You are something like the eighth person to attack me today since I began editing Luis Elizondo.

WHAT am I pushing? Please, seriously, show me one article edit that violates any rule on what I have done over the past couple months since joining? Is it not obvious how frustrated I was that a bunch of stuff attacking the subject of an article was restored? Am I being targeted for making this article neutral? For following the rules? You obviously seem to some bias about this topic. Why are you attacking me? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second unblock request

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).

My name is not Alexander Hamilton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I genuinely am asking here to be unblocked. As far as I can tell I am blocked exactly for three reasons from the extremely limited communications I've gotten. 1-- I chose to edit in areas that apparently are a heated topic. 2-- Because I'm not appearing to be an idiot, and knew how to Google how a website works behind the scenes that's been around for a generation, but apparently missed the 'cultural' notes? 3-- And I know (mostly) how to use software (Wikimedia) that I've used in several professional environments, including installing and administering it? It's used on lots of intranets. I can't make heads or tails of what justified my being blocked. Because I got attacked (the user was warned for that) and snapped back? Because I sought help for what was going on, on multiple venues and didn't use what is the right protocol for that? Because, I'm told I can't handle editing? Seriously, this is nuts. I haven't broken any rules or even been told I've broken any rules. Still, no one has told me ONE rule I've broken or WHAT was even done to warrant a lifetime ban from Wikipedia? Please look at my short edit history. I've gone over every single article edit that I have made and I can't see a problem with them under any policy. After some veteran user got suddenly and urgently snippy with me, I snapped back, and was told to take the entire issue to talk venues, and I did. Then while I was trying to find help, a totally uninvolved user arrived, insulted me with a tirade about pseudoscience and banned for editing articles to be more neutral. I literally don't know what in the hell that I did wrong to warrant any lifetime ban. Multiple people in this section are giving totally different and unique reasons, and are cherry picking a couple of my edits in completely "made up" contexts, which I addressed here. I am a habitual notator, on everything, and carefully explained my edits in my edit history. Please look. It's not even long. I truly don't see a single violation of any policy I have read that warrants a lifetime ban and I do see atrocious violations of this sites "Assume Good Faith" stuff, now that I know about it aimed at me. From additional reading, I ask as well that I be unbanned as this entire ban seems to be completely afoul of this: Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Administrators'_role_and_expectations (copy/paste): : Administrators should seek to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment within contentious topics. Administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum. Before imposing a contentious topic restriction, administrators must consider whether a regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project. I literally did nothing except add one factoid to a single town article (which another editor upheld) from a reliable source, restored one stub article (that someone deleted, I don't exactly care and didn't go back), and then started fixing up Luis Elizondo -- here's all those edits of mine in one link. I still can't find anything wrong there and the revised article is easier to read, far more neutral, and concise. There's no fluffery. I myself asked for it to be protected (trivial to google process) and then asked for and explained why I wanted ONE edit of mine, the first one, put back in here. I truly don't understand on what basis I'm lifetime banned... for spending time learning how the site works quickly? It's not... exactly complicated procedurally (obviously the politics of editors are complex). The rules aren't exactly complicated. I just followed them and looked stuff up as I went. It's Wikipedia. Stuff IS easy to find. I just want to fix up articles. I even vowed to make this a Wikipedia:Good articles... and then afterwards everyone got frustrated with me, it seemed like. If I did something to warrant a lifetime ban from Wikipedia as a human -- fine. Asking for clear concrete non-manipulated examples of what I did wrong (see below for blatant cherry picking which I 'debunked') seems reasonable. Show me 'what' I did wrong and to whom and I'll apologize and fix it. A sudden no-warnings lifetime ban for doing nothing seems to be very much against the site's policies. And no, I don't think it's unreasonable for a new user to be referencing the things everyone references at them--like I have, before anyone uses that as an excuse to ban me. If there's a rule that new users have to act like or factually be idiots as proof of... something, I'd like to see that policy. Smart people edit Wikipedia too. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:WALLOFTEXT. Even if you had written an unblock request of an appropriate length, though, you still think you did nothing wrong and are still blaming everyone else. That's not going to work. See WP:GAB. Don't make another unblock request like this. If you have figured out why your edits were inappropriate and can convince us of this (in an appropriate length), you are free to make a new unblock request. Yamla (talk) 22:24, 9 August 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.

I’ve told you EXACTLY what you did. You’re POV pushing pseudoscience. here is a blatant, textbook, example. We have rules against pushing pseudoscience, dating back 15 years at least Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, and linked to above, in a warning you decided to disregard and continue to act as you had been. Courcelles (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm banned for asking for a single citation? Seriously? And for not knowing some what looks like a Wikipedia court precedent (?) from two decades ago?

