User talk:Mindbunny

Badge of Honor: Blocked for calling Robert Mugabe degenerate and corrupt [1]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making deliberately disruptive edits in violation of WP:POINT.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• "This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources. If that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfold". --Robert Mugabe
• As the New Your Times reports, Mugabe's top lieutenants started "trying to force the political opposition into granting them amnesty for their past crimes by abducting, detaining and torturing opposition officials and activists." Dozens of members of the opposition and human rights activists have been abducted and tortured....
• Many opposition leaders mysteriously died during this time (Including one who allegedly died in a car crash, although the car was rumoured to have been riddled with bullet holes at the scene of the accident).[12] Additionally, an opposing newspaper's printing press was bombed and its journalists tortured.[12]
• In 2005, Mugabe ordered a raid conducted on what the government termed "illegal shelters" in Harare, resulting in 10,000 urban poor being left homeless from "Operation Murambatsvina (English: Operation Drive Out the Rubbish)."
• "[Homosexuality] degrades human dignity. It's unnatural, and there is no question ever of allowing these people to behave worse than dogs and pigs. If dogs and pigs do not do it, why must human beings? We have our own culture, and we must re-dedicate ourselves to our traditional values that make us human beings. … What we are being persuaded to accept is sub-animal behavior and we will never allow it here. If you see people parading themselves as Lesbians and Gays, arrest them and hand them over to the police!" --Robert Mugabe [2] [3] Mindbunny (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• "Yes, full support for the 72 hour block.... to some people Mugabe is a hero, to others something else but we do not opine those opinions we hold about them on talkpages....Off2riorob (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)" [4]

Comments

• To claim that you were blocked "for calling Robert Mugabe degenerate and corrupt" is a distortion. you were blocked for repeatedly making disruptive edits with the clear intention of being provocative and disruptive. The fact that the way you did so by repeatedly posting remarks about Robert Mugabe is irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Then statements of the form "[named living person] is degenerate and corrupt" must not be a BLP violation, since I repeatedly made such a statement and wasn't blocked for it. Therefore, the original concern about admin abuse stands.
• There is nothing particularly disruptive about the sentence "Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt." You have provided no evidence of a productive discussion being disrupted by it. It was made in the context of discussion about such statements. That thread, started by someone complaining about me, was widely considered "pointier" than what it complained about. It was a thread widely viewed as unimportant. You were looking for excuses to block an editor who criticized your judgement. Mindbunny (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Were you trying to delete my comments? If so, I'll leave you alone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Fisher Queen deleted a swath of comments and other material, and then refused to restore it. The easiest way to undo her vandalism was a revert. Your comment basically amounted to "calm down" (which, by the way, usually aggravates people further), and didn't seem essential. Feel free to restore if you wish. Mindbunny (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's the slightly modified version of what I said. Mindbunny, please calm down; I know I've made comments to the effect above already, and there are plenty of citations to prove that specific comment, but you're missing the forest for the trees. It's part of a pattern of late; this was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't think anyone is *denying* what you've said about Mugabe, but it's just one in a whole series of comments that straddle the line. I've already said at ANI that I won't make any more comments of that nature, despite what I said earlier, and I'd advise you to do the same. In the event that you really want to vent about Mugabe, you can e-mail me, but keep it off-wiki; I don't want to see you dig yourself into a deeper hole. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

My real concern is admin abuse, which has taken multiple forms in this issue. Sandstein blocked The Artist by way of promoting a POV and/or supporting another admin (SlimVirgin). Other admins supported the action with absurd and distorted arguments. Lately, the most common distortion has been of what The Artist actually said. It has now become an accepted truth that he called Lara Logan degenerate and corrupt. What he actually said is that she has degenerate and corrupting journalistic standards. It matters, because this is a discussion of nuance. People are comparing "ugly" and "pompous jerk" and "corrupt", and drawing distinctions between them. JamesBWatson has asserted that "jerk" is clearly more acceptable than "corrupt," and the distinction is sharp enough to base blocks on. Whatever. In such a context, we have to distinguish between commenting on someone's personhood and on their journalistic standards. Another absurdity is the argument that our personal opinions about living persons, expressed in Talk, must be sourced. Apparently, I was supposed to write "According to myself [1], Robert Mugabe is a pig." Another distortion is that That Artist's comment on Logan was unrelated to any effort to improve the article. In fact, the comment was based on that of a notable author, published in a reliable source (Rolling Stone), regarding an issue that was covered in the article. Sandstein knew all this. He knew the source, he knew the context, he knew it was an opinion, and he blocked anyway--18 minutes after giving a warning. The rush of admins to support him, all producing arguments like those given above (and some other silly ones, such as that any negative opinion is defamation), indicates a systemic lack admin accountability.

The abuse itself is not a surprise. Power leads to power trips. The problem is that Wikipedia, systemically, doesn't care. It has principles to protect against popularity contests and admin abuse, but the principles are enforced by.... popularity contests and admins. That interests me, and I don't intend to stop calling attention to it.

