User talk:MusenInvincible

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iran–Saudi Arabia relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iran protests (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply (March 2020)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you attempted at Talk:September 11 attacks and September 11 attacks, you may be blocked from editing. There is no consensus for your changes, please stop now. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

My reply

When you said "without discussion or sources" and "There is no consensus for your changes" about linking terrorism with Islam, Have you read WP:TERRORIST and Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_27#Straw_Poll:_Islamic_terrorist?

Don't make reckless accusation without reading carefully — MusenInvincible (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON

Please stop going round in circles at Talk:September 11 attacks. Wikipedia is not an opinion outlet; Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy. Please consult it. I quote: "On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research." See further down on the policy page for what counts as a reliable source. You are bludgeoning the discussion by insisting that the article should depart from Wikipedia policy, despite having it repeatedly explained to you both at article talk and here on your own talk.[1] Everybody has to follow our reliable sources policies — if it's your opinion that "I never think Western media is reliable enough on various topics", you need to check that opinion at the door. If you insist on promulgating it and thereby flouting our policies, Wikipedia may not be for you. Please desist or you are likely to be blocked from Talk:September 11 attacks or topic banned from the topic September 11 attacks. Bishonen | tålk 17:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

You argue that I don't follow the policy, but how about WP:TERRORIST policy and WP:NPOV, are you forgetting those ones? normal people would consider "Islamic terrorist" is more original research through editorial bias rather than factual "suicide hijackers" found on the incident. — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not forgetting them (although WP:TERRORISM is not policy), but they don't support you. I quote WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. My bolding. It all comes down to reliable sources. Bishonen | tålk 17:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

I don't talk about WikiProject, but the guideline of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels : Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. — MusenInvincible (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

? Who's talking about a WikiProject? Not me. You referred to WP:TERRORISM and so did I. It's a shortcut that will take you to the text you quote. Do you understand me when I say WP:TERRORISM is not policy? It's a guideline. Scroll up from WP:TERRORISM to look at the top of the page. You're making it very difficult to talk to you. Please read my original message again and just stop. I'm not going to explain over and over. Bishonen | tålk 18:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

Stop now. You do not have wp:consensus and no one who has responded has agreed with you.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Should I stop against violation of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels? which also had generally been consensus but neglected, or you must stop now defending "reliable bias sources"

This is now a warning, continue with your wp:tenditious dragging out of that thread and I will report you to wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

To another user see mine WP:TERRORIST with yours WP:TERRORISM — MusenInvincible (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, you're right, I'm sorry, MusenInvincible. I meant to say WP:TERRORIST throughout — to refer back to what you had said. My invocation of a WikiProject was an accident. Bishonen | tålk 20:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

Please stop this now, current consensus is against you. See Slatersteven above. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Just report it to WP:ANI, and ask others when there is bias report preferred above Manual of Style standard guideline. — MusenInvincible (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

edit war

Please read wp:editwar and wp:3rr very very carefully. An edit war can take place over days and months.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read (or you won't never read) WP:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV. It's not consensus, It's guideline and policy. — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"... unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject,". Stop the next time you try this I will report you. Get consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You can't do that, cause I already report it — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

ANI

I would advise you to ask for this to be closed, before there is a wp:boomerang. You are very much in the wrong here, as has been pointed out to you.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring and disruptive editing, pretending to be amenable to discussion but ignoring the result when consensus is against you, and wasting the time of other editors. Previous block for edit warring evidently didn't get the message across. See WP:IDHT.. 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 ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you think it is wrong to follow the rules and standard guideline instead of keep follow who deviate it? Being blocked because of defending the application of policy on article is not normal. This is utterly unfair. — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

You are not following a rule and standard guideline. You are following your interpretation of a rule and standard guidline. There is a consensus that you are interpreting them incorrectly. You refuse to accept this consensus. The block, in particular its length, is meant to emphasize to you that the argument is over, and you cannot keep arguing until you've exhausted everyone else. Therefore, you need to either change your approach and accept consensus, or go somewhere else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Have you read WP:WTW? the standard "Manual of Style" explains about how to write contentious label on a subject to use in-text attribution, but in the lead paragraph September 11 attacks, do you find where the 'in-text attribution' is?

may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution WP:WTW

That's totally verbatim, not my preference. If they did change according this Manual of Style (or considering my alternative suggestions) I would accept it, and the discussion is closed. Moreover, the word terrorist in the article is redundant WP:REDUNDANCY (a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda) two same words in the same sentence, Of course everyone knows terrorist action is done by terrorist group (Is there no other term?)

Moreover, You are misinterpreting WP:IDHT when wrongdoing-ly applying ban to my account,

If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.

— WP:IDHT

Who are "educating them about policies WP:NPOV and guidelines WP:WTW? they or I? When they did neglect my reminder about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, It's their mistakes not mine. Not just because of depending the consensus, cause consensus today could be changed in another day. So your ban is not fair, as harmful way to treat a user in solving the problem. — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I really would advise you to drop this. If not you will lose talk page access and maybe earn a longer block. For gods sake listen, you have not so far and look what has happened.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong to uphold the WP:NPOV core and non-negotiable policy? Be calm down and logic that the Discussion is not over yet, I need more insights from other users who neutrally understand well about Wikipedia policy, not only force about consensus. If you cannot be collaborative,Wikipedia is not the right place for you. — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I give up.Slatersteven (talk)

Time to close this "discussion". David J Johnson (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020 II

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 | tålk 20:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• It's not "your page" in the sense that you can put whatever you like on it, such as a ridiculous header above Floquenbeam's block. All Wikipedia pages are Wikipedia's. Bishonen | tålk 20:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC).

