Notalawyerxyz
Welcome!
editHello, Notalawyerxyz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful
edit- Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum, additions to talk pages should be about improving the article within the guidelines, not voicing one's opinion on the subject matter.
- "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
- We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
- Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
- Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
- Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
August 2015
edit
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to William H. Orrick III. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Talk:Obongo
edit
Talk:Obongo, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Obongo and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Obongo during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
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-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.
July 2022
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)- Wikipedia would be a better place if they took away your ability to be an admin, because you clearly abuse your power for political reasons. Notalawyerxyz (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Notalawyerxyz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block was not necessary. I was addressing an issue and extreme conflicts of interest, including a conflict of interest by an admin, and documenting my sources. This admin had previously deleted a post where I used open records from the FEC proving my point, again in talk, to show extreme conflicts of interest. Another bias admin and stepped in and decided to take away my posting rights, because I was too effective at what I was doing. This is a complete embarrassment for wikipedia, and I suggest getting a super admin to clean out these lesser politically motivated admins who are bullying users who undermine the politics of these lower admins. I would recommend purging the admin rights of both ToBeFree and EvergreenFir; the more you silence people, particularly people of my abilities, the more of a joke you become.Notalawyerxyz (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nah, that's not going to work at all. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 19:19, 29 July 2022 (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.
Notalawyerxyz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do not apologize jpgordon, and I do not admit any wrong. I reject this notion of guilty by accusation, and it is obvious that you never reviewed any evidence establishing the false indictment. I understand that wikipedia has a bias against people who challenge the left wing narrative, I merely posted the facts, documented sources, including your own logs, that were part of the talk discussion-not the article itself. They were not attacks, using primary sources is not original research but showing the facts as they stand. That is the only reason why my post have been deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recession&diff=prev&oldid=1101061013) and why I have been blocked ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Recession&diff=prev&oldid=1101148443 ). Now if you don't mind, please find me an admin who is not actively engaging in prosecuting and judging conservative speakers in your illicit star chambers saying we are guilty by accusation. Not someone who just writes me off as, "Nah, that's not going to work at all.". That is very unprofessional, and fails to provide grounds on which to appeal upon...not that there was any substance to the original complaint to begin with. If the admins are not willing to be diligent providing the issues, the arguments, and the evidence to reach their conclusions, then they should not be admins to begin with in a system that offers a charging and review process. Such admins are just making wikipedia a jokeNotalawyerxyz (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See WP:GAB to understand how to craft an appropriate unblock request. You'll likely only get one more chance, so make it count. Yamla (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2022 (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.
User:Yamla, User:jpgordon, User:ToBeFree . I can obviously see you didn't read. Otherwise you would have provided an adequate response that provides me adequate notice of the issues, the arguments, and the evidence of the allegations made against me. You have failed to provide the very basics. My original response was that the block was not necessary,which is of course from the BAG. I am not going to grovel and admit I did something wrong, when I did nothing wrong, and no one can point out the issues, arguments, and reasons behind these false accusations. you cannot even provide the most basic aspects of due process. I reject your notion of guilty by accusation. I stand by the fact that I did not violate the rules, and you have continued to fail to provide me any basis of how I ran afoul of them. Because I have not. A complaint is not proof of a violation. Prove that I violated them, show me the evidence, show me the reason, show me the issues. your admin just made accusatory labels with absolutely no substance behind them. I have demanded proof, and yet again we see that the admins cannot provide any. You don't care about the facts, you don't care about the evidence, you don't even care about your own rules. You are proving over and over again that the administrators on wikipedia are a complete joke. you charge us, you say we are guilty of something and punish us, and when we demand proof, reasoning, and evidence, you come up repeatedly empty. You had ample opportunity to prove the charges against me, but none of you have the ability to prove I violated your rules. The charges are baseless and empty, you have had plenty of time to plead your case, and I see a complete failure to prosecute because there is no basis to the prosecution, and just jumping to an accusation of guilt and the sentences of the deprivation of logos. If you can't prosecute the charges levied against me, then you are obligated to dismiss them.Notalawyerxyz (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
User:ToBeFree You are hereby put on notice an intent to seek arbitration to include both restoring my account, and removing you from an admin. I Recommend that you admit your own misconduct in blocking my ability to post, and I further request that you voluntarily step down as an admin in recognition of your administrative misconduct.
