User talk:Valid Identification

August 2023

Your recent editing history at Flint water crisis 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 2 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).

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

Request reason:

I have never been on Wikiepedia. I just saw that there was missing information on the Flint page and that some activists who weren't involved are adding their names, like Jordan Chariton. I was warned before I even tried to edit this site that I would be bullied of the site in less than a day by editors who engage in power trips and people who are paid to edit Wikipedia and gate keep the Flint article. And right away, after I added 100% factual, sourced info, it was reverted, with no attempt by the editors to resolve the issue before reverting. I provide 6 sources for the same information and the only reason I can see that this editor would do this is if he's just yet another corrupt person in Flint, trying to skew the narrative, and may be Jordan Chariton, himself, because no one is taking that guy's name out of the article or fighting with him and there is NO source but his own media outlet. I believe my friend was right and the articles I read about editors bullying new users off the site were true. I was poisoned in Flint. One of my family members was killed, and now I am not even allowed to make sure the story is told right, even with sourcing.

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. I am extending this block to indefinite, given the continuation of the problematic behavior. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:07, 2 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.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Valid_Identification reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: ). Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Evidence free accusations of being paid to vandalize an article are not permitted on Wikipedia. In this case, your charges are spurious and ludicrous. Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My sister was one of the 18 that was killed by the water switch. I suppose those allegations are ludicrous and spurious as well. It's as if you don't live here, weren't a victim of one of the largest water conspiracies that ever happened in reality and can't believe that people would try to skew the narrative. Tell that to my dead sister! Valid Identification (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first day on Wikipedia, how am I supposed to know that I can't accuse people of being paid when this is Flint and LOTS of people are paid to contort the narrative. You don't find it odd that the moment that I added Matthew's name that someone came out of the woodwork and accused him of being a troll? Do you know who that is? That guy who posted that is under investigation by the FBI for racketeering, is a part of the Tom Girardi scandal is IS literally being paid to protect people and destroy Matthew's name and reputation. Why don't you look at the evidence before you make claims that things are spurious or ludicrous?

I can prove 100% that the guy who removed my addition IS being paid and I challenge you to look at the evidence before you make things up and lie about what is really happening here. Valid Identification (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want people to know that the information that is being featured on the Flint Water Crisis page is not accurate. It seems that Wikipedia wants to selectively rewrite reality at its choosing and I find it odd that Wikipedia has continually targeted Matthew, allowed people to impersonate him, and has continued to attempt to hide his existence from the public even though by this point he's working for dozens of national media outlets creating the sourcing you use back up your articles. No one is being bullied here but me and anyone else who tries to remind the world that Matthew literally blew the whistle on Flint. I say there is an agenda here and Google shows that anyone who has questioned how Wikipedia has treated Matthew has been banned and when you look at involved users it's always this Cullen328 guy. Valid Identification (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore me all you want. Google has LOADS of evidence of you targeting and bullying that guy even though he saved our community and you just don't want the world to know because it would show you really tried to hurt us by hurting him. Valid Identification (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed the Flint water saga for years, ever since Rachel Maddow took the story national in 2015. My roots are in Detroit where I was born and raised, and in Lima, Ohio where my grandmother lived most of her life. My grandfather was a Chrysler worker who died at age 39. I am sympathetic about the Flint catastrophe. But you do not understand who Muboshgu is. That editor has been contributing to Wikipedia for nearly 18 years, long before the Flint water crisis. Muboshgu has written thousands of articles on a wide variety of topics and is an active, trusted administrator. The notion that Muboshgu would accept payments to vandalize Flint related articles is bizarre in the extreme, and you need to provide rock solid evidence for such an outlandish claim. You are a very new editor and you clearly do not understand even the basics of how things work on this collaborative project. I encourage you to dial back your counterproductive indignation and learn how to collaborate instead. Cullen328 (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. You did not provide me an opportunity to provide evidence. I have done a lot of research and I can show that you targeted Matthew and contributed to smearing his name. We both know you did this but would you like me to dig up the evidence and show you? I say that considering your long relationship with this user you're defending that both of you were likely involved in abuse against Matthew, knew who he was and this Muboshgu conveniently "forgot" that YouTube links from News Media Outlets inherit credibility, according to numerous other users. You're saying this masterful expert who is so well respected just didn't remember the rules, or is it because I mentioned Matthew and you don't want the world to know what you did to him and how it impacted Flint and contributed to the deaths of 18 people.

I am stating to all of you that I can show evidence that there ARE users on this site that are being paid to target Matthew but you banned me to keep me from showing it because if my story is true, do you know that that makes you? Accomplices to murder. That's why I am banned. Not for bullying, not for harassment, but because I'm blowing the whistle on the ways you destroyed a guy who had 100,000 people's lives riding on his back when you attacked him.

Challenge me to provide evidence but then keep me blocked so I can show it. Wow that's convenient. By the way, that someone has been respected for 18 years doesn't preclude them from engaging in corruption and with equally corrupt people like you to defend this person, they can get away with anything they want. You targeted me for mentioning Matthew, no other reason. Valid Identification (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who the heck is Matthew? Perhaps you are not a temperamental fit to this collaborative project, where we value the production of actual convincing evidence as opposed to throwing around wild assertions. There are plenty of other websites that welcome anybody spouting off about anything. Not here, sorry. Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone reading, I have exchanges between this user and Matthew going back ten years. What they are doing now is engaging in narcissistic behavior. When they get called out, suddenly the person becomes "irrational" or "unstable." It's in every book on narcissism.

I am not throwing around wild asserts, I am offering you PROOF and you're trying to make me look unstable because you don't want the world to see it.

I have been blocked to suppress those facts and if you were honest and could be trusted, you'd pass this onto someone who is unbiased and stop saying I'm "temperamental."

I'm sure at age 70, I could do the same and call you senile or point out you've bullied so many people you can't remember your victims. You can't even remember that Matthew is the guy from the entry I made that started all of this, from an hour ago? Maybe you might want to consider retirement if your memory is that bad. Valid Identification (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OFFERING PROOF THIS PERSON AN OTHER WIKIPEDIANS WERE ACCOMPLICES TO MASS MURDER AND HOW A CYBER PREDATOR SCAMMED YOU INTO DOING THAT

JUST TYPING IN CAPS OFFERING PROOF NOT BASELESS ALLEGATIONS

SAYING IT AGAIN I HAVE PROOF Valid Identification (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ranting and raving is not permitted. Your talk page access has been revoked. Read WP:UTRS for your unblock options. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 2 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).

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

Request reason:

I think it's more than abundantly clear that I am new to the site, don't understand the rules, and that you're simply bullying me off the site without consideration of reality or what happened here.

As I am slowly learning, when I edited the site, I spent time learning how to do so and other editors have determined that I didn't actually break any rules. My edit was done correctly. Even though I did it right, another user came here who clearly does understand the rules and removed my addition. It wasn't a mistake. Unaware that I was not allowed to revert it, I just reverted it because I was right and the user was vandalizing the page, without cause, while claiming to fully understand the rules.

Less than 24 hours after I added the info, an IP address that is known to be used by a man who is paid to harass Matthew, and removed the information, claiming he's "not an activist." There is only one human being on Earth who would say that and he is, again, paid for this, is making a political attack film about Matthew, and is biased and earns his whole living of of Matthew's name. There are, 100%, without any doubt, people being paid to suppress Matthew's career. Would you like to see proof or are you afraid of facts?

You claim I made a personal attack against this Cullen person but there is no personal attack. That user and other Wikipedia users have made a long habit of starting mobbing incidents and blocking anyone who mentions Matthew's name, which a person can sit and read about if they Google his name. Stating facts is not a personal attack and you're simply showing bias towards an editor and permanently banning me just to keep people from learning about almost decade of abuse you've lobbed at Matthew.

Even more, how I am supposed to know every rule for this site the moment I log on? I've read articles about people being bullied and targeted like this on Wikipedia, I was warned about it, but I didn't think it was true until you just did it to me. Considering the long sordid history of what all of you have done to Matthew, you owe the subject more considering or you're nothing more than a group of people who bully via exclusion and will ban an innocent person to protect yourselves; that's called corruption.

In reality, this person that called Matthew a troll, who IS being paid to do so, who received money to vandalize the Flint site and is a part of the Tom Girardi embezzlement scandal, has been starting these flame wars for years, trolling this site and starting battles, in the interest in targeting Matthew, using all of you to do it and not one of you has been smart enough to pick up on the scam. IMDb just investigated and wiped out over 200 fake accounts being used to give his films 1 star reviews. Reddit wiped out 300 accounts that were being used to start mobbing incidents against Matthew. But not Wikipedia. You're content to turn a blind eye to what every other online site is confirming.

That might have worked when all of you thought he was nobody but in the last few years, he's become a famous and successful journalist who is the source for a lot of information that gets posted on this site. Even though your smear campaigns against him went into his Google results, damaged his name and reputation, and impacted communities all over the US, he had success anyway and now I'm just a person who wants to see justice for him, especially against all the Wikipedia editors who participated in the mobbing incidents and smear campaigns stopped him from exposing the water crisis 10 moths earlier. 18 people died during that period of time. People in my city were reading your abuse against him in his Google results because the guy who called him a troll was smearing it around Flint. Want to see it written in a court ruling and look at the evidence?

I don't care if you block me. There are credible, notable news articles and state directly that you're all a bunch of bullies, and that's not a personal attack. It's fact you don't like. If even one of you had any sense of integrity or honor, you'd apologize to Matthew and all the communities that this filmmaker used your actions to destroy people's lives.

I think what's really happening here is that you don't want me on the site because you fear an intellect like mine, one that could unravel a cyber crime that's been occurring against Matthew, that ALL of you were stupid enough to fall for. The results of the FBI and DOJ investigation, which shows all of the above is true, is something you can't erase from reality.

In the end, for what you've done, you are nothing more than the useful idiots required to pull a scheme like this off. That's a disinformation term, not a personal insult, for those of you with lesser IQ's.

Decline reason:

Requests containing personal attacks are not considered. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 2 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.

For the record, Valid Identification's addition to the Flint water crisis article has been retained in my full-protection of that article, and has not been challenged since protection expired. It was a good edit, and it was unfortunate that misunderstandings escalated to the point we're at now.

Valid_Identification, I encourage you to actually read WP:Guide to appealing blocks and formulate a better appeal, if you can first get into a more collaborative mindset and lose the battleground mentality. Attacking people won't get you anywhere here. We're here to build an encyclopedia of human knowledge. Attacks and rants are counterproductive to that goal. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]