User talk:Ijeffsc

Welcome!

Hi Ijeffsc! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — Newslinger talk 01:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— Newslinger talk 04:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the pages you have edited on Wikipedia to date also fall under the following contentious topics: "Falun Gong, broadly construed" and "All living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles". — Newslinger talk 04:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Times

Please stop personalizing the dispute at Epoch Times. No one is "in control" of the article, and if you have any evidence that someone is furthering their "ideological bent", as opposed to just stating their good-faith opinions on how to improve the encyclopedia, please bring them up in a suitable place (see WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personalizing? Sorry I don't understand that comment.

Looking through the revision history there appears to have been a history of contentious dialogues and when I asked why the article was locked and by whom I got an answer. The editors that have admin status clearly have control and the editors that don't have such status do not have control. That's all that statement means.

I really want this article to be better than it is. Epoch Times has a lot of flaws, much like any media organization but what's in there now isn't neutral to me or many others and the opening statement is just false IFF one uses the provided definition. That's what I'm focusing on and so far I have not seen anyone really address this.

Ideally I'd like to see the article unlocked and I suggested several times some general language that might satisfy everyone. AFAICT no response or interest was made in any of those suggestions nor any hint of interest in improving the article. So it looks like from a lot of others perspective like quite an ideological article. Ijeffsc (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

It will take a couple of weeks to document this. Ijeffsc (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yamla (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2024 (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 only communicate via email if there is a pressing reason, which there is not in this circumstance. Please communicate on-wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk] Per the Wikipedia guidelines I'm still looking for a clarification on the rational for a block. This is a 20 year old account so it seems like ureasonable action on a normal disagreement. Since this is my 4th request for clarification it will also be my last. @ScottishFinnishRadish: Ijeffsc (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although your account is 17 years old, you've made less than 40 edits. The majority of those few edits were disruptively editing the talk page of Epoch Times. Your limited editing history shows no indication that you intended constructively edit, rather that you wanted to right great wrongs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Test Edit

Update. Now I seem to have been blocked from contacting other editors like ClifV. ClifV you can try contacting me from my talk page on RHS menu "Email this user".

I see ClifV has been caught up in this issue. I don't see any way to communicate or help however. I travel a lot so I suspect either an IP address from an ISP in California or an Express VPN IP was at fault here. At the moment I'm in SE Asia.

Just testing to see what technical means I have to respond. Ijeffsc (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Ijeffsc (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Test of communication to ClifV

ClifV let me know if you get this notification.

Ijeffsc (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-Post with ClifV

ClifV and I have managed to establish communications. The sock puppet allegation is our highest priority at the moment we are making a simultaneous post to demonstrate we are two individuals. Ijeffsc (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet allegations

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).

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

Request reason:

This is *only* a request to remove the sock puppet allegations.

Documentation for this is on the ClifV talk page.

I'm still considering my response WRT Wikipedia:RGW and Wikipedia:NOTHERE.

This may take some effort, such as a couple of hours, on the part of an admin editor as the situation is complex and political. The history of this issue goes back a year or more.

The editors that manged to "protect" this page appear to be trying to restrict crowdsourcing. This is where the sock puppet allegation comes from since it is incredible to those editors that someone might not share their opinion, so only an outlier could possibly object, or so it appears in the writing. The history of this page though tells another story. Please read through that history as there is a pattern here and it appears to involve some of the key editors involved today.

You should unblock this perfectly innocent editor ClifV.

Ijeffsc (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't seem to be asking to be unblocked, at least not yet. When you are prepared to address all the concerns, you may make your request at that time. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2024 (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.

Note that the whole url is not needed when linking to another article or page on Wikipedia, simply place the title of the target in double brackets, as I've done here. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]