User talk:Meteorologist200/Archive 1

November 2020
Your recent editing history at Hurricane Eta 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I have spoken it out on the talk page. Meteorologist200 (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Hello, I'm Iridescent. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:Adam9007. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. &#8209; Iridescent 20:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
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:.
 * If you intend to appeal this block, please provide an explanation for why you created two other accounts (User:Hurricanecategory12 and User:Meterologistmankabam), and why you think edits like, or , as well as your interactions with users Iridescent and Adam9007, help to improve the encyclopedia.   Maxim (talk)  16:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Unblock those accounts as they are not mine. Not fair for them. Meteorologist200 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

block
@Yamla I do not know much about CheckUser and that kind of stuff. What does it do and prove? I am confused. Meteorologist200 (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I checked the accounts. They were made on the same day. Could I have been framed? Meteorologist200 (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if you can do that or not. Meteorologist200 (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the work that you are doing but please explain and try to be nice here. Meteorologist200 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt here. You created those accounts. You will get nowhere trying to dissemble. --Yamla (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Well since you don't believe my requests (which were true) and it is against my religion to fight against authority, what can I do to redeem myself at this point? Meteorologist200 (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:GAB explains how to proceed. --Yamla (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you suggest that I just say sorry and plead guilty? Meteorologist200 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you be honest. If you continue to claim that you had nothing to do with those other accounts, another admin with checkuser access will review the technical evidence. If you claim that you were instead attempting to mislead us and you were indeed responsible for those accounts, another admin will explain how you could go about regaining the trust of the community. --Yamla (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I guessed the log in for the puppet accounts. I think I made them and forgot or something. Really weird stuff. Meteorologist200 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I made a block pleading guilty by the way. Meteorologist200 (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Block

 * Support unblock-user would be important asset to WPTC. He acknowledged it and didn't know about it. Let's give him a 2nd chance. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Although this is a checkuserblock, any admin is free to review it and lift the block if they are satisfied with the explanation. Note that was the original blocking admin and had concerns over and above the sockpuppetry which should be addressed, too. If I was convinced by the unblock request, I'd have lifted the block myself; I'm not convinced. --Yamla (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I'm involved here, I I've pieced together the chain of events that led to this block. Meteorologist200 saw this diff of an IP vandal reverting Adam9007, misunderstood the diff and thought Adam9007 was a vandal undoing the IP, and proceeded to attack Adam9007 in the mistaken belief that he'd be helping Wikipedia by driving him off. When I then reverted Meteorologist200 and warned him, he thought I was protecting the vandal, and proceeded to turn on me. This aspect of things, we can put down to a misunderstanding. In light of the lies above regarding sock accounts (I don't have an issue with new editors creating a fresh account—it's not uncommon for someone not to realise it's against the rules, and try in good faith to make a clean start—but I do have an issue with the string of lies when caught doing it), and especially in light of nonsense like this I'm not going to unblock myself absent a very explicit undertaking to comply with Wikipedia's rules and not to treat our site as a chatroom or a personal sandbox, but I have no objections if whichever admin patrolling this unblock request chooses to accept it. &#8209; Iridescent 11:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I'm involved here, I I've pieced together the chain of events that led to this block. Meteorologist200 saw this diff of an IP vandal reverting Adam9007, misunderstood the diff and thought Adam9007 was a vandal undoing the IP, and proceeded to attack Adam9007 in the mistaken belief that he'd be helping Wikipedia by driving him off. When I then reverted Meteorologist200 and warned him, he thought I was protecting the vandal, and proceeded to turn on me. This aspect of things, we can put down to a misunderstanding. In light of the lies above regarding sock accounts (I don't have an issue with new editors creating a fresh account—it's not uncommon for someone not to realise it's against the rules, and try in good faith to make a clean start—but I do have an issue with the string of lies when caught doing it), and especially in light of nonsense like this I'm not going to unblock myself absent a very explicit undertaking to comply with Wikipedia's rules and not to treat our site as a chatroom or a personal sandbox, but I have no objections if whichever admin patrolling this unblock request chooses to accept it. &#8209; Iridescent 11:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I misunderstood with the IP hopper but I did not mean to turn on you. I'm sorry if it sounded like that. The nonsense posts I am truly sorry for though. Meteorologist200 (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

And the puppet accounts were never used. I will truthfully tell you I never used them. I didn't know I had them and I thought it was a lie. I disproved myself by putting my current passwords in the puppet accounts and it worked. Therefore I came to the conclusion that I did make them probably when I didn't feel satisfied with the names or for some other reason that I forgot. I did make these though. Meteorologist200 (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Having looked at checkuser for this account today - I think that there is an account you may need to explain, which was created this week. SQL Query me!  16:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

You mean that hurricanepop one? If that is what you were talking about, I was trying to see how far my ip range was. Now that my ip is banned I decided it would be a good idea to test how far it would stay the same. I forgot to notify the purpose of it. I don’t believe I made any edits on it. Meteorologist200 (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed,.
 * I am afraid that I don't understand the explanation "I was trying to see how far my ip range was.", and why that required you to create another account. Your IP wasn't blocked (not banned) until after I discovered that account.
 * I wouldn't recommend continuing to create accounts while you are blocked. The block applies to the person - not the account. Being found creating more accounts while blocked gives the impression that you intend to evade your block.
 * I'm not declining your unblock, by the way. I am leaving it open for another admin to review.
 * The best advice I can give you is to stick to this account. Don't create more. Don't edit via another connection (logged out or not) to bypass your block (I want to be clear that I'm not saying you've done that, but I'm not sure what other testing you might have in mind). Wait for another admin to review this request. SQL Query me!  04:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Besides, how did I abusively use the accounts? They were never used anyway? Couldn’t I have been given a warning or something other than an indefinite ban? Meteorologist200 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)