Is that it? What on Earth POV is that which I pushed? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ufology. Your edits, in total, try to normalize that pseudoscience. Courcelles (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry.... what? Asking for a source there in that edit normalizes Ufology... how? What?

My edits to make the text in Luis Elizondo match the sources referenced.... advances Ufology? What even does that mean? I literally was just trying to make the article read as neutral and concise as possible, and was banned for that?? Whatever this beef is with whatever topic, aren't all articles supposed to be neutral?

THIS is what I'm banned for? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on -- "a warning you decided to disregard and continue to act as you had been."

Please cite (with link) what warning exactly that I "disregarded" and then (sic) "continue to act as you had been"?

Do you mean the edits? I was asked to stop and I did and went to the "talk page" like I was suggested to. I even laid out my case for the very first edit that I applied to that article. What did I disregard and "continue"?

Can I please get uninvolved administrators to review my history here and read my small number of edits to articles to let me know, so I can understand clearly, WHAT rules I broke, WHERE, and HOW? Because this makes zero sense. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is some sort of court of law, where individuals have to be 'convicted' for breaking specific 'rules' in order to be blocked. They don't. Admins (appointed by the community) have the discretion to block individuals on the basis that their ongoing behaviour indicates that they aren't willing and/or able to usefully contribute to the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't patronize. It is not helpful and seems intended to try to get some manner of escalation from me. You will not succeed.

Literally no one has shown me WHAT was done, which warranted any lifetime ban from this site, over any edits I made to any articles. I edited. Which, I thought, was what we did. See a problem: attempt to fix it. Some guy rolled it all back. I reacted in surprise. The guy starts lobbing personal insults at me. I was asked to discuss those edits on the "talk" pages and I did. I was doing literally what was asked.

Then out of nowhere, this other person named User:Courcelles arrives, angry and full of typos, and blocks me for "pushing POVs" and trying to "legitimize" UFOs (?) of which I did no such thing (??) and apparently making text on the articles match what sources said is what got me banned?

May I please get uninvolved people to weigh in here? I literally don't see any justification or explained justification for why one single person has summarily lifetime banned me from touching Wikipedia.... because I didn't understand some decades old Wikipedia cultural thing? Because I tried to make an article neutral? Because I wasn't submissive or something? I have no idea why I'm even banned.

Not one person has given me a clear straight unambiguous answer. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV doesn’t mean BLP’s must be scrubbed of criticism, or fringe claims must be taken at face value in WP’s voice. The essay WP:PRESERVEBIAS does a good job explaining this distinction. As a WP:SPA you’ve focused on the topic of UFOs with the obvious agenda of a POV warrior. For example, your earliest edits cherry pick a source to leave out mainstream explanations and emphasize the WP:SENSATIONAL claims [1]. You've removed citations from criticism [2] and then deleted the criticism as “unsourced” [3]. You’ve insulted editors who question your edits [4], [5]. Advocacy, deception, and battleground incivility: you’re a potential time sink for admins and a net loss for the project, i.e. WP:NOTHERE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False and disproven allegation by Lucky Louie

Wait, hold on. It's against the rules to start editing on one... set of topics? Was I supposed to edit random articles on like rocks or trees or pasta and demonstrate some diversity of interests? What? What the fuck is a POV warrior and how am I one?

For example, your earliest edits cherry pick a source to leave out mainstream explanations and emphasize the WP:SENSATIONAL claims [1]

What are you even talking about? This is nonsense and your review of that edit makes absolutely zero sense. I liked to National Public Radio (how is that not a valid source?) and Wade Goodwyn and added a single sentence about an event in that town. That's literally it. Someone I see edited it later, and the event is still there. Why is this even an issue?

Here you are lying and COMPLETELY misrepresenting and cherry picking this entire sequence of events as I edited the article. This is starting to feel like some organized attack on me or something.

You've removed citations from criticism [2]

1. In no realm of the English language or context is it "criticism" of Luis Elizondo that he stated something and said he could go no further due to it being classified. That's literally what people with classified access DO in public settings. You can say some things--not others. WHO is critical of Elizondo here? It's literally a sentence that says A) Elizondo said X, and then B) Elizondo said he cannot say anything past that. That's not a criticism at all.

2. You left off the LITERALLY NEXT EDIT, where I... moved that entire passage to a different section.

3. It's literally still there in my "final" version that two OTHER users started edit warring over. Control-F here for "invoked his security oath".

4. Yes, I removed it from the "criticism" section as its not criticism and then I moved it to what seems still to be a better section. Nothing wrong with that.

Yes, I snapped back at another "veteran" user after they insulted me. We were both warned for that. I accepted the warning. They erased it from their home page.

