User talk:2600:1702:1CD0:1710:2CC6:8211:F260:A000

July 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit came very close to doxxing. You will be blocked if you do that.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith on my part - I did not reveal anyone's address or give any contact information for them. There is no doxxing nor any threat of doxxing and in fact I asked other editors for suggestions as to how, let's say hypothetically for now, IF there is a reliable source indicating she never moved, it could be included in the article.
 * Please discuss what should be in the article with me. I will read your link to "disruptive editing" but I feel surprised anyone thinks one post, in the Talk section, is disruptive. 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:2CC6:8211:F260:A000 (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Talkpages aren't fora for hypotheses that border on doxxing. Please read WP:NOTFORUM.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your behavior borders on stalking. It's very creepy. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Liz -- As the article now exists, it contains a claim made by Ford which seems to be proven untrue by government records. As an editor, can I ask if you think we should try to correct the misinformation? I feel we should when we have good reliable sources such as government records. 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:2CC6:8211:F260:A000 (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not up to you to use Wikipedia to do that in violation of Wikipedia policies. And you're being creepy about it.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel very distressed by your accusations and wish to resolve this, Can you please tell me if the land records are in some way disallowed? From an objective standpoint, we have one source, one individual only, saying she moved 4 times, but a government agency with records indicating this is not true.
 * I think objectively the government agency is a more reliable source, and I only want to include that source in response to the individual's claim. I  think we should try to ask some authority about this or let other editors read the discussion and try to reach consensus. 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:2CC6:8211:F260:A000 (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They're disallowed, and you're moving into sealioning.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not know what sealioning is, but can you please give me a link to the rules on government records such as this? 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:2CC6:8211:F260:A000 (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked up sealioning and it does not seem to apply to anything I am doing, as, to me, doxxing does not apply either. I will look up prohibitions on using government records. 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:2CC6:8211:F260:A000 (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Since this IP range was previously blocked for three months for exactly the same behavior a couple of years ago, and the recurrent behavior has been going on for some time since, I have re-blocked for a year.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * No, my IP range was NOT blocked for "exactly the same behavior" - I had posted to the TALK section of an article about Covid Misinformation, pointing out that the Chinese authorities' claim, early on, that they had seen no evidence of human to human transmission was not credible, because a highly infectious disease immediately infects the people around the first infected person and that will be rapidly reported to doctors. This got me banned by someone abusing their power. Here is a BBC article with a timeline which shows this had to be misinformation on the part of Chinese authorities: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52573137 .  Look up other articles on the "Wuhan Whistleblower" Dr. Lee Wenliang, who tried to inform colleagues of a possible infectious, severe respiratory virus and was threatened by Chinese authorities because of it. The entire controversy over the treatment of Wenliang related to the authorities saying he would cause a panic, precisely because people would believe Covid was infectious, human to human.  The Covid misinformation article was very highly emotional and contested a great deal, probably like the Christine Blasey Ford article.  I was not only right on the article content, that is, Chinese government DID give out false information they did not know the disease could be spread between people, but right  on Wikipedia rules because unlike the Christine Blasey Ford article there were no original research issues.  Asking the editors about including the Chinese goverment disinformation in that article was kind of a tactical mistake - I had citations, and could have just gone on to edit, but it looked like anything critical of the Chinese government's response would be instantly removed, so I sought consensus on the Talk page.  It was a mistake to act in good faith.
 * To quickly review your objections to my suggested edits to the Christine Blasey Ford article, I brought up 3 points on the TALK PAGE ONLY - I do not know how to underline or italicize to emphasize my point - I changed nothing in the article.
 * One point was based entirely on the claims made on the Go Fund Me page for giving money to Ford - and written by her, according to the page itself, and no one has challenged it as far as I know - she posted she would give away the donations, and would post to the Go Fund Me to let the public know when she did, and who she gave it to - but that was over 3 years back and there has been no indication she gave any money away. There are no new posts on her Go Fund Me.  So, I thought that statement should be included in the article, as the main importance of Ford, the only reason she is a public figure, is so closely tied to her credibility.  You made no meaningful objection to that.  I mean, you accused me of some things, but did not specifically say "this issue of Ford promising to give away  the money, but apparently not doing so can not be included because if violates...... (insert some rule) "  - and as best I can tell, there IS NO VALID OBJECTION. It involves NO original research on my part, and as far as sourcing, no one has challenged that the Go Fund Me is controlled by Ford.  IT IS ALL HER OWN WORDS.  How can that not be allowed?
 * Another point was that Ford was widely reported to have claimed she moved four times to avoid harassment and/or threats. I asked for feedback, again, solely on the TALK page, about how to use the Santa Clara County Land records to show this was not true. The Santa Clara County land records show Ford lives in the same house she did long before she publicly accused Kavanaugh.  And I would think they are considered very reliable generally. So, we have ONE person - granted, the subject of the article, but people are untruthful about their own lives all the time - saying Ford moved four times, but providing no evidence,and government records, from Santa Clara County, showing she did not move once. I DID say I knew personally she had not moved, but I did NOT SUGGEST PUTTING MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH IN THE ARTICLE, IN FACT I SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR SUGGESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO GET THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS PROVING SHE DID NOT MOVE IN THE ARTICLE WITHOUT GIVING HER ADDRESS - you called it "doxxing" but I was actively AVOIDING DOXXING.  (of course, based on Ford's own statements, giving her OLD address out on Wikipedia would not be doxxing anyway, since she moved from that address.  Someone said they do not see a claim she moved 4 times, but still they see the claim she moved - so what is the harm in giving out the old address?)
 * The only valid point you made was that I said my research proved she did not add a front door to have an escape route - but then, right before you banned me - and seemingly the motive for the ban - I cited an article - you could have disputed the reliability of the source but did not do so, you banned me and made sure my post was not seen by other editors - an article which essentially covered the same points, in which an anonymous source reportedly involved in the Senate investigation said the door was not added as an escape route. And discussion of the timing of the building permits, the fact Ford rented the room the door lead into to the former owner of the house for a therapy office, and so on.
 * You COULD have objected to this as being one source or only an anonymous quote, or possibly other valid reasons, but you did not, you instead instantly baaned me, thus not allowing other editors to analyze the discussion. Which was actually pretty much true of everything I brought up - instant removal, even before the ban - so, you are denying other editors the chance to reach consensus.
 * I feel pretty sure you can come up with no valid objection to Ford's own words on her Go Fund ME saying she'd give the money away and post when she did, so it seems you are more interested in censoring facts you can not refute, but do not like. And your account of the dispute over the Covid Misinformation article is not accurate, so, maybe you did not properly research it. 2600:1702:1CD0:1710:2CC6:8211:F260:A000 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * as the person you appear to assert is "abusing their power."  Acroterion   (talk)   16:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Unblock Reason =
The previous block reason was "using Wikipedia as a discussion forum for original research.: The present block is "again, using Wikipedia as a discussion forum for original research in violation of WP:BLP, linking to doxxing." Same behavior, only now aggravated by a focus on a living individual for speculation and theorizing.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not violate any Wikipedia rules in the Covid Misinformation article TALK section - But did get blocked - there were many people with blocking powers who were pretty much removing anything critical of the Chinese government. Of course, many theories were not verified, but that was not a good reason to immediately end all discussion as that person did. In the case of that article, it is kind of reasonable to suspect Chinese government agents were preventing discussion of any culpability the Chinese government had.

As for the Christine Blasey Ford article, there were 3 points. The person who blocked me does not appear to have attempted to reach any consensus with anyone else before doing so, and has apparently actively prevented other editors from seeing the discussion which lead to the block. This seems like a refusal to assume good faith.

Point 1. I pointed out Christine Blasey Ford's Go Fund Me, which is edited by a person claiming to be her, and as far as I know that claim is not challenged, said she would give away the GFM money and post an announcement to the GFM when she did so - but that was over 3 years back,, and there has been no update indicating it happened. I thought that should be in the article. I can not see any valid objection to using Ford's own words.

Point 2. I asked for help refuting another claim Ford made - it was widely reported she had claimed she moved 4 times in response to threat and/or harassment after accusing Kavanaugh. But the Santa Clara County Land records show she did not move even once, let alone four times - I DID say I had personally checked it out and she did not move. I asked for help in how to use the land records without revealing Ford's resident address. The editor who banned me accused me of doxxing Ford, but in reality, I want to use the records without doxxing her. Maybe just citing them - any person who owns land knows the County has records of it - so it's not like I am revealing anything to the vast majority of people - and I would also point out, IF, as appears to be undisputed, Ford DID actually claim to move, even once, revealing the address she lived in before moving does not dox her or do her any kind of harm at all - she's gone from that address, so what is the harm? And I have to point out also, the editor who objected to a change in the article saying Ford lied about moving seems to very strongly believe Ford lied about moving. I think if an editor strongly believes a claim is true tries to keep it out of the article, they are not showing objectivity.

Point 3. The front door Ford added to her house - she said, in Senate Testimony, it was added to have an escape hatch, but I said it was not - that was based partly on my independent research and the editor rightly objected, but when I went to find a citation which supported it, they banned me, rather than discuss the merits of the citation or the importance of including that topic in the article. At that point in time, with the citation, it was a point of legitimate discussion - the editor said I was sealioning, but NO, that was untrue, I had (perhaps wrongly) posted about my personal observations, but then cited a media report, which actually was not the only one with that information, and was a proper topic for discussion and developing consensus among editors.

So, I did not violate any rules of Wikipedia except for mentioning my own observations, if that is not allowed at all, even in the TALK section IF that was a violation in itself, I apologize but still believe, considering my contributions in pointing out these very important credibility issues, I should not be banned.

 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] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:UTRS is available for appeals.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)