User talk:2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76
May 2017[edit]
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Ahmed Mohamed clock incident. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
July 2017[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nonsense, EvergreenFir. Merely claiming that somebody did "disruptive editing" does not itself explain or justify your claim. Be specific. Don't dance around the subject. Others disagreed with me. Others deleted my own comments on the Talk page. (isn't that wrong?) Others tried to "archive" a discussion so that they wouldn't have to respond to valid objections. (Neat trick!) A better case could be made that except for WP "political" biases, others were engaging in the "disruptive editing", and I was the victim of it. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)- If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Rather than merely cite a boilerplate page, "Disruptive Editing" , the person purporting to block me should go a bit further and explain exactly what was "disruptive" about my edits. Clearly, I was opposing the will of some people, but that is normal in the WP editing process. Don't forget WP:BRD, although the "discuss" part seems to be honored more in the breach than the observance. And if anything, the people who "archived" an ongoing discussion on the Talk page of Murder of Seth Rich were clearly attempting to thwart expression a valid difference of opinion; apparently Acroterion arrived at their request, because they were losing the argument. Also unexplained is why the block was as long as one month: Is that normal? For a first time block? It looks more like a desperate attempt to shut down a (valid) argument. Is it clearly retaliatory?
Decline reason:
We're not a forum, Drop the stick and you don't have consensus for your ideas. You haven't proven anything but keep deluding yourself that you have. Petty arguments such as yours are time-wasting because you refuse to listen.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2017 (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.
2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I will address this false and very inadequate treatment of the issues. The answer above said, "We're not a forum". Actually, an article Talk Page is indeed a "forum", depending on your definition of "forum". This is a definition from Google: " a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged." It's a discussion area for developing the article, and I used it as such. "Drop the stick" No, the total quantity of discussion was actually very, very short compared to most discussions on WP. The only "dead horse" was in the minds of people whose ox was being gored, to mix a couple of metaphors. They wanted the discussion to cease, quickly. "and you don't have consensus for your ideas" Nobody is obligated to start out with a consensus for his ideas, or achieve that within a time as little as one day. Further. nobody can, or at least nobody should, be blocked for discussing the article associated with the talk page, merely because he does not (yet) have a "consensus" for his ideas. "You haven't proven anything". That statement misrepresents the prior events in a serious fashion. It's more precise to say that I challenged OTHER people to provide proof that the use of the word "debunk" was supported by Reliable Sources. Under the rules of WP, it is their burden of proof to support the usage of that word by citing Reliable Sources. It is they who have failed to show such citations. They have failed to provide proof. Clearly, I've run into malicious people who can't stand to defend their own positions, and use malicious reverts of talk-page discussions to silence a new person. "but keep deluding yourself that you have." I think it's clear to anyone who wasn't already allied with the cabal that I was, and am, being abused, and others are trying to manipulate the content of the article. "Petty arguments such as yours are time-wasting because you refuse to listen." Point out where I refused to listen. I had a very specific claim: I claimed it was improper to use the term "debunk" when no actual disproof of the material ostensibly "debunked" was ever presented, in Reliable Sources. I asked for it, nobody provided anything. Are you suggesting that if the subject of the dispute is only one word (debunk), that becomes a "petty argument" in your mind? If anything, I think the erasure of the material that I added to the Talk page clearly shows that some others want to obstruct a valid discussion. Also, I notice you are adding what could be a boilerplate line: some uninvolved person, reading your comment in isolation, could not identify which article or Talk page it is referring to, if separated from it. It extends only three words past one line, on my screen. Very little actual relevant content. There is no clue. This shows that it didn't actually address the substance of any dispute in this article. You don't admit what the subject of the dispute was. You don't consider other people's misconduct. That is a very damning fact. If you can't do better than that, apologize and let an unbiased person do the job you didn't do. I think you were asked to take this case.
2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Request doesn't address the reasons for the block being madeAmortias (T)(C) 10:09, 7 August 2017 (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.
2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As can be seen from the last supposed response to my unblock request, that person simply ignored everything that I said, falsely claiming that I hadn't addressed something. His is the in-writing equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling loudly, pretending to not hear what I just said. One major problem is that the person who responds to these unblock requests is a self-selected person with his own biases; perhaps he was requested by others to do so, and was told to ignore what I said. I will continue to ask that somebody actually RESPOND to what I said, which is supposed to be the obligation of the person responding. That has not happened yet. I am entitled to an actual hearing, not a kangaroo court. Above, it states: " Request doesn't address the reasons for the block being made" The person who wrote that is PRETENDING to not realize that I have actually not been TOLD what the reasons for the block were. I'm asking, and have asked before. Problem is, there were no applicable reasons. I pointed out, above, that the block statement was purely 'boilerplate', and did not apply that reason to the actual comments involved. This, as best as anybody could do, "addressed the reasons for the block being made": It was clearly made in retaliation. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No grounds for unblock provided. Enough wasting our time; talk page access revoked. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:52, 13 August 2017 (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.
- As (briefly) noted in the block summary, I see determined edit-warring against maybe six different editors to abuse a talkpage as a soapbox for your views. Since this has happened before from the same IP in a similar tone, the block length was longer than it would otherwise have been. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your personal point of view. Acroterion (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- No, what you saw was some of those six different editors edit-warring against me. There is, of course, a difference. But will you admit that? When somebody deletes another's comment from a Talk page (which repeatedly happened to me), YES, that is "edit-warring", but it was the edit-warring by others, NOT BY ME. I don't become guilty of edit-warring merely because I happened to be the victim of it. Or do you think so? I was challenging the highly improper use of the word, "debunked", and as a consequence other people began edit-warring against me. (note: It was on the TALK page, NOT the article itself!) The people who chose to oppose me, and engage in that edit-warring against me, did not want my discussion of the issue to remain on that TALK page, and they repeatedly took steps to erase/revert it. I felt, and feel, entitled to restore material that I posted onto the TALK page, which was deleted by other people's edit-warring against me. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- By failing to respond, you are admitting that you falsely claimed that I was edit-warring against some of "six different editors". As I effectively pointed out, and you failed to challenge, some of those "six different editors" were actually edit-warring against me; I was not edit-warring against them. If I wrote something that was so amazingly dishonest, I'd be embarrassed. Maybe you are indeed embarrassed, which may be why you are abandoning the issue. Rhetorically, you have an obligation to not make deliberately false accusations, or to allow false accusations you have made to stand in a publicly-accessible forum, when you have the ability to retract them. 2601:1C2:4E01:CE00:4146:2231:C4F1:8E76 (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |