Posting this here as adviced by the appeal feedback I got:
Why should you be unblocked? I just found out that I was blocked for alleged "disruptive editing". I did no such thing. What I did was replying to admins who dismissing valid criticism to the Sweet Baby Inc-article. After I found that SEVERAL admins were openly mocking those of us bringing forward criticism to the article (Link: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Eyes_needed_at_Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.), I reported this abuse of power with a lengthy posting explaining the situation. Said posting has been deleted by an anonymous admin and unfortunately I cannot copypaste what I reported. However, another posting of mine towards admin "Acroterion", who has been dismissive towards me before, has also been deleted, so I have to assume he deleted both the report and the comment. I did not edit any articles, all I did was explaining why the SBI-article in its current form goes against the UCoC of Wikipedia, which includes spreading only facts, not misleading, even harmful information. The admins involved in the discussion linked above openly call the critics "Gamergate", which is strongly connotated to mean nazis, racists, women hater, and more such awful things. None of that is deserved. As part of the group that criticizes SBI, I am neither a nazi, racist, nor anything else. I refuse to accept that Wikipedia as of now calls me that. It has been explained to exhausting detail, but if no sources exist to provide a factual article, the article or at least the controversial section should have been taken offline until adequate sources appear that give a complete picture of the situation. To block me for "disruptive editing" can only be seen as massive projecting as the consequence of a crass abuse of power. Thank you /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Decrease#Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc."
I'd also like to add the admin "Acroterion" has it out for me for some weird personal vendetta it appears. He deleted both a report I made about him and other admins, and also deleted a comment I made on his talk-page in an attempt to settle things peacefully. Instead, he keeps labeling my comments as "personal attacks" while openly mocking me, and blocked me for "disruptive editing", but that is already explained above. This person should not have any authority on Wikipedia based ony my interactions, thx. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 ( talk) 01:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"If you want to be unblocked, follow the instructions at WP:UNBLOCK, and present a case for why we should unblock you, having first read WP:NOTTHEM. Any unblock containing personal attacks will be summarily declined, and you may lose talkpage access entirely."
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
on
your talk page. Do that thing to start an unblock request. The rest of your behavior on this talkpage is a catalog of bad-faith assumptions, verifiably wrong assertions, and refusal to follow directions. And yes, the behavior of editors at the SBI talkpage exactly mirrors what happened at GamerGate, including the same notion on display here that you're being personally attacked. Until you place an unblock request here, nobody else will look at it - although I did link to this page at AN, so presumably some have looked at this wall of invective and decided to ignore you. The privilege of editing WIkipedia carries with it a commitment to following instructions.
Acroterion
(talk)
12:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Why should you be unblocked? I just found out that I was blocked for alleged "disruptive editing". I did no such thing. What I did was replying to admins who dismissing valid criticism to the Sweet Baby Inc-article. After I found that SEVERAL admins were openly mocking those of us bringing forward criticism to the article (Link: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Eyes_needed_at_Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.), I reported this abuse of power with a lengthy posting explaining the situation. Said posting has been deleted by an anonymous admin and unfortunately I cannot copypaste what I reported. However, another posting of mine towards admin "Acroterion", who has been dismissive towards me before, has also been deleted, so I have to assume he deleted both the report and the comment. I did not edit any articles, all I did was explaining why the SBI-article in its current form goes against the UCoC of Wikipedia, which includes spreading only facts, not misleading, even harmful information. The admins involved in the discussion linked above openly call the critics "Gamergate", which is strongly connotated to mean nazis, racists, women hater, and more such awful things. None of that is deserved. As part of the group that criticizes SBI, I am neither a nazi, racist, nor anything else. I refuse to accept that Wikipedia as of now calls me that. It has been explained to exhausting detail, but if no sources exist to provide a factual article, the article or at least the controversial section should have been taken offline until adequate sources appear that give a complete picture of the situation. To block me for "disruptive editing" can only be seen as massive projecting as the consequence of a crass abuse of power. Thank you /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Decrease#Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc." I'd also like to add the admin "Acroterion" has it out for me for some weird personal vendetta it appears. He deleted both a report I made about him and other admins, and also deleted a comment I made on his talk-page in an attempt to settle things peacefully. Instead, he keeps labeling my comments as "personal attacks" while openly mocking me, and blocked me for "disruptive editing", but that is already explained above. This person should not have any authority on Wikipedia based ony my interactions, thx. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 ( talk) 13:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nothing here convinces me it would be a good idea to lift this block. Yamla ( talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (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.
This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
Posting this here as adviced by the appeal feedback I got:
Why should you be unblocked? I just found out that I was blocked for alleged "disruptive editing". I did no such thing. What I did was replying to admins who dismissing valid criticism to the Sweet Baby Inc-article. After I found that SEVERAL admins were openly mocking those of us bringing forward criticism to the article (Link: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Eyes_needed_at_Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.), I reported this abuse of power with a lengthy posting explaining the situation. Said posting has been deleted by an anonymous admin and unfortunately I cannot copypaste what I reported. However, another posting of mine towards admin "Acroterion", who has been dismissive towards me before, has also been deleted, so I have to assume he deleted both the report and the comment. I did not edit any articles, all I did was explaining why the SBI-article in its current form goes against the UCoC of Wikipedia, which includes spreading only facts, not misleading, even harmful information. The admins involved in the discussion linked above openly call the critics "Gamergate", which is strongly connotated to mean nazis, racists, women hater, and more such awful things. None of that is deserved. As part of the group that criticizes SBI, I am neither a nazi, racist, nor anything else. I refuse to accept that Wikipedia as of now calls me that. It has been explained to exhausting detail, but if no sources exist to provide a factual article, the article or at least the controversial section should have been taken offline until adequate sources appear that give a complete picture of the situation. To block me for "disruptive editing" can only be seen as massive projecting as the consequence of a crass abuse of power. Thank you /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Decrease#Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc."
I'd also like to add the admin "Acroterion" has it out for me for some weird personal vendetta it appears. He deleted both a report I made about him and other admins, and also deleted a comment I made on his talk-page in an attempt to settle things peacefully. Instead, he keeps labeling my comments as "personal attacks" while openly mocking me, and blocked me for "disruptive editing", but that is already explained above. This person should not have any authority on Wikipedia based ony my interactions, thx. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 ( talk) 01:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"If you want to be unblocked, follow the instructions at WP:UNBLOCK, and present a case for why we should unblock you, having first read WP:NOTTHEM. Any unblock containing personal attacks will be summarily declined, and you may lose talkpage access entirely."
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
on
your talk page. Do that thing to start an unblock request. The rest of your behavior on this talkpage is a catalog of bad-faith assumptions, verifiably wrong assertions, and refusal to follow directions. And yes, the behavior of editors at the SBI talkpage exactly mirrors what happened at GamerGate, including the same notion on display here that you're being personally attacked. Until you place an unblock request here, nobody else will look at it - although I did link to this page at AN, so presumably some have looked at this wall of invective and decided to ignore you. The privilege of editing WIkipedia carries with it a commitment to following instructions.
Acroterion
(talk)
12:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Why should you be unblocked? I just found out that I was blocked for alleged "disruptive editing". I did no such thing. What I did was replying to admins who dismissing valid criticism to the Sweet Baby Inc-article. After I found that SEVERAL admins were openly mocking those of us bringing forward criticism to the article (Link: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Eyes_needed_at_Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc.), I reported this abuse of power with a lengthy posting explaining the situation. Said posting has been deleted by an anonymous admin and unfortunately I cannot copypaste what I reported. However, another posting of mine towards admin "Acroterion", who has been dismissive towards me before, has also been deleted, so I have to assume he deleted both the report and the comment. I did not edit any articles, all I did was explaining why the SBI-article in its current form goes against the UCoC of Wikipedia, which includes spreading only facts, not misleading, even harmful information. The admins involved in the discussion linked above openly call the critics "Gamergate", which is strongly connotated to mean nazis, racists, women hater, and more such awful things. None of that is deserved. As part of the group that criticizes SBI, I am neither a nazi, racist, nor anything else. I refuse to accept that Wikipedia as of now calls me that. It has been explained to exhausting detail, but if no sources exist to provide a factual article, the article or at least the controversial section should have been taken offline until adequate sources appear that give a complete picture of the situation. To block me for "disruptive editing" can only be seen as massive projecting as the consequence of a crass abuse of power. Thank you /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Decrease#Talk:Sweet_Baby_Inc." I'd also like to add the admin "Acroterion" has it out for me for some weird personal vendetta it appears. He deleted both a report I made about him and other admins, and also deleted a comment I made on his talk-page in an attempt to settle things peacefully. Instead, he keeps labeling my comments as "personal attacks" while openly mocking me, and blocked me for "disruptive editing", but that is already explained above. This person should not have any authority on Wikipedia based ony my interactions, thx. 2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 ( talk) 13:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Nothing here convinces me it would be a good idea to lift this block. Yamla ( talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (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.
This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |