Oneshotofwhiskey
Leave messages here
Oneshotofwhiskey, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi Oneshotofwhiskey! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC) |
Vandalism? edit
P.O.V. vandalism? You don't have to agree with every edit you see, but I hope you're aware that falsely accusing others of vandalism is disruptive. DarkKnight2149 23:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
September 2016 edit
Hello, I'm David.moreno72. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, David Irving, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. David.moreno72 10:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Yintan. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Ghostbusters (2016 film)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Yintan 17:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, my bad. Slip of the mouse. I've restored your edit. Yintan 17:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Ghostbusters (2016 film). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Yintan 17:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Archived
SPI round two edit
You really shouldn't have done that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, because Round One went so well for you Buster Douglas. See you at the SPI.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
October 2016 edit
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Oneshotofwhiskey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #16731 was submitted on Oct 16, 2016 16:30:20. This review is now closed.
Notice edit
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Dinesh D'Souza and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Alert edit
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Sexual Harassment edit
Hi Oneshot. I believe that the term "sexual harassment" refers to a situation in which the two parties are both employees or are affiliates the same company or school. I think the term is defined to mean unwanted attention or innuendo within a workplace or other institutional setting. Thus the actions described by the People Mag reporter would not be called sexual harassment, because she was not otherwise affiliated with him except as to the transaction that brought them together that day. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Dinesh D'Souza arbitration case request declined edit
The Arbitration Committee has declined the Dinesh D'Souza arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
ANI Notice edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
You've been socking edit
I can't wait to see how you explain this one away.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
October 2016 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —DoRD (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Oneshotofwhiskey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Okay! I thought I was logged in when I was editing on that starbucks wifi IP!!!!! I never claimed to be someone else. In fact, my responses from the IP was continuing a dialogue I was having on the talkpage of the article. That much should've been clear! Sometimes people forget to login!!!! And the charge of socking is meant to imply that I was pretending to be two people!!!! This is an underhanded tactic and unforunately I can NOT properly respond because I've been blocked! Couldn't the disruptive editor who filed this SPI against me (or another admin) have come to my page and simply asked me if was the anon IP????? If then I denied it, then sure, bust me!!! But never in those edits was I pretending to be some random editor trying to come to my rescue or all the absurd things that socks do to create the illusion of consensus. Again, unless this is some new rule where forgetting the sign in is tantamount to "socking" or getting banned, this wouldn't have been the first time I forgot to login! I was at work, on my break grabbing some coffee next door, I thought I was still logged in my account from before! Ridiculous. This is NOT supposed to be how wikipedia works!! The disruptive editor who set up this kangaroo SPI continues to dishonestly suggest that he's not gaming the system AND continues to suggest I'm some past user named skepticsanonymous. In fact this editor is currently part of an API where part of the charge against him is using procedure to game the system. This is his third attempt to game the system through SPIs.
Again, I was essentially blocked for failing to login in. This is a common mistake and a thoughtful examination of my edits and my accuser should make it clear that he was aware of this much. He simply exploited it for gain. One only need to look at his smug warning above to see that he is driven by an angry, disruptive agenda![[1]] He said "we will see how you plan to get out of this one!" Is that the language of a good faith editor???? Of course not! Shame on the rest of you if you let this stand. I was in the middle of an API with that editor. Do you guys honestly think I just lost my mind and started socking????? Again, if you look at my edits when I forgot to login, there was no instance of me EVER trying to pretend to be another person. It's on your consciences if you enable this cunning but clearly transparent editwar tactic.
P.S. I had also tried to respond to the SPI but by then it was too late! I didn't find out about this until AFTER the block. I tried to use my work IP to respond to one of the admins involved AND the SPI itself but later was accused of trying to evade the block. In my defense, I'm new and did not see the harm trying to make others aware of my dilemma this way since I limited my edits to this issue and this issue alone.