Thanks for your effort to turn things in a constructive direction. I'm pleased that there seems to be support for my view in the ANI thread. However, I'm not optimistic. Admins can block me, and you don't get admins on your side by pointing out their egotistical faults (however glaring they may be). Mindbunny (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I disagree with you on any of it (I don't know enough about Logan to form any real opinion, honestly); I'm in no way convinced that what I said is a BLP violation either, although given that Mugabe is in his 80s it shouldn't be an issue for too much longer. You don't have to agree with policy, but until you get it changed and/or clarified you should try to stay within it. As an NPPer (although I've considerably slowed down there for a while) I'm less than thrilled with CSD policy, but I make an active effort to follow it. Or to use a real-life example for me; I'm essentially incapable of feeling/showing empathy, but I at least pretend when I'm at a wake or funeral. You may not really like the way BLP policy is enforced, but it's in your interest to stay within it. I'm more than willing to refrain from making comments like I did about Mugabe; Mugabe did what he did to his reputation many years ago, and I have no problem calling a spade a spade, but if other editors tell me that it's interfering with collaboration then I'll stop. All you have to do is convince an admin that you won't make comments like that again, and then follow through with it. If you're worried about power trips, don't shout admin abuse; even if I assume you're correct, by your logic that'll only give them more ammunition against you. My advice, should you want it, would be to calmly say that even if you don't agree with the way admins have enforced BLP policy that you'll try your best to go with it. I wasn't blocked, but I've already said as much at ANI, and it's worked for me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you say about changing policy, but don't agree that it applies here. WP:BLP doesn't prohibit critical opinions of living people. That would just be censorship. The parts of WP:BLP being cited to justify these blocks don't apply. Negatives opinions are not libel. An opinion given by an editor is obviously very clearly sourced--to the editor. WP:BLP was applied wrongly in order to rationalize punitive blocking. Mindbunny (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• - WP:BLPTALK is quite clear - your opinions about living people should be kept to yourself. end of. get a blog to voice your opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Repeating that assertion doesn't it make true or interesting. The ANI discussion makes one thing clear: there is no agreement. The policy you cited doesn't amount to "keep your opinions about living people to yourself." It is primarily concerned with clear sourcing, and the source of an editor's opinion is very clear. There is also no custom of blocking on the principle "keep your opinions about living people to yourself." If the policy exists, it is virtually never enforced, and its arbitrary enforcement looks prejudiced. The real topic here is admin abuse. This comment, by an admin, is harsher, yet the admin remains unblocked: "<redacted> --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)" Mindbunny (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

On your userpage when blocked you are allowed a bit of leeway - see here User_talk:Stephan_Schulz#your_personal_opinions for the discussion with S Schulz - and I have struck all his attacking opinions and warned him as well. Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It is primarily concerned with clear sourcing, and the source of an editor's opinion is very clear.; this is just Wikilawyering to avoid the intent of the policy. As it is you are wrong, the BLP policy mentions that comments not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. QED on that, really. Also, as I understand it you have been blocked not for expressing these opinions, but for continually expressing them to make a point. Which is different. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)m

The point about sourcing is hardly "wikilawyering" when it was the basis for Sandstein's block, as Sandstein himself said [5]. Many others chimed along. Errant has mis-cited (and thus misunderstood) WP:BLP, which is about contentious material, not comments. The intent is to prevent defamation and other kinds of harm, not to prohibit criticism. Prohibiting editors from criticizing a living person would be oppressive. I see the discussion with Stephan Schulz is also making these points. P.S. Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt. Mindbunny (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the intent is to stop people expressing their own views on living people in a highly visible forum. Saying someone is the most human being in the world should be equally discouraged per NOTFORUM, but where the view is negative or contentious it comes under BLP policy. Totally agreed about the Mel Gibson DUI. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. <redacted>Mindbunny (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I must say, I am appalled to discover that there is an entire article devoted to the Mel Gibson DUI incident. That seems like a horrendous BLP-violating POV-fork. <redacted>, but that doesn't mean he should be attacked to the extent of having an entire encyclopedia article about a single incident. Where's the entire article on the Academy Award he won for Braveheart? A POV-fork like that is a much more blatant insult to a living person than some editor dude on a Talk page calling him a jerk. Mindbunny (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Your statements about living people on this talk page

Hello. As you are aware by now, Wikipedia is not a forum for you to voice your views about living persons, WP:BLP does apply to talk pages, and you may not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. For these reasons, please remove the defamatory statements you made about living persons (Mugabe, Cheney, Gibson) on this talk page as soon as possible, or your block may be extended and you may be prevented from editing this talk page. Regards,  Sandstein  06:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No. There was no consensus in the recent discussion [6]. WP:BLP applies to Talk pages, but it doesn't prohibit negative opinions. Negative opinions are not defamatory ("a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual") [7]. Even the blocking admin said he didn't block violations of WP:BLP. You've provided no evidence that such comments are disruptive. Nor have you trheatened any of the other editors who made the same comments, and have continued to defend them [8].

You are not impartial. I've repeatedly criticized you for biased blocking, and recently attempted an RFC/U for you. Good form would be to take this to ANI, not block someone yourself who has called for you to be blocked. Mindbunny (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. WP:BLP does not only prohibit statements that are legally defamatory, but, beyond that, dictates at WP:BLPTALK: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate." This includes your personal opinion about whether a particular living person is a criminal or morally deficient (especially if, as here, it is unrelated to improving an article). In addition, per WP:FORUM, Wikipedia (including its talk pages) is not a forum in which you may voice your own opinions about living persons. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to discuss the merits of living people. Finally, per WP:POINT, if you disagree with a rule (such as the ones I and others have explained to you), you may attempt to have it changed, but it is disruptive to protest against it by breaking it.

