User talk:Justice1980

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Aceuswa, 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.

Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Hello, I'm SounderBruce. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SounderBruce 07:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I (Justice1980) am reverting your revert (your recent contributions ) back. You are welcome to edit and improve the content. However, please do not remove the entire entry/section. That page [[1]]is for informing readers anti-Chinese sentiment incidents in the US. And readers are entitled to know the incident, follow the source links and make their own judgement. Those are all from highly reputable sources. Editorial piece, reporter piece from major newspapers in Washington. I do not want to engage into a meaningless revert war. That will be childish. You are entitled to have your own site and publish whatever meet your political views. However, Wikipedia is a public platform. Please respect others' work and opinions, and do not purge content that you disagree. That is also the spirit of Wikipedia. Thanks!

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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 and 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. You must discuss and earn consensus for controversial changes that go against policies like WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a place to push your agenda. SounderBruce 22:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SounderBruce was the one started the editing war. Now he is accusing Justice1980 for the editing war? Let's look at the timeline here: SounderBruce initially reverted Aceuswa's edits at 09:43, 7 May 2021‎ , Justice1980 disagreed and reverted back with reasons at 05:07, 8 May 2021‎. SounderBruce then reverted Justice1980's reversion at 07:18, 8 May 2021‎. At that point,SounderBruce has knowingly reverted content on [[2]] twice in less than 24 hours. Justice1980 then reverted the content back with a polite message User_talk:SounderBruce#Responding_to_your_recent_revert. Who was the one at fault for starting and engaging the editing war?

Justice1980 suggested SounderBruce to edit the entry that he reverted instead of completely removing the historical incident. After all, major newspapers did cover the incident, which warrants its place on [[3]] page. Instead of editing the content, SounderBruce is now attempting to accuse Justice1980 for something that he himself is actually guilty of?

Your edits

Hi there. I just want to let you know that your edits were reverted because they were problematic. The article was on Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States but your edits were mostly about a lack of Asian history month. This is WP:UNDUE for this article for reasons that I do not have time to go into. In addition, you seem to have added unsourced and poorly sourced information to the article. You also cited opinion pieces and failed to adhere to a neutral point of view. There are a lot of issues I have, but I am going to say that Firestar464's revert was justified. If you want to get this information on Wikipedia somewhere, read WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. Your information may be suitable somewhere else, but not this particular article. Thank you. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Justice1980 Response to User:Scorpions13256 : [[4]]

I have spent quit a lot of time researching anti-Chinese history in US.

Peri vs. Hall is a hallmark anti-Chinese incident. It set the stage for turning a blind eye on anti-Asian violence. Yet you support that from being removed by User:Firestar464?

And the 1850 anti-Chinese riot was the first anti-Chinese riot in US history. And you also backing User:Firestar464's removal of it?

We really have some anti-Chinese sentiment here!

Also, Wikipedia's spirit is to edit and improve, not to remove content that you dislike.

May 2021

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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Justice1980 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was going through the proper channel and making my case. Don't understand why my case is still pending yet you decided to permanently block me? Justice1980 (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see no open cases where you are defending yourself. You are free to make a new unblock request if you specifically point to the open case. In general, unblock requests like this aren't appropriate, you need to address your inappropriate edits; see WP:GAB for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note if you have indeed been violating WP:SOCK, there's basically nothing that can save you. Doing so means you have destroyed any possibility you are acting in good faith. So, you'll need to specifically address that, too. --Yamla (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Yamla: Thanks for pointing this one out. I did not violate the WP:SOCK. They did a check, and maybe re-check? They could not find proof. That was a false accusation. Blablubbs wanted me blocked indefinitely. user:Drmies denied that request, saying "geolocation makes it possible but I can't block on that alone. It will have to be done from behavior. “ They could not block me with the WP:SOCK reason. They blocked me for NOTHERE. Several of my last entries were bluntly removed by Firestar464. I discussed the situation with Firestar464’s mentor, Scorpions13256. After some explanations, he agreed, some of my entires should be kept on Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States page. BTW, all my contributions to Wikipedia have been removed by Firestar464. I filed an edit waring complaint against SounderBruce and Firestar464, they got mad, and wanted to permanently block me. (Noted: They just recently closed my edit warring case citing I was blocked. They did not close the case due to investigation findings.) Here are my complaint against them (: 1) The repeated pattern of user:SounderBruce revert twice followed by user:Firestar464 reverted the 3rd time. 2) SounderBruce reverted someone else' edits first, I reverted it back after SounderBruce's first attempt to revert and left comments. SounderBruce then ignored WP:BRD and reverted the second time. SounderBruce, who know the rules very well, should seek consensus, rather than bluntly revert the 2nd time. SounderBruce did not seek consensus, and knowingly ignored WP:BRD. Not only that, he enlisted Firestar464 to reverted the 3rd time. 3) The magical 1 minute gap between SounderBruce warned a user on 3PP rule and Firestar464 reverted on behalf of SounderBruce to SounderBruce's version . 4) Firestar464 bluntly reverted all my edits back to SounderBruce’s version, without taking consideration of different entries and contributions I made to the Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States page. Those are the entries that Scorpions13256 later agreed should stay on that page. Justice1980 (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I reverted them because you are a sock. Also, please read CaptainEek's message on your master Aceuswa's talk page. WP:DISCORD communication is not considered canvassing, just so you know. Firestar464 (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464, I actually don't think they're socks, just WP:MEAT. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Rant

