User talk:UnifiedBalance

January 2015

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blow me. I was only replying to another user who attacked me. Did you even bother to warn him? Of course not.

Mandruss made no personal attack. He told an you not to remove other's posts and pointed out problems with your attitude. If you think that is a personal attack, you probably will want to waste your time on some other site. You seriously need to read WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Assume good faith, WP:No personal attacks, and WP:Identifying reliable sources. In short:

do not dismiss someone's posts because you think they're liberal
do not call someone a Nazi or make any other sort of attack,
Wikipedia summarizes mainstream academic sources on a topic. If that means they dismiss a pseudoscientific, pseudohistorical, or other fringe topic as nonsense, then Wikipedia is also going to present the topic as nonsense. That's one of the cornerstones of the site, and if you don't like it, try some other site like Conservapedia or Metapedia instead. They certainly don't have any sort of "liberal" bias.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UB, I think the most negative thing I said about you personally was:

do you know anything at all about human nature?

I think the vast majority of the Wikipedia community would agree that that does not cross the PA line, but things like the following do:

you rabid Wiki-nazi
sarcastic asshole

I hope you can see the difference. If not, I tried. Have a nice day. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the 'blow me' comment was wrong, I agree. I'm sorry for that, but like you said, I lost my cool head. Why hasn't Andythegrump been warned about personal attacks such as the tin-foil hat comment? This is what I mean by being unfairly targeted.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editor not here to civilly build a neutral encyclopedia. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for obviously not being here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

