User talk:Lokisandal34

December 2022

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Alejandro Mayorkas. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the NYTimes article. But the HIAS aspect stays.The American people should know facts about public officials as it pertains to their jobs. Lokisandal34 (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you think that you're here to right great wrongs? You're not. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Alejandro Mayorkas 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; read about 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were factual and not against policy. Lokisandal34 (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is the policy that you violated. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no original research. The HIAS explicitly listed him as a member of their board. Lokisandal34 (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did they talk about conflict of interest? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant. Nevertheless, I offered to remove that. Lokisandal34 (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is also against policy. Enjoy your Christmas. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Alejandro Mayorkas. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2022 (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).

Lokisandal34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here Lokisandal34 (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked because you were edit-warring. Your unblock request does not address that fact. JBW (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2022 (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.

I published factual content with no original research. Everything was sourced directly from the primary author. The editor vandalized my contribution. I broke no rules. Lokisandal34 (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2022 (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).

Lokisandal34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made no in factual claims. I never used coat hanger or original content. The Admin arbitrarily deleted my content and refused to allow me to post. Lokisandal34 (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, but again do not discuss that in this request. If you make another request that does not discuss edit warring, you may lose access to this page for the duration of the block. 331dot (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2022 (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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Center for Immigration Studies. Roundish ⋆t c) 23:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: re the above warning - if they do this again, they need either a full block or a block from the page. I'll do it if I'm around. Doug Weller talk 09:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 09:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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-1992 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 09:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month as you may have expected, because of your return to edit-warring following the end of your previous block for the same thing. If you continue in the same way then before long you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. It is clear from things you have written that you are convinced that you are right, and that anyone who does not see things in the same way as you is just being unreasonable; however, in a collaborative project it is necessary to accept the fact that sometimes that happens. That is how Wikipedia works. If we were to simply allow anyone who is convinced they are right to just keep reverting an article to their personally preferred version, the result would be chaotic reverting and counter-reverting until eventually all but one of the people involved had given up. That would simply mean that the most stubborn editor would always eventually get their way, which would not be a good way of resolving disputes. We don't do it that way. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2022 (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).

Lokisandal34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here I did not engage in “edit warring.” An unregistered user originally deleted my contribution without cause. They did not list a specific reason according to Wikipedia’s content moderation policy. The unregistered user was upset regarding a specific link and made a false claim. However, I collaborated with the user and added new sources to appease them. These sources concretely proved that the content was factual. There was nothing subjective about the source. Furthermore, I specifically offered to change the wording and heard no response back. I firmly believe that the unregistered user had no legitimate reason to delete my contribution. It was neither vandalism, original research, abusive content, a coat hanger, or a Trojan horse. Users cannot just delete factual, relevant contributions simply because they disagree with the content.

lastly, edit warring applies to three straight attempts, although I only made one Lokisandal34 (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You unambiguously engaged in edit warring. You're not accused of vandalism, original research, abusive content, hanging coats, or bringing in horses of any sort. You're not blocked because of your content, you're blocked because of your behavior. Regarding "three straight attempts", that's a very wrong misinterpretation of WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR, which says "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. ". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:47, 29 December 2022 (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.

January 2023

You have been blocked temporarily from editing certain pages (Alejandro Mayorkas) for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are pathetic. You are obviously silencing the truth because of fear. Lokisandal34 (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to extend this block site-wide? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what justification? Your arbitrary dislike of my contributions? I did not know bots had feelings. Lokisandal34 (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2023 (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).

Lokisandal34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1.) I never engaged in original research. I directly cited information back to its original source. 2.) I did not engage in edit warring. Nobody deleted my contribution, nor did I revert a deleted contribution.

Decline reason:

One open unblock at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2023 (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.

Lokisandal34 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2023 (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).

Lokisandal34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not broken any Wikipedia policy to constitute getting blocked. This was an arbitrary and capricious action not based on Wikipedia standards. Lokisandal34 (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You engaged in personal attacks by calling a user a "bot". Your entire purpose in being here seems to be to push your POV about HIAS and Secretary Mayorkas, not setting aside your political views and collaborating with other editors to achieve a consensus. It would clearly be a net negative to the project to unblock you. I see no pathway to you being unblocked without a topic ban from post-1992 American politics(as per the sanctions you were already notified about above); possibly not even then, but if there's a path forward, that's it. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2023 (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).

Lokisandal34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Calling one user a bot is not substantial enough to be blocked based on Wikipedia’s guidelines. “Bot” is not a protected class nor is it considered a slur. Wikipedia guidelines state that conduct must be substantial in order to block. I did not use the term with any meaning to defame, offend, or demean the user. As for the other allegation, Alejandro Mayorkas served on the board of HIAS. That is a biographical fact no different than where he attended college. It cannot count as original research or a “POV.” The point of Wikipedia is to allow open source users the chance to factually edit profiles. Furthermore, I listed the source directly from the HIAS site. Therefore, blocking me from editing American politics would be unwarranted. I have never used original research or non-neutral viewpoints. My intention was only to add truthful biographical facts to his profile, without political spin. Lastly, I have collaborated with other users on multiple different profiles, not simply Mayorkas. Therefore, your assertion that I only focused on him is incorrect, and I implore you to look at my other edits. Overall, the basis for my ban is weak. Jimmy Wales did not create Wikipedia so that people who disagree with others — or dislike them — can ban them for arbitrary reasons. My conduct has not warranted a permanent ban from the site.

Decline reason:

You are not permanently banned, you are indefinitely blocked. These are two very different things. Nothing here suggests it would be appropriate to lift your block. Yamla (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2023 (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).

Lokisandal34 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have done nothing to warrant a block. The semantic difference between a ban and a block is not relevant. As for “nothing here suggest it would be appropriate to lift your block.” 1.) I did not violate any Wikipedia policies. Calling someone a “bot” is not a slur according to the guidelines. And even if it were, I would first need a warning before blocking me. Wikipedia states clearly that “repeat” violations warrant either banning or blocking. 2.) I never engaged in original research or “POV” editing. This accusation was made with no evidence. 3.) I have collaborated with other users and edited more than one page. Therefore, the accusation that I only care about one page is without merit. There is no objective basis for my block. Wikipedia guidelines states that “substantial evidence” is required to block another user. What “substantial evidence” is there of my wrongdoing? I have disproven every accusation thrown my way.

Decline reason:

Talk page access removed. Continuing to argue how you are in the right, ignoring every reason why you were blocked, all of this is enough to decline yet again and remove talk page access. You can request an unblock at UTRS at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2023 (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.