User talk:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz

Oath Keepers

ah ha! I was not aware of such sock puppetry. I will review the history of the article and any relevant sources about the group. Thanks for letting me know about that. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your references

Would you please fill them out more accurately? It's bothersome for me to do it for you. Parsley Man (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cliven Bundy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clark County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I am requesting unblock, because the claims made were not in good faith (instead created by a pair of tendentious editors, one with a known vendetta against me) and because no policy supports this block. There is no "edit warring" occurring. Further, this block actively prevents me from participating in dispute resolution steps that I already initiated.

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=I am requesting unblock, because the claims made were not in good faith (instead created by a pair of tendentious editors, one with a known vendetta against me) and because no policy supports this block. There is no "edit warring" occurring. Further, this block actively prevents me from participating in dispute resolution steps that I already initiated. |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=I am requesting unblock, because the claims made were not in good faith (instead created by a pair of tendentious editors, one with a known vendetta against me) and because no policy supports this block. There is no "edit warring" occurring. Further, this block actively prevents me from participating in dispute resolution steps that I already initiated. |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=I am requesting unblock, because the claims made were not in good faith (instead created by a pair of tendentious editors, one with a known vendetta against me) and because no policy supports this block. There is no "edit warring" occurring. Further, this block actively prevents me from participating in dispute resolution steps that I already initiated. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Specifics that the blocking administrator has failed to consider:

1. - much of the "evidence" presented by the tendentious editors is false. For instance, they claim a "revert" in the past from much earlier in the month, which was a result of diligent care to not allow disruptive behavior by a throwaway sockpuppet/SPA with only two edits.

1. - The claim that they made any attempt at dispute resolution is 100% false. Neither LM2000 nor VQuakr participated in the talk page until I pointed out that they had not, and I am the one who has created an RFC to attempt to resolve the issue of the sourcing matter.

1. - They conflated edits from multiple days and further conflated edits having nothing to do with the content that were performed in consistency with Wikipedia policy regarding requiring sourcing (in this diff the link "http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/oreilly-donald-trump-president-fox-news_n_7603202.html" is a bad link to a nonexistent article).

In sum total, per the relevant policy:

• The "three revert rule" was not, in fact, violated.
• There is no "disruption" occurring or, if it has, I am not the source as I am the only one involved here who has actually pursued appropriate dispute resolution steps such as talk page participation and WP:RFC requesting in a timely manner.
• Therefore, per the policy that blocks should NOT be punitive and the policy that blocks should only be used when there is an active issue, the block was improperly placed.
• The duration of the block, at 72 hours, is also extreme and inappropriate.

Please process this and remove the inappropriate block. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Sux to be u bro. BBB23 is one of the worst admins on wikipedia, but good luck finding one of them who's not just a rubber stamp jockey for abusive longtime editors. I suspect most of them never even read or check the "evidence". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.31 (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Ouch. Well all I can do is wait and hope that someone out there actually looks at the evidence, because I have done nothing wrong and violated no policies. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I count one, two, three, four, five, six reverts in the past 24 hours. WP:3RR doesn't care what your intentions are when reverting, unless it's clear vandalism. clpo13_(talk) 16:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Clpo13: your poorly thought out comment illustrates the point of what happens when people jump to blatantly misrepresenting edits, or maybe you just really didn't review the edits you are claiming to review?

For instance this diff that you list as "five" is a reversion of clear IP vandalism, insertion of unsourced content with an intention of damaging wikipedia by violating WP:BLP. Since it has no source, I was obligated under policy to remove it per "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.". Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)