User talk:Unbiased6969

Including this here because you said to. I'm tired with your

- Accusations of conspiracies, referring to author's question as "Trash" on Gråbergs Gråa Sång talk page

On my page:

- Accusations of intellectual dishonesty

- Baseless accusations of dishonesty, disruptive language

- Insulting language, accusations of racism PartyParrot42 (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you sweet child. You don't know how to comprehend sentences. You think you had something, but you don't.

"Something the study already proved, even though its widely known and you likely hold the same sentiment."

The meaning of this statement is that the study proved that society today views pitbulls as a black person's dog. I am saying you likely hold the same sentiment as the study proved.

Thinking a pitbull is a black persons dog is not racist? Unless you are saying you associate anything black to be bad? Weird.

I own pits, I know they're perceived as a black dog. Its not a bad thing. Its not something there is shame in, and holding that sentiment isn't racism. Next you're going to say that associating Hip-hop with black culture is racist lmao. Isomorphic symbols are real and they exist. Pointing them out doesn't make someone racist. Using them to create action like, creating policy, or excluding dog breeds from areas, that's racist. Grasping at straws here badly. Unbiased6969 (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that someone is engaging in conspiracies rather than sticking to the point of the argument and calling said conspiracy "trash" is not a WP:NOPA. Go learn what it is before you cite it. Please explain where the personal is? Saying he is engaging in conspiracies? That's not a personal attack. Calling the conspiracy trash? That once again isn't a personal attack. Unbiased6969 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. PartyParrot42 (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, 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) 22:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Unbiased6969 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The admin wrongly associated me with an another account Tazdeviloo7. Plenty of examples of both this account and I engaing in discussion at the same time here. Oh and you can check IPs, this account has only ever been logged in from 1 IP address its entire life and its guaranteed not to be the same as whoever Tazdeviloo7's is.[1][2] I don't even know how to file a dispute resolution or I'd have filed so many already lmao. I suck at citing things in my responses. I can remember being envious that Tazdeviloo7 knew how to do all these things. Anyone is welcome to use AI to analyze my writing and this Tazdeviloo7's writings and determine whether we share the same writing style. I'm confident that an analysis of or writing styles will only prove that were not the same person. Grammar usage different, vocabulary usage is different, and style. I mean they used bold letters in their responses, but you won't find an example of me using bold anywhere in my responses because I don't know how to lol. Its all there to analyze in source 1. There are so many ways to prove this admin made a mistake. What I suspect, is that a certain someone that both me and this Tazdeviloo7 argued with in the past messaged an admin and accused me of such (because that person can't defend their position on that page with facts and studies), then action was taken without any investigation. Block me for something legitimate, but not something erroneous, or you just discredit yourself and Wikipedia along with you. I mean, I admitted in the noticeboard that I errored and you could have simply banned me for that and not been technically wrong. However, I wasn't the only one. Parrot, Geo, and myself all have valid criticisms for our actions. Was a snarky, yes, but its because I am dealing with users who are obviously (I mean continuing arguing with me over using a source that RPS determined to be unreliable despite being presented that information) trying to vandalize a wiki page for their advocacy and not actually capable of being objective, and last time I checked, the guidelines don't require me to act in "good faith" when faced with obvious bad actors and calling them out for such isn't an offense. Not to mention I had the two consistently misrepresenting me and accusing me of calling someone racist?[3] Side note not related to the unban: If the admins step in to clean up and improve the pit bulls wiki. Then keep me banned and I ain't even mad. All I am trying to do is improve the page to represent a more WP:NPOV than it currently is and have been constantly attacked[4][5] and prevented by a couple users within the last couple years. Because if you can't tell, its being gatekept by advocates who don't actually engage in good faith discussion. I mean, certain users has been fighting me on using dogsbite.org, despite being ruled unreliable by RNS (and having that pointed out to him/her)[6]. I even reached out to the Wiki Dog Project to ask them for their help with dogsbites.org[7] I mean, I can't even point out that the CDC Data used in the article was admitted, by the CDC doctors themselves, to not be reliable to make any meaningful conclusions from. Apparently pointing that out was not WP:NPOV? I mean, if you're going to cite data the source admitted is unreliable, then I feel you should at least mention that in the wiki article? A user then reverted it.[8] I undid it.[9] That person then reverted it after the false ban, but then stated "if other editors in good standing like the content enough to revert me, that's okay too"[10] If that user actually engaged in good faith, then why did they revert my initial edit, but is okay with another editor reverting his removal of my submission? Blatantly caught in the act not engaging in good faith editing. Its WP:NOTHERE behavior.Unbiased6969 (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I was completely unaware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tazdeviloo7. Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked Tazdeviloo7 account looking for more examples to cite the different writing styles and seen the admin banned him too. So, sorry Tazdeviloo7 that you seem to have caught a stray for no reason at all. But I guess if you message an admin anything you can get someone banned based on an accusation and no proof lol.Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cetacean needed Bbb23's rational is some user that doesn't like me trying to make the pit bulls article more neutral messaged him/her/them/they and cast aspersions on me that are provably false. Any check user can verify my IP address and it won't match another account on Wikipedia because this is my only account.

