FactZheker

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).

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)

---

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 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:

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.

If I were you, I would delete the {{unblock}} above, take a 24-hour cool-down break, read WP:NOTTHEM, and then return. I'll be happy to help you if you get unblocked. Sam Sailor 22:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sam Sailor A fair consideration of the facts I laid out would be the most appropriate course of action. I have not engaged in disruptive edits, personal attacks, or anything of that nature. Presenting my evidence in a calm and organized manner is no indicator that "I need a cool down break". It is as professional as I could make it and if there is retaliation against me over it then I am not the one who provoked it with my second request. Upon closer inspection of Ponyo's talk page there does appear to be a high level of familiarity between drmies and ponyo that I feel my be a conflict on interest in my reception of a fair hearing of the facts.FactZheker (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker

That's "Sailor", not "Sailer". Suggested read: Dunning–Kruger effect. Sam Sailor 22:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

So you resort to personal attacks with the reddit professor's favorite "Dunning Kruger effect" passive aggressive slight. It's rich that the admins here are such hypocrites. FactZheker (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker

Sorry, I'm done here. Sam Sailor 23:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Sam Sailor Thank you for your apology. FactZheker (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker

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:

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

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The block was never necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia because of the facts that I have laid out in the other Unblock Request. These include:

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. 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.

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

References

---

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.

Your responce to being reverted for neutrality issues - an action which other editors stated they would have endorsed - is to cry censorship, take an aggressive us-vs-them posture and refuse to consider what other, more experienced editors have been telling you, all in a topic area where there is absolutely zero tolerance for even one of those. The only person who I can see here that did anything wrong is you, and your unblock requests are not only not helping your case, they're making it obvious the block was justified. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{::::Takes a strong man to deny...} 00:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Jéské Couriano The neutrality claim flies out the window when you consider that my edits amounted to nothing more than updates to information that was already cited and remained up after the vandalism on my edits. Again, there has been no direct evidence presented by you people, just accusations of guilt without any consideration of what I've said. FactZheker (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker

No, it does not "fly out the window". Your edits were blatantly in violation of the neutral-point-of-view policy, and your immediate response to being reverted wasn't to discuss the issue, ask why your edits were considered non-neutral, and establish consensus for a neutral version of them, but instead to instantly cast aspersions and personal attacks, claim censorship and vandalism, and then declare on your userpage that those "censoring" you were "fascists" and you are here to fight them. It is blatantly obvious that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to right great wrongs by promoting "The Truth". This is why you are blocked, and this is why you are going to remain blocked until you understand this, because as things are right now you cannot be trusted to edit within Wikipedia's policies, most notably neutrality and verifiablity, not truth. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:The Bushranger I'll repeat myself once again, the edits I made were a continuation of previous edits on the same topic that discussed the same things in the same manner but during the different time periods. I also asked multiple times, and have pointed it out in every single unblock request, that the specific items they found were in violation be listed so I can fix them. That request by me has never been fulfilled. I did share verifiable information that in fact was mentioned already cited to a separate source in the bio. You are now engaging in wild, salacious claims.FactZheker (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker

I looked at the edits in question. They were nowhere near compliant with WP:NPOV. (And even if existing content may or may not have been equally non-compliant is irrelevant to whether or not yours was.) Also note that those edits and the neutrality thereof are not why you are blocked. You are blocked for how you reacted when your edits were reverted. Including but not limited to your unquestioned immediate declarations that the only possible reason for the reversion was fascisitic censorship - wild and unversal assumptions of bad faith.. If you had instead gone to the article talk page and asked why you were reverted, there could have been a productive discussion and the edits made compliant with policy and reinstated. But you didn't, and it's because you made that choice, and also the choice to make personal attacks on some of our most active admins and other users, that we are here. I will quote from the block log:

(egregious personal attacks against named editors and persistent assumption of bad faith across the board.)

Note that (having now seen your reponse to the latest unblock decline, which you should move out of the decline template) your own user talk page is not exempt from Wikipedia policies including no personal attacks and assume good faith. I will also once again warn you that continued extended refusal to get the point, especially when combined with personal attacks, can result in the ability to edit your user talk page being revoked. I'm pretty sure you don't want that, and (believe it or not) I don't want that, so I strongly suggest you step away from Wikipedia, have a nice glass of your favorite beverage of choice, and come back in the morning to reconsider things after a good read of the how-to-request-unblocks guide. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A line that was reverted that you claim isn't compliant:

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.

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

If that had been the only wording you attempted to use in the article, it would be neutral. Except that line that is neutral was packed in with some other things in the same edit, such as:

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...

And there are other samples, but these make the point: none of these are remotely in compliance with NPOV. They are not "clearly in compliance with NPOV". Reverting them is not vandalism. I haven't been "threatening" you, I have been trying to help you to understand that you are mistaken in your assumptions on how this situation has developed, to point out how you are mistaken, and to help you come in compliance with policy and correct those mistakes so that you can return to editing as a productive contributor to Wikipedia.

You have utterly refused to do so, virtually every edit you have made here since the block has involved violations of the civility policy if not outright personal attacks, and you are wikilawyering in order to do so. Since it's now blatantly obvious that you are only here to act as if Wikipedia were a battleground instead of an encyclopedia to be built, your ability to edit your talk page has been revoked. If in the future you are willing to edit within Wikipedia policies you can request unblock under the standard offer through UTRS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)