blocked for stating my POV/unfairly targeted UnifiedBalance (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your edits were disruptive and not one of them contributed to building an encyclopedia. This block is completely correct. Chillum 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Except I wasn't making edits to pages where they are not allowed. Why am I wrong for wanting to state my POV? Good job only blocking those who don't agree with the joke of a Policy Wikipedia has. Now I see why most educational facilities don't cite Wikipedia as a trustable source. UnifiedBalance (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly not been in an educational facility if you think that it's our stance against conspiracy theories that's why they don't trust us. Or even that they don't trust us. All my professors thought we're a fine general reference, just not peer-reviewed, accredited, or stable enough to be cited. Also, your response to someone calmly and politely asking you to not to make personal attacks was "blow me." If that's how you treat people, we don't need you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the 'blow me' comment was wrong, and I apologize for that. I've had time to think about it. I lost my chill, but it's the stigma some Wikipedia editors have against this subject that gets under my skin. Especially when they make snarky comments like the 'tin-foil hat' comment. Why is it so hard for Wikipedia users to admit and recognize the bias that Wikipedia has. Nevermind the side conversations about the legitimacy of conspiracy theories. That's not why I raised this issue. The issue is that Wikipedia claims to be neutral, and yet it Liberal bias. If Wikipedia really did value neutrality, it would observe a neutral, non-condescending stance for all articles. However, that is not the case. UnifiedBalance (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A simple question: if you are unblocked, how do you intend to contribute towards Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not in the way that I was contributing before. It doesn't really matter though. I'm sure it won't even be considered. I feel like I learned my lesson, but I'm sure you and the administrators doubt that... UnifiedBalance (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that it will be considered unless you explain why you want to be unblocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked that length of my block be reviewed because I wish to carry on this debate, in good faith, on a page where it will garner a larger audience. UnifiedBalance (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will 'carrying on this debate' involve accusing Wikipedia contributors of 'bias' and 'lies'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I accused contributors of 'bias', which I'm sure I did at some point, it was an stupid and unfair accusation. I'm, more than anything, curious how Wikipedia itself calls itself neutral, and has an obvious bias agenda. I just find the whole thing baffling. UnifiedBalance (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. You seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia is biased, but its contributors aren't. How would that be possible? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh I worded that wrong, sorry about confusing you. It depends on the majority, which appears to have a Liberal POV. This isn't fair to those who don't necessarily agree with that POV. UnifiedBalance (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming for the moment that you are correct (which is at least open to question), why do you think that this 'Liberal majority' would agree to any changes you propose? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion can wait until I am, hopefully, unblocked. You make a good point, and I need some time to think about that. I plan on avoiding the use of personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia, however. Next time, I'll take a WP:break, lmao. UnifiedBalance (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least twice you have recognized that "blow me" was a bad idea. But you haven't said anything about "Wiki-nazi" or "sarcastic asshole". While "blow me" is very rude and uncivil, and may very well land you in hot water, it was not a personal attack because it didn't say anything about the character of the person you were addressing. Another point is the issue of the double standard regarding AndyTheGrump. People who have been around for years, and have made substantial contributions to the encyclopedia, often receive more forgiveness than those who have not. Right or wrong, that's how it is at Wikipedia; it's part of the culture here. You need to honestly ask yourself if you are really capable of being on the short end of that double standard for a year or two, without losing your cool. If you're not, you'll have a very rough time of it. Also, if you are only interested in debating Wikipedia's supposed bias in talk spaces, I think you will continue to be criticized as not here to build an encyclopedia. To avoid that criticism I think you would need to spend a good amount of time actually improving Wikipedia articles. If I were in your position I would spend a year or two building a good reputation and earning community respect before I started advocating fundamental changes. You might even experience a major change in perspective. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Please, please reconsider the length of my ban. It is way too lengthy for a first-time offense.UnifiedBalance (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I suggest you have a look at standard offer. Just because your block has an indefinite duration, it doesn't mean that it's permanent. PhilKnight (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You're right, and I am sorry to anyone that I offended with the immature, and stupid comments I made. I was wrong, and it's inexcusable. This has taught me a lesson though, to stop and reflect on how what I'm saying will affect another person before I hit that enter button. Everybody interprets things said differently. Anyone can be easily offended. Whether it was, like in this case, on purpose, or on accident. I just hope that my rushed decision to make that second unblock request doesn't screw my chances over. UnifiedBalance (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly though, am I going to be on the outs forever? Six months is a really, really long time to wait. I don't want to sound lazy in saying this, but asking for "major contributions" is kind of asking a lot of this new user. I barely understand how Wikipedia works, and how articles are put together. I understand what I did wrong, to both Ian.thomson and Mandruss, and I am really, very sorry. Please, at least consider giving this user some rope. UnifiedBalance (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UB: I happened to still have this page on my watchlist, but it's unlikely that any admin does. So they won't be aware that you have added a comment. Anyway, I'd suggest reading and following the guidance in the bottom section of the red box just above. Best, ―Mandruss ☎ 01:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after reading the post in WP:ANI, I seen that the block is only for a month. Maybe it would be better to just wait it out. UnifiedBalance (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, your block is indefinite. The IP address you were using is only blocked a month, but if you use it, it will count as sockpuppetry (which we're especially good at tracking, and I enjoy hunting), and sockpuppetry will kill your chances of getting this account unblocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You admit you "barely understand how Wikipedia works, and how articles are put together" -- in other words, that you don't (and didn't) know what you're doing. Being new is fine. Screwing up is fine. Hell, it's actually not that rare for someone to initially attack someone who tries to correct the new user's mistakes. But, you actively refused to learn at every step. That's not simply being new, that's being totally useless to the site. Even your first unblock request ("unfairly targeted") continued to refuse to learn. Honestly, everyone's reading your apologies and assuming you really mean "I'm sorry that I'm in trouble."

"Everybody interprets things said differently" implies that, on some level, you believe that your words were simply interpreted the in an unfavorable way, shifting the blame on others.

"Anyone can be easily offended" implies that the problem lies with those you attacked, not with you; that the problem was that that Mandruss and I were supposedly offended. I honestly didn't care about the "blow me" response, I just don't want this site's time or data wasted by someone who lacks the basic skills to discuss matters like an adult instead of a 10 year old on Xbox Live because their momma apparently didn't teach them how to behave.