2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike

I have been working on 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike for three hours. I was about to save then you made 3 edits. I carefully copied your edits into my changes, and you made more edits. Do me a favor please and wait a few minutes until I save my 3-hour edit, before you make any more changes. It would help me a lot! Cheers, —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Never mind ... you had edited the version before I started; it was another editor who was editing at the same time I was. Fortunately, that editor seems to have paused anyway. —Anomalocaris (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Main topic classifications

Please see WP:DIFFUSE and please stop adding articles to Category:Main topic classifications. The articles you have added are already included in subcategories. Medicine is already covered by Category:Medicine, which is already included in a subcategory of Category:Health, for example. Adding new categories to Main topic classifications would fundamentally mean a reorganization of Wikipedia's category scheme, which should be discussed first. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dagobert I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Please preview, consolidate, and summarize

Hello- Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 13:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Why are you removing legitamate categories from redirects? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I was removing the categories from redirects, because "Most redirect pages are not placed in article categories" except for categorization templates (rcats) or maintenance categories and most of the redirects have overcategorization (with more than 3 categories/more than 7 categories) such as: Arnie_Cunningham, Martin_Brundle_(The_Fly), Ricky_Chapman also considering WP:CATV Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. but when reading redirects, the pages cannot show (even) single information can be verified (WP:VERIFY) from any kind of sources (Wikipedia core policy includes Verifiability); moreover most of the redirects are not Notable (WP:NOTABLE) enough (that pages could probably be deleted), otherwise each should have its own article, or at least stub quality, instead of only redirect.

Therefore, if the redirects would be improved to stub/article then it's okay to put more categories on them. But no otherwise. — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:RCAT describes a number of situations where redirects may be placed in article categories. You weren't being selective, though. Every single redirect that you edited, you removed all of the categories. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As I said earlier, "Most redirect pages are not placed in article categories" so I don't consider the redirects can be included in article categories because "redirects are not articles" thus (article) categories are not needed, unless there are 'redirect' categories (for blank information page).
For your accusation that my edits were disruptive, which point on WP:DISRUPTSIGNS policy that includes 'removing unverifiable categories on redirects whose content are blank'? — MusenInvincible (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"Most" doesn't mean "All". If a redirect is for an organisation, but it points to an article about an individual connected with that organisation, categories specific to organisations belong on the redirect. As an example, take this edit - none of those categories can be said to apply to S. N. Goenka, the person; but all of them apply to Vipassana Research Institute, the organisation. So their inclusion on the redirect instead of on the person is sensible and logical. Another way of looking it is this: what was established in 1985 - Goenka or VRI? Clearly it can't be Goenka, who was born in 1924. See WP:INCOMPATIBLE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If you read my earlier explanation well, you would understand I did not mean to all but "Most redirect pages are not placed in article categories with exceptions"
For your question, Imagine if someone looks for article of an institution Vipassana Research Institute but redirected to article of a person S. N. Goenka which talking a lot on person, but few information on the institution, Does that logic? and If you said Vipassana Research Institute was established in 1985, can you find sentence or sourced content on the redirected page S. N. Goenka indicating year when Goenka established? If you, or anyone else, would create a stub or short article of Vipassana Research Institute from redirect page, that's more logic to put some article categories BUT S. N. Goenka-Vipassana Research Institute example not from my edits you reverted anyway; and again, if the redirects would be improved to stub/article then it's okay (that everyone) to put more categories on them. — MusenInvincible (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Ex nihilo

A difficult article to add to. It's giving me problems. I know far too little about metaphysics and logic, or modern cosmology (the "big bang"). If you want to join in, please do.Achar Sva (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Terrorism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British Mandate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

West Bank editing.

Since West Bank is not available for editing because of vandalising, and you've edited it several times lately, I said maybe you're the right person to refer to. I'd aprecciate if if you check out the talk page at West Bank, specifically "Replacing or adding new imagery where needed?", and tell me.what you think, It'd be awesome. And you'd also be helping some of my work get through. I'll be contacting some other editors of the article also for a broader opinion. SoWhAt249 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Kelly Clarkson archive

Hi there.

Please don't make changes to archives, as you did here and here, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ow...It's accidental, not realized before, thanks for reminding this... — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

changing redirects

Making edits like this goes against WP:NOTBROKEN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, better changing the links directly to the real and precise target page, rather than redirected from misspelling/miscapitalization/mispunctuation and other erroneous sidelined pages. Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect. WP:MPNOREDIRECT — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a misspelling, and mispunctuation isn't listed at MPNOREDIRECT. Sorry. This is not a spelling error. Also, quotes do not use italics. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The punctuation error, capitalization error, etc. are included to Manual Of Style grammatical/spelling problems. I am sure that punctuation mistake that related to writing style mistakes is indirectly applied on MPNOREDIRECT; Read again carefully "Spelling errors and other mistakes"
"Rock music" is chosen as the naming convention of "Rock genre", "Rock", "Rock (music)", so on, thus be "good faith" on other users that I want to shorten the secondary link to exact primary article. Does Wikipedia prohibit this? — MusenInvincible (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Princeton University

