User talk:Rjstrock

Welcome!

Hello, Rjstrock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck or looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Help Desk, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians don't bite the newcomers. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to be bold when editing!

If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at my talk page!

Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:

Best of luck to you, and happy editing!

Luna Santin 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Metalworking & rotary and steel-rule dies

Hi, welcome to the metalworking project. I've responded to your question at the project talk page. Feel free to ask for any further clarification, or just be bold and see how it pans out — Graibeard^(talk) 02:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

We describe false claims about people, living or recently dead, as false. That you do not believe it to be false is of no relevance here; Wikipedia is not based upon what you personally believe, but upon what is published by reliable sources. Reliable sources declare the claims about the Murder of Seth Rich to bbe false, therefore we will describe them as false. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Rjstrock reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: ). Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Murder of Seth Rich. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Murder of Seth Rich

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Because I have been targeted by a self-described liberal propogandist for correcting biased language in the Murder of Seth Rich. This person then proceeded to file a false report against me. If Wikipedia wishes to be recognized as a legitimate source of information, it should not allow the liberal bias that has destroyed the reputations of other internet entities like Google, Facebook and Twitter. I was also not provided with a warning as required by Wikipedia's own TOS by NorthBySouthBaranof, but was notified ONCE that a complaint had been registered AFTER I had already been blocked. Wikipedia needs to live by it's own standards as well, if it wish's to be regarded as a legitimate source of information.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:11, 23 August 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

The false claim against me has not been reviewed by an impartial administrator. It is clear by Yunshui's response that he/she/it did not take any time at all to review my unblock request as the denial of said request was almost instantaneous. This further supports the notion that Wikipedia is riddled with liberal bias. Thank you, Yunshui, for helping to strengthen my argument. If there are any unbiased administrators at Wikipedia, I would request that they actually take the time to review all aspects of my request. Rjstrock (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring. You will need to address that, and only that, in any future unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 13:38, 23 August 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was not properly warned according to Wikipedia's own TOS and have since been a target of biased administrators. Rjstrock (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This completely unbiased admin agrees with the block. While a warning would have been beneficial, the fact is you were edit warring. Continued use of the unblock template to attack admins however may result in the loss of your talk page access. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

RickinBaltimore, you are clearly not unbiased. And now, like all good fascists, you have threatened to silence me for daring to question you. This will make excellent material for countering any donation request campaigns Wikipedia pursues in the future. As a Wikipedia contributor of over 10 years I have never been targeted in such a way. I attempted to correct an error, and one of your crack historical revisionists began edit warring with me. Rather than make any attempt to mediate the situation, or look into the validity of my original contribution to that wikipage, administrators immediately blocked me at the request of this individual who actually started the edit war. Rjstrock (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2018 (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.

Block amended

Calling other users "fascists" is not acceptable, sorry. Your block has been extended to one month for this attack, and your talkpage access has been revoked for the duration. If you wish to appeal again, you may use the UTRS process, although I would advise that you read the guide to appealing blocks first. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that this user is WP:NOTHERE and is just here to do battle. They don't belong here at all. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BullRangifer. This editor is practically begging for an indef block. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What strikes me as suspicious is a history of rather ordinary edits in 2006, then only 3 edits in 12 YEARS, followed by the polemic edits recently. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that exact pattern numerous times with accounts pushing right-wing POV. My best guess is that it's an account that was hijacked and then sold of to the highest bidder. I have no sympathy for them, nor do I feel any particular need to rehabilitate them. Just indef them and be done with it, I say. Search the ANI archives for my signature (and my main username: MjolnirPants, to find cases before I started using the elder futhark runes in my sig) for instances where I supported indeffing an editor for right-wing POV pushing and about 80% of those cases will be an editor with virtually the exact same pattern: edits for a while, then goes dormant, then comes back with a vengeance sometime after late 2016 to push pro-Trump, pro-Russian or just a general right-wing POV. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #22444 was submitted on Aug 23, 2018 18:19:28. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not okay. They can do this in public, right here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they can't as their talk page access was revoked. The UTRS appeal was declined.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And UTRS access was removed for 14 days as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic that this entire incident started over me questioning the use of the phrase "false claim" only to have it end with an Admin making a false claim/accusation.