|
Raj208 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please note that I have been banned for "Not here to create an encyclopedia." I am in fact here to add to the quality of content and ensure political neutrality to more contentious topics. I discussed certain topics with a few users and provided my point of view respectfully to be able to understand some lack of neutrality, overloading of semantics, and burying of the substance behind the topic. I provided certain examples of separate points of view, which were directly called disgusting by a user. However, instead of getting into a war, I stayed neutral and asked for civility. However, instead of being provided with that civility, I was blocked. I am certainly not an expert, and am very new to editing. In fact, I did not want to edit without participating at talk pages first to understand the process and discuss my view points. I think it is unfair to edit any topics without getting this lay of the land. However, I do believe there was bias against my views and hence the blocking. I would respectfully request that I be unblocked after a careful review so I can in fact contribute further.
Decline reason:
I appreciate the civil and calm tone of your request, but it's belied by a recent edit history that consists largely of going into talk pages of articles smack dab in designated contentious topic areas, posting sweeping statements asserting facts and accusing everyone else here of bias a priori (very much showing you're not assuming good faith)) and then wondering why this happened. You'll forgive us if it looks to us like you were trolling. — Daniel Case ( talk) 06:51, 12 July 2023 (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 is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
O3000, Ret. ( talk) 12:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on
reliable sources and the project
policies and guidelines; they are
not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting
our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the
talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you.
Andre
🚐
23:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Andre
🚐
19:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Andre 🚐 00:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
These are facts that are in fact indisputable. Worse, much of what you claim is indisputably true is actually indisputably false. And your statement that
Men cannot pretend to be womenThis is a disgusting statement which I advise you to strike. You need to find better sources as it's clear you believe in fringe conspiracy theories. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
You write "the Russia collusion narrative was false". That's misleading in several ways. Get your terms right. "Conspiracy", not "collusion", was examined by Mueller, and "conspiracy" was not proven "false". It was unproven. Myriad forms of collusion, using many different terms, were found. Trump and his campaign invited, welcomed, cooperated, aided and abetted, lied about, facilitated, encouraged, did not prevent the interference, and tried to prevent U.S. intelligence from doing its job because Trump "expected to benefit" from the Russian interference. That sounds like collusion to me, and it was proven. Unfortunately, much of that is not directly illegal, even if it's very disloyal to American and endangers national security. Since when is it okay to cooperate with an enemy power? Since when is it a good idea to elect the candidate your enemy wants you to elect? They do not have America's best interests at heart. Russians know that Trump is more of a friend to them than to his own country. That's why he shares classified information with them that gets our good sources killed. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 00:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
These things are not binary. They are not all either "proven true" or "proven false". They can also be "unproven". "Conspiracy" and "collusion" are separate topics that should not be conflated in the same discussion. Keep them separate and it's easier to deal with.
"Conspiracy" was investigated by Mueller and remains unproven. He did not say conspiracy was "proven false" (nor, contrary to your claim, did he say that collusion was "proven false"). That is my argument, contrary to what you write: "and hence legitimizing that it must then be true." Just because it is not proven false does not mean that "it must then be true." I am not making that argument.
Regarding "collusion", you are the one who is claiming that "For example, the Russia collusion narrative was false." I am saying that it was proven true by Mueller, as he found myriad different ways that Trump and his campaign cooperated with and helped the Russians in their interference.
So keep the terms separate. It is okay to say that "conspiracy" was not proven. It is not okay to say that "collusion" was proven false. They are two very different things.
There is a small but vital gap between the subjects. The Russians and Trump campaign aided each other in many ways, but we don't have evidence of a formal oral or written "conspiracy" and "coordination". That is what's missing. We don't have clear evidence that they coordinated, although the actions of Roger Stone are seen as evidence of attempted coordination, with Trump's knowledge. Even in certain situations where we don't have direct evidence, the situation is described as it was "not for lack of trying" by the Trump campaign. They tried to coordinate with the Russians but didn't always succeed. They even tried to create a secret backchannel for communication (that U.S. intelligence couldn't monitor) that was so risky and dangerous the Russians wouldn't even go along with it. It would have been discovered, and then it would be proven that Trump was working directly and knowingly with Russian intelligence against American interests. The Russians didn't dare risk that. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The confusion between "conspiracy" and "collusion" has benefited Trump:
If you do a Google search of "no collusion", you will find that myriad RS have made the same mistake you do. They repeat Trump's original false claim as if it's true. In those instances, they are not RS for that matter. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Valjean: I am confused by the claim that Wikipedia is a "private company"; it's a volunteer website whose hosting is provided by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization (and this is not exactly a secret; it's right there in the lead of their article, for example). Am I missing something? jp× g 07:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
You have recently made edits related to
COVID-19, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that
COVID-19, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
Acroterion
(talk)
01:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Someone needs to block this user and lock this page. They are WP:NOTHERE and only focus on WP:RGW. Ping User:Acroterion -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 00:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Raj208. Thank you. — Paleo Neonate – 11:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Courcelles (
talk)
17:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
|
Raj208 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please note that I have been banned for "Not here to create an encyclopedia." I am in fact here to add to the quality of content and ensure political neutrality to more contentious topics. I discussed certain topics with a few users and provided my point of view respectfully to be able to understand some lack of neutrality, overloading of semantics, and burying of the substance behind the topic. I provided certain examples of separate points of view, which were directly called disgusting by a user. However, instead of getting into a war, I stayed neutral and asked for civility. However, instead of being provided with that civility, I was blocked. I am certainly not an expert, and am very new to editing. In fact, I did not want to edit without participating at talk pages first to understand the process and discuss my view points. I think it is unfair to edit any topics without getting this lay of the land. However, I do believe there was bias against my views and hence the blocking. I would respectfully request that I be unblocked after a careful review so I can in fact contribute further.
