User talk:AltaicNPOV

You have been blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Altaic languages. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 05:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please see warning issued to your IP. Tiptoety ^talk 05:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Altaic_languages_Warring, and unblock me. Thank you. AltaicNPOV (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)AltaicNPOV[reply]

You will need to follow the unblock request procedures described in the block message. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 05:20, 6 April 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been trying correct an article with blatant NPOV violations and have just referred the matter to an admin discussion: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Altaic_languages_Warring AltaicNPOV (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)AltaicNPOV[reply]

Decline reason:

You have provided any valid rationale for why we should unblock you, and you have admitted to using a sockpuppet to evade your block. If you try that again then I will extend your block. Giant Snowman 10:39, 6 April 2013 (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.

You may find it more helpful to rewrite your appeal based on the guidance at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, or at least expand it based upon what you read there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a rejection of the unblock? The Admin discussion page reference that I gave explains the complex situation better than I could in a template tag. The fact that I am engaging in reporting an Admin referral shows I am trying to be constructive, and the fact that I am in the middle of trying to participate in an Admin referral shows that I need to be unblocked to do so. In fact I haven't been able to complete notifying the editors I complain about with "subst:ANI-notice" as I am supposed to. AltaicNPOV (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)AltaicNPOV[reply]

no it is not a rejection. I am not an admin and cannot accept or reject an unblock request. But I have seen enough requests and the results that I would be willing to place large bets on the results of the request as you initially made it. If you think your request is one that meets the guidelines set out, then feel free to ignore my suggestion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not particularly concerned -- will just come back tomorrow.

the thing is, that if you come back tomorrow and edit like you have been, the result will be another block. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is locked and referred to administration. Out of my hands... AltaicNPOV (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)AltaicNPOV[reply]

I have extended your block to 1 week for socking and block evasion - first as AltaicNPOV rebooted (talk · contribs) and then as 98.180.22.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), despite my earlier warning. If it happens again, I will extend your block to indefinite. Giant Snowman 11:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion appears to be continuing at 98.180.30.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Singularity42 (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New IP blocked & tagged, and this account is now blocked indefinite - see new section below. Giant Snowman 18:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Giant Snowman 18:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal of Indefinite Block

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).

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

Request reason:

This block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption — as I've never done any.

The original temporary block was due to a gang of editors who are "owning" an article and promoting a fringe theory. It seems one of them reported me for "edit warring" — meaning trying to replace their unsourced distortions with referenced facts.

I was in the middle of reporting them to the Admin Noticeboard when this block happened, and needed to follow up. And due to my rotating IP I'm never technically blocked from Wikipedia.

So I may have violated a rule of posting while blocked — but this is like jaywalking to help an accident victim. There might actually be some strange policeman on a power trip somewhere who would arrest you for that. Carefully citing each ordinance violated, including stepping off the curb improperly. But I'm certain that there are no admins on Wikipedia of this nature, eagerly seeking any slight infraction of Wikipedia's often mystifying 10,015 detailed regulations — with no consideration for context — to get the opportunity to exercise their authority.

If I did "evade" a block — and again it happens automatically every time my IP changes — to do something entire constructive, useful, necessary for Wikipedia, it's utterly perverse to ban me for a mythical "damage and disruption" which never occurred.

And currently I need to get back to trying to fix that distorted Wikipedia article that the public is being dangerously exposed to as we speak, by proceeding to Formal Mediation. In this context it is surely anyone preventing me from doing so, based on petty regulations, taken out of context, who is causing the actual damage and disruption to Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Oh, you'd like to be unblocked? But I thought you didn't particularly care, as you'd just come back another day. Intent to use sockpuppets alone is enough for me to decline this unblock request. m.o.p 05:33, 8 April 2013 (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.

98.180.5.93 (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)AltaicNPOV[reply]

Second Appeal of Indefinite Block

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).

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

Request reason:

Please see the series of previous appeal templates in this user Talk section, for an understanding the present context.

This account has never actually engaged in any damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and has instead gotten caught up in a cascade of bureaucratic excess — regulations being applied first crudely, and it seems increasingly to satisfy the desire of some flawed admins for personal control, rather than protection of Wikipedia from actual harm.

I am here re-appealing the previous appeal decline on the grounds that —

1. The "Decline Reason" has a mocking, juvenile, unprofessional tone. An admin actually taunting editors (!) should obviously be removed immediately, and is in no position to be passing judgment on anyone.

2. The "Decline Reason" makes no objective argument about potential damage to Wikipedia if the account is unblocked — which should be the sole legitimate reason for not lifting a block.

3. To the contrary the argument given is diametrically illogical. The admin claims that I should not be unblocked because I might create another account. But if this second account would be harmful to Wikipedia, unblocking the current account would prevent that harm from occurring. Not unblocking it is what would cause the harm.

4. And to the contrary no consideration and response is given to my assertion that any infraction of block rules has been harmless in effect, with constructive intent, and in the course of carrying out constructive work on Wikipedia. Nor that not unblocking the account will cause harm to the seriously defective Wikipedia article that I am in the midst of trying to correct.

5. What remains is that harm to Wikipedia doesn't actually matter. It is harm to an administrator's ability to personally control others which is of paramount, paranoid, concern. And we see here a furious lashing-out when that is threatened.

For the record it should be noted that this admin condemns me for saying "I'll just come back tomorrow"... which was actually at the time when I had a 24-hour block (!).

So we have the worst-case scenario of Wikipedia administration having become a detached world unto its own, existing for the enforcement of regulations for regulations' sake, ruled by abusive admins running a petty fiefdom — and here in direct conflict with Wikipedia's purpose of producing excellent encyclopedic content as I'm trying to do.

The decline of the appeal seems to be reduced to a kind of video game, in which the admin needs to feel that he/she has "won" by "killing off" the other character's avatar.

And his/her user name summarizes every point: User_talk:Master_of_Puppets.

Minor infractions of Wikipedia's bewildering array of hyper-detailed regulations, should not be exactingly, obsessively, blindly, enforced when this doesn't have a real benefit to producing good encyclopedic content. Blocks were created to hinder someone coming back to spam, etc. Blocks were not created for the purpose of giving apparatchiks in a dysfunctional virtual-reality police state something to do with their time.

In all legal matters, context is everything. If you are speeding to get to a hospital to deliver a baby, a police officer helps you, not arrests you. But Wikipedia instead has many corrupt police officers, eagerly lying in wait, looking for any excuse to pull drivers over, even one mile per hour above the speed limit.

I have obviously written an "appeal" of this length, not so much for the next random admin — likely to be as bad as the last and furiously pound down his DENIED rubber stamp — but rather for the eventual eyes of the Wikipedia board, as some feedback on the known problem of editor frustration with Wikipedia administration.

But for that random next admin, there are currently two options:

This account can remain blocked by juvenile behavior for several weeks, while an appeal is filed to the adult supervision of Arbitration (to unblock the account and remove the abusive admins from service). Meanwhile a severely distorted Wikipedia article will remain up being read by the public.

Or the minor infractions carried out by the AltaicNPOV account can be overlooked — for the remarkably convincing reason that no actual harm ever occurred — and that account can get back sooner rather than later to doing its important work on the Altaic Languages article.

And yes, "the AltaicNPOV account" and not "me". Just one temporary guise in many past and future years of doing all sorts of good things for Wikipedia. A standard reality for Wikipedia editors, that this strange self-absorbed kingdom of Wikipedia administration, with its endless arbitrary laws, ridiculous made-up jargon, and frantic "Wikipedia correctness", needs to come to grips with — on the off chance anyone involved remembers the actual purpose of attracting good editors to write good encyclopedia articles.

So-Called AltaicNPOV (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)AltaicNPOV[reply]

Decline reason:

I appreciate the time you took to analyse my last message. To spare you the trouble of having to analyse this one - you don't see anything wrong with sockpuppetry or block evasion because you think you have a good reason to do it? I'm sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. As much as you may not agree with our policies, they're there for a reason - to stop disruptive editors from damaging the project. Please do not submit a further unblock request without addressing the reasons for your block and detailing how you will change your editing behaviour. m.o.p 02:55, 9 April 2013 (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.