User talk:GitR0n1n

Please read this notice carefully.

You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.

A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

please dont be alarmed, every editor that edits the crypto articles gets this notice! You did nothing wrong. :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Etherum classic sourcing policy

Please stop adding poorly sourced content to the Ethereum Classic article. You must adhere to the policy on sourcing or you might get banned and/or the article will get locked (likely locked first). I have already discussed with you at Talk:Ethereum_Classic#Large_addition_of_content Please follow the other editor's suggestions. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf I followed your sourcing policy. I sourced content directly from sources you suggested in the talk section. WSJ, Bloomberg

@Jtbobwaysf I see you are now removing Ethereum Classic histroy from 2013-2016. Please undo deletions. Thanks!

POV Pushing

Don't keep pushing the Ethereum Classic is the real Ethereum, Ethereum is a fork of Ethereum Classic, and other WP:FRINGE concepts here. These edits are WP:TE and violate the terms of GSCRypto which I put on this talk page above. Be advised. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop personally attacking me with your WP:GASLIGHT tactics and provide WP:RS for your edits as requested in the Talk discussion for the Ethereum article. It is very clear to me you are acting in bad faith and not adhering to WP:NPOV because in 3 days you have yet to provide ONE WP:RS related to your edits, and have now instead opened this section on my page in an effort to push you WP:SANCTIONGAMING tactics through. Not going to happen Jtbobwaysf. Justify your stance with cited facts or move on. - GitR0n1n (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: can you please have a look at this? Lot of reverts going on over at Ethereum and also some at Ethereum Classic that was previously discussed in general here Talk:Ethereum#Controversial_edits and here Talk:Ethereum_Classic#Large_addition_of_content where David Gerard (talk · contribs) Retimuko (talk · contribs) and I all engaged the with the editor. Also some comments on my talk page User_talk:Jtbobwaysf#SANCTIONGAMING_and_POV_Pushing. Maybe an admin can have a look to make sure my comments are in line. I dont feel comfortable to revert any more. I am confident that Ethereum is not considered a fork of Ethereum Classic. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please engage a third-party review into this issue. Jtbobwaysf has been harassing me for over 1 month now as I've been trying to add value to these pages. They do not cite any WP:RS for their reverts. Even in this request they present an example of a fact, but provide no citations to that fact.

"I am confident that Ethereum is not considered a fork of Ethereum Classic." - Jtbobwaysf

And yet in the Ethereum talk section I have provide ample evidence to the contrary with high quality citations. The user acknowledges that they didn't even bother reading the cited sources and is blindly reverting my changes. Violating WP policy numerous times. I also notice they call in the same group of editors to back them up on their unsubstantiated edits. We will see what that brings, but rest assured that I will not be bullied with WP:GASLIGHTING and WP:SANCTIONGAMING tactics by this person. Let me add my high quality source on the topic:

"All users who had ETH before block 1920000 now have both ETH (the fork chain) and ETC (the community effort to continue the no-fork chain)." - Vitalik Buterin https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/26/onward_from_the_hard_fork/

"Users who are interested only in participating in the fork chain should upgrade their clients to a fork-compatible version if they have not already done so; the upgraded Go client (version 1.4.10) is available here. If any users continue to be interested in following the non-fork chain, they should still update, but run with the --oppose-dao-fork flag enabled, though they should beware of transaction replay attacks and take appropriate steps to guard against them; users with no interest in the non-fork chain do not need to worry about transaction replay attack concerns." Posted by Vitalik Buterin on July 20, 2016 https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/20/hard-fork-completed/

I am 100% accurate in my changes with the most highly creditable WP:RSSELF source on the subject while also adhering to MOS:PMC and WP:RSCONTEXT standards. - GitR0n1n (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: this edit violated the 1RR. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: Actually this was a undoing a revert that violated 3 different WP policies. I personally did not REVERT anyone's content. You can see that by the description included in the action. These editors need to use the Talk section and provide citations for their edits. They are not above WP policies.

"(Undid revision 947762641 by David Gerard (talk) Violates WP:TALKDONTREVERT, WP:NPOV, WP:GS/Crypto policies. Please see talk section before reverting my changes.)"

