User talk:FactZheker

January 2021
You have been blocked indefinitely for egregious personal attacks against named editors and persistent assumption of bad faith across the board. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC).


 * If I were you, I would delete the unblock above, take a 24-hour cool-down break, read WP:NOTTHEM, and then return. I'll be happy to help you if you get unblocked. Sam Sailor 22:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Sam Sailor A fair consideration of the facts I laid out would be the most appropriate course of action. I have not engaged in disruptive edits, personal attacks, or anything of that nature. Presenting my evidence in a calm and organized manner is no indicator that "I need a cool down break". It is as professional as I could make it and if there is retaliation against me over it then I am not the one who provoked it with my second request. Upon closer inspection of Ponyo's talk page there does appear to be a high level of familiarity between drmies and ponyo that I feel my be a conflict on interest in my reception of a fair hearing of the facts.FactZheker (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker
 * That's "Sailor", not "Sailer". Suggested read: Dunning–Kruger effect. Sam Sailor 22:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So you resort to personal attacks with the reddit professor's favorite "Dunning Kruger effect" passive aggressive slight. It's rich that the admins here are such hypocrites. FactZheker (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker
 * Sorry, I'm done here. Sam Sailor 23:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Sam Sailor Thank you for your apology. FactZheker (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker


 * Your responce to being reverted for neutrality issues - an action which other editors stated they would have endorsed - is to cry censorship, take an aggressive us-vs-them posture and refuse to consider what other, more experienced editors have been telling you, all in a topic area where there is absolutely zero tolerance for even one of those. The only person who I can see here that did anything wrong is you, and your unblock requests are not only not helping your case, they're making it obvious the block was justified.  —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  ::::Takes a strong man to deny... 00:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Jéské Couriano The neutrality claim flies out the window when you consider that my edits amounted to nothing more than updates to information that was already cited and remained up after the vandalism on my edits. Again, there has been no direct evidence presented by you people, just accusations of guilt without any consideration of what I've said. FactZheker (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker
 * No, it does not "fly out the window". Your edits were blatantly in violation of the neutral-point-of-view policy, and your immediate response to being reverted wasn't to discuss the issue, ask why your edits were considered non-neutral, and establish consensus for a neutral version of them, but instead to instantly cast aspersions and personal attacks, claim censorship and vandalism, and then declare on your userpage that those "censoring" you were "fascists" and you are here to fight them. It is blatantly obvious that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to right great wrongs by promoting "The Truth". This is why you are blocked, and this is why you are going to remain blocked until you understand this, because as things are right now you cannot be trusted to edit within Wikipedia's policies, most notably neutrality and verifiablity, not truth. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:The Bushranger I'll repeat myself once again, the edits I made were a continuation of previous edits on the same topic that discussed the same things in the same manner but during the different time periods. I also asked multiple times, and have pointed it out in every single unblock request, that the specific items they found were in violation be listed so I can fix them. That request by me has never been fulfilled. I did share verifiable information that in fact was mentioned already cited to a separate source in the bio. You are now engaging in wild, salacious claims.FactZheker (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker
 * I looked at the edits in question. They were nowhere near compliant with WP:NPOV. (And even if existing content may or may not have been equally non-compliant is irrelevant to whether or not yours was.) Also note that those edits and the neutrality thereof are not why you are blocked. You are blocked for how you reacted when your edits were reverted. Including but not limited to your unquestioned immediate declarations that the only possible reason for the reversion was fascisitic censorship - wild and unversal assumptions of bad faith.. If you had instead gone to the article talk page and asked why you were reverted, there could have been a productive discussion and the edits made compliant with policy and reinstated. But you didn't, and it's because you made that choice, and also the choice to make personal attacks on some of our most active admins and other users, that we are here. I will quote from the block log:


 * (egregious personal attacks against named editors and persistent assumption of bad faith across the board.)


 * Note that (having now seen your reponse to the latest unblock decline, which you should move out of the decline template) your own user talk page is not exempt from Wikipedia policies including no personal attacks and assume good faith. I will also once again warn you that continued extended refusal to get the point, especially when combined with personal attacks, can result in the ability to edit your user talk page being revoked. I'm pretty sure you don't want that, and (believe it or not) I don't want that, so I strongly suggest you step away from Wikipedia, have a nice glass of your favorite beverage of choice, and come back in the morning to reconsider things after a good read of the how-to-request-unblocks guide. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A line that was reverted that you claim isn't compliant:

In April of 2020, at the beginning of the Corona Virus outbreak, Reschenthaler sponsored a House resolution seeking to withhold funding for the World Health Organization as medical professionals were still trying to understand the virus.

What exactly about that is "nowhere near compliant with WP:NPOV"?

Also read the ASG again because it clearly says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such."

I took the deletion of the above addition, which is clearly in compliance with WP:NPOV, as an act of vandalism. According to the ASG I do not have to assume good faith if I suspect a vandal.

Your threats coupled with your refusal to address the suspicious deletions that lead to my appropriate dropping of the ASG that was in accordance with the ASG guidlines, shows that you are not acting in good faith. You are clearly threatening me to "get the point". Is this the only power you have in life? FactZheker (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)FactZheker


 * If that had been the only wording you attempted to use in the article, it would be neutral. Except that line that is neutral was packed in with some other things in the same edit, such as:


 * In December 2020, Reschenthaler joined over 120 seditious Republican members of the House of Representatives...
 * These efforts to throw out legally cast votes based on bogus election fraud conspiracies pushed by political extremist...
 * Reschenthaler was one of 126 seditious Republican members of the House of Representatives who signed an amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania, a lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court that they knew was filled with dangerous lies and conspiracy theories...


 * And there are other samples, but these make the point: none of these are remotely in compliance with NPOV. They are not "clearly in compliance with NPOV". Reverting them is not vandalism. I haven't been "threatening" you, I have been trying to help you to understand that you are mistaken in your assumptions on how this situation has developed, to point out how you are mistaken, and to help you come in compliance with policy and correct those mistakes so that you can return to editing as a productive contributor to Wikipedia.


 * You have utterly refused to do so, virtually every edit you have made here since the block has involved violations of the civility policy if not outright personal attacks, and you are wikilawyering in order to do so. Since it's now blatantly obvious that you are only here to act as if Wikipedia were a battleground instead of an encyclopedia to be built, your ability to edit your talk page has been revoked. If in the future you are willing to edit within Wikipedia policies you can request unblock under the standard offer through UTRS. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)