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).
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)
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.
FactZheker ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
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 Assume 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 will 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
Decline reason:
First, accounts are not revoked. Second, please read WP:GAB, especially WP:NOTTHEM, before making further unblock requests. Further accusations, including personal attacks, in unblock requests may result in your ability to edit your talk page being revoked. The Bushranger One ping only 23:35, 15 January 2021 (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.
FactZheker ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Admins continue to threaten me and mischaracterize my complaint while continuing to ignore major issues and inconsistencies with the actions taken against me. FactZheker ( talk) 23:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 02:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
1. Removing edits that are accurate, verifiable information from trusted sources such as the following: In April of 2020, at the beginning of the Corona Virus outbreak, Reschenthaler sponsored a House resolution seeking to withhold funding for the World Health Organization as medical professionals were still trying to understand the virus [1]. Removing that line to me was damage and disruption. I do not intend to and will pledge not to do any damage or disruption to Wikipedia. 2. I had requested what changes to what information needed changed. As I mentioned in my other complaints, many of the things I added were just a continuation of items in the Bio that still remain.
2. As for your second request: 1. I do not agree nor do I accept the block as valid or necessary. I feel it was targeting by friends of drmies 2. I have not caused any damage, as noted the things I added were on the page but with different sources reporting on the same thing that I was attempting to update. It was never my intent and I feel outraged that I am being accused as such when I clearly asked multiple times for the items drmies was seeking to correct. I have not caused damage or disruption. If you think seeking help on my own talk page about how to go through the proper channels to restore the information I added is "damage and disruption" then I am afraid that you just aren't being honest with yourself. 3. I had already went back after the initial deletion and added a line in that had not been added in the original edit. It remains up and is by no means unverifiable or biased nor is it in any violation of any TOU. I clearly have no ulterior motives and intend to add to articles that I have an interest in with factual, sourced, and unbiased information. If what I did was damage or disruption, then the same is true is for all who have ever edited an article. Again, I pledge not to begin doing damage or disruption and will continue providing the factual, trusted source based information that I have added. Edits like the following that remain up:In December of 2020, Reschenthaler joined other Republicans in voting against providing $2,000 stimulus checks to Americans. [2]
I do not appreciate nor agree the insinuations of your list of demands despite my compliance with those demands. FactZheker ( talk) 02:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker
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.
(egregious personal attacks against named editors and persistent assumption of bad faith across the board.)
In April of 2020, at the beginning of the Corona Virus outbreak, Reschenthaler sponsored a House resolution seeking to withhold funding for the World Health Organization as medical professionals were still trying to understand the virus [1].
What exactly about that is "nowhere near compliant with WP:NPOV"?
Also read the ASG again because it clearly says "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 took the deletion of the above addition, which is clearly in compliance with WP:NPOV, as an act of vandalism. According to the ASG I do not have to assume good faith if I suspect a vandal.
Your threats coupled with your refusal to address the suspicious deletions that lead to my appropriate dropping of the ASG that was in accordance with the ASG guidlines, shows that you are not acting in good faith. You are clearly threatening me to "get the point". Is this the only power you have in life? FactZheker ( talk) 03:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker
References
In December 2020, Reschenthaler joined over 120 seditious Republican members of the House of Representatives...
These efforts to throw out legally cast votes based on bogus election fraud conspiracies pushed by political extremist...
Reschenthaler was one of 126 seditious Republican members of the House of Representatives who signed an amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania, a lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court that they knew was filled with dangerous lies and conspiracy theories...
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).
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)
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.
FactZheker ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
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 Assume 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 will 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
Decline reason:
First, accounts are not revoked. Second, please read WP:GAB, especially WP:NOTTHEM, before making further unblock requests. Further accusations, including personal attacks, in unblock requests may result in your ability to edit your talk page being revoked. The Bushranger One ping only 23:35, 15 January 2021 (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.
FactZheker ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Admins continue to threaten me and mischaracterize my complaint while continuing to ignore major issues and inconsistencies with the actions taken against me. FactZheker ( talk) 23:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 02:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
1. Removing edits that are accurate, verifiable information from trusted sources such as the following: In April of 2020, at the beginning of the Corona Virus outbreak, Reschenthaler sponsored a House resolution seeking to withhold funding for the World Health Organization as medical professionals were still trying to understand the virus [1]. Removing that line to me was damage and disruption. I do not intend to and will pledge not to do any damage or disruption to Wikipedia. 2. I had requested what changes to what information needed changed. As I mentioned in my other complaints, many of the things I added were just a continuation of items in the Bio that still remain.
2. As for your second request: 1. I do not agree nor do I accept the block as valid or necessary. I feel it was targeting by friends of drmies 2. I have not caused any damage, as noted the things I added were on the page but with different sources reporting on the same thing that I was attempting to update. It was never my intent and I feel outraged that I am being accused as such when I clearly asked multiple times for the items drmies was seeking to correct. I have not caused damage or disruption. If you think seeking help on my own talk page about how to go through the proper channels to restore the information I added is "damage and disruption" then I am afraid that you just aren't being honest with yourself. 3. I had already went back after the initial deletion and added a line in that had not been added in the original edit. It remains up and is by no means unverifiable or biased nor is it in any violation of any TOU. I clearly have no ulterior motives and intend to add to articles that I have an interest in with factual, sourced, and unbiased information. If what I did was damage or disruption, then the same is true is for all who have ever edited an article. Again, I pledge not to begin doing damage or disruption and will continue providing the factual, trusted source based information that I have added. Edits like the following that remain up:In December of 2020, Reschenthaler joined other Republicans in voting against providing $2,000 stimulus checks to Americans. [2]
I do not appreciate nor agree the insinuations of your list of demands despite my compliance with those demands. FactZheker ( talk) 02:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker
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.
(egregious personal attacks against named editors and persistent assumption of bad faith across the board.)
In April of 2020, at the beginning of the Corona Virus outbreak, Reschenthaler sponsored a House resolution seeking to withhold funding for the World Health Organization as medical professionals were still trying to understand the virus [1].
What exactly about that is "nowhere near compliant with WP:NPOV"?
Also read the ASG again because it clearly says "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 took the deletion of the above addition, which is clearly in compliance with WP:NPOV, as an act of vandalism. According to the ASG I do not have to assume good faith if I suspect a vandal.
Your threats coupled with your refusal to address the suspicious deletions that lead to my appropriate dropping of the ASG that was in accordance with the ASG guidlines, shows that you are not acting in good faith. You are clearly threatening me to "get the point". Is this the only power you have in life? FactZheker ( talk) 03:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker
References
In December 2020, Reschenthaler joined over 120 seditious Republican members of the House of Representatives...
These efforts to throw out legally cast votes based on bogus election fraud conspiracies pushed by political extremist...
Reschenthaler was one of 126 seditious Republican members of the House of Representatives who signed an amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania, a lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court that they knew was filled with dangerous lies and conspiracy theories...