You are also mistaken about my involvement with respect to you. Per WP:UNINVOLVED, "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." My interactions with you so far have all been in an administrative capacity. An editor cannot unilaterally prevent an administrator from doing their job simply by expressing disagreement with the administrative actions of that administrator, whether in the form of a RFC or otherwise.

Finally, the possibly questionable conduct of other users, and whether it has been sanctioned or not, is not a reason not to enforce our policy about biographies of living persons with respect to you. If you believe the edits of others warrant enforcement as well, you may request such enforcement on the appropriate noticeboard as soon as you are again able to. In this case, I choose not to undertake such enforcement myself because of my possible prior involvement with some of the editors concerned, and so as not to complicate matters more.

Consequently, because you have not removed the WP:BLP violations above, I am doing so and I am also lengthening your block to last one week. Should you reintroduce the problematic material, you may be prevented from editing this talk page and/or your block may be extended further, including to an indefinite duration. Any administrator may unblock you if you convince us that you understand what you did wrong and credibly promise no longer to violate the policy about biographies of living persons, misuse Wikipedia as a forum to voice your opinions about living people, and disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.  Sandstein  19:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no conensus for this interpretation of WP:BLP in the recent discussion. The editors skeptical of the interpretation and/or block of me included..... GinsengBomb, Blade of Northern Lights, NickCT, Kansan, and Stephan Schulz [9]. It would also be appropriate for you to explain what, exactly, is being disrupted by my Talk page. There have been no concrete examples of disruption.

You've also misunderstood the content you just redacted. Of the 2k you deleted as my BLP violations, 1.9k was quoted directly from Wikipedia. [10] How I can commit a BLP violation by quoting Wikipedia?

Please don't move goalposts. I defended myself against the claim that I was defaming people, because you accused me of defamation above.

As a matter of grammar, the "and" in "unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices" means that both conditions must be met. An editor's opinion is clearly sourced to the editor. Your interpretation requires wording such as "poorly sourced OR not related to content choices."

As for the policy on being uninvoled, the examples of acceptable involvement are "warnings, advice, and suggestions." Our past conflict goes beyond that. You blocked me, I accused you of bias in favor of a POV on an article, I requested an RFC/U on you, we disagree on the meaning of the policy, etc. That's conflict. Mindbunny (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with Sandstein's actions here. Mindbunny, no matter how angry you are at Sandstein or any other editor here, no matter how in the wrong you think everyone else's interpretation of our BLP policy is, the simple fact is you are in the wrong. If after the block expires you persist in acting in the ways you have that resulted in your being blocked, I would support an indefinite block. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "everyone else's interpretation"? From that brief ANI thread, off the top of my head, those who disagree with this interpretation of "our" BLP policy include NorthernLights, GinsengBomb, Stephan Schulz, and Kansan (and myself). The wording of the policy is unclear, and these blocks are arbitrary. The fair response to ambiguous policy is not to block first; it is to listen and clarify via community input. The blocks are powertrips by people with power. One of the most predictable patterns in social history. Mindbunny (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have an opinion regarding the BLP/user talk issue; you have an opinion regarding the issue. Those opinions aside, you are treating the issue as a battleground and are using your user talk to further a point. I will not block you for this practice but you will certainly be blocked for disruption if you do not self-revert. If you have concerns regarding the interpretation of the BLP policy, take it up at the proper venue. I have previously left you a message that was ignored with prejudice; I hope this message does not suffer the same fate. Tiderolls 20:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Kim Jong-il is not a nice guy. Mindbunny (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

According to myself [11], he's a tyrant. Mindbunny (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sourced! Mindbunny (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And I have a source that the Pope is Catholic. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Since you did not seem to learn from your prior blocks, and you have again engaged in disrupting Wikipedia to make a point as evidenced here, and refused to drop the matter after several polite requests from other editors, I have now blocked your account indefinitely. Upon reading what happened here I had considered blocking your account indefinitely, but decided to wait.

Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia, but it just doesn't seem to be working out. The efforts the community has to make to deal with your editing outweighs the benefits thereof. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• See especially User:John Vandenberg's comment here. Do not unblock this user without my agreement, or a robust community discussion and consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 14:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You should learn how to make decisions that are respected by people who disagree with them.

It isn't disruptive to give reasons for a concern. It is irrational to dismiss the concern as mine alone when it was expressed by others. You're an admin abusing power, a systemic problem here. Mindbunny (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, as a point of honesty and accuracy, I should note that User:Noloop is my acknowledged alternate account, and you should probably block it too. I scrambled the password, so it is inaccessible to me, but it's so important to be official, you know.

It would have been nice to have admins address my reasons for believing what I believe, instead of just declaring me disruptive for believing it. What you don't seem to realize is that I am not persistent because of "POINT" or "BATTLE". I'm persistent when I am merely dismissed, when I believe I'm not being listened to. Everybody should be persistent in that way. Mindbunny (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure whether there is any point in saying this, because you have a substantial history of failing to hear what people say on this issue, but I have not seen anyone "declaring you disruptive" for believing particular things, nor even for stating what you believe. What has been characterised as disruptive is the way you behave when you find people disagree with what you believe. "The efforts the community has to make to deal with your editing outweighs the benefits thereof" is a pretty good summary. You have done some good work, and if you had been able to accept that in a collaborative project we all often have to accept things going ways we think are wrong then you could have gone on doing much more good work. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The way I behave when people disagee with me is to explain why I believe what I do. Then, my act of explaining is declared disruptive. That's all that is given in Jehochman's comment "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point as evidenced here, and refused to drop the matter after several polite requests from other editors". And, the representations are not accurate. I replied to those editors who directed comments at me. Nor is it accurate to suggest the concern is mine alone. The last comment in that thread is "May I complain about the article starting from scratch and have it be treated as a legitimate BLP complaint? Those excerpts show far more than is necessary for documenting abuse. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)" Several others have shared my concern. The main admin warning me, Scot Mac, also called me "idiotic", so of course I ignored his warnings. Likewise, my proposal at the Village Pump has been supported by a majority [12]. Yet it is characterized as my disruption and a case of failing to hear what people say. So when admins repeatedly say nobody is pursuing these concerns but me, and the facts are that many others are expressing the same concerns, I think admins are dishonest.