Princeton University is the eighth oldest institution of higher learning in the United States, founded in 1746 after University of Delaware. Norahseener (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference sections

It appears you have not noticed the now three times I've reverted your edits to a couple of articles where you're changing the formatting; please stop doing this. It's unproductive and a violation of WP:CITEVAR. Parsecboy (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not about violation of WP:CITEVAR but applying the "Order of article elements" (MOS:SECTIONORDER) as most articles do not use "Endnotes" but just simply "Notes" or "References" — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It is; some editors prefer to refer to a list of cited sources as "References", "Bibliography", or "Works Cited" (and there are likely other variations as well); changing this merely to suit your own preferences is not acceptable. Stop doing it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As MOS:SECTIONORDER: "Title: Editors may use any reasonable section title that they choose. The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity) for this material." Is "Endnotes" title among of these suggested choices?
It's not vandalism or big mistake on an article, then why you force another user to stop? or it is your own preference? — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

One wonders where you find authorization to impose your preferred style in that excerpt... Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Why am I telling you to stop? Because you are imposing your preferences on a broad swath of articles that you did not write. You didn't even bother discussing it on the talk pages to see if those who did write them agreed with your change. That is the problem. You've been around far too long to not understand this. Parsecboy (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not mine, it's the preferred "Wikipedia policy choice" style. As for me, seeing an article with term Notes, Footnotes, Endnotes show too repetitive (the "notes"), so I revised to most common style around the encyclopedia. — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is. Where in that text that you quoted does it say that articles must adhere to the format you prefer? You assumed that the listing implies anything beyond an arbitrary choice. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand this policy WP:OWNERSHIP (All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say.) Now understand? — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you understand what editing by consensus means? Parsecboy (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. Determining consensus — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUSCHANGE — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Jesus christ, did you bother to read that? The onus is on you to justify the change. I will reiterate: you have not bothered to discuss this with anyone until I reverted several dozen of your edits. This is not acceptable behavior. The fact that you find yourself jumping around to different policies to try to WP:WIKILAWYER your way out of this should tell you something. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Your whining sounds like {Just picking some examples Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Statements}: "I created/wrote the majority of this article." (Implying some kind of right or status exists because of that.)
"Do not make such changes or comments until you have significantly edited or written work of this quality."
"Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his/her/our approval."
"You didn't have consensus because I was offline." — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell whether you're being willfully obtuse or you have WP:COMPETENCE issues. Parsecboy (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I could definitely tell that you are trying to be "content owner" {based on facts above Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Statements} — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh, it sure seems like that's what you're trying to do by imposing your preferred style across scores of articles... Parsecboy (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Do I? do I whine around on other user-talkpage and force against a user to not edit on articles? or do you? — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that's exactly what I told you to stop doing. I can see you are unwilling to admit that you're wrong, and that further discussion is a waste of my time. Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a mistake that everyone has their own preferences, but do you admit that you are content owner? — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hiya. I wrote several of the articles you've made these edits to. I concur with Parsecboy that they contravene WP:CITEVAR and even MOS:SECTIONORDER, which states "Editors may use any reasonable section title that they choose." For better or for worse, Wikipedia does not mandate a specific citation style. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you (User:The ed17) read this? Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Statements: "I created/wrote the majority of this article." (Implying some kind of right or status exists because of that.
Once again, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say so no WP:OWNERSHIP here;
Wikipedia is a free project and worked by collaborative people. — MusenInvincible (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Gee, I'm so appreciative of your bad faith here. I'm not going to engage here further. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

If you believe that Wikipedia is collaborative, perhaps you could partake of some collaboration, rather than fighting to get your way at every opportunity? Once again I find myself commenting on a section where you have wilfully gone against established consensus and ignored it when this is pointed out to you. Yes, "[e]ditors may use any reasonable section title that they choose", but that does not give you carte blanche to change them willy-nilly to whatever you choose. If a style has already been established, then to change it needs discussion and consensus.

What Ed means by their comment of creating the articles is that they decided on a given style - and were not wrong to do so as per SECTIONORDER. To change that however, and then insist on the change after being challenged, is definitely heading into WP:OWNERSHIP territory. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you give me a policy that every editor must get a permission or a consensus before edit an article from several users that "they decided on a given style"? Are those pages their own pages, or what? — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No, you are missing or avoiding the point, whether intentionally or not, but still missing the point. I understand you're a new editor, but you really should try to learn how things work before trying to change everything.

There is no policy that says you must get permission to edit or make changes, after all this is Wikipedia - the encyclopedia anyone can edit - but there is indeed policy that says if your edit is reverted then you must get consensus - not permission, but I'm sure you understand the difference - in order to keep or re-instate your changes. Not to do so is essentially edit warring and there are many policies surrounding that, and the likely actions for those who ignore it.

I'm presuming you know what consensus is, because you've not only alluded to it above, but also to the associated CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. However consensus hasn't changed simply because you want something different. If you want a change, you need to persuade others that said change is viable.