Its honestly disturbing that Wiki Admins operate in that way. If aspersions are going to be cast on me by other users, it should be done so publicly in their respected noticeboards. Bbb23 is not involved enough to be able to even tie Tazdeviloo7 and I together as one person because, up until apparently now when Taz must have gotten an email about their block, Tazdeviloo7 hasn't been active recently. So someone with a name that starts with G, who has been active with both of us in the past, and is currently active with me, had to have messaged this user and asked them to block us both for being a sockpuppet, without offering any proof. Because once again, I only have one account, and a check user can verify everything.

It's action like these that cause Wikipedia to lose trust and accountability and until injustice is corrected and people come clean, I will be throwing mud at Wikipedia as a reliable source for anything. Unbiased6969 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unbiased6969, I think the trick here is to appeal the block without giving admins a different reason to block you.

Nevertheless: Bbb23, can you elaborate on your reason for this block? An investigation in February concluded that these two users were unrelated. – bradv 16:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: I've unblocked both users. I'm sure Unbiased won't believe me, but I was completely unaware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tazdeviloo7. If someone mentioned it before now, I missed it. As for "a different reason to block" Unbiased, I'll leave that to other admins. After my screw-up, I'm not going to do anything further with or to this user.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, but can you answer what even led you to believe that I was sockpuppeting to begin with? Because I will be honest, there has only been one user to ever accuse both Taz and myself of being one person, and I do doubt that it was an original thought of yours.

I am not saying my actions aren't worthy of discipline. All I am saying is lets look at everyone involved here and find out who's actually engaging in good faith editing and who isn't. Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although you say you believe me, you continue to accuse me of bad faith ("I will be honest, there has only been one user to ever accuse both Taz and myself of being one person, and I do doubt that it was an original thought of yours."). No one asked me to block you. I never heard of you or Tazdevil before the ANI thread. My conclusion that your behavior was similar enough to block you as a sock was mine and based solely on my reviewing both your edits and Tazdevil. I agree with you that stylistically your behaviors were different. Honestly, Tazdevil is way nicer than you are, but that does not rule out socking (see

WP:GOODHAND). Your POVs looked very similar to me, and the timing of Tazdevil passing the baton to you was hard to explain. Anyway, I suggest you follow Bradv's advice. Mistakes happen, and hopefully, as here, they get fixed. If you want to continue editing here, I strongly urge you to adopt a more collaborative, unaggressive style.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You never claimed to have not been sent a private message with an accusation that gave you the idea to sockpuppet ban me. You're only response was that you did not see the previous investigation before so, so I don't think I am off base in asking. I told you that I believe you when you said:

"I'm sure Unbiased won't believe me, but I was completely unaware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tazdeviloo7."

I am typically much nicer to correspond with, but when my only experience lately, short of the Wiki Dogs Project, is users attacking myself and blatantly letting bias into their editorial decisions while discounting mine because they don't like it, but fail to provide any references or reputable sources to counter with, my patience grows short and I am snappier. I am sorry I came off so rigid with you and we certainly both got off to a less than desirable start together. Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If admins are going to get away with kind of activity then its not a community I wish to be a part of anyways. Its abuse. Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day here, Wikipedia loses a knowledgeable editor on an article that sorely lacks it. Wiki also loses a bit of its reputation as it gets trashed by me over the many years I have remaining. I only gain more of my freetime back.

Sorry if I confront bad faith admining. Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me admins don't have access to that information. Or did Bbb23 have access to that and still decided to cast aspersion and block me, despite proof otherwise? Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23, thanks for double-checking.

@Unbiased6969, please remember to assume good faith, even on the part of admins. Mistakes happen, and they can be fixed. Happy editing. – bradv 17:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Love seeing a happy ending. Atsme 💬 📧 18:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said at ANI "You can't get diffs of archived talk pages". You can, but you have to dig via editor or article talk histories like [1][2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unbiased6969 needs to return to the re-opened ANI thread and either start posting those diffs I've been asking for, or retract. Geogene (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pit_bull&diff=prev&oldid=1070529854 Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I had no idea. I just knew about going to the page and looking at the edit history. Unbiased6969 (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We learn the mysterious ways of WP as we go along. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: you may enjoy WP more if you lessen the

WP:SPA approach. Pit bull is a rather... hounded... subject, but not all WP is like that. Then again, politics, religion, medicine and Larries can get like that too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The trouble is, I am not that knowledgeable in those areas where I feel I can meaningfully contribute and have the confidence to improve upon other's edits. Except politics, but it sounds even more miserable to touch than pitbulls, but I could be surprised. However, the real problem is that I find politics today to be depressing in its current state of division and hate this era of group think and tribalism that we are in, and I am not much of a historian for past politics, but I do romanticize the days where people could have different opinions and still find common ground.

One day though. I'd like to think that one day that pit bulls article will get written in a more NPOV and be reliably sourced. Then I could devote my free time to learning other topics and contribute there without quitting on improving an article many find too exhausting to continue trying. The following problem would be safeguarding it from vandalism >.< Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I learn to use wikipedia more affectively, I would be interested in contributions to WP:DR WP:RS or other noticeboards. I may not know topics very well, but I can evaluate sources and interpret things pretty well where I could contribute that way. Unbiased6969 (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to do this, but even though I see the contributions at specific dates, it brings up no results. Is it possible I am not allowed to search only by dates? Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I cant get the user one to work, but I am able to use the talk page approach to get diffs. Thank you again. Unbiased6969 (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand. This [3] is your edit history, the diff links are readily available. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you for your help. I was trying to search someone else's and it did not work, but I was able to search a talk pages archive history to get what I needed. Unbiased6969 (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Geogene (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]