User talk:Frysay
Welcome!
|
April 2014
[edit]
Hello, I'm SMP0328.. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You can not simply remove a thread from a talk page, unless you are archiving that thread. Even then, archiving should only after weeks (if not months) of inactivity. SMP0328. (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
You are adding original research and using your opinion to remove well sourced information
[edit]Both of these are against basic policy, but I think you know that. Dougweller (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- What is "these"? Frysay (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have reverted your edits per WP:BRD, but I agree they are original research. Pinging Dougweller. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I do believe when Dougweller said "these", he was referring to the two actions he mentioned in his header: 1) "adding original research" and 2) "using your opinion to remove well sourced information". Is there anything else you would like explained? I see you have persisted in both those things after Dougweller's warning. Please desist or you will be blocked for tendentious editing. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC).
- An example: "Curiously, however, even the SPLC does not label EURO as being a "white supremacist organization", "Curiously" is editorial, the rest is pure original research. Dougweller (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll grant the "Curiously" part. But I was merely trying to get the attention of the trouble-makers around here. However, in what way is my reporting that the SPLC "does not label EURO as being a "white supremacist organization" WP:OR, while SOMEONE ELSE editing the article to say "As of 2015 it is designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[4]" _NOT_ WP:OR??? Can't answer that, can ya?!? Frysay (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: The edit-warrers, who have made their appearances immediately above, need to explain their claim that what _I_ did was OR: I do not consider the mere use of the term itself sufficient if it is 1. Unexplained. 2. Its use is apparently being applied inconsistently. What I feel I must do, now, is to point out that the OR policy is being selectively and discriminately applied against me. I've already given an example of an inconsistency at 18:06 edit above, but I strongly suspect that once the edit-warrers are required to explain their invocations of that rule against me, then they will display further inconsistences and discrimination. Frysay (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Notice that even over two weeks later, the people who were edit-warring against me have not explained why they made the accusation that I was engaging in OR (original research), while they would presumably claim that they were not doing so. The answer, of course, is that their original accusation was deliberately false, and it was made to harass me. Frysay (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
January 2015
[edit]
Your recent editing history at European-American Unity and Rights Organization 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 get 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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, the above Editor EvergreenFir _LIED_ by claiming that _I_ was engaging in an edit-war. I certainly agree that somebody, actually somebodies INCLUDING EvergreenFir and Dougweller are engaging in an edit-war against me. I merely made edits: The edit-war began when others reverted my edits without discussing the matter on the Talk page, either at the time or since. EvergreenFir also _LIED_ by claiming that _I_ hadn't used the Talk page to discuss the edits! Quite to the contrary, I have been by far the heaviest user of the Talk page. And I still am!! As can be seen elsewhere on this page, I have also been falsely accused by Dougweller of violating the 3RR rule. Yet, my response to him (so far) points out that he reverted FOUR (4) of my edits with what me might claim was a single revert, and later he reverted another NINE (9) of my edits with another revert. So, where does he get off claiming that _I_ violated the 3RR? I'd say that Dougweller's actions constitute an extremely selective, biased, and hypocritical use of the 3RR: He wants to grant himself a pass, for ACTUAL violations of 3RR, and he wants to ding me for simply defending my edits, edits he refuses to discuss on the Talk page. Frysay (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Editors may delete posts as they see fit from their own talk page. Please do not restore your post again. --NeilN talk to me 06:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
3RR
[edit]Just to notify you that you have broken WP:3RR, but as you weren't notified before your last revert I haven't reported you. Please read the link carefully. And you are clearly editing against WP:CONSENSUS so you really need to get agreement on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, Dougweller, you EXTENSIVELY violated WP:3RR. Now, I suppose you'll claim that your reverting FOUR (4) of my edits, and shortly later editing NINE (9) of my edits, at a time, only constitutes 2 Reverts? And when YOU 'ran out of' reverts as per the 3RR, you somehow managed to bring in your buddy to get you out of a jam. Do you claim that MY repairing 13 edits constitutes a 13X violation of the 3RR, or will you grant me the same leeway? Frysay (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
January 2015
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 13:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)- Does EVERYBODY lie around here? The above comment, a threat to me, claimed that I engaged in "persistent tendentious editing after repeated warnings" But as far as I am aware, any "warnings" I was given did not say I could not make ANY edits whatsoever. Above, Bishonen refers to an edit as being "disruptive"? How is MY edit "disruptive", in an of itself? In fact, I was FOLLOWING what I thought to be the rules, including statements to me which were NOT labelled as "warnings": I ceased defending the edits I had been making, and decided to begin making OTHER edits. Lo and behold, the edit-warrers (Which you have now assisted and joined) now falsely claim I somehow didn't follow some "warning"? Frysay (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Is that your unblock request? If you find the template {{unblock|reason=''Your reason here'' ~~~~}} difficult to manage, I can put your text into the template for you if you wish. It may seem bureaucratic, but the point of using the template is that it'll issue an automatic call to uninvolved admins, and one such will come to this page and review the block and your request. (If you don't use the template, very few people will see what you say.) I advise you to rephrase first, though, because attacking the blocking admin and others is unlikely to do you any favors with the reviewing admin. But I'm not sure whether you do want to appeal the block. If you do, you really would do yourself a favor by reading the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 18:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC).
- I wrote the following while your paragraph, immediately above, was being added: Frysay (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- "::I do believe when Dougweller said "these", he was referring to the two actions he mentioned in his header: 1) "adding original research" and 2) "using your opinion to remove well sourced information". Is there anything else you would like explained? I see you have persisted in both those things after Dougweller's warning. Please desist or you will be blocked for tendentious editing. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC).