Another aspect that is not actually policy, but is a staple of all experienced and courteous editors is WP:BRD - Bold, revert and discuss. Not adhering to this is generally a forerunner of editwarring, and tends to cast the OP in poor light when discussion does arrive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Then what's the objective of this discussion? where there is a user who only try to give an alternative on writing style of articles and blamed by several other users who persistently insisting that this user done something wrong; what's the point? — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The objective is to firstly provide an opportunity for you to put across your point of view, and secondly for you to learn from your experience. You've done the first, but not the second it seems. I don't see this going anywhere constructive. I'm done. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Never be constructive, nor collaborative; when some people prolonging a long discussion just for sharing each POV on talkpage but they don't understand each other. — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a check on "minor edit" will suffice it. (but takes more time for putting sentences on a lot of articles in progress) — MusenInvincible (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You might consider doing the rest of us the courtesy of leaving an edit summary for every edit you make. If that calls for you to slow down a bit, so much the better for the project, it would seem. Eric ^talk 14:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Navboxes

Hello. Please don't override the default title of {{Navboxes}} in NBA-related articles to add the page title. The convention per WP:NBAEL is to use the template's default title. Feel free to establish a new consensus at WT:NBA. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If there is consensus for changes to the default title, it's more efficient to edit the template's default display than flooding everyone's watchlist with mass page changes. Please stop, discuss, and establish consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait, you cannot block a user indefinitely just because the user did not immediately reply the talkpage comment in short period of time. If you want to discuss it, so discuss without "ban for indefinite expiration time", that truly excessive action of abusive admin to apply a ban on a user. As an admin, do you find any policy WP:RULES that if a user did not get WP:consensus related to non-binding Style advice then that user should be banned indefinitely? This is an abusive block for sure from admin who did not get quick response — MusenInvincible (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: It does not matter what subject's navbox it is. If I remember correctly, this practice is not done to any existing navbox nests. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

So BECAUSE ONLY I DID NOT GIVE FAST RESPONSE for adding some sentences on navbox templates with "advice" (not strict rule, nor vital policy) and "flooding watchlist" are punishable with indefinite ban? This is definitely nonsense. — MusenInvincible (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You have previously been blocked for edit warring and ignoring the consensus so this block is very much justifiable. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I wrote in the block log: Admins can feel free to unblock if the user is willing to discuss and establish consensus. You created an extreme case, making mass changes without any apparent consensus. I saw no benefit to Wikipedia for an editor to continue with mass changes that could leave mass reverts for others. Perhaps you just didn't see the notices? However, your intial responses have neither presented an established consensus, nor a plan to establish one. At this point, I'll leave it to an independent party to determine your status. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you (Sabbatino) understand what are you talking about? those blocks are quite abusive, if you know when there are "some users force consensus that obviously violating several policies" then the user (who trying to fix in accordance to the policies) has been banned because admin misinterpreting of WP:IDHT, is this justifiable? if you know when a user get banned because an aggressive editor reports inappropriately to noticeboard while the editor's behaviour still problematic in Arbitration Committee discussion, is this justifiable?

Not just because of "previous ban" argument (which you do not understand well) that admin action is justifiable, while your indefinite blocking just for not-fast response to "mere advice" problem, "flooding watchlist" and seeking a consensus, is very much unjustifiable from heedless and un-collaborative admin. — MusenInvincible (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: What consensus you looking for? after stripping edit rights from a user for "lame reasons", Don't you realize it? I saw no benefit to Wikipedia keep an admin who using a high privilege with lack of patience that might easily ban other users for minor problems. — MusenInvincible (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Please note that you are blocked, not banned - they are not the same thing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Yeah, I do understand the differences between block and ban, but technically these two are similarly restricting user to contribute, whether partial or total, to Wikipedia project. However, when a user is banned from editing any articles just for unaware of opinion-based Style essay for Navboxes and did not reply a comment within 20 minutes, then an indefinite block (which may be for a long time) applied to restrict the contribution.
If the admin could have been wiser, the admin might use a short period block of several hours (e.g. 24-hour block) to halt editing progress temporarily to continue discussing in talk page when the admin's notice on talk page had not been read and responded (while at that time, I was still busy on editing various articles and I did not realize the comment on my talk page could lead to an indefinite block if i didn't respond quickly), or (rather than a block to all topic) a topic ban of NBA related articles would be more acceptable if the admin considered that i have made some mistake related to certain topic, or if the admin is well experienced with the "Manual of Style", the admin can write a a "hidden text" WP:INVISIBLE on the sections, (for instance warning about adding more links on External links of Artificial intelligence) to remind any possible user in the future about a caution of consensus or specific notification, before changing or revising the article (which I did not find on the NBA articles that undid earlier) and I experienced dozens of my contributions reverted, and the reverting editor commented on my talk page for clarification then we discussed for a while, yet without block, nor ban.
At last, I hope users and admins would use WP:GOODFAITH that it's not my intention to vandalize or to degrade the quality of articles on Wikipedia, for I would be grateful to help improving Wikipedia articles and making some fixes comply with Wikipedia policy and guideline while I am given a chance; but if there's a mistake, talk with cold-head and not involving block/ban please... — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for mass changes without responding to concerns.

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 ~~~~}}.  —Bagumba (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

6 June 2020

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).

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

---

Request reason:

To the reviewing admin: I understand about a block imposed to a user to avoid major damage on articles. Nevertheless, my provided statements on section above show clear reasons about the "excessive" (indefinite) block over unwarned edit problems on a certain topic; If I will be given a chance to continue more constructive contributions; I will have a lot amount of work related to (mostly) Manual of Style compliance in English Wikipedia and I hope that I will be able to improve and participate to make the project better. Thank You in advance. — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2020 (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.

unblock discussion

Can you explain how your edits were non constructive and how you would edit constructively going forward? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 06:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Indefinte ≠ infinite. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 07:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Just reiterate, read section MusenInvincible#Template:Navboxes or especially this then you might understand my edits were not violating any policy (except a style essay according to User:Bagumba) nor damaging the articles, so ask that admin who claimed my edits were non constructive. For further edits, I will focus more on articles related to Manual of Style compliance, spelling errors, and any article which I could improve...

