User talk:Siihb

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

You need to stop leaving baiting messages on my talk pages. Please do not leave any more. Leaving this comment up for a bit then clearing these talk comments. Siihb (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what all three admins who have posted here are trying to do is ensure that you understand why you were blocked, so that it does not happen again. However, you are of course quite welcome to remove all of our comments apart from the declined unblock request. Black Kite (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe you are sharing some big secret to me that I am unaware of? I see nothing more than nebulous, ambiguous and inconsistently enforced wikipedia rules being applied to me when a sub group of the site gets in an uproar that I dared to correctly format a scandal about one of their heroes. I find the users I listed disingenuous. The definition of disingenuous is one you might want to review. The editors I mentioned have evidence of them acting on behalf of Huffman's paid agents without any commentary or discussion regarding the page. The little subgroup of Huffman protectors can try and voltron up to bury dissent in paperwork but the truth is not going away. If you want me to be a little nicer presenting my facts, that is fine, I can play the follow the letter of the law if not the spirit game as much as the next guy. A 60 hour sitewide block because I posted on my user page is ridiculous but its not going to stop me. Siihb (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]