User talk:Truthteller86

Other account

"Truthteller," have had another account on wikipedia? Arbustoo 03:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: No. Have you? Truthteller86 12:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)truthteller86[reply]

I have proof you are Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (a blocked user). I am giving you a chance to be honest. Arbustoo 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's see it. Truthteller86 03:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)truthteller86[reply]

One last time, are you Kdbuffalo? Arbustoo 03:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered sufficiently. Truthteller86 03:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)truthteller86[reply]

You haven't actually answered if you are Kdbuffalo. As for the proof you can view it at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Truthteller86. Arbustoo 17:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - ATTENTION ARBUTSOO & JzG/GUY**** Please see my post under "BLOCKED" below ! And in case you missed it, arbutsoo, I AM NOT KDBUFFALO, not have I never been KD BUFFALO, nor have I ever used another user name on WP. I am simply a person concerned about your mission to destroy Bob Cornuke's wiki page by posting negatively slanted material & having your wiki friends support your rules violations regarding bios of living persons. After I am unblocked and this matter is escalated to dispute resolution via mediation or arbitration, I will give detailed, documented, sourced support to expose your harmful agenda against Bob Cornuke. Truthteller86 03:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)truthteller86[reply]

You are a WP:SPA inserting excluded material and adding POV. Equating a police job to archaeology is WP:OR. Removing unaccredited is misleading. An account for the purpose of revert warring is going to be blocked. Arbustoo 02:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion

You are in danger of violating our three revert rule, which can lead to your being blocked from editing. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

truthteller86 responds to Guy: I am well aware of this, thanks. Arbustoo and others in the anit-Cornuke camp... I will make my 3rd revision of this 24 hr period now and post my objection in the discussion. It's funny that I have not removed ANY of the negative, unsourced POV material that you and your sect continue to allow. I am of course speaking from MY POV here. After the next revert by you guys, I will then begin to challenge you line by line on the negatively slanted, one sided material that seeks to libel Dr. Cornuke, which you will not allow to be removed from his living person's bio. You should stop quoting paper thin, unenforced WP rules, which you loosely apply when it comes to your unsourced, POV negative contrib. I AM making obvious undocumented accusations against you and the like, as this is MY Usertalk page. The discussion page on Cornuke's bio is not the place for me to say such things, even if they are valid. Truthteller86 22:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)truthteller86[reply]

Are you aware you reverting has absurd claims that reference Oxford University, and include unsourced information? Also Cornuke is not a "Dr." Arbustoo 01:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Truthteller86. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|this block is completey unwarranted. Arbustoo is the one violating the guidelines on living persons bios and posting negatively slanted material on Bob Cornuke. Arbustoo has repeatedly made false allegationas against me and has completely ignored my replies. I have stated clearly on numerous occasions that I am NOT this so called Kdbuffalo. [[JzG]|Guy]] appears to be just as biased against Bob Cornuke's living persons bio page by defending the actions of Arbutsoo. I am willing to netogiate a resolution to this matter by mediating every single sentence in Bob Cornuke's living person's bio page and strictly comply with wiki living person's bio guidelines. I guarantee Arbustoo is NOT willing to do this. I invite ANY user to participate in this mediation to fairly resolve this continuing edit war from those that wish to slander, libel, and discredit Bob Cornuke. Administrators should be fair and not biased like [[JzG|Guy]. How could he just arbitrarily believe every false accusation made by Arbustoo? How could he ignore my detailed replies to Arbustoo that answered his questions directly? How could Guy block me, when I am the only person willing to compromise on Bob Cornuke's living person's bio page and consent to NPOV content only? Arbustoo is NOT willing to do this, so he is the one that should be permanently blocked. For these reasons, I request another administrator review the recent discussion, unblock my IP and assist in facilitating a fair resolution to this ongoing dispute and attack on Bob Cornuke, a living person. Thank You.}}Truthteller86 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)truthteller86[reply]

- How is this possible a justified block? The blocking administrator links to a checkuser where the result was "unrelated." Also the block on the other account has long since expired, so this account is hardly a "ban-evading" sock. There must have been some sort of a mistake here. — MichaelLinnear 02:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the CheckUser makes the case. The IP data may be unrelated, but this user popped up to make contentious edits whitewashing an article on a contentious subject in the footsteps of another blocked editor. Guy (Help!) 06:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MichaelLinnear for being reasonalbe, unlike JzG & Arbutsoo. I was blocked based on false accusations and unsubstantiated assumptions. Similarities with other contributors who wish to defend Bob Cornuke against hate mongers like arbutsoo and others, is no proof I am a previous user. JzG's contention above is NO grounds for being permanetly blocked. Is he going to block every single new user that comes along to combat the negative, leading statements made on Bob Cornuke's living person's bio? It is very clear that critics of Bob Cornuke have free reign on WP. Arbustoo is not willing to compromise on the disputed text. I am. Arbutsoo is not willing to formally mediate this ongoing edit war, I am. Arbustoo is not willing to respectfully and honorablly rseolve this issue on common ground, according to WP dispute resolution guidelines, I am. So what seems to be the problem here? I have been unfairly and permanently blocked by a biased admin, without being allowed to even comply with WP dispute resolution guidelines. This is absurd. JzG, I am calling you out. Are you willing to step up to the plate and play by your own rules? If so, please unblock my IP, so I may proceed directly to request a mediation review. I will not make any reverts, to prove I am not a vandal and not some sock puppet user. I will allow the dispute resolution process to dictate proper action. There must be one other reasonable Admin. besides MichaleLinnear that sees I am being fair, willing to compromise and Arbustoo is NOT.

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).

Truthteller86 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please include the original unblock request.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.