To be honest, no futher discussion essentially needed here because the section above is more than enough for unblock discussion; so I am only waiting for the result of the unblock request.

According to this table; Block expiration of Indefinite = infinity. — MusenInvincible (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You're going to need to open a new unblock appeal with the template you used before, if you want a review from an admin. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Before that, I do want to ask - Is there any admin who is willing to unblock? — MusenInvincible (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Admins want to ensure the stability of the Wikipedia project. Any admin would be willing to unblock you if you can make a convincing argument that unblocking you would be beneficial rather than disruptive. Two different admins, me and Deepfriedokra, have conversed with you. Without an appeal, though, other admins aren't likely to see it. Using the unblock appeal template causes your appeal to be listed at Category:Requests for unblock. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I just want to express that the problem is this User:Bagumba blocks a user (me) to get my attention to discuss about my edits on template renaming. But instead of engaging the dispute reasonably and solve the problem, it looks like Bagumba walks away from discussion and abandons the purpose of the block to make discussion then throws the responsibility to other admins for the problem that he started himself.

According to the previous appeal, It's proven that (while waiting for weeks) no single admin willing to unblock after my reason and exposition, what I mean, are you convinced with my arguments above, or could you guarantee that this next appeal would be accepted? I don't want to waste my time to repeat the failed appeal. — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I cannot guarantee anything. Your previous appeal was declined on procedural grounds, not based on the merits of your arguments. I'll add that I haven't seen anyone decline an appeal before simply because too much time has passed; that reason for declining surprised me, to be honest. I suggest you try again, with more details. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll add that the blocking admin's action was understandable given that your contributions show you were making several edits per minute, and did not respond or acknowledge comments made to this talk page in the 20 minute interval between the first concern expressed and finally being blocked. Yes, maybe you didn't have enough time, or you didn't see the automatic notices, but in the face of rapid disruptive changes occurring multiple times per minute, an admin really has no choice but to block first and discuss later, even though an attempt was made to initiate discussion. In your appeal, you need to explain what you would do differently going forward. If you can express your understanding of what went wrong and what will change if unblocked, in a way that is convincing to other admins that unblocking you won't lead to further disruption, then I don't see a problem unblocking you; and indeed the blocking administrator commented in the block log that unblocking is no problem if you are willing to engage in discussion and establish consensus, which, you have to admit, is something you didn't really do until you were blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If you said unblocking is "no problem", how about the unlimited (time expiration) block? is it logic when an admin expresses "Feel free to establish a new consensus at WT:NBA" with blocking me from all topics with indef block; and if that admin "willing to engage in discussion" while he imposes the long, or might be permanent, block (if there's no revocation) to a user after 20 minutes of response waiting, moreover saying "I'll leave it to an independent party to determine your status" and not give any comment after. Now, who's willing to discuss or willing to go away?
In the previous appeal, it took more than 14 days to get the final response as only formal closing for ignorance. Therefore, Could you assure this time that my appeal would be quickly responded instead of be neglected for weeks? — MusenInvincible (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Your block is "indefinite", not "unlimited". Indefinite means that the end of the block has yet to be determined, based on an appeal.

Asking for guarantees about deadlines won't get you anywhere. Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Wikipedia is all volunteer work; this is not a job. Administrators have their own personal lives with no obligation to check in every day, and they have an endless workload of other stuff to do on Wikipedia. Your individual situation is not a problem for admins. In fact, I'll hazard a guess that, to the blocking admin and the one who declined your appeal, the instability you caused was solved by the block, and they have moved on. So your only recourse is to compose a good appeal, based on the advice you have been given... and wait. When you do this, it is listed on a category page that some administrators monitor, and it will get attention. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, my block is "indefinite", not "unlimited"; while without successful appeal, the time limit will be limitless...
Anyway, I appreciate your willingness to spend time and to discuss with detail explanation about this appeal consideration with me. — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

17 September 2020

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is the second time I make an appeal for review on imposed indefinite block, the problem is my edits related to template renaming viewed as disruptive by an admin while I am really unaware about the style advice editing on the NBA topic templates, in brief, I did those edits accidentally. The admin had invited me to talk about seeking consensus concerning this issue, however, the unprecedented behavior to impose indef block on me was taken shortly after. At first, I believed that's nothing wrong and I would surely have not done those errors if there was any warning or note on the articles; and after long considerations, I am finally aware of my fault, as like all human, It's natural that I could do some mistake and I admit it myself while making those edits which may be considered as a wrong way to contribute.
I would be grateful if I am given a chance to help to solve the problem; I will not do such thing again, and I suggest to include a useful "hidden text" WP:INVISIBLE / text-warning on the section of templates to prevent other users revising it improperly or to make them think twice before edit the articles with specific style consideration; so they would not experience the same mistake I did. — MusenInvincible (talk) 5:06 pm, 17 September 2020, Thursday (2 months, 2 days ago) (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