- I wrote the following while your paragraph, immediately above, was being added: Frysay (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have already challenged the assertion that I have added OR. Or, to put it differently, my reporting that the SPLC did not call EURO "white supremacist" is not any different, in kind, than what the article already stated, that the SPLC identified EURO as "white nationalist". As for your claim that I "[used] my opinion to remove well sourced information". Actually, every time anybody edits on WP, he SOMEHOW uses his "opinion": He displays his opinion that the edit should be made! As for "removing well sourced information", the fact that it might have been well-sourced does not mean it doesn't violate some other rule. I attempted to remove a paragraph-long citation (involving Germany) which did not belong in this article: I didn't challenge its "well-sourcedness", to coin a word; Rather, I objected because it wasn't documented who had actually written it (the edited material merely called it the "author". There was and is no indication that the material cited actually represented a statement of the policies and positions of the EURO organization. (Could it have been the web-equivalent of a letter-to-the-editor, for example?!?) I also objected because it involved WP:UNDUE weight: It cited one small paragraph of what presumably was many YEARS of documents. It is as if someone cited a single paragraph from Time Magazine, from 2007, one of potentially 1000 issues over the last 20 years. (Or more, since Time has been around since the 1930's, at least.) Why cite this specific paragraph? The text in the article didn't say, and the reader of WP is left to guess.
−
- See the problem(s)? Calling that material "well-sourced" ISN'T SUFFICIENT!!! It has other faults! Further, I attempted to remove in the Activities section, the only material there: references to a person who was no longer a member of the organization! What kind of "Activities" section cites ONLY actions of ex-members? In my opinion, somebody tried to sneak in the activities of an EX-member, because they couldn't find anything worthy of then-current members to list.
−
- So, I considered the material sent to me, recognized its errors, and tried to discuss the matter on the Talk page. Not surprisingly (based on the history of the POV-loving people around here) people failed and refused to discuss the matter. Including YOU. Frysay (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- End of material I had written while your above paragraph was also being edited.
My complaints should be considered JUST THAT: A serious complaint about serious misconduct by others, against me. Yesterday, I initiated a WP: Dispute Resolution case against others, and it has become apparent that I will have to be including YOU in the complaint as well. What needs to happen is that those who have engaged in misconduct against me need to correct themselves, apologize to me, and to BEGIN to discuss my edits. (This has rarely happened so far.) Repair of the situation will, of course, require that any BLOCK against me be admitted that it was wrong, and be removed. Frysay (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
AMAZING: I've just discovered that I have not merely been blocked from making edits to the Article itself, but also making edits to the Talk page!!! I am astonished! I, who have been by far the most persistent user of the Talk page, and the Talk page is PRECISELY the location where edits are debated and justified. (I've actually been falsely accused, by EvergreenFir, of NOT using the Talk page, when I was heavily doing so, far more than others!) IT IS NOW QUITE CLEAR THAT POV-PROTECTORS are trying to silence me. Otherwise, they would have blocked merely my edits to the article itself, and not edits to the Talk page! What they are trying to do is to prevent me from destroying their POV and biases, in the view of others who may read the article. I could do that, quite well, on the Talk page. _THAT_ is why I was blocked from editing the Talk page, too. And, though I haven't yet checked, I suspect that no notification of my block (to the Talk page, too) has been written onto the Talk page. This will lead to the situation where readers interpret my "failure" to respond to others' edits as being some sort of "admission". This is clearly an intent to thwart my use of the WP: Dispute Resolution process. That process explicitly recommends to discuss the dispute on the Talk Page, as I have heavily done so far. The entire process is thwarted if a person, a WILLING Talk-page user, is obstructed even from use of the Talk page. Frysay (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I will soon be blocked from editing this, my own User Talk page
[edit]It was not merely by accident that I was blocked from editing BOTH the EURO article AND the Talk page for that article: The people who engineered that block were motivated by a desire to obstruct my comments from the record, well beyond any claim they might make that I should not be allowed to edit the EURO article itself. In part, this is because I initated a WP:Dispute Resolution process yesterday, and a large part of that will, of course, involve the record of the dispute. The next outrageous step, I anticipate, is that the people who blocked me (including by "conspiracy", admittedly a sometimes overused term: I use it rarely) will grow to fear the content of this, my own User:Talk page here. I've repeatedly described the major problems and abuses that I have seen so far, and I fully intend to continue to use the only medium left to me, this User:Talk page, to further document this incident. I feel that this will eventually lead to a powerful desire among those who have already engaged in an edit-war against me to further silence me: This will be evidenced by a block of my own editing in this page. Frysay (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
User DougWeller is engaging in WP:Gaming the WP Rules
[edit]On EURO's Talk page, I cite user Dougweller's comment, which I quote here:
- "I've reverted twice in the last 24 hours.[6] and [7]. I count 4 series of reverts by you - WP:3RR says " An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)"
Aha! Just like I anticipated. This demonstrates that Dougweller knows how to GAME THE SYSTEM'S RULES! He hides behind his claim that he has "reverted twice". True! But very misleading: In fact, his first revert actually reverted FOUR (4) of my own edits, his second revert actually reverted NINE (9) of my own edits. Ooh, that's sneaky! But if I revert the edits MANUALLY, one piece at a time, he wants to count them SEPARATELY!! I think he should have been a lawyer: A crooked, dishonest lawyer. Notice that he has failed to discuss the matter, at the time, in the Talk page! Figures. Frysay (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try once more and then give up. A series of uninterrupted edits counts as one edit for purposes of 3RR. I had two such series and could have had another without violating WP:3RR. You had 4 such series. If you'd been warned after your 3rd series then you could have been blocked at your 4th, but you weren't warned. As for discussion, I don't discuss things with people who call me dishonest and crooked. And I am the one that changed the article so it didn't state EURO was white whatever, but that it was so described. Which I suggested on the talk page.
- And you were blocked from all articles, talk pages, and other pages except your talk page. That's the way blocks work. They block you from everything, not just an article. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- And I notice that two weeks later, you haven't explained how you came to the conclusion that I violated the 3RR. I have previously pointed out that you have said, to me, that WP:3RR says: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." But after yet again reviewing the situation, I am quite confident that what I did was "a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions...". And, according to the definition of the 3RR, which you yourself quoted, that "counts as A REVERT". (emphasis by capitalization mine.). So, I did ONE (count 'em "1") revert, by the definition of the 3RR. So, where did I violate the 3RR? You've never explained this. You've never showed how you did the counting. You've never explained which of my edits was the "first", which was the "second", which was the "third", and which was the "fourth". If you re-define the 3RR specifically to ignore this part of the rule, the very portion of the rule you yourself quoted to me, you can manipulate things and claim that I made MANY reverts. But NOT if you DON'T re-define the 3RR. People who re-define the rules in order to criticize and victimize others are, indeed, "dishonest and crooked". Do you feel proud about what you have done? Frysay (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I just caught User EvergreenFir reverting MY OWN EDITS in MY OWN USER Talk Page!!!
