User talk:Altanner1991

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit-warring in policy space. 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 ~~~~}}.

This block applies to the Wikipedia main space, where you have edit-warred in two different policy pages. You remain able to edit articles and you remain able to discuss policy issues in the Wikipedia talk space. If you repeat this behavior when the block expires, I will make it indefinite. Zero^talk 13:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you, Altanner1991 (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

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).

Altanner1991 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I only made two reverts, per WP:3RR policy. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for 3RR (which does not give an entitlement to three reverts, anyway.) You're blocked for edit warring now for the fourth time; you're lucky it's as short as it is. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Minor correction: it is not the fourth time that I am blocked for edit warring. It is only the third time; the other block was termed "vandalism". Altanner1991 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2022 (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.

You were also edit warring (although not violating 3RR) at Template:Human_genetics and at White supremacy. I got the impression that you changed WP:V because you wanted to justify your opinion that mentioning "White Australia" should be removed from the latter article as unsourced. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." - ZLEA _T\^C 14:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess 3RR is only for newbs, the administrators, and their friends. Fine. But I have advocated on the policy page that this potential for graft be eliminated. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC); edited 15:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

You don’t seem to know our policy and are failing to show good faith or be civil. Bad idea. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The solution I will apply is to be friendly with all editors, since I think that is the only solution. That will cement my interpretation of the policy. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment from blocking admin. The number of reverts was not the point. This user made a substantive change to WP:Verifiability while marking it as minor and claiming it was a grammatical fix. On the edit being reverted, s/he reverted back claiming it was someone else's job to get consensus. Then s/he made a second substantive change, again marking it as minor and falsely claiming it was about grammar. Then after being reverted again, s/he reverted again, even though by that time two people had explained on the talk page why it wasn't acceptable. This editor edit-warred at WP:Edit warring only a few days ago. It seems from the responses above that this editor just doesn't get it. I think a more appropriate sanction would be an indefinite ban from editing policy articles. Zero^talk 14:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  I was making honest edits. The others have never once given an explanation as to why they were being reverted. I feel that behavior is edit warring, and not mine, since I use rationality. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  I now truly understand that 3RR occurs on a friendly basis and so I will be more careful. Thank you and best regards, Altanner1991 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• For the sake of posterity, this user has continued to make disruptive edits in wikitalk space which may run afoul of policy, e.g. "American Liberalism since the Trump era has become just as vengeful and warring as neo-Nazi or other genocidal groups" at WT: No Nazis. [1]. This is in the setting of an ongoing discussion about how the "non-endorsers" list on that essay is a great honey pot to locate editors who will likely become disruptive in the near future. This is nothing if not a great example of that phenomenon. @Zero0000@Doug Weller@Jpgordon Do I think the edit I linked is a blockable offense? No, probably not. But do I think it's extremely on-the-nose? Yes.
  If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck...All you need to do is give it a few days before it starts quacking loud enough for anyone in a hundred miles to know what it is. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, it came as too angry so I have retracted the comment. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  There's "too angry", and there's "Implying either that liberals support genocide, or that supporting genocide is comparable to cancelling people on Twitter or whatever other scary thing liberals are doing". Striking the comment doesn't really address the problem that you appear to hold at least one of those two attitudes toward genocide. I was going to come here to suggest (as an involved editor, admin hat off) that the p-block at the very least be extended to WT-space... But, seeing that Shibbolethink has had a similar reaction and that it's not just me, I'll go a step further and suggest that this is siteblockable. To me it conveys an editor who has a profound misunderstanding of what it means to support killing one's fellow humans (and thus one's fellow Wikipedians) on the basis of their ethnicity—a viewpoint that I find is only slightly less disruptive than actually supporting such killings. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  The motives of my comment were pure, and only to end hatred. I am so sorry if that was misunderstood. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  You made that comment 42 minutes after saying The solution I will apply is to be friendly with all editors. If you can't see why a comment like that is not going to come off as "friendly", perhaps this isn't the right environment for you to be contributing to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps you misunderstand my comment: I go beyond the normal desire to bring peace. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  I had meant it as even further left, if that makes sense. But I will try to word my comments more carefully. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  First of all, hatred is worse than killing, and I do neither. Second of all, you want to block me for upholding the anti-war principle in outstanding amounts? Liberalism shouldn't become just a way for savvy urbanites to drastically purge socially-awkward 'simple folk'. "Anti-Nazism" was fine but it has recently been going too far, becoming another way of being cool by getting rid of purported "losers". In sociology, disregarding personhood (dehumanization) is the first step that has led to genocide.

  At this point the only sense between the U.S. Democratic Party's history and the 2016–ongoing U.S. Democratic Party is by the undercurrent of hatred. They should all be called "Hateful Democrats". This is the country of people that instituted the most serious forms of White Supremacy and Nordicism besides WWII and some Commonwealth countries. Not to mention, the Civil War was even bloodier, even in total numbers, than either WWI or WWII. I need to speak out against these things. Hate and aggression is never the answer. I would rather repeal the 13th Amendment!

  Disclaimer: I have always been a registered Democrat, and I will continue to be a registered Democrat. My only other political affiliation has been with the French Communist Party, which was for most of 2021 and the early part of 2022. I was likewise in the early 2010s a notably very liberal UC Berkeley undergrad. [I was not aware that people could register for French political parties, and so I had never actually registered for the French Communist Party. I also feel that it is impossible to ascertain exactly when a regular person was "very liberal" or not.] Altanner1991 (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC); edited 21:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Me, I'd be inclined to make the block sitewide just so Altanner1991 could avail themself of the Law of holes. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  I want to make improvement, if that is at all possible. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agree to sitewide block. Altanner1991, my script which marks Admins didn’t work again. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a non-endorsement, excluding the mention of American politics & liberalism & the genocide comparisons, would suffice? GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

No I changed it to endorse because it's closer to my view. Thanks though, Altanner1991 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)