User talk:Wisdomtooth32

Welcome!

Hello, Wisdomtooth32, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Deletion discussion about Realist Left[edit]

Hello, Wisdomtooth32,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Realist Left should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realist Left .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Owlsmcgee (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure… I sure feel "highly encouraged". What's the hurry, Owlsmcgee?? I barely finished a first cycle of edits. Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had already moved the article to the draft domain, Sandstein; why did you move it back and then deleted it? What was your purpose? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot evade a deletion discussion by moving an article subject to AfD to draft space. The discussion applies to the article no matter which namespace it has been moved to. Sandstein 10:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Evade"? What's the "evasion"?? I took it offline into draft to continue working on it, as suggested. Or are you so hell bent on preventing me from working on it that you even had to delete my draft? Please return it. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Realist Left[edit]

Hi, I'm Babymissfortune. Wisdomtooth32, thanks for creating Realist Left!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add categories.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Alpha3031. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to CNN seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 04:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, so I've done the same on Alex_Jones_(radio_host)'s page, User_talk:Alpha3031. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:POINT, please. Neutrality^talk 05:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, extensively discussed, with many editors asking the very same question, and ignored. Added my support there in the discussion for actual Neutrality. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's down right adorable that you think this is going to work. I suspect you are doing this to be blocked so you can have some sort of badge of honor by sticking it to us nerds, but it's only wasting time. You're only wasting your own time. --Tarage (talk) 00:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sticking it to us nerds?? o.0
What makes you think I'm not a nerd too? Do all nerds have the same views on everything? Who exactly are you talking about? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You are blocked for 31 hours to give people a rest from your aggression. Please take the time to read WP:MASTODONS. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DRN case closed[edit]

This message template was placed here by Nihlus, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:Alex Jones_(radio_host)". The case is now closed: please see the case commentary for the specific reason. If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Nihlus 17:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by volunteer: Additionally, the avenues you have explored in the single month you have been on the wiki are highly suspect.

It appears that a Request for Comments that you filed about Alex Jones is still open, and that you should have known that using DRN to re-argue an issue that has been recently addressed or is still being addressed in an RFC is deprecated. Such tendentious editing will almost always result in a reputation as a stubborn editor and may result in sanctions (such as your recent block). Pause and reconsider whether your approach to Wikipedia is doing any good either for you or for Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It hadn't been addressed. My DRN was not for admins to settle the dispute in the Talk page, but simply to enforce Wikipedia policy that articles whose neutrality is being disputed ought to be appropriately POV tagged for the benefit of readers. I was unfairly blocked, having courteously argued my view, while being repeatedly met with WP:UNCIVIL behaviour both in Talk:Alex Jones_(radio_host) and in noticeboards by what seemed to me to be a mob Wikiactivists hell-bent on disqualifying anyone who didn't agree with them, including Alex Jones and anyone who might advocate giving him a neutral and objective description. You're right about this not "good for me", as Wikipedia does seem in the thralls of a mob ruled by groupthink. Whether that's good for Wikipedia is whole other matter entirely. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You may finally be starting to realize that you aren't likely to persuade Wikipedia collectively that we are wrong and you are right. In any case, the RFC and the DRN should address the same issues, and discussing one set of issues in one forum and another set of issues in another forum is not likely to be useful. Either it will result in an uncoordinated result, or it will simply annoy other editors. I don't understand how you are saying that the RFC and the DRN had to do with separate issues. That isn't reasonable. Pause and reconsider whether, if you are so sure that Wikipedia is wrong, you are likely to accomplish anything by being persistent. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is wrong… on something. Always, as it's continually evolving. Hopefully for the better, which is what I'm trying to help with. And my contribution in this instance is to push it to enforce its already established policies. I'm not proposing anything new; simply asking admins to enable the policy that when the neutrality of an article is disputed in the talk page, readers should be notified in the article (and not have to peruse the talk page to find that out). It's a matter of transparency about Wikipedia's neutrality (WP:5P2). — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Alex Jones (radio host). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Your comment was "Or you just don't want to draw attention, lest more editors drop by to have their say too? The level of mob-like tyranny here is really something! — " Doug Weller talk 19:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Ok, retracted the last sentence (though I was attacked plenty in that discussion, and that is my honest opinion, not about people in particular, but about the ethos that is prevailing at Wikipedia). — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to cause trouble. But, you only half retracted. About the first sentence, please read WP:AGF. O3000 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question, not a statement. Feel free to answer, if you like. I did assume good faith, but you and others proved me wrong. I don't anymore; not from you. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Defamation League[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Anti-Defamation League, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do NOT roll back my contributions simply because you disagree with the criticism being exposed. If you don't think it's adequately sourced — although the content is consistent with the film's article itself! — it suffices to include a ^{[citation needed]} tag. Right now you're vandalising. This is your last warning. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked just two days ago for your aggression. You don't seemed to have learned anything from the block as you've just twice called a good-faith edit vandalizing and issued "last warnings". You can use this time to read WP:NOTVAND and figure out how you're going to change the way you interact with other editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Wisdomtooth32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How is deletion for not being satisfied with sources not vandalising? How am I supposed to add sources, if any are really needed, if the whole content is stubbornly deleted every time? Is that collaborative? No, it's vandalism pure and simple. But, of course, I'm the one who gets blocked because I'm giving exposure to a dissident voice against a sacred cow. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2017 (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. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2017 (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.