However these REVERSIONS do violate the 1RR policy that Jtbobwaysf (talk) cites. See below:

Batch 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&diff=947430043&oldid=947407840 by Jtbobwaysf (talk)

Batch 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&diff=947430064&oldid=947430043 by Jtbobwaysf (talk)

Batch 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&diff=947430088&oldid=947430064 by Jtbobwaysf (talk)

Batch 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&diff=947756071&oldid=947756005 by Jtbobwaysf (talk)

Batch 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&diff=947756131&oldid=947756071 by Jtbobwaysf (talk)

Batch 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&diff=947756192&oldid=947756131 by Jtbobwaysf (talk)

There is a very clear violation of WP:TALKDONTREVERT occurring with this editing process. Additionally these editors are having a really hard time at providing any WP:RS for their edits, as they have yet to offer ONE in the discussion. I am in no way violating 1RR when adhering to/encouraging/participating in the WP:TALKDONTREVERT policy. This is exactly the form of WP:SANCTIONGAMING that I knew Jtbobwaysf was setting up. Rather than provide proof of WP:NPOV with citations, like I have clearly done in the Talk section, they are trying to get my account banned/blocked. This is an effort to control their narrative by reverting with no sources. - GitR0n1n (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2020 (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. Thank you. David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sound about right in the WP:SANCTIONGAMING that you, David Gerard, and Jtbobwaysf are pursuing in these cryptocurrency articles. It would be easier if you provided factual evidence to your reverts with WP:RS. But we both know why you are pursuing this course of action, instead of adding factual content. How do I participate in the admin process? - GitR0n1n

March 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Violation of 1RR, as you did at Ethereum. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 28 March 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).

GitR0n1n (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You blocked me for enforcing WP:TALKDONTREVERT policy. If I am blocked, you need to block users Jtbobwaysf and David_Gerard as they are in actual violation of these policies. GitR0n1n (talk) 12:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have extended your block to 72 hours in order to give you more time to read our policies and guidelines, including but not limited to WP:GAB. It was inappropriate for you to bring up the behaviour of others in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 12:19, 28 March 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.

If you are going to appeal the block, I suggest reading WP:NOTTHEM, especially point No.2. Black Kite (talk) 12:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that is fine. I can accept the 48 hours block for my OWN actions. As I did undo the two participants edit warring reversions. I hope the process is fair and blocks them as well. They are not above WP policy, although I have see them act like that in maybe cryptocurrency articles. I can already see the facts are not being presented fairly. It is documented that Jtbobwaysf has 3 reverts in under 24 hours on two separate occasions, yet you posted this and blocked me. Additionally now it is very clear you are part of the WP:SANCTIONGAMING because for no reason you have extended my block to 72 hours.

"Filer blocked for 48h. They have made 3 effective reverts today, the other two editors only one. There is a clear 1RR restriction on the article. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)"

GitR0n1n (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]

I did not extend your block, nor remove your talkpage access. Another administrator did that, as you can read in the reply to your unblock request. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Collapse

Hi, i recently reverted your edit to delete a lot of content off a talk page. I believe you are welcome to delete from your own talk page, but you are not allowed to delete a discussion from an article's talk page. But I think you can use this tool Wikipedia:COLLAPSENO. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll use that feature. GitR0n1n (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please always sign your edits using four tildes. See Wikipedia:Signatures. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good trick. Thanks. GitR0n1n (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

Indefinite topic ban from blockchains and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned continued advocacy for Ethereum Classic, and this being your sole topic of editing.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at WP:GS/Crypto, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. David Gerard (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are out of line David Gerard (talk). Consensus was formed on that edit. GitR0n1n (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in the discussion rather than WP:SANCTIONGAMING the topic. This includes your habitual use of reverts and complaint filing David Gerard (talk). Attempting to silence my account via abuse of process due to a disagreement with cited facts in the open conversation Talk:Ethereum "Ethereum Family Fork Tree Discussion" is a violation of WP:BITE. GitR0n1n (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No such consensus was established at Talk:Ethereum. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please highlight where there is contention (with citations) in the open conversation Talk:Ethereum "Ethereum Family Fork Tree Discussion". I do not see one comment at the time of writing. Please constructively participate in the conversation if you dispute the cited sources. GitR0n1n (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Feel free to locate mainstream RS that support this POV and we can discuss it. Otherwise enough already. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told how you can appeal your sanction. Appeal it or don't. Unless you appeal it, you are not permitted to continue discussing blockchains and cryptocurrency and will be blocked if you continue. --Yamla (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read the guidelines. It mentioned attempting to Talk to resolve the conflict prior to submiting an appeal. This is a discussion about the attempt at WP:SANCTIONGAMING by the same concentrated group of people that have been harassing me since I created this account in March. And look at what they are doing now, trying to ban my account rather than follow WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BITE. Is any of this surprising since I've been whistleblowing at their attempt at WP:SANCTIONGAMING? No. But is there any oversight by Wikipedia admins? Likely not. So I am following the procedure to try to resolve this by calmly communicating and asking the concentrated group that is WP:SANCTIONGAMING to use the Talk section to voice their position rather than pursuing an Abuse of Process route. GitR0n1n (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]