User talk:210.6.209.89

Materialscientist has blocked me for archiving a talk page. Others reverted my archiving so I stopped. My archiving was in accordance with wikipedia policy. I had already stopped after the reverts when the block was placed, without warning or an opportunity to discuss. This is systematic abuse. I was not edit warring or being disruptive. I was archiving a talk page in accordance with wikipedia policy. I had just posted 16 suggested changes to the article. My unblock request has been declined. If anyone wants to discuss the 16 suggested changes, I would be happy to do so here, due to the block. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the massage on my talk page

I see that you have been blocked for a week, but in response to your question: You were bold and archived some of the talk page messages, you were reverted by several editors. As per WP:BRD the next step is discussion, where you discuss the changes you have attempted to implement until there is a general consensus. Hopefully during the week banning you can take some time to get a better understanding of Wikipedia processes. If you have any questions after you come back you know where to find me. Greyjoy^talk 16:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't bold, I acted in accordance with wikipedia guidelines and at your suggestion. I cannot discuss the changes because I cannot edit the talk page due to the block.

You might want to read WP:BRD, being bold isn't used in the same sense as in regular conversation. The more literal discription would be: You edited, you were reverted, discuss and reach consensus. Greyjoy^talk 16:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read WP:BRD. I can't continue to discuss due to the block. I had already ceased archiving. Furthermore, Materialscientist never contacted me to warn me before the block, nor to ask me any questions. That isn't compliant with wikipedia policies.

I am aware that you can't discuss at the moment. The question you asked was what the next step is after people have reverted your edits. This was the answer. Obviously the updated advice is now "wait a week, and then discuss." I am not going to comment on the block process as that is not an area I have any experience/interest in. Greyjoy^talk 16:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I will continue to discuss on the talk page with the people who reverted my changes and blocked me? And I have to wait a week to be able to do so? And if they continue to revert and block me? There are a very large number of incorrect statements on the wikipedia page. Is there anyone else I can ask about what to do about this?210.6.209.89 (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you will have to discuss it with the people who reverted it, thats how the discuss part of BRD works. You can look at the other approaches here, but as a general rule if you have a point of view and several editors disagree with you, you probably will not be able to implement your changes. They did not block you, Materialscientist was not involved in the conversation as far as I can tell. Yes, you have to wait a week. Thats how being blocked from editing for a week works. Greyjoy^talk 16:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the policies on consensus. If there is someone else who can help, I would appreciate it. A week is a very long time. It's actually even worse if Materialscientist was not involved. What if he blocks me again? He didn't even provide an explanation. I wasn't involved in disruptive editing. And in the future, if people not involved in the discussion block me? This is wikipedia's system? Again, if there is anyone who can help I would appreciate it. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many would argue that the banning admin should not be involved to ensure neutrality. However, you have the right to appeal a block. Some recommended reading here Appealing a block and Guide to appealing blocks. Greyjoy^talk 16:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not being forthright about how blocking works. Clearly, Materialscientist had some connection with the people arguing with me and reverting my edits. Materialscientist has not explained how it came to be that he blocked me. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vague unfounded accusations of "connections" are probably not going to help, but you do you Greyjoy^talk 18:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you, buddy. There's nothing vague or unfounded about it. Clearly Materialscientist was notified somehow, and it's not a stretch to think one or more of the people arguing/reverting were involved. You're intentionally obscuring. So, wikipedia is a closed system and blocks people who try to improve the information in the articles? You misspelled message as massage. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not doing yourself any favours, but just for the record: your account was reported to an administrator noticeboard, when you had continued editing disruptively after several "final" warnings. This is how it is supposed to work – involved editors make reports so that uninvolved administrators can evaluate the situation and see whether a block is warranted. So, yes, entirely unfounded, and exceedingly vague (since you have not given any reasons for why there would be any kind of involvement). --bonadea contributions talk 18:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're full of shit! You literally just confirmed how it occurred. That is the opposite of unfounded and vague, it is founded and specific. Let's assume this account isn't further blocked, what do you suggest I do in one week when the current block finishes? When you say "editing disruptively", what actually occurred was archiving of talk page discussions consistent with wikipedia policy and at the suggestion of a wikipedia editor. You all operate a closed community and I see that is one reason why wikipedia articles are full of errors. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can predict how that will go. I'll wait a week, return to the discussion, and likely get banned again. Wikipedia appears to be a closed system. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As predicted, I requested to be unblocked and was declined. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, the talk page has a question to you about WP:COI. You can use the waiting time to answer that on this talk page. It's OK to have a conflict of interest, but if you have one, the expectation is less editing in the areas of COI and more talk page discussion to gain consensus for proposed changes.

