User talk:Godspiral

If you continue to vandalize the article rape statistics, you will be blocked. Your insertion of the phrase "Lisak's criticism is driven by his own agenda..." is a very severe violation of Wikipedia rules, such as WP:NPV, and especially WP:BLP. Your personal opinion is IRRELEVANT, and your personal opinion is not fact and doesn't belong in the article. You have absolutly no justification to remove the criticism by Lisak, a respected PhD academic. If you continue to remove it it will be added back. WP:JDLI is not a reason to remove material. And coming back as an ip (or under another username - if you're thinking of it) to remove Lisak's criticism will not help you either. Note that i am determined to take this further and involve other people.188.25.27.101 (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the Lisak criticism present there conforms with the NPV rule. Lisak doesn't have a neutral point of view to begin with. If an offer to polygraph or even concerned review of polygraph results shocks a complainant into thinking her lies have been uncovered, the recantation is still perfectly valid. If you know you are telling the truth, you will argue with machine or investigator. Also part of Kanin's research was a followup of the recanted story where possible to verify if any were false recantations. In all followups the recanted version of events matched what the accused said happened.

Arguing that Lisak is a respected PHD is baseless if Kanin is a respected PHD. I agree that my edit wasn't as neutral as possible though, so apologize for that. Still something must be done here.

December 2011

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, False accusation of rape. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I not speaking English? You may not use Wikipedia to offer your own criticism of a study. Go and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal and then we'll see. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning - next time you add your own personal commentary, particularly when it concerns your feelings about living people (see WP:BLP), you will be reported. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Your recent editing history at False accusation of rape shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. You have made five reverts in the last 24 hours [1][2][3][4][5]. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paranoid, offensive subject line

I would like assure you that I'm not part of some global conspiracy, except the one that tries to stop people using blogs to 'prove' things in Wikipedia, but it doesn't sound like you'd believe me, so:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

GliderMaven (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Basic income, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Calling someone a vandal in an edit summary when it is clearly a content dispute is disruptive. Please don't do it again. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Basic income. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Bishonen | talk 05:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for egregious personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith after warning as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 16 February 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

initial complaint against me is a serious attack, as was the request for block. Denying the possibility of abusing rules in order to make such attacks is an abuse of logic that was deservedly ridiculed. While my response to the abuse is imperfect, so is wikipedia rules of procedure. Rewarding the personal abuse with a block seems innapropriate, and ignoring the vandalism an oversight. Also regarding "Drmies final warning", it was made after my last comment. Godspiral (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your idea of what constitutes "personal abuse" is seriously flawed, as is your intpretation of what is vandalism. Take this time to reflect on your conduct and how it conflicts with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otherwise, similar behavior will result in a much longer, if not indefinite, block. As for the warning, you received an "only warning" on this talk page well before you made your unacceptable comments at WP:ANI. Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2014 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

Proof of bad faith deletion was provided on WP:ANI Deletion blanked out the core section of article without justification, while leaving behind much more problematic sections. Such behaviour is inconsistent with good faith application of rules. Godspiral (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. John (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2014 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

the block is not necessary to prevent damage to Wikipedia. The grounds for the block were baseless. I was responding appropriately to a user who was shocked! shocked! to hear that the rules can be used as a weapon for abuse against users and content. The response that it was indeed possible was appropriate. The user's reaction to claim personal harrassment from the statement is arguably an example of using the rules as a weapon, and so I insist the block is an injustice. Godspiral (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for making personal attacks. You clearly did make personal attacks, but you do not recognise that you did, and persistently claim that your rants were justified. That strongly suggests that you are likely to do the same again, in which case your claim that "the block is not necessary to prevent damage to Wikipedia" is unfounded. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2014 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

There was never a personal attack or harrassment. I made an honest good faith assessment that vandalism was being performed, and proved that the actions performed are bad faith vandalism, and cannot be considered a reasonable good faith attempt at improving the page, and was warned for harrassment after they complained of the statement. It was wrong to treat the initial complaint with any validity, because to do so, implies that I have a duty of presuming good faith at a provably vandalous act, while no admin or user allied with the vandal has any duty to presume that my accusation/claim is in good faith. Then a separate user, in clear support of the alleged vandal suggested the absurdity that vandalism is impossible if it is done through a rule justification for the vandalism. I am blocked for responding to that absurdity, but it takes a twisted interpretation of my statement to deem it a personal attack or harrassment. There was never any action by me at any point that constitutes an intentional personal attack or harrassment. If anything, you should be investigating concerted bullying against me. Godspiral (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; block has expired. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:07, 18 February 2014 (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.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]