Jkmarold55

removing COI tag F. Warren McFarlan

Hi you have removed a COI tag on the above article without justification; On the talk page you wrote "I have been specifically instructed by a representative of the subject of this article to create it. All information was supplied by him, and are primary sources." this is the very definition of a COI editor. Please do not remove the tag again or this may be considered as vandalism. You do not WP:OWN the article. Domdeparis (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Neither do you. I must have misspoke. I was NOT specifically instructed. I don't know the subject or any representative of his personally or professionally. I only established contact with the representative for the reasons I brought up before. You cannot call it vandalism. It isn't content, furthermore you have no more editing privileges or rights on this site than I do, so if you have the power to establish a false tag on an article, I have every power to remove it. Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You did not misspeak you wrote a very clear statement

"This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because I have been specifically instructed by a representative of the subject of this article to create it. All information was supplied by him, and are primary sources. After the hard work we put into producing a well deserved article for an impressive figure, it is disappointing to see Wikipedians shutting down pages simply because of source issues. I would very much like to collaborate with you to remove any issues, but let's please not have it deleted."

This is not a simple typing error. Was what you wrote true or false? Domdeparis (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I told you, it was an error. I was just hastily typing a response. I was very distraught at the time, and I just didn't read over what I had typed. As for whether it was true or false, I am surprised you have not yet been able to ascertain the answer. I can play the quotes game too. I said "I don't know the subject or any representative of his personally or professionally." I also said "I must have misspoke." Can you put two and two together and see that obviously, I retract the false claim I made before as an error? Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't the first time the possibility of you being paid to/asked to edit by a third person has been bought up... --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Jkmarold55 It is not an error or a problem with having typed one word instead of another by inadvertance one of the above phrases is totally untrue and if it isn't voluntary and you are capable of writing blatant untruths by inadvertence I wonder if you shouldn't take a break from editing subjects that you seem very passionate about notably this one. Domdeparis (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It's problematic whichever way you look at it. If someone has paid you to do this, then you're breaking the TOU by not fully disclosing the fact. If someone has asked you to do this, then you have a massive conflict of interest and shouldn't be editing the article anyway and if you are telling untruths simply to try and prevent the article being deleted, then you probably should step back before you get into trouble. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not being paid by the subject to make this page. I simply thought he deserved a page. Why are you people blowing this issue out of proportion?

April 2017

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Jkmarold55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Jkmarold55". The reason given for Jkmarold55's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jkmaro

• Blocking administrator: Berean Hunter (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: Not autoblocked. You are blocked directly for abusing multiple accounts. Yamla (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Jkmarold55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18005 was submitted on Apr 11, 2017 21:12:23. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter:

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).

Jkmarold55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Guys seriously, this is totally uncalled for. I never used any other account but mine!! It's all unfounded based off of inferences! I have NO affiliation WHATSOEVER with the subject, Kaur, or anyone else, I jsut happened along the site. Look at my posts. I put up honest posts that just wanted the pages to conform. I never whitewashed it. You can even see that one of my edits was MOVING THE ABUSE CLAIM UP!!! All I wanted to do was remove it from the first sentence and put it somewhere after it because it makes it conform with other articles. Please reconsider, and feel free to look at my history on that page. Read my responses. Please. Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:01, 12 April 2017 (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.

The sockpuppet investigation says otherwise. I knew I was right to open it but I didn't suspect how far it would go. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I am appalled. I am no sockpuppet. I simply came on Wikipedia to get involved. I'm new. I have an issue with taking articles way too personally, and frankly, it's gotten me into way too much trouble. If you look at the accounts he confirmed that were mine, one was one I created YEARS ago, but forgot the password to the linked email address, and the Mikesebastian one was NOT MINE but one I accessed ONCE (with the owner's permission) to sort a problem with his account out. I'm really, really sorry for the misunderstanding, but there has to be some way I can sort this out! I am not a sockpuppeteer, and I really don't give a damn about the livelihood of these articles. It's just my problem with taking personally every page I've edited. I feel like my hard work is under fire with these things and feel appropriate to respond. I was wrong, and I can fix my behavior, but I'll stand fast to my claim that I do not sockpuppet to back up claims on Wikipedia. I do not do this for pay, or I would disclose it. The other articles were banned not because I am a paid puppet, but because I want to contribute and don't know the ropes like I should. Please help me out here. What steps can I make with discussing it with the proper authorities? How can I rectify this? Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's funny then, because both the one you claimed you created years ago and then couldn't get on and the one that is supposedly your friends have singular contributions that were made at the end of March 2017. Suspicious from an account that you supposedly couldn't get the password for and one that you were only on to "fix a problem". --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If you actually look at the history, I've really started to actually work with Wikipedia in the past few weeks! Before I was going to start, but never got around to it. I have not accessed the jakemarold one at all in years. Jkmarold55 (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

