FightingForRight
Welcome!
edit
|
March 2019
edit
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button
located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. Doug Weller talk 08:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: Hi Doug Weller, thanks for the feedback and the advice you have given me with regards to what I need to use such as writing an edit summary and signing my posts. it was really appreciated. FightingForRight (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions Notification - American Politics
edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Blocked
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)- As I explained to Granitehope: Your account was clearly registered to argue that we should cite Shouldice's own pages for his political views, something he's rather specifically requested of his meatpuppets. You've only tried to understand any opposing view in so far as was necessary to say "nuh-uh!" to them. We're not obligated to pretend that this isn't plainly obvious. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
FightingForRight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi Administrators. I have been blocked unjustly by User: Ian.Thomson. I was engaging in a discussion on the talk page of the article titled Mark Dice and having a civil discussion with the other editors on what should and should not be included in Mark Dice's article. I was following all the talk page guidelines and was conversing civilly with the other editors. Then, the administrator mentioned above came into the conversation, and immediately employed Ad Hominem attacks on me and accused me of meat puppetry, a claim he was not able to back up. He provided no evidence whatsoever of how my statements or actions were worthy to be blocked, only stating that it was obvious that I had bad motives for my editing. He did not bother to assume good faith and made an accusation without evidence. I was acting in a well intentioned manner in trying to improve Wikipedia and was very disappointed that an administrator would result to attacks against me, in what was clearly a biased and unsourced claim. I am asking you to please review this block and my comments, and unblock me for this incredible act of injustice. This would be really appreciated so thank you FightingForRight (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You need to address your connection to Asbosaurus (talk · contribs), who was blocked as a sock puppet of yours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
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.
@Granitehope: Hi Granetihope, I have been blocked too by the same user that blocked you, for the exact same reason. This is just plain bias and appalling behaviour of an administrator. I have good faith in the administration and the editors of Wikipedia that they will approach our cases with reason, and I especially thank all the editors including Granitehope, Doug Willard, Valereee, and others whom we were having a civil discussion with. The accusation of meatpupettry that we faced was made without evidence, and although I have great respect for Ian.Thomson and wish no offence to him, i and oyu are extremely disappointed in these decisions. FightingForRight (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you act like a sockpuppet of someone else but are a distinct individual, that is meatpuppetry.
- Also, there's information I'm not going to post here because of WP:OUTING, but I can email it to WP:ARBCOM or reviewing admins if necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: Hi Ian. Could you please clarify why I have been banned again. I know of the accusations, but you did not at all explain how my comments and actions demonstrated or fit into those accusations. I am not a sockpupett and the suspected user that was suspected to be a sockpupett of mine is not. I have never even heard of this user, and I only have one account, this one. With regards to the Meatpuppetry accusation, I am not a puppet of Mark Dice nor am I editing Wikipedia on his behalf, or trying to promote him in someway. I simply have a view that his page should be updated to better improve Wikipedia and I expressed that view in a civil manner. I am interested in politics, and have listened to many people from both sides, to hear from what they have to say. When I came to Wikipedia, I figured I should start editing with something I knew, and I chose to engage in this discussion about Mark Dice, because I felt that the page could be updated. It seems you only blocked me because you didn't like what I was saying. Please explain? FightingForRight (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Hi, I have made the changes you suggested and have updated the block appeal to address the sockpuppetry accusation. Just briefly, I am no sockppuppet and I have never heard of the user you mentioned. Could you please review my appeal again if you have no concerns and lease try to unblock me? FightingForRight (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- A Checkuser found that the Absosaurus account and this one were likely related (and I've got evidence that I can't post here but can email to Arbcom or other admins if necessary which rather proves that Absosaurus was definitely a meatpuppet). Between that and the fact that both accounts were registered after Mark Dice called his fans to "fix" his page, and that both accounts were making the same sort of requests he told his fans to fix his page, Occam's razor favors the explanation that Absosaurus was an account you created to evade your block, and that both accounts were created because of Shouldice's request.
- To be clear: "meatpuppet" doesn't mean that you're Shouldice. It means that you came here as a result of his attempt to rally the base.
