User talk:Gu64rk g

June 2020[edit]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo police shoving incident[edit]

Your recent editing history at Buffalo police shoving incident 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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:Gu64rk_g reported by User:Arms & Hearts (Result: ). Thank you. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was reverted without a discussion which is against Wikipedia best practices. After being blocked, the only reason given was that 'you're trying to promote a conspiracy theory about "scanning," whatever that's supposed to mean'. At no point did I mention scanning and in no way was I promoting a consipracy theory. The article seems to omit the necessary information to make it impartial. Gu64rk g (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Buffalo police shoving incident. 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 ~~~~}}. —Cryptic 15:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was reverted without a discussion which is against Wikipedia best practices. After being blocked, the only reason given was that 'you're trying to promote a conspiracy theory about "scanning," whatever that's supposed to mean'. At no point did I mention scanning and in no way was I promoting a consipracy theory. The article seems to omit the necessary information to make it impartial. Gu64rk g (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You inserted inappropriate commentary here [1]. Per WP:BURDEN, it is up to you to show that your change is appropriate and policy-compliant. Acroterion (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for getting back to me (I am fairly new to Wikipedia as an editor but I've read many many articles throughout my life! I just felt this one needed more information). I removed 'appeared to show Martin Gugino pass his phone over the police officer's equipement' in the next edit [2]. It didn't say anything about scanning but I can see that it could be seen as a view. I then altered the text to say 'Close up video footage of Gugino with his phone in his right hand.', I was careful to remove anything that mentioned a view whilst adding correct information fundamental to encyclopedic neutrality. Video footage shows the 'scanning' or 'waving' or nothing at all; it is now up to the readers to make their mind up what it is. I personally feel it is not clear of either activity but it is important to the article as controversy has centered on why the police felt the need to push him and a photographic recording is a factual recording of events. Gu64rk g (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were still edit-warring to insert the image, which you had used as a basis for the promulgation of a baseless conspiracy theory. It is up to this encyclopedia to provide content supported by reliable sources reflecting reality as it is seen by said reliable sources, and not equivocate when those sources describe such theories as nonsense. Wikipedia isn't a congenial home for conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notices[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 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.

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.

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.

Acroterion (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that discussion of Mr. Gugino must respect the biographies of living persons policy. This applies everywhere on Wikipedia, not just article space. Acroterion (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.

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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ignored my warning above and have tried to deny, in the thread you started, that you were talking about the "scanning" conspiracy theory, I've blocked you for disruptive editing in violation of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy and for abuse of the article talkpage and the article to promote a conspiracy theory that has been thoroughly discussed and dismissed by reliable sources. Acroterion (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never mentioned scanning apart from replying to an accusation that I was mentioning scanning. This is a very sad moment in my life. I am new to editing wikipedia but I have read around ten articles on best practice and feel I have followed them correctly. I feel like I had something to say on the neutrality of the article. I did make a mistake yesterday reverting the edits, I had not read the information regarding edit warring prior to that. Please do unblock me as I do feel this is unfair and I have not been given a reasonable amount of time to learn the etiquette of wikipedia nor have I been given sufficient reasons. I never mentioned scanning with the exception of replying to the accusation. My other posts seemed valid. I am happy to go through the talk page as is the proper procedure. Gu64rk g (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}}

For the third time, you started a talkpage thread about "scanning", and you inserted the "waving" commentary into the GIF caption. Wikipedia isn't a forum for you to spitball accusations about people that reliable sources have determined to be nonsense. We take that policy seriously. Acroterion (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment about their repeated insistence, both here and in their reply to me at the talk page where they said "It seems you have got me mixed up with someone else! I have never said anything about scanning!": Actually the title of that very discussion section that they had started was "Phone waving / scanning" and began, "I believe the waving and scanning video I have uploaded..." -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page only were the words 'scanning' mentioned. I specifically said I do not believe it to be scanning 'personally feel it is not clear of either activity' (this seems like the Life of Brian scene where he is stoned for saying Jehovah). I did not mention the scanning word in the article. It is also important to mention that I was accused of ' rv conspiracy theory nonsense' before I mentioned the word scanning. I wrote 'scanning' in response to those accusations. (13:18, 18 June 2020‎ Arms & Hearts talk contribs‎ 24,904 bytes -241‎ rv conspiracy theory nonsense). I subsequently changed the edit to remove the words 'Close up video footage appeared to show Martin Gugino pass his phone over the police officer's equipement immediately before they pushed him' and replaced them with 'Close up video footage of Gugino with his phone in his right hand.'. If you see the video it is very clear Gugino does pass his phone over the officer's equipement and that is unmistakeable and could easily show why the police pushed him which is fundamental to the page 'Buffalo police shoving incident' as it is paramount to the shoving part. As you can see I have never promoted a conspiracy theory and I have never claimed he was scanning. I hope you see this as a misunderstanding. I have tried to engage on the talk page and since my initial two reverts and temporary block (of which I am sorry and apologised) I have not tried to make another revert or try to add the close up gif on the page again. I am new to wikipedia edits and I apologise if I have unwittingly missed important etiquette. There is another user on there purporting RFAM scanning, that was not me and I don't even know what that is. Gu64rk g (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2020 (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).

