User talk:W124l29

April 2016

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Yo. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like for you to respond on your talk page, as I began the conversation there. For efficiency's sake.W124l29 (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on User talk:JesseRafe. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. You don't own Wikipedia or your edits or other editors' attention. I gave valid and logical explanations in my edit summaries. I am under no obligation to respond to your asinine inquiries on my Talk Page. I have no duty to read a thesis on why Urban Dictionary was included by you. It is a known quality of not being a good source. That's it, it's over. I don't have to explain what I mean by "clueless piping", because if you look I didn't remove any substance in that edit, just clueless piping, that is to say piping done incomprehensively wrong and without effect. I see that you removed my list of helpful hints. Why? You very much can be served by reading those and the pillars of Wikipedia. You have much to learn about how to edit and how to interact with others. Your edits were Original Research (OR) and synthesis and you have a combative attitude. These things aren't welcome here and can be removed without a huge synod over it. Don't threaten other users because they have a beef with your edits. There is no duty to have a discussion to each one, especially if proper edit summaries are used, as can be seen in the page history of yo. Also, don't point discussions away from articles and to User Talk pages and don't ask that the world bend to your whims. Have a good day. JesseRafe (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Very well, I shall begin to seek conflict resolution with you. You have been obtusely insulting, combative, not I, and have harassed me, all-the-while not providing any valid or logical explanations in any comment of yours nor edit summary. That isn't welcome here, I'd hope, and I am sure that whomever decides as to what happens shall see your behavior before my, from my perspective, valid edits & attempts at civil conversation. I don't believe that I need to cite each & every rule you've broken.W124l29 (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, 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.

I saw your participation in discussion on the talk page of Caucasian race and thought you should know about this. I do not see the corresponding talk page notice on the article itself, which is a bit surprising to me. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 16:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my notice, as I had before assumed so much. I also assume that Wikipedia is not censored, and that neutral point of view truely means just that--even where the majority of hits on Google means fact to many it sadly appears. You did share this due to the "Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions" section, no? Regardless, I don't believe that I have commented on any intersection of race slash ethnicity and human abilities & behavior. If you would please help me understand so much, then I would much appreciate it.W124l29 (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Your recent editing history at 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers 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 are 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.
Reverts at [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] EvergreenFir (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Do not accuse others who revert you of vandalism. Please follow WP:BRD. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I accuse others who revert clearly undisputed evidence of vandalism. Neutrality has accused me of fabricating citations & being disruptive. The reference is cited. I hesitate to call his removal of references to Black Lives Matter in the shooter's Facebook likes "vandalism", but I cannot think of any other applicable term. Southern Poverty Law Centre clearly shows, with caption, that those are "likes" by the shooter. I do not wish for an editing dispute, and trust that we are both here to better Wikipedia, for academia. W124l29 (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I might also add that discussion was attempted on user in question's Talk page, with removal of inappropriate warning stamp from mine. The user in question followed by removing my request for discussion. I would request that you aid me in resolving this dispute, EvergreenFir, please. As aforementioned, I do not wish for an editing dispute, and trust that we are both here to better Wikipedia, for academia. W124l29 (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You didn't hesitate too awfully much. You called it vandalism twice. TimothyJosephWood 18:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I refer to sub-section "Blanking, illegitimate" under WP:VANDTYPES. Discussion Talk:2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers#Motive_section_dispute_over_SPLC.2FBlack_nationalism does not change that circumstance. I accuse others, who revert clearly undisputed evidence, of vandalism. Neutrality has accused me of fabricating citations and being disruptive. The reference is cited. I hesitate to call his removal of references to Black Lives Matter in the shooter's Facebook likes "vandalism", but I cannot think of any other applicable term. Southern Poverty Law Centre clearly shows, with caption, that those are "likes" by the shooter. I do not wish for an editing dispute, and trust that we are both here to better Wikipedia, for academia. W124l29 (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Not to point out the obvious, but the fact that your evidence is clearly disputed...makes it not "clearly undisputed". The other applicable term you are looking for is content dispute, which is what this is. TimothyJosephWood 19:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• This edit is casting aspersions. See WP:ASPERSIONS. This is your final warning. Stop tossing around accusations of bias from other editors. No one has done the same against you. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As evidence: this edit is submitted. W124l29 (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a link to your own edit. I'm pretty sure you need to link to edits which demonstrate incivility by those accused. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It's all recorded, don't you worry. W124l29 (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious_editing.2C_disruption.2C_and_poor_behavior_by_W124l29. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This user is currently blocked.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for immediately violating the topic ban issued at [6], as you did at Talk:2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}.  Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't care if you don't think you had enough time to make a defense or whatever nonsense you want to argue about. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. When you show that you will follow the warnings issued against you and take this topic ban serious, then you can edit again. This is not a negotiation where we are trying to convince you to knock it off. You are topic banned from both the article and the talk page for six months. Period. If you don't accept that, then remain blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

An involved user blatantly insulted me on the Talk page in question, as I've been attempting to argue this entire time, but you gave me no time to link "diffs" to illustrate what nonsense they were spinning against me. Wikipedia certainly seems like a bureaucracy to me; what would you call it otherwise? There was no mention of the Talk page for said article and being a new editor, I had no concept of whether an article ban applied. W124l29 (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: How was my responding to a personal attack on that Talk page an "immediate violation of topic ban issued per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=729585944" and how was such warranting an indefinite account block? W124l29 (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You were topic banned. You then came to my talk page to argue about it. Before I had a chance to respond, you immediately ignored the topic ban and violated it. It was a not a "ban unless W124l29 doesn't think it applies", it was a ban period. The block is until you acknowledge the ban and agree to abide by it. If you refuse to do it, then remain blocked. I have little patience for this kind of drama. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I repeat: there was no mention of the Talk page for said article and being a new editor, I had no concept of whether an article ban applied. I do not call this drama. I call this an unjust process. My only contribution to the article where I was supposedly "disruptive" was to add multiple sources, sources which are credible and in-use at this very moment. The mass-majority of my edits on Wikipedia have been to Talk pages, as I'm interested in discussion for objective & well-placed information within articles. W124l29 (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I shall add that I had and still have no intention of editing the article in question. I simply do not appreciate condescending remarks, personal insults, threats, unwarranted warnings by tendentious editors designed to discredit, nor a lack of due process. W124l29 (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

What did you think I meant by "I am page banning User:W124l29 from 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers and its talk page for the next six months."? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That considered, please excuse me, as I must have missed that part of the statement while reading it in haste, and apologize for violation of said article & Talk page ban. That being, is there anything to be done about my very legitimate claims that the entire ANI was concocted to discredit my valid concerns that others were insulting me repeatedly and directly telling me to stop asking questions, questions on a Talk page no-less? W124l29 (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's settle these issues one by one. First, are you willing to abide by the page ban which covers the article and its talk page? If so, I'll remove the block. Second, if you want to try to convince me to re-evaluate my close and perhaps open it for further discussion, my talk page (and my talk page alone) is available for that but I will not and I want to make this explicitly clear I am not interested in any arguments along the lines "well I was allowed to act that way because of what other people did." As stated in the ANI discussion, I suggest you move on and go work somewhere else, somewhere less active and controversial and show us that you can collaborate with others. Otherwise you are going to have to convince me that, after an hour of reviewing the discussion and all the diffs and all the talk page comments, that there was something that isn't already on that talk page that gives a very good reason why nine, maybe more like ten, different editors all wrongly believed that it was better that you go edit any one of five million other articles than that one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I would welcome your challenge of proving editors incorrect & out-of-line with both "diffs" & rule citations, nevermind the Wiki-essay which encourages editors to break the rules if others are disruptive. I have always been willing to abide by the rules of Wikipedia. My primary concern is whether others are being held to the same standard. I would like to re-emphasise that I must have missed that part of the statement while reading it in haste, hence my actually linking to you my edit "breaking the rules" as evidence of personal attacks & collusion, and apologize for violation of said article & Talk page ban. I further would like to emphasise that I in no way ever made any accusation based upon "well I was allowed to act that way because of what other people did". The ANI against me was made following my signalling intent to bring an ANI against two of the editors in question, they plus others constituting the majority in support of my ban. Only one entirely uninvolved party voted from what I saw, incidentally, with another simply tagging onto the majority vote, where that entirely uninvolved party voted against my ban with what I believed was a well-stated explanation as to why the ANI was in the wrong. In contrast to what has been claimed of me, I value my integrity & objectivity outside of Wikipedia more than anyone else, and I pride myself for basing my opinions entirely upon facts instead of facts upon opinions. There exists no sound reason from my perspective for one be suspicious of me, and so I naturally suspect others claiming me suspect. W124l29 (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I still don't have an answer to the first question. Since you are currently blocked and page banned, I'd focus more on yourself than on getting other people sanctioned or punished. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

W124l29 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My answer to your first question was and is yes, I was and am willing to abide by the page ban which covers the article and its talk page. I have always been willing to abide by the rules of Wikipedia. My primary concern is whether others are being held to the same standard. I would like to re-emphasise that I must have missed that part of the statement while reading it in haste, hence my actually linking to you my edit "breaking the rules" as evidence of personal attacks & collusion, and apologize for violation of said article & Talk page ban. I further would like to emphasise that I in no way ever made any accusation based upon "well I was allowed to act that way because of what other people did". The ANI against me was made following my signalling intent to bring an ANI against two of the editors in question, they plus others constituting the majority in support of my ban. Only one entirely uninvolved party voted from what I saw, incidentally, with another simply tagging onto the majority vote, where that entirely uninvolved party voted against my ban with what I believed was a well-stated explanation as to why the ANI was in the wrong. In contrast to what has been claimed of me, I value my integrity & objectivity outside of Wikipedia more than anyone else, and I pride myself for basing my opinions entirely upon facts instead of facts upon opinions. There exists no sound reason from my perspective for one be suspicious of me, and so I naturally suspect others claiming me suspect. I shall add that I would appreciate your not casting aspersions on me. The only WP:BATTLE was in group-attacking my "problematic" questions on a Talk page. I'm not here to grovel, if that's what you want. W124l29

EDIT, PS: I would like to add that I have read the "guide to being unblocked", however without context of my block relative to the actions of others, I cannot explain at all how my supposed biased disruption of a Talk page was entirely the opposite. Again, my "focus on race" is simply per the Wikipedia recommendation that new editors focus on a single topic and not out of some prejudice toward "white people", however of course concerning to those who would rather those pages not exist on Wikipedia at all, but lest I digress: my only contribution to the article where I was supposedly "disruptive" was to add multiple sources, sources which are credible and in-use at this very moment. The mass-majority of my edits on Wikipedia have been to Talk pages, as I'm interested in discussion for objective & well-placed information within articles, and I never had expected to be challenged & penalised for attempt at constructive discussion despite dissent by a group of like-minded editors. (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Since Ricky81682 said that agreement to respect the ban would be sufficient for lifting the block, I'll unblock you. That said, I'd really advise you to take a step back and find some other topic to edit instead of just continuing the disputes that started on that page in other venues. Otherwise it's highly likely that the community will very quickly tire of your conduct entirely. After all, we're not here to argue among ourselves, not even to "win", but to improve the encyclopedia. Would re-arguing user conduct at this point really be the best way you can improve the encyclopedia? I rather doubt that. See also WP:DROPTHESTICK. Huon (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

W124l29 (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

-- Emperor of Oz's New Clothes (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)