Jump to content

User talk:68.132.68.52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


December 2017

[edit]
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the sanctions already in place on the article on the page Presidency of Donald Trump, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

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

Request reason:

no reason given for block. Only 1 revert was made. In any case, the edito who I reverted is a notorious troll, and his edits removed sourced uncontroversial without reason given. Is 0RR a policy now?

Decline reason:

Have a closer look at the colored box right above this one; and, by the way, you are Kingshowman engaging in block evasion. Favonian (talk) 22:02, 15 December 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.

There clearly is a reason given (violation of the page restrictions in effect at Presidency of Donald Trump). Any reviewing administrator will be able to see that. Good day. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

U

User:Coffee You are Wrong. You failed to explain how I violated the sanctions. How did my 1 revert violate policy? Is 0RR a policy?

A reason for the block was clearly given, and was placed in reflection of an Arbitration Committee enforcement due to the topic being under discretionary sanctions, which allows for uninvolved administrators to apply sanctions and take administrative actions necessary to keep the editing environment collaborative and acceptable. His block was justified. This was the text that I was going to respond to your unblock request with, but Favonian beat me to it, so I'll just leave it as a response instead. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User: Oshwah, can you show diffs of me violating sanctions? Again , I only made 1 revert. You are mistaken.is 0RR a policy? 68.132.68.52 (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Again, I only made 1 revert. I did not violate sanctions. Admin’s comments do not address the fact that i was blocked after a single revert, and so could not have violated sanctions. I understand a reason was given, but the reason was wrong.

Decline reason:

You didn't get consensus before re-instating the content that was removed from the article. This is in violation of a restriction placed on this article in reflection to the discretionary sanctions authorized on this topic, which states, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:11, 15 December 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.

Unblock

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

this is absurd. I received no warning. I made 2 edits. The first added a link to the official election results from the FEC. The second reveted another user’s mass removal of well-sourced, uncontroversial material that simply stated that Clinton received 3 million more votes than Trump. There is no good reason for this block. Reviewing admin appears to have not even examined the diffs.

Decline reason:

A warning is not required, as clearly stated on the restriction notice visible on the article's talk page. You can argue your views about the content you felt should not have been removed, but it is irrelevant, as the restriction applies to all content. I know you're frustrated, but making repeated unblock requests until you get the result you want is only wasting your time; a successful appeal and unblock is not going to happen. Take the next 24 hours and use this as an opportunity to review understand these policies so that you won't fall into this pit again in the future. I wish you well and best of luck -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:25, 15 December 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.

December 2017

[edit]
Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

User: Drmies What exactly is wrong with that edit? It is discussed in the article that Comey's dismissal is alleged to possibly constitute obstruction of justice. I didn't say that it did; clearly it is a notable aspect of the dismissal that it is being investigated as to whether it constituted obstruction of justice. Could you clarify what your objection is to that edit, or why it deserved a 1 week block, rather than a revert?
Here, presently in the article, it states, with 5 sources: "In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, several media figures, political opponents and legal scholars said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice, while others disagreed.[19][20][21][22]" Did you block that editor too?68.132.68.52 (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User: Drmies, would you please care to explain your reasoning behind the block? I have shown you evidence that the material added was already present in the article, and I was simply adding it to the top, and it was not "original research." Surely you don't believe adding a statement which is already in the article as things stand is deserving of a 1-week block? I would be appreciative of some manner of explanation for your actions, preferably which is more detailed than "Yeah, this edit..." without any inkling of commentary of what you found objectionable about the edit linked to (which merely reproduced material already in the article, not very far down.) Thank you for your reply. Not only that, the word "Obstruction of justice" is already in the article 46 times; it is certainly appropriate to use a term used 46 times in the article in the lead. 68.132.68.52 (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I didn't do anything wrong. With regards to the edit to Dismissal of James Comey, I stated Comey's dismissal is alleged to have constituted obstruction of justice in the lead, which is already stated in the article. In pertinent part, the article already reads as follows: "In light of the dismissal, the memo, and Comey's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2017, several media figures, political opponents and legal scholars said that Trump's acts could be construed as obstruction of justice, while others disagreed.[19][20][21][22]" Hence, my edit adding material already in the article to another part of it is not a blockable offense. I will also note that "obstruction of justice' is in the article 46 times; it was certainly not inappropriate to add it to the lead, given how heavily it figures in the article. The accusation that my edit was "tendentious" is wrong; I was summarizing article content, which is what a lead does. With regards to my edit to Trump-Russia investigations stating that members of Trump's campaign were convicted due to their meetings with Russians, (even though this was not cited as the reason for the block, for the sake of completeness I'll discuss it) please note that this, too, is already repeatedly stated in the article: "On October 5, 2017, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to making false statements to FBI agents relating to contacts he had with agents of the Russian government while working for the Trump campaign" Also, see Michael Flynn for further information. I don't think the admin who reviewed my edits actually took the time to look at them, and made a knee-jerk block without making the effort to see if what I said was A) True, B) already in the article. What I stated were items already in the relevant article that I merely added to the lead. Neither of these edits were worthy of a block. The blocking administrator does not appear to have reviewed the article prior to blocking. Had he done so, he would have noticed that this is not undue, but accurately summarizes what the article is about. Blocking administrators have gotten insanely trigger happy and are blocking without taking any time to understand the edits or the article itself. How can you block without even knowing what's in an article first?

