User talk:Jack B Williamson
Sockpuppet investigation[edit]
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian K Horton, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020[edit]
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC) |
Jack B Williamson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have denied the accusation, and the technical data was inconclusive. What more needs to be said? Other than the rather obvious fact that JzG has a dog in this fight on two fronts - he has strong views on the content matter I was posting about, namely the reliability of the Daily/Sunday Mail, and he has previously said he thinks Guy Macon is qualified to be an Administrator, so he has every reason to block people who file AN/ I reports that show the exact opposite. It's not evidence of sock-puppetry to be aware of these issues, they are widely discussed on external websites. I am happy to negotiate with an unINVOLVED Administrator, but I won't be engaging with JzG (and those who know how he operates from those off-wiki reviews of his performance, will be totally unsurprised to see his one and only interaction with me, the person he has just blocked, was simply to push the block button. If unblocked, I obviously intend to pursue my outstanding complaint regarding Guy Macon's improper solicitation of my private data and his unevidenced accusations of undisclosed paid editing, confident as I am that the only purpose of this block, was to prevent it from being addressed. Jack B Williamson (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is so very clearly not your first rodeo. If JzG or one of the other admins queueing up to block you hadn't actually blocked you, I'd have probably done it myself. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
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.
If anyone has any lingering doubts about why I was blocked, here is a perfectly valid complaint regarding a serious matter, just being memory holed, not archived. Jack B Williamson (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
And of course, here is JzG directly benefiting from his own block in a content dispute, as he vanishes views that entirely undercut his own, justifying his actions based on the judgement he used to apply his own block. That is straight up wrong, a total abuse of power and privilege. Jack B Williamson (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Jack B Williamson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I see the "treat them like they're an e-jit and act surprised when they f with you" school of Wikipedia Administration is alive and well.
The point you're missing of course, is that it wasn't any other Administrator that blocked me, it was Guy Chapman, the man well known for pulling exactly this type of abusive s it.
What does that achieve, other than the things I have explained to you like you're five, with diffs and everything, but you still don't seem to accept are real and obvious? Well, it allows a Chapman enabling wipe like you to come along and simply decline the appeal with a dumb one liner, like you've actually done good today.
Has you actually been the blocker, you would have had to, Y'KNOW, explain what the f ing block was for, with words and stuff, and not some lazily presented boilerplate either. But that's just silly old me, telling you, Mr. Administrator, what the Wikipedia blocking policy says. Almost as if it was written by people who know the value of treating people the right way, eh?
Now, if we generously interpret your "This is so very clearly not your first rodeo." statement to be an actual attempt to give a policy based rationale for the block, then you'll note, if you're really not that stupid, that at no point has anyone even asked if I had a previous account, so you declining to even consider unblocking me because you believe the answer would be yes, and that I wouldn't have a legitimate reason for that, something like, to take a TOTALLY RANDOM example, some a-hole called Guy Macon keeps threatening my safety by soliciting for my private details I just because he can't handle the fact he knows Jack about British newspapers, merely again leaves us understanding exactly why a person like Guy Chapman so desperately wants and indeed needs to be the first to block in a situation like this.
His pick for Admin school is a straight up joker, someone who will always cause ten times more trouble than he sets out to solve, trouble that chumps like you are left to deal with. Not that you losers have anything better to be doing. You have so generously handed off all the serious and important work to the people who you otherwise glory in hating, via vacuous mouthpieces like Macon, and you then hilariously expect them to have your back over stuff like this? Dream on. They want your lives to be miserable even more than people like me, and that's the truth.
Now, are you done treating me like an e-jit, or shall we go around the Mulberry Bush one more time?
It of course should not need explaining, but if you're really that dumb, I have presented this in an appeal template, just to further mess with you. So that's hopefully at least five Administrators who have had their time wasted tonight, with Bishonen yet again exposed for what she is, all because Guy Chapman is an arrogant a-hole who wants to abuse his Wikipedia power, and indeed Wikipedia itself, to spread misinformation about the Mail, and any other cause he chooses.
Jack B Williamson (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Requests containing personal attacks are not considered. As your comments above suggest you made this request in bad faith, I am removing talk page access. 331dot (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
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.