UPDATE: The disruptive editor who falsely accused me continues to act in increasingly bizarre and suspicious behavior surround this SPI. After writing this appeal he went on this bizarre rant: [[2]] and [[3]]. My accuser TheTimesAreAChanging is confessing to his agenda there when he says, "So you're saying other users are not allowed to comment on an unblock request? A previously uninvolved admin must decide whether or not to unblock merely by evaluating the petitioners's own claim that the socking/evasion was all a big misunderstanding?" Because, seriously...why should an editor care if I do successfully appeal my decision?! Shouldn't season editors like him who bring SPIs be more concerned with the outcome of an investigation instead of winning and losing!? It's clear here he is a bad faith editor who considers this a childish game. He also continues to misleads the clerks about that SPI and is unfairly being allowed to misrepresent me and speak for me. And long after the SPI was archived he continues to add attacks and misinformation to the page, prompting an admin to warn him about it here [[4]] and here [[5]]. For someone who is so sure about his SPI against me, it should be obvious that he is paranoid or worried about the possibility of it being overturned. I would safely speculate that only editors driven by personal agendas or motives would worry about such a things. SPIs are supposed to be about protecting a community from bad behavior, not moves in some Chess game!
Again, I believe this SPI was in the service of trying to game this API: [[6]] If you look carefully, my accuser is under fire for misleading his fellow editors, and is accused of gaming the system. The SPI is clearly having the intended effect as other editors are now using it as justification against me for sanctions.
I would ask the admin @Oshwah: who is loosely overseeing that API to chime in on this SPI that resulted on my block since he is intimately aware of the drama surrounding all of this, this disruptive editor, and my own history.
Also, since this admin @Snow Rise: on the API in question is now using this fraudulent SPI as cause for recommending topic bans against me, I would at least ask him for some dignity and common decency here and look carefully into this SPI before he commits to that. He himself admits it "is conceivable" I simply forgot to login when I was editing [[7]] and he also concedes that my accuser has tried to mislead his fellow editors with misinformation. Remember, I was banned for "socking", which is a serious charge and allegation, not for forgetting to login! So I would ask him to at least look into the SPI himself and to look very carefully into my accuser's deceptive accusations there BEFORE rushing to judgment. If this SPI was truly "one thing too many" as "Snow Rise" claims, it is only fair that he knows what he got himself into: the framing of an innocent user after being manipulated by this disruptive editor!
Update#2: If it helps, I also found a way to prove that (A) I simply forgot to login and (B) that my accuser was aware that I was never socking:
If you look at my edit here on the talk page when I was logged-in [[8]] my accuser TheTimesAreAChanginghad responded to me directly in this edit [[9]] where he threatened me with an API because I didn't agree with him. Later, when I came back to call his bluff about his API I responded to him with THIS edit (where I forgot to login) [[10]]. It should be clear that I was responding to him as myself in my own voice, and NOT as a sock. My accuser clearly knew is was me since shortly there after he responded by making that API.[[11]]. After I had restarted my iphone following an update to the recently released iOS 10.1, I then realized I was probably not logged in at THAT time and chose to login with this edit! [[12]] The problem was that I didn't realize I hadn't been logged in for the prior edits :^/
And the truth is, I never thought that such a thing was such a big deal in the first place since I assumed that you guys have enough sense to know who is who in the context of a conversation. If I knew that TheTimesAreAChanging would exploit such a silly error on my part against me, then of course I would've been more careful! But I'm editing on an iphone 5c on small breaks at work so sometimes newer editors like me make these rookie mistakes!
Also, if you look again at the SPI that was used to block me, TheTimesAreAChanging he confesses to "attack me" here, saying "I'm going to broaden my attack here." Are SPIs supposed to be used to "attack" others??? What is this? A war?!?? The TheTimesAreAChanging misleads his audience with deliberate misinformation, saying that I was perhaps using the IP to "evade a topic ban that was not yet imposed" when that is ridiculous given that I was an active part of that API and that would be (A) suicide to do such a thing and (B) impractical since I was free to edit the page in my own voice since there was no warnings for me not to. In fact, in the sole edit on the article when I forgot to login [[13]] it should be clear I was speaking in my own voice as me trying to remind others users of a talkpage debate we were in! Given that, and the timing of my edits (both logged in and out) there is NO pattern or words indicating an attempt to deceive others. The continuity of the edits should make that much clear.
