User talk:Siihb

Personal attacks on your user page

I have removed these - you should read WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Please do not restore them. Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks on that page. There are simply my personal thoughts about certain editors. The very editor who made that change has the exact same type of commentary on their user page. Stop modifying this user page without CONSENSUS. If you have an issue please bring it up with the admins. To quote the rule in question "When there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." Siihb (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I see we have chosen the path of pain. Very well, I will seek out my own brigade to combat yours. Siihb (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear administrators:

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).

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

---

Request reason:

the block was not necessary to prevent damage or disruption - I have not edited a single page but my own user page. The only users going to this page are the ones involved in the OG dispute. Siihb (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or the block is no longer necessary because you 1.understand what you have been blocked for, 2.will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and 3.will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.

Tiderolls 21:21, 28 October 2019 (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 don't have a brigade; I was merely following up on your disregard for Black Kite's advice. I do not think you will find much of a brigade by way of this unblock request, but good luck--this very unblock request might end up as one in a line of edits that suggest you be blocked indefinitely for not being here to improve our beautiful (flawed, yet ambitious) project. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I've contributed numerous articles improving the site. It was only when I dared to make a specific, paid user page compliant with Wikipedia standards that said individuals defenders came out of the woodwork to attack me personally. Remember this entire debacle began when I dared to break a controversy already on the article and sourced into its own heading on the page. The other user reverted MY change with no talk, as did others. I wasn't the first, second, or third person to shine a light on the obfuscation of this documented incident and attempt to have it broken out from between the actual paid statements on the page. I am happy to sit out a 60 hour block and appeal it via the correct channels. My goal is truth and information not the personal attack jamboree that the brigading began when I dared to follow Wikipedia rules. If I have run afoul of any of the standards here it isn't due to malice or flouting the rules, it is due to ignorance predicated on me following the very others involved (Such as Black Kite has a vandal marked on his talk page) Siihb (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Information

You will have to alter your mindset to be unblocked. You are grossly misunderstanding the situation. If you continue on your current course you will find yourself blocked indefinitely. Concentrate on adding/improving content to the encyclopedia in a collaborative manner. Tiderolls 21:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Please look at my numerous edits, and my numerous other pending edits to pages. No one has taken a single issue with me or my edits on any subject except the Huffman one. Again, I am not the only one individual who believes it should be broken out. Additionally, I cannot say I am surprised to see an Alabama fan backing another Alabama fan. Sheep travels in packs, we Tigers hunt alone. Siihb (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You haven't been blocked because of your article edits, you have been blocked because you - even after a warning - persisted in naming other editors as "disingenuous" on your userpage. When your block expires, if you restore that content, I would expect nothing else than an indefinite block. This is a collaborative encyclopedia and you are simply not allowed to abuse other editors as you have been doing. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I have it marked as "I believe them to be disingenuous". The page in question is dedicated to me as a user. What better person can represent my position than me? We see people's opinions on other pages expressed in the same way. I asked each of you to discuss the changes on the talk page before making an edit. If it's the wording you are fuming over Ill happily change it. I don't need to die on every hill. Once I am done with that, then I will be back to make sure the Huffman controversy gets the highlighted article it deserves. And I will be requesting numerous other comments per the wikipedia guidelines for requesting comment. The incessant paperwork-esque attempt to limit speech some editors want suppressed (the Huffman controversy) is easily ignored. You can have the little battles. The war of making the truth easily accessible is what I am after. Siihb (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You're getting lost in the static, Siihb. You need to focus on unblock. Tiderolls 23:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to stop leaving baiting messages on my talk pages. Please do not leave any more. Siihb (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)