User talk:Peterstrempel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Peter S Strempel's talk page

Ambox notice.pngPlease don't split conversations: if we start here, stay here, if we start somewhere else, let's keep it there. It's too busy a place to keep tabs on everything, everywhere, all the time. You can always post a talkback notice here to let me know of updates elsewhere.
Archives March 2011 | April-July 2011 | August-December 2011 | January-March 2012 | April-December 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Peterstrempel (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. The IP address belongs to a VPN provider. Why ban me after I have logged in with the proper credentials, no matter what my IP address is. This practice strikes me as technophobe vandalism rather than defensible administrative practice. A good way to keep people away from Wikipedia, too. I'd almost forgotten why I stopped coming here. You people make Franz Kafka seem like an optimist. Peter S Strempel Talk 22:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I see you were able to edit your User page after making this request, which means you are currently not affected by an IP address