[edit]Amazing, yet again. User EvergreenFir doesn't want me commenting on the dishonesty of another editor Dougweller, so he (she?) actually reverted MY OWN COMMENT in MY OWN User-talk page! How low can these corrupt people go? Frysay (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are not allowed to make personal attacks, even on your own talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well NOW, when I actually document here what you and your buddies are doing to me, that somehow becomes a "personal attack". Since I was blocked from even editing the Talk page of EURO, and Dougweller attempted to "game" the WP rules (3RR) and justify that on the EURO talk page, you don't want me to point out the hypocrisy of THAT misconduct! Even HERE! Look, YOU are the one who LIED about what I did, claiming that I failed to use the EURO Talk page. I hope you're sorry you said that! Now, the crooks don't even want me to use the EURO Talk page! "Can you say, 'Corrupt'? I knew you could." (said in the voice of Mister Rogers.) If pointing out corruption on WP has become a forbidden "personal attack", then it's clear this place has sunk very low. Frysay (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- User EvergreenFir: I think I need to point out that according to the WP rule, WP:NPA (No personal attacks), that rule clearly states: "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum, (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." Aha!!! I really have to wonder about people who INVENT new rules, as you did above, when you said: "You are not allowed to make personal attacks, even on your own talk page." Has somebody given you permission to conveniently re-write the rules, in order to criticize and attack other people? I sure wish I had that power, too! If I could make up some new rule, maybe I'd make the rule that you were be banished from WP for the rest of your life. Aren't you glad that I don't have the power to invent rules in that way? I think people who block others from their own Talk pages, based on violations of phony 'rules' that they've just invented, demonstrate their own inability to follow THE RULES. Frysay (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- EvergreenFir, by failing to deny (or even respond to) these comments within six (6) months, demonstrates what amounts to an admission of guilt here. She simply made up the rules, violating WP's own rules, and used her fictitious new rules to block me for a week. She even edited my own edits on my own talk page! I think she's nothing but a thug, protected by her clearly undeserved position as Administrator. Frysay (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Talkpage access removed
[edit]I make allowances for the frustration of a blocked user, but the personal attacks you have posted on this page are completely unacceptable. I have removed your talkpage access. If you wish to appeal the block, you may use this page. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC).
- And you also blatantly violate WP rules. Check out WP:NPA (No personal attacks) for the sentence which said: "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum, (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." This means that you maliciously and deliberately blocked me, for intentionally false reasons. How does my telling you this make you feel? Frysay (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
January 2015
[edit]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:European-American Unity and Rights Organization. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Wikipedia:Civility is one of Wikipedia's central principles. I would strongly advise you to redact your insulting statement if you are serious about remaining an editor here. Grayfell (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- THAT sounds like a legal threat, and moreover a threat of malicious abuse. Moreover, it sounds like a boilerplate paragraph: It could have been written 6 months ago, for an entirely different purpose, except for the custom insertion of a title of a page. Do you deny having sent paragraphs like that, to others, in the past? Frysay (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:European-American_Unity_and_Rights_Organization, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Grayfell - I'm more concerned about the WP:LIBEL in that edit. Going to ask for revdel. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- I notice that you STILL haven't identified what the "libel" was. Typical. I figured it was made-up. Frysay (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- First off, BOTH of you need to be MORE SPECIFIC about what you are complaining about. Put the specific alleged offending material IN QUOTES, so that I may know what you're talking about, and moreover, what you're NOT talking about. I have entered a lot of material in the last day or so (none on the article itself, however), and I think I have a right to have critics and complainers not make vague, unspecific complaints without giving me a reasonable notice of what they are complaining of. To threaten me with any sort of punishment (or "prevention") for a vague, unidentified 'offense' surely amounts to a "legal threat" on the part of the author.
- Further, I should point out that the underlying article, WP:EURO, ITSELF has been libelous in the past, but not because I made it so. Calling EURO "white supremacist" itself would be libelous; I have tried to make the article NON-libelous by removing that libel.
- I will be more specific: I DENY entering any libelous material into "an article or any other Wikipedia page", so the use of the word "again", ITSELF amounts to libel against ME!! I hereby complain! Indeed, to state this would virtually automatically amount to a "legal threat" against me.
- For instance, above Grayfell said, "policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again..." I don't recall adding material into the ARTICLE recently. It sounds as if somebody is warming-over some previously-addressed issue, with the intent to claim that it is a new offense. I notice that some of the material above appears to be a _boilerplate_ piece of text, and perhaps this explains why it was placed here anomalously. (meaning, erroneously and incorrectly.) I note that weeks ago, EvergreenFir wrote to me documentation that might have been a boilerplate document, falsely claiming that I hadn't used the Talk Page. Evidently, it is so easy to re-use text, that people are tempted to include sentences or paragraphs which they should know contain false, inappropriate claims.
- As for EvergreenFir, claimg "I'm more concerned about the WP:LIBEL in that edit. Going to ask for revdel." First, what is a "revdel"? One of the policies of WP is something like, "Don't bite the newbies!". I suggest that using a term like "revdel" (which an experienced editor KNOWS that a newbie DOESN'T KNOW) amounts to "biting the newbies." (Also, it's a matter of acting 'sophisticated' in front of a newbie.) I am not sure about EvergreenFir's meaning, but one possible interpretation is that she is making a legal threat, against me. I _did_ use the term "libel" in one of my comments, but as a CAREFUL reader can easily see, I was referring to the phenomenon of dozens or hundreds of (unnamed) media organizations calling the EURO organization "white supremacist", and the fact that they should not have done so at the risk of legal action by EURO or others. That's NOT prohibited under WP rules!!! (In other words, the mere employment of the word "libel" is not prohibited by WP. If it were, EvergreenFir would be in violation of that rule, too.) Frysay (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Frysay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
reason Editors and Administrators are deliberately obstructing my effort to remove libelous material from WP:EURO, and have further obstructed my ability to use the WP Dispute Resolution system; and have (Bishonen) falsely asserted that my criticisms on my Talk page are somehow in violation of WP:NPA, when there is an explicit statement against that in the WP:NPA text. I have other specific complaints which I am also being obstructed from presenting.
