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'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).

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.

Decline reason:

Engaging in dispute resolution is commendable, but it's not a permission to keep on reverting. I agree with others' counts; this was far more than three reverts in 24 hours. If you cannot see that even in retrospect, it's likely that the problematic conduct would continue if you were unblocked. Huon (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2016 (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 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:

@Huon: did not consider the relevant evidence at all. He has particularly ignored that I have not "reverted" during dispute resolution. There will be no "problematic conduct" continuing, and any claim to the contrary is a false claim. However, if you want something else: I will not edit on the List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 article again until such time as the RfC I created has been resolved to a consensus.

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=<span class="template-ping">@[[User:Huon|Huon]]:</span> did not consider the relevant evidence at all. He has particularly ignored that I have not "reverted" during dispute resolution. There will be no "problematic conduct" continuing, and any claim to the contrary is a false claim. However, if you want something else: I will not edit on the [[List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016]] article again until such time as the RfC I created has been resolved to a consensus. |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=<span class="template-ping">@[[User:Huon|Huon]]:</span> did not consider the relevant evidence at all. He has particularly ignored that I have not "reverted" during dispute resolution. There will be no "problematic conduct" continuing, and any claim to the contrary is a false claim. However, if you want something else: I will not edit on the [[List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016]] article again until such time as the RfC I created has been resolved to a consensus. |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=<span class="template-ping">@[[User:Huon|Huon]]:</span> did not consider the relevant evidence at all. He has particularly ignored that I have not "reverted" during dispute resolution. There will be no "problematic conduct" continuing, and any claim to the contrary is a false claim. However, if you want something else: I will not edit on the [[List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016]] article again until such time as the RfC I created has been resolved to a consensus. |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.
2. - 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.
3. - 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:

• After review with Clpo13, I may have inadvertently violated the 3-revert rule. I assure you it was unintentional and the result of good-faith attempts to prevent content-blanking that was not consistent with wikipedia policy.
• 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.

• Subset of this, the block appears to be definitively created as a matter of punitive behavior without basis because by the time it was issued I had had time to go to bed, wake up, and file a request for comment on the talk page regarding the content. A block filed for something stale cannot be anything but unsupported by policy. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• 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.

• Further Thought - the block coming so late, and for so excessive a time period, can be seen only as punitive as well because I have made nothing but good edits in the intervening time, including doing the research to check sources, for which another editor copied my edit summary to update another related page and publicly thanked me for my diligence.

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)

Unsourced content isn't necessary vandalism. But let's cut out that one and this, too as being justifiable. That's still four reverts left unaccounted for. clpo13_(talk) 16:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Again I ask, why are you trying to conflate two differing days of editing? I might also ask how you wound up on my talk page. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The first revert was made 22:44, 14 May 2016 UTC. The fourth was made 06:23, 15 May 2016 UTC. That's within the 24 hour period described in WP:3RR. clpo13_(talk) 16:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I see your point and am updating my appeal accordingly, though I still do not agree that all 4 edits qualify, since JKerrigan8 appears largely to be a WP:SPA who creates NPOV problems in the pages of BLP pages connected to right-wing persons. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Clpo13: well, it looks like the IP is right. All I'm getting is rubber stamp rejection from people who are too lazy to bother to read my case. Sigh. I guess the tendentious bullies get to win. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)