User talk:Shane1261994

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wells Fargo Place. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it (by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Wells Fargo Place, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenora Thistles

February 2020

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

ST47 (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2020 (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).

Shane1261994 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Alright, my block has now been extended to indefinite status, which again I believe is a vast overreaction. Here's the deal , I will avoid all further edits to the Kenora Thistles article if unblocked. I would really just like my account back. Even though I did source my last edit, it seems that a particular admin blocked me anyway. Due to the complete authority admins have over other users, I don't wish to fight it further and just want to move on. I have made several great contributions to wikipedia as anyone can see in my edit history. I would like to continue doing so without further debate over this specific edit. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I don't find your responses here convincing and don't think you have done what Huon has asked. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2020 (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.

The edit isn't the only issue anymore. And if you don't want to edit that article anymore, fine, but that doesn't resolve the fact that the source didn't say what you claimed it said- which is an issue that could recur regardless of the article. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with you that my source is incorrect, but again, in the interest of putting this behind me, I will just accept your assertion and move on. Once again, I have consistently given helpful and detailed edits on wikipedia. And I would like to continue to do so, so can we please move on from this?Shane1261994 (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly free to decline to answer any questions you wish- but I don't think that avoiding the issue will help get you unblocked. However, that's only my opinion, it will be up to the next reviewer. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You Didn't ask me a question! What question am I avoiding? Shane1261994 (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my poor word choice; I should have said "concerns" instead of "questions". 331dot (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well go back into my history, you will see no further evidence of anything out of line. There is no reason to continue the block when I said I’ll refrain from editing the article until I have a proper source with proof. I’m totally fine with that.

To me it looks as if you repeatedly added nonsense to an article, when challenged added a plausible-seeming but fake source (I read the source, that's how I know - p. 175 doesn't even mention the team at all, much less say they are called "Whippersnappers") to the nonsense, when blocked engaged in sockpuppetry (we heard the "it's a family member" defense before, and even if it were true, it would still be sockpuppetry), at the same time doubled down on the fake source while crying "admin abuse" and at no point took responsibility for your own conduct, something you even explicitly say you don't want to discuss. At this point you should do one of two things: Either convince us that, despite appearances, this is not what happened. Or convince us that you can be trusted to edit constructively despite the blatant dishonesty you displayed. I imagine neither will be easy, and "I'll just edit other topics" gives no assurance that you won't add nonsense to those other articles and won't fake sources again. The unblock requests so far have been a waste of admin time bordering on trolling; if that doesn't change soon, I'll put a stop to that time wasting. Huon (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, well again, look at my previous edit history. You will find ONLY constructive and helpful additions to Wikipedia in the past. A pattern of good behavior and then a single instance of a mistake doesn't warrant an indefinite ban, wouldn't you agree? Thus, I'm not sure how you want me to prove it beyond that. I think my long history speaks for itself. I have communicated clearly my reasons for petitioning for an unblock, and I am following the protocol to the letter. Again, this is a single instance, I find it incredibly unfair that I am blocked indefinitely. I made a mistake, and I apologize for the time that was wasted as a result. Thus, I am advocating we move on without wasting any more time, because I would like to reclaim this account as opposed to creating another one, and continue my positive additions to Wikipedia. Shane1261994 (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implying that you will just create another account if this one isn't unblocked doesn't help your case. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, if I'm blocked on this account, does that mean I'm blocked from editing Wikipedia on any account ever again? I'm just upset at the lack of clarity going on here. I have been contrite and I do apologize for the edit war and the wasted time. I just don't know what I'm expected to do at this point beyond offering my 10 year history on Wikipedia as evidence, and giving my word that I won't do this again. Shane1261994 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The block is on you as an individual, not just your account. If you create another account while this one is still blocked, it is block evasion. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I didn't know that. Can I please have some clarity though on what further steps I should take? Is my long history not enough? Shane1261994 (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from blocking rules: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." I was blocked by the administrator involved with the content dispute. Doesn't this constitute an improper block then? Shane1261994 (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit appeared to be vandalism as it added information not supported by a source- it is not "involved" to revert vandalism. Huon explained what you can do pretty well above. As Huon indicated, it's not enough to avoid the issue, you need to confront the issue so an administrator can be assured that you will not have the same issue on other articles. Whether you want to do that or not is, of course, up to you. You can certainly take your chances and hope to be unblocked as your request is now. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well here, let me confront it. I apologize for the edit war and the incorrect citation. I should have done my diligence and obviously I did not. I will make sure all of my edits are properly sourced from now on. That and my contribution history is all I can offer, I feel like it should be enough. Shane1261994 (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, how long until my unblock request is addressed? I’m kinda hanging in limbo here. Shane1261994 (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, if my requests are repeatedly being declined, and I am blocked indefinitely, what specifically should I do as a next step? I haven’t been given any specifics here, and I would like to continue using the site. Can someone please give me a specific directive? How haven’t I done what I was asked to do? Shane1261994 (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to Huon's question, I submitted my long and stellar editing history on this sight. I apologize for going against Wikipedia rules, I was unaware of some of the implications (such as a block on an account meaning a block on a person). I had never even heard the term sockpuppetry before. Now, I am aware of these rules and would like to follow them. Nobody has responded to my edit history as evidence. I have created articles on this site, made numerous helpful edits from smaller errors to large information contributions. I think my time as a whole on this site has been very positive. That's why I appealed, and I thought that answered their question. I should have checked my sources, I should have not engaged in an edit war, and it hasn't happened before that, and it won't happen again. Shane1261994 (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say any more than I have. You are still able to make another unblock request for others to review. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I can’t though, because Huon threatened me if I make another request he will block me from my talk page. Shane1261994 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly what Huon said, they said that if the requests are a waste of time, that they would end your access to this page. So don't make your request a waste of time. It doesn't sound like you have much more to lose at this point. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So quick question, if I choose to do nothing and just wait, does an indefinite block constitute basically a permanent ban? The terminology is very confusing to me, as is the “indefinite” nature of the block. Will someone eventually release the block after a certain amount of time has passed? Thanks. Shane1261994 (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The block being indefinite only means it has no specific end date; it will remain until you make a successful unblock request. If you do nothing, the block will remain. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you denied my last request, can you give me insight as to what specifically I should do to make my next request successful? Shane1261994 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say any more than I (and Huon) already have. If you have more luck with another, heretofore uninvolved administrator, fair enough. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what you are saying is that, if I choose to do nothing but just wait, that would constitute me being permanently banned from Wikipedia as an editor? Shane1261994 (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you do nothing, nothing will change. You will remain blocked and not permitted to edit Wikipedia (except this talk page to contest the block). Huon (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

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).

Shane1261994 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked on Wikipedia months ago now for using an alternate account (something I know now is very much against the rules) and edit warring with another user who was an admin, and instituted a block. Following the advice of some articles on the site regarding blocks and some other users, I stepped away for a while to establish I would not continue to attempt to create alternate accounts to circumvent my block, and now I'd just love my account back so I can go back to editing. I have been a user on Wikipedia for over 10 years now, and have contributed many meaningful and important elements to the site (including creating a page). I apologize for my mistakes and actions, and would just like to go back to normal. I fully understand the rules and I am more than prepared to follow them.

Decline reason:

As far as I can tell, you were blocked for fabricating citations and sock puppetry, which is a bit different than your version of events. Alternate accounts are allowed; however, pretending to be someone else or evading a block is not. Please make a new unblock request that addresses the accusation that you have knowingly added sources that do not verify the content you added. For example, in this edit, you cited "Wong 175". Please copy the sentence from this source that says the Kenora Thistles were known as the Whippersnappers. The source that you cited is available on the internet, and I can't find this statement in it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2020 (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.

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).