Accept reason:

You are unblocked following discussion with the blocking admin at WP:AE. Sandstein 16:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So we're clear - is this the appeal you'd like copied to WP:AE? SQLQuery me! 03:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:SQL I don't quite understand what you mean, but yes you can copy this to another page. 68.132.68.52 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm asking if you want me to. Please read the Arbitration Enforcement block notice. SQLQuery me! 04:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Yes, I'd like to appeal. There was nothing wrong with my edit
As you requested - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Block_appeal_from_68.132.68.52. SQLQuery me! 04:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance. Appreciated. 68.132.68.52 (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Again, "obstruction of justice" is mentioned 46 times in the article. It is arguably the most notable aspect of the dismissal. Your block was inappropriate, and your threadbare explanation fails to justify it. "Totally, tendentiously undue"... Have you read the article? It doesn't seem you have. Nor have you explained why adding material that is already in the article 46 times is worthy of a 1 week block. 68.132.68.52 (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User: Drmies Cool. So, basically, you don't believe in administrator accountability, and think you can do what you like without explanation for your actions. Nice policy. As far as my "track record," whatever my "track record is, you haven't explained why any of the current edits were wrong, so this is a non-sequitur. I disproved your unevidenced claim that my edit was "tendentious" and you failed to respond with anything showing it was "tendentious." I explained to you patiently that the material was in the article 46 times and you responded with essentially nothing because you appear to believe you are above having to explain or justify your actions. Great job. 68.132.68.52 (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Say, User: Drmies why don't you do everyone a favor and admit your mistake and rescind your block, since you were unable to provide any Reasons for it? Note: Your claim that my edit was tendentious was disproved by my evidence that the same sentence I added was already in the article 46 times, and hence, unworthy of a block. I note you have still yet to respond to this point. (I'll also point out that "if the next admin thinks my block was wrong, they'll lift it" isn't a reason for the block or responsive to my request for justification of your conduct. 68.132.68.52 (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Thank you User: Sandstein for the unblock. 68.132.68.52 (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

apologies

[edit]

I thought it said "presidential candidate" not "president"..is a little confusing. Could be clarified. Shouldn't be absolute.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:43 pm, Today (UTC+5.5)

i see what you mean. I'll see if I can clarify, maybe by saying "winning president". we could try to say something like by 2.1 percent, the greatest margin of any winning president since 1876. I agree that absolute comparisons are not necessarily meaningful, so perhaps the percent is a better barometer. 68.132.68.52 (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Galobtter I tried to clarify the two potential ambiguities as follows: "Trump lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by nearly 3 million votes, a margin of 2.1 percent, thus losing the popular vote by a greater percentage than any winning U.S. president since 1876.[10][11][12]" Does that clarify?68.132.68.52 (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

[edit]
To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating the sanctions already in place, specifically you did not get the required consensus before restoring challenged material on the page Trump campaign–Russian meetings, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This isn't your first rodeo. Do it again, and this IP won't be able to edit our site for a few years. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User: Coffee Do what again? You haven't cited a diff or stated what your objection to it is. I am entitled to know what exactly I am being blocked for, and what your objection is, aren't I? 68.132.68.52 (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is the offending edit. You can see the reason for your block in the notice you received. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This is literally the same reason I blocked you the first time. So if you have problems knowing what you did wrong, I suggest you check your memory. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Oh but it's verified in the article!" Yes, but it's still tendentious and undue. I can look up a couple of Facebook groups that would love to have your input. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User: Coffee I didn't "restore" any offending material that had been challenged. Your administrative action was uncalled for. I will ask you to rescind it so I don't have to get it overturned. Furthermore, substantively, it already states in the article that Papadopolous and Flynn have pled guilty (a guilty plea is a conviction) and that Gates and Manafort were indicted. What exactly do you think is in the least controversial about what I said? 68.132.68.52 (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 years for block evasion.
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 ~~~~}}.  — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

{{unblock|reason={unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. I didn't restore any offending material that had been challenged. Nor was I given any warning about any edits to the relevant page. I simply made an edit to the article and was immediately blocked for 2 weeks. My edit was, in fact, non-controversial and simply added material to the lead that was already in the article. It is not controversial but a statement of plain, well-known fact that Gates and Manafort were indicted, and that Papadopolous and Flynn pled guilty and were convicted. [[User: Coffee]] is repeatedly misusing his block powers, and I would suggest they be taken away until he learns to use them properly. [[Special:Contributions/68.132.68.52|68.132.68.52]] ([[User talk:68.132.68.52#top|talk]]) 01:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)}}

You're blocked for two, separate, reasons. First, you violated the consensus required restriction at Trump campaign–Russian meetings. For this, you have been blocked 2 weeks. Second, but concurrently, you have been identified to be a blocked user evading their block. For this, you have been blocked 2 years. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coffee, on the basis on technical and behavioral evidence, I agree with you. Kingshowman, why do you have to be such an enormous jerk about everything? Even Al Franken owned up to some bad behavior. In the meantime, I updated the CU wiki with a page dedicated to you: congratulations. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.132.68.52&oldid=1090724291"