Eminent Jurist
Welcome!
|
June 2016
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Trump University for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; 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 here for more information. Your declaration that Trump University "may be bigger scam than Madoff" is completely unsubstantiated and has made your agenda crystal clear. Toddst1 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles or fabricate statements for deposition on talk page. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:Toddst1, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Threats of physical violence have no place on Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC) Your recent editing history at Thomas Pogge shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sro23 (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
He has reverted 7 times. I simply restored the edits of others. This is in the chronicle, the times, all the papers 200 philosophers signed the letter. Pleade, you are embarrassing yourself.Eminent Jurist (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)- (edit conflict) Repeatedly abusing an administrator who made a very mild intervention into an article to stop sustained edit warring by yourself and another editor, and explained her action politely and clearly, is totally unacceptable. I note in particular these posts in which you attacked the admin in very serious ways, including as part of escalating the matter to the widely-read Administrators' Noticeboard: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
"Explained her action very politely and clearly" Her explanation was dishonest. She implied that there were no aecondary sources, and only primary sources and blogs, but she knows that that wasn't true. When you lock up a page on false pretences and make an absolutely untrue statement "protecting because the sources are all blogs or primary sources" yes I'm going to be angry. I don't like to be lied to and I don't suffer fools gldly. Her explanation was a horseshit lie from start to finish and she knows it. She knows the claims were sourced in reputable secondary sources and she abused her power to do as she pleased.Eminent Jurist (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Her conduct was in all honesty outrgeous. A vandal, who is friends with Thomas Pogge, came in and deleted sourced information. You want to show me sources? I gave her at least 12. Pearce, a COI, had reverted 2 other editors today! He then reverted me restoring their excellent edis 5 times in a row afterI reverted him, and you revert to his version, astonishingly. His reasoning, and I'm paraphrasing, was "We wouldn't want to say that Socrates screwed boys in his article." There were 6 editors in the talk page saying this was notable. The merest use of human reason would show you this is notable, I gave a link to 200 philosophers signing against pogge, Pogge's 36 page written statement (better delete!), legal documents and statements from a Columbia professor, yale daily news, chronicle of higher education, ny times, huff post, buzzfed politics, daily nous etc. I gave 15 reliable sources, the vandal David Pearce deleted them and you decide the side with 0 sources, 0 reasoning just brute administrator power to enforce one's tyrannical, will despotically over objectors. Why would anyone aid Pearce who had no consensus for deleting no logical reasoning, no sources, and just jokes about buzzfeed as his explanation (when there were other sources and that source was plainly reliable in the current case?) Sad. Eminent Jurist (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Eminent Jurist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not here to earn a J.D. from Wikipedia law school but to see to it that articles are not vandalized. By freezing Thomas Pogge without all mention of the well-sourced controversy , you are effectively aiding a vandal. It is sad to see how little most editors care about whether or not true well-sourced claims are removed from the encylopedia by "deletion vandals" to remove information that doesn't suit them. Pearce, as I pointed out, is a friend of Pogge's and there were 6 people against him anyway. Restore the deleted sources by the vandal at once.
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
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I should add that in her comment explaining the protection of the article to stop an edit war, SV offered no judgment on the article content itself. She did not say there are no secondary sources needed, she merely reiterated the things that need to be presented in a discussion to seek consensus. Protecting an article to stop an edit war is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, as edit warring (even if you are right) is forbidden. Abusing the admin who stopped you from fighting is not the way forward, and if you continue with any edit warring or abuse once this block expires, you should expect to be blocked for longer. And continuing the content dispute here in this unblock request will get you nowhere either, as reviewing admins have no remit to judge it. Instead, when the block expires, seek consensus via discussion on the article talk page, and if that does not settle it, follow the dispute resolution procedures at WP:DR.
- Oh, and finally, I can see you are angry that the article has been protected at the version you do not favour. But when it comes to contested controversial material in an article about a living person, WP:BLP policy requires that it stays out until there is a consensus to include it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2016 (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.
- As Eminent Jurist has continued abusing SV in serious ways while blocked, I've turned off their ability to edit their talk page for the duration of the block. The unblock request remains open, and will be reviewed by another admin. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I've just extended the block duration to indefinite for trying to continue this dispute while blocked using the Anti Conflict Of Interest Crusader (talk · contribs) account. If you would like this block to be reviewed, you can request this via Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- As Eminent Jurist has been editing logged out to continue being abusive, I have semi-protected this talk page.
Eminent Jurist, if you're still watching, this is all the result of a massive over-reaction by you in response to the article being protected to stop an edit war. Edit warring, no matter who is right and who is wrong, is destructive, and it has to be stopped - and that is all that SV did here. The top priority was to stop the fighting and get people talking civilly, and then you could have been helped to solve the dispute in a collegial manner - very possibly ending with an agreement for the way you want it. But you made the subsequent steps, beyond the initial need to stop the fighting, impossible by launching your immediate and aggressive attacks.
Regarding consensus, it's not just a head count, and a consensus isn't decided by whichever side has the most votes. It's decided by discussion, closed by a disinterested party who should analyse the various arguments in terms of Wikipedia's policies. That discussion should be civil, and should not consist of aggressively attacking opponents or admins who try to keep the peace. In fact, there's a perfectly civil discussion going on right now on the talk page, and the first signs suggest there will be a consensus to include some version of the disputed section.
If you want to come back to editing and you are willing to drop your aggressive battlefield approach, and instead agree to discuss disagreements in a calm and civil manner, please feel free to contact WP:UTRS. If you take that approach, someone there might be convinced to restore your ability to edit this page so that we can try to help each other move forward from this unfortunate situation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)