User talk:Coreyman317

May 2024

I mean I am not a sock puppet of FailedMusician as my notification suggests. That's literally just a lie. You appear to have deleted many hours of my work on this page... Coreyman317 (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This is incredible. How long can I expect to be blocked for the lie that I'm engaging in sockpuppetry? Just until whenever the person that blocked me decides out of the goodness of their hearts to reverse themselves? They are blocking me because they don't like what I said, not because of sock puppetry. So they're not going to reverse themselves. I received the following email:

"Hello,

Your appeal, #88486, has been declined and the following message was left for you:

Thank you for using the Unblock Ticket Request System. I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. As you still have access to your talk page, and as there is no private information associated with your appeal, please post your unblock request to your user talk page for administrator review. Please describe what constructive edits you would make. Place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here".

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).

Coreyman317 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Coreyman317 (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Duplicate, unedited request; only a single open request is needed at a time. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2024 (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.

.

( Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information.

Best, Deepfriedokra."

What is @Deepfriedokra talking about here? How hard is it to find out that @ScottishFinnishRadish was wrong to perma ban me? Check my IP address and page histories. I have had this account for almost 2 years, if not longer.

Is there no evidence even required by administrators to permanently ban people and delete hours of their contributions? Just their judgement? Coreyman317 (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2024 (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).

Coreyman317 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am plainly not a sock puppet of "FailedMusician". It appears "ScottishFinnishRadish" is quite literally blocking me because I agree in part with that user's claims about Havana Syndrome. There is no evidence whatsoever of sockpuppetry. I saw that "FailedMusician" user appear prominently on the Talk page for the Havana Syndrome article. I do not know what basis this person is using to perma-ban me other than agreement with that user on certain points. Usually IP addresses are used for stuff like this, which would clearly exonerate me. This is an incredibly subjective power administrators have to ban contributors and can be abused on topics like this where an Admin does not like the accurate contributions of a user. I am amazed by this completely false use of banning privileges. This ban should be immediately reverted. I have spent the last 6 hours making careful proposed edits on here.

"ScottishFinnishRadish" also appears to have deleted hours of comments I've made over the last few hours. These should be reverted. One can easily check that my Coreyman317 account is quite old and I would bet has never had any intersection with pages "FailedMusician" has, which btw is the user I was told I sockpuppeted when I tried to add a different, new comment. Coreyman317 (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not "permanently banned" in any way, you are blocked without an end date, two very different things. This could be meat puppetry which is treated the same as sock puppetry; you shouldn't attempt to do the exact same thing as a blocked user. Admins do not have access to the IPs accounts are on. Saying that the blocking admin has a personal dislike of you or your edits is a serious accusation that requires serious evidence. My advice to get unblocked would be to agree to a topic ban from the topic of Havana Syndrome. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2024 (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 don't communicate via email; you may say anything you wish to say to me here. You may also make a new unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

331dot how am I supposed to provide evidence that I'm not a sock puppet or meat puppet, how can I fight the false accusation? There is essentially no recourse for this particular judgment since I'm trying to prove a negative. What is the reason you denied unblocking me? You said "this could be meat puppetry" so do you not actually have access to see factually if I was right to be blocked? It's incredible to me the power admins have to arbitrarily ban whoever they want for no reason at all and then hide behind unreviewable accusations. You even suggested I should agree to a topic ban!! Wild. Hours and hours of proposed edits with citations have now been deleted by Scottish whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreyman317 (talk • contribs)

I provided you with one means of demonstrating you are not a sock or meat puppet; agree to a (temporary) topic ban from the topic involved. The block is not arbitrary and is not for "no reason", but based on editing. If your edits do not demonstrate sock or meat puppetry, please explain how in a new request for someone else to review. I suggest that you see WP:SOCKBLOCK; specifically "Wikipedia admins can never be absolutely sure about sockpuppetry, and the most abusive users can be very devious in attempting to evade detection. If you are improperly blocked for sockpuppetry, you should realize that it may not always be easy or even possible to correct the situation.". 331dot (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Coreyman317 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

