User talk:Wolfsden3

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - American Politics
power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone else will review this, but your donations or lack thereof have no bearing on what happens here. The Wikimedia Foundation does not administer Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Great, no donations for you! (Soup Nazi). All the actions of admins on my account are unacceptable from the start by labeling me a puppet master of some sort. 100% unacceptable. I did what was asked of me originally and put in a request to have a higher admin of the page resolve a dispute between myself and one individual on some talk page somewhere. All my edits had comments and discourse. This doens't look like the work of a puppet master. If deemed a false block and then a false forever block / banned for life or whatever you call it then I'd like to escalate to have those admins admonished for breaking protocol if it's possible. Admins should not block new accounts or assume malicious intent just because they aren't old. This was noted in the original block reason that my account was new which has nothing to do with my edits, my comments or anything other than age. Admins should not be able to block accounts just because they aren't the oldest account (another argument from the account I was in dispute with was theirs was 11 years old and mine was new). That has nothing to do with the edits themselves or why the edits were made or if the edits are factual, which they are / were. This has been very frustrating. I suspect I'll continued to get banned because I used all caps in a few responses. I urge any admin to look past that since I'm new and only recently just read that's not appropriate to do in a response. Can I do italics for emphasis? I hope to be unbanned for life, it's just not fair and admins seem to be lording over new users inappropriately. What happened to me is clear evidence of that. Wolfsden3 (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  21:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said that you were the master. Meatpuppet is more like it. Try reading the conflict of interest policy (you certainly have one) and WP:SOAPBOX. You acted in support of the others and there was certainly advocacy of which you are a part...you are/were actively working with others. What brought you to that page? Purely random? You have actively advocated a position campaigning for Bill Gelineau and Angelique Chaiser Thomas. You were here for them and the Libertarian cause and not Wikipedia. "I don't mind being in an edit war." 1, is treating Wikipedia as a battleground.

Well put
Well put. I don't mind being in an edit war as long as what in advocating for is justified. As a major party candidate the L should be in the info box and all those arguments have already been made. You banned me for partaking in something I didn't and that was some kind of puppetry which means I'm orchestrating something. I wasn't in support of other editors in fact, I think I was the only one editing and leaving detailed comments. That's how I understand it. I shouldn't be banned for an edit war and I followed the proper procedure to get it resolved and instead what happened is I got banned for something im not and because my account isn't old. That's what doesn't maje sense to me sir. I think yiu are accusing me of malicious intent when all my edits were proper edits. It's not as though I put up clown pictures for other candidates. I have also edited other pages anonymously so when you suggest I'm not here for Wikipedia i think you are making a baseless judgement on the only edit I've done logged in. I created an account because it wasn't a minor edit. I get punished for doing the right thing. Your actions are not acceptable since you never asked me what I was doing or why. You just acted and that's not right. Wolfsden3 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  23:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you read the conflict of interest policy yet? Do you recognize that you have one? We need to have your acknowledgement/explanation. Some form of communication took place that brought your attention to this article, right? You didn't just decide that you were suddenly going to become a Wikipedia editor for the betterment of Wikipedia and arbitrarily chose that article. You did, on the other hand, come here specifically to further a Libertarian cause before the election.
 * "I don't mind being in an edit war as long as what in advocating for is justified." This means that you will continue edit-warring when the opportunity arises? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, after reviewing the related, rational, and thoughtfully detailed unblock request at User talk:Redandready, I am convinced that Wolfsden and Redandready are not the same person, but there is still a behavioral issue to consider here with respect to WP:BATTLEGROUND. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Anachronist, please see the last UTRS request again. MEAT is likely.

Meat Puppetry
I am being accused of being a meat puppet again, without evidence. I never recruited not do I know anyone on Wikipedia. Your COI section is lengthy but i just read it and if I were editing Gretchen Whitmers page that would be a COI. I was not, I was editing a general election page that did not accurately reference all major party's in a single info box. The dispute is about info box status and you are making it look lime i defaced the page with totally false information. I think your accusations are baseless on COI although I am a libertarian i never attacked a political page. This was a general information page. I think you are accusing me of something im not and it could be said that if you are a democrat or a republican that you are working to keep that page historically and factually false by not representing all the major partys in the info box which was the reason I created the account. Of course, you don't need to recruit meat puppets because you are an admin with a hammer. Would I get into an edit war again? I wouldn't go pick a fight but I can see how you might think that. I'm sure as I become more versed on wiki protocol I would approach things differently but I think your accusations and hammer on my account are baseless and wrong. I think what you are now doing is resisting lifting a ban on my account out of principal and it seems malicious again because you assume my account is malicious and you now have a bias against me which is why I asking for other armins to chime in. I didn't know about any of this until someone mentioned my user account today and I got an email about it. This whole thing should have been handled differently and if you unblock my account you would see. Wiki admin behavior is unbelievable. I could just go make another account to another email but in not. Seriously this is almost a waste of time to try and get you to admit that what you did was wrong to any degree and overkill. You can't even admit that because you seen to assume malicious intent from the start and draw conclusions with zero evidence. Do whatever you want this is a pointless conversation. I will go edit anonymously in the future likebive been doing for a decade without problems. Wolfsden3 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocks are on the user, not the account. If you edit under any name or IP before being unblocked, that is block evasion. 331dot (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Gidebwe na? I don't think so. Just a libertarian? That's all, huh? I think you are in the organization more than the average bear but haven't been forthcoming about it. Are you saying that you weren't campaigning for Gelineau and the Libertarians. You had that interest in mind. "I think your accusations are baseless on COI..." <== You are digging a deeper hole.

Last post
You still aren't even following your own policy trying to call me out. COI has exceptions and I wasn't editing a political party page nor was I editing my own. It was a general election page and the question is whether all major party candidates should be represented in the info box. All you want to do now is play a game of gotcha. I'm not hiding who I am. You have my phone number if you want to call me to discuss and you have my direct email. Perhaps you will disclose who you are sir / madam? You are now clearly playing games. It's also not evasion to edit if I edit with another email or from other IP's, one can not edit any other way once they have been banned forever so what's your point? I'd rather edit with my account than anonymously going forward like I did the past decade. The past decade i wasn't evading i just had no reason to make an account because they were minor edits and clearly less controversial. Again, you still have yet to prove the original offense as me recruiting pupoets with zero proof because there is none. Please offer up proof that I recruited anyone to edit a single info box entry. You are now clearly making this a personal gotcha on a CIO that you think i have and you are now tip toeing on breaking Wiki policy yourself by trying to out me. Think about how far you want to dig your own hole. This entire issue is this:

1 - I and apparently others with the exception of one user think that all major party candidates should be in the info box. That still holds true. I also noted that other party's reaching major party status should be represented in the future so there is no bias. This is all logical and common sense as well as fair. 2 - this is a general election information page, there is a lot to edit and I only edited the single info box entry and justified why I did so in the edit and comments page on multiple occasions. This resulted in an edit war with one user where I sought resolution as best I knew how 3 - Determinations are being made that are not backed up by evidence that led to banning my account. You still have yet to prove the original ban as any kind of puppet tactic which is what the ban was for apparently and nothing was discussed until today to resolve any issue. I did no recruitment. I wasn't the one who put the original picture there, go look at the history. I saw it weeks before then visited the page for information and saw it was gone. I then found the last version with the picture & undid the edit that took it out and the rest is history. 4 - You are also making your own determination that my edit violates COI when in my view it does not regardless of whatever authority you think i have in a political party. I should be so honored you think I'm even well known in those circles! I would suggest everyone has a political affiliation editing that page regardless of status in said party. Again, this is a general election page and a single info box edit with a history of dialogue. COI here in my view is moot unless I were editing something to be factually false.

Get back on point please and stop deflecting and trying to call me out on a supposed COI. You banned me as a puppet of some kind so please prove it or release the ban.

What you are doing to my account is unfair and without evidence. This isn't a court preceding as one wiki article states but wiki has seemed to make you judge and jury.

Other admins should review what you are doing and suggest you lift the ban.

Then perhaps we can discuss the topic of info box inclusion for all major party candidates. If Wikipedia wants to be credible it should consyhow it includes candidates in the info box.

My case rests. Wolfsden3 (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)