RandoUsername

July 2017

Please don't make comments such as you did in your edit summary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 30. That log is just to list the articles up for deletion. Your opinions don't belong there. And they don't belong in the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurmukh (yoga teacher) either. Two of your points were completely irrelevant to a deletion discussion ( Sikhism and the name of her child), and one of them (no reliable sources) was incorrect, and would not have been a valid reason for deletion even if correct. It's not whether there are any reliable sources in the article but whether any exist that is important. Your fourth claim (promotional article) I dispute.

See WP:BEFORE You are supposed to present valid reasons for deletion and look for sources before you nominate something. Meters (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the third really third bad AFD nomination you have made. This is getting disruptive. Meters (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurmukh (yoga teacher) while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. And on my talk page Meters (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gurmukh (yoga teacher). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. And my talk page. Meters (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Please remove the personal attacks you made using your IP. And stay off my talk page. I will consider any further posts by you on my page to be vandalism. This applies to both your named account and the IP you used to attack me. Meters (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. And for this edit in particular.

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 ~~~~}}.  Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not denying that RandoUsername was my original account. However, only the account's most recent edit was vandalism. The rest were in earnest. Moreover: I feel that any edits that have been considered as vandalism, were not malicious in nature and were with the best of intents (in this case, laughter). I am hoping Wikipedia administrators can see my point of view and would consider lifting the ban, so that I can continue discussion on Scott Storch. Binksternet has made baseless accusations against me numerous times, originally suggesting I'm an editor from Nova Scotia, and then continuing along this line. I do not feel the swift nature of the action taken against me was fair, as I did not have an opportunity to defend myself. Further, I do feel all of the content on Talk:Scott Storch were well within Wikipedia's guidelines, and it was Binksternet, not myself, who was attacking me and not focusing on the content being discussed. I brought this up numerous times and he continually deflected, and I suspect when he realised he was going to lose this discussion, he resorted to ANI...

Regarding the statement that I was evading the block on RandoUsername. I actually had no idea RandoUsername was blocked until I literally was told by Yamla that I was evading another block, which surprised me. I understand the singular edit was vandalism, but I do not think that this sole act was enough of a basis to ban me. I thought I was banned because of the report by Binksternet, which I still think is the case. I did not create StorchBaby with the knowledge that RandoUsername was banned and I believe the IP logs will reveal that fact. I had not, in fact, logged into RandoUsername after vandalising Degrassi's page (albeit playfully), nor did I think that single act would get me permanently banned. Maybe a timeout, sure, but I do feel the previous edits made by RandoUsername were in earnest, and were well-within the guidelines of wikipedia. Sure, I had a different opinion than the rest, hence the nominations, but is that not what makes Wikipedia's process a good thing?

In closing, I hope administrators consult the logins for RandoUsername and observe that after the edit made on Degrassi's page, I had not logged in and thus had no knowledge I was banned. I created StorchBaby because another user was annoyed I was editing through an IP, and that is actually why I created this account. Additionally, because I am extremely private about my faith, I would not have used RandoUsername to make edits regarding musicians anyways because the edit history makes it obvious and I do not like mixing my interests and faith.

Decline reason:

