User talk:Justanothereditor98027

May 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Greg Gianforte. 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. JesseRafe (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Justanothereditor98027 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: ). Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring block

You've been blocked from editing for 48 hours due to edit warring and for violating the Consensus required provision. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 06:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Justanothereditor98027 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18420 was submitted on Jun 02, 2017 18:41:17. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2017 (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).

Justanothereditor98027 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See lengthy Unblock Ticket Request System form that I already submitted, which I am not going to try to reproduce here from memory.

Decline reason:

You clearly were edit-warring, and you intend to continue edit warring. Accusations of bad faith against any who may disagree with you won't help your cause. Huon (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2017 (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).

Justanothereditor98027 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No, I clearly was not "edit warring." I made lengthy and detailed arguments supporting my point on the Talk page, which were summarily ignored by the edit warring trolls. They continued to unilaterally remove my legitimate edits and did not bother to acknowledge my arguments on the Talk page, with which several people expressed their agreement.

In fact, the consensus was developing towards agreement with my edits, but a number of edit warring trolls continued to vandalize the page by removing my edits unilaterally. At that point, since the Talk page consensus method was obviously not functioning, I openly declared my intention to reverse their vandalism and replace the word "alleged" as many times as necessary unless and until the defendant is proven guilty in a court of law. This comports with clear Wikipedia policy on neutral POV and avoiding potential libel against living persons, and it also just happens to be correct.

I was blocked for following Wikipedia policy and demanding that the partisan hack trolls stop vandalizing and edit warring, after trying in good faith to follow Talk page policy and build consensus. They chose the unilateral edit warring and vandalism route and acted in bad faith, and I was unfairly blocked and punished. It is just that simple. Justanothereditor98027 (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Technical decline as this 48-hour block has already expired. If you want to appeal the subsequent longer block, you will need to do that below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2017 (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.

All you really need to do is wait. Your block is going to expire in about an hour. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 05:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say this as a decline reason for your previous unblock request, but that was before I realised it had already expired and you were blocked again. So I'll offer it here as some advice. If you are unhappy about the way a discussion is going on a talk page, and you disagree with the way others are interpreting the outcome, the solution is to pursue one of the next steps in the dispute resolution process (as outlined at WP:DR), and not simply declare that you are going to ignore everyone who disagrees with you and force through your opinion, and then edit war to do it. I can guarantee the latter approach will not be successful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2017 (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).

Justanothereditor98027 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Once again I have been unfairly blocked, this time for a longer period. I was clearly not edit warring and I made several further valid edits in addition to the single word "alleged," one of which ("citation" changed to the more specific "notice to appear in court" has thus far been left in the article. I then provided a quote from Gianforte's campaign spokesman, complete with cited reference, to counter-balance Jacobs' version of events, but that was summarily removed by user Tomwsulcer, who is engaged in true edit warring, with no pretense of even trying to achieve consensus via the Talk page. Further, the article now contains non-neutral POV and potentially libelous statements against living persons, claiming that Gianforte "admitted" to the alleged assault, and even claiming that President Trump is somehow to blame for the alleged assault. I made a good faith effort to build consensus and had my share of open supporters who agreed strongly with my insistence on the word "alleged" being preserved. I made a Talk page comment and gave a clear explanation of my edit each and every time I edited the article in question. When my edits began to be summarily and unilaterally removed, I realized the Talk page consensus method had ceased to function, and openly admitted my intention to reverse the vandalism committed by these edit warring users. Once again, I have been scapegoated for simply following Wikipedia policy and attempting to preserve some degree of neutral POV and avoidance of libel in the article in question. I see now quite clearly that these policies are a complete sham as far as certain administrators are concerned, who would rather lead a witch hunt against someone who is following the rules, rather than challenge the users committing the true edit warring, as long as it fits their own personal agenda and ideology. I have no expectation that this suspension will be lifted, but I challenge you to read the introduction to the Gianforte article carefully and ask yourselves if any reasonable person could conclude that said introduction expresses a "neutral point of view," and makes no legally unproven claims against living persons. The answer, of course, is no. Justanothereditor98027 (talk) 2:01 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

You said: in addition to the single word "alleged," Well, there's your edit war, right there. It doesn't matter if you make only one revert a day, you are still edit warring, even if it's slow and drawn out. Stop reverting the article entirely until you've gained consensus on the talk page. Merely discussing it and then changing to your preferred version is still an edit war. You've given no indication that you understand this and that you will cease what you're doing, so you will remain blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:11, 5 June 2017 (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).

Justanothereditor98027 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You have conveniently repeated the same spiel after addressing only the very first part of my unblock request, and ignoring the majority of my arguments. "Merely discussing it and then changing to your preferred version" is precisely what user Tomwsulcer has done from the very beginning. But he is obviously on your side and thus immune from the rules being applied to him, in the same way they have been to me. Of course, you are far too invested in this whole charade now to admit your error. I suppose before long you will simply block my ability to make any further unblock requests. Might as well completely silence me. Then you will have truly done your job and enforced Wikipedia's rules fairly. Justanothereditor98027 (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You knew this was coming - you are not addressing your own behaviour and are just blaming everyone else, so your talk page access has been revoked for the duration of the block. And if you continue with the same approach to editing in defiance of Wikipedia's policies on discussion and consensus once this block expires, you should expect your next block to be significantly longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2017 (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.

Maybe you should reread Guide to appealing blocks, specifically the Talk about yourself, not others section. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at CNN Center, you may be blocked from editing. Dammitkevin (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at CNN. Dammitkevin (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Justanothereditor98027 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18722 was submitted on Jul 12, 2017 22:56:11. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Justanothereditor98027 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18723 was submitted on Jul 13, 2017 00:20:31. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]