User talk:Crack Cocaine Aficionado: Difference between revisions

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago Barack Obama Assassination Plot Investigation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's Mar-A-Lago Barack Obama Assassination Plot Investigation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 23:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. Acroterion (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked for direct violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by creating an article that was clearly intended as a coatrack to attack Trump, and for re-creating after being directly warned, abusing Wikipedia as a soapbox for your personal opinions. Your chosen title pretty much sums up the aim of the article. The subject might warrant an article, but you aren't the person to create it. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You tyranically abused your power by deceitfully misrepresenting the outcome of the discussion with your blatant falsehood "the result was speedy delete" which you and I both know not to be true, even though you have hidden the evidence. You very well know that no one had voted except you, myself, and the person who nominated the article for deletion in the first place and therefore your characterization of the discussion was woefully false. Therefore, my re-creation of the article was demanded by policy, since you illicitly closed the article prior to anyone else even voting on it. Tell me, how is it that Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories and Barack the Magical Negro and all sorts of racist, far-right Conservative, White Nationalist, neo-Nazi trash is "notable", but there is nothing notable about death threats against the current president by the butler and historian and right-hand man of the Republican nominee, when they have prompted federal investigation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crack Cocaine Aficionado (talk • contribs) 00:41, 18 May 2016

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).

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

---

Request reason:

First of all, Acroterian clearly violated policy by closing a discussion for deletion that had 1 vote in favor of deletion (by the nominator for deletion) and 1 vote against as a "speedy delete." Therefore, I violated no policy in re-creating the article, since the Deletion discussion had not "ended" but had just begun and the deletion was inappropriate, and my response to the inappropriate deletion, was thus appropriate. Second of all, Death threats against a president are notable; death threats against a president by the personal servant of another presidential candidate are doubly notable. Therefore, my article was a productive contribution to the encylopedia. At the least, there should have been a discussion as to whether these Death Threats from Trump's #2 warrant an article, as many assassination threats on Presidents have also received (not to mention less notable slurs against Obama which get their own article, and not to mention the 1000000000 articles, roughly, Wiki has on nonsense like "people who have appeared in a realitiy TV show once." In conclusion, Policy was violated in deleting the notable article which I had created, prior to the discussion being carried out. As a result, I committed no "violation of policy" by re-creating the article in response to the peremptory deletion. Acroterian falsely closed the discussion after being open for mere minutes, and rather dishonestly writes "result was Speedy Delete" when only 2 or 3 people had yet voted, including myself and the original nominator, and there was obviously no clear outcome of the vote. There was nothing wrong in re-creating the article so that the deletion discussion could continue when no one had voted yet aside from myself and the person who proposed the original deletion discussion. If the evidence had not been destroyed to sully my good name, you would see on the talk page and article history that I was in the process of making the requested changes which had been asked for on the talk page and was happy to remove any of the material claimed to be NPOV.

Decline reason:

The article was problematic in respect to our policy on Biographies of Living Persons, and was correctly deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2016 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Please provide a reason as to why you should be unblocked.
Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=original unblock reason |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=original unblock reason |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

PhilKnight and Acroterian, like the rest of the over 99 percent White Wikipedia Cabal, have revealed themselves to be Ultra far-right White Nationalists who care not a whit about having slur articles about the president abound in the encyclopedia, in which he is called a "Magic Negro" and a Muslim and a Kenyan, joyfully allowing Wikipedia to be used as the playtoy of the Ku Klux Klan and Stormfront and the Trump organization and other dedicated White Supremacists, while they scrupulously protect their master, the Supreme Leader Donald Trump, from any criticism, or even allowing the so-called "world's total collection of knowledge" to include the very relevant fact that the man who has assiduously bathed Donald Trump's feet for years has called for the President to be shot, execution style, by the U.S. Military, or hanged, for the crime of being black, when it offends this old racist's delicate sensibilities. I hope you two lovely gentlemena enjoy the rest of your evening pining for the good old days of Jim Crow!