Above, I've given my reasons for believing what I believe. Typically, that is taken as further proof of "disruption" and failing to hear what people say. I see myeself conducting myself properly: explaining my rationales, responding to criticism. That is how an open-minded discussion works. So, when I see myself being threatened/punished for it, I see admin abuse. I would like to be unblocked, but I am not going to appeal. Appeals seem to require subordination to the admin comunity: I admit I was wrong, the admins were right, and I will never do it again. In this case, that would be dishonest. I see myself engaging in reasoned discussion with an expectation of fairness. Mindbunny (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny, I dislike authority too. The problem here is that you have had repeated problems and don't seem to get it that certain topics are danger zones to be avoided. Right and wrong are subjective. But commotion is easily identified. As a general rule, don't cause a lot of commotions on Wikipedia unless you have substantial upport from other editors that your points are worth making. You don't need to apologize, bow, nor scrape. Just demonstrate that you undertand how things work. Jehochman ^Talk 06:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman has it right, and I know from personal experience. What I've learned over time is that even when I'm absolutely certain that I'm right, I don't always get my way. I have been known to argue for something for a lengthy stretch of time, without convincing anyone, or very few; and at some point, someone with that voice of authority says, "That's enough." Then I ask myself, which is preferable: To be right, and indef'd? Or to leave it for another day (or never), and continue to edit? How badly do I want to edit? That's the question every editor has to ask himself when he seems to hit a stone wall. My answer, so far, has been that I would rather edit than "win", if it comes to that choice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

No intellectual community can enforce this: "certain topics are danger zones to be avoided." As a side note, I don't see how it applies here. My proposal at the Village Pump was supported by a majority. Other editors expressed concern about SlimVirgin's page; in the discussion, I just responded to comments directed at me. Mindbunny (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

One of your danger zones is BLP. You should not be starting any conversations about this topic. ArbCom nearly topic banned you from all BLP issues, but decided to leave it to the community. At the moment, I am enforcing the community's wish, which is that they want a break from your endless or pointless debates. Jehochman ^Talk 00:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The facts speak for themselves. My BLP policy proposal is supported by a majority. I've edited one BLP article in my life, and never made a BLP-violating edit to it. Banning people to end debate is oppressive and pointless: I wasn't debating myself.

You need to learn to make decisions that are respected even by people who disagree with them. Mindbunny (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We should pause this conversation for a while. Please think over my advice, and maybe contact a few other Wikipedians and see what they think. Feel free to lodge an appeal with the unblock list or ArbCom. Kind regards, Jehochman ^Talk 18:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I've spent the last month criticizing admins. Appealing isn't an option. I'm done here. Mindbunny (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a conundrum. I noticed vandalism [13]. If I fix it, I have 1) unambiguously improved Wikipedia, and 2) unambiguously sock-puppeted. It seems like a clear case of IAR, since 99% of the community will agree it's an improvement. But should I risk the randomness of a later admin judgement? It is impossible to know in advance how an admin would interpret such an action. particularly an admin with a prior history with me. I risk damage to any future interest in being unblocked if I invoke IAR. The vandalism has existed undetected for a week. Like the Car Talk guys say, it's a puzzler. Mindbunny (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Since no one noticed it but you, maybe no one but you is watching the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It should probably be protected to prevent anon IP editing. Almost all the blanking of the last few months has been from anon IPs, and there has been a steady trickle of it. Thanks for fixing it, but that doesn't address the interesting question of how a banned editor should handle such things in general. Mindbunny (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You're not banned, you're blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a block that never expires. What's the difference? Mindbunny (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A ban is more severe and harder to overturn. And indefinite does not mean forever, it means "no defined end". If you demonstrate good faith over time, you can ask for a unblock and a lone admin could grant it. Not so with a ban - that requires group discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there would be a problem with bringing edits here like you have done in this case. Here is the applicable policy which allows for users to use their discretion. "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case, the IP had zapped a quote and left the sourced introduction the quote "hanging", so it seemed reasonable to undo the IP's action. Hard to say if it was vandalism or not, but there was no explanation, so I would lean in that direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

(a) I watch the page, but I didn't like that particular quote and where it's used so didn't feel the need to undo it (but negligently didn't notice the hanging intro); (b) it should be semi=protected. I recently got that done for Saudi Arabia and it saves undoing a lot of the same crap. i'll apply for semi in next few days, if no one else does; (c) Mindbunny, you should appeal the block. It was quite wrong at that point in time. I almost took it to AN/I, but didn't want the drama at the time. If you were going to be blocked it should have been a week or so before. And the issue was then looked at AN/I and the community view was no block. After that, you hadn't actually done much (I.e. done much wrong - although I'm not defnding what you did before then) so the eventual block was somewhat "out of the blue". DeCausa (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you like the quote? I was very pleased to find it, because it gives a pro-Saudi view from a Saudi feminist perspective. That article is best when it provides Westerners with insight rather than judgement.

I'm not going to appeal. I've never seen an appeal process that didn't amount to "admit you are wrong and admins are right." I can't do that, since I don't believe it. Mindbunny (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I want to undo this vandalism [14], and deal with similar problems that I encounter from time to time while reading Wikipedia. I may or may not edit in more substantive ways. As I said before, I consider the current block to be censorship, so I can't make concessions and be honest. If the price of being unblocked is to say "I admit I was wrong and Jehochman was right" then I will remain blocked. Mindbunny (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblock provided. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:22, 15 August 2011 (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 reverted that IP's unexplained deletion, which you pointed out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 15 August 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The grounds for an unblock were very clearly provided. First, the original block violated Wikipedia's blocking policy, since it was censorship. What Jehochman called "disruptive" editing was a) my civil response to a comment directed at me, and b) the mere broaching of a subject (BLP policy). Jehochman's rationale was essentially that the mere civil expression of my opinion--sometimes in response to points directed at me by other editors--was disruptive. Declaring a topic disruptive is censorship; only an editor's behavior can be disruptive, and mine wasn't. I violated no policy. The second grounds for unblocking is that I want to undo vandalism when I see it, i.e. "make productive contributions." Again, one is left to wonder if "grounds for unblocking" consists of something other than "admit you were wrong and the blocking admin was right." Mindbunny (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Since your last unblock implied you will not be doing this, I don't expect any further unblocks to be successful. Should you continue, I'd suggest to the next admin that your talk page access be revoked. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2011 (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 can't tell what Daniel Case just said. However, it doesn't appear to address my concerns, or to show any interest in doing so. WP:NOTTHEM refers to comparing yourself to other editors. The only editor I mentioned in my appeal is the blocking admin, specifically his blocking rationale and whether it violated policy. That is what you are supposed to do, according to the guide to appealing blocks. I also can't tell what was meant by "your last unblock implied you will not be doing this." However, a comment like "I don't expect any further unblocks to be successful" is poisoning the well. Thanks, I really feel like I'm getting a fair hearing.

This is obviously a waste of time. I think the next time I see obvious vandalism, of the type I saw today, I will just undo it. It's obvious "ignore all rules." It's also obvious sockpuppeting, of course..... Maybe the community is losing editors because the community is unfair. Mindbunny (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to get yourself permanently banned, socking would be a good way to do it. If you want to edit wikipedia legitimately, you'll need to "kiss up" to some extent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, there is a requirement of "kissing up." That requirement harms Wikipedia. The condition, kiss up or don't edit, is damaging. I can't even tell what Daniel Case said. My appeal had nothing to do with WP:NOTTHEM that I can see. I have no idea how I am supposed to appeal without being threatened with "[my] talk page access be revoked." I thought I addressed the block rationale in my appeal, and stated an intent to contribute productively.

There is simply no such policy: as 'If you want to edit wikipedia legitimately, you'll need to "kiss up"...', and anyone being subjected to such a policy is entitled to invoke "ignore all rules." Mindbunny (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"Ignore All Rules", while a cute theory, is not to be taken literally. IAR does not apply to the use of socks to defy a block or ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 20 August 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't know what I am supposed to do. I thought I gave a reason in my first request: the block is censorship. The stated rationale for the block was that ideas and concerns are taboo; blocking merely for the expression of ideas and concerns is censorship. In my second request, I thought I elaborated. I mostly don't understand what Daniel Case wrote. Again, the reason to unblock is that the block is unjustified by policy. I was blocked for disruption. Disruption is "vandalism; gross incivility; harassment; spamming; edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule; breaching the policies or guidelines, especially the sock puppetry policy; attempts to coerce actions of editors" [15] I did none of these things. The stated rationale was: "Since you did not seem to learn from your prior blocks, and you have again engaged in disrupting Wikipedia to make a point as evidenced here, and refused to drop the matter after several polite requests from other editors..." First, my prior blocks that were not self-reverted by the admin (many were) were for making offhand negative comments of the type "(Notable Person) is pompous jerk." I made no further statements of that type. Second, the discussion I started that is given as my disruption is simply not a case of disruption. Third, the idea that I should have "dropped the matter" because other editors wanted it dropped is wrong because a) it neglects that several editors besides me wanted to discuss the matter, b) neglects that those who wanted it dropped kept directing comments at me, and c) requiring concerns to be dropped because they are disliked is censorship. If this request is declined, it would be helpful to be given a (clearly written) explanation of what I am supposed to do other than "Admit you are wrong and admins are right."