Gu64rk g (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

On the talk page only were the words 'scanning' mentioned. I specifically said I do not believe it to be scanning 'personally feel it is not clear of either activity' (this seems like the Life of Brian scene where he is stoned for saying Jehovah). I did not mention the scanning word in the article. It is also important to mention that I was accused of ' rv conspiracy theory nonsense' before I mentioned the word scanning. I wrote 'scanning' in response to those accusations. (13:18, 18 June 2020‎ Arms & Hearts talk contribs‎ 24,904 bytes -241‎ rv conspiracy theory nonsense). I subsequently changed the edit to remove the words 'Close up video footage appeared to show Martin Gugino pass his phone over the police officer's equipement immediately before they pushed him' and replaced them with 'Close up video footage of Gugino with his phone in his right hand.'. If you see the video it is very clear Gugino does pass his phone over the officer's equipement and that is unmistakeable and could easily show why the police pushed him which is fundamental to the page 'Buffalo police shoving incident' as it is paramount to the shoving part. As you can see I have never promoted a conspiracy theory and I have never claimed he was scanning. I hope you see this as a misunderstanding. I have tried to engage on the talk page and since my initial two reverts and temporary block (of which I am sorry and apologised) I have not tried to make another revert or try to add the close up gif on the page again. I am new to wikipedia edits and I apologise if I have unwittingly missed important etiquette. There is another user on there purporting RFAM scanning, that was not me and I don't even know what that is. It is clearly a case of mistaken identity. Gu64rk g (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits didn't rely on secondary sources, but were original research. They were also biography of living persons violations. You won't be unblocked to continue your conspiracy theory edits. PhilKnight (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2020 (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.

@PhilKnight: In terms of the conspiracy theory of scanning, my first mention was 'I personally feel it is not clear of either activity' (scanning or waving), I made no mention of it in the article apart from denying the conspiracy theory accusation Talk:Buffalo_police_shoving_incident, my attempt was to show the incident and let the reader of the article decide. Gu64rk g (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second edit was intended to clarify false reports in the media that he was arrested 300 times, I took his declaration from his own blog which said he was arrested four times saying none resulted in a conviction, there are also false reports in the media saying Gugino did not suffer from health problems, again I wrote that he did. I thought this added to the quality of the article. I had read quite a bit of literature before making the second post and it says that blogs are permitted if they are 'written or published by the subject of the article', WP:BLPSELFPUB, so in this case I hope you can see where I was coming from. I am happy to admit I made a mistake with the source here and I am happy to accept the revert if that is the consensus. I was unsure of the biography of living persons revert because I thought it was of a neutral point of view (NPOV), verifiability (V), no original research (NOR) because it was Martin Gugino's own words. I also believed at the time I was being sensitive to the Gugino and the article. I had started a conversation in the talke page and was waiting a consensus as per the rules in Wikipedia. Gu64rk g (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The third edit I made was reverted due to WP:RSP. The Epoch Times was distributed in London and I was not aware it was an unreliable source. The quote I referred to was correct and was the same in Reuters so we could have just found a different source. I hope this is forgiveable. Gu64rk g (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I hope you can see I have tried to enhance the article, in no way promoted a untrue information and have made reasonable judgements on the sources even if I needed to find better sources. I am new to editing wikipedia pages so I hope that you can see that any of the mistakes I made were not intended to mislead, were made with encyclopedic neutrality in mind and I hope any lack of etiquette on my part is forgiveable. Gu64rk g (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]