Decline reason:
I appreciate the civil and calm tone of your request, but it's belied by a recent edit history that consists largely of going into talk pages of articles smack dab in designated contentious topic areas, posting sweeping statements asserting facts and accusing everyone else here of bias a priori (very much showing you're not assuming good faith)) and then wondering why this happened. You'll forgive us if it looks to us like you were trolling. — Daniel Case ( talk) 06:51, 12 July 2023 (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 is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the
guidance on discretionary sanctions and the
Arbitration Committee's decision
here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
O3000, Ret. ( talk) 12:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on
reliable sources and the project
policies and guidelines; they are
not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting
our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the
talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you.
Andre
🚐
23:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Please
stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Andre
🚐
19:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
Andre 🚐 00:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
These are facts that are in fact indisputable. Worse, much of what you claim is indisputably true is actually indisputably false. And your statement that
Men cannot pretend to be womenThis is a disgusting statement which I advise you to strike. You need to find better sources as it's clear you believe in fringe conspiracy theories. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 00:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
You write "the Russia collusion narrative was false". That's misleading in several ways. Get your terms right. "Conspiracy", not "collusion", was examined by Mueller, and "conspiracy" was not proven "false". It was unproven. Myriad forms of collusion, using many different terms, were found. Trump and his campaign invited, welcomed, cooperated, aided and abetted, lied about, facilitated, encouraged, did not prevent the interference, and tried to prevent U.S. intelligence from doing its job because Trump "expected to benefit" from the Russian interference. That sounds like collusion to me, and it was proven. Unfortunately, much of that is not directly illegal, even if it's very disloyal to American and endangers national security. Since when is it okay to cooperate with an enemy power? Since when is it a good idea to elect the candidate your enemy wants you to elect? They do not have America's best interests at heart. Russians know that Trump is more of a friend to them than to his own country. That's why he shares classified information with them that gets our good sources killed. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 00:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
These things are not binary. They are not all either "proven true" or "proven false". They can also be "unproven". "Conspiracy" and "collusion" are separate topics that should not be conflated in the same discussion. Keep them separate and it's easier to deal with.
"Conspiracy" was investigated by Mueller and remains unproven. He did not say conspiracy was "proven false" (nor, contrary to your claim, did he say that collusion was "proven false"). That is my argument, contrary to what you write: "and hence legitimizing that it must then be true." Just because it is not proven false does not mean that "it must then be true." I am not making that argument.
Regarding "collusion", you are the one who is claiming that "For example, the Russia collusion narrative was false." I am saying that it was proven true by Mueller, as he found myriad different ways that Trump and his campaign cooperated with and helped the Russians in their interference.
So keep the terms separate. It is okay to say that "conspiracy" was not proven. It is not okay to say that "collusion" was proven false. They are two very different things.
There is a small but vital gap between the subjects. The Russians and Trump campaign aided each other in many ways, but we don't have evidence of a formal oral or written "conspiracy" and "coordination". That is what's missing. We don't have clear evidence that they coordinated, although the actions of Roger Stone are seen as evidence of attempted coordination, with Trump's knowledge. Even in certain situations where we don't have direct evidence, the situation is described as it was "not for lack of trying" by the Trump campaign. They tried to coordinate with the Russians but didn't always succeed. They even tried to create a secret backchannel for communication (that U.S. intelligence couldn't monitor) that was so risky and dangerous the Russians wouldn't even go along with it. It would have been discovered, and then it would be proven that Trump was working directly and knowingly with Russian intelligence against American interests. The Russians didn't dare risk that. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The confusion between "conspiracy" and "collusion" has benefited Trump:
If you do a Google search of "no collusion", you will find that myriad RS have made the same mistake you do. They repeat Trump's original false claim as if it's true. In those instances, they are not RS for that matter. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 02:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Valjean: I am confused by the claim that Wikipedia is a "private company"; it's a volunteer website whose hosting is provided by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization (and this is not exactly a secret; it's right there in the lead of their article, for example). Am I missing something? jp× g 07:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
You have recently made edits related to
COVID-19, broadly construed. This is a standard message to inform you that
COVID-19, broadly construed is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
Wikipedia:Contentious topics.
Acroterion
(talk)
01:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Someone needs to block this user and lock this page. They are WP:NOTHERE and only focus on WP:RGW. Ping User:Acroterion -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 00:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Raj208. Thank you. — Paleo Neonate – 11:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Courcelles (
talk)
17:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)