User talk:2Famous2UseMyName

Talk to me

My name is Matthew Berdyck[edit]

Unlike other Wikipedia editors, I have no interest in anonymity; I’m not afraid of using my own name behind my opinions and views on the world. I’d actually had another account with my real name as the username but Wikipedia said it was too well known to be a username so I started this account. I’m the founder of a national, non-partisan environmental investigation firm. I care very much about history and preserving it accurately. My interests are in the Superfund, Manhattan Project, and the acquisition of useless general knowledge. Even though I’m new here, some editors already don’t like because of my career. Their opinion of me means nothing and I’d politely ask that those that have an ax to grind against me to go upstairs from the basement and get that Mac and cheese mom just made and consider getting a life. 2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably move this to your user page at User:2Famous2UserMyName. bop34 • talk • contribs 00:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I’m trying to figure all of this out. This is hard. 2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user is acting in a biased manner and I am reporting them to the admins. 2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You will never be allowed to use Wikipedia as a tool in your vendetta against Erin Brockovitch. That is never going to be permitted. Blog elsewhere. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already appealed the block. I don’t have a personal vendetta. I will be reinstated as I addressed all of this prior to publishing abd was advised by other editors to add my sources to her talk page. Unless you have secondary sourcing stating I have a vendetta, which you don’t, you cannot declare my intentions.2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have an axe to grind. Take it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a famous person and I’d like you to present reliable secondary sourcing that I have an “ax to grind.” As I stated, I’m simply trying to add links to the talk page which talk about scandals, created by 46 separate and unrelated journalists. I did not edit the article and I was directly told by editors to add the articles to the talk page, which can be seen on my previous MatthewBerdyck account.2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that an administrator observing your behavior on Wikipedia needs "reliable secondary sourcing" to conclude that you are axe-grinding, then I submit that you are incorrect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I am a public figure, whether you like it or not. In eight years, 2,800 cities of travel, meeting tens of thousands of people, being involved in hundreds of causes, publishing millions of words of original research, if I had a history of acting out that behavior, there would be secondary sourcing. There is not and you are wholly incorrect. If anything, what you’re creating is a public evidence needed for any journalist to come here and see that Wikipedia editors are, in fact, preventing negative information about Erin from being published, even though there’s a lot of it - I mean a lot - and this incident is perfect for that because as you’re aware, I sought the advice of editors and admins prior to publishing and followed their instructions to the letter. Your statements are false and can be proven to not be in line with my actions in my career. I have no ax to grind. Period. Only I can state that as a fact.2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I’m thankful you did all of this to me and left it out in public. The record shows that I was directly encouraged to declare my bias and add sourcing for other editors to consider, making zero effort to allow anyone to edit her publicly entry but unbiased editors. What you’ve shown here is that without looking at the sourcing I was provided, you defaulted to personal attacks against me, bizarre allegations that you have some clairvoyance allows you to read my mind and intentions, and you limited other editors from seeing the sourcing that is missing from her page. It’s clear to anyone with appropriate logical reasoning skills that your efforts serve the interest of one person, Erin. If they didn’t, you’d have let me at least post the sourcing and go about my business. Abuse of power is a genderless crime and these posts are now a tome of the lengths the world will go to so they can protect the movie character they think is a real person. Your allegations would hold much more weight if you hadn’t silenced me before I added the articles and sat back and watched if acted in a biased manner, rather than automatically reverting to “Erin must be protected at all costs” mode. I couldn’t even make that allegation if you’d done this differently, so leave it all here. It’s important to our future that all of this remain up and live forever. For when my story is finally told, this incident is now a part of it.2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a famous person. When you actually have to say it, you ain't. Zaathras (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not the one who said it. I created an account yesterday which included my own name in the username and Wikipedia sent me a notice saying I couldn’t use my own name because it’s “too well known.” If you’re claiming I have an “ax to grind” please show me your secondary source. 2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To make a point: The job of building an encyclopedia includes publishing information that one may not want to hear, without bias. And I did appropriately declare my bias and address all of this prior to adding my information to the talk page. I was going to spend the rest of the night adding the secondary sourcing for other editors to review, meaning I would have no control over the resulting edits, this confirming I’m do not have an “ax to grind” and nor am I here to wage a “personal vendetta.” I carefully followed everyone’s instructions on how to proceed and sadly, this user came here and acted out the very behavior I’d already addressed on the admin noticeboard. The facts are, there over 45 separate unrelated journalists that have published articles about Erin’s indiscretions and I believe that they warrant addition to the encyclopedia. That this editor never considered them, prior to making libelous allegations, says a lot.2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal block[edit]

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).

2Famous2UseMyName (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Prior to becoming an editor, I publicly addressed years of personal attacks that I’ve endured at the hands of Wikipedia editors, even though I’ve never been on this site before. I then went to the admin notice board, declared my bias against Erin Brockovich and raised concerns about the editors who are watchdogging her article. I attempted to add a section where I added volumes and volumes of secondary source articles detailing out various scandals and controversies involving Erin. Before I could even begin adding the articles, I was banned from the page. If you check my public concerns about the previous years long attacks I’ve endured from editors, concerns I published under the MatthewBerdyck account, I was told that I was encouraged to add my secondary sources to talk pages but not to edit articles where I have bias. In spite of preempting this entire situation, I have now been banned, as predicted, and I’ve not even had my account for 3 hours. Please unban my account and clarify the instructions I was previously given for adding the scandal articles to her talk page, and address my public concerns about bias in the editors who are protecting her. The user that blocked me claimed I have a “vendetta” and and “ax to grind” but this is incorrect and there is no reliable secondary source which reflect this and neither are there secondary sources which state that I would behave in this manner. My own talk page directly addresses that I’m frequently the subject of public attacks for stating uncomfortable facts. I believe the editors did not give me a reasonable warning and nor did I make any attempt to edit the Erin Brockovich page. If anything, this situation proves my allegations that I’d originally posted on the Admin Notice Board, prior to attempting to add the articles to the talk page.

