FactCheckkerrr

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. agtx 19:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 21:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (Help!) 23:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

{unblock reviewed|reason I haven't violated the biographies policy, I've tried my best to present research honestly and accurately. FactCheckkerrr (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

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).

FactCheckkerrr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here haven't violated the biographies policy, I've tried my best to present research honestly and accurately. FactCheckkerrr (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You wrote "The System is rigged, this page was written by Hillary Clinton supporters". How on earth is that presenting research "honestly and accurately?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:35, 15 November 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.

FactCheckkerrr (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm copy and pasting the message that was posted by the person blocking my account: The user FactCheckkerr (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) / FactCheckkerrr (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) is editing on Kathy Shelton in a way that makes clear that they are not here to contribute. The user (who I assume is not intentionally socking but rather has forgotten their password) is edit warring by repeatedly adding in material that is original research and (as least potentially) not relevant to the article ([1], [2], [3], [4]). Attempts to resolve the issue on the talk page have ... broken down. agtx 19:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Firstly you are right, I forgot my password for the first username. Secondly, you are wrong, that I am here to contribute. I contributed original research that contradicts many passages of the article. I framed it in unbiased language that takes into account both sides, rather than censoring certain realities because they make Hillary Clinton look better. As for relevancy, to determine what is relevant, I consider the issues with the judge being a support of Bill Clinton and instructed his son to donate to Bill to be relevant. I consider how his son Gordon Cummings signed a preliminary inquiry form that was not noted in the court docket, to be relevant, at least insofar as articles show there are those critical of it. I consider the handwriting that Taylor is to be released to work during the day to be relevant, especially in the context of the sheriff on the case, commenting on Hannity a week ago, says he was ordered to release Taylor without him serving his sentence at all. These are all relevant things that I added and sourced, specifically with the link to the Hannity radio show excerpt, and articles on legitimate sources citing all of this. So really the article is biased and presenting an incomplete perspective. FactCheckkerrr (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)