User talk:2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unblock request for Administrator review[edit]

Posting this here as adviced by the appeal feedback I got:

Why should you be unblocked? I just found out that I was blocked for alleged "disruptive editing". I did no such thing. What I did was replying to admins who dismissing valid criticism to the Sweet Baby Inc-article. After I found that SEVERAL admins were openly mocking those of us bringing forward criticism to the article (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Eyes_needed_at_Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.), I reported this abuse of power with a lengthy posting explaining the situation. Said posting has been deleted by an anonymous admin and unfortunately I cannot copypaste what I reported. However, another posting of mine towards admin "Acroterion", who has been dismissive towards me before, has also been deleted, so I have to assume he deleted both the report and the comment. I did not edit any articles, all I did was explaining why the SBI-article in its current form goes against the UCoC of Wikipedia, which includes spreading only facts, not misleading, even harmful information. The admins involved in the discussion linked above openly call the critics "Gamergate", which is strongly connotated to mean nazis, racists, women hater, and more such awful things. None of that is deserved. As part of the group that criticizes SBI, I am neither a nazi, racist, nor anything else. I refuse to accept that Wikipedia as of now calls me that. It has been explained to exhausting detail, but if no sources exist to provide a factual article, the article or at least the controversial section should have been taken offline until adequate sources appear that give a complete picture of the situation. To block me for "disruptive editing" can only be seen as massive projecting as the consequence of a crass abuse of power. Thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Decrease#Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc."

I'd also like to add the admin "Acroterion" has it out for me for some weird personal vendetta it appears. He deleted both a report I made about him and other admins, and also deleted a comment I made on his talk-page in an attempt to settle things peacefully. Instead, he keeps labeling my comments as "personal attacks" while openly mocking me, and blocked me for "disruptive editing", but that is already explained above. This person should not have any authority on Wikipedia based ony my interactions, thx. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked by another admin. Your complaint at ANI was removed by another admin. You did not post on my talkpage. I have never mocked you. I declined your report at RFPP. I removed a personal attack placed by a Finnish IP from NinjaRobotPirate's talkpage - nobody entitled to behave like that. If it was you evading Bbb23's block on this IP range, that's an aggravating factor. You've done a good job of describing why you're blocked, without owning up to your conduct - Wikipedia isn't a forum for vendettas, which is what you appear to be pursuing. If you continue in this manner, you will lose talkpage access. This isn't the first time we've ever had to deal with editors who don't listen to any voice but their own. If you want to be unblocked, follow the instructions at WP:UNBLOCK, and present a case for why we should unblock you, having first read WP:NOTTHEM. Any unblock containing personal attacks will be summarily declined, and you may lose talkpage access entirely. Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are YOU responding here? You are exactly one of the admins I reported. The person I reported for abuse of power is now the one handling my block? This cannot be real.
"You've done a good job of explaining why you're blocked - Wikipedia isn't a forum for vendettas, which is what you appear to be pursuing."
This is pure projection on your part. YOU have been having a weird vendetta against me and other critics of SBI. You have been meeting with other admins here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Eyes_needed_at_Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.), openly mocking and insulting us. We are not Gamergate, stop associating us with that.
You ARE mocking me with your "you've done a good job of explaining why you're blocked". This is so dismissive. I made an effort to calmly explain why the SBI-article in its current form should not exist. I've been open about my position from the beginning. Instead of listening and acknowledging my attempt at resolving the situation peacefully, you keep attacking me personally, try to frame all criticism as "harassment" and ultimately threaten with blocks and such. Again: YOU are the one I reported, and now you're here to decide what's going to happen? Or are you call one of the other involved admins to do that so you can claim "I didn't do it"? This entire handling has been disappointing and aggrevating and I hope that admins that haven't been part of the SBI-debacle so far will chime in. My comments are for all to see.
PS: That you also imply I somehow evaded some block via a Finnish IP is super crass. I did not do any such thing. Your personal vendetta against me continues. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk) 03:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(passing-by user) Whatever your misgivings, I'll just quote the final part of what Acroterion said:
"If you want to be unblocked, follow the instructions at WP:UNBLOCK, and present a case for why we should unblock you, having first read WP:NOTTHEM. Any unblock containing personal attacks will be summarily declined, and you may lose talkpage access entirely."
This is REQUIRED, the unblock instructions, for example, include a template that you need to add to this talk page so that other admins can even know that you are appealing your block.
– 2804:F14:80C6:A301:BDB5:2E3E:64E9:12A8 (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I DID that. My appeal was declined and told me, I must instead post my unblock request on my user page. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IS your user (talk) page. You cannot edit anywhere else, because you're blocked. Unless you mean something else?
– 2804:F14:80C6:A301:BDB5:2E3E:64E9:12A8 (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you’ve never posted a formatted unblock request. I gave you links to what to do. Please follow them. You have an assigned dynamic /64 range, so just post at whatever IP you’re currently assigned in that range, using the unblock template. Otherwise, nobody will know you asked, and nobody will pay attention. Acroterion (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I have an appeal key from when I created the unblock request. Although I don't know where I have to input it to be able to see the appeal status again, but as I said, it was denied, telling me to post my unblock request HERE on my user page where I can still edit despite being block. That's what I'Ve been told. And now the person I reported for abuse of power is telling me to do something else. That's not suspicious at all.
If I truly am too stupid to understand what's happening, then surely as an admin in good faith you will further this unblock request to the correct place. I've done what Wikipedia instructed me to. Not gonna repeat the same and be sent back and forth. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now I saw your admin meetup where you just accuss me openly of being GamerGate. WTF. As everybody can see on the SBI-talk page, I kept bringing forward good arguments for why the article in its current form is bad (because omitting facts), I was calm, I was polite. You admins kept dismissing what the critics said, you started mocking me, you were causing disruption. And now you're ganging up on SBI critics and label them as Gamergate, a term that, and you know that, is strongly connotated with nazis, racists, women hater, and so on.
As of this moment I no longer trust that this situation will be resolved in a fair manner, unless a miracle occurs and previously unrelated, unbiased admins chime in to put a stop to what you're doing. For the record, I've been trusting Wikipedia my whole life. You managed to destroy that trust in 2 days. Congrats? 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "appeal key?" The linked instructions are clear: The preferred way to appeal a block is to place {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on your talk page. Do that thing to start an unblock request. The rest of your behavior on this talkpage is a catalog of bad-faith assumptions, verifiably wrong assertions, and refusal to follow directions. And yes, the behavior of editors at the SBI talkpage exactly mirrors what happened at GamerGate, including the same notion on display here that you're being personally attacked. Until you place an unblock request here, nobody else will look at it - although I did link to this page at AN, so presumably some have looked at this wall of invective and decided to ignore you. The privilege of editing WIkipedia carries with it a commitment to following instructions. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not assume bad faith, you are showing bad faith as once again evidence by you doubling-down on the Gamergate-accusations.
"What appeal key?" - The lengthy code you get after putting up an official unblock request. It says to never show anyone, so I cannot show you the code I got. I will now post that unblock-code you gave me. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't post private information, but the instructions I gave you have no private component. Please follow those instructions. We get dozens of properly constituted unblock requests every day, it's easy. Acroterion (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There you go. Now read WP:NOTTHEM and the other instructions on successful block appeals. Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This time with the correct code: Unblock Request[edit]

