User talk:SeldomTimely

Source reliability

The sources are indeed not all equal. A good reference is WP:RSP then WP:RSN may be consulted on a case by case basis. —Paleo Neonate – 03:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meant to respond to respond to something I said? Because it doesn't. You should read my claims again, as they're carefully considered. Furthermore, the message indicating "you have should interest in Covid-19" is another red-flag about how things are handled around here. Nothing in my comment indicates any specific concern with Covid-19. The problem is general. That the comment happened to be on a Covid-19 related article is incidental. The point of contention regards inflammatory labels that are likely unjustified. And I say this as someone who has no stake in the particular subject matter: just someone who is worried that objectivity is being compromised on this platform. Administrators should not serve as blind instruments of the "policy" but seek to justify it when it is challenged, if the grounds are sound.

Anyway, once you've given a slew of sources a categorical pass, like the WP:RSN seems to do, what you have done is converted aspects of Wikipedia into instruments of propaganda. There are very pointed critiques from scholars about how corporate media operate. They weaponize decontextualized facts to create oftentimes politically biased narratives, especially in cases of conflicts of interest. This kind of nuance should be reflected in the policy. Objectivity qua objectivity should be the ultimate goal, not proxies and heuristics. I say this is a liberal that sees a creeping politicization of articles. Users should be able to raise these concerns. It is dangerous to cull constructive feedback. --SeldomTimely (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in COVID-19, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—Paleo Neonate – 03:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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=You should unblock this account unless you prove the charge. An individual marked a very reasonable exchange NOTSOAPBOX without giving a reason or justification. The individuals operating here are interested in arbitrary power rather than rational discourse. The arbitrariness of the actions is indeed Orwellian. That you can be blocked on a whim and be censored on the talk page for engaging in reasonable dialogue is unacceptable. No individual should have the power to block others without some established process. If this is how things operate within Wikipedia, no wonder the quality of the articles is in decline. I made no attempt to edit an article. I wrote two comments on the talk page. 
As per Wikipedia blocking policy: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users"
Furthermore: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace."
Lastly: None of my statements justify the NOTSOAPBOX label. 

}}

. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reviewing Admin: Territorial losers who respond emotionally to rational conversation and react like fascist dictators. is rather unambiguous, and leaves little doubt, especially with a non-apology like above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction and actions taken by wikipedia user RandomCanadian in this case are completely unacceptable. My reaction was completely warranted given this person's actions, which speak louder than words. It is unacceptable that people of this caliber have this kind of power in this platform. I posted two comments that were completely well reasoned and mannered, was censored without justification or communication, then was blocked indefinitely. My heated verbal retort, I maintain, is no justification for these actions. You should develop far more accountable procedures in cases like this. Otherwise, the power-tripping of users like RandomCanadian will damage -- are damaging -- this platform and reasonable discussion to take place. Especially when you give people with this level of self-righteousness this level of power. NOBODY, and I REPEAT, NOBODY should have the POWER to censor or block someone on the basis of what I said above, unless some procedure and or rule is communicated to them before hand! It is inconceivable that these kind of Draconian measures are at the fingertips of people who reacted with undue indignation. Mark my words, this person's power-tripping will continue. SeldomTimely (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Account

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).

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

Request reason:

Indefinite block decision was in disproportion to the purported offense. You should give others the benefit of the doubt as well as second chances. When a decision of that severity is made, it should be in proportion to a history of offenses, rather than a single incident. The retort was prompted by an unreasonable attempt by an editor to cull reasoned discussion, expressed in a completely rational manner, as my post evinces.SeldomTimely (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2023 (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) 17:32, 24 November 2023 (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.

Hello, again you display the same hubris as the editors who acted in concert to block someone indefinitely with very little justification. You made your decision far too quickly. I would like you to look at the entire spectrum of evidence and give a justification for why I was blocked indefinitely to begin with. I can understand a reprimand, but not an indefinite block for what transpired. What damage or disruption did I cause? None. There was a personal exchange with a power tripping editor. This caused me to respond indignantly to their unreasonable quarantining of my politely articulated concerns. If you're familiar with how the law works, it takes some careful consideration before you reach a decision on the evidence. Arbitrary power should always be avoided. Both the actions of the initial editor, who now also appears to be blocked, and the editor who made the blocking decision were immature. You need a process that follows reasonable procedure, as well as doles out punishment in proportion.

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

The block was unjustified to begin with. Please unblock. Nothing that I did warranted an permanent block. Period. SeldomTimely (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block was completely justified. WP:NPA is a hard rule, and that you think your attacks are justified is another good reason to keep you blocked to protect Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:12, 24 November 2023 (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.

SeldomTimely (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The block was completely justified. WP:NPA is a hard rule, and that you think your attacks are justified is another good reason to keep you blocked to protect Wikipedia. --jpgordon𝄢"

What "attack"lol? You don't realize that you have permanently banned a person who could otherwise make useful contributions for one off hand comment that was completely justified in my part. The regime that runs this place is literally akin to the Stanford Prison Experiment. Maybe you give a warning, but to permanently ban for something so benign is unthinkable, literally Nazi level stuff. Here's hoping a more humane, permissible contributor will disagree with the fringe groupthink that pervades the ruling so far. SeldomTimely (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Process

jpgordon𝄢𝄆 Have you read the WP:NPA that you cite? It refers to a process for resolving personal attacks. There were was zero process administered for a first time offense but arbitrarily issued a permanent block. It is a barbaric way of handling the situation without any consideration for the context that led to it in the first place, which was an editor power tripping on an issue raised politely. It's like cutting someone's hand for stealing or their tongue for cursing. SeldomTimely (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]