Decline reason:
You are blocked because of what you did, not because of what others did. PhilKnight (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2015 (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.
- User PhilKnight: You just made an unsupported assertion. You said, "You are blocked because of what you did, not because of what others did". This sentence could very well be 'boilerplate'. And the claim itself is false, and entirely unverified. I see no evidence that you actually reviewed anything. You didn't summarize anything. You did not ask me any questions, to verify whether I was already aware of the falsity of the allegations against me. In effect, you 'punted'. You haven't established that you were truly an independent, unbiased person in this matter. You didn't challenge the accuser(s) against me to prove their assertions, to prove they are not fake and malicious. You didn't check to see that my allegations of the article WP:EURO containing libel were plausible, let alone true. One of the reasons WP is considered so dysfunctional is "cabal-type" behavior. One Administrator blindly backing up another, as has occurred yet again. So far, every block against me has been based on a lie or lies, and so far you have shown no indication that you are willing to check out these lies. Therefore, I must:
Frysay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The issue has not been reviewed by any credible means. See the paragraph above for many failures of process. My allegations are still valid, and I re-allege them. Libel still exists in the Article WP:EURO. I am entitled to make those allegations, and have them credibly addressed, INDEPENDENT of the issue of a block. Your staff is apparently taking the position that once blocked, I am somehow dis-entitled to make complaints against content, and against other users, and against Administrators. Show me precisely what I am entitled to do to expose libel and the misconduct of others, and I will follow that procedure. Frysay (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Allegations against editors without evidence, such as your allegations of corruption, stupidity, malice and so on, are considered personal attacks. If you want to complain about the content while blocked, please see WP:Contact us. While technically I don't think you "represent" EURO, Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects would still be the relevant venue. Huon (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2015 (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.
Frysay (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think you need to reconsider your serious mistake. You say, above: "...for persistent unabated tendentious editing in a topic area where you have been sanctioned previously.". "Sanctioned previously"??? However, notice above that another person made a mistake, Bishonen: He said, "Talkpage access removed[edit] I make allowances for the frustration of a blocked user, but the personal attacks you have posted on this page are completely unacceptable. I have removed your talkpage access. If you wish to appeal the block, you may use this page. Bishonen | talk 21:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)."
- But notice something. According to WP:No Personal Attacks, it says "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum, (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." See the problem? I was blocked from MY OWN TALK PAGE by a malicious, FALSE use of the assertion that discussion of behavior in a Talk Page is somehow wrong. Now, I have specifically cited WP's own policy that shows that this is NOT a violation of policy! I think you see the problem: Whether or not you will ADMIT seeing the problem is, itself, in question.
- AHA! Notice that in each of these cases, it is _I_ who have been wrongly attacked, usually by Administrators brought in by others (secretly, apparently) to do the dirty deeds with an aura of propriety. Therefore, I strongly request that you withdraw this most recent block, and you should actually justify any actions you have taken based on the TRUTH, rather than the undocumented, unsupported nonsense that has been used up to now. Frysay (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, it is my intent and desire to file a complaint against all persons who have attacked me by means of blocking my access to WP. HOWEVER, one of the serious problems of WP is that the very fact of blocking an editor, prevents that same editor from initiating complaints against those who have been maliciously attacking and blocking him. Further, I have valid complaints against others, who have themselves produced and maintained libelous content within the article WP: European-American Rights Organization, and of course the block of me prevents me from removing those libelous edits. Anyone who is (or could be) aware of this position of mine, and who fails to immediately inform the WP staff of my complaints is currently obstructing my efforts to remove libelous material from that article. Please note that the rule WP:NLT clearly states:
- "What is not a legal threat[edit] A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat".
- If you are the owner of copyrighted material which has been inappropriately added to Wikipedia, a clear statement about whether it is licensed for such use is welcome and appropriate. You may contact the information team, contact the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent, or use the procedures at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. A discussion of whether material is libelous absent indication of intent to sue is not a legal threat. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team at info-en@wikimedia.org."
- (end of quote from WP:NLT)
- What I am doing is to inform the WP users and administrators that I am making a complaint that there is "libelous material" in the article WP:EURO, and that the policy above clearly states that "Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified." And I am further informing the WP staff and editors that the recent actions against me (By "Jezebel's Ponyo", Greyfell, Bishonen, EvergreenFir, and others, were and are intended to prevent me from removing that libelous material, placed in violation of the WP:BLP policy. (While the EURO organization itself isn't a "living person", it did and does consist of living persons who would be attacked, directly or indirectly, by the current contents of WP:EURO.
- I am also complaining that a previous Administrator (Bishonen) maliciously blocked me from even my User:Talk page based on the assertion that I have made complaints within this User:Talk page, when I have clearly seen and demonstrated that WP:NPA policy specifically EXCLUDES such claimed assertions of "personal attacks" if they merely constitute discussions of personal behavior in the User:Talk page itself.
- See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks : "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum, (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." This amounted to an attack on me, based on the deliberately false assertion that contents of a user's Talk page could constitute a violation of WP:NPA. Frysay (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
DS
[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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 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.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs)
- For the record, I must state that the people who have been attacking me are the ones who are either placing false and defamatory statements within the body of the article WP:European-American Rights Organization, or are the ones falsely accusing me, or are the ones backing up those people by repeatedly maliciously blocking me to prevent me from exposing this activity, or are the ones obstructing me from removing this false and defamatory material from WP:EURO. As far as I can determine, anyone who has written onto my User:Talk page is part of this violation. Frysay (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
July 2015
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of white nationalist organizations. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- The key thing you said was that I _APPEAR_ to be ENGAGED in an edit war. Two valuable points must be made: An edit war could indeed be going on, even if only one party (in this case EvergreenFir) is actually engaged in that war. That's the situation today. I am NOT "edit warring". I am being "Wikihounded" by EvergreenFir.
- Then, your boilerplate text claims "Users are expected to collaborate with others", in Talk Pages. Which, of course, I _DO_. But you will also notice that I am 98% of the use of the Talk page: EvergreenFir is violating your instructions and WP policy, by failing to actually employ the Talk page to resolve the controversy. So, your boilerplate text is misapplied: I strongly suspect that you haven't warned HER! Which would demonstrate YOUR bias. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that just as other thugs brought EvergreenFir in to torpedo me in January 2015, she probably brought _YOU_ in, within the last day or two, to repeat the process. Hmmmmmmm???? I will USE the Talk Page, and then I will make edits entirely consistent with WP Policy. EvergreenFir will probably continue to fail to use the Talk Page, and maybe she will continue to make edits (or reverts) entirely INconsistent with WP. She has already violated WP:BLP, and she is violating WP:BRD on an ongoing basis. Are you here to back her up? Frysay (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, VQuakr, I have just verified that you have failed to give an equivalent 'anti-edit-war' message to EvergreenFir. This shows that you have already started to approach this as a biased person, acting against only one side, me. If you genuinely believed that an 'edit war' was going on, you should have included anyone arguably participating in that. Since you have only warned one person, me, that telegraphs to everyone that you have already decided that I will be selected to be the guilty party, regardless of the facts. I also notice that your boilerplate threatens a block, precisely like EvergreenFir illegally did to me in January 2015. She claimed, for example, that my own statements on my own Talk page amounted to a 'personal attack', even though WP:NPA (No personal attacks) very clearly states that a person's own comments on his own Talk page DO NOT AMOUNT to a personal attack. Making up the rules as she goes along is precisely what EvergreenFir does. Since you have already clearly demonstrated your bias, I strongly suggest that you immediately back away from this controversy, and let's get somebody in who hasn't already demonstrated that he is on the side of the person who called him in. Frysay (talk) 18:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yuk. WP:AGF. I already linked WP:BATTLE for you, but not on your talk page so there you go. No, I did not warn anyone else since it is immediately obvious that you are the "problem party" here. You are not being hounded or harassed; your edits are largely confined to one subject area. If you cannot demonstrate the ability to collaborate, the next step is to prevent you from editing here to avoid further disruption. As linked above, please be reminded that multiple options are available to you to resolve disputes; repeating the same edit in article space to try to "force" your preferred version through is not one of them. VQuakr (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- ETA - EvergreenFir has never blocked you; they lack the technical ability to do so as they are not an admin. Your block log is here. VQuakr (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- First, I note that you have just confirmed and admitted that you have approached this issue with your mind already made up. You then claimed "You are not being hounded or harassed": I think that statement can be proven false with just a little investigation, which you are obviously unwilling to do because you've already made up your mind. Questions like, "Why did EvergreenFir even show up?" are relevant to answering the question, "Is EvergreenFir Wikihounding FrySay?". "How did EvergreenFir even notice two messages on the page, months apart, when there are millions of pages on WP?". "Was she treating the pages as her proprietary pages"? Or worse, "did she somehow follow anything I posted, anywhere?" I am not familiar with the details of what is possible, but I am certain that further investigation will demonstrate the guilt of people harassing me. EvergreenFir's invention of the assertion that my own comments on my own Talk page were somehow "personal attacks", in complete contravention to WP rules, should establish that she is malicious.
- As for who actually blocked me, how is that really relevant? I'm sure you're aware that much of WP staff behaves as if it is a 'cabal'. Harassing newbies is only a tiny bit of what they do. Biased handling of disputes is the rule, rather than the exception. The history will show that the people who blocked me were brought in to do so, and violated the rules to do so. For that matter, answer why YOU were brought in? Had you ever posted on the White Nationalist page before? Not too many have. I suspect EvergreenFir demonstrated her Wikihounding me, and yet again, called her buddies. Full disclosure requires that you, and her, fully disclose WHY you did what you did, and why she did what she did. WP administrators need to stop pretending they "just happened to" show up. Frysay (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- As before. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- You're not doing a very good job addressing my objections. I've noticed that the Cabal doesn't like to put a lot of text down, because that amounts to evidence. If all you can say is "as before", you might as well say, "I admit you're right on everything". Won't take too much more keystrokes, huh? BTW, I've just put in a comment on WP:White Nationalist Organizations which proves why EURO cannot be listed there, particularly not now. I think you are obliged to either document your threat to block me if I later make this edit (after EvergreenFir fails to respond to fails to contradict effectively), or acknowledge that I am entitled to make that edit. Otherwise, that would constitute harassment on your part: In that case, it was obviously intended to dissuade people like me from actually participating in the WP:BRD process. Frysay (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- First post in this section. You know references to "cabals" is a joke here, right? VQuakr (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I feel certain they occasionally told jokes in Auschwitz, too. Part of humor is REALITY. Are you really saying that there is no basis for believing that WP's normal, day-to-day operation does not include what would amount to be little (?) conspiracies? Maybe seemingly minor, but conspiracies nevertheless. It is said that the term "political correctness" was once intended as a joke. But jokes can mirror reality. The joke would not exist, unless there was some degree of reality to back it up. You still haven't explained why you even showed up. The true answer to that will say a lot about how conspiracies work in WP. You also haven't addressed how somebody blocked me, based on false accusations, and later blocked my access to my Talk page, based solely on a fake claim that the rules prohibited WP:NPA on a person's own talk page. I'm sure you won't address these issues. Frysay (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Aaand there's Godwin's law. Feel free to ask the blocking admins if you want to rehash 6-month old block. Not sure why you think any editor is required to "explain" where they edit. VQuakr (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, I want the administrators who blocked me to be PUNISHED. No sane system requires me to work through malicious nuts to get retribution for their own misconduct. And I'll take your statement as an admission that I am now free to make the edit to remove the reference to EURO in the White Nationalist list. I have defended it in the Talk page, showing that its presence there is improper. (You are presumed to have read that.) The only one who seems to disagree is EvergreenFir, who is the one who claimed that my statements on my own Talk page amounted to a