Hello MusenInvincible. To clarify the situation for you, you were blocked for making mass problematics edits "without responding to concerns". Looking through this page and your edit history, it appears that you have some difficulty with collegiate editing, and tend to have an aggressive, righteous attitude toward those who attempt to steer you toward being more cooperative. You have not adequately addressed the concern regarding not responding or cooperating. Indeed, you have a history of being combative, of ignoring consensus, and of blaming others instead of paying attention to their concerns. Of the several experienced and respected admins who have blocked you, you say: "they have done unnecessary block decisions on me". Without a significant change of attitude, which given the evidence displayed during this unblock request appears unlikely, I don't think you are suited to edit on Wikipedia which requires users to follow consensus and to behave cooperatively. This is not to say that you a bad person, simply that you are too individualistic for the almost monastic approach of the Wikipedia community. Given your past history I doubt if you will accept this block decline, but I think it is better for yourself, for Wikipedia, and for our volunteers, that you stop editing Wikipedia. If you do reflect on your time here on Wikipedia and what experienced users have said to you, and you come to a realisation that you have been going at things like a bull in a china shop and not paying enough attention to what has been said to you, and you wish to make another appeal you may do so. But be aware that if you use that new block appeal to complain that you were mistreated and/or that the admins got it wrong and were unjust to you, then you are likely to have your talkpage blocked, in which case you would need to appeal via Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. SilkTork (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2020 (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'm willing to unblock, but it seems like you misunderstood the reason for your block.

@Bagumba: correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like the edits weren't as problematic as the flood of changes, as if an unapproved bot was running.

Between the time you were warned and the time you were blocked you made over 35 of the sort of edits you were warned about. The admin simply had no choice. If you are running a bot, you must get it approved first; see Wikipedia:Bots for more information. Do you agree? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist: My initial concern was seeing pages on my watchlist undergoing rapid changes without consensus. No problem with bold edits, so I left a note on their talk page to discuss. An immediate response is not generally expected, but the user remained online editing, continuing with the disputed edits. Perhaps they did not see the message yet. I left another message 14 minutes later. Still continues with disputed edits. In the meantime, I notice on their talk a then-recent discussion at User_talk:MusenInvincible#Reference_sections with Parsecboy and Chaheel Riens in a dispute about edit warring over reference sections. There, MusenInvincible had stated: Can you give me a policy that every editor must get a permission or a consensus before edit an article from several users that "they decided on a given style"? Is those pages their own pages or what?[2] (This WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and failure to WP:BRD, in highsight, are consistent in this current block.) Moreover, I saw that their block log showed a history with edit warring, including a one month block by Floquenbeam stating edit warring and disruptive editing, pretending to be amenable to discussion but ignoring the result when consensus is against you, and wasting the time of other editors. Previous block for edit warring evidently didn't get the message across. See WP:IDHT. Their talk page access was subsequently revoked. (Again, the behavior is consistent in hindsight.) With their mass edits still continuing, I blocked to get them to notice their talk page, if that was the reason they were continuing. Afterwards, MusenInvincible seems to say they saw the talk notice, yet continued to mass edit: ... while at that time, I was still busy on editing various articles and I did not realize the comment on my talk page could lead to an indefinite block if i didn't respond quickly ...[3] In this current unblock request, their asking for "hidden text" deflects responsibility. The problem was not a bold edit, but their failure to discuss after issues were raised. Mass edits to form a WP:FAITACCOMPLI are inappropriate. From a technical perspective, their mass edits to override the default display title of {{Navboxes}} from "Links to related articles" would be better achieved by getting consensus to change the template coding itself, not by mass changing each transclusion. I had stated this suggestion to them before the block.[4] Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Musicinvincible, there may be more concerns here than addressed in your appeal. While your appeal is open, you may revise or replace it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist: The problem is not how many edits I made 'between the time I was warned and the time I was blocked.' The real problem is ' between the time I was warned and the time I was blocked I did not read the notification message' and there was no any warning on the articles about style advice.

@Bagumba: Where have you been all this time? after running away from unblock discussion which you should have joined if you have willingness to solve the dispute constructively; I think you don't understand the "fatal error" from what you've done by imposing block on a user indefinitely because of some accidental matters, not intentional ones. In this case, you have shown yourself having lack of "communication" approach (WP:COMMUNICATE) that is essential especially for administrators to handle problem.
Also, I could say you have some strange behavioral problems, because you were previously saying that I could "feel free" to seek on consensus by editing in the 'style advice' topic, but how could I "feel free" when you have passed indef block; - instead of topic ban or temporal ban - on me (because of lack of your patience to get some response) which barred my freedom to edit all the pages (except my personal page); this is contradiction, then you said that any admin could "feel free to unblock me if the user is willing to discuss and establish consensus" but after I had offered several possible solutions (while you offered nothing for consensus) and made this unblock appeal, you came in a sudden trying to hinder me to be unblocked, this is another contradiction, proving lack of your competence (WP:COMPETENCE) in handling a dispute.

