User talk:AT1(AW)Howell

Sock/meatpuppetry,WP:NOTHERE
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * As anyone can see by looking at the diff, the sources you provided did not support your pirate joke edits. See also MADEUP. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * As anyone can see by looking at the diff, the sources you provided did not support your pirate joke edits. See also MADEUP. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

You're missing the point

 * None of those sources mentions "argh" or hook hands; this is just trolling; recommend revoking TPA. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Does the block say "didn't like one of the things he posted on a a stub, so I blocked him" or does it say "multiple accounts"? I mean, the block I see says some nonsense about multiple accounts that never existed, but you're defending blocking me because one of the two things I added to a stub (that had no sources in the first place) you didn't like. Which is it, OhNo itsJamie ? You don't have to keep coming up with excuses for why you blocked me. Just change the block from the imaginary "multiple accounts" and put me on the "I didn't like one of the two things he added to a stub that had no citations to begin with" block. Or, is that not a thing? AT1(AW)Howell (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * And, just so you know, in 2002-2003, the DON sent word out to all training commands that they were to do everything they could to encourage camaraderie between sailors through the use of the noise "argh" and a hook hand gesture. It was ridiculous as anything, but the Navy was sure that it would be popular.  They soon learned that sailors departing training commands were embarrassed by the entire thing and refused to continue its use in the fleet.  It is very common for "Big Navy" to create PR ideas and try to market them as "naval traditions".  The Navy had spotted an opportunity to try again in 2010/2011 when the MCPON repeatedly used "hooyah" in speeches, and the sailors responded positively to this.  But, God forbid real information actually show up on wikipedia, right?  And my students wonder why they aren't allowed to use wikipedia as a source...
 * Students should not use Wikipedia as a source, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is a content aggregator, not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

While you're at it, you may as well start deleting things from the article that are still on there. The stub still doesn't have a source listed at all, but it does have random information that has been added without citation. Who are you about to block for adding that information? Or is OhNo itsJamie waiting for Garuda28 to tell him who to block and what information Garuda28 thinks is good enough to be posted without sources? Prove me wrong, OhNo itsJamie. How about you, 331dot? Is my ban for mulitple accounts, despite me only having one? Or, is it a block in place because OhNo itsJamie didn't like my post? Is there a "I didn't like the sources used so I blocked this guy" block?


 * Come on, 331dot. Let's get your opinion.  You stumble across a stub article with a handful of unsupported, un-cited factoids clapped on (and that's how the article still sits to this day).  You have an editor (Garuda28) who is five kinds of upset because someone dares to add to "his stub".  The transgressor (me) is someone looking to add two bits of information to the collection, and he provides three sources for one (and can now provide a written source for the other).  Do you (A) block them indefinitely because you are friends with the guy (Garuda28) defending his little turf, or do you, as a responsible admin, side with the guy with citations (me)?  Maybe even shoot off a "welcome to Wikipedia, thanks for expanding a stub article" to the new guy?  I mean, we see the way OhNo itsJamie  went, but what about you?  OhNo itsJamie  was alerted by his friend (Garuda28) that someone dared to add to a stub without his permission, and OhNo itsJamie  swooped in and started blasting with the block cannons.  Is that how an unbiased editor would handle the situation?
 * I suggest that you confine discussion of your appeal to your own actions; attacking the actions of others will not help you. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

That's a great idea, 331dot. Let's focus on my "actions". I created an account. I was perma-blocked for "multiple accounts". Do I have multiple accounts? Do i? If I don't, then we can turn off the perma-block for "multiple accounts", right? AT1(AW)Howell (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I mean, you can't say you blocked someone for "multiple accounts" and then realize he doesn't have multiple accounts, so you start trying to defend the "multiple accounts" block by talking about one of two edits on a stub. Those two don't match.  You can block a person with multiple accounts if they have multiple accounts.  You don't get to perma-block people with the "multiple accounts" block because you don't like the content of one of their edits.

Where are we at, 331dot? I still only ever had one account and am sitting on a perma-block for multiple accounts. Assuming you can count, you know that block isn't above board. So, why am I on perma-ban? AT1(AW)Howell (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey OhNo itsJamie, can you help me and 331dot out? We're only counting one account for me, so how do I have a block for multiple accounts?  Even folks bad a math can count one.  My block says "multiple accounts", which you and I both know is a lie.  So, are you gonna explain this or what?  AT1(AW)Howell (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should take OhNo itsJamie to arbitration, and he he can say "I blocked this guy for multiple accounts, but when I realized he only had one, I decided I didn't like one of his edits on a stub.  That's exactly the same as multiple accounts, right?" What do you think, 331dot? Do you think an admin can justify a "multiple accounts" block on someone who only ever had ONE ACCOUNT? Is there a point at which you would like to admit you were mistaken, jumped the gun, and would now like to apologize? Or, are you still going with "I gave your single account a permanent multiple account ban because in one edit you mentioned a battle cry campaign that can't possibly be real"?


 * Blocking someone for an edit you wish wasn't true and pretending it was for a completely different reason is pretty much the definition of Admin Abuse, right? Is that how you'd define Admin Abuse, 331dot?  I mean, could you defend a "multiple accounts" block with "...um...well...he actually only had one account...but I really didn't like what he said in this one edit on a stub article, so...I just made up a reason and blocked him"? AT1(AW)Howell (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have nothing else to add, and since I have reviewed one of your requests, I cannot review another. If you do not make another request, your ability to edit this page will be removed. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Is User:98.195.124.142 your IP address as well? only (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey only, I just looked, and it had me "named" 2601:2C2:8180:2D90:5914:9827:9DCD:A95A.  The wiki "names" you with your IP until you establish an account.  98.195.124.142 is the guy who corrected me.  I said that a policy ran from 2002-2003, and he says it actually started in 2001 and lasted longer than I knew.


 * I stopped in to add two factoids to a stub (with no cited sources). I got into a turf war with an editor that thought he owned the stub, and he told me that my sources weren't good enough to add something to a stub that he had no actual knowledge of. While I was setting up an account, he called in his favorite admin to block my account.  The reason for the block was "multiple accounts" which he locked as I was setting up my first wiki account.  So, instead of getting a "welcome to the wiki and thanks for expanding a stub" message, I get a "blocked for life" announcement.  When I appealed, I keep getting admins who say "well, you only have one account, but one of the two factoids you listed has got to be a made up pirate joke."  The thing is, that "made up pirate joke" actually happened.  I had three sources for my first factoid (and can get more) and have a memoir in paperback that mentions the "has to be a joke" policy the DON tried to implement from 2001-2003.  But, instead of searching for a source for this insane but true factoid on the internet, I've spent all day trying to get this block taken off.  I know about this factoid because I was actually in the navy when it happened.  As I've been told by admin after admin that this factoid must be fiction, others have started posting that they remember this insane "pirate joke" policy.  One guy even mentioned things about it that I didn't know.  Yet here I am, banned for having a single account and a bit of stupid history that civilians have no clue about.  And the thing stopping me from finding a source is the fact that I spent all day trying to get unblocked. I did put out word to my local veterans network to see if anyone else remembered the policy mentioned, so that's probably how 98.195.124.142 got involved.AT1(AW)Howell (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Summary for the next admin that reviews this;


 * 1) I noticed User:Garuda28's request for protection of Hooyah and checked the article history to see if the issue could be handled without protection.
 * 2) I observed that a dynamic IPv6 IP was repeatedly adding unsourced joke material that said "the Navy tried a pirate “Aargh” sound (combined with a hook gesture) that never really became popular and was eventually abandoned". None of the sources supplied by the IP mention an "aargh" sound nor a hook gesture. I gave the IP a level 3 warning.
 * 3) Minutes following that, presumably the same person (or a a buddy in the same room) tried re-adding the material, so I blocked the range and the account. An additional IP (that geolocates to the same area) began making the same arguments at Talk:Hooyah
 * 4) At this point, we're being trolled by one or more individual's whose IP addresses all geolocate to the same area in Houston, all insisting that their firsthand knowledge of the pirate thing somehow meets our WP:RS criteria, and expect us to believe that it's not something they made up. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is "hooyah", not "hoorah". Does OhNo itsJamie even know what article we are talking about, or is he just obsessed with the idea that my single account is a multiple, that way he can justify his block? That dude can admit at any time that he was wrong. AT1(AW)Howell (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll note that you have yet to address that fact the none of sources mention "argh." You can enlist as as many of your friends that you can find to vouch for your "argh," but as you've been told by several editors, "firsthand experience" doesn't meet our WP:RS criteria. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, look! It's OhNo itsJamie, the guy who blocked me for "multiple accounts". He still hasn't actually found multiple accounts (because I've only got the one), so he is desperately trying to turn his "multiple accounts" block into a "I didn't like one of the two things you added to a stub article" block. He's doing all of this because he can't admit he was wrong. That's the kind of admin the wiki needs! AT1(AW)Howell (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) A military stub exists without any source citation.
 * 2) A veteran adds two factoids:  Navy battle cry attempt 2010-present (factoid 1) with three sources and Navy battle cry attempt 2002-2003 (factoid 2).
 * 3) A disgruntled editor declares that the 3 sources for (factoid 1) aren't good enough for the un-sourced stub, and deletes information.
 * 4) The veteran sets up his first (and only) wikipedia account.  While he is out, the disgruntled editor calls in his favorite admin, OhNo itsJamie  to perma-block the veteran.  The disgruntled editor believes this will stop evil veterans from posting on the military pages that he considers his personal property.
 * 5) OhNo itsJamie  perma-blocks the veteran for "multiple accounts", even though he knows that the veteran only has one account.  He figures that no one will notice.
 * 6) Veteran appeals block.  Admins start to notice that he was blocked for "multiple accounts", but he only has one.  OhNo itsJamie  panics!  He suddenly tries to defend his "multiple account" block of a military veteran by saying he doesn't like the unsourced (factoid 2).  OhNo itsJamie  tries to establish that any unsourced factoids he doesn't like MUST result in a "multiple account" perma-block.
 * 7) Veteran activates a veteran network to relay the tale.  It goes like this:


 * "Anybody here remember that stupid (factoid 2)?"
 * "You mean the noise and the hook? yeah."
 * "I just got blocked on the wikipedia because of it. The civies who don't know can't believe it was real."
 * "What? Wikipedia can block you for that?"
 * "No, they can't, so this one admin blocked me for multiple accounts instead."
 * "Do you have multiple accounts?"
 * "Nope. That admin is just really bad at being an admin."
 * "So, you're blocked for multiple accounts that you don't have because a civilian can't believe (factoid 2) happened? Any that's how the wikipedia works?  That sounds a little shady to me."
 * "Well, if any of y'all get super bored, feel free to weigh in."


 * 1) We are now at the point where OhNo itsJamie  is saying, "I gave you a multiple accounts ban even though you only had one account because I think (factoid 2) never happened.  All the veterans that are talking about (factoid 2) are stupid liar-liars that won't be believed until they agree with me!  This is why multi-account blocks exist!  To get all you stupid veterans that I can't block for anything else!  Now all of you need to go away!  I don't know why a veteran would ever dare to edit an unsourced military stub article that literally asks for people to add to it.  Multiple account blocks for everyone!!!!!!!"
 * Given your continued combative attitude and refusal to get the point, I am removing your access to this page Your request will remain open, but if it is declined, you will need to use WP:UTRS for further appeals. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * To any reviewers; likely sock or meat puppets at User:KarmaChris80 and User:Roddypiper38. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)