User talk:Keepingitabuck

May 2021

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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am asking for a more concrete reason why a reader who as noted has commented twice in my use of Wikipedia in decades of readership, who notes concerns of whitewashing, is both called a sock puppet, fully revoked from a talk page despite obvious missing journalism pieces on the topic and heavy reversions on review of the edit page. Keepingitabuck (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

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. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 06:29, 15 June 2021 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I do not understand the resason I was blocked for as I have reviewed the rationale of Encylopedia and in my view this block was performed incorrectly as my meager contribution to talk did not nor was it a violation of these tenents - the block violates blocking policy in that it both fails to logically fall into a "Here to build an encyclopedia" content and instead falls into "What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not" - I was also called a sock puppet by the referring editor which is both demonstrably false, and offensive. );Keepingitabuck (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have made two complaints about what you deem whitewashing but don't say specifically what your concerns are, nor do you offer reliable sources with proposed corrections. Your edits also suggest that you are not new at this. I believe the block is correct, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2021 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

This review is inaccurate in several fronts, I am new at this, asserting that I am "not new to this" is not accurate and it is erroneous, e.g. I write well or can use four tildes and thus I'm a liar about being new is a pretty bold claim considering you can pull my IP, nor does it respond to the assertion that the block violates blocking policy, as I was asked to read the guidelines and I did, and I didn't violate them, much less I was permanently banned, e.g. the strongest ban Wiki lists. Instilling a ban because a users single sentence meager offering into Wikipedia edits that the article looks skewed, is a self-explanatory statement if one takes 5 minutes to look at the edit history, and I don't violate anything by not citing my statement, just remove it if that's the case, I didn't spam this. I did not want to offend people by specifying this article or that, your assertion here has nothing to do with ""Here to build an encyclopedia" guidelines. Please adjudicate specifically that this is an invalid block as it violates the subtext under "Here to build an encyclopedia" and not lack of syntax/links in my comment. If that is your claim to uphold a ban is my inability to use proper diction in wiki, then provide me the article citing it, as it would surprise the daylights out of me. This is my last request and I am getting utterly zero negotiation e.g. "We feel we have properly warned you, I am rolling this back to a ten-day ban" and you're merely upholding the prior editor's dubious permaban. At this point I am going to be just fascinated telling people that I wrote in a wiki discussion after seeing that an article looked skewed and was permabanned and 3x denied, called a sock puppet when they have my IP which doesn't show this, and then insinuated I was a liar when I said I had literally used Wikipedia for editing twice in ten years. Keepingitabuck (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Okay, I have looked through the sources that you have cited to back up your view that the article Peter Daszak might have neutrality issues and some of the Newsweek and Daily Telegraph sources might be used to correct that - though please note there is a general consensus that the quality of the former has greatly deteriorated in the last ten years, and that the latter is prone to right-wing bias. I think that also proves evidence that you are trying to do the right thing, so I am unblocking.

The problem you seemed to have is, rather than trying to update the article directly, or start a discussion on the talk page about lack of sourcing in some areas, you went straight to another editor's page and accused them of white-washing. That's going to get you off on the wrong foot immediately. It's far more likely that nobody has looked at these sources yet and done anything with them. I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Citing sources and use these citations carefully as you update the article. Furthermore, if your edits are challenged, remain calm and state your point of view clearly. (Also paging Drmies as blocking admin). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Someone else will review this, but I cannot pull anyone's IP. Only checkusers can, and only under certain circumstances. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

And no, this is not a negotiation, you will either address the reason for the block, or not. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Admin

Incorrect, the reason for the block has been addressed, the block violates block policy, blocking policy which was provided to me by your group.

The editor reports assertions to Admin he knows, calling me a sock and harassing. Yet my comment was solely on an article as a whole, respectful, and as a counterpoint to the prior poster on his talk page advocating locking the page. It is not harassment in any way. Admin indefinitely bans me over context erroneous to editors complaint. Why did the editor RandomCanadian editor think my assertion was harassment towards him, when I merely said in general, as a reflex to a seasoned editor that the article looked skewed?

This editor interprets my generalistic comment on article quality as an attack on him, his projection -- not reality. 

Turns out after several hours of reviewing why exactly this editor went ballistic on me, RandomCanadian wasn't on the fence with his edits, he has 500+ COVID-related edits , with generally a one side vantage. On review of wiki policies, you have a duty to not promote wikilawyering and bullying of new people, AGF - and I don't see that happening here. This is the editor's homepage, it's welcoming and not hostile or POV-driven at all. It is so positive that I cannot even write it in here as the filter blocks it as potentially unconstructive - it is no wonder the Daszak article is void of any critic when top neutral news publications have written about him negatively in excess of 30 times in detail since May.

---

Please could you explain clearly what you think are the specific issues with Peter Daszak's article, and do you have sources of information to back up those arguments? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I am failing to see how or why this question addresses the validity of the block in the first place. Here is a basic Google Search Pull, e.g. how I arrived at the page. All of them contain negative analysis which is void from the article hence my comment. This ban is not related to sourced content, and spending time asking it rather than adjudicating the specific invalid nature of the block, is questionable.

Ritchie333 Please retract your assertion that I accused an editor of whitewashing, as it is provably false. I asserted the article looked whitewashed, an article he participated in. The notion that I am supposed to trace 100-year news publicans for slant when I clearly noted it was directly from Google, is erroneous and it seemed like much more of a political check than vetting sourced journalism, which was also startling. Also, this is moot as lack of accurate season editors on this article who are not using epithets on their home page and are neutral, clearly caused readers to attempt to take a crack at editing, and this was then used in hilariously Orwellian fashion to lock the page. Thus, as such, the chilling effect will not result in me not using this account further for another decade if at all, as your team banned me for 17 days and 3 denials over a simple single sentence, and continually badgered me for links that are blatantly obvious on Google.

Good day, and I hope you follow Jimbo's guidelines and not Comic Book Store Guy as this was clearly a heavy-handed and absurd way to handle a new user, and it will not grow your community of editors, only cement the landed gentry and push anyone who wishes to actually contribute to either write 1000 word essays in their defense or become sock puppets.