User talk:DavidAppletree

Blocking reason

The reason for blocking you is simple.

This is a collaborative project to build a neutral encyclopaedia, people are allowed to edit here only if, in the view of the community, their presence here helps us towards that aim. We are explicitly not a battleground. On the balance of probabilities, as things stand, it is unlikely that your presence on Wikipedia will aid us in those aims.

That you may be an alternative account of a banned user, is one consideration (I actually haven't looked at that).
That you maintain an off-wiki list of editors you view as opponents, is another. (You could have removed your "hit list" and tried to work with users collaboratively, or through our community dispute resolution if that proved impossible, - but you've maintained your site. It is very difficult to see how people can work collaboratively with you, and disagree with you, if they have a fear of being listed off-site.)
Your userpage tended to add to that "chilling effect"
You are clearly here to fight a fight for "truth" as you see it. Now, there's nothing with opposing anti-Semitism (all power to you), but espousing a cause and editing neutrally are not compatible. We all have causes, we leave them at the door when we come here. Your presence here will tend to polarise further areas which are already difficult for us.
You could have quietly created an account, and shown us anonymously that you were a benefit to the project (you still could) - had you done that, you'd have been given more consideration, but you chose not to do that - in nearly 300 posts, you've edited articles 4 times.

It is nothing personal. It is just that you are doing one thing, and Wikipedia is doing another, and the two are incompatible. Now, it could well be I've got you wrong, but you've given very little reason to think so, and so the likelihood is that we are better off without you editing at this time.--Scott Mac 23:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many editors are here, exactly? What constitutes "the community?" I'm guess the vast majority of this "community" did not opine on this case. In fact, people with long-term problems with me and my organization were the most vocal. Your second point is not valid, as that is old post---I think about 2 years old---that has not been "maintained" whatsoever. Last I checked, WP does not have any say over off-wiki content. I have no obligation whatsoever to censor my website as per this communities' request, just as WP has failed to remove many privacy and security concerns at my request as well as many defamatory statements, despite repeated requests. I have no clue what you're talking with regard to your third point, but if you're cold, get a blanket. I'm not clearly here to fight for "truth" as I see it. I was here to be a constructive member of this community and to try to work out out problems I myself was experiencing on this website, which were also problems for Wikipedia. Regarding to my edits, I have spent the majority of my time defending myself from an onslaught of harassment, attacks, and false allegations. That's why I've only gotten around to 4 edits on articles. Also, I was encouraged to stay away from editing articles during this time. So I was just trying to do what I was advised to do, as per what my mentors were telling me.

You should assume good faith, and give me another chance and we should be done with this nonsense. I have a lot of good stuff to contribute and I feel I should be here, considering the onslaught of personal attacks, as well as privacy/security concerns I feel the need to address here. Beyond that, if people would "chill" I could actually help edit a lot of articles, as I have a wide variety of interests. Had the handful of editors here (apparently forming the entire "community") ever bothered to assume good faith or give me a chance, they'd see that. --DavidAppletree (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]