It should also be clear that TheTimesAreAChanging is using this SPI as part of an edit war and personal attack when he leaves smug remarks like this one on my talk page [[14]] saying "I can't wait to see how you explain this one away." Shouldn't seasoned editors like this one, when bringing out serious charges, make an effort to be civil? He's clearly goading me and taunting me with what he hopes is a form of gotcha politics.
I would also invite @DoRD: to revisit this since I was blocked so quickly by him that I was denied a proper defense. He said "so I have blocked Oneshotofwhiskey for a week for editing while logged out in an attempt to appear as more than one editor." I dare him to read my defense here, carefully re-examine my edits in the proper context, look at my accuser TheTimesAreAChanging's own disruptive and dishonest/misleading words in all of this, and tell me that he would've come to the same conclusion!! Again, the boring truth is that I simply forgot to login, a mistake we've all made at some time or another. If you can uphold your decision of me in good conscience AFTER being made aware of all of this, then at best you are deeply misuderstood of my own behavior or the other editor succeeded in pulling the wool over your eyes. In any case, that's on you and your conscience.
I would also like to invite @SPECIFICO: who is intimately aware of TheTimesAreAChanging stalking behavior of me since she is currently involved in the aforementioned SPI, is fully aware of the context of all of this, and the disruptive editor's history of trying to weaponize rules and procedures in an effort to game the system and edit war. When/if you arrive, could you please look into the SPI yourself and offer your take.
Sorry for the long-winded response, but there was much manipulation and misinformation spread about me in my absence and given that I was never given a proper chance to defend myself, I think it was only fair to ask others to hear me out. But I think the problem with these things boils to something simple: the evidence should always be on the accuser, never the accused. Because of this rash block against me, it has terribly impacted an ongoing API which has harmed the community-at-large and now has created a situation when I'm guilty until PROVEN innocent. No one should have to endure that burden and violation when the stakes are my freedom to express myself here and my reputation. :^(
Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Putting aside the fact that successful unblock requests are concise, the problem is not really that you logged out (I do that too), but that you were edit warring and being generally disruptive. The block is not forever; have two weeks off until the election's over and come back refreshed. I also don't particularly care if TheTimesAreAChanging has confessed to the Lindbergh kidnapping (at least not in the context of this discussion); an unblock request should focus on your behaviour and how you can prove the block is no longer necessary. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:11, 27 October 2016 (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.
Bye!Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- Other than ADMINs or moderators, please do not write on my talk page regarding the above issue. Take it up with them on their respective pages.***
Whiskey, you've pinged me so I presume you're OK with my comment here. At the very top of Times' user page he reveals his approach to editing Wikipedia: "I do a better job of it than many of my opponents." Having seen him in action recently, that attitude pretty well sums up his behavior. It's as if he views WP as another online video game, similar to the many games he lists having edited. The problem is that he's continued his nasty attacks, ownership, and battleground behavior for almost a year after he was notified of ARBAP Discretionary Sanctions. It's perfectly clear that editing American Politics is not like wrastling primates in Super Monkey Ball or chasing the cute little cartoon characters in Sonic R -- but I'm not convinced that TheTimesAreAChanging sees any difference. At any rate, it's easy to lose track of whether one's logged in, what with the blurred lines between mobile devices, software, data in the cloud, etc. I don't see that Whiskey made any attempt to impersonate an alternate sockpuppet personality. I do see that Times has consistently used every weapon he can muster against his "opponents" -- his word -- on Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Notice edit
Even though you can't defend yourself at this time, I am still obligated to post this message on your talk page informing you of an investigation into the possibility that you have continued your past sockpuppetry and block evasion. Say it ain't so!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Blocked edit
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely because the account owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.
(Account information: block log · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage) |
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open! edit
Hello, Oneshotofwhiskey. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)