User talk:2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17
March 2024[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 21:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Another unblock request[edit]
2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Since admin Yamla gave no reason for the declining of my first unblock request, I repeat it here, asking at the very least for detailed reasoning of his decision.
That aside, do you REALLY not see anything wrong with the SBI-article? Do you not understand how omitting one side's information due to "social media posts are not sources" warps the entire story? Why must the Wikipedia-article include the controversy anyway when it is still ongoing, still developing? Why not wait until it's over and all the facts are out in the open? Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of knowledge that people can trust - the SBI-article in its current form harms this trust.
Maybe this continued "let him run into a wall" is intentional to rile me up, and yes, I am angry at this point, because despite well-made arguments, not only do you dismiss those, you are taking part in a harassment campaign against SBI critics, calling me and other critics "Gamergate", therefore indirectly calling me nazi, racist, woman hater, etc.. Do you understand why I cannot accept that? If I told you these things, you would use your power to block/ban me. Since I'm a mere user, I'm supposed to take it? You act as if what SBI critics are doing is something bad/evil. We're doing what we're doing because we think it is a good thing. The whole world currently Disney-movies suck because of diversity, because Disney made consecutive bad movies full of "forced diversity". The truth is the diversity does not make movies bad, bad movies are bad. That's why we demand "natural diversity" which shows that people from various roads of life can be part of an interesting, well-told story. SBI and DEI create more hatred against minorities, we fight hatred. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I concur that it would be a very bad idea to remove this block, it is preventing much drama and disruption. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2024 (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.
- See User talk:2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 for Yamla's decline and the rather extensive discussion there. Acroterion (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Maybe my previous unblock request wasn't clear enough, so let me repeat: "I concur that it would be a very bad idea to remove this block, it is preventing much drama and disruption. 331dot" - That is not enough of an answer. It doesn't explain WHY you decline my unblock request. Why would it prevent "drama and disruption", when I've proven to make calm, factual arguments? Meanwhile several Wikipedia admins have been making personal attacks, mocking me, and dismissing brought forward arguments. Even here, you insinuate that I would bring "drama". Criticizing an article that is anti-factual should not be framed as "drama". Should I be unblocked, all I intend to do is further calmly criticize the SBI-article until it is either updated or unpublished until proper sources arrive, properly depicting the ongoing situation. I don't understand why you keep painting me as the problem. Because I oppose your handling of the SBI-article? Yes, of course, I would oppose that. I want facts, not propaganda. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 12:54 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
Declined; I have no confidence that unblocking you would be a net-positive to the project, or frankly result in anything other than further disruption of the SBI article and talk page once they become unprotected. Based on the unblock request's stated intent to continue the behavior that got you blocked in the first place, combined with the lack of understanding and awareness of policy, it is clear that you are not actually here to constructively build an encyclopedia, but rather to push a POV after being repeatedly warned not to do so. Therefore, your request is declined. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 17:45, 14 March 2024 (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.
The admins I reported for absuse of power keep handling my unblock requests - help[edit]
2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is unbelievable. SWATJester is one of the admins I refered to when reporting the abuse of power by several Wikipedia admins. Now he of all people decides that my unblock request is to be declined. Abuse of power is being answered by ... abuse of power :/ Furthermore, his reply is one big projection: He accuses me of "lack of understanding", "not here to be constructive" and "pushing a POV". All things he and his supporting admins have been doing in context of the SBI-article. As many people have tried to get through to these admins' heads: We are not desiring any opinion to be pushed. We criticize that by omission of facts, the article in its current form furthers one side's agenda, allowing them to say "hey look, even Wikipedia agrees with our movement!!11". We presented primary sources that showed important details, but they were dismissed by "social media posts are not source". Which could be accepted, if the logical consequence would be to remove the article entirely until all information is available on accepted sources. Since the involved admins are human beings with a mind of their own, they ought to be capable of understanding that the presented sources, even if not viable for Wikipedia, contain important facts that significantly change the depiction of the situation, compared to what the current iteration of the SBI-article tells. Instead of lying about me, projecting and threatening me, I'd hope that there is someone at Wikipedia who understands what I'm saying. Heck, I am not a nazi. I am not a racist. I am not a woman hater. But the involved mods paint me as such and I cannot accept that. That's not what I deserve for trying to make Wikipedia are place of facts. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:B8F6:2724:3492:FC17 (talk) 2:31 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
Declined -- repeated abuse of the unblock template. Please see the several previously declined appeals. Talk page privileges revoked. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:38, 14 March 2024 (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.
March 2024[edit]
- If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |