User talk:72bikers

April 2018

Where is this consensus you're referring to here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I get no discussion? This is not according to Wiki policy.72bikers (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a open talk page discussion here[1].72bikers (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Also these editors have been trying to circumvent consensus on gun articles by trying to claim that somehow the controversial content is bringing a Neutral point of view to the article [2].72bikers (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You violated WP:3RR. You didn't take the chance to explain yourself. You were blocked. The block is perfectly in line with policy. Now, please explain your consensus assertion as I am weighing whether or not to topic ban you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't even give me chance to speak.72bikers (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You were notified of the edit warring report and you were invited separately to comment there. You ignored that. Now, I'm giving you the chance to speak again. For the third and last time, please explain your consensus comment. If you don't provide a satisfactory explanation, you're probably looking at additional editing restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The notice was posted 16:45, 2 April 2018 and in mere hour and fifteen minutes 18:07, 2 April 2018 I am blocked. 72bikers (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Will you kindly tell them to stay off my talk page, it is not a noticeboard.72bikers (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• 72bikers, as I said before, I understand your POV but it was edit warring and the hostile edit summaries are also not going to win any assumptions of good faith. The 72hr block isn't that long and I think the odds of getting a reversal are low. Let it slide. Springee (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Springee thank you for your levelheaded comment.72bikers (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

In all honesty I needed to take a step back as some editors were pushing all my buttons and got under my skin. That led me to make rash and huried decisions. Taking a step back was exactly what I needed. I see now why some editors ask admins for a voluntary block. I let the drama consume me. Though this is just volunteer work I do enjoin bringing knowledge to others and also in that process finding knowledge myself.

Legacypac clearly violated WP:HUSH and failed to understand it with this [3], just one example of the harassment I have received.

With all that said I don't see how this could be construed as anything other than a threat from Legacypac. I point out this was made after Legacypac was asked to stay off my talk page which would be a second violation as well WP:NOBAN. You insist on removing my posts [4] (my edit summary-Stay off my talk page this should take place on the noticeboard) that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? [5] by editor Legacypac. I do not think Legacypac understands Wiki policy that allows any editor to remove anything they wish on there own talk page.(talk) 19:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I get the frustration. I actually wondered about the "insist on removing my posts" comment. Your talk page is one area where you can almost do anything you want including removing what ever, when ever. The only catches that come to mind are no misrepresenting/editing conversations to misrepresent the statements of others and no threats, insults, etc. The best thing to do is WP:FOC so long as the editing behavior is not problematic. Springee (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes Springee Legacypac clearly violated Wiki policy. I really should take it to a noticeboard, but I'm not one who goes crying to others as they have done. It is also clear the more they are pushed on this the more they start tearing down these article, claiming not sourced or not encyclopedic or any number of things. I believe this is a effort to get others to back down or they will remove such and such. I believe the more they claim we are paid editor or a employee or some devoted fan are just there efforts to deflect why they are here and hide there motivation.

You are right about pointing out to stay on topic. I just wanted to point his violations, and to say what I sure everyone was thinking. So from now this point I will edit solely on topic and not stray. -72bikers (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

One other thing, NeilN is a good admin and very fair even in very politically challenging topics. Don't take any frustration out on Neil. Springee (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I will take your word about it, you have been very helpful trying to get cooler heads to prevail. -72bikers (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

How amusing even after all this time he still makes threats and unfounded accusations of the very things he partakes in. He has a pattern to bend editorial rules/guidelines to defending blatant OR material supporting his views, as his block log and ANI history shows he doesn't play nicely with others with less than civil editor interactions. He just tells lies and shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality where anyone that challenges his highly POV edits is wrong. -72bikers (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban from WP:ARBGC topics, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

• Ivanvector, no one is more strict than Drmies (*ahem* *cough*) but in this case I'd like to plead for leniency. 72bikers, if you can PROMISE us you will drop this stick, maybe Ivanvector will consider shortening this block some. Maybe. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This was fairly egregious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to have gotten WP:BOOMERANG topic banned for it, and then 14 hours later file the exact same request again. I'm surprised he didn't get a longer block. Would have to be quite an impressive response imo. -Obsidi (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Obsidi why am I suppose to care what you think? As you have never had any interaction with me, you are clearly here to instigate, how childish. A difference of opinion can be expressed in a polite manner. There is no acceptable excuse for being rude. -72bikers (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)