How can I fight the accusation that I engaged in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry when this would require proving a negative? I found a comment from FailedMusician "Its a difference without distinction when the editor failed to engage in any discussion on wording. The real reason here is purely behavioural and may require further administrator action. FailedMusician (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)" notice the use of behavioural which is an English spelling. My name Coreyman317 contains an Indianapolis area code that I'm quite sure FailedMusician if they're English wouldn't use or know. Similarly, in a deleted comment of mine (deleted by Scottish from this blocking...) I use the American spelling of emphasize unlike FailedMusician would: "The important point here, as emphasized by the JASON report, is that these are claimed to be recordings of sounds heard *during* specific Havana Syndrome incidents. The study is careful not to make that claim as linked to above." The burden of proof has to be on the Admin arbitrarily blocking people. What could I conceivably provide -- IP address, email, etc -- to prove I didn't sock puppet or meat puppet? My account is years old, I very likely have no pages in common with "FailedMusician" besides Havana Syndrome, and there's no way you can use agreement merely *about a topic* with a blocked user as a basis for blocking them. These blocks by Admins functionally serve as unreviewable judgments and could very well be in bad faith or just in factual error. What are users to do then? I have never seen anything like this in my years contributing to online websites. Coreyman317 (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

SPI was clear, and I'm not rock solid certain on the behavioral evidence/meat concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

331dot You say the block is not arbitrary and not for "no reason" but it is; you can't just accuse people of sock/meat puppetry because they're on a certain side of a debate on a topic that a blocked person just happened to be on the side of as well. This is a binary debate essentially on Havana Syndrome with many adherents on both sides. How come everyone that agrees with me isn't also blocked from the Talk page? My "edits" don't exist. I proposed edits only and made comments on the Talk page. Hours of work gone because Scottish whatever got mad. How can proposed edits be explained as not sock/meat puppetry? These things turn on technical information like IP address or language analysis. Not an explanation. Why doesn't the Admin have to provide an example of these things before unreviewably and arbitrarily blocking someone? More proving the negative again. You then say that you personally provided me a way to prove I'm not a sock/meat puppet, by accepting a topic ban anyway. This doesn't provide a way to prove I didn't do those things, it merely says "accept the punishment you are functionally receiving anyway and lose hours of work because an Admin made a mistake!" Incredible. You do admit with that citation to the Wiki page that these are essentially arbitrary and unreviewable decisions. Hours of work gone because an Admin abused privileges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreyman317 (talk • contribs)

Every sock says that the admin made a mistake. Not every mistake is "abusive". If it's a mistake, you need to show how. Maybe your new request will do that, I don't know, but someone else will review it so it will be up to them. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

331dot so I thought more about my claim about language analysis and realized that FailedMusician uses British/English spellings! (and they know how to put things in colors and they know how to link to certain Wikipedia help pages that I don't) I provided an example of me using an American English spelling and him using an British English spelling in my latest unblock request. How do I get someone new to review it? But also just a thought, how will you guys know that's my comment because Scottish dude deleted it. I don't think they deleted FailedMusician's comment but my comments are only viewable under my notifications. Maybe an Admin will go and do the work and look at the edit history of the page and see my comment there...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreyman317 (talk • contribs)

Pings(linking my username) do not work unless you sign your talk page posts with ~~~~. You have an open request, it appears in a category visible to admins, one will eventually see it.

I understand it is frustrating and understandably makes one angry when this happens, but try to see the other side. Abusive users are very clever in how they evade blocks/create new accounts when they shouldn't and all of them deny doing so(since that is the whole point of sock puppetry). People try to fool us every day. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edits are stored in the edit history; even if they were removed in a single batch, the record of the original edit remains. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW, I just ran a check on this account - based solely on the technical data (I have not reviewed the editing in any depth), I would say that this account is unrelated to the FailedMusician account. ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm not going to unblock without your input (since it's possible that this is WP:MEAT rather than SOCK}, but I'd invite you to consider whether the block is warranted in light of that finding. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Editor Interaction Analyzer result. Only one intersection area, but thirty-eight edits therein. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Coreyman317 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Created June 4, 2022 with greater than eight month hiatus.

  FailedMusician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked May 7, 2024 with really big gap.

  I'll allow wiser minds to interpret more deeply, though appellant made no edits at Talk:Havana until after FailedMusician was blocked. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Deepfriedokra, I've been watching the FailedMusician issues for awhile, but I do have to agree with SFR's initial reaction that how this account suddenly jumped into the discussion in a a bludgeoning fashion, similar to FailedMusician, only a few days after their block (about enough time to prep all those larger talk page comments for how they were made in quick sucessions), really does raise a major red flag in terms of WP:DUCK.

