User talk:AHC300

Defending against sockpuppet investigations

I have been an active and respected member of the wikipedia community for years now. I have voted in every wikipedia poll and active with other users. Everything I post on wikipeida is sourced and verified information. I am not "disruptive", nor am I "misuse of two or more accounts by the one individual". My edits are critical for expanding wikipedia and I have spent countless free hours of my time creating and editing articles. These accusations are completely absurd. AHC300 (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have extensively studied the history of this and your other accounts, and it is clear beyond any doubt that you have been using this account to evade blocks on a number of other accounts. Contrary to what you seem to imply in your message above, the fact that you have managed to get away with it for several years does not make it somehow all right to continue to evade blocks, nor does the high opinion you have of the value of your own editing. Therefore this account has been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to the bottom of the talk page of your original account, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JBW (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2021 (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).

AHC300 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

reason=I am NOT Latitude0116. I was accused of being Latitude0116 sock puppet in 2012 unfairly and unjustly and had to create new accounts because you mods accused me of being Latitude0116 without any proof. I have not done anything wrong and you are persecuting a valued wiki contributor for zero reason. What do I HAVE TO DO for you people to let me have an account on wikipedia to edit it?

Decline reason:

You say you aren't a sock puppet but then say you create new accounts to evade a block. If that's what you are going to do, then there is nothing more to be done here. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2021 (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).

AHC300 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The stated reason for blocking me is on it's face wrong as I am not a sock puppet of Latitude0116 and Latitude0116 has stated the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Latitude0116#Unblock_request_2 This entire thing started because a admin in 2012 thought I was someone else (Latitude0116) and banned me. I have been posting on Wikipedia for 6 years now and had 13,000 edits. Ask yourself this: Why would I go though all this effort for almost 10 years now? What end game is there? I have not engaged in any trolling, I am not disruptive, I produce vital information and links to wiki pages on various subjects. You are banning me for what? What am I supposed to do now? 13,000 edits on Wikipedia and this is the thanks I get. I am very mad at the treatment I am getting. Unless you want me and Latitude0116 show up in a court of law I do not know how on earth other than the evidence I have given to prove I am not him I do not know what a you are excepting of me to do. I will do whatever it takes to be un-banned and part of the wikipedia community. AHC300 (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even if you're not a sock puppet of Latitude0116, you're still a sock puppet of Female bodybuilder enthusiast. This doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that you were innocent. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2021 (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.

You cannot remove prior declined requests until the block is removed, per WP:BLANKING. Please decide where you want this mattered handled, here or UTRS, and withdraw the request at the other location. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reviewing this. But if what you say is true why have you shown that you will disregard Wikipedia policy when it becomes inconvenient for you by creating accounts to evade the block? Even if the initial finding of sockpuppetry is incorrect, you have not helped yourself by evading the block. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If what you say is true." Hmmmmmm let me get this straight. Let me try to wrap my mind around this nonsense. Some admin blocks me claiming Latitude0116, a user created in 2004 (back I was 12 years old btw) based off zero evidence outside we had similar interested in one topic. So I should just accept my ban never post again? I was banned under the FALSE PRETENSE of being a sock of Latitude0116! That is the failure of the wikipeida guidelines to begin with! I was Is that what you are saying? What do you want me to do? Go back to my old 2012 wikipeida account? AHC300 (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Female_bodybuilder_enthusiast I TRIED TWICE to get the admins to unblock me. TWICE ON MY ORGINAL WIKI ACCOUNT! WHAT THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO DO?!

COMPARE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Latitude0116 to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Female_bodybuilder_enthusiast&limit=500&target=Female+bodybuilder+enthusiast We are not the same person!

The standard offer, for starters. And yes, return to your original account if you can still log in to it. No administrator is going to unblock you if you show that you will just disregard Wikipedia policy when one affects you. You have made it worse for yourself by creating additional accounts even if what you say is true. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned to my original account and made my ban appeal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Female_bodybuilder_enthusiast. Please review it User:331dot. I just want all of this to end so I can return to editing Wikipedia. I did not do anything with malcontent. THis entire thing is a mistaken identity crisis. I am literally crying right now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Female_bodybuilder_enthusiast AHC300 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I commented that you should be blocked in the SPI. However, I think you are speaking the truth here now that you were not Latitude0116 or Plateau99. Female bodybuilder enthusiast was connected to earlier socks based on behavior only. I noticed that Latitude or Plateau did not edit bodybuilding, may have had a different writing style and a more pronounced POV on zoophilia. You may have been wrongly blocked in 2013. However, your own socking that followed then has been rather extensive, as you apparently evaded that block with CentrumZero, 61-1099lm, Chiseled abs cutter, GayTenn, Dawkinsfan44 and now with this account. It's probably a mitigating factor that you may have originally been blocked in error, and that as far as I can see, you have not been blocked or banned with any account based on anything other than socking. But still, using multiple accounts to evade a block is against policy, and it may be that you won't be allowed to edit anymore. I don't know enough about zoophilia to vouch for you to be unblocked since it's a tricky subject. But I suggest that in any possible new appeals, you clearly acknowledge all the previous accounts you used along with your full editing history, and point out that the connection to Latitude wasn't checkuser confirmed. I understand this is a frustrating situation, but using those previous accounts put this situation out of the frying pan into the fire.--Pudeo (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Timeline of zoophilia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of zoophilia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of zoophilia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"LGBT fascist politics" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect LGBT fascist politics. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 26#LGBT fascist politics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. gnu 57 15:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"LGBT fascist" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect LGBT fascist. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 26#LGBT fascist until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. gnu 57 15:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"LGBT fascism" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect LGBT fascism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 26#LGBT fascism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. gnu 57 15:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of News with Ed Schultz

The article News with Ed Schultz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG, sources are just passing mentions

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Black LGBT Community" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Black LGBT Community has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 30 § Black LGBT Community until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"LGBT liberal" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect LGBT liberal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 12 § LGBT liberal until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"LGBT liberalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect LGBT liberalism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 12 § LGBT liberalism until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Classical Marxist parties in the United States has been nominated for merging

Category:Classical Marxist parties in the United States has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]