So how come there is an edit on it from the end of March 2017? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Where? I literally have no recollection of ever finding that password and accessing the site. Seriously, I would tell you if I did. Also, please address my other concerns. I have no desire to be stifled from this community any longer. I'll change my admittedly wrong ways. I apologized, but I have never used any other account as a sockpuppet. Also, you can see that Mikesebastian was logged in by another IP a lot more than mine, proving that it was a friend, and the only other confirmed account, jakemarold, has never engaged in anything relating to the articles in this investigation, proving that the ONLY ACCOUNTS confirmed to be mine had no relation to any of this. How can I be a sockpuppet, have this entire case be closed, my IP be banned, and this account disabled when there is a baseless claim that I was sockpuppeting, not supported by any hard evidence, or my confirmed usage of other accounts! You know perfectly well, that VPNs are BLOCKED on Wikipedia. It's physically impossible to change IPs on a CROSS COUNTRY basis without a VPN, and they have been banned from creating accounts. This makes utterly no sense, and you know it. All I am asking for is your help. I don't want to be constantly critiqued and picket at, I'm asking for help. The evidence just doesn't prove that I deserve such a harsh punishment. I've accepted I've done wrong, and I WILL rectify it, I promise. At least help me out, or put me on some sort of probationary period. Thanks a lot! Jkmarold55 (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Here for Jakemarold - [1], and here for Mikesebastian - [2]. Both accounts making edits on a page that you have a self admitted COI. It doesn't matter that the articles you edited had nothing to do with the ones mentioned in the report. You still used other accounts to make edits to articles that you had a vested interest in. I'll address your other responses when you can do the decent thing and start telling the truth. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

~There is a reason why I'm so distraught about this account. It's my one, and only account. It's where I put all of my hard work, it's where I try my best to make good edits.All I want is this problem fixed. I don't want grudges or personal beef with me to get in the way. I want this all sorted out, and I am willing to thoroughly explain all of this, and prove it as well. Thank you so much for understanding. Jkmarold55 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It clearly isn't though. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

None of what you say above adds up... you seem to have a problem with the truth or reality...you created another account Jakemarold at 05:15 on the 25/03/2017 and it's only edit was at 05:18 of the same day on the Mcfarlan article, the account Mikesebastian was created at 06:03 on the same day and has made one edit (yours) at 06:12 on the same day. You are a classic sockmaster but not a very clever one you have left a trail that a 4 year-old could follow and then blatantly lie about your actions. I cannot see how you could possibly fix your behaviour you have been caught out telling radically different stories on talk pages here and here and when confronted you say that it was an error and you misspoke or you forgot what really happened. I personally think that you should give up on Wikipedia editing totally as you take everything personally and you don't get the community aspect of Wikipedia but I'm not an administrator so they may see things differently. Domdeparis (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The only reason you are distraught is because you've been caught. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Whoa, no need for this. Here I am, trying to work with you to fix this, and you're giving me this crap. Mike Sebastian is a real friend of mine. Go to www.mikesebastian.com I can even get him to email you. These anecdotes, 4 year old and other crap, aren't helpful. I apologized for the controlling behavior I had on my pages. Domdeparis doesn't want to accept that and is taking it personally. I am NOT lying, and I did NOT sockpuppet. How can you even call using jakemarold sockpuppeting if it is so OBVIOUSLY me? If I was going to sockpuppet, I would use another name! Jkmarold55 (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

