User talk:BlueSalix

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of David Dao for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Dao is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Dao until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Justeditingtoday (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Justeditingtoday (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I have restored your indefinite block. Having checked the diffs provided by Justeditingtoday, I agree with his interpretation of those diffs, and having checked several page histories that he didn't link, I see confirmation of his claims. Stalking another editor in revenge for the other editor's actions is reprehensible, it's compounded because you misrepresented others' actions as edit-warring despite your own actions, and the whole time your edit war was an attempt to enforce the existence of an article relying on nothing but primary sources. You're welcome to request unblock, of course, but unless you're doing that, I suggest that you make no edits to this talk page: when you've gotten yourself a second indef block, abuse is likely to result in a speedy removal of talk page access. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Corey Stewart (politician). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

request for unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Short Version

After six years on Wikipedia I have been suddenly, and indefinitely, blocked for "stalking" Justeditingtoday and violating WP:PRIMARY. Here is the editor interaction report covering my and Justeditingtoday's career on Wikipedia: [1]

I think a link to the interaction report alone should disabuse the notion that I've been stalking him or her, however, to be thorough, I will offer a fuller description of events, which follows.

Long Version
Background - violation of WP:HARASSMENT:

For the first time ever, today, I interacted with Justeditingtoday. The interaction was initiated by him or her when he/she redirected an article I'd authored [2]. Until 30 minutes ago, the extent of our interaction was in that article and its associated discussion pages.

In preparation for filing a 3RR report I checked Justeditingtoday's edit history and saw he/she was purging vast quantities of RS from disability law-related articles (essentially any peer-reviewed journal authored by a UQ academic who specializes in disability access legislation named Paul Harpur). Seeing that dozens of high-quality RS were being removed sans discussion I proceeded to make exactly one (1) revert to an edit Justeditingtoday made (here: [3]) and exactly one (1) comment on a directly related Sockpuppet discussion he/she'd initiated (here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp); in other words, a total of two (2) edits on a single topic.

That is the full and entire extent of BlueSalix-initiated interaction with Justeditingtoday in either mainspace or article/policy discussion pages, a fact verifiable by review of the interaction log.

Background - violation of WP:PRIMARY:

In addition to stalking, the blocking admin also stated [4] I was being indeffed for creating an article that "relied on nothing but primary sources". Here is the version of the article in question as it existed when I created it: [5]. It references four (4) sources as follows: Reuters, the Chicago Business Journal, People Magazine, ABC News. A Wikipedia admin should know what a WP:PRIMARY is and know that neither Reuters, Chicago Business Journal, People Magazine, nor ABC News are PRIMARY (let alone all of them).

Reason for unblock:

First, the standard for WP:HARASSMENT is "the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." As evidenced, I did not join multiple topics, I joined one (1) topic Justeditingtoday was editing and made two (2) edits in that topic. In neither a literal nor spirited reading of our policy can two (2) edits in a single topic meet the high standard to prove stalking. Further, my two (2) edits were not done to "inhibit their work" as, by the standard of a reasonable person, there is a fairly destructive spree of vandalism into which my two (2) edits were attempting to intervene.

Secondly, I have demonstrated the blocking admin was materially incorrect in claiming that I created an article that "relied on nothing but primary sources", which was the secondary reason given for the indefinite block.