Before you posted your appeal you really should have read WP:NOTVAND: "Content removal is not considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." This is a content dispute. Wording and sources could have been worked out on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wording and sources could have been worked out on the talk page.

Exactly what I said. But the person shooting down the content — whose wording I literally copy-pasted from a linked Wikipedia page! — was clearly not interested in having any discussion whatsoever. So, again, I ask: why did you block me and not him/her? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. You called the edits vandalism three times. Vandalism is simply reverted; there's nothing to be discussed on the talk page. Are you now saying your accusations of vandalism were incorrect? Just more of your overly aggressive editing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are. I made the edits. And they were vandalised (frivolously deleted). The 'justification' for deleting them was lack of sources. The text I used was copy-pasted from Wikipedia itself! If there were sources that needed to be copied over, a 'citantion needed' tag would suffice. I started doing that, but how can I improve the text, if it's been recalcitrantly deleted?? How is that "aggressive editing" and not the machine-gun deletion of my contributions point blank?! — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

From here, this goes one of two ways: either you chill and learn to work with people who have different views, or you end up blocked indefinitely. I have seen this hundreds of times before. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to the man. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me who doesn't know how to work with people with different views, or is it the people deleting all my edits, calling me names in talk pages, routinely blocking me for no good reason, and then blocking off discussions before I'm allowed back into the site so I don't get to have a say (which is precisely what you did, Guy)? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed, I'll quote User:DrFleischman there on that talk page:

I suggest we take it easy on Wisdomtooth32. They are entitled to their views, just as Mr. Jones is entitled to his.

— Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% with Guy on this. Take his advice. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to "work with people", Dr. Fleischman, as Guy "advises", if he prevents me from doing so by blocking me and then shutting down the discussion I raised before his block expires?? It's plainly obvious he doesn't want me to "work with people"; he just wants me quiet. "Work with people" is just code for "go along to get along", a far cry from the WP:BB principle. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Be bold" doesn't mean "be an ass." If you don't know the difference, then Wikipedia probably isn't for you. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: WP:UNCIVIL – Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't come on my talk page to disrespect me, @DrFleischman:. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More Advice[edit]

I am aware that it is popular among partisan editors to yell "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute. However, several editors have already advised you that if you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism, you also have been editing long enough to know what is not vandalism, and content disputes are not vandalism, so that the claim of vandalism is a personal attack. Pause and reconsider. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones is (the last I checked) still alive and was born after 1932. The article about him is subject to American politics discretionary sanctions. What that does is it makes it somewhat easier for administrators to topic-ban tendentious editors. I don't think that you want to be topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that it is popular among partisan editors to yell "Vandalism" to "win" a content dispute.

Yep, exactly. And that's precisely what I'm getting yelled with for wanting Wikipedia to adhere to its WP:POV policy. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, btw, I'm no partisan to Alex Jones, if that's what you're implying. I would just like Wikipedia to free itself from the mainstream politburo consensus that hijacked it, and simply adhered to its neutrality. It's plainly obvious that taking opinions expressed in the mainstream corporate media as reliable sources is not that! — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that a politburo is a policymaking committee of a communist party and corporate media suggests free enterprise. You just accused the "mainstream media" of being far right and far left. If your goal is to convince anyone here of anything, this is not an effective method. If your goal is to have your talk page access blocked, you’re on the right track. If your goal is to become a productive contributor, collaboration is the way. Elsewise, there exist some anti-Wikipedia forums where you may find more comradeship. O3000 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If your goal is to become a productive contributor, collaboration is the way.
How can I collaborate if everything I write is promptly deleted?? Even when I use content already 'sanctioned' by Wikipedia consensus from other articles?!
You just accused the "mainstream media" of being far right and far left.
Had I done that, there would be nothing wrong with it; it's called Horseshoe Theory. But I didn't. A highly concentrated industry is a far cry from free enterprise. Big Govt and Big Biz are the same thing, as one beckons the other. It's fascism either way. And Wikipedia has been hijacked by it. Also a far cry from its original anarchist ethos.
If your goal is to have your talk page access blocked, you’re on the right track.
Q.E.D. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Any Administrator[edit]

I have a question for any of the blocking administrators. I don't see anything warranting a block except for the personal attack of insisting on labeling a content dispute as vandalism and a general hostile attitude. A hostile attitude isn't in itself a basis for a block, except that it frequently results in blockable behavior. I also haven't often seen enforcement of the rule that false allegations of vandalism are a personal attack, although I happen to think that such claims should result in sanctions more often than they do. So my question is: Is this editor being blocked for yelling "vandalism" to "win" a content dispute, or for something else? If for the V allegations, then, good. If for something else, then have I missed something? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I blocked for the false vandalism charges as detailed here. I've blocked other editors for the same thing after giving them a warning. In this case, being blocked for 31 hours for aggression just two days before I blocked served as that warning. The unblock request just has the editor digging themselves deeper into a hole. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Yuck. User:Wisdomtooth32 - You aren't accomplishing anything either for yourself or for Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also check the edit history: edit-warring with a rather clear ideology. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it, JzG? Would you like to clarify what ideology that is? The one in which Wikipedia portrays people and their opinions without prefacing them as problematic, perhaps (which is clearly not a matter of fact, but of opinion)? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored to protect cherished illusions. Alex Jones, for example, is a crank and a conspiracy theorist. That is an objective fact reflected in a vast range of reliable independent sources, and it's not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones, for example, is a crank and a conspiracy theorist. That is an objective fact
Nope, it's opinion.
reflected in a vast range of reliable independent sources
Sources are reliable for statements of fact, not opinion (WP:RSOPINION).

Might I remind you (emphasis mine):
Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons. Contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately (WP:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biographies_of_living_persons). — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdomtooth... Have you tried counting the number of people who have commented on your talk page? Go ahead. I count at least two admins and four others, including myself. Do you know what every single one of those editors has in common?

We're trying to tell you how to avoid being indefinitely blocked. I know it seems like a battle against a bunch of people with opposing ideologies to yours, but if you actually read what we're saying and think about it as information, rather than argumentation, you might realize that we're actively trying to help you. We all want you to stick around and continue editing. The only thing we don't want is for you to keep disrupting other people's editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know it seems like a battle against a bunch of people with opposing ideologies to yours
No, it seems like a mob enthralled in groupthink who can't stand dissident voices, and who tell people to "go along to get along".
you might realize that we're actively trying to help you
Really? By blocking and constantly threatening to block me?? Uhum…
The only thing we don't want is for you to keep disrupting other people's editing.
The edits that were disrupted were mine! I initiated them!! — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And someone disagreed with them in good faith, giving reasons in the edit summaries. So, not vandalism, right? Please read what I linked to carefully and give a thought-through answer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Good faith"? What "reasons"?? Insufficient sources (even though my edit was an excerpt from Wikipedia itself!)? That's what the ^{[citation needed]} tag is for. Nope, that's vandalism pure and simple. Did you even read the link you sent me?
On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose
— Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All right, given your response here I have no confidence in your ability to edit non-disruptively, especially as you're working in areas that attract controversy. I have therefore indefinitely blocked you. You will have to convince an admin that either this extension is either unneeded or unwarranted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Wisdomtooth32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is outright abuse and ideological persecution! Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, it's not. And this is not an unblock request. I suggest that you read the guide before attempting another one. —DoRD (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2017 (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.

Given this, you're talking yourself into an indefinite block to prevent future disruption as you clearly don't know what vandalism is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See, User:MPants at work, Q.E.D. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is just one more in a long string of utterly forgettable usernames destined to be blocked indefinitely due to their own unwillingness to learn how to edit. You could always prove me wrong, but my hopes for that grow dimmer every time you hit the Publish changes button. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Bishonen | talk 23:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Wisdomtooth32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20124 was submitted on Dec 21, 2017 00:28:39. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Minority Opinion[edit]

I have what may be a minority suggestion, but I would like it considered. That is that this editor's talk page access should be restored. I may have a more tolerant view of what should be permitted by blocked users on their talk pages than some editors do, although I would like to see the civility policy enforced more strictly in content and conduct discussions. It is true that his posts on this talk page were simply rantings, but they were rantings by an otherwise blocked user that were not personal attacks because they were "impersonal attacks" on Wikipedia in general. He was using his talk page as "write-only memory". I say to let him rant, and see if at some point he can post a coherent unblock request. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The TP access block was a week earlier than I might have guessed. But, it was going to happen eventually. I guess it comes down to how much admin time can you waste before volunteers get tired of the rants from someone that doesn’t get it. The editor appears to have another unblock req at UTRS. Might make sense to unblock TP access in a few days under conditions. Above my paygrade. O3000 (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really really want to agree with Robert McClenon here, but every time I think it through, I realize that this was an editor who essentially became enraged at the realization that other people disagreed with them. I just can't bring myself to believe that restoring TP access would accomplish anything. It's a shame, but what are you gonna do? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything good of this editor being unblocked, period. "No, it seems like a mob enthralled in groupthink who can't stand dissident voices, and who tell people to "go along to get along"." False claims of persecution, and inability to understand consensus included. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 05:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banning this user from commenting on their own talk page is excessive. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. The abuse was too much. I would not oppose an unblock with the understanding that further problems would lead to another block, with much less if any chance for an unblock. Second chance, you know. But I think that decision rests with Bishonen. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original indefinite block was easily justifiable and the removal of talk page access, while perhaps hasty, was not without reason. I see no benefit to undoing either action at this point. Nihlus 20:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wisdomtooth32, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

DanielRigal (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion[edit]

This user has engaged in block evasion as of April, 2019. They stated, "Extending the block significantly won't matter; I can go to other IP addresses to spread the truth and continue on this one after the block expires. So go ahead, extend it froggy!" --Yamla (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]