- You were given pretty clear warning that if you didn't want this to happen, you should find a different article to work on. You had every opportunity to find other articles, even ones relating to politics, to get your feet wet with, learn how the site works, learn how to accomplish your goals, and then when the current wave of Shouldice fans has long subsided, return to the Mark Dice article to raise concerns you know will be found to be legitimate. But no, you are still making it clear that your primary interest is in the Dice article, other concerns being secondary. If that were not the case, you could have easily said "hey, I'm willing to work somewhere else for now because I can see that right now is indeed a bad time to be making suggestions that happen to line up with Dice's requests."
- And at this point, even if you were completely innocent, the fact that you can't even acknowledge or understand how the situation looks makes it hard to see how you're going to work with others in a cooperative project. You say you like to hear both sides and yet the only possible reality you can seem to acknowledge is your cover story and nothing else. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please don't modify unblock requests once they've been responded to (my decline to your unblock request now looks like I'm purposefully ignoring what you've said). Instead, you should make a new unblock request that addresses any concerns raised. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: Hi Ian, I would love to see the supposed evidence that this user was started up by me. I will say it again, the only account I have is the one I am using now and I have no idea who this Arbosaurus person is, and whether he is a meatpuppet or not is irrelevant to me, since that has nothing to do with me. With regards to the accusation that I had time to leave and edit another article, that is true. But as I said, I wanted to start with politics and I had already started with Mark Dice's page and I wanted to say what I had to say. I didn't want to leave because there was no reason for me to leave, just an accusation without proof. Additionally, in Wikipedia, meat puppetry article, which you can find on the help section, it clearly states that conversing on talk and user pages does not constitute meat puppetry. Just because I have an interest in Mark Dice's article, does not mean that i am engaging in meatpupetry. i do happen to know of the video you have mentioned, however i am not on Wikipedia to follow or serve what the video tells me. For example, the video mentioned subscriber counts and book sales being mentioned on his page, none of which I have proposed. That was essentially the focus of the video, and the political positions which I have proposed got a tiny mention on Mr Dice's video. if this problem on this page is solved, I will continue editing Wikipedia, and I am not here just to edit Mr Dice's page. FightingForRight (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: hi, I apologize for changing my appeal as it did make it look like you wee ignoring what I said. I will change the original appeal back if you wish and make another appeal that addresses your concerns. please review that second appeal and thank you for the feedback. FightingForRight (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
FightingForRight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi Administrators. I have been blocked unjustly by User: Ian.thomson. I was engaging in a discussion on the talk page of the article titled Mark Dice and was having a civil discussion with the other editors on what should and should not be included in Mark Dice's article. I was following all of the talk page guidelines and was conversing civilly with the other editors, as my comments show. then, the administrator mentioned above came into the conversation, and immediately employed Ad Hominem attacks against me, and accused me of Meat Puppetry, a claim he was not able to back up. He provided no evidence whatsoever of how my actions or comments fit the accusation, only stating that it was obvious that I had bad motives for editing. He did not bother to assume good faith and made an accusation without evidence. I am absolutely no meat puppet of Mark Dice, and am not here just to edit his page, nor am I here to serve his interests, I just happen to take an interest in his article and feel that it could be improved, which is what Wikipedia is all about. I was also accused of sock puppetry and that I started a separate account of User: Arbosaurus. This is not true. i have never heard of Arbosaurus and only have one account, this one. I was acting in a well intentioned manner and trying to contribute to Wikipedia, and was very disappointed that an administrator would result to attacks against me, in what was clearly a biased and unsourced claim. I am asking you to please review the block and my comments, and unblock me for this incredible act of injustice. this would be really appreciated, so thank you. FightingForRight (talk) 07:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Please see Examples of bad unblock requests, numbers 2 and 7. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
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 discourages administrators from answering multiple unblock requests. This ensures that one rogue administrator doesn't screw with you by declining every unblock request you make. But, for what it's worth, I personally don't see an obvious connection between you and Asbosaurus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Hi and thankyou for replying. I understand your concern about replying to multiple appeals an i thank you for your feedback and response. I am not expecting you to reply or unblock me, however I would please ask you to offer your opinion of it on this talk page if you want. No pressure and you don't have to do it, but I would really appreaciate you posting a neutral point of view here. FightingForRight (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: Hi Ian i just wanted to add that in my view, you didn't provide any evidence that i was a meat puppett or a sock puppet. I have no connection to user: Arbosaurus and only have one account. With regards to meat puppetry again, in the current policy of meat puppetry, if a user is considered that they are only on Wikipedia to edit a specific article, such as Mark Dice's and in a specific context, that may be a meat puppet. i can tell you right now I am not on Wikipedia solely to edit Mark Dice's page and am not on Wikipedia as a puppet of Mark Dice's. I have my own view that his article could be changed and I have expressed my views on that civilly, and am not at all on Wikipedia solely for him. I am waiting for you to provide any reasonable evidence that I have acted in such a way, as I believe you may have acted over aggressively and in civilly towards me. FightingForRight (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- The evidence of your sockpuppetry involves checkuser data that I can't post here because of WP:OUTING. Because it's your data, though, you are free to post it. CheckUsers can see it, and one of them left a record here.