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='''Short Version'''<br/> After six years on Wikipedia I have been suddenly, and indefinitely, blocked for "stalking" [[User:Justeditingtoday|Justeditingtoday]] and violating [[WP:PRIMARY]]. Here is the editor interaction report covering my and Justeditingtoday's career on Wikipedia: [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Justeditingtoday&users=BlueSalix&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] I think a link to the interaction report alone should disabuse the notion that I've been stalking him or her, however, to be thorough, I will offer a fuller description of events, which follows. '''Long Version'''<Br/> Background - violation of [[WP:HARASSMENT]]: :For the first time ever, today, I interacted with Justeditingtoday. The interaction was initiated by him or her when he/she redirected an article I'd authored [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Dao&diff=774974356&oldid=774974229]. Until 30 minutes ago, the extent of our interaction was in that article and its associated discussion pages. :In preparation for filing a 3RR report I checked Justeditingtoday's edit history and saw he/she was purging vast quantities of RS from disability law-related articles (essentially any peer-reviewed journal authored by a [[University of Queensland|UQ]] academic who specializes in disability access legislation named Paul Harpur). Seeing that dozens of high-quality RS were being removed sans discussion I proceeded to make exactly one (1) revert to an edit Justeditingtoday made (here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_model_of_disability&diff=prev&oldid=775021087]) and exactly one (1) comment on a directly related Sockpuppet discussion he/she'd initiated (here: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp]]); in other words, a total of two (2) edits on a single topic. :That is the full and entire extent of BlueSalix-initiated interaction with Justeditingtoday in either mainspace or article/policy discussion pages, a fact verifiable by review of the interaction log. Background - violation of [[WP:PRIMARY]]: :In addition to stalking, the blocking admin also stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlueSalix&diff=775023558&oldid=775022644] I was being indeffed for creating an article that <span class="example" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #006400;" >"relied on nothing but primary sources"</span>. Here is the version of the article in question as it existed when I created it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Dao&oldid=774974184]. It references four (4) sources as follows: [[Reuters]], the ''[[American City Business Journals|Chicago Business Journal]], [[People Magazine]]'', [[ABC News]]. A Wikipedia admin should know what a [[WP:PRIMARY]] is and know that neither [[Reuters]], ''Chicago Business Journal, [[People Magazine]]'', nor [[ABC News]] are PRIMARY (let alone all of them). Reason for unblock: :First, the standard for [[WP:HARASSMENT]] is <span class="example" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #006400;" >"the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on '''multiple''' pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work."</span> As evidenced, I did not join multiple topics, I ''joined'' one (1) topic Justeditingtoday was editing and made two (2) edits in that topic. In neither a literal nor spirited reading of our policy can ''two (2) edits'' in a single topic meet the high standard to prove stalking. Further, my ''two (2) edits'' were not done to "inhibit their work" as, by the standard of a reasonable person, there is a fairly destructive spree of vandalism into which my ''two (2) edits'' were attempting to intervene. :Secondly, I have demonstrated the blocking admin was materially incorrect in claiming that I created an article that "relied on nothing but primary sources", which was the secondary reason given for the indefinite block. |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='''Short Version'''<br/> After six years on Wikipedia I have been suddenly, and indefinitely, blocked for "stalking" [[User:Justeditingtoday|Justeditingtoday]] and violating [[WP:PRIMARY]]. Here is the editor interaction report covering my and Justeditingtoday's career on Wikipedia: [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Justeditingtoday&users=BlueSalix&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] I think a link to the interaction report alone should disabuse the notion that I've been stalking him or her, however, to be thorough, I will offer a fuller description of events, which follows. '''Long Version'''<Br/> Background - violation of [[WP:HARASSMENT]]: :For the first time ever, today, I interacted with Justeditingtoday. The interaction was initiated by him or her when he/she redirected an article I'd authored [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Dao&diff=774974356&oldid=774974229]. Until 30 minutes ago, the extent of our interaction was in that article and its associated discussion pages. :In preparation for filing a 3RR report I checked Justeditingtoday's edit history and saw he/she was purging vast quantities of RS from disability law-related articles (essentially any peer-reviewed journal authored by a [[University of Queensland|UQ]] academic who specializes in disability access legislation named Paul Harpur). Seeing that dozens of high-quality RS were being removed sans discussion I proceeded to make exactly one (1) revert to an edit Justeditingtoday made (here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_model_of_disability&diff=prev&oldid=775021087]) and exactly one (1) comment on a directly related Sockpuppet discussion he/she'd initiated (here: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp]]); in other words, a total of two (2) edits on a single topic. :That is the full and entire extent of BlueSalix-initiated interaction with Justeditingtoday in either mainspace or article/policy discussion pages, a fact verifiable by review of the interaction log. Background - violation of [[WP:PRIMARY]]: :In addition to stalking, the