User talk:FactZheker

Are you ready for editing?

The

Adventure

Hi FactZheker!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there! Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by Sam Sailor 19:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely for egregious personal attacks against named editors and persistent assumption of bad faith across the board. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 20:56, 15 January 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

What he did amounted to vandalism as it was the most extreme action he could have taken. These accusations are not in bad faith, these are mere observations with a straight forward understanding of the TOU. When I repeatedly gave him the chance to explain why each item was deleted I was met with silence from drmies while another individual unknown to me would start commenting on his behalf. The Fact that I've been contacted by a half dozen of his friends sure seems like harassment, let alone the fact some you've just completed the censorship by blocking my account indefinitely while still refusing to provide any proof that the original edit in question actually violated TOU. This is pure political targeting, there is no way to act in good faith without admitting that considering I had deleted the thread and had decided to move on. You people have continued this attack because you clearly have ulterior motives that do not surround the original complaint. FactZheker (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker

Decline reason:

Your appeal is rife with baseless claims that serve only to support the necessity in blocking you in the first place. I would review WP:GAB, and specifically WP:NOTTHEM, as a second appeal along the same lines of the above will likely lead to your talk page access being revoked. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 15 January 2021 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Baseless Claims? Here are the claims I made:

1. He deleted over a dozen linked and verifiable additions, accusing them all of being bias instead of editing out any perceived bias.

2. According to the Assume Good Faith guideline: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." I did not engage in ad hominem attacks or any other uncivil means of discussion. I suspected malice and asked for an explanation for each deletion multiple times, that was so I could go and edit the things he specifically found bias in or slanted. He never responded to that request.

3. Multiple people did start commenting and defending him. Viewing the history will confirm this and everything else you called baseless.

4. His refusal to address my specific concerns, coupled with people defending him and seemingly passive aggressively threatening me, are the specific evidence that I've pointed to as my reasoning for the dropping of the assumption of good faith as pursuant to the aforementioned section of the AGF guideline.

5. I did delete the thread on my talk page. Yet again, this can be viewed by clicking my talk page history.

6. After I had made the edit to my talk page to drop the subject and move on, I was blocked indefinitely in what I view as further retaliation.

Additional Facts:

1. You called the above items "rife with Baseless claims" despite the fact they are all true and verifiably accurate.

2. My original concerns about what in the original edit needed changed due to any perceived bias, inaccuracy, or unverifiability so they can be corrected has never been answered.

3. Your initial view of me without engaging me to inquire my side was that I need my account revoked. That shows you had punishing me as the goal the whole time regardless of the concerns and issues I had or my willingness to cooperate.

4. Many of the items I had included in my original edit that I feel was vandalized are included in another section but with context in regards to his time out of office and not how they have effected his time in office which is what my edits were for.

After my brief experience as an editor seeking help, in the "help me" section of my own talk page, I have no choice but to assume that the pattern of further retaliation against me for raising concerns will continue. Apparently, Ponyo is intent on revoking my account without fully addressing the items raised above. FactZheker (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker

Decline reason:

First, accounts are not revoked. Second, please read WP:GAB, especially WP:NOTTHEM, before making further unblock requests. Further accusations, including personal attacks, in unblock requests may result in your ability to edit your talk page being revoked. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 15 January 2021 (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.

If I were you, I would delete the {{unblock}} above, take a 24-hour cool-down break, read WP:NOTTHEM, and then return. I'll be happy to help you if you get unblocked. Sam Sailor 22:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sam Sailor A fair consideration of the facts I laid out would be the most appropriate course of action. I have not engaged in disruptive edits, personal attacks, or anything of that nature. Presenting my evidence in a calm and organized manner is no indicator that "I need a cool down break". It is as professional as I could make it and if there is retaliation against me over it then I am not the one who provoked it with my second request. Upon closer inspection of Ponyo's talk page there does appear to be a high level of familiarity between drmies and ponyo that I feel my be a conflict on interest in my reception of a fair hearing of the facts.FactZheker (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker

That's "Sailor", not "Sailer". Suggested read: Dunning–Kruger effect. Sam Sailor 22:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

So you resort to personal attacks with the reddit professor's favorite "Dunning Kruger effect" passive aggressive slight. It's rich that the admins here are such hypocrites. FactZheker (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker

Sorry, I'm done here. Sam Sailor 23:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sam Sailor Thank you for your apology. FactZheker (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}