User talk:AccuracyFix

Welcome!

Hi AccuracyFix! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!

September 2020

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-1932 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.

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.

Neutrality^talk 01:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some affiliation with, or connection to, Richard Uihlein?

Do you have some affiliation with, or connection to, Richard Uihlein? I ask in relationship to our conflict of interests policy.

Also, separably what you are doing now is called Wikipedia:Edit warring. You need to get consensus for your changes, and you also must not mischaracterize sources. Neutrality^talk 01:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no affiliation or connection with Richard Uihlein whatsoever. I am interested in Wiki content keeping accurate to the cited source. Snooganssnoogans changed the meaning of the original source to indicate that Richard Uihlein is anti-gay in general, while the context of the cited source is about the use of the girls bathroom by transgender.

I do not see why Snooganssnoogans should have sole monopoly over generating inaccurate content while I am improving the style and accuracy of the same content. Snooganssnoogans must have some agenda to modify the meaning of the cited source and to war against improvements in accuracy.

Unfairly 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).

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

Request reason:

Two reasons, 1. The editor accuses me of being whey77 and other IP addresses which I am not. The editor is apparently biased and was fishing for reasons to block me, as you can see in the section in my Talk page above also accusing me of having connection or affiliation to the biography (which I do not). The sockpuppets accusation is false and speculation based. 2. The edit that I tried to make to improve the content was to come up with a middle ground, a compromise where the original content would be kept but it would be more precise to reflect the context of the cited reference. My edit was with good intent, but I question the intent of the person who insists on forcing content that does not reflect the meaning of the cited reference text.AccuracyFix (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're on the same IP address as PoliticalHistoryProfessor (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Trying to fix Libelous and Defamatory Material on a Living Biography

{{adminhelp}} I am trying to fix libelous and defamatory material on the living biography, however it appears that admin user Neutrality is working in coordination with infamous user Snooganssnoogans (who is known for smearing biographies) to keep libelous out-of-context material on the biography. User Neutrality is focusing on a flawed sockpuppets analysis that groups me together with more users than in reality (and by the way, I am a real human being, not a puppet). There appears to be serious abuse of user Neutrality admin privilege in violating Wiki rules that state that contentious libel on a living biography must be removed immediately. I would like to raise this to the admin noticeboard and/or the living biography noticeboard but user Neutrality has blocked me.

Not an administrator, but by looking at what's going on I believe the problem here is that you:

didn't obtain consensus for changes that change the tone of the section
edit warred and reverted past Wikipedia:3RR
used multiple IP addresses to input the same - or similar - edits

WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 03:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}} WhoAteMyButter, The multiple sockpuppets is a false accusation. The admin Neutrality was fishing for some reason to try to censor me and the other contributors: You can see this admin's malicious intent of censorship by suspecting me of Conflict of Interest with connection to the person in the biography and posting this Conflict of Interest to my Talk page. The actual violations here are 1. Snooganssnoogans placing libelous contentious material on a living biography (same user who is notorious for doing this to other pages), 2. False enforcement of sockpuppets and 3RR rule (the only person who violated that rule is Snooganssnoogans), and 2. activist political editing by Wiki admin Neutrality while suppressing general public user improvements.

To request an unblock, use {{unblock}} again, as you correctly did before. Please do not use {{adminhelp}} for this purpose. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been unfairly blocked by admin Neutrality. I only wanted to find a compromise between parties in a dispute to come up with a way to reflect the source that would not be libelous. At the minimum I would like to be able to tell my story on the Admin_neutrality talk page. Admin user "Neutrality" is going against the principles described in Admin_neutrality. The NY Times article includes the specific example that the unsupported Wiki statement derives from (issue of transsexuals in girls restrooms) and in the same article there is a quote from Richard Uihlein that "we value diversity in our community and at Uline." The users Snooganssnoogans and Neutrality are trying everything they can do remove context, thereby creating a libelous character smear. AccuracyFix (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for sockpuppetry, but you do not address this in your request. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I see that there is a section on the sockpuppets investigation Whey77 where "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below." However I cannot add my comments because I am blocked. My purpose for the adminhelp tag is to assist me in entering the following comment on the sockpuppets investigation page, if you can please add this comment on my behalf:

When I reverted the addition by Snooganssnoogans a few days ago, I was mindful of the following official Wikipedia policy. Please for a moment realize that I'm following your own rules, very clearly written below. The only person who is edit warring is user Snooganssnoogans. I see that the other users are following the BRD cycle and evolving the text. Also, I am unfairly being grouped together with other people -- there are other people in the community who seem to be bothered by Snooganssnoogans entry as well. "The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: 7. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy."

You may defend yourself on this page, in the form of an unblock request. 331dot (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]