User talk:PaterEst

Welcome[edit]

Hello, PaterEst! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Lhakthong (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have no idea why I have been blocked. I have not done anything wrong. Please remove this block.

Decline reason:

You have been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Onemoreforyou - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onemoreforyou/Archive An optimist on the run! 19:29, 27 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

This has been difficult for me to figure out. Wikipedia is complicated with regard to blocking users. I have have spent considerable time to understand how all of this works. I would appreciate whoever is blocking me to read this carefully. First, I am not using multiple accounts. Second, I have been trying to contribute to the Doctor of Education article because it contains (1) an American centric focus, (2) negative bias towards the EdD, (3) misuse of research to support the biased view. Now, if people can just block others because they don't like someone on here than I think Wikipedia is incredibly flawed. It seems that some people who are editing this article just do not like what I write. However, I do apologize if I have inadvertently damaged some parts of the article. I am new to editing pages on Wikipedia and I noticed some edits have created errors in the references. That certainly was not my intention. Why not try to help me make edits properly instead of punishing me. I am an education scholar. This is ridiculous.

Decline reason:

As noted above and below you have completely avoided the stated reason for your block—the sockpuppetry allegations. The Chewbacca defense is not a good way to get unblocked. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2012 (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.

How does this address the obvious evasion of a previous block/sockpuppetry? We're in favour of balanced, referenced edits to articles - but some things are black and white (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:19, 29 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not sure who has the ability to block of unblock people on here. I have not used Wikipedia enough to understand how it all works. I am not sure what references to a "Chewbacca defense" is. What level are people operating at on this site? I have been asked to address "sockpuppetry." I had to look it up. Based on my understanding of what it means, I am not guilty. That should be the end of it. If you look at my edits, I am pretty much only working on the Doctor of Education article because it is something that I actually know about, unlike several people editing the article. I have no interest in deceiving people. Wikipedia is quickly becoming very disappointing by self-righteous people here that think they are defending the universe. I can see why my colleagues who are actually university professors do not bother to edit these articles. It is completely ridiculous. Let me frame this differently. What do I need to do to unblock? Do I need walk across the street upside down? Do I need to juggle three sharp knives on a unicycle? I think this is just a power trip for some people out there. I have not vandalized anything or done evil here.PaterEst (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(1) If I had nothing to go on other than behavioural evidence, I would say that the appearance of sockpuppetry is convincing. Add to that the fact that a checkuser has indicated confirmation of sockpuppetry, and we are in the realms of being asked to accept an astonishing degree of coincidence. (2) Even if, improbable as it seems, this account is not a sockpuppet, there are other considerations. Your editing is contentious, and at time belligerent and uncivil. You are clearly here substantially to promote a particular point of view, and you have repeatedly taken steps to try to suppress content that does not support that point of view. Even if we ignore the sockpuppetry issue, there are abundant reasons to regard the negative aspects of your contributions as outweighing the positives. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I see now what has happened. I have had a little more time to read up on this issue. As far as I understand, the main issue is that I had a username Onemoreforyou, and I created another account or changed the username (can't remember which now) to this username. The reason I did this was because I did not like the username. I did not have any intention to deceive anyone. I traced the Onemoreforyou block log where people have made accusations of being connected to other accounts. That is not not true, but I do not know how to prove that. I completely disagree that I am here to support only my point of view. That is not fair. I do not know how to solve this. I have made edits and given explanations; however, I am not a Wikipedia expert. I may have violated rules unknowingly. In which case, please let me know how I can make things better. My contributions are not negative. They do, however, disagree with some of the more dominant people who edit the Doctor of Education article. Their language portrayal of the EdD is not accurate. How do I know this? Because I am finishing a Doctorate in Education from one of the most prestigious universities in the UK. Furthermore, if you read the talk page, you will see that many people have agreed that the article has many inaccuracies. However, virtually nobody has acted on their comments which point this out. My view is the opposite of some posters to this article because they continually attempt to create a negative bias to the EdD degree and they have cited research literature in a way that does not represent