Decline reason:

Here's the clear explanation (you have already had it many many times before). You may not make derogatory comments about living persons on articles, article talkpages, personal talkpages, or any other page owned by the Foundation. Yes, this means that you're not entitled to have an opinion about a person on Wikipedia. These policies are clearly stated in WP:BLP and emphasized in WP:BLPTALK. They have been upheld by ArbComm and Jimbo himself. This is quite obviously not censorship - Wikipdia exists to provide verifiable facts about subjects. Subjective opinion does not meet this clear requirement. Claiming censorship by the blocking admin is very much a case of WP:NOTTHEM as you are completely failing to see that it is your actions that have led to this block. If you want to express an opinion, start a blog somewhere. There's no need to kiss ass, there's simply a need to understand the simple fact that this PRIVATELY-OWNED website does not allow for the expression of negative opinions about living persons on its pages - as you continue to break this rule, you are prevented to edit this privately-owned website (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:53, 20 August 2011 (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 "censorship" complaint does not serve you well, as it implies freedom of expression is being inhibited, when in fact there is no freedom of expression in wikipedia, because there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not claiming the block violates the Constitution. I'm claiming it is harmful to Wikipedia (because it is censorship). Mindbunny (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I invoked WP:NOTTHEM because the unblock request in question spent a lot more time talking about what was wrong with other people and almost no talking about yourself, per the dictum at that link "Talk about yourself, not about others". And yes, that applies equally to the blocking admin.

My other comment was alluding to your remark in your previous request that "If the price of being unblocked is to say "I admit I was wrong and Jehochman was right" then I will remain blocked." (And by the way, that's a false dichotomy. You admitting to being wrong does not necessarily mean that you are admitting that Jehochman was right. Think about the shades of gray, please). I took that as (as, indeed, I think any reasonable person would) indicating that you were committed to focusing on what he did and would not reconsider any of your own actions.

I don't know how I can be any clearer. Vincent Ferrari could not have been clearer asking that AOL guy to "Cancel ... my ... account!" (and I daresay that guy was more cooperative).

Seriously, whatever your original sins or lack thereof, your truculence here has shown you to be a tendentious editor, enough so that I can sleep well with the knowledge that keeping you from editing anything other than this page (and even on that, I should warn you, you are skating on very thin ice) is a net plus for the project. Because it's editors like that who have made people leave the community.

Time to drop the stick and back away from that ugly mess that, we'll just have to take their word for it, was once a horse. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• I give up. Administrators are getting the basic facts wrong, and making no effort to understand what is being said.

It rather appears to me they're paying more attention than you would like, more attention than you are in fact, to what you're saying. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bwilkins' only rationale for keeping me blocked has to do with expressing negative opinions about living people. I'm not blocked for that. My block for that expired in May, and I made no further comments of that type after it expired. He/she doesn't seem to have bothered to become familiar with why I am blocked.
• As for Daniel Case, his comment is an abusive powertrip. I spent no time talking about what is wrong with anyone. I spent time talking about what is wrong with the block. That is what you are supposed to do in an appeal: "State what is wrong about your block....You must explain why it was wrong, and why the block violated the blocking policy." I made no personal comments about the blocking admin whatsoever: I discussed the block. The rest of Case's comment amounts to threatening me and calling me "truculent" and tendentious because I won't kiss his ass.

There's nothing inherently wrong with being the sort of person who takes no crap from anyone. But it does become a problem when you keep on not taking crap even when there's no crap to take.

Your complaints about your block, along with your accounting of your own behavior, was considered and rejected in the first request. So, it seems to me, you chose to speculate about Jehochman's motivations and reasons in your second request, the one I declined. You also indicated that everything about this comes down to something between you and Jehochman.

You know what? I'll drop all the clever things I was going to say and suggest to you, pretend Jehochman has nothing to do with this. Then tell us why you deserve to be unblocked (it does seem like you have some support here. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am being given no options. Admins are distorting the facts and being abusive. I will make a sockpuppet.

And you wonder why I called you truculent? Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Although Mindbunny has undoubtedly been disruptive at times, there was something very odd about the timing of this block. Mindbunny made a general nuissance of herself upto about 22 May culminating in the Arbcom comments on 22/23 may which Jehochman made reference to. If there was going to be an indef block it should have been about then. On 23/24 May a community ban was considered here at ANI and rejected in the sense that there was no consensus support (and from memory most rejected the proposal I believe). Mindbunny opened this at BLP/N on 1 June. I personally don't see much wrong with doing that, but even if there's something reprehensible in it, the "damage" was done by 2 June. There was no substantive further comment by MB after then (except a minor post on 8 June). It's therefore puzzling as to what happened on 8 June that was so bad that made Jehochman indef ban on that day. MB hadn't done much for a week. The only major thing they had done after the ANI discussion was open the Poetgate thread a week before the ban, but IMHO, there's not much there that was so bad and some agreed with MB's POV. I think there should be some explanation of the timing. DeCausa (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Admins don't actually seem to care about why I am currently blocked. Bwilkins thinks I'm still blocked over an earlier issue. The only goal of admins in this case is to make me "cry uncle." I'm not doing that. I don't know if I'm really going to sock, but if I'm looking at an article and see vandalism, I'm not going to continue to post it here. That is just too cumbersome to be sustainable. Mindbunny (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I suspect they don't care because you spend more time ranting about admin abuse/power trips etc than explaining the detail to them. That's going to piss any admin off and they won't be inclined to want to spend any time (sympathetically) looking into it. You seem to forget that they're (a) just volunteers (b) human. You're your own worst enemy. And, by the way, you were being pointy and disruptive on the whole BLP thing and whatever the rights and wrongs of Jehochman's block (and I tend to think it was wrong) you will never be unblocked unless you acknowledge that. DeCausa (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I provided a great deal of detail in my last appeal. It was ignored by the reviewing admin (and pronounced tendentious by Daniel Case). My belief is that Wikipedia's admin culture lacks accountability, and I'm not going to hide that opinion when it is relevant. The mere fact that this process seems to require me to hide that opinion documents the truth of it. Mindbunny (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No Mindbunny, you gave some detail at that point. Too little and far too late. The preceding weeks of complaining by you negated it. It's beyond that now and your reaction to the block is now and issue in itself. DeCausa (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The community has a finite amount of time for dealing with editors who repeatedly misuse editing privileges. If you want to appeal, talk about the good things you plan to do, and refrain from arguing about past things. Arguing that you were right is in indication to me that you don't understand what you did wrong, and that you will do wrong again if unblocked. Keep in mind that if you get unblocked, you will be reblocked very swiftly if there were to be any return to the behavior that led to the blocks. Go ahead and explain to me what good things you intend to do. Jehochman ^Talk 16:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. But if it is expected of MB to understand what they did wrong it needs to be clear what was the proximate cause of the block i.e. what they did wrong, in this case, in the days/week leading up to it. What was the final straw just before the 8 June? At the moment it isn't clear and it is reasonable for a blocked editor to be told that. DeCausa (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