violation of WP:NPA. (Thus inventing a non-existence 'rule', completely in contradiction to what WP:NPA actually said.) She has never apologized, and you have not (yet) apologized for following her requests. She is not following the WP:BRD procedure, other than to falsely imply that the burden of proof is on me to prove that EURO is NOT "white nationalist", a libelous classification, rather than the opposite: It is the burden of the people making that allegation to prove it. Frysay (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ignoring your accusations seemed more dignified, but since my silence on this is leading you to blame a third party I guess I need to clarify. No one asked me to do anything related to you, at all, ever. Your accusations of canvassing against EvergreenFir are, to the best of my knowledge, completely baseless. I saw your dubious edits at Talk:Travon Martin and checked your other edits, which is acceptable as described here and here. I reviewed your contributions from December to present and the existing talk page discussions before forming any opinion about the dispute or your editing habits. I suspect that what you seem to think must be evidence of a behind-the-scenes conspiracy is simply the result of a functioning watchlist. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from personal attacks such as (but not limited to) blaming others for your behavior. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting story. You said, "I saw your dubious edits at Talk:Travon [sic] Martin"? If I check the edit history for that article, will I find your name there? Will I find prior contact between you and EvergreenFir? I simply removed the lie that Zimmerman was 'told', or 'ordered' or 'instructed' to not follow Martin. That lie existed almost from the beginning of the story, March 2012. Quite literally, I was and remain correct. What, exactly, makes my edits there "dubious", then? Are you not aware that MILLIONS of people were told that lie, by news-media types, and only later did the truth catch up to the misrepresentation. Anyone who has actually seen the 911 transcript (which was available at least as early as March 19, 2012, see http://www.npr.org/2012/03/19/148902744/911-tapes-raise-questions-in-fla-teens-shooting-death ) knows what the correct statement was. Back in March, 2012, the lie was believed by millions of people because they had been lied to by the media. Today, over three years later, nobody has any excuse to try to push that previous, false story. Your claim that my edits were "dubious" clearly shows that you harbor the same kind of biases that others who supported the lie did. I contend, instead, that for anybody's edits to be labelled 'dubious', they would have to differ from reality. Those who claimed that "ordered to not follow" stuff, in March or April 2012, were mostly simply misinformed by the media. Anybody who claims this in July 2015 is blatantly lying. If you now wish to 'walk back' your claim that my edits were "dubious", I invite you to do so. But you've irreversibly exposed your biases, making the rest of your motivations highly questionable.
- You also haven't explained why you disagreed with my edit of WP:WHITE NATIONALIST. I justified it. You may hope that that organization gets libelled, but that would also expose your biases. I wasn't engaged in an 'edit war'. I announced that I had a problem with the inclusion of Euro five (5) months earlier. I eventually did that edit, and EvergreenFir decided to start HER edit war with me. NOT me with her. It's amazing how biased people can be here, who are unwilling to even address the possibility that their buddies might actually have done something wrong! Heavens! Justify your actions; disclose what you did. I didn't even violate the 3-RR! And while you're at it, apologize for calling my Trayvon Martin edits "dubious". Frysay (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Frysay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
For the record, Ponyo (and others), I have just discovered that your block of me WASN'T GENUINELY reviewed by any Administrator. You can see below that Anthony Bradbury CLAIMED to have reviewed it, but on a search of his Contributions page, I was shocked to discover that of his last 1500 edits (of any type), about 500 were "decline unblock"s. I find it to be unbelievable that anyone who claims to review that many blocks is really doing an honest job of it. He is simply and intentionally acting as a 'rubber stamp' for people like you. If you can make a reasonable argument otherwise, you should do so immediately. Frysay (talk) 06:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your behavior, this unblock request (which is out of chronological order), your other unblock request, and your comments more than confirms that you are WP:NOTHERE to benefit the project. You clearly do not wish to accept any responsibility for your behavior; instead, you fall back on the typical defense of editors like you, which is to lash out and blame everyone else. I am declining your unblock request and revoking talk page access. If you wish to appeal, use WP:UTRS. Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2015 (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.
Frysay (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am being harassed by a series of editors and administrators, including being threatened with a block simply for engaging in the WP:BRD process, and for fixing pages which violate WP:BLP and contain other libel. This harassment originated in late December 2014. Frysay (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have spent some long time going through this thread. In my opinion your assessment of the situation is at variance with the truth, and I would uphold the block and agree with those who have supported it. Incidentally a warning of the possibility of a block is just that; a warning. Not a threat. The block can be avoided by a behavior modification, which you chose not to do. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:23, 3 July 2015 (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.
I am responding here to Anthony Bradbury's comments, above. I will quote them and respond inline. He said (in quotes):
"I have spent some long time going through this thread."
- You could not possibly have done so. This incident involves matters dating back to December 2014. The block in most immediately in question occurred just today. Further, you don't disclose that you didn't (so far as I can see) bother to ask me even a single question, or ask me to raise even a single point, or address anything anyone else has done so far. I have found that this complete lack of interest in actually RESEARCHING a matter has been repeated many times so far. Frysay (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
"In my opinion your assessment of the situation is at variance with the truth,"
- But everyone who pays any attention at all will see that you haven't even supplied a single example meeting this claim. When I see any comment, in any Internet-type discussion, one major thing I often first notice is the existence (or lack of same) of any text which evidences that the person writing it actually was responding to the material in question: In other words, 'could this response be 'canned', written days, weeks, or months prior, with absolutely no reference at all to the material ostensibly responded to'. Your phrase, "variance with the truth" certainly invites numerous subsequent statements by you, none of which you then make. There is, therefore, no evidence that you actually investigated, let alone properly responded, to anything at all that happened up to now. Since you didn't even contact me, AT ALL, I see no reason to believe that your response is credible. Frysay (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
"and I would uphold the block and agree with those who have supported it."