There are some great tools on WP that you should use before telling fibs...you say that jakmarold account was created years ago? Try clicking here, you say that because the IP address is different this proves that it wasn't you and that your friend asked you to help him with a problem with his account your "friend" created his account at 06:03 and then called you to help him with his "problem" and you managed to get to his house fix the problem and have time to type over 6,000 characters on the Mcfarlan page in ...9 minutes...please...there is a great saying...if you want to get out of the hole stop digging! Domdeparis (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because, as Domdeparis said, you aren't a very clever sock puppeteer. And I'm sorry for "giving you this crap", but you are the one who has been caught out using multiple accounts and then trying to claim you haven't. I cannot see you getting unblocked at all. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

And now you have put your finger on the real problem

"I apologized for the controlling behavior I had on my pages"

They are not your pages, they belong to the community and you do not WP:OWN them. really I would find another hobby or a way of earning a few extra bob as you are clearly in contact with people to create their pages or reply to requests to edit for money. Domdeparis (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't. Also, it was a copy and paste. He had his info on a Google Doc. I can send you the link to that. Here we are sticking to this crap again. My friend wanted to contribute to the article, but didn't know how. I did it for him. Once again, I can get you an email confirming it. I know I'm not a clever sockpuppeteer. Because I'm not one. I DON'T OWN THEM!!! I KNOW THAT! I APOLOGIZED! Jkmarold55 (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

More baseless claims. Show me one shred of evidence that I was given money to do this. ONE. Jkmarold55 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I told you, and I give up. I have not sockpuppeted, and if somehow it classifies as it as such, such as the usage of jakemarold, (which makes no sense because it is obviously me) I'm sorry. At least put me on a probationary period. I want to work with Wikipedia and contribute, but I've had trouble finding people who'll help instead of attack. Banning my IP and preventing me from ever editing again is WRONG, and is extremely harsh and hurtful. That should be reserved for people who have used HUNDREDS of different IPs to make edits, have rock solid evidence to prove it, and have actually vandalized. Jkmarold55 (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Simple question...did you create the account Jakemarold years ago as you claim? Domdeparis (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, mistake. I have another one named similarly that you vultures haven't uncovered yet that I forgot the password to. Probably been removed for inactivity by now.

(Edit conflict) :: You have, the report proves it, and on the basis of this discussion, you clearly don't care two hoots that you have done so. I will recommend the closing of this talk page now. This farce has gone on long enough. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What on earth! Now you're taking away my ability to..holy crap! All I want to do is rectify this situation! I am NOT A SOCKPUPPET! I can provide EVIDENCE that mikesebastian is not my sockpuppet. Jakemarold is NOT a sockpuppet. How can it be, it is so easily identifiable as being mine! This is outrageous! Put your personal opinions aside! I apologized and provided evidence. I asked for help, and I got none of it. Jkmarold55 (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not taking away your ability to use your talk page. I'm simply asking an admin if they can do it. You are a sockpuppet. A Checkuser check verified that the two accounts are yours. That's all there is to it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that you should drop it now you're even getting mixed up with your own untruths, you say you edited with the account that you hadn't used in years because you had lost the email password and as if by magic you found it and edited rather than using this account (why on earth would you do that?) but in actual fact you'd forgotten that in reality you had created Jakemarold the same day to remove the speedy delete tag with a comment "reviewed" to circumvent the fact that you couldn't remove it yourself. You had edited 1 minute before that and then 2 minutes after with Jkmarold55, this is clearly WP:EVASION. An hour later you log on as Mikesebastian to add 6000 bytes and then 4 minutes later you log on with Jkmarold55 to request a speedy delete this is clearly to avoid WP:SCRUTINY. All of this is forbidden. And to top it all you tell the wildest stories to try and explain this. Your request for help I think is totally legitimate but we may not be qualified to give you that help, I certainly am not. Domdeparis (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. 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.  Bishonen | talk 16:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• You were already supposed to be waiting for the UTRS team to process your request, see above — see where it says "Please do not request additional unblocks" above? You can write to UTRS again and tell them about the "vultures", if you want. We're done here. Bishonen | talk 16:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC).

Draft:Katrina Cravy concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Katrina Cravy, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)