User talk:Thoughtcrime64
Edit-warring on UK far-right politics
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit-warring on UK far-right politics. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
January 2020
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Guy (help!) 19:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. 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. Guy (help!) 19:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thoughtcrime64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Two Wikipedia Editors are seeking to describe two living individuals Graaham Williamson and Patrick Harrington as "far-right". This is contentious and as such the onus is on them to justify this. It seems that the justification they are advancing is that the two individuals were till 1989 members of the National Front. Since that time they have changed their political stance. In the case of Harrington he is not a member of any poltiical party and stated he was voting Labour at the last election. In the case of Williamson he is a Residents Councillor and member of the multi-cultural National Liberal Party. It is surely fair to ask these Editors to provide contemporary justification for the description? These Editors are stating that these two individuals are "far-right" currently. This may well be defamatory. The historical political backgrounds of both are discussed elsewhere in the articles. It seems that the two editors concerned are not content with that and are using Wikpedia to smear individuals they don't approve of. Not content with that they have also smeared two organisations with the far-right label. The National Liberal Party stands for decentralisation and direct democracy. It is a multi-cultural party led by a Sikh. If it is to be labelled as 'far-right' it's not unreasonable to ask for contemporary justification based on the ideology and policies of that party. The only references given have not analysed either policy or ideology in this way and tend to come from 'Hope Not Hate' or sources based on material from them. Hope Not Hate is registered as a third party campaigning group with the Electoral Commission. They are a partisan, not neutral source. In the case of Solidarity the two editors repeatedly put a description that this trade union was formed by the British National Party. The source they give doesn't actually say that. It says that opponents claimed at the foundation of the union that it was a front for the BNP. The article makes it clear that it is reporting allegations from opponents. That does not justify the attempt to present this as a fact at all. I've attempted to engage the editors in discussion but they have, so far, failed to address the points actually being put to them. Of course at present I'm blocked from furthering this discussion. I would suggest that the block be lifted so this discussion can take place. I don't believe that my actions in seeking to uphold Wikipedia policies on contentious statements on living individuals or asking that references actually support what is being claimed have in any way been unreasonable. It's telling that the two Editors concerned who are more familiar with Wikipedia procedures are seeking to prevent changes to their contentious additions. I'd also that the potentially defamatory material is removed till a proper discussion takes place. If editors are unable to agree on these matters then independent consideration should be the next step. I should add that blocking my account is unlikely to end this matter. Thoughtcrime64 (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for violating WP:SOCK (and possibly, WP:EVADE). That and only that is relevant here. You don't address that at all. Yamla (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2020 (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.
Thoughtcrime64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Possibly WP:EVADE? Is that a reason for the block or not? As far as WP:SOCK is concerned I simply reactivated an account I had not used for a while so that I could make signed edits, signed contributions to the Talk pages and because I viewed a message that told me that only edits from established accounts could be made. I wanted to edit the pages for the reasons I've given above. I think that as I've explained above why my edits were justified and I've attempted to discuss this with the Editors concerned. How is that wrong? They have thus far not answered the points which I have made. This is a serious issue and blocking me from editing or discussing it isn't really going to resolve the issue. I should be allowed to put points to the Editors concerned and challenge non-NPOV assertions which amount to political smears. Thoughtcrime64 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Abuse of multiple accounts (this and JustifiedRage). You give no credible reason why you did this. Guy (help!) 20:13, 9 January 2020 (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.
Thoughtcrime64 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It's difficult to respond when you don't know exactly what you are being accused of. You mention JustifiedRage). Please specify which edits from this account are in question. I was asked by a colleague to post his comments via that account as he is not able to do this himself. I was not aware that this broke any rules. His view on the smears being published is very similar to my own but he said that he wanted to try to engage the other editors in discussion more - a point he also stressed to me. I don't want to identify the individual publicly as I understand that editors should not usually be named but if there was a way of him providing a private statement backing up what I've said then I'm sure that would be fine. As you might expect the fairly recent changes by two editors have engendered discussion amongst quite a large group of people. Not surprising when you consider both a trade union and political party are being smeared by two editors. Thoughtcrime64 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet (per Bbb23) plus likely long term anon edit warring on Patrick Harrington. ST47 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2020 (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.