Since I don't even know how you were selected for your 'job', this conclusion is not surprising at all. Were you called by a buddy? Did you ask anybody if your participation was acceptable to all persons involved? Frysay (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
" Incidentally a warning of the possibility of a block is just that; a warning. Not a threat. The block can be avoided by a behavior modification, which you chose not to do. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)"
You didn't even bother to state what I have done wrong! Amazing! And you didn't notice that I have repeatedly alleged that I was blocked from my Talk-page in January 2015, based on the false assertion that something I put there violated WP:NPA. Your total unwillingness to actually address the issues is phenomenal. Frysay (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Anthony Bradbury: I have just discovered a VERY interesting thing from reading your contributions page! There, I see very large numbers of "decline unblock" comments. In fact, in your last 500 edits, I count 138 "Decline unblock"s. And in your next-previous 500 edits, I see 168 "decline unblocks). And in your next-previous edits, I see 178 "decline unblocks". (It seems you're slowing down, huh!) Do I need to go on?
I wanted to also count the number of times you have "granted" unblocks, but a search for "grant unblock" couldn't be found. Have you ever seen a movie scene where a person with an old-fashioned rubber-stamp proceeds to sequentially stamp dozens of papers in a large stack? Takes about 1 second per, if you're good at it and have a lot of practice. As I understand it, you have just refused to reverse my block, and you even claimed that you took "a long time" to do so. I would ask you, "who chose you to do that?" You never asked me if I had any objection to you, to acting as some sort of checker. But given how many "decline unblocks" I have seen you issued, I wonder how it is possible that you could devote even a small amount of time to that task, per rubber-stamp. At this point, I have to conclude that you are the self-appointed "decline-unblock-rubber-stamper". You're the 'go-to-guy' for rubber-stamping as denied unblock requests. Could you let discretion be the better part of valor, and decide to GRANT relief from my block. Otherwise, it looks rather bad. Frysay (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Just been blocked by Ponyo
[edit]I have just been blocked, apparently for no stated reason, by Administrator "Ponyo". Before I am also blocked from my own User:Talk page (which, if it happens, would simply mirror what happened to me about 6 months ago), I want to put my appropriate accusations down in documentary form. I was being Wikihounded by user EvergreenFir, who (twice in 5 months) 'just happened to' follow me onto a page that I had only edited once. I suspect that she, further wanting to hound me, brought in Administrator VQuakr to threaten me with blocking, ostensibly for engaging in an "edit war". Notably, VQuaker failed to similarly alert EvergreenFir, which she (?) should have done if she had really believed that an edit war had been occurring. I noted carefully VQuakr's admission that she was biased, and had already made up her mind, and thus couldn't reasonably judge anything fairly. She (VQuakr) didn't deny it. Then, I pointed out that there should be an UNBIASED person coming in to consider all the facts, including the facts about WHY VQuakr showed up at a page that she had never edited before. I further suggested that VQuaker had probably been called by EvergreenFir to harass me. More in a moment. Frysay (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
For example, I was blocked in January 2015, ostensibly based on the (false) claim that I had made a "Personal attack" (WP:NPA) on my own Talk Page. However, a check of the policy as of then (and presumably today, as well) showed that statements made by an editor on his own Talk page cannot constitute a "personal attack". I consider the recent harassment (today) to merely be a continuation of that done in December 2014 and January 2015. Many of the facts constituting this harassment have apparently been removed from the Talk page for WP:EURO, probably to conceal the facts from the easily-accessible record. Ostensibly, one accusation made against me in January 2015 was that I wasn't using the Talk page for WP:EURO. This claim was apparently perfunctory and indeed wacky, because even a brief study of that page (as it existed in January 2015) would easily show that I was probably putting up 75%+ of the discussion, and I was documenting the reasons for my edits much more than is typical for WP. My facts were generally unopposed (at least not effectively). But it was in retaliation to my references the behavior to other editors that I was blocked. Having been blocked, I was forced to document the misbehavior of the other editors on my Talk page, for which I was punished and obstructed. Those who were harassing me apparently could not even let me have the very limited forum of my own Talk page. It was then that Editor EvergreenFir made the false allegation that I had made a 'personal attack' on my Talk page. Apparently she lied, claiming that statements on a person's Talk page could constitute a "personal attack". Someone backed up EvergreenFir's malicious threat, and blocked me from even my own Talk page, in complete violation of WP:NPA. Frysay (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that Administrator Ponyo, far from being a disinterested and unbiased person, is actually one of the Administrators I cited above as being a adjunct of the January 2015 harassment. I made an objection far above, in January, and listed Ponyo as being one of the likely co-conspirators. At this point, we can question as to whether Ponyo remembered his (her?) role in the January matter. But I am making this comment on my Talk page to ensure that it is established that Ponyo was indeed involved then, and moreover is now reminded of that role. Ponyo can now remember that past involvement, and abandon his/her involvement, and reverse my block. It is my intent to have this action further added to the complaint of harassment I have already objected to. We can also question who requested Ponyo's renewed involvement. Frysay (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, in a sense, you did. Any posted unblock request is visible to all admins (and other editors) and any admin can respond to it. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly, that's a valid point, but I wonder how significant it is. I fully understand that my Talk page is readable, in theory, by anyone at any time. But how would anyone be alerted to a new comment? Analogy: If I walk into a public library (remember those?) and slip a piece of paper into a randomly-selected book on a shelf, in theory anybody could walk in and find it. But the probability of such an occurrence would be quite low. Further, Ponyo is the one who did the block (today), and was previously involved in the January 2015 harassment. (See far above on this page). It is a bedrock principle of law (at least in America, and most modern justice systems) that a person cannot be a judge of his own (mis)-behavior. Ponyo was INVOLVED, not uninvolved. If all my posts are, in theory, visible to all editors/administrators, that doesn't explain why any given person just happens to notice them. I have noticed in the past that people don't explain why they show up: Clearly, this leaves a great deal of room for what is called "self-selection bias". It's why we choose our juries randomly, rather than letting them volunteer and show up at the courthouse door. Would YOU like to be tried for a (alleged) crime, by a judge who gets to decide to take the case, and considered by a jury who volunteers that day, as if by chance? Frysay (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Two points:
- "1) You keep falsely claiming that WP:NPA does not apply to comments made on your talk page. Please provide the exact wording in the policy that supports that statement or stop making it."
