User talk:Iamsnag12

Scientology discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Scientology. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate] - What is the reason for reversion? Interest in a subject and providing multiple citations throughout edits is not grounds for a warning. It appears that the justification is because older sources are being challenged and allegations of "unreliable" sources are thrown about without evidence aside from allegations. Did anybody bother to actually read the sources cited?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsnag12 (talk • contribs) 11:10, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

For the record, the above is not a warning. It is required to notify users when they are editing in a topic area that is under sanctions, especially if there is a dispute. It's just a notice to make you aware that the rules are more strict with regards to this topic.

Also, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages by placing four tilde (~) signs at the end. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then why are all of my edits relating to Scientology being reversed? Nothing of what I have posted has been shown to be unreliable, in fact a number of these sources aren't even from CESNUR. Iamsnag12 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to discuss that on the pages in question. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship

What is your relationship with Scientology? Are you a Scientologist? TheAwesome Hwyh 00:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the biases come out and yet I am told that I am not warned. I am at all not surprised. Anyway, no I am not a member of the Church of Scientology, but even if I were one, how is that at all relevant? Please let's discuss the actual facts posted. Iamsnag12 (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant, because Scientology members previously astroturfed this site to try and remove any criticism. As such, users who join and immediately focus on that topic tend to be scrutinized out of caution. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So let me understand your statement: if someone posts a criticism of Scientology then there is no scrutiny or suspicion of them, but if they post positive things about Scientology and/or correct incorrect data about it are scrutinized? That seems like a blatant double standard to me.

Secondly, I've not recently joined I've been on since 2011. Also, I've posted elsewhere and had other usernames too which tried to merge under this one, not sure if those work but I can point to those edits if needed. Iamsnag12 (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a double standard when there's been a documented coordinated effort by the Church to manage their image here. Also, people who attempt to add controversial criticism to Scientology pages also get the same warning. Discretionary sanctions apply to everyone.

And yes, if you've had other usernames it would be a good idea to link them on your User Page, or contact an admin and let them know which accounts are yours. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Well to reiterate, I am not a member of the church of Scientology, I am not a practicing Scientologist, I am not being paid by any of them or work with any of their groups/affiliates, etc. I was frustrated at my entries being reversed without good reason since the accusations initially went from challenging my sources as unreliable but without backing up these claims, and then pivoting without answering to accusing me of my motives, background, etc. I hope you can see it from my side. How do I contact an admin / which admin should I contact to notify and merge accounts? Iamsnag12 (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Renard Spivey (Bailiff)

Hello, Iamsnag12,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Meatsgains and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Renard Spivey (Bailiff) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renard Spivey (Bailiff) .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains^(talk) 01:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI (redux)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TheAwesome Hwyh 01:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents

Hi Iamsnag12: I noticed that you're a fairly new editor (by contribution count, at least) and you're currently involved in a dispute at ANI. I wanted to give you my two cents in the hope it helps. I understand that editing Wikipedia can, sometimes, be a frustrating process. It may seem that others treat you unfairly, and in some cases (not saying this is one of those cases), you may eventually deal with editors who actually do have something against you or a bias against the content you're editing. But on Wikipedia, consensus and congeniality are everything. Taking the "high road", even in what you see as an unfair situation, is required at all times. It's like "defensive driving" but for the internet, and it's the only way to stick around. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Comic Sans, wanted to say I appreciate this. I felt like I was being ganged up on rather unfairly and it's good to know there's someone looking to help not simply fault find and criticize. I am going to do my best to be helpful here and I appreciate the note. Thank you for this, it is encouraging! Iamsnag12 (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iamsnag12, thanks! I look forward to working with you. Just one last thing, the "minor edit" flag should only be used for the most uncontroversial edits, like correcting a typo or something of that nature. Adding substantive information should not be a minor edit. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand more now. The user guides are not very clear in a lot of sections. I will make note for the future. Appreciate the help! Iamsnag12 (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Buffs (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Guy (help!) 20:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Please see WP:MINOR for the correct use of the "minor" flag on edits. Many of your edits marked as minor are clearly not uncontroversial or something others may wish to review. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I now see the note above on the same subject was after the last (August 26) instance of the problem, so just take this as a pointer to the relevant policy. Thanks.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thank you. I am now very aware of the minor edit button. The information section on edits/how to Wikipedia is not a very clear one and so I'm learning and making mistakes as I go, but it's not intentional. Thanks all the same. My biggest problem has been forgetting to add signatures, but I'm working on that as well! Iamsnag12 (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous accounts

I noticed a comment you left above which may not have received a proper reply. You seemed to indicate you have used other accounts in the past. It's not possible to merge accounts. Are you willing to publicly disclose your previous accounts? If so, there is no need to contact an admin. Instead follow the advice WP:SOCK#NOTIFY.

Since it sounds like you don't intend to continue editing with any other accounts, number 2 is the key one here. You should disclose your previous accounts on your user page. You can use the template {{User previous account | Old username}} for that purpose. (Add the displayed text to your user page replacing "old username" with your old username.) If you have multiple older user names, you can add multiple boxes. (There are other parameters which accept multiple usernames but I don't believe they clearly specify these are previous accounts.)

Ideally you should also add {{Alternative user | Iamsnag12}} to the user page of your old accounts, preferably by logging back into those old accounts and doing it from them. That ensures a 2 way connection and also helps us be sure you aren't impersonating whoever was behind the old accounts.

If you are still confused what to do, I suggest you start off with declaring here on your talk page the user name/s of your old accounts. If for some reason you are not willing to publicly disclose the older accounts, especially given the scrutiny your edits are received, you really need to at least tell a checkuser or similar per the instructions on the earlier page. I think you should only consider this option if there's some strong privacy reason why you don't wish your older accounts to be publicly linked to this account, since you mentioned 'merging' I'm hoping this isn't an issue.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks, Nil Einne! Question on how to update those if an IP address was used? I know on at least one entry I think I'd forgotten to login but had made an entry - I know the entry and can point to the IP but it seems I'm unable to edit that one. I didn't see this in the instructions. Please advise, thanks! Iamsnag12 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsnag12. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 11 September 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).

Iamsnag12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My edits outside of this account were not intentionally sockpuppeting as I had thought that I had lost access to the account and created a new one. On top of that, one is not required to login to edit or make changes per Wikipedia policy “You don't even have to log in to edit, normally: anyone can edit almost any page, even without logging in.” Regardless, these 3 reasons I present to unblock and this is everything ever edited by me on Wikipedia per all of my records and personal recollection, all of which are innocuous: 1) at 16:07, 27 August 2015‎ I added to page Amber Lee Ettinger "‎Other projects: Natural Light commercial Ettinger appeared in" from IP address 2605:e000:8512:fd00:5930:525a:6969:f7db” because I was on another computer at the time, 2) As stated one is not required to login to make edits and changes per Wikipedia’s policy, 3) another account which is shared under this email has ZERO (0) contributions thus far/planned and the account is "Misterscripty" which I don’t intend to use and I am happy to have deleted on the backend but don’t know how to do on this end. I had thought that there were more accounts but as of this writing nothing else seems to be registered, however, if I do find anything else I will change on the backend. I’m not particularly versed in logins, edits, etc. and my talk page reflects that in terms of small edits as well, but my doing so has not been malicious.

Decline reason:

As noted below, the standard offer is likely your only pathway back. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 20 October 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.

Several accounts are listed on the sockpuppetry page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsnag12 or Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Iamsnag12 which should help "refresh" your memory. I don't think "I had thought that I had lost access to the account" helps when you were editing from one of the other accounts on 21 August, 27 August, 3 September and 11 September while editing from this account at the same time. Also you were given ample opportunity to declare your alternative accounts instead just wasted time asking about IPs without declaring any accounts. I don't think an appeal at this stage has any chance of success, I suggest your only hope is the WP:Standard offer which requires you to leave wikipedia and not sock for a minimum of 6 month (probably longer in your case) and also convince the community your editing isn't going to be a problem even without sockpuppetry. But in any case, I'm quite sure your current appeal isn't going to succeed given the factors I outlined so suggest you withdraw it. Nil Einne (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What?! I only have been using this account and had the other account that I just listed which is unused. I'm not withholding anything and I haven't even heard of those accounts. How did you link those other accounts to it? I even looked at what these users wrote in their contributions since you linked me to them but they are definitely nothing I wrote about. I'm super confused as to how you made this determination. I've had the same computer since 2012 but before I may have logged in from another one and/or a public one.

Also, I was never provided a deadline so saying I had "ample time" is unfair since I was only blocked today and I was unclear on how to link accounts.

I believe I'm being singled out because I had contributed some positive, objective material to Scientology but the bias is so obviously overwhelming on this site that I was immediately shot down. Again, instead of looking at the material presented instead I was accused of being a Scientologist and therefore untrustworthy. Iamsnag12 (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]