User:Yamla, User:jpgordon You are hereby put on notice an intent to seek arbitration to include both restoring my account, and that your adminship be removed pending better training in how to conduct administrative investigations and responding to user requests, and checking your own bias against editors. I recommend that you admit that your own response was sloppy, biased, unprofessional, and beneath what would be expected of men for thousands of years. https://biblehub.com/niv/acts/25.htm . You are clearly undeserving of the title of man by your own actions which I I attribute to your own laziness; you should not be administrators, but there is still opportunity that you can be rehabilitated and your humanity restored.
Notalawyerxyz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There has been false allegations made against me by an abusive administrator, and so far no admin has been able to prosecute their charge against me. We begin by asserting that the block was unecessary for that very reason. Bear in mind, the activity occured in the talk pages. Not an article.
So if we continue onto the line items. 1. We see a restriction based upon of forum. The accusor did not specify a particular category, because he was unable. He was acting purely on his own bias because I was too effective. i didn't make any advocacy, i didn't promote anything, and I didn't recruit anyone. So the first prong obviously fails. The second prong appears to apply for non nuetral pov, I provided facts, and reasonable objectives, and documented my sources from governmental records, as well as wikipedia's own logs which suggest an admin who was deleting content was possibly conflicted. There was no nov violation. The third prong is scandle mongering. Again, I provided links to public FEC election records, university websites of faculty, as well as wikipedia logs. So this is not "gossip", not "hearing it through the grapevine. Furthermore, these are publications that the involved parties knowingly made public. Is making a political donation scandelous? if it is, it would be the person making the donation not the person bringing them into light. With that, there is nothing that created a scandel. This wasn't obviously a piece of self-promotion. So the 4rth prong instantly fails. The 5th prong is about advertising. I didn't advertize anything. in short, accusor failed to satify any of the criteria in forum and this false charge should be dismissed.
2. The charge of OR fails on its face. Under the Original research provision, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research . This charge needs to be dismissed.
3. The third charge is deals with personal attacks. There was no basis for this. No one person was attacked. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Casting_aspersions, we see examples oof what constitutes an attack. My accuser provided no basis for this allegations The credibility of the neutrality of "non-parttisian" organization was called to question, based upon the members own political donations. Did they attack themselves by donating to political candidates? They put it out as a public record, all I did was say, here it is. It is not an attack. Or in the case of a wiki edit 15 year ago via ip on what was then an obscure topic, it is reasonable to connect the dots into more obscure topics, to suggest that it came from the U Wisc-madison economics department who had a professor who may have been using wikipedia to promote an organization he belonged to. I specifically didn't say who edited it, nor declared that they did. There is an unressolved issue, but this is where the available facts point to. The first example includes making continued accusations against a particular person. This is the same university system where one of your editors deleted a previous post of mine, and so I raised the issue of of, not a declaration of, a potential conflict. An issue is not a fact, it is a question. Rather than addressing this question, I see unfounded accusations levied against me with an presumption of guilt. There have been no attacks, and certainly no continued attacks, against a person or persons. The second example and 2nd, is simply not to make unreasonable accusations without unreasonable cause. I didn't make unreasonable accusations. What i did say, was documented. Again this ties into the 4rth example, advising users not to make accusations of misbehavior without evidence. I didn't make allegations of misbehavior, but even if we suppose this were the basis, everything was fully documented. So again, the 4rth example does not apply. Again, the 5th prong is pretty much the same, just not to do so shrilling for a company. There is no company, self or external, involved in my editing. There is a criteria at the end, which is against revealing other wikipedians against their wishes. I didn't expose anyone as the editor, just narrowed it down to a university by the poster's ip address (which anyone can do when they edit by ip address), pointed out a strong likelihood of their economics department based upon interest, and the most likely editor is...dead. Died 8 years ago, and I posted the link to the obituary as well. Even if he wasn't dead, i also specified that the connection couldn't prove it was or wasn't him. The question of who posted it 15 years ago remains an unresolved issue, and present major recession controversy may be related to this 15 yer old post that violated the first prong of the forum rule. Doh! That is an issue. Again, i did not violate anything under personal attack.