Decline reason:

In Special:Diff/1014264917, you stated, "I have a prior existing and long standing professional conflict with Erin", on Talk:Erin Brockovich. The Wikipedia policy against using biographies to continue disputes with living persons (WP:BLPCOI) states, "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest".

If you would like to edit other topic areas on Wikipedia for which you do not have a conflict of interest, please disclose those topic areas in a new unblock request, which another administrator will review. If you are to be unblocked, it is likely that you will be partially blocked from editing the Erin Brockovich and Talk:Erin Brockovich pages, and topic banned from discussing Erin Brockovich anywhere on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 04:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, based on behavioral evidence, it is clear that 2Famous2UseMyName is a sockpuppet of the previously blocked editor Rightventracleleft (talk · contribs), who also operated the previously blocked account Welkinstan (talk · contribs). — Newslinger talk 08:20, 26 March 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.

2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 03:01, 26 March 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).

2Famous2UseMyName (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made no effort to edit her article. With direction from admins and editors, I was instructed to add secondary sourcing to her talk page for other editors to consider. Your reasoning in the support of the block does not apply to what I was literally instructed to do and subsequently did, at the advice of admins and editors. Also, I’m the only other national, touring activist in the US, so it’s only me that would have access to the full cache of negative articles. I believe this has been elevated to an incident strong enough for tech media, as I can show any journalist that I carefully followed admin instructions and predicted that I’d be attacked for simply adding an archive of articles that are missing from her entry, which always should have been there. In fact, if they would have been there from the start of my career, I never would have engaged her and became a target to begin with. This is what Cosby and Weinstein victims went through for decades.2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The two unblock requests do not address the stated reason for the block ("it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia"). Wikipedia is not available for righting great wrongs or using talk pages to attack living people (e.g., the redacted comment at 07:13, 26 March 2021). Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 26 March 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.

2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Due to the years of attacks by editors, I’ve often had to approach Wikimedia Foundation to resolve these issues. I’ve escalated this matter to them as I’ve discovered the the users who took part in this have conflicts of interest. One user declared their affiliations with Sierra Club, of which I spoke out against them and frivolous fund raising, only last week, and the other works for the US government as I run an organization which exposes corruption in the US government. I was banned from the site to prevent me addressing these conflicts and was targeted based on conflicts of interest which are clearly present, including blind supporters of Erin Brockovich. Also, libelous posts have been created claiming I have no sources, when I do in fact have close to 50 secondary sources, to make me appear to be disreputable, as a political attack.2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I have a "conflict of interest" with you? I have no idea who you are beyond a username on Wikipedia. Seems like your time would be better spent doing something other than complaining about Erin Brockovich on the Internet. Just a suggestion. You don't have to heed it, of course. But then, we don't have to let you edit Wikipedia either. Good luck and Godspeed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of conflict of interest does not allow you to state whether you have avoided those conflicts. You do, in fact, know who I am, it’s clearly stated on my talk page, Wikipedia’s own system won’t allow me to use my own name as a username because I’m well known, and I could arguably be working with your inspector general right now on a matter that involves you or your agency, as I investigate corruption in all areas of government. Your statement that I am “complaining about Erin Brockovich” reveals your bias, because I’m not complaining about her, I’m trying to provide an archive of sourcing which was created by journalist that reveals she’s hurting people all over the country. I understand that you don’t care if she harms people. But she does do this, there is secondary sourcing, and it’s facts which qualify for inclusion. After getting famous, making millions of dollars, I think I’ve made good use of my time, and don’t need advice from a corrupt agent of the government.2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any administrator considering this unblock request should also take a look at the history of User:MatthewBerdyck. As for the notion that the fact that I disclose that I joined the Sierra Club back in 1976 is somehow connected with this block? That is utterly false. I had absolutely no knowledge that these accounts had anything to do with the Sierra Club until reading the above. My involvement with the Sierra Club in the 21st century is paying annual dues and occasionally reading the magazine that they mail to me. About ten years ago, I wrote some biographies of mountaineers who were Sierra Club members. That's it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation is more than aware of the years of aggressive attacks I’ve endured by editors and admins even though I was never a member of this site. They’ve repeatedly, for seven solid years, have worked to help me stop the mudslinging and aggression. They’re also aware of who I am as an activist, what I’ve contributed to this country, and that any allegation that I have an ax to grind is false and created from a biased pro Erin mindset. What I’ve addressed with them is forcing the inclusion of my archive of articles preserving the integrity of the encyclopedia, in spite of what malicious actors with agendas might want, and preventing people from attacking anyone who criticizes Erin. There a long history of this behavior, with her article.2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) 2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed violation of the biographies of living persons policy. — Newslinger talk 08:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021[edit]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

— Newslinger talk 08:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]