I'm not bringing this up to rub your nose in it, or even to "teach" you anything -- I'm explaining why you're blocked and probably will remain blocked: we don't need you. The second unblock request doesn't have anything to do with it (if anything, it's the first that'll cause you trouble), and probably won't affect things if you take the standard offer now. The reason the standard offer says to stay away from the site for six months is because you are not going to grow up overnight. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there is no need for the hostility. I'm trying to apologize to those I've "name-called" and made "personal attacks" to, as well as return to good standing. I don't understand why you feel it necessary to degrade me to a "10-year-old using Xbox Live"?, and bringing my parents into this. Honestly, that was really offensive, and I don't understand what you were trying to accomplish by saying such mean things. UnifiedBalance (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand that you were not blocked because people chose to be offended or something. You were blocked because your behavior was disruptive and useless. We really don't care about offense so much around here as useless disruption.

It's not your apologies we want. What we want is a demonstration from editors that they're at least minimally self-disciplined, because we do not have time to teach discipline. That's why the standard offer says to stay away from the site: to both give you time to develop self-discipline and to demonstrate that self-discipline to us.

Your best chance is to log out and not come back until June 23. You're still plenty welcome to read the site, and encouraged to study the site's foundational principles, as well as the procedures for identifying and citing reliable sources if you plan on coming back. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should also reflect on the fact that, except for admin processing of your unblock reqeusts, none of us had any obligation to say one word on this page. We have done it not because we enjoy kicking a dog when it's down, but because we actually thought you might be able to hear what we were saying. I for one am removing this page from my watchlist. Best of luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you even have this page on your watchlist in the first place? It seems like you both wanted to kick me while I'm down. "No problem, enjoy the show. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)" I can only assume you're taking this page "off" of your watchlist so you can revel in having the last word. UnifiedBalance (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking things out of context? Failing to assume good faith? That'll cause trouble for your future unblock requests... "The show" I was referring to was how you chose to go to the admin's board by continuing the behavior that got you reported there in the first place. As has been suggested repeatedly, which you don't seem to be listening to, your best bet at an unblock would've been to leave quietly and not come back until June 23. You keep ignoring this. Are you just looking for attention? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. I knew if I owned up to what I did, it might shorten my block time. I apologized, to both you, and Mandruss. I'm not trying to excuse what I did as OK, in any way. I know that I was wrong. I'm not saying that I wasn't. I was just trying to show, in good faith, that I understand why I was blocked, and maybe ask for some WP:rope. You talk about assuming good faith, yet you add comment, such as,

"No, your ban is indefinite". I honestly had read that it was a month long IP block, so I assumed that's how long the block was.
"A ten-year old on Xbox Live who's momma didn't teach them any manners" < Personal attack

The only reason I mentioned you again in my earlier post was so that you could see I was trying to apologize to you. Instead of accepting said apology, in good faith, you decide to attack me, like I said before, degrading me to a mere "ten-year-old with no manners", to which I found offensive and you never apologized. It seems more like you know I can't edit any other pages to look for help if you were to use personal attacks, and are capitalizing on that. Why do you automatically assume everything I'm doing is for my own selfish purposes? As in "Apologizing for being in trouble", instead of apologizing because I know I was wrong, and am trying to do the right thing. UnifiedBalance (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I described your past behavior, where you called people nazis and snitches, as being akin to a 10 year old. If you really did think that past behavior was inappropriate, you wouldn't be defending it now.

I provided evidence that, even if you just aren't capable of realizing it, your apology is ultimately blame shifting. The time to learn and apologize was before the block, not after your first request didn't go through. Heck, you're still engaging in the same refusal to hear anyone out that got you blocked to begin with. You continued to just make a demand, and when you didn't get your way, you get pissy. We don't need that. I have explained, repeatedly, that the block is to help you grow without getting into further trouble. You apparently want to turn down the standard offer and give us the same song and dance that a bunch of time-wasters before you have given us.

I give up, enjoy being indefinitely blocked. If you come back using that IP, I will report it as a sockpuppet. When we blocked your account indefinitely, it meant we blocked you. We don't indef IP addresses because of many of them rotate. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm NOT defending my earlier actions, nor am I trying to shift any blame, at all. Why can't you understand that? I'm trying to apologize in good faith, and ask for WP:rope, out of good faith. I'm done with this conversation. UnifiedBalance (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

<Can a user please get some WP:rope?> UnifiedBalance (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to consider reducing your block length. You have admitted that some of the things you did were wrong, which is a great step forward. However, you haven't made it clear to me exactly which things you did you think were wrong. The problem is simply that we often get blocked editors who say "I know what I did wrong and I won't do it again", but they don't actually understand what the problem was. When an editor like that is unblocked, he or she very often just carries on as before. However, if you really do understand what was wrong with your editing, and really are willing to change, then that is obviously a different matter, and unblocking you will make sense. So can you say exactly what aspects of the editing you have done so far were, in your opinion, mistaken, and will not be repeated if you are unblocked?

(When you answer, if you include {{ping|JamesBWatson}} in your message and make sure you sign your post with ~~~~ , then I will be automatically notified of your message. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson:Losing my cool, resorting to name calling, and personal attacks, is exactly what I did wrong. Comments such as,

"you rabid Wiki-Nazi"
"sarcastic asshole"
"Blow me. I was only replying to another user who attacked me. Did you even bother to warn him? Of course not."

is not only unconstructive, but is disruptive, and unhelpful. Not only that, but my actions completely went against the etiquette of editing Wikipedia. I now know that if I were to get into a heated discussion with another user, this type of behavior is unacceptable, and will only lead to a block. Instead of succumbing to such behavior, it would be a better decision to simply leave the conversation for a while, and find a different, less controversial subject to help contribute to. In more severe cases, a (Wikipedia:ZZZ) would be in order until things cool down. UnifiedBalance (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what you have said there is fine, and as far as your being uncivil is concerned, I would be willing to give you another chance. However, there has also been another problem, and I think you need to comment on that problem too, before I can consider proposing a reduction in your block length. There are many wikis, forums, and things of that sort on the internet. Some of them are very open, and allow anyone to post almost anything. Some of them have a more restricted purpose. Wikipedia tries to give coverage of things in relation to the amount of weight they receive in mainstream reliable sources. You may disagree with this: you may think that fringe sources should be given equal weight, and you may even disagree with the very concept of "fringe" sources. If so, that is fine, and you are perfectly free to post to another web site that has standards closer to your own standards. However, if you fit in as a contributor to Wikipedia, then you need to edit within Wikipedia's policies. Much of your editing has consisted of refusal to accept Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you are unblocked, will you be prepared to accept Wikipedia policies, even if you disagree with them? (By the way, there are some Wikipedia policies that I disagree with, but I still try to stick to them, because I am aware that Wikipedia works by collaboration. If each one of us insisted on doing what we each liked, ignoring everybody else's opinions, Wikipedia would rapidly come to an end. Wikipedia would first decline to the same level as various obscure internet forums that most people have never heard of, where people, mostly teenage children, post whatever crap they like, so nobody except people like themselves take any notice of them. That would mean that most people would stop using Wikipedia, and eventually it would fade away. As I say, I try to stick to Wikipedia policies, even when I disagree with them. If there were any policies that I disagreed with so strongly that I just wasn't prepared to stick to them, then I would not contribute to Wikipedia. It's as simple as that.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more and more, Wikipedia is a popularity contest, based on the hours logged by editors that are WP:ADDICTED. I want not part of it, since it throws truth under the bus for "verifiability by 'reliable sources'" which are biased anyways. Sorry for wasting your time. UnifiedBalance (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any hope?

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I promise not to behave in the manner that I did which lead to my block, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I promise not to behave in the manner that I did which lead to my block, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I promise not to behave in the manner that I did which lead to my block, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I promise not to behave in the manner that I did which lead to my block, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

.

Thanks, 70.90.174.173 (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]