It would be worse if an administrator who was involved in the discussion blocked you. That would constitute an abuse of the administrator's tools. Administrators should never use their tools against an editor with whom they are in a dispute. An administrator's job is to preserve the stability of the project, so if an administrator perceives disruptive behavior, then tools can be employed to prevent the disruption, such as blocking users or protecting articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not being forthright about how blocking works. Clearly, Materialscientist had some connection with the people arguing with me and reverting my edits. Materialscientist has not explained how it came to be that he blocked me. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am in full compliance with wikipedia's policies on COI, and I was in full compliance at the time the block was placed. I answered multiple times on the talk page that I am in full compliance. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not, because you never answered the question. Your COI is obvious per WP:DUCK. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered the question both here and on the young blood transfusion talk page. Again, I am in full compliance with wikipedia's policies on COI. You are clearly biased against me. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered a simple and direct question here or on the talk page. It's yes or no. Instead, you have declined to confirm or deny anything about a COI, instead giving non-answers. If you have answered, then please point to a diff where this happened. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The answers, including the one on this very page, are not non-answers. I am in compliance with wikipedia's policies on COI. Do you want to ask specific questions? What else is there to say? I've answered the question. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not in compliance because you have not placed a COI template on your page per WP:COI. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A template isn't needed, just a simple yes or no. On this talk page. Confirm or deny a COI. That is all. You have avoided that question. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These responses aren't from templates, I am answering your questions. I feel like the question has been answered. I am looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide right now. I don't see any violations. If there is something specific, please quote wikipedia policy or ask. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I will answer you clearly and plainly: I have nothing to declare. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, Mr. Vernon and Anachronist are disagreeing whether I need to place a COI template on my page or not. If it is policy that I have to place a template on my page, please quote the policy and show me which template. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. Funny, you said you read WP:COI and were "in full compliance" and didn't read section 2. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI. However, you and Anachronist are not in consensus whether I need to place a template on my page. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Vernon, let me be explicit. I have reviewed the link you provided, and no further templates are required on my page. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young Blood Transfusion Talk Page Edit Requests

I have posted 16 edit requests on the young blood transfusion talk page. In the middle of discussion, I was banned by Materialscientist for 1 week. I was archiving old discussions on the talk page in accordance with wikipedia's policies. If anyone wants to discuss the 16 edit requests, I would be happy to do so here, as I cannot currently edit the talk page. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist: Would you elaborate on the reasons for the duration of this block? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editor was previously blocked for edit warring on the page they want to make changes to: [2] --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not edit warring. Other editors reverted my edits, so I began discussions with them on the talk page. I am acting consistently with the advice given to me and the policies I have read on wikipedia. It is still clear that you are biased against me. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You also made legal threats on my talk page. Also you made ANI for the legal threats and edit warring. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that discussion, as none of them messaged me. I was not edit warring or making legal threats. It truly is illegal to post incorrect, damaging information online. That is a statement of fact and is useful to know. I wasn't presented with an opportunity to explain. I was in the middle of discussion on the talk page when I was blocked. I was not being disruptive or edit warring. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

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

Request reason:

I edited the young blood transfusions page, and my edits were reverted. Then I was blocked for 1 day. I posted 16 edit requests to the talk page. Since the talk page was greater than 75k bytes, I began archiving the discussions. In the middle of a discussion on the talk page, Materialscientist blocked me. I am requesting to be unblocked so that I may discuss my proposed edits on the talk page. I also think blocking should be clarified, as I did not expect to be blocked for archiving old discussions on a talk page. Perhaps you should provide guidance on how to discuss archiving and other article changes so as to avoid sudden and unexpected blocks which are noncompliant with wikipedia policies.

Decline reason:

The block was made to end your disruption, not to punish you. This is completely consistent with policy. This request does not address your legal threats; pointing out something is illegal was clearly intended to have a chilling effect on other editors. You also don't address your edit warring. If I were you I wouldn't worry about archiving whatsoever. I don't see any benefit to Wikipedia in removing the block early, as as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2020 (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.

I was not disrupting at the time the block was made. So, that is incorrect. You are arguing that we cannot discuss the legal definition of defamation. I completely disagree. I would like the article to be correct, you are creating a straw man when you say "chilling". I would like to archive the old discussions on the talk page, consistent with wikipedia policy. Since my block has been declined, I appear to have no choice but to respond to people here on this talk page. Given I had just posted 16 edit requests, and I was not engaging in edit warring or disruptive editing at the time of the block. Furthermore, I did address edit warring, the very first sentence in my unblock request explains what has been labeled as edit warring. The only editing I was doing at the time the block was placed was discussion on the talk page. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:210.6.209.89, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Saying "fuck you" to another editor. Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Is it against wikipedia policy to say fuck you? If it is, please quote the policy, I'll remove it. If you block me for something like that you are further demonstrating your bias and the closed, broken nature of wikipedia. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the policy and saying "fuck you" does not appear to be a personal attack, so you are noncompliant with wikipedia policies. Everyone reading this can see you are biased against me. You're abusing your privileges. 210.6.209.89 (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If you make an unblock appeal via UTRS, please avoid personal attacks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.