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).

2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why should you be unblocked? I just found out that I was blocked for alleged "disruptive editing". I did no such thing. What I did was replying to admins who dismissing valid criticism to the Sweet Baby Inc-article. After I found that SEVERAL admins were openly mocking those of us bringing forward criticism to the article (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Eyes_needed_at_Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.), I reported this abuse of power with a lengthy posting explaining the situation. Said posting has been deleted by an anonymous admin and unfortunately I cannot copypaste what I reported. However, another posting of mine towards admin "Acroterion", who has been dismissive towards me before, has also been deleted, so I have to assume he deleted both the report and the comment. I did not edit any articles, all I did was explaining why the SBI-article in its current form goes against the UCoC of Wikipedia, which includes spreading only facts, not misleading, even harmful information. The admins involved in the discussion linked above openly call the critics "Gamergate", which is strongly connotated to mean nazis, racists, women hater, and more such awful things. None of that is deserved. As part of the group that criticizes SBI, I am neither a nazi, racist, nor anything else. I refuse to accept that Wikipedia as of now calls me that. It has been explained to exhausting detail, but if no sources exist to provide a factual article, the article or at least the controversial section should have been taken offline until adequate sources appear that give a complete picture of the situation. To block me for "disruptive editing" can only be seen as massive projecting as the consequence of a crass abuse of power. Thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Decrease#Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc." I'd also like to add the admin "Acroterion" has it out for me for some weird personal vendetta it appears. He deleted both a report I made about him and other admins, and also deleted a comment I made on his talk-page in an attempt to settle things peacefully. Instead, he keeps labeling my comments as "personal attacks" while openly mocking me, and blocked me for "disruptive editing", but that is already explained above. This person should not have any authority on Wikipedia based ony my interactions, thx. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nothing here convinces me it would be a good idea to lift this block. Yamla (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920&oldid=1213780530"