User talk:PleaForFairness

June 2022
Your recent editing history at David Horowitz shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Anaxial (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * You tell me I'm supposed to reach out and speak my mind civilly in an attempt to reach a cordial compromise. But this is nothing short of irresponsible in light of what follows.
 * Someone called Dronebogus wrote me the following:
 * I don’t know what you’re blathering about, right-wing is not disparaging when it’s an accurate descriptor and there are pages where people are called left-wing (example here). Now stop vandalizing the page or you will be blocked. Dronebogus (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 * Here is what I wrote back.
 * Your use of the word "blathering" and "vandalizing" is offensive and prejudicial. But more importantly, you commented, "Now stop vandalizing the page OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED." Do I understand that it is within your power to block me. I have stated my objection to the word "right wing" fairly and succinctly. Here is what I have written thus far: Right wing is a disparaging comment. You MAY NOT use it in good conscience if you are not willing to use left wing in the same way. This is politically tendentious and has no legitimate place in objective journalism. This is an issue of fundamental fairness. This site, to maintain its integrity, must resist the urge to pander to partisan political bias in a setting that needs to be fair and impartial." Let me now add that the word "right wing" in the way it is being used is so offensive that its use should be viewed in no better light than a racial or ethnic slur. Your attempt to equate the use of the words right wing with the term "left-leaning" is hardly worth parsing. By the way, they told me I shouldn't involve myself in an "edit war." Instead, I am supposed to be reasonable, reach out to the other editors, try to compromise. I have done that in good faith. And the result is that I am defamed "blathering," "vandalizing," and threatened with expulsion by someone who believes he is entitled to do what our Constitution strictly forbids: the arbitrary removal of my right to free speech. I'm no scholar; but I think I know as much about history as the next person. There is a very short distance between banning and burning. We saw that in Nazi Germany. First the banning. Then the burning. I would rather you burn me than ban me. That's how seriously I take my right to free speech. So, I will be succinct. Go ahead and try to ban me. I dare you. PleaForFairness (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC) PleaForFairness (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Rambling about nazis and inapplicable applications of the first amendment among other equally irrelevant things just proves my point. Your arguments are logorrhea, and are not even wrong. Dronebogus (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit war
I don’t know what you’re blathering about, right-wing is not disparaging when it’s an accurate descriptor and there are pages where people are called left-wing (example here). Now stop vandalizing the page or you will be blocked. Dronebogus (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Your use of the word "blathering" and "vandalizing" is offensive and prejudicial. But more importantly, you commented, "Now stop vandalizing the page OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED." Do I understand that it is within your power to block me. I have stated my objection to the word "right wing" fairly and succinctly. Here is what I have written thus far: Right wing is a disparaging comment. You MAY NOT use it in good conscience if you are not willing to use left wing in the same way. This is politically tendentious and has no legitimate place in objective journalism. This is an issue of fundamental fairness. This site, to maintain its integrity, must resist the urge to pander to partisan political bias in a setting that needs to be fair and impartial." Let me now add that the word "right wing" in the way it is being used is so offensive that its use should should be viewed in no better light than a racial of ethnic slur. Your attempt to equate the use of the words right wing with the term "left-leaning" is hardly worth parsing. By the way, they told me I shouldn't involve myself in an "edit war." Instead, I am supposed to be reasonable, reach out to the other editors, try to compromise. I have done that in good faith. And the result is that I am defamed "blathering," "vandalizing," and threatened with expulsion by someone who believes he is entitled to do what our Constitution strictly forbids: the arbitrary removal of my right to free speech. I'm no scholar; but I think I know enough about history as the next person. There is a very short distance between banning and burning. We saw that in Nazi Germany. First the banning. Then the burning. I would rather you burn me than ban me. That's how seriously I take my right to free speech. So, I will be succinct. Go ahead and try to ban me. I dare you. PleaForFairness (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead, I am supposed to be reasonable, reach out to the other editors, try to compromise. I have done that in good faith. That is false, you kept edit warring after another editor reverted back to the original content. Your only other edits were on this page, after you received a warning for edit warring. The correct course of action is to discuss your edits on the talk page. I would also refer you to Free speech. Editing on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, which can be revoked. --   LuK3      (Talk)   14:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Your use of the term "this is false" is incendiary and inappropriate. Astoundingly, when you could have chosen careful and accurate words, you chose to say, "you kept edit warring after another editor reverted back to the original content." This is a demonstrably inaccurate and sloppy response. I justified my actions on each of the 3 edits––something visible for all to see. Each time the content was changed back, I added yet another reasoned justification. In spite of this I was attacked, called "blathering," accused of "vandalizing," and promised that the punishment if I continue to act in good faith is expulsion from the site. I will be blunt. In light of how reasoned I have been, I don't want anyone at Wikipedia to threaten me again. I am letting you know now. If anyone from Wikipedia threatens me again with banning, I will be forced to seek legal redress. This should be taken as an official warning.
 * Let me take this opportunity to remind you of all three of my justifications.
 * After the first edit I wrote in justification: "Right wing is a disparaging comment. You MAY NOT use it in good conscience if you are not willing to use left wing in the same way."
 * After the second edit, I wrote in justification, "This is politically tendentious and has no legitimate place in objective journalism."
 * After the third edit, I wrote in justification, "This is an issue of fundamental fairness. This site, to maintain its integrity, must resist the urge to pander to partisan political bias in a setting that needs to be fair and impartial."
 * After I received that disgracefully threatening response which accused me of "blathering," (q.v.) I made yet another, a fourth justification, saying, "The word "right-wing" in the way it is being used is so offensive that its use should should be viewed in no better light than a racial or ethnic slur."
 * Go ahead and disagree with the justifications I have made. But I have been scrupulously impeccable in my wording. All I have gotten in response are insults ("blathering"; "vandalizing"), inaccuracies ("That is false"; "you kept edit warring"); and threats ("OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED") I am now warning you that I feel threatened and bullied by these repeated slurs against me. I am not asking you to stop. I am ordering you to stop. Repeated threats after you have been warned to stop will place you in serious legal jeopardy. PleaForFairness (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * will place you in serious legal jeopardy - please retract this legal threat immediately. We do not permit editors to make such threats. I have not read all of the conversation above yet, but it appears to me that you are here to right perceived wrongs rather than build an encyclopedia in a collaborative fashion. firefly  ( t · c ) 16:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * “I’m gonna get my lawyer” is a pathetic threat. They should just be blocked immediately as very, very clearly WP:NOTHERE Dronebogus (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You have been reported to WP:ANI. Dronebogus (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already made it clear that I want the repeated inaccuracies and blatant distortions to stop. I have said in no uncertain terms that these slurs against me make me feel bullied and threatened. I have announced officially that I want them to stop and that, once you have been warned, repeated slurs and threats are illegal. I am not a lawyer and, I suspect, neither are you. I never used the term, "I'm gonna get my lawyer." This is a vicious inaccuracy. Here is what I actually said: "Go ahead and disagree with the justifications I have made. But I have been scrupulously impeccable in my wording. All I have gotten in response are insults ("blathering"; "vandalizing"), inaccuracies ("That is false"; "you kept edit warring"); and threats ("OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED") I am now warning you that I feel threatened and bullied by these repeated slurs against me. I am not asking you to stop. I am ordering you to stop. Repeated threats after you have been warned to stop will place you in serious legal jeopardy. Permit me to add that once you have been asked numerous times to cease and desist with the slurring and threatening inaccuracies [I'm gonna get my lawyer"); ("blathering"; "vandalizing)], you may not continue to issue repeated threats nor to mock my repeated attempts to get you to stop. Again, I am asking for help from anyone on the Wikipedia team. I am desperate. I have tried over and over to get help, to stop the threats toward me. But my pleas have been unsuccessful. No one will help me. Now it's, "YOU HAVE BEEN REPORTED!" To whom? I am now very frightened and, again, I am pleading with Wikipedia to help me. This person has threatened: "They (sic) ?You? should just be blocked immediately as very, very clearly (sic)" Very very clearly what? Do you mean that, after all of my attempts to be reasoned and fair, you still are in favor of muzzling me? How can this be? Are you not required to allow me to speak my mind as I see fit without my hearing your litany of "You will be blocked." "You have been reported!" Somebody at Wikipedia: I'm begging you. Please help me stop these people who keep issuing frightening threats to censor me! PleaForFairness (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. Whatever your specific wording, "Repeated threats after you have been warned to stop will place you in serious legal jeopardy" is clearly a legal threat within the definition of WP:LEGAL. You are, of course, welcome to pursue legal avenues, but you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while such actions are ocurring or threats of such actions (explicit or implicit) are in place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
 You have been blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. 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:. Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Who are you? Are you an employee of Wikipedia? Are you someone who has the authority to block an editor. I want you to make something clear. Have you read the entirety of what I have written and what others have written to me in response? Are you aware that I have begged for protection from being slurred and threatened. But my pleas have fallen on deaf ears? In fact, you have now sided with the aggressors. Take a look at what has been written. I have been defamed. I have been called "blathering." I have been accused of "vandalizing" the site. I have been repeatedly threatened with expulsion. I never ever ever said: "I'm gonna get my lawyer." LOOK for heaven's sake. I said that, in light of the slurs, threats and inaccuracies flung at me, I felt threatened and bullied. I asked, I begged for help. I tried to stand up for myself. I said go ahead and disagree with what I wrote. But stop threatening me. I asked and I still ask right this minute for protection. It is my understanding that once someone has alerted you that (s)he feels threatened and bullied, the threats MUST STOP. Not only did the threats continue, but Dronebogus intentionally mocked my attempts to protect myself by issuing further threats: "You have now been reported." Where does his authority come from? Where does YOUR authority come from? Are you actually saying that you have read the entirety of the thread and can still justify blocking me? Even though I have begged for help? Even though I have been repeatedly threatened? Even though I have asked OFFICIALLY for the bullying to stop? Even though I am asking you right this second, again, to help me protect myself from being bullied and threatened? You STILL stand by your decision to block me? Do I have an accurate understanding here? Please clarify how you (Cullen328) are affiliated with Wikipedia. I'd like you to make you identity clear. By what authority have you taken this action? PleaForFairness (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ADMIN's are entrusted by the WP:COMMUNITY to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. You are blocked for making a legal threat or taking legal action -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 18:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am a Wikipedia administrator who was chosen by the editing community for that role and given certain powers to enforce policy. Among those powers is the ability to block editors for violating policies such as making legal threats. You can find out much more about me on my userpage. I am not an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. When you wrote, you violated that policy. You were justifiably warned about various policies and guidelines and you responded with indignation rather than studying and complying with the policies and guidelines that were pointed out to you. This is a collaborative project and edit warring behavior is not tolerated here. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

First Amendment
Hi PleaForFairness, I hope you don't mind a comment from me, but it sounds as if you might not properly understand the First Amendment. Above you speak of what the "Constitution strictly forbids: the arbitrary removal of my right to free speech". But the First Amendment only prohibits government from preventing free speech, and does not apply to private organisations or spaces like Wikipedia. As it says at First Amendment to the United States Constitution, "Although the First Amendment applies only to state actors, there is a common misconception that it prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * They don’t properly understand anything. Dronebogus (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)