blocking admin also stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlueSalix&diff=775023558&oldid=775022644] I was being indeffed for creating an article that <span class="example" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #006400;" >"relied on nothing but primary sources"</span>. Here is the version of the article in question as it existed when I created it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Dao&oldid=774974184]. It references four (4) sources as follows: [[Reuters]], the ''[[American City Business Journals|Chicago Business Journal]], [[People Magazine]]'', [[ABC News]]. A Wikipedia admin should know what a [[WP:PRIMARY]] is and know that neither [[Reuters]], ''Chicago Business Journal, [[People Magazine]]'', nor [[ABC News]] are PRIMARY (let alone all of them). Reason for unblock: :First, the standard for [[WP:HARASSMENT]] is <span class="example" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #006400;" >"the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on '''multiple''' pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work."</span> As evidenced, I did not join multiple topics, I ''joined'' one (1) topic Justeditingtoday was editing and made two (2) edits in that topic. In neither a literal nor spirited reading of our policy can ''two (2) edits'' in a single topic meet the high standard to prove stalking. Further, my ''two (2) edits'' were not done to "inhibit their work" as, by the standard of a reasonable person, there is a fairly destructive spree of vandalism into which my ''two (2) edits'' were attempting to intervene. :Secondly, I have demonstrated the blocking admin was materially incorrect in claiming that I created an article that "relied on nothing but primary sources", which was the secondary reason given for the indefinite block. |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='''Short Version'''<br/> After six years on Wikipedia I have been suddenly, and indefinitely, blocked for "stalking" [[User:Justeditingtoday|Justeditingtoday]] and violating [[WP:PRIMARY]]. Here is the editor interaction report covering my and Justeditingtoday's career on Wikipedia: [https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=Justeditingtoday&users=BlueSalix&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki] I think a link to the interaction report alone should disabuse the notion that I've been stalking him or her, however, to be thorough, I will offer a fuller description of events, which follows. '''Long Version'''<Br/> Background - violation of [[WP:HARASSMENT]]: :For the first time ever, today, I interacted with Justeditingtoday. The interaction was initiated by him or her when he/she redirected an article I'd authored [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Dao&diff=774974356&oldid=774974229]. Until 30 minutes ago, the extent of our interaction was in that article and its associated discussion pages. :In preparation for filing a 3RR report I checked Justeditingtoday's edit history and saw he/she was purging vast quantities of RS from disability law-related articles (essentially any peer-reviewed journal authored by a [[University of Queensland|UQ]] academic who specializes in disability access legislation named Paul Harpur). Seeing that dozens of high-quality RS were being removed sans discussion I proceeded to make exactly one (1) revert to an edit Justeditingtoday made (here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_model_of_disability&diff=prev&oldid=775021087]) and exactly one (1) comment on a directly related Sockpuppet discussion he/she'd initiated (here: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BazzaHarp]]); in other words, a total of two (2) edits on a single topic. :That is the full and entire extent of BlueSalix-initiated interaction with Justeditingtoday in either mainspace or article/policy discussion pages, a fact verifiable by review of the interaction log. Background - violation of [[WP:PRIMARY]]: :In addition to stalking, the blocking admin also stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BlueSalix&diff=775023558&oldid=775022644] I was being indeffed for creating an article that <span class="example" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #006400;" >"relied on nothing but primary sources"</span>. Here is the version of the article in question as it existed when I created it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Dao&oldid=774974184]. It references four (4) sources as follows: [[Reuters]], the ''[[American City Business Journals|Chicago Business Journal]], [[People Magazine]]'', [[ABC News]]. A Wikipedia admin should know what a [[WP:PRIMARY]] is and know that neither [[Reuters]], ''Chicago Business Journal, [[People Magazine]]'', nor [[ABC News]] are PRIMARY (let alone all of them). Reason for unblock: :First, the standard for [[WP:HARASSMENT]] is <span class="example" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #006400;" >"the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on '''multiple''' pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work."</span> As evidenced, I did not join multiple topics, I ''joined'' one (1) topic Justeditingtoday was editing and made two (2) edits in that topic. In neither a literal nor spirited reading of our policy can ''two (2) edits'' in a single topic meet the high standard to prove stalking. Further, my ''two (2) edits'' were not done to "inhibit their work" as, by the standard of a reasonable person, there is a fairly destructive spree of vandalism into which my ''two (2) edits'' were attempting to intervene. :Secondly, I have demonstrated the blocking admin was materially incorrect in claiming that I created an article that "relied on nothing but primary sources", which was the secondary reason given for the indefinite block. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I am requesting Coffee, Sphilbrick, JamesBWatson or AniMate review this, and/or escalate if needed, since it appears they may have some background with the blocking admin's previously reverted "fast blocks". BlueSalix (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)