You are offensively and harmfully misrepresenting me, as I'm increasingly starting to believe others are. If there's a problem with my editing then ban me on the merits, not for making policy-compliant edits to Wikipedia. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for some discussions with uninvolved administrators

(And before anyone asks -- yes I Googled how to do this.)

Apologies if this is not the right way to do this. If not, please direct me in the right direction.

I would like to request that someone who is an Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED administrator (or others) to spend a bit of back and forth with me so that I can actually ask questions from uninvolved people of what, EXACTLY, that I did wrong to warrant a permanent ban on Wikipedia from my very limited amount of editing.

I honestly and truly don't get it, have yet to receive any non-hostile explanation of WHY my edits have led to my ban, and I keep getting told that I need to show what I did wrong... but no one is willing to tell me what I've done wrong in plain language. You can't just link some essay page and expect people to understand the surrounding culture.

Here's my contributions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/My_name_is_not_Alexander_Hamilton

Here's what I see, for my side of the context and point of view:

Background

Yes, to be clear, I know how to mechanically use the Wikimedia software suite. I've read this site since it was a site and have installed the software (not for years now) multiple times, and have administered and maintained it myself in professional environments (one very large and active installation). So that's why I know how to 'technically' maneuver. It takes two seconds to Google any policy, rule or other guidance.

One day in January, I decided to make an account because I had an idea for a silly name, and I frankly hated the new public-facing UI/skin/horror show, and wanted the basic classic one back. You need an account to do that, so I made an account. Then I screwed around with CSS, because that's kid stuff... and I know what common.css is, because I do. This isn't gnostic secrets or whatever. It's... Wikipedia. The most public site in the world.

Edits before Elizondo article

Yes, I was watching the news one night and they talked about the "UFO shootdowns". So, I did what we all do and wandered to Wikipedia. That led me to some article (I don't recall which) that led me to Template:2023 high-altitude object incidents. I left a question here and a compliment on 02/12/2023. Pretty basic stuff.

Then on April 1, I did something silly on my user page.

Then... I just read the site like always. One night in July, I was down some rabbit hole and looked up news stories about reported military activities where fighter jets went over residential areas after our neighborhood got overflight by several. We never do and are not in any standard flight path. So I went down that rabbit hole, and started seeing stories about "scrambled jets" for UFOs. So that comes around to Stephenville, Texas, and the apparently semi-famous story from there. I looked it up and found it was mentioned on the Disney+ documentary series on "UFOs". I watched the Texas episode... and the fact that whatever happened (reported UFO plus scrambled jets) was national news back in like 2006, even with the DOD conceding their denial of overlight was incorrect.

So I look up that Texas town, and no mentions. I look at history of the article, and there was, but it's gone. I look up next the Admin who did something with it, User:Deepfriedokra , who helped me out and gave me whatever material there was. That's all here. There was not much. I did nothing with that information and just kept reading and living.

I began reading articles about similar topics and (because it's all over the news) landed at Pentagon UFO videos. I made one single edit here asking for sources (and yes, I googled what 'template' to use--this stuff is trivial to find). Someone added sources and that was that. I didn't even know until I looked at that yesterday again. No other edits there.

A few days later of wandering these UFO-ish rabbit holes, I started looking "pre WW2" 'reports' on here and somehow wound up finding this thing about "Etherians". I restored the redirect and then someone later undid it. I don't particularly care that they did. I just thought it was an interesting read about weird old esoteric stuff with sources.

Another couple days later, I got around to reading the Texas stuff again, and added a single sentence to that article from the news reports.

Luis Elizondo edits

A few hours of reading later, I ended up a day and a half ago on Luis Elizondo, as he was featured in the documentary that I had watched. I noticed a bunch of curious remarks that everything he did was "claimed", which I had not seen on other articles. I picked one and read the attached sources. The Pentagon outright said he worked at the specific office that our article said he "claimed to work" at. Based on the fact the source--the United States DOD--confirmed he worked there, I made this trivial edit to change "claimed to work" instead to say "worked. I then left a confused question on the talk page here about all the "claims" and logged off.

The next day I began reading up on various policies of the site that I'd seen mentioned in the past and began going line by line through Luis Elizondo, looking up policies as I went and reading each source. The article seemed to be extremely non-neutral with a bunch of items that were or seem still to be WP:BLP violations.

Over three hours, I slowly made a bunch of small edits to remove unrelated content, make language "neutral", trim off a few BLP violations, and generally just fix the article to not look and read like crap. Here are all 58 edits. They're all documented--I left notes on like 95% of them. The only complaints I have seen about those edits, very specifically, were totally wrong as I proved here (the user claiming I abused Wikipedia did not even look at all my edits).

I still don't see anything wrong with those edits and no one seems willing to say what I did wrong with any of them. I'd love if anyone can tell me.

"Edit war"

While I was editing, User:Hemiauchenia in one single edit here rolled back all 58 edits that I did over three hours with the comment "No consensus for the changes, seems to be an attempt to whitewash the article". As far as I can tell, there's no rule that says I need advanced or "before" consensus to make changes to articles?

I then reverted his revert here, apparently I was in error, but the other user was not? I still don't understand that.

User:Hemiauchenia then reverted again, saying "I can do whatever the fuck I like. It would be far too laborious to pick through all your trash edits to try to find the good ones, so it's best to throw them all out." My talk page got testy after this, with us trading minor barbs. Both of us were warned by some Admin. My warning is still on this page. That other user deleted and disputed theirs.

I looked up rules (attempted to) around this, we went back and forth, and I saw and was asked to stop (I don't know if they were asked to stand down as well). I then posted to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for help as that seemed the correct venue. I then asked for page protection so there would be no more fighting. I did this thinking that was the correct action for a perceived WP:BLP violation. There was a bunch of back and forth across pages, and a bunch of users from the FRINGE noticeboard all began piling on me and cherry picking edits to paint me as having done... I'm not sure what. Apparently something wrong. The answers/justifications of my apparent guilt kept changing and I still don't have any solid answer of what I did wrong.

As suggested, I went to the Luis Elizondo talk page to start building the requested consensus with one extremely specific minor edit--the very first one I had made to change "claimed to work" to "worked".

Block by User:Courcelles

Out of the blue, this Admin permanently banned me, accusing me of not being here to "build an encyclopedia". They then left this on my page (verbatim copy/paste):

Your on,y purpose here appears to be to normalize pseudoscientific nonsense. This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and I find the idea that this is your first account to strain believability beyond its breaking point. Even if I’m wrong on that, I’m not wrong about the effect of your edits and the amount of battleground mentality you have exhibited.

I was then accused of somehow "POV pushing pseudoscience" and cited me asking for a source on Pentagon UFO videos as a "blatant, textbook" example. Then, that I am apparently trying to "normalize" (what does that mean?) the concept of UFOlogy.

I readily admitted prior to that (multiple times) that I snapped back at User:Hemiauchenia after they attacked me. All this chaos unfolded rapidly with multiple seemingly experienced editors jumping on my throat, quoting me and my edits (seen here on this talk page and other venues) incredibly out of context.

Unblock requests

On my first one, I outright am plainly befuddled and frustrated and had no idea what I'd done to warrant a ban. User:331dot declined my unblock citing WP:NOTTHEM, accusing me (I think) of being someone else and leaving me with no answers of what the hell I did wrong or what to do.

On my second, I tried to write out exactly what I was stuck on (and still am) of what I have done to warrant a permanent ban from editing Wikipedia. User:Yamla declined that saying I wrote too much and that I won't admit making mistakes (?) despite that I did once I knew I'd violated the insults rule and almost did the edit warring one. But that's not what User:Courcelles even said I was banned for. They said I can make a new unblock request when I can show I understand why my "edits were inappropriate".

This is my entire article history, all eighty (80) or so of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=My+name+is+not+Alexander+Hamilton&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=500

I still have no answer or information of what I even did wrong with any of those besides me and that user reverting over each other (which I have conceded, as said).

Why exactly did I get a permanent ban?

I can't answer the questions in these unblock requests because no one can or will tell me what I did wrong after that user and I reverted over each other. I have gotten something like five to ten competing and alternative explanations, with multiple accusing me of "POV". Can I please get some people to just engage with me and tell me what the fuck I did wrong that got me permanently lifetime banned off here? I can't do anything unless I know what I did that warranted this. My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC) My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were edit warring and wouldn't stop, and now you're wasting time. Also you're blocked, not banned, but I believe that was explained to you earlier already. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, I wouldn't stop? I literally did stop. Where did I not stop when asked on Luis Elizondo? How is it wasting time to try to get clarity on what I did wrong? If I am getting the ban/block terminology wrong, sorry. As long as this account is blocked or banned or whatever else, me, the human behind the account, is not allowed to use Wikipedia. If this account never gets unblocked, then for life I can't use this site. Are you suggesting I make a new account and abandon this one? My name is not Alexander Hamilton (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're a hero!!! Fight the good fight! Squelch dissidents! --Animalparty! (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS

UTRS appeal #77210 has been declined. JBW (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

I'm new here, but I was inspired to try my hand at editing since learning of the biased rhetoric being used against those journalist and military personnel prominent in the UAP topic. I just skimmed through your page and the flak you've been getting is astounding. I appreciate your efforts contributing to such an important and emergent topic, one that's even within the US congress.

Also, I have no idea what a barnstar is, but I saw it was a way to thank you, so I hope I'm not doing anything improper here. Atreon (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]