the context of what researchers have been trying to say about the issue. One excellent case is the section on "suggested reforms of the EdD" which is grossly misleading and decontextualized. This article has citations, but that is not good enough. It is very easy to misrepresent information and give it an air of reliability and validity because it has a footnote. I see lack of criticality and true research in this article, and I would go even further by writing that it is the a couple of other writers who are imposing their point of view. Please look at the talk page. You will see that I make very reasonable arguments for my position. Does that make me uncivil and belligerent? There has also been an abuse of research to make the EdD look extremely controversial which is not the case at all. Am I contentious because I do not agree with the few people who contribute to the article and make incorrect statements? Wikipedia is a strange place if this is the case. I really feel like I am not being treated fairly. I cannot understand how I can get unblocked. It seems that the only point of view that matters are those with the negative bias. So I consider this a type of censorship which is very much against the spirit of Wikipedia, is it not? I do not have the vast experience of these nearly divine administrators that hold all the answers to Wikipedia. I am just a scholar who is trying to make a contribution. I am amazed that it appears that I am going to be permanently blocked for these edits I have made. This is really interesting. If this is the future of information, then I am deeply worried. Let me know what I need to do to get my account in good standing. I am here to make a contribution folks. As someone who is new to participating on Wikipedia, I am dismayed by the administrators who are not very helpful in trying to resolve issues that new users have. Wikipedia is complicated and there seem to be many rules. Can we be a bit more charitable? If administrators just keep blocking me without giving me concrete advice about how to get my account unblocked, then I can only conclude that there is some sort of power trip. I think I have sufficiently explained myself. I have been acting in good faith.PaterEst (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The sequence is made clear in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onemoreforyou/Archive; you're verified as having used at least 15 other accounts. You must request unblocking at your original user talk page, User talk:Onemoreforyou. You'll need to heed our guide to appealing blocks to have any hope of unblock. Your issues with Doctor of Education are not relevant here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:31, 29 April 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have looked at the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onemoreforyou/Archive, but it is difficult for me to understand all the jargon. It looks like Lhakthong is associating me with different accounts. There must be some way to disprove this, but I can't fully understand how this works and I have limited time. I looked at some of the contributions of these other accounts that Lhakthong and a couple others have linked to me. I did not write any of that, but after looking at the edits I can understand why they contributed what they did. This article is serious flawed. I now understand the Wikipedia user guidelines about using multiple accounts. At times I have edited without logging in. However, I do not think that you can attribute all edits where a person has not logged in to me. I am more than happy to fix this problem with using PaterEst and Onemoreforyou. My understanding is that I need to somehow indicate that the two accounts are associated, correct? I have forgotten about Onemoreforyou. I tried retrieving the password but this is what I get, "Your IP address is blocked from editing, and so is not allowed to use the password recovery function to prevent abuse." So what am I to do? How can I fix this? I do not understand. THIS IS COMPLETELY UNFAIR. I looks like Lhakthong associated every person who edits against his/her views is held suspect and attributed to me. Could it be that Lhakthong has an agenda? Please look at the log carefully. Something is not right. Something cannot be right. Am I basically banned from Wikipedia forever? Strange... Strange indeed...Why would I lie about this? Why would I go through this trouble? PaterEst (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Why anyone would go through so much trouble is indeed the question. The socking is established beyond any doubt, by CheckUser and behavioral evidence. These continued requests are just attempts to obfuscate, and I am revoking talk page privileges since this is a waste of the community's energy. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2012 (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, basically, you're saying you did create User:Onemoreforyou, which you forgot about. But when Onemoreforyou was blocked, at 28 August 2011 at 20:48, it was someone else who created User:Twomoreforyou to enter into the fray? And then the next day User:Goodwillforyou is also unrelated, although editing the same article the same way? I won't even bother with asking about the next dozen or so with the same edits, same behavior, and same style. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon, look I have told the truth here. I don't know about these other accounts. My opinion of Wikipedia has really changed here. I guess I am done with Wikipedia. It does not look like I can participate. I have stated that I would like to link Onemoreforyour to PaterEst. What more can I do?PaterEst (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]