My block notice is perfectly clear. I had spotted Mindbunny's posts at RFAR and BLPN as these pages are on my watchlist. As I told you once already, the block has been reviewed three times, which is enough. If Mindbunny has questions, they can ask me. Now, who are you and what is your interest in all this? Did somebody ask you to get involved here? Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a very odd and uncivil response in the context. Who am I? I note the implication of meatpuppetry in your questions, to which, quite frankly, you deserve no response. Nevertheless: I am an editor in good standing with no record of blocks who does not warrant such apalling lack of AGF for asking perfectly legitimate questions. I had a heated dispute with Mindbunny earlier in the year that involved reports to AN3 and ANI. It should be easy enough for you to check both noticeboards to see that there is no love lost between me and MindBunny. Because of the disputes, I had Mindbunny's Talk on my watchlist. There are many times I would have been very happy to see MindBunny blocked as she is undoubtedly a pain in the ass. However, I have seen that Mindbunny has done some very good article work and, although somewhat immature and with a persecution complex, MB ocassionally makes very valid points. MB in May was behaving badly but I (and most people who contributed to ANI at the time) did not consider that it warranted an indef. In fact, immediately before (and to some extent during) that episode I noticed that MB was making noticeable efforts to improve behaviour. After the worst had passed and after MB's behaviour was considered by the community, you popped out of the blue and made a block that was not justified by anything that had happened recently. There had been no significant posting by MB in the 7 days before your block. Most people would say that the last piece of serious misbehaviour by MB had occurred prior tothe community's consideration of MB at ANI. As much as MB pisses me off I could see that that your block represented an appalling lack of due process. Absent any explanation from you (which you have refused to give) it appears you ignored community consensus as expressed at ANI and punished (it clearly wasn't preventitive given MB's lack of activity at the time) Mb's misbehaviour from several weeks before. Of course, after you made the block it was never going to go well and MB spun off in her usual persecution complex-inspired nonsense. The confirmation of the block three times has significantly more to do with Mindbunny's stubbornness and complete mishandling of the appeals than the original validity of your block.

To conclude, I note you have point blank refused to answer the question of what happened in the week prior to your block that made you feel that the block was necessary. I think your imperious response above and on your talk page that you're not going to answer speaks volumes. The succinct answer to your question as to my interest is related to your competence as an admin rather than any "concern" for MindBunny. DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Who asked you to get involved here" is an amazing question. Who asked Jehochman to get involved here? Wikipedia asked all of us. Editing is supposed to be transparent, and admin actions doubly so. Authority should welcome being questioned, but that hasn't happened here.

I must object to your characterization of my view as a conspiracy theory. The admin community lacks accountability, and that leads to abuses. That's different from saying there's a conspiracy.

Despite all this sound and fury, nothing has progressed. I'm not even going to concede anything until Jehochman explains how I was being disruptive where he said I was being disruptive. The policy on appeals says clearly that editors are entitled to challenge the blocking rationale; admitting you were wrong isn't the only option. I suppose I could appeal again, and probably be banned. It's not like I have anything to lose. Mindbunny (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)By "Who are you?", I an seeking to understand why Mindbunny isn't pleading his own appeal? Wikipedia generally dislikes lawyering by one editor on behalf of another. Anyhow, the edit of Mindbunny on June 1 to start a very pointy thread on BLPN was the last straw. I noticed it on June 8 and issued the block. What happened between those seven days? Mindbunny continued to push the pointy thread, showing no sign of backing down and every sign of continuing to disrupt if allowed to continue editing. Jehochman ^Talk 00:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

MindBunny, please post an unblock request stating what articles you would like to edit, and stating that you will not carry further any past grudges or campaigns. That's my advice for how you can get unblocked. Jehochman ^Talk 00:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be apparent that I don't agree the block was justified. So starting with the premise that the block was justified (thus, I need to promise to improve) doesn't move toward a common ground. I believe I was improving Wikipedia, by pointing problems that needed addressing. I would like my concerns to be taken seriously. That's all anybody wants. Policy entitles editors are entitled to challenge the grounds for a block. The question is, was the edit you cited as disruptive [16] really disruptive? I don't think it was, and said why in my last unblock request. None of the appeal denials have actually addressed the issue: how was my participation in that thread disruptive? I also wonder if you noticed the dates of my edits. At the time you blocked me for disruptive participation in that thread, I had made just one comment in 5 days.