- As for meatpuppetry, if you cannot or will not understand how your behavior looks to others, nor know when to find something else to work on (as you were given clear warning for) instead of crusading for your views, that's a problem if you plan to work on a cooperative project. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: Hi Ian. As for meat puppetry, you did not give a clear warning until my last chance, which is a violation of a Wikipedia guideline. You should have first assumed good faith, then given me at least 2 or 3 clear warnings that you were going to ban me. you did not and I only realised that you might ban me at the last chance warning. i did not see a reaosn to leave the article as I was doing nothing wrong, and was not engaging in any violations of a policy or guideine. I want to know why you accused me of meat puppetry from the beginning. I am not a sock puppet or meat puppet. I will contribute to Wikipedia long after the Mark Dice fiasco is done if I can. I am not here solely to edit his article, I am simply making a point that I think his article could be improved. Thankyou! FightingForRight (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: Hi. I just wanted to add that I am not crusading for my views, nor trying to right great wrongs, without following Wikipedia's policies such as Verifiability, Neutral Point Of View, and No Original Research. I apologize that my username may sound suspicious and misleading. I made it rather jokingly, and not with an intent to violate Wikipedia's guidelines. You have not replied to my previous comment, requesting real evidence of my accusations for meat puppetry and although I understand you cannot post some information because of privacy concerns, you should be at least giving me a basic understanding for the reasoning behind this unjust block. FightingForRight (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: Hi Ian. If you want me to prove that I am here to build an encyclopedia and not here purely for mark Dice's article, I will be glad to start editing other articles before Mark Dice's article. The reason I did not leave after you only gave me one clear warning was because I was angry and offended that you would lash out and didn't want to leave your behaviour un responded to. I will be glad to demonstrate that I want to build an encyclopedia before I am allowed to come back to Mark Dice's article and edit other articles if you want. If I was a meat puppet, I would just create more accounts and vandalise Mark Dice's page. Since I have demonstrated an interest to build an encyclopedia, it is more evidence that I am not a meat puppet. If you unblock me, and I don't live up to this goal, you can just block me again. FightingForRight (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Hi, I get what you are saying about these unblock appeal examples, however my request is not like the examples you mentioned. Those examples are listed as unacceptable because they are too extreme and are providing no evidence for their statements. I am not doing that. I clearly stated why I deserve to be unblocked, and I stated that Ian Thompson's behaviour was aggressive because it was. You did not bother providing feedback on why you think I should or should not have been blocked, only attacking my unblock request. This is missing the point. FightingForRight (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- If your next request:
- - does not acknowledge that you engaged in sockpuppetry
- - does not acknowledge that you were acting like a meatpuppet for Shouldice
- - does not contain a promise to avoid the Mark Dice article and its talk page in the future
- - tries to make this about "me vs you"
- ...Then I see no reason why we shouldn't revoke your talk page access. The only way you're ever going to appeal your block is admitting that you engaged in sockpuppetry (we have checkuser evidence), admitting that you were disruptive with regard to the Dice article, and stating that you plan to learn to become a productive editor by editing completely unrelated topics. The only purpose your talk page serves at this point is appealing your block and there's no point in us wasting our time with your messages if you don't intend to properly do that. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
FightingForRight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi Administrators. I have been blocked by Ian.Thomson for suspected meat puppetry and sock puppetry. Ian alleges that I am a sockpuppet of User: Arbosaurus and a meatpuppett of Mark Dice for conversing in the talk page of his article. With regards to the sock puppetry accusation, I will profess right now that as of now I only have one account, this one, and I have only used this account. With regards to the meat puppetry accusation, I am going to say it again that I am not a meatpuppett of Mark Dice's and am not on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of editing his article. I was engaging on his talk page in a civil manner and simply expressing a concern I had. Many editors voiced their opinions of disagreement and agreement and that is fine! We were having a constructive conversation, and I was open to hearing other people's views, not in any way disturbing or vandalising the talk page. In addition, I was not violating any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The user that blocked me did so without a proper accusation or evidence of that accusation, and I believe he did not act in good faith or as he should have, by giving a vague warning and blocking me without good justification. In addition, to prove I am not a meat puppet, I am willing to, if unblocked start and complete edits on unrelated articles to show I am here to build an encyclopedia, and if I do not do this, you can simply block me again. I am very disappointed in Ian's behaviour and I think the block was wrong and unjustified. Thankyou! FightingForRight (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
-
- It is clear that your purpose here is to use Wikipedia to publicise political opinions that you think should be more widely seen. It is also clear that you have no intention to change in that respect, and that you are either totally unable or totally unwilling to take in what other editors say to you, so that there is no realistic likelihood of your changing your ways. Moreover, out of "unable or unwilling", several aspects of your editing suggest that the more likely of the two is "unable", in which case there is no hope of your changing your ways. (People can choose to change what they do by choice, but they can't choose to do what they are unable to do.)
- You have now posted three unblock requests which have essentially repeated the same things, without learning from what you have been told. Repeatedly doing that achieves nothing apart from taking up time of administrators who could have spent the same time on more productive tasks, thus causing damage to other aspects of the encyclopaedia. If you do the same a fourth time it is highly likely that your talk page access will be removed, to prevent further waste of time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
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.
@JamesBWatson: Hi James. You have said I am here to publicise a political opinion, but have not at all explained how my comments fit that accusation. All I was trying to do on the mark Dice article was include, not promote his political positions to put more encyclopedic content in his article. I was not trying to promote a political view, only trying to improve Wikipedia to get more information about him on his article. I am also not sure why you said I was either unwilling or unable to change. I do not understand what you mean by unable to change. I offered you a good offer, which was that I would stay away from the Mark Dice article to prove I am here to build an encyclopedia, however you did not even mention that. Surely if I was a puppet of Mark Dice I would have just quit by now or not offered to stay away from his article. I have demonstrated civility and good faith, however you have not shown that you are going to consider my case objectively, and have not at all considered my offer. FightingForRight (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: Hi Ian. I have thought long about this matter. I sincerely understand your perspective on this issue. Editing the Mark Dice article at that point in time with all the controversy surrounding it was bound to arise suspicion. I get that you thought that I was here for wrong motives and I apologise for not clearly showing my opinion or giving your argument due weight. I was offended that you would ignore my arguments and simply accuse me of having bad motives, however I now understand your perspective. Although I understand your perspective, I must say I do have good motives for editing Wikipedia, I really do. Please understand me. I did not intend to cause disruption on the article and was unaware that the level of controversy was that high. I know I had a chance to leave after you gave me a warning, however I was extremely confused about why you would question my motives. I understand your perspective and am asking you to understand mine. I believe this was a gross misunderstanding and both of us failed to understand each other. I am not a meatpuppet of anyone. I have only ever used this account. I am asking you to please unblock me. If you do, I am ready to prove I am here to build an encyclopedia by editing articles unrelated to the Mark Dice article. FightingForRight (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: Hi Ian. I have seen that you have not replied to my comment. Please take in what I am saying to you as it is sincere and concise. I have pledged that if I am unblocked, I would start by editing articles unrelated to Mark Dice to prove I am a worthy contributor. I acknowledge that I may have contributed to the Dice article at the wrong time, but i maintain that my intentions were good and for the benefit of the encyclopedia, and I believe that you should have taken more care in blocking me. Please review this and take me seriously as my concerns are genuine and I am willing to contribute to Wikipedia now. FightingForRight (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
edit
- Hi FightingForRight! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 07:44, Thursday, May 9, 2019 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |