User talk:Aeonx/Archive/2020/July
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Warning
If you continue your battleground editing, as here and here, you will be either topic banned from American politics or blocked as not being here to build an encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 16:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC).
- @Bishonen, All I get is more and more baseless threats, built around a misconception that I'm the person in the wrong because I'm overtly standing up against crappy administration and bullying. I am here to build a decent encyclopedia, not one built around abuse, maladministration and bias articles. How about you spend your time more usefully dealing with the issues at hand rather than fabricating new ones; it's really not helpful. Also OANN is less about American politics, which I have honestly very little interest in, and more about media. Why are you even posting on my page? Do you think my edit to flag WP:UNDUE as an issue in the article was wrong? Aeonx (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I am posting on your page in order to warn you, as my header hints. Yes, it was wrong to add your personal comment inside the undue weight template, and your edit summary was disgraceful, as was your attack on Doug Weller's page. Bishonen | tålk 17:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC).
- @Bishonen, what part of [1] was a personal comment that was wrong? The comment I added was as per the template guidelines, where I was flagging the parts of the article which I believe have WP:UNDUE. Happy to discuss this further, but I honestly see no problem with the addition of the template. Yes, my edit summary was disgraceful, I will agree, however I am beyond being graceful when it comes to dealing with the troll-like conduct of the editors that spend their time politicising Wikipedia and actively trying to shut down editors who raise concerns - just look at the talk page. I have NEVER tried to politicize any part of Wikipedia. I actively try to push WP:NPOV and sometimes that meets stern resistance, as in this case. Aeonx (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I am posting on your page in order to warn you, as my header hints. Yes, it was wrong to add your personal comment inside the undue weight template, and your edit summary was disgraceful, as was your attack on Doug Weller's page. Bishonen | tålk 17:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC).
June 2020
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
- Bishonen, my apologies, I didn't see your warning above before blocking, though their response to it by calling the editors they're fighting "troll-like" is also pretty clearly battleground conduct and incivility. Anyway, if you'd prefer I unblocked and let your warning stand, I'm willing. Also, as for the two weeks in case you were wondering: this editor only edits on weekends based on their contributions, so its effectively equivalent to 48-72 hours based on their schedule. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the block, TonyBallioni. Well merited. Bishonen | tålk 19:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC).
- TonyBallioni, If you READ CAREFULLY, you will see I did NOT call editors "troll-like", I wrote "troll-like" conduct". There is a big difference. I'm not attacking editors. I'm voicing an opinion as to how I, PERSONALLY, view their conduct; and I'm doing so on MY TALKPAGE. This is the sort of typical MALADMINISTRATION I am concerned about growing within Wikipedia. I will appeal this Block. Aeonx (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Aeonx/Archive/2020 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. It was wrong to block me because it was done under inaccurate and false pretext, the justification used for my block was based on a clear misinterpretration of my the comment I made. The evidence of which is clearly available on my talkpage. I understand the blocking Administrators concern, and I have already openly admitted and accepted that the edit summary I made on the OANN page was disgraceful. I made the comment out of frustration, whereby I have been trying to boldly identifying issues and then take steps to improve the NPOV aspects of the OANN article and have instead simply had my edits (made in accordance with guidelines) reverts; followed my having warnings on my talkpage. That is the frustration I have which has lead to my less-than-graceful comments. However, I still assert the core reason for the block being unwarranted as a clear misinterpretation of my comments, which were generic in nature describing that POV-pushing is "troll-like conduct"; the comments I made in the two reference locations given in the block, were not in any way targeted at any particular editor. Aeonx (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your appeal at AE has been declined. Please see the discussion here for more information. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:21, 8 June 2020 (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.
- I've copied your appeal to AE for you. I won't touch the template since I'm the blocking admin, but a passing admin might want to put it on hold. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thankyou. I will add as a comment here, not including in my unblock request, that I feel your block was punitive in nature, going against WP:NOPUNISH. As you can see from my contributions, I had stopped editing the article mainspace well before your block was put on, and I had try to bring sensible discussion to talk pages so that editors could try to understand the concern rather than simply dismissing it, and reverting the change. I actually changed the original template, and made it more specific to the section and concern, including a specific mention of the concern, but that too was reverted without discussion. I also made it clear that my adding of the template to the article was different to the RfC which I had created earlier on the article. I am open to any suggestions as to how you think I should've done things differently in order to still raise the concern to Wikipedia readers of the article mainspace that the OANN article *may* be WP:UNDUE Aeonx (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Final Comment / Sendoff?: To the Administrators of Wikipedia
I have just reviewed the comments on my Unblock request by other Administrators, and I wish to add a final comment. I accept the block on the basis of my comments were disrespectful and disgraceful (A fact I have openly admitted several times that I agree with - yes, maybe you don't believe me, but I have written that I agree my comments were disgraceful, well before the block!). However, I still believe my comments were grossly taken out of context and falsely and unreasonably portrayed by diffs that remove context and background. I also stated the reason I made the comment, although none of the administrators seem to have bothered to follow-up with the other editors of the OANN article that are I am in dispute over; nor properly investigate why I made the comments, nor have any of the administrators that have commented on my Block offered any suggestions of how I could have handled things better. I would love for the administrators to both to offer suggestions of how to handle it better, given that my approach of taking it talkpages led me to being blocked...
With regards to the Appeal, I really only objected the block because on my principles I think the block was punitive and wrong. I honestly don't care whatsoever about not being able to edit Wikipedia for two weeks; heck you can make it permanent, and I really don't care, it's Wikipedia's loss - not mine. Whilst I would like to contribute to Wikipedia, it's becoming clear that trying to make contributions to Wikipedia may actually be rather pointless under the current administrative environment so perhaps it's time to give up. In terms of making a Battleground, have a look at my contributions, I don't care about American politics and media, very few edits exist in such articles, I care about bias; and that's the problem. The reason I appealed the block is because I don't think it's fair; I don't think it's right, and I don't think it's in the best interest of Wikipedia that Administrators issue blocks in the manner they do against auto-confirmed editors without trying to have a discussion first; and I don't think there is enough accountability on Administrators. These are my grievances.
I do not hold grudges against other users, and I'm not in any way wishing to offend other users. I simply think the way Wikipedia is maintained and managed currently creates a destructive environment and bias that is both off-putting to new editors and old editors (particularly those who's views may differ from the current controlling mass/syndicate of Arbitrators and Administrators); and ultimately I wanted to make a stand against that and the way articles are allowed to exist with clear and obvious bias and undue weight, without even so much as a notice to the readers this is the case. In my view, having been here 10-years (longer than some of the Administrators posting on my Arb), is that it this is ultimately harmful to Wikipedia's value as an impartial and accurate encyclopedia. The lesson I have learnt here, is that editing Wikipedia doesn't improve it, the only real way to improve Wikipedia ing the long-term is to promote positive change the policy that influences the behaviour of those that control it; you the Administrators. Aeonx (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)