You are telling me to post an unblock request and Daniel Case is threatening to disable my Talk page access if I post another unblock request. Unblocking policy states that editors are entitled to challenge the basis for the block, but I can't get a single reviewing admin to address the actual conduct that was the basis for the block. The admin community is like a club, and I'm just sick of dealing with it. Mindbunny (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"The admin community is like a club"! Aah, if you but knew what I think of some other administrators! How about another interpretation? How about "I can't get a single reviewing admin to support my view, because my view is totally out of line with consensus. However, I am so utterly convinced that I am RIGHT and anyone who disagrees with me must be WRONG that I am unable to see it that way, and instead live in a fantasy world where all administrators are part of an evil conspiracy against me." JamesBWatson (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request permitted

I am giving you permission to post a proper unblock request. Nobody is going to revoke your talk page access for doing so. Jehochman ^Talk 20:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

And I will not revoke your access for this. This request is the way it should have been. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The basis for this block is that this edit was disruptive. The edit wasn't disruptive. My participation in the discussion as a whole has also been cited, but that edit was my only edit to the thread for five days before the block. My discussion as a whole wasn't disruptive, in any case. The block violated policy because, a) "Blocks should not be used when there is no current conduct issue which is of concern." [17] and , b) my edits don't meet the definition of disruption. Mindbunny (talk) 8:58 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but you still seem to be in "blame others" mode, which will not get you unblocked. Furthermore, what is your relationship to User:Mythirdself? It's pretty clear you are (or were) operating that account also. TNXMan 14:57, 22 August 2011 (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.

Oppose unblock on grounds that the unblock request is insufficient. Mindbunny hasn't stated what good editing they want to do, and they seem to argue that WP:POINT and WP:BATTLE type editing is allowable; it isn't. This "block was wrong" rationale has been rejected three times previously. To get unblocked they need to proffer a different and better rationale. Jehochman ^Talk 03:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Since this request does not engage in any of the user's other issues about which I have remarked at some length above, I have gone and looked at some of the history here.

I won't make a recommendation as to whether it merits an unblock, but I would frame the question this way: Was starting the BLP/N thread a POINTy action in and of itself, given the circumstances? If the reviewing admin concludes that it was, then the block can be considered justified. It would also be worth considering that even if it were undeniably a bad-faith retaliatory action, the discussion could have raised legitimate issues. For instance, in analogous situations, where users have nominated articles for deletion as payback but the contributors to the AfD have nonetheless identified other legitimate reasons the article should be deleted, we haven't blocked the nominator (see here, where I was on the losing side and I felt that happened, and here, where I got accused of a bad-faith nom (and the article was kept)).

I have an opinion on this (at the very least, while I don't think that BLP/N was the right forum for it (as our editors are, even where we use our own names, generally not notable people), which may be a factor in considering whether it was disruptive or not, there are some policy questions here which could be dealt with elsewhere, like the extent to which WP:OUTING applies to a banned or otherwise long-dormant user, the extent to which editors who disclose little or nothing about their real-world or off-wiki identities are entitled to protection against potential defamation as opposed to those who do make such disclosures, all of this versus the freedom we allow users in their own userspace) but I will not comment further on the block or unblock except to say that I accept that reasonable people can differ. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Prior to these actions Mindbunny was behaving in a way that would have justified a block. I mentioned this in the block notice. The retaliatory games, and they could be nothing else, at BLPN were the final straw. SlimVirgin wisely decided to delete the page, though she didn't state a reason. However, ends don't justify means. If Mindbunny pledges to avoid WP:POINT and WP:BATTLE behavior, and names a few articles they want to edit, I will reconsider my block. Jehochman ^Talk 06:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Admins who don't respect the rules cause others not to respect the rules. Editors are entitled to appeal on the grounds that the block violates blocking policy. For example, that what was declared disruptive does not meet the criteria for disruption. Apologizing and/or promising to be "good" in the future are not the only option. The option to challenge the blocking rationale is destroyed when admins interpret any criticism of the block itself as "blaming others," and use that as an excuse to rubber-stamp the block itself.

I did nothing wrong. I was contributing to the project. If I want to contribute in the future, I will make a new account. This is not a process that I respect. Mindbunny (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I just sockpuppetted, updating a dead link [18]. Oh the horror, the horror. Community ban now! We can't have blocked people fixing dead links. Next, they'll improve Wikipedia by creating articles! (P.S. I'm not very happy with "Frogwaves" as a username--had to make it on the fly after I came across the dead link. When you ban me for life, could you suggest a better name for my next account? Thanks!) Mindbunny (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I am really bad a choosing usernames. So long as you don't violate any other policies, I will ignore than block evasion. We can consider that you retired Mindbunny and started fresh. Thank you for telling us about your new account. Jehochman ^Talk 05:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If I'm going to be allowed to edit, wouldn't it be better to use an account with a track record? I was able to get my Noloop account password emailed to me, so I could use that. It's the account that has my main contributions to articles. Better community record. Mindbunny (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to edit as Noloop. That account is not blocked, and I unblocked this one so you wont be accushed of block evasion. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

What is this?

Mindbunny (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Streamlining of the process of showing appreciation? Good idea! Mindbunny (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Why Is Wikipedia Losing Contributors?

Wales implies it is because the site is technically complicated. [19] That would deter non-contributors from becoming contributors, it wouldn't cause those who already are contributors to leave. Maybe people leave because they get fed up with the community. Both the admin and general community are abusive, but I expect more principled behavior from admins. Mindbunny (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)