- From WP:NPA, subsection"Responding to personal attacks": "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum, (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." So, contrary to what you just said about this above, I WASN'T "falsely" claiming that. I was quite correct. I was blocked in January 2015 for statements I made in my own Talk page. Look it up. EvergreenFir claimed an exact opposite rule applied, but has never apologized for that. Presumably, she induced another person to block me from my Talk page, for that. Harassing people based on a false claim of violation of non-existent rules should result in a permanent ban for EvergreenFir. Frysay (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- "2) You also falsely claim that I was somehow involved in your previous dust-ups prior to my block of your account in January and my second block today (your fourth block to date)."
- The block, above, claims that I was blocked by you, Ponyo. Am I reading this boilerplate text incorrectly? And above, on this page in January 2015, I listed you as having been involved. Was that incorrect? I listed you for SOME reason, didn't I? Where did I get your name? I was obstructed from pursuing the matter because I was blocked from my Talk page, presumably the intent of those doing the block. Frysay (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- " As you are claiming systemic harassment against any editor who has ever commented here,"
- Are you merely being facetious? Or literal? I don't yet claim "against any editor...". It's true that a lot of sh1t has piled up, but the reason is that when I began to complain about the misbehavior of other editors and administrators in January 2015, I was hit by a series of illegal, malicious blocks, even from my Talk page. Intended to impede and deter me from getting the facts resolved. The fact I'm yet again blocked clearly shows that this harassment is not made less merely by the passage of 6 months. Above, you can see here that I clearly stated to EvergreenFir that I fully intended to see that everyone involved in this harassment gets punished; my most recent block was initiated a few minutes later. Coincidence? I don't think so. I think I can reasonably suspect that the most recent block was and is in retaliation for stating my intent to have others' misbehavior exposed. 00:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- "you're going to need to include evidence in the form of diffs, else you are again just making unsupported claims amounting to personal attacks against other editors.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)"
- All that will happen. But in addition, one of the things I will need are statements from each participant of how they became involved: Who called their attention to what had come before. Once it is establish why each person showed up, it will become obvious what was intended by them. Frysay (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- "*I don't intend on going back and forth with you"
- Which is a good thing, because you are not an disinterested, uninvolved, unbiased, person. Frysay (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- as history shows (i.e. this entire talk page) that it's a useless endeavour, however if you are to post another unblock request it would be helpful for the reviewing admin to have the answers to these questions as you repeatedly make the same baseless claims.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- You don't seem to want to recognize that I am not merely complaining about one, individual block. The problem is that nobody who has purportedly shown up to 'adjudicate' this issue ever actually intended to do so. WP has a remarkably corrupt system for resolving disputes, and one of the major reasons for that is that a great deal occurs behind the scenes, particularly how people are selected (or worse, 'select' themselves) to become involved in a case. This invites misconduct. I am complaining about all the crooked behavior that went before, back through December. It would certainly be a neat trick of the people involved to force me to abandon my complaints against all of their previous misbehavior. For example, once it is established that I was maliciously blocked in January 2015, ostensibly because of something I put on my Talk page, the person who falsely induced someone else to to that, as well as the one who did the actual block, etc. EvergreenFir, for example, also accused me of not using the Talk page to discuss my edits to WP:EURO, when the history will clearly show that I was, by far, the most careful one to discuss my edits. Once people other than 'ringers' start actually showing up to address these examples of misconduct, I think that immense progress could be made. Does this bother you? Frysay (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Ponyo please consider removing talk page access as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Which, of course, would exactly repeat the misconduct of EvergreenFir and others 6 months ago. The pattern? I make reasonable edits. Others don't like their content, so they violate WP:BRD and other rules, including libel. I follow WP:BRD, others don't. Then, somebody calls an administrator-buddy, asks them to block me because what I am saying makes way too much sense, and is embarrassing for the guilty parties. This is done, but I still have the ability to make valid accusations on my Talk page. I do so. Despite the fact that my comments are at least rather invisible to the large majority of users, the cabal can't stand my ability to document their misconduct. Thus, somebody finally decides to (falsely) claim that comments on my Talk page somehow violate WP:NPA (just as EvergreenFir did, 6 months ago) and somebody's buddy (the somebody is again EvergreenFir, yet again) decides to obstruct even my own access to my own Talk page!!!
- You guys are SO PREDICTABLE! Do you ENJOY being corrupt? Frysay (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment from an uninvolved editor who just happened upon this: It looks like nobody has replied to the "Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum, (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack" thing. My take is that the key phrase is "in itself". What it means is that the fact that it is discussion of behavior is not alone enough to constitute personal attack, but it does not follow that such discussion cannot extend to personal attack. Whether or not such discussion contains personal attack would surely depend on *how* people's behavior is being discussed, not on the mere fact that it is. Mr Potto (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I note your comments relating to my unblock request decline. Can I say in passing, and hopefully in a totally non-controversial way, that adding comments sequentially at the bottom of the page makes much easier to follow the thread. As to your critique of my admin actions, many are very straightforward and take very little time, A few take more time, and in these cases I take more time, as in your case. I am not, however, within the Wikipedia framework, expected or required (except, it appears, by you) to detail the reasoning behind my decisions. This of course applies to all admins, not just to me. Also for the record, I have discussed your situation with no-one - neither the editors with whom you have been in conflict, nor with anyone else. And on the larger scale, admins are selected, NOT self-selected by community decision. See admin selection. This is how Wikipedia is organized, and contribution and administration here is voluntary. I hope that you will stay here, but you are not required to do so. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frysay, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.