@Firestar464:, @CaptainEek:, @Blablubbs:, @Muboshgu: Let's get the records straight: I made minor edits on Joe Nguyen page, which I deemed would help that page - I added Joe's Wife's full name. I did not get involved in the fights regarding that page. My interest is the anti-Asian sentiment in the United States page. I have spent a lot of time research that topic, and was planning to add contents to that page. I reverted SounderBruce's edits, and added some contents, and was planning to add more the next day. Then I noticed that Firestar464 removed all my contributions. Other than the one I was in dispute with SounderBruce, there were non-controversial ones. Based on the pattern, I filed edit warring report against Firestar464 and SounderBruce, and I think that angered the old buddies in the Wikipedia system. Firestar464 wanted me to be investigated for Sockpuppets again. Blablubbs wanted me blocked permanently. After I made several arguments on the edit warring page, Muboshgu blocked me permanently. Content dispute aside, the way you treated me and maybe other new editors are not civil and acceptable. Your tones were arrogant, condescending. You may not feel it, you were acting like members of old buddy club laughing at newcomers. If my guts are right, you are bunch of white men, feeling that you are supper powerful and own the platform. Wikipedia is based on community contributions. We can debate on contents and reach agreement. However, I have problem with your old buddy club attitude and how the entire thing was handled. I read your comments on Aceuswa's page, so if you belong to the old buddy club on Wikipedia, you are allowed to do MEAT, or whatever, after all, you guys decide how to interpret the rules. If anyone challenge you, you can abuse your power and block them so that they will be shut up forever. My suggestion to you all is to please clarify your super power on the Wikipedia page. Otherwise, newcomers like me will think that we are all equal when in reality there is an upper class on Wikipedia. You kept referring to all the Wikipedia rules, and if you check articles on Wikipedia, there are many that are not following those rules. The bottomline is that you guys decide when and who you want to enforce the rules. And new users need time to learn the system. Only because I challenged you and irritated you, you wan to shut me out? Fine. Let Wikipedia be the white male dominated old buddy club. And don't try to make those about face spins. People with common sense would judge themselves. Oh, I forgot, you guys will very likely remove this entry. After all, you guys are in control of Wikipedia. Justice1980 (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Your fourth edit on Wikipedia was to restore bad content (including unencyclopedic language like "fiercely blistered" and the Democrat Party (epithet)) that had been added by another user and reverted. Then you kept edit warring and opened a spurious SPI case to retaliate. This is NOTHERE behavior, even if you're not a sockpuppet. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC) @Firestar464:, @CaptainEek:, @Blablubbs:, @Muboshgu: Just another proof that you are all in the trenches. Have you looked at all the records? Apparently no. Why would you? You trust your buddies' words. After all, you must have known each other for years. I can tell, others can tell. If you read my contributions on Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States page, I added first arrival of Chinese Americans, first riot against Chinese Americans, the Peril vs. Hall and banning Chinese from testifying in court to that page. All have been reverted. Tell me, which Wikipedia rule warrant those contents' removal? If anyone have problem with the word "blistered" or something else, they can edit, change to other word. I have suggested to SounderBruce to edit the content, instead of bluntly removing everything. And it is in everyone's right to open a Sockpuppet investigation. It is NOT your good buddy club's exclusive right. I do not know SounderBruce and Firestar464. I do not know if they are the same person or not. Based on the pattern: Friestar464 helped SounderBruce revert twice, Firestar464 removed my message to SounderBruce, I suspected they were the same person. I opened the investigation. Someone said they were not the same person. Case closed. I moved on. Yet, you got mad, all you good buddy club members got mad. You wanted to get me. After all, how dare this newcomer file complaints against one of the good buddy club members? Those tools are reserved for the good buddy club members to police the system, to get rid of the ones they deem unfit. Read your messages... they were arrogant, condescending and insulting... complete white alpha male languages... Whoops, did I trigger another Wikipedia no no that only applies to the Wikipedia good buddy club outsiders? Well, again, you are in power to remove this entry, just like you guys did in the past. Yet, you can not deny the fact that Wikipedia is dominated by white males, who control the platform, and would jump in at moment notice to defend their buddies and shut everyone else they deem unfit out. The evidence is out there Gender bias on Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Gender bias and editing on Wikipedia and . And here is what Wikipedia foundation said on its own website "Wikipedia’s shortcomings are absolutely real. Our contributors are majority Western and mostly male, and these gatekeepers apply their own judgment and prejudices. All sounds so familiar to my entire experience. I did not know, I know now. I just wasted another hour arguing with good buddy club members. Will that change anything? Perhaps not. After all, Wikipedia is dominated and controlled by White Male. “Most people look at Wikipedia, and see the text, and assume that it’s unproblematically produced by volunteers and always on a trajectory to improvement,” said Julia Adams, a sociologist at Yale University who’s studying how academic knowledge is portrayed on Wikipedia. “But that is simply not the case.” Justice1980 (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If all you want to do is rant, go somewhere else. I've reblocked you revoking talk page access. If you actually want to pursue getting unblocked, use the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.