I have complied with the unblock procedures appropriately as Wikipedia policy for unblock case while Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Yet, I don't think Bagumba as admin follow any fundamental policy related to blocking me indefinitely by poor judgement. Since I cannot file a request to ANI or dispute noticeboard about this dispute, I hope by inviting more experienced Admins @PhilKnight:, @331dot:, @Only: could help settle this problem fairly. — MusenInvincible (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Calling out the blocking admin for WP:COMPETENCE will not help your case. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not calling out User:Bagumba for WP:COMPETENCE, but I am calling out if there's any wise admin concerning with Wikipedia policies and guidelines who can evaluate this excessive block of minor problem imposed by that admin who has misused the administrative tools. Maybe @Robert McClenon: from DRN could give some help? — MusenInvincible (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. DRN handles content disputes, not conduct disputes. In looking this over briefly, before deciding whether to conduct a more detailed review, I see that it appears that User:Floquenbeam blocked the subject for one month, then User:Bishonen turned off the talk page, then the block expired, then User:Bagumba blocked indefinitely. So it appears that three administrators think that something was wrong. I haven't reviewed what the controversial edits were. I do see that User:MuseInvincible was asked whether they understood why their edits were considered disruptive, and they didn't answer. Maybe if they would explain why their edits were considered disruptive, someone could respond. My question for the blocking administrators is whether there has been a block review at WP:AN. If not, I think that one can't do any harm. In the meantime, leaving the subject blocked until they can explain what they think the dispute is seems like a reasonable idea. I don't normally give advice on conduct disputes, other than to avoid disruptive conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I was inviting you to discuss here since I could not file my case to DRN in order to solve this dispute, nor ANI for admin discussion. But I do know you as expert through a lot of discussions in DRN, therefore I had expected you could give mediation wisely. While responding to your notices about my previous blocks, you have to know the context well, first case, when a user asking for admins by opening a thread on ANI related to sensitive "religion" issue for more insights there, is that punishable for 1 month block just a couple of tens minutes after the thread opened?
second case, when a user renamed a title of thread on his own talk page following the controversial 1 month block, is that punishable for 1 month block also on talk page, instead of admin calming down the tense to discuss properly?
third case, when a user renamed a number of templates on articles unawarely, is that punishable for an indef block? In brief, I do believe these blocks are improper or unjustifiable.
From you, I actually wanted your response about this dispute: when a content edit activity related to renaming of templates opposed by admin claiming about "flooding watchlist"-thing then those edits reverted and imposing block afterward, do you consider 'template renaming edits' and 'flooding watchlist' are disruptive that punishable with an (long) indef block? This is not about disruptive, this is about abuse of administrative tools against minor matters. — MusenInvincible (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition, @Bagumba:'s action is a clear violation that a block should not be imposed on content dispute such as template renaming while I have followed unblock appeal;
@Robert McClenon: Are you still there? — MusenInvincible (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible Unblock Discussion

User:MusenInvincible - I am puzzled as to what I am being asked about. I have looked at the above talk page but not reviewed it in tedious detail. I see that you have been blocked by multiple administrators and are requesting to be unblocked. I also see that you are asking me whether I can help somehow, and I assume that you are asking for mediation of a conduct dispute. I have mediated content disputes. I am willing to try to act as a third party if I can understand what the issues are and who the parties are. So first please tell me, in short paragraphs: Who do you think are the blocking administrators? Once I know that, we can determine whether they are willing to talk. What do you think are the reasons for the block? There are references above to large numbers of edits. Were you making large numbers of edits? Were you using a script to make the edits? Were you running a bot? Had other users attempted to discuss the edits? Were you willing, or were you unwilling, to discuss the edits? I will list the points that I would like you to answer:

• 1. Who are the blocking administrators?
• 2. Why do you think that they have blocked you?
• 3. What do you think that you were doing that caused the block?
• 4. Were you making a large number of edits? If so, where and how?
• 5. Any other comments, in one paragraph.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks as if the following administrators have been involved at least briefly: User:Floquenbeam, User:Bishonen, User:Anachronist, User:Bagumba, User:Deepfriedokra, User:Redrose64. If any of them want to provide additional background, that is up to them. User:MusenInvincible - I may have answered question 1. You need to answer questions 2 through 4. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

My block is not currently being appealed (it was a while ago and expired), so I haven't been participating here because, to be frank, I'm not obligated to, and this appears to be a timesink. I am 100% confident that MI will never accept my perspective on their behavior here as true or valid, so when the current block is not based on my views, why bother? He is currently blocked because other admins think he is too disruptive. While I agree with that assessment, I choose not to go around and around in circles trying to convince MI to change their approach anymore. The status quo is fine with me. I would prefer not to be pinged here anymore (tho I don't begrudge the two previous ones). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why I was mentioned (although I have posted above), my name is not in the block log for this user. That shows that the answer to question 1 is Bagumba (talk · contribs), all previous entries in the block log having expired by the time that the current block was imposed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I stated to Musicinvincible above, "If you can express your understanding of what went wrong and what will change if unblocked, in a way that is convincing to other admins that unblocking you won't lead to further disruption, then I don't see a problem unblocking you". The blocking administrator subsequently went into detail about issues that Musicinvincible did not address in the appeal, and did not address after I asked that the appeal be revised. The only person who can clear up the points of contention is Musicinvincible, who so far hasn't yet directly addressed the blocking admin's comments. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I've had this editor on my watchlist for some time and have warned them for various things, eg suggesting that people whose edits they don't like will burn in Hell. Their block log suggests that they still haven't learned how to edit without disruption and their more recent comments above convince me even more that they should not be unblocked. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

To Robert McClenon, I got several users attempted to discuss the edits in various articles by put a message on my talk page because they tried to remind me about some rule which I might overlook, for instance main category addition on articles or reducing much categories on redirects, that I had no knowledge earlier that those edits could be contested by other users. If you read several threads in this talk page above, you can read that I am more than willing to discuss or explain in detail and long paragraph when a user try to get my clarification over a problem.

answer no. 1 & no. 2, I don't know them, but I do conclude that they have done unnecessary block decisions on me, while this kind of action should've never happened if they had good faith and could communicate (WP:COMMUNICATE) properly or put the dispute on noticeboard.

answer no. 3, they have blocked me because of (mostly) content disputes, first block is for a disambig page edits, second and third related to opening ANI thread and response to controversial block on my talk page, fourth/current block is for not responding quickly to admin consensus discussion on NBA edit.

answer no. 4, about quick mass edits, I did that, but I was not using any scripts or bots to do large numbers of edits, I just wanted to make rapid changes on a lot of articles which I considered they could be improved (even only a little rename edit) then I saved a lot edits simultaneously in seconds.

no. 5, I just wanted to contribute more on a lot articles which, according to me, I could possibly improve for better quality of article, whether in Manual of Style, simple renaming, adding categories, etc. as long as I am sure that my mass edits did not damage or vandalize the articles.

@Anachronist: If you can express your understanding as reasonable man do you consider "Mass changes with responding to concerns...if the user is willing to discuss" is a convincing argument for admin to block a user indefinitely? just for seeking consensus?
if you asked me that I didn't address reason why I was blocked, you might be wrong; all the alibi given by Bagumba when blocking me is not strong reason for an indef block, is there another reason that I possibly overlook? what's that? Nevertheless, the block is never unjustifiable because blocking on accidental matters by user who have no any knowledge related to style adviced. And one more thing, please be civil and don't alter a username for ridiculous thing, because I would consider that as a personal attack. — MusenInvincible (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

First let me apologize. Every time I see your username it looks like "Musicinvincible" in my brain. It still does. I honestly never realized until just now when you brought it up that it's MusenInvincible (and it took me some effort to spell it that way just now). I can't say that this is due to my touch of dyslexia (which has gotten me in trouble with the IRS) but could be related.

Yes, an indefinite block is justified for disruption that does not stop after a reasonable interval of time has elapsed for a user to respond, as was the case here. Indefinite doesn't mean permanent. It just means that the block remains in place until the situation is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The job of an administrator is to maintain stability of the Wikipedia project. If one user is causing disruption to multiple articles per minute and not engaging in discussion, the only viable response is an indefinite block, followed by discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sure you were not paying attention for what i have explained earlier, but I will reiterate again,
So you think that a simple rename of template text by adding { title = Articles related to { PAGENAME } } is disruptive and 'serious issue'? Come on! later, it's not about 20 minutes interval, but it is unawareness about the style advice of certain topic (WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association) while I found no any such style advice in other template, moreover how do I and any other users know that there is such 'advice'-thing while no edit warning on the article? besides, I did not realize about the message on my talk page while I was still busy on editing articles on other templates? then I also experienced similar situations on main category addition on articles or reducing much categories on redirects yet the users would notify me and wait a few hours for my response without any block.
For me, topic ban is more precise and justifiable related to my unintentional mistakes on WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association while total ban / block on all topics indefinitely is utterly excessive and no logic for sure.
and one more important thing, saying "not engaging in discussion" is not good reason for an indef block... — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Sort of Reply

Well, I am willing to copy a block request from here to WP:AN as a neutral facilitator if that is what you are asking me to do, and if it appears to me that reasonable editors might at least think twice. If so, it should be concise, and should address at least points 3 and 4. Bear in mind that I will read it before I copy it to WP:AN and will see whether it seems consistent with what is on this page. But it will have to be a better explanation than I have seen here. If you really don't understand, then maybe you don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks a lot for your initiative to mediate in this issue. To copy it to WP:AN will be good, while I suggest that it will be better to copy it to talk pages of several admins who well-experienced for unblock cases and good faith track record, in case you know some, maybe?
I will try to make the explanation concise.
Unblock request: There are various claims for my block: from "flooding watchlist", "mass changes without consensus" etc. which are content dispute cases that can be discussed for later improvement.
The core reason of this block is my edits related to template renaming without any knowledge of style advice on the NBA topic templates that User:Bagumba (blocking admin) contested for a discussion, but Bagumba has been running away from the responsibility and the constructive talk instead of making efforts to reach consensus, at the same time, I has been being blocked for months.
If there any admin willing to evaluate this block, it would be much appreciated. — MusenInvincible (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have evaluated your unblock request above, and taken into account your comments here and elsewhere. You continue to miss the aspect of the block that it was because you were not responding to concerns. If you had stopped editing to address the concerns of the blocking admin, you would not have been blocked. Simple as that. Yet you continue to feel that it is the blocking admin's fault that you ignored their messages. In this last comment to Robert McClenon who has been very patient with you, and has given up his time to assist you, you still malign the blocking admin, Bagumba, by saying "Bagumba has been running away from the responsibility". It is actually you who are running away from responsibility. SilkTork (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Did I aware? read this, or forget, because it might be useless if not reading a problem as whole then give a judgement.

The reason of indef block because "the user did not respond to Admin message (concern)" is very questionable, as well as the reasons of the previous blocks on me which are unwarranted.

I have already given detailed tenable passage over and over again about why I should not have been blocked, hoping a wise would revoke the block decision eventually. But, whimsical replies I received instead. This all just like an extensive block discussion just for a simple 'no-reply' mistake. Quite a serious problem. :/ — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)