We already have enough vandals and trolls on English Wikipedia. We don't need another one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2019 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, I have seen NinjaRobotPirate's response, and I was hoping for something a little more insightful. I do not understand why I am being called a troll, here. I admitted that one edit on this account was vandalism, but the rest of them were in earnest. If I understand correctly, the term troll is not applicable to those who make edits in earnest. I do not see how the troll tag is applicable here, especially when reviewing the edit history of both accounts. I am requesting a re-appraisal from another administrator, as I feel Mr RobotPirate's response is not commensurate to the action taken. It is not appropriate nor reasonable, in my opinion, to to assess the content of my edits (outside of the one on Degrassi's page) as 'trolling' or 'vandalism'. It is hard to fathom this would be the interpretation. May I please get this unblock request re-appraised? Original reasoning given below, and thank you in advance:
I am not denying that RandoUsername was my original account. However, only the account's most recent edit was vandalism. The rest were in earnest. Moreover: I feel that any edits that have been considered as vandalism, were not malicious in nature and were with the best of intents (in this case, laughter). I am hoping Wikipedia administrators can see my point of view and would consider lifting the ban, so that I can continue discussion on Scott Storch. Binksternet has made baseless accusations against me numerous times, originally suggesting I'm an editor from Nova Scotia, and then continuing along this line. I do not feel the swift nature of the action taken against me was fair, as I did not have an opportunity to defend myself. Further, I do feel all of the content on Talk:Scott Storch were well within Wikipedia's guidelines, and it was Binksternet, not myself, who was attacking me and not focusing on the content being discussed. I brought this up numerous times and he continually deflected, and I suspect when he realised he was going to lose this discussion, he resorted to ANI...
Regarding the statement that I was evading the block on RandoUsername. I actually had no idea RandoUsername was blocked until I literally was told by Yamla that I was evading another block, which surprised me. I understand the singular edit was vandalism, but I do not think that this sole act was enough of a basis to ban me. I thought I was banned because of the report by Binksternet, which I still think is the case. I did not create StorchBaby with the knowledge that RandoUsername was banned and I believe the IP logs will reveal that fact. I had not, in fact, logged into RandoUsername after vandalising Degrassi's page (albeit playfully), nor did I think that single act would get me permanently banned. Maybe a timeout, sure, but I do feel the previous edits made by RandoUsername were in earnest, and were well-within the guidelines of wikipedia. Sure, I had a different opinion than the rest, hence the nominations, but is that not what makes Wikipedia's process a good thing?
In closing, I hope administrators consult the logins for RandoUsername and observe that after the edit made on Degrassi's page, I had not logged in and thus had no knowledge I was banned. I created StorchBaby because another user was annoyed I was editing through an IP, and that is actually why I created this account. Additionally, because I am extremely private about my faith, I would not have used RandoUsername to make edits regarding musicians anyways because the edit history makes it obvious and I do not like mixing my interests and faith.
Refreshing this request, as you can see Binksternet's attitude has gotten progressively worse. He chooses to argue when it suits him, but now that he has lost, he continues to say "hoax". He made an incorrect assertino about the CBS article being the original source, when in fact it was the Canadian Press article./

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2019 (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.

I bet Binksternet was hoping I would never find this eh, Robert McClenon?

It's deleted for good reason; the same one Binksternet's duplicitous conduct was hinting at: Scott Storch being Canadian changes EVERYTHING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandoUsername (talk • contribs)

References

Still pushing the Canadian hoax, eh? Your link shows nothing new. It's basically this article written by the Associated Press in July 2008 and published in a bunch of newspapers. In the original AP text, there's nothing about being born in Nova Scotia. And this is the same article as the CBS version which we already show in the Scott Storch biography as an example of the media getting it wrong. CBS went to Wikipedia at the time and saw the hoax in place, so they repeated it because of lazy journalism. Your Canadian Press link is yet another example of this lazy journalism. Once again I will point you to XKCD for a graphic explanation.

Since you insist on the hoax, I am certain your indefinite block should not be lifted. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Um, Binksternet, are you able to read? You've shown issues with comprehension many times, and I see it has come up yet again. This article was published *before* the CBS one (16 July 2008 vs 18 July 2008). You continually grasp at straws, and it is rather sad. You have attacked me multiple times and it is obvious the administrators would like to give me another chance, but a low-quality contributor who compensates with volume, is hard to find these days given the sort of conduct by people like yourself. Did you even see the date on the article? Or are you just in denial? It was written by Evelyn McDonnell, too.

So not only is this article published before the CBS article, thereby making the CBS article a rehash of Mrs. Evelyn McDonnell's, it is also the TRUTH and you keep attacking me without basis. I wish administrators would do something about you.

ANyways here is the link is here. I would like to upload this to wikipedia but I am blocked, thereby preventing me from sharing this extremely important information RandoUsername (talk)

Stop pinging me. I'm done dealing with your hoaxing. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)