User talk:IBSLiteraryTrust

November 2020[edit]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of name and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

MisterInvestigator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

I have been put here in order to stop a clarification that is scholarly in nature and has nothing to do with promotion or sales. These are false accusations by users who know the Wikipedia system and language well and use various sanctions in bad faith. No change I have made is related in any way as a soapbox or for promotion – quite the contrary – the user who is putting sanctions on me is doing so as a form of intimidation

Hello – following up on my request, I wanted to clarify that:

- I do not receive any compensation for contributions to Wikipedia. - I understand the reason I was blocked and am eager to resolve the issue on the talk page of the related entry. - I intend to continue to keep up edits that improve the accuracy of this and other entries as I use Wikipedia.

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. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't edited promotionally per se, but your username is against policy and you seem to represent an organization; please review WP:COI and WP:PAID. Please replace the words "New username here" with your choice of new username, one that reflects that a specific individual is exclusively operating this account(your real name is not required). 331dot (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification and help – I would greatly appreciate further assistance in dealing with the editor who keeps undoing all my change, especially as these purposefully misrepresent Singer's identity as he presented himself and as scholars have discussed his work, and since the user is – as seen from the kinds of changes made – focused on Polish-national topics. Singer is a Jewish-American author and this is seen in every source on him as a writer. People use Wikipedia all the time and see this misrepresentation - and user Oliszydlowski is constantly undermining these changes and using all kinds of Wikipedia tricks to block my access. Please help!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by IBSLiteraryTrust (talk • contribs)

Please review the policies I indicated, as well as how to make edit requests if you represent the IBS Literary Trust. These will explain how you can contribute information. Further comments do not need to be unblock requests. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay – so, first, has my account been unblocked, with the new login name? Meaning – can I now work as MisterInvestigator?

Out of fairness to you, someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is all very helpful, I work with the IBS Literary Trust, but I'm also an independent scholar, and my research on Singer appears in peer-reviewed journals and books, so this isn't some kind of vanity issue – it's a major misrepresentation of a Nobel Laureate by a user who not only has an agenda, but is also very good as using all the tools that Wikipedia offers to intimidate editors into not updating the entries – which is what happened until now and why I opened a login in the first place! I also didn't understand the various policies and was trying to be totally transparent about my own part in the process. Instead of trying to engage in dialogue or explain the situation, I was immediately blocked instead. Is there any way I can complain about this kind of bullying and exploiting of Wikipedia tools against unwitting and less "professional" users?

Also, I tried to engage that user on their talk page, and was put into a sandbox without first being addressed in any way, which I think also shows bad faith and using the system against less savvy users. IBSLiteraryTrust (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IBSLiteraryTrust: - Please do not accuse me of "undermining" anything and proceed to talk if you'd like to impose any changes (which are wrong anyway in my opinion as I explained on my talk page) and achieve a Wikipedia:Consensus. Thank you. Oliszydlowski (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, thanks for getting Oliszydlowski to begin engaging in a direct conversation -- which hadn't been done before I was put in a sandbox and so cannot actually edit their talk page yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oliszydlowski

I see that they have finally responded to my post, which was admittedly written in a frustrated tone, and I look forward to settling this issue the way it should have addressed long ago – though open discussion rather than Wikipedia blocking tools.

I am continuing to post here because I can't do otherwise yet – and also because I appreciate the change to have this process mediated by a second member who may be able to help keep the process, as you said, fair.

Oliszydlowski writes: "This is Wikipedia and "Jewish" is not a nationality only a (religious) identity so there is no way that is making into the lead." Why does this user claim to know that this is wrong when there are endless leads of Jewish writers, poets, and thinkers that do identify their ethnicity as Jews:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalom_Shabazi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadia_Molodowsky

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Benjamin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Joshua_Heschel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Cahan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzia_Yezierska

This is the tip of the iceberg – how can Oliszydlowski clam that "there is no way tat is making into the lead." This appears like relatively clear national belligerence on their part, especially since the Wikipedia entry on "Jewish" clearly frames being Jewish as an ethnoreligious group and a nation, and states that "Jewish ethnicity, nationhood, and religion are strongly interrelated."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

It would seem that Oliszydlowski needs to better understand the complexities of Jewishness before making bold Wikipedia statements – and I will note that at no point did I, contrary to Oliszydlowski, try to remove the Polish aspect of Singer's life – clearly marking him as Polish-born.

There has to be a way to bring out the inherent bullying in statements like "there is no way tat is making into the lead" and putting some sort of sanction on them for this kind of language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IBSLiteraryTrust (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Wikipedia is a collaborative projective, and accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence is counterproductive. Username issues aside, you should have attempted to engage this user on the article's talk page as the first step in the dispute resolution process. What we want are editors who have a dispassionate, professional detachment from the topics they write about and who can engage in rational and civil discussion to resolve disputes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to assume good faith – and was pretty shocked by someone undoing my edits without real reason and, as I explained above, making changes that go against accepted global norms regarding Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion, including the Wikipedia entry on the topic. I don't think that another user's ability to bully someone else in a quiet tone makes their edits "dispassionate." I made my first corrections, in fact, quite dispassionately, but I think I have a right to be frustrated by a user who is targeting changes within a particular entry from being updated for what has quickly revealed itself, unfortunately, to be bad faith.

And no one has actually related to the content of my original question – what authority does this user have to say: "This is Wikipedia and 'Jewish' is not a nationality only a (religious) identity so there is no way that is making into the lead." Is this not in contradiction to the plethora of entries I have provided above?

From what I understand above, what you're saying is that the next step, once I'm unblocked, is to engage this user on the article's talk page – not the talk page of the user him- or herself – and to raise the issue there. No problem. How do I find out about being unblocked? And how can I put a hold on that user targeting me with sanctions repeatedly? There's an element of attrition here . . . thanks in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.86.87 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"engage this user on the article's talk page" - yes - WP:BRD
"How do I find out about being unblocked?" - you convince us that you won't repeat the behaviour that got you blocked. You can rant on all you like about Oliszydlowski's behaviour, but it was you who got blocked for your behaviour. You need to focus on what you will do differently.
"targeting me with sanctions repeatedly" - you've only been sanctioned once. It won't happen again if you WP:AGF and - to use a football (soccer) metaphor - you play the ball and not the man.
"There's an element of attrition here" - evidence or withdraw the comment please, or this is just a personal attack. Cabayi (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename not successful[edit]

The chosen username is too similar to an existing username or it used to be username of someone else that got renamed: Misterinvestigator. If that is you, please indicate here or there. You don't want to give the appearence of sockpuppetry If not you, please choose again. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your responses, I am happy to focus on my behavior, and I would like to note that my main purpose was to clarify the description of Isaac Bashevis Singer's national, ethnic, and religious identity. I am not a seasoned Wikipedia user and, in the end, have attempt in good-faith to fix an issue. I tried to do this several times in 2019 and each time Oliszydlowski reverted my changes. The second time they wrote "poor source and incorrect" – and then they flagged me for sockpuppetry. That was the first sanction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaac_Bashevis_Singer&oldid=912845695

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaac_Bashevis_Singer&oldid=912859208

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaac_Bashevis_Singer&oldid=912864872

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaac_Bashevis_Singer&oldid=912876113

I understood then that, if I signed up for a Wikipedia account, it would be less easy to put sanctions on me, so I did so about a year later. In good faith, and not knowing that there was a policy against representatives of topics that appearing making corrections, I then signed up as IBSLiteraryTrust – and it should be clear from my username that I hid nothing and did not appear to have a secret agenda. My only desire was to fix a misrepresentation. When I did so, it was again immediately undone, and when I tried to engage Oliszydlowski in a conversation about the topic, they FIRST put me in a sandbox, and DID NOT reply to my actual note. Only when I complained on this page did Oliszydlowski finally respond to the actual note, saying, as I wrote above, that "This is Wikipedia and "Jewish" is not a nationality only a (religious) identity so there is no way that is making into the lead." As I made clear above – and has still not been addressed by anyone – this is a claim that betrays a misunderstanding of Jewish identity, and, as I showed repeatedly, Wikipedia's own entries on the topic, as well as many other entries, bear out this point.

In the meantime, thanks to Wikipedia administrators – who have indeed shown good faith and explained the situation – I realized two things: that my Wikipedia account should not be connected to any organization, since this is against the policy, and also that the change should be submitted, as above, to as a edit requests. Since this is the case, and since I now understand the process better, I realized that I had made a mistake in opening this account in the first place, and that it was perhaps better to close this account altogether and open a new one under my desired name, MisterInvestigator. This seemed to make more sense than trying to change the name of an account that was opened by mistake and, unknowingly, against Wikipedia's policies – though I will note, again, that I do not receive payment for making changes in the Wikipedia entry. I have no intention of sockpuppetry – if I did, I would not be explaining myself this way. I just want to be clear about the process, to explain that I am not personally attacking Oliszydlowski, but rather asking for help, and doing so as someone who is still learning the ins and outs of Wikipedia.

The bottom line here seems to be that, for this specific change relating to Singer's identity, I need to make a edit requests. I will do so and explain my reasoning there and I hope this leads to a process that is more straightforward rather than what has unfolded here. But first, I guess, I should make the suggested edit a discussion on the Isaac Bashevis Singer talk page? And what account should I use? Thank you.

You should use this account to make another unblock request for a different administrator to review. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021 unblock request[edit]

Hi 331dot and Deepfriedokra and others. I heard about this user via the news media and I am not understanding how Wikipedia's blocking policy was followed here. Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional_names says "Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." I have reviewed IBSLiteraryTrust's edits and I do not see any that suggest promotion of the Isaac Bashevis Singer Literary Trust. Can someone please either unblock this user or show me what promotional edit I missed? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clayoquot I'd be very interested to know where in the news media you saw information about this. We don't accept third party requests; this user is free to make another unblock request. I hard blocked(prevented account creation) because the user seemed to be an employee or otherwise paid to work for this literary trust failing to disclose that per WP:PAID and was edit warring to write the article the way they wished, without collaboration with others. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. I wasn't sure if it would be OK under our policy for editor privacy to post the link to the media report here, so I've emailed you with the link. The user has posted an unblock request that very clearly addresses the reason you gave for blocking him. You are claiming, incorrectly, that the user has failed to disclose their affiliation with the literary trust - the disclosure is right here on this page. "Without collaboration with others" is also just factually incorrect - this editor made 8 edits before being blocked and you couldn't find the 2 edits in which he attempted to start a discussion?

As for edit-warring, since you're now saying that the block is for edit-warring I have to point that 1) The user was given zero warnings , 2) First blocks for edit-warring are short,[1] and most importantly 3) immediately either before or after you blocked him, you reverted his perfectly reasonable edit, so it appears to me that you blocked a user with whom you were in a content dispute. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]