User talk:Dap567

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Laura Loomer, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit was fantastically constructive and you have already conceded your lack of NPOV. Falsely stating "does not appear to be constructive" demonstrates your WP:NOTTHEM WP:AGF and furthermore you are using edit summaries as talk pages against our policies here on Wikipedia. I am not warning you (which is negative behavior against our rules), I am inviting you to respect our rules.Dap567 (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Note that this is NOT a comment on Loomer's page but a warning to you. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM and WP:AGF. I have been extremely constructive and followed our rules. Why are you refusing to follow are rules. Dap567 (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Laura Loomer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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 demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts to the page. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

So you have reverted three times, while Doug Weller has reverted twice, and you post a warning on him? What's that about? Just retaliation for Doug's warning of you above? You shouldn't do that kind of thing. You can be sanctioned for persistently acting in an uncivilised manner on user talkpages. Bishonen | tålk 16:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC).

So you are saying I am following the rules. Doug is not using the Laura Loomer talk page, but rather edit summaries, against our rules of civility. I gave a warning on his talk page per our rules, in a civilized manner and WP:Respect. I am advising to look into WP:NOTTHEM WP:NOTHERE WP:AGF (which our edits above violate.Dap567 (talk) 16:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're following our rules. I'm saying you posted a retaliatory edit warring warning on a user who has edit warred less than you have yourself. That's disruptive and also ridiculous. Bishonen | tålk 16:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC).

So you are saying Doug Weller was editing waring? Edit warring less or more is not a valid reason to describe a completely valid edit warring warning and falsely describe it as disruptive. I am sorry if I did not explain properly and I invite you to follow WP:AGF. Doug Weller was using edit summaries to be disruptive. Dap567 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that 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) 17:08, 8 October 2025 (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).

Dap567 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

No examples of the supposed disruptive edits, it is a bold faced lie. Pure admin bias going on here due to political bias. I repeatedly followed all the rules. The opposite is the case of the cabal and socks. Dap567 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Try again without the personal attacks. Be warned, you may only get one more chance so make it count. Yamla (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2025 (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).

Dap567 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

There were no disruptive edits, only constructive dialogue on the talk pages about proper sourcing and how to use factual statements to achieve NPOV. The block lacked grounding, let alone "persistently". Blocking factual and constructive dialogue ON TALK PAGES is disruptive and not how we make the encyclopedia better.

For example, the court's reasoning explicitly treats the label "white nationalist" as non-actionable opinion rather than a verifiable fact. Since my block, not only has what the court called opinion been made fact, it has been update to white supremacists. This is not how we make the encyclopedia better.

We make the encyclopedia better by modifying "Loomer has accepted support from white supremacist Peter Brimelow." to

"Loomer has accepted support from Peter Brimelow, who is frequently opined by his opponents to be a white nationalist." and reference in the footnotes the Judge's explicitly wording that such is an opinion. That has been the extent of my constructive DISCUSSION on the talk pages and not any EDIT made by me on the article.

Dap567 (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am not going to unblock you so you can continue how you posted today. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2025 (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.

There it is above for the whole world to see. Zero, Zip, nada in reasoning provided by the admins for the block.

Fully proven to be a purely 100% politically motivated block of someone who had solid references on their side demonstrating the bias in the article. Wikipedia was a great human experience, but if the admin problem is not fixed, it will be replaced. So far the best contender is Grokpedia.

You all know you I am still on Wikipedia, all you have accomplished is proving your bias, our rules are fake, and you wrongfully block those you fear. And the whole world can link right to this page for proof.

Dap567 (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Look at my edit history, I found a factually incorrect item and political agendas to insist NPOV and with chronic violations or our rules here on Wikipedia were used to wrongfully block me against our policies. The political bias of Wikipedia has been proven beyond doubt and censorship of truth is all disruptive editors and admins on our site can muster. Dap567 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Time to remove talk page access, I think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting admin bias bytheway. Let us see if Grokpedia can fix it. Dap567 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dap567 You're being granted a lot of leeway here, and you're arguing P&G with very experienced editors. I suggest you learn (and follow) the first rule of holes. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that the rules do not apply to everyone and that "very experience editors" are given impunity. Dap567 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Dap567, unless you give a clear and unequivocal explanation of what you mean by "soliciting socks to validate your false accusations", providing the necessary evidence of socking, I am going to call for you to be blocked indefinitely. You don't get to use such ridiculous accustaions againt experienced contributors withou consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Above we have examples, that despite that fact I have followed all the rules, the TheGrump and Buterblog are openly declaring long term editors do not.

