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)[reply]

Accepting Ideas for Topics to Edit

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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 Assuming 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 with 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[reply]