User talk:LogicKey

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive revert warring, as you did at TrueCrypt. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

This block resulted from attempts to remove a challenged material (a hoax attack) from the TrueCrypt article. The material violates the second paragraph of WP:Verifiability. See the discussion for more information. The user User:Intgr stopped participating in the discussion but this did not prevent him from restoring the challenged material in the TrueCrypt article even though he was informed that this violates the rules defined by WP:Verifiability.

Decline reason:

This is a content dispute. It's wonderful that you are engaged in discussion on the article's talk page, but continuing to edit war during that discussion is not acceptable. Unblocking is unlikely until you understand this. Kuru (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

The rules set by WP:Verifiability must be respected by everybody. The user User:Intgr did not bother to invalidate my arguments and left the discussion. Therefore, I had no other choice than to remove the material violating WP:Verifiability. A hoax attack is a serious issue when a security product is concerned. My actions supported by WP:Verifiability cannot be called disruptive editing. On the contrary, adding a material violating WP:Verifiability is a disruptive editing: sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable. Where will Wikipedia end if it does not get rid of hoaxes? This block is unjustified as I was removing a material violating WP:Verifiability. LogicKey (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Verifiability-related claims are not among the exceptions that justify edit-warring, see WP:EW. Besides, the content you removed had plenty of citations and therefore appears prima facie verifiable, and talk page consensus seems to support including it. Sandstein 17:09, 18 October 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

The discussion made it clear that the material is challenged (the developers of TrueCrypt declared the attack invalid). Therefore, the material violates the second paragraph of WP:Verifiability: This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question. Even though it is required by the rules, the material is not directly supported by any reliable source (Black Hat does not peer review the presentations -- it can present hoaxes and the news sites just reproduce them). LogicKey (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even if you are correct, it does not justify edit warring, which is what you are blocked for. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:16, 18 October 2010 (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.

Wikipedia can never be trusted. LogicKey (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. If multiple people keep telling you you're wrong, and you're the only one disagreeing, they might have a point:

You've been told your interpretation of WP:V is off, and you haven't listened
You've kept edit-warring despite being told stop
You refused to engage in any consensus building activities such as an RFC
I can see you didn't bother to read WP:GAB either as your requests for unblock have showed no contrition.
You've completely refused to even acknowledge the points brought up on the other side of the debate

This is classic disruptive editing on your part. We've seen it before, we'll see it again. If you're not willing to listen when multiple people tell you something, many of them administrators who have been here for a while and have a sincere desire to see consensus building, then we don't you to edit; hence your block. Of course, I have no question you'll ignore this statement too and refuse to see any wrong-doing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]