User talk:MBarness1234

Reference to “greatest” in Stephen Hendry page

It appears I have been blocked for expressing a different view on this issue.

For the record, I agree with the sentiment of the views expressed under the discussion page entitled ‘Is Hendry the greatest’, i.e. that referring to an individual as “the greatest” or even “one of the greatest” should be avoided in the opening paragraphs of an encyclopaedic article (as a general principle) to ensuring objectivity and neutrality.

However, I note from the edits applied to the Stephen Hendry and Ronnie O’Sullivan pages that there seems to be an effort (whether deliberate or unintentional) to refer to O’Sullivan’s status with stronger language than Hendry’s. Specifically, this effort is being pursued by using the phrase “one of the greatest” in the O’Sullivan page and the phrase “one of the most successful” in the Hendry page. I note that attempts by different editors to make both pages more consistent, including by referring to O’Sullivan as one of the “most successful” rather than “greatest”, have failed as changes have been repeatedly reverted back, pages protected, users blocked and discussion pages prematurely closed.

It is disappointing that it has been acknowledged in the ‘Is Hendry the greatest’ section of the talk page that the O’Sullivan page is not in keeping with Wikipedia’s guidelines and yet nobody contributing has sought to change it, unlike with the Hendry page (i.e. by removing references to “greatest” in the opening paragraphs of the page). It is particularly disappointing that some editors who have engaged in the ‘Is Hendry the greatest’ talk page have made complementary additions to the O’Sullivan page but have not sought to also apply the same changes they are advocating here.

I would therefore politely ask for your support in making amendments to the O’Sullivan page and creating consistency between both pages. Otherwise, other editors will inevitably also pick up on this inconsistency in the future and an edit war likely endure across both pages.

@Rodney Baggins: .MBarness1234 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC) @Betty Logan: .MBarness1234 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC) @Lee Vilenski: .MBarness1234 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC) @Rutebega: .MBarness1234 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support your idea to amend the O'Sullivan page in order to create consistency between Hendry and O'Sullivan. I would also agree that puffery has no place in the lead and it would be prudent to remove words such as "the greatest" from that section altogether. Further discussion is probably in order, but I have been preoccupied with other things of late so have not been watching recent developments. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with the removal of content on O'Sullivan's page - the issue here is that the user has made the edits on the Hendry article. The issue is very clear - this is well covered in both articles' prose, but not in the lede. However, the block here is regarding potential sock puppetry, and not being an administrator I can't overturn that. I would recommend appealing if you are indeed not a sockpuppet of alwaysrightman. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: .MBarness1234 (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Do you have any input?[reply]

If you had proposed altering the wording at the O'Sullivan article I would have supported that, but you were blocked for your behavior at the Hendry article and block evasion. I suggest you retire this account and pursue the WP:STANDARDOFFER at your Alwaysrightman account. Betty Logan (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: Yes, I am proposing amending the O’Sullivan page. I therefore assume you will make the necessary edits to the O’Sullivan page given how strongly you feel on this issue.

I don’t have any other accounts, as you seem to so strongly believe. Please be mindful that simply because an editor agrees with the edits of another user and applies those does not make them the same editor. As an example, you and Lee Vilenski have made the same edits on the Hendry page but, I assume, you are not the same person. Based on your past edits it appears you have actively pursued a large number of editors who have held different views to yourself. This is unfortunate as I was hoping to continue improving my home town Wikipedia page as a side project and increase awareness of its amenities. I was also hoping to improve the standard of pages for my other sporting interests. It looks like that won’t be possible anymore. MBarness1234 (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: So when are you amending the Ronnie O’Sullivan page?. MBarness1234 (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: It looks as if I have come up against the might of the Ronnie O’Sullivan fan club. MBarness1234 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To give you the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to bring it up on Ronnie's talk page. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2019 (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).

MBarness1234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to appeal against my block on the basis that the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. I have been blocked on the belief that I am associated with another user called Alwaysrightman who engaged in disruptive editing to the Stephen Hendry page and was, as I understand, permanently blocked. This is not the case. I recognise that I have attempted to make similar edits to that applied by Alwaysrightman as I agree with the basis of his/her edits. However, please note that debates about the status of the achievements of the subject of the Wikipedia page (Stephen Hendry) go beyond a few editors or Wikipedia itself. Importantly, what distinguishes me from Alwaysrightman is that I do not agree with the manner in which he/she has attempted to make their edits and have instead engaged in a discussion with other editors on the Stephen Hendry talk page. I would like to have my block removed so I can engage in these discussions and resolve the issue rather than seeing other editors like Alwaysrightman enter into an edit war. MBarness1234 (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have examined the edits and find that this account is behaviorally a sock of User:Alwaysrightman. Therefore, this account will remain blocked.

A word of advice: As easy as it can seem to try to deceive the Wikipedia community, I assure you that it is easier to play by the rules. Asking for the block to be lifted on Alwaysrightman might have worked before. However, instead of appealing, you chose to violate Wikipedia policy further by abusing a second account. When you were blocked for that, you made false statements to Wikipedia administrators. At this point, even a simple apology and promise to engage in discussion will not result in Alwaysrightman's block being removed, and if you are still interested in an unblock, you should read WP:SO, and ask an administrator how you want to proceed in six months. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:59, 8 July 2019 (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.

In accordance with WP:BLANKING, please don't remove declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block. They form an important part of the record for reviewing administrators. Please be advised that a CheckUser has confirmed sockpuppetry in this case. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]