  The problem with FailedMusician that I was discussing with them over at FM's page is that FM seemed to be setting themselves up to avoid detection. They tried to claim WP:CLEANSTART indicating FM had a previous account, and FM was using LLM to change their comments through AI, which context, could be another attempt to avoid detection through behavioral/speech patterns. That Coreyman is bringing up comments about language here is honestly a red flag for me among other comments that seem to speak to someone more experienced in wiki-lingo than expected of an account with this number of edits.

  I'm wary of going on a sockpuppet witch-hunt, but there are a few too many things lining up here too. At least on the FailedMusician side of the equation, we've been getting indications they are likely to game the process in terms of multiple accounts, so we do need to be wary at least. ScottishFinnishRadish, because of the sockpuppet concerns, would it at make more sense to put the article/talk page under extended-confirmed protection with the AP2 or Pseudoscience CTOP? That way the article can be protected independently of figuring out possible sockpuppet connections with FM that likely aren't going to be as clear cut as "normal" multi-account abuse issues. KoA (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  @KoA: Thanks, but not up to me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  KoA so essentially the only evidence you need is essentially taking the same side in a binary debate as a banned user? The bringing up of language literally occurred because of the discussion above, which you can read. This stuff is VERY irritating to deal with. checkusers can see which city my IP address originates from I'm sure. VPN's can't locate IP addresses to specific cities, which happens to match the area code in my name. Get a grip. Coreyman317 (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra Oh wow 38 "edits"... that must include comments on the talk page too? I think I only made 4, 5, or 6 actual proposed edits to the page and the rest were replies/comments. Also, I think I made some edits or comments right when I created my account.

  Just to add, my account is mostly focused, well solely I think, on geopolitical or historical stuff. I note that FailedMusician has some oddball stuff thrown in about some travel agencies or something? Don't know if this helps. But also, consider that ALL of my contributions or interactions have an arguable Russia nexus: Havana Syndrome, Ukraine, hypersonic weapons, Cold War stuff. 11:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Coreyman317 (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! It is much appreciated. Coreyman317 (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Havana Syndrome Talk Page

Please stop changing the edit request statuses to unanswered, even if you don't like the outcome. You are welcome to debate the ideas you present in new sections, but that is not what edit requests are for. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk pages bludgeoning

You might benefit from a read of WP:BLUDGEON, which explains an important aspect of Wikipedia community norms around talk pages and discussions. Making dozens of comments in a couple hours and opening 5 edit requests at once is exactly the kind of thing that essay advises against. MrOllie (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Lol MrOllie I haven't read every Wikipedia page but upon reading this one "In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people," none of that applies to me here. I'm not attempting to force my POV I've literally said let's form a consensus and have a debate. In those comments, you were resoundingly rude and intentionally mischaracterized almost everything I said to you.

Volume of comments doesn't apply to me either. I made 6 edit requests/talk discussions. Then made a flurry of comments below them in response to you and Ben. The same argument wasn't made over and over again either. We were discussing the same thing continuously under the first edit request, and then something different for the last edit request. Coreyman317 (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You keep making the argument that a reliable source is unreliable (for various thing you say about one of its authors). You are now repeatedly arguing that a report for the intelligence community is a systematic review. Both of these are obviously futile lines to pursue. Bon courage (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm making no argument just pointing out facts that have escaped your attention. You keep making the argument that an unreliable source is reliable (for various things you say about repeated narrative reviews being credible from people who go on TV and discuss the topic in highly charged political language -- discrediting them).

And again, I'm not arguing that the IC Experts Panel Report is a systematic review I'm pointing it out to you. If you click on the link you just provided for "systematic review" every single thing in the first paragraph applies to the IC Experts Panel Report. I encourage you to personally read it in full, even if you don't agree for its inclusion on the Wiki page.

Just because you high and mighty editors don't want to allow in sources that will contradict the circular carousel of one man Robert Bartholomew that is insisted upon, isn't my problem. You are not correct because you're an Admin lol Coreyman317 (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

At this point I'm thinking you are WP:NOTHERE. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

That's nice. You'd be dead wrong to think that. If you were correct, why didn't I propose deleting all mentions of Bartholomew's "reviews" in my proposed edits? (Again you use him solely to conclude a diagnosis of the syndrome, despite other literature reviews existing that contradict him --- a fact itself you are resistant to admitting because of the implications for doing so)

I want a correct encyclopedia, you want one that circularly references one man because you personally prefer his conclusion over the overwhelming contrary evidence. Coreyman317 (talk) 06:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Havana Syndrome is not a page related to pseudoscience or fringe science. VERY ultra telling that designation is given to it, when you already try hard to present its "Differential Diagnosis" as "Mass psychogenic illness, psychosomatic illness" with no credible sourcing to support that. Coreyman317 (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You need to accept that Wikipedia's view of this is as a WP:FRINGE topic. Bon courage (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

So do you think Wikipedia is ever wrong about anything? Objectively they are in this case, as the microwave auditory effect is well established science. There are textbooks written about it.

But strikingly no one sees the logical inconsistency in categorizing this page as fringe even though the page *diagnoses* Havana Syndrome as mass psychogenic illness, psychosomatic illness. So there's a huge false implication in that categorization alone! Coreyman317 (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is wrong about lots of things but we are not here to WP:RGW merely to summarize accepted knowledge. Anyway you are now aware this is a WP:CTOP, and so stunts like gaming the system (e.g. twistily trying to argue a source is another type of source so it sits atop Wikipedia's sourcing pyramid) need to be carefully avoided. Bon courage (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean it is your characterization that I'm "pulling a stunt" by accurately explaining to you how the IC Experts Panel report is a systematic review of the literature concerning approximately 5 or 6 possible causative factors. You guys try very very hard to rube goldberg disagreements with you into block-able rule breaks. It's very very telling. Coreyman317 (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, WP:DENY time. Bon courage (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Use that unreviewable Admin power when you're cornered and can't defend your false claims! Love it. Coreyman317 (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I am frankly astonished by the amount of patience people had with you. You keep repeating the same talking points (WP:BLUDGEON), one of which is that one author earns a bit of money by writing (it seems that it is just a hobby for everybody else involved), you refuse to even consider that experienced editors may have a point, and you keep pushing your own WP:POV as an WP:SPA. Maybe you should start editing other, less controversial articles first, to learn the first steps?

I don't expect you will listen to this, given previous behavior, but one can try. To show you how it is done, I will not tell you the same thing again. So, EOD as far as I am concerned. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Patience with me? You should be astonished at my patience with them. This high and mighty approach won't work, Hob. I'm not repeating any talking points I'm pointing out facts you don't like, which is that Bartholomew is circularly relied upon continuously in the Havana Syndrome page to *conclude* a differential diagnosis, despite the fact that he has a financial interest in pushing this discredited MPI view and is further discredited by his highly political comments on TV about the syndrome.

You are trying very hard to make me look like I've broken rules so that I can be blocked. Why is that, you think?

I don't expect you to reflect on if those "highly experienced editors" are actually wrong, but maybe you should and give some of the sources I linked to in my proposed edit a read! Coreyman317 (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

My patience is gone. You're here to push your views on the community, not collaborate, and you attack and insult those who disagree with you. This isn't the place for you. 331dot (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Well all of your claims here are false and unable to be substantiated (pushing views on a community does not mean substantiating everything claimed with a very credible citation, and pointing our circular citations from non-credible people), but that's okay. It'll be funny to see how your community handles the coming years on that Havana Syndrome page.

I was insulted multiple times in an ad hominem fashion by your fellow Admin hacks, and my patience in explaining the trivial is all gone. I have not attacked or insulted anyone besides @KoA for their false claims about my integrity not any specific page topic, which are easily disproven by a checkuser comparing my IP address and checking the local area code associated with that IP.

You will come to regret this very specific decision, not because I want to continue contributing to Wikipedia but because you exercised control over me. I don't like that. So don't forget you banned someone named Corey for being factually correct about Havana Syndrome, take that last comment to heart. I can check back at these conversations years into the future despite being blocked to find which users like you lied :)

Btw: the idea that I should be walking on eggshells around you in order to preserve your patience is so hilarious. You Admins feel so high and mighty editing Wikipedia, it's amazing to see. Coreyman317 (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 331dot (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not "high and mighty", but I have been given tools by the community to protect this project, and right now I think it needs protecting from you. I'm not trying to control anyone- you will either choose to observe our policies, or not- and you have chosen not. You are free to do that, but you won't be permitted to edit in that case. It's clearly a bad idea to allow you continued access to this page, so I have removed it. You may appeal as described above, but you will need to show a radical sea change in your attitude and approach. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)