As for TheGrump sock confusion, Doug Weller lobbied TheGrump to falsely accuse me of WP:NOTHERE, which according to our rules is also a form of sock. But the rules obviously do not apply to TheGrump. Dap567 (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Not a form of sock and where is any evidence I lobbied Andy? I did not do that. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

According to our rules it is and it is on the talk page as you already know. WP has become rule of man vice a rules based order. Dap567 (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dap567 I implore you to drop the stick and back away. It would appear that you are commenting based on emotion, and all that you're going to end up doing by that is to end up losing talk page access as well (which will make appealing your block more difficult). Step away and don't come back until you've cooled off and can review all of this more objectively. You're hurling accusations that unsupportable and objective editors can see right through that. That kind of thing is not going to help you - it's going to end up hurting any chance of successful appeal you may have. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You confusing me for your reflection. LOL. I followed all the rules, stuck to facts, showed civility, etc, etc, It is no skin off my back when other do not do these things and display their bias. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz0avWZoqjg Dap567 (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I followed all the rules, stuck to facts, showed civility, etc, etc, - that is objectively false, and has been told to you in multiple ways by multiple editors. As I noted above, I highly recommend you step away and when you come back, review your actions and comments through a lens of considering yourself to be wrong so that you might be able to see where and why that is. If you dig yourself into a position of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" while being told by everyone else that you're not right, you'll be unable to recognize the logical conclusion that you are, in fact, wrong. It is no skin off my back when other do not do these things and display their bias. Is that a declaration of your non-desire to edit here? Because it's also no skin off our backs whether you successfully regain editing privileges or not. No one is required to help you. I've tried to offer you help and guidance and instead of actually listening to it, you're just continuing to broaden your attacks of other editors. So, best of luck. I doubt we'll see more of you around here. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You claim objectively false, but fail to provide a single example. The political bias is proven. I never declared a desire to edit, I declared a desire to make the encyclopedia better via constructive dialogue on the talk pages. Which NO ONE provided a single example of me not doing, including you. Politically bias cabals clearly indicating the inability to address rational claims and preferred censorship. A vote is not how we make the encyclopedia better and closer to truth. Declaring I need to lie in order to contribute is not constructive on your part. I have try to help you be better, you have rejected that invitation. Falsely attacking Wikipedians, as you do, is not how you become better. Dap567 (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Doug Weller didn't lobby me to do anything. I saw the bullshit that Dap567 posted on DW's talk page, and took a look at the Loomer talk page. Where I saw more of the same. Dap567, if you don't want people commenting on your relentless bullshit, try not to draw so much attention to yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

He did, even in the talk page. You have failed to demonstrate any such BS, because you know it is false characterization. Dap567 (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Further grounds to remove talk page access. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

There it is a gain, urging socks to do your bidding. Thank you for admitting censorship is your only solution vice responding with constructive dialogue. You have impunity and relish in using it. Dap567 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, blocked users are permitted to access their talk page only to appeal the block. If they persistently abuse this privilege (e.g. to engage in soapboxing, arguing about content, attacking other contributors etc), access may be withdrawn. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

No soapboxing, no arguing, no attacking on my part. But the whole world can see those rules do not apply to you. Dap567 (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Several Wikipedians wish to assert that an opinion is fact.

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brimelow does not describe him as White Supremacist and the article conveniently forgets to mention the judge dismissed his lawsuits because the NY Times did not in fact call him a White Supremacist. "In January 2021, a judge dismissed a lawsuit Brimelow brought against The New York Times, ruling that that the Times had not defamed him by calling him a "white nationalist.""

His book argues for legal immigration reform (it does not oppose immigration as the article gets wrong), using a Canadian style point system in the US.

None of the Wikipedians seeking to promote political agendas have had a valid retort to this observation: Just because a person's political opponent describes them as Hitler, does not in fact make them Hitler. Wikipedia itself describes the SPLC as biased and references to its opinion should be caveated with the fact that SPLC is biased.

Dap567 (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Further grounds to remove talk page access. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

There it is again, urging a sock to do your bidding. Thank you for admitting the rampant admin bias on Wikipedia. Let us see if Grokpedia can fix it. Dap567 (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

No, we do not say that. See WP:RSNP for what has been agreed

What do you think a sock is? And who is the sock master. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSNP is about sourcing, not the subject of Sock. What you want is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry and Piggybacking Dap567 (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Key Excerpt Describing "White Nationalist" as a Matter of Opinion Reference to the Court - It Is Opinion Not Fact

The exact reference is the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York opinion in Brimelow v. New York Times Company, No. 1:2020cv00222 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2020), authored by Judge Katherine Polk Failla. This is Document 32 in the case docket, granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

The judge's reasoning explicitly treats the label "white nationalist" as non-actionable opinion rather than a verifiable fact, applying New York law's fact-vs.-opinion test (e.g., Gross v. New York Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d 146 (1993)). The core description appears on pages 14-15 of the 28-page opinion, analyzing the challenged January 2019 article:

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because 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 for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

 Bishonen | tålk 20:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I have also revoked your ability to send emails. --Yamla (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)