User talk:Ahoalton

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because of concerns that the chosen username may not meet our username policy.

This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, confusing, or misleading.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username which is quick and easy. To do so, please follow these directions:

Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username.

Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

Dreadstar † 23:32, 10 March 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

This username Ahoalton is completely acceptable. It is a Lenni Lanape word which translates to "to love one another"! How can any organization have the right to exclusive use of a word, let alone a word expressing a benevolent sentiment like this?! I request the immediate unblocking of my username and account. If you follow the order of events on the talk page you will find that I have conducted myself civilly and have made every attempt to conform to the administrator's demands, even when those demands were unwarranted. You will also see a systematic attempt to quash the issues that I am trying to constructively debate.

Decline reason:

you are clearly blocked user: 69.127.11.135 (talk · contribs). You may not create new accounts to dodge a block. Regardless of the meaning of your username, this account will NOT be unblocked because you are violating Wikipedia policy by continuing to change accounts and IP addresses to avoid prior blocks.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:03, 11 March 2008 (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.

Hi Ahoalton, I've asked Dreadstar to explain why he considers the name to be unacceptable. Addhoc (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing admin, this user has been disruptively editing from several IP addresses which were blocked. This username "Ahoalton" is one of the words he has been trying to edit war into an article against consensus, [1], [2], [3], [4]. Dreadstar † 00:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing admin: please don't take the disruption at face value. Look very closely at what has been said and you will see that the administrators opposed to the ideas I am bringing to the talk page have a WP:CONFLICT as regards the topic of the Order of the Arrow. This has been agreed upon by at least two neutral administrators. I admit that I was IP-hopping early on and I regret that, but have since done all that was asked of me to bring the discussion to a civil and even tone. Yes, I picked a controversial name, but it is neither vulgar nor a trademark. To block it is to quash my free speech on Wikipedia.--Ahoalton (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit to choosing a controversial name? That's disruption, please pick another user name that isn't controversial. Dreadstar † 00:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as picking a name that means "love one another" is controversial, yes, I have picked a controversial name. I suppose, historically, that has been a fairly controversial sentiment. I hear people have even been killed for expressing it. Is that the message you are trying to send? Does everyone on Wikipedia have to vet their name with the admins and editors working on the OA entry?--Ahoalton (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note the history of Order of the Arrow, last night Ahoalton was IP hopping and edit warring as

69.127.1.53
69.127.11.176
69.127.11.135

two of the IP accounts were blocked for that for 24h, which has probably expired by now. The Ahoalton account was created and editing during that time, which is also block evasion.Dreadstar † 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also note that I have expressed my regret for IP-hopping, that I created an account as I was asked to do by the admins who requested it and that I have since attempted to engage them in debate and discussion of the topic through the dispute resolution methods that a neutral admin directed me to. I am new to this and I have thrown myself into it but I have tried to conform to wikipedia conventions. I have to say that the way I have been treated seems alot like "biting the newcomers" --Ahoalton (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I request that an unbiased administrator review this unblock request. Administrator Jayron32 has previously blocked my account. Additionally, my request is not that my temporary block for evading be lifted; my request was that the block on my USERNAME be lifted. Is there an impartial admin that can address this. It really seems like I am being bullied by a very small group of admins with a personal interest in keeping me off the Order of the Arrow page. Is there no oversight of this sort of abuse by admins with a WP:CONFLICT ? I mean is this how you treat any new editor/contributor that shows some backbone and genuine interest in the project? Ok, I came on strong at the start, but this is a clear abuse of power by admins lacking a neutral POV. If this is the way things work around here you'll alienate every potential contributor that demonstrates a modicum of independant thinking!

Decline reason:

I'm an impartial admin. You were blocked by User:Dreadstar; Jayron32 reviewed. It seems your username is inappropriate. It also seems that your conduct has been inappropriate. Thus, block sustained. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2008 (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.

no reason has been given for why my name is inappropriate! The original admin, Addhoc, who was reviewing this unblock request did not even know what the problem was. If I were to edit any other article on wikipedia other than the Order of the Arrow article there is no one who would have a problem with it. Doesn't that represent WP:CONFLICT? Can someone please address this? You are honestly blocking a new user because a handful of biased editors don't want to play by the neutral POV rule?

Which account of yours did Jayron32 previously block? Dreadstar † 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he blocked one of the alternate IP addresses I used. And I'm not saying that he shouldn't have done that. As I said, I regret the block evading and won't do it again. I was frustrated that OA members seemed to be attacking me and I wanted to defend my views on the talk page. When someone told me to stop signing in anonymously I thought that if I created an account all would be well. If OA members don't like my username I can't help that. It is a real word and no one has the right to say I can't use it just because thier private organization dictates it. I'm trying to be reasonable here but it seems that most of the wikipedia admins I have encountered, with the exception of a couple that defended my position on the OA talk page, like to manipulate the policies and powers of wikipedia for their own benefit. Also note that their attacks on me have served their purpose of deflecting the debate about WP:CONFLICT on the Order of the Arrow page from being addressed.--Ahoalton (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing your other IP addresses, I see you've already gone well beyond your unblock request limit, [5]. I don't see where Jayron blocked you, but I do see multiple admins blocking and denying y our unblock requests. I'm protecting this page from further unblock template abuse. Dreadstar † 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the block on original IP69.127.11.135 was extended to 30 days by Dreadstar (see here) for block evasion. JGHowes ^talk - 06:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ahoalton for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --evrik ^(talk) 20:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion begun

Hello, Ahoalton. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:ANI#Further input needed on behavior of Ahoalton and socks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name issue

I do not know who Ahoalton is. I came across this because I was in the OA. It seems to me that Ahoalton is in the right. I do not see any valid reason for any Wikipedia editors to block his username. The most likely reason seems to me is that these folks were/are also in OA and wish to protect the secrecy.--Cospelero (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then name was blocked by Dreadstar, who is not associated with Scouting. The name was blocked in accordance with Wikipedia:Username policy. As I recall, it was because it started with "a hoal" and was considered offensive. I expect the name would have been unblocked after explaining the meaning, but the user began to create multiple accounts (see Special:PrefixIndex/User:ahoal and was multiply blocked for sockpuppetry. If the user had been a bit more patient and discussed the issues instead of making multiple reversions, then there would have not been so much drama. After a cool down period, the issues were discussed and resolved; discussions included non-Scouting editors. See Talk:Order of the Arrow. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 22:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]