Shane1261994 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This will serve as an addendum to the previous unblock request. The source does not say the thing I was claiming, I was simply attempting at the time to see whether the user who was undoing my additions to the article was doing so without doing research. I understand this is a clear violation of the rules now, but at the time I was frustrated by the edit war I was engaged in. Also, yes, the alternate account was used to evade a ban, I admit. I am not an expert on the lexicon of Wikipedia, so sorry for the confusion. All in all I admit to the charges against me, but would ask for another chance. I was ignorant of many of the rules of Wikipedia then, I assure you I am not now. I take full responsibility, but would also like to go back to making helpful contributions to the website, which I submit my full edit history as evidence that I have made many meaningful contributions, and this is a one-time fault on my part.

Decline reason:

This is a little concerning. To put it bluntly, you repeatedly inserted false information into a featured article, with an abusive sock account, and then your primary account. When challenged, you inserted a fake reference. When blocked for vandalism, you simply used your sock account to again insert the fake reference. Once that was blocked you lied again and claimed it was a family member. Throughout, you've claimed abuse, and offered no explanation for your actions. In this last request, you've now said "I was simply attempting at the time to see whether the user who was undoing my additions to the article was doing so without doing research," which is utter nonsense - you continued to claim that your fake reference was valid long after that time. I'm sorry, we still have no rational explanation for your disruptive editing, and you appear to have a continuing personal integrity problem. I concur with Huon's assessment in February - this is a serious waste of time for administrators that could best be used with good faith editors. Kuru (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2020 (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.

So are you saying there’s nothing I can do? I’m just banned from the site forever? This seems like a very steep punishment for even this. I admitted I was in the wrong, I didn’t think I needed a rational explanation for everything I did. Some of it was irrational, I.e. I can’t explain it, but I don’t see how that discounts my 10 year history with the site. I think it seems unfair to me. I just want to know what I need to do to get my account back.

” you continued to claim that your fake reference was valid long after that time.” also this is just untrue. I believed the information I was contributing to the article was correct. I sourced it because that was claimed to be the issue, but the way the admin was treating me during the interactions we had upset me, instantly calling it “vandalism.” I was upset and acted in a rash way. It wasn’t rational, neither was the creation of the sock puppet account (which I did actually have my brother create, but that’s a technicality). I never addressed the issue directly at all above, I believe. I am now, and I feel like that’s what is important. I just want to understand what you want me to do.

Could I get someone to reply to this? I just need some insight into what I should do as a next step. Do I need to wait longer, Appeal elsewhere? Shane1261994 (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

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).

Shane1261994 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So I'm making a new unblock request as nobody has responded to my queries. It is odd, because I have repeatedly been asked to "justify" my past actions, and then I admit there is no good justification. They were wrong and I was wrong to do it. I admitted everything, and submitted my long, positive history on Wikipedia as evidence I am a productive and helpful user, and would like to go back to editing, and I was rejected for being a "waste of time." I have seen on numerous occasions that blocks are not punitive, but this one is feeling that way. I answered all the questions and followed all the advice I have been given, and then nothing. I just would really like another chance, and I feel with my long history, and this being an isolated incident, I deserve one.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, this request has been insufficient to convince any patrolling admin to unblock. This is a procedural decline only, and you are welcome to appeal again, using a substantially reworded argument. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:37, 3 August 2020 (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.

Could I get someone to review and discuss this please? Also, quoted from the block appeal page of Wikipedia:

“ Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only. Once they are over and learned from, they are in the past (unless repeated). Wikipedia and its administrators and arbitration committee have a real wish for everyone who is capable of acting responsibly to be able to enjoy editing.”

Is this accurate? Is there a real wish for you to let me enjoy editing if I’ve apologized for my mistake and learned from it? I have, and this won’t happen again. I’m not sure what other assurances I can make.

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Shane1261994 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked indefinitely due to sock puppetry and editing with improper sourcing. I’m sincerely sorry for doing both, and would respectfully ask to be reinstated. I have a long-standing reputation prior to this issue for quality edits to Wikipedia, and I would like to resume it. I was asked to wait a long period before requesting an unblock which I have done, and would love to get back to contributing positively to the community.

Accept reason:

I'm going to assume good faith and unblock. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shane1261994 (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]