I make no apologies to the admins, who issues or otherwise continued the block, who are expected to know the rules better than us editors and failed miserably. They were abusing their discretion, and i am considering arbitration to handle their continued malfeasement and bias. Wikipedia needs to seriously address the problem it has with their administrators It should be noted, that no user should be expected to write entire essays to get their posting rights back because of the abuse of certain administrators. What I had to go through, and what i am sure others are going through, is completely unacceptable and changes need to be made internally with wikipedia to protect the rights of the editors from the gross abuse of certain administrators. If an admin makes a claim against us, at least have the dignity to put together a case and prosecute it and have have right to defend against it. No more of these star chambers by a privy council of fools whose ambition it is to ban conservatives. So far no one, despite being tagged, can put together a case to back up their false accusation. Nor have they dismissed it for their failure to prosecute.
Decline reason:
No. Just no. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2022 (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.
user:Jimbo_Wales hello Jimbo wales, I am hoping that you could get involved in this matter of an abusive administrator. As you can tell from the evidence and the history, i have not violated any of wikipedia's terms of abuse. The admins who malciously targetted failed to specific any valid violation of wikipedia policy. they are maliciously targettng conservative speakers with false labels of violations, and despite repeated efforts I cannot get an admin to explain the issues, the nature, the arguments, or the evidence of their so-called violation. Furthermore, we are expected to wrote long essays, in the absence of any information, as to our innocence. this is unacceptable when they are unable to present a case of any violation, nor specifically what prong, nor theory of how we violated the policy in their imagination.
i am asking for the following remedies. 1. Restore my account. 2. Recall User:ToBeFree from adminship for his unfounded false accusation. 3. Remove User:Yamla, and User:jpgordon on a temporary basis. 4. Provide adequate training to admins about what is and isn't a violation, and to communicate precisely the basis for their prosecution as to provide us adequate appealable grounds. 5. When Yamla and jpgordon have adequate training, when they are able to establish proofs as to what is a violation and what isn't, then you may properly restore their powers.
When the admins throw baseless accusations with just labels, and without pointing to specifics, On what basis are we to appeal? We can cite that it is unnecessary, but the other lazy admins just rubber stamp the decisions of the other admins without specifying any detail. Even when requested.
As you know, Wikipedia's problem with bias admins have gone on for at least a decade. It has been the right of all men since the days of ancient to know the nature of the accusations levied against them, but not here on wikipedia and the punishment is automatic by accusation by people who can't deal with FACTs that undermine their own political leanings. The admins here have too much power. I would urge you to make sure that your admins are capable of making a proof when accusing someone of a rule violation. None of the admins so far have, because they can't because I didn't violate the rules. If they are unable to prosecute their case, that is they are unable to make their case, then they should have no ability to block editors. The editors need to have better checks against these abusive admins, from these unfounded findings of guilt, not these faulty appeals process where things are just rubber stamped. Give us precise reasons, narrow down the issue, then let us dissect the finer points to expose these administrative libelers for what they are. We can develop a system of case laws, for which the public is free to scrutinize the decisions, to remove ambiguity, to create uniformity. We can review the specific biases and bullying of certain admins. Of course, admins like ToBeFree would hate this because he wouldn't be able to ban conservatives anymore....and because he can't handle a truth as to formulate a proof-he prefers to bury the truth so he can feel better about himself.
What i have been through, and I am sure what others have been through, are unacceptable. Please put your foot down, and squash these abusive pests wikipedia calls admins.
The third denial of the unblock was instant, and notice they cannot even provide a blanket reason for a denial, nor even put their name to it. Even the form asks the admin to insert a reason, and they can't. I think it demonstrates that the admins responsible are intellectual cowards who toss out false allegations everywhere, and cannot back them up, just for the purpose of burying important facts that undermine their political agendas by banning users. The greatest threat to wikipedia are not those of us who adds researched, well document facts from primary sources documents-but from the admin who seek to silence anyone who can effectively disagrees with them. Notice, these types of admins cannot add any justification, they cannot explain themselves, these just use their powers to bully others because they are personally intellectually impotent and even attempt to defend their [false] premise. Wikipedians need to use the arbitration process to file complaints against these abusive admins, because these types of admins ruin the reputation of wikipedia. Not saying all admins are bad, but we do need to call out the abusive admins and have their powers revoked.
- In all your ranting, you haven't noticed that you have declined your own unblock request (Special:Diff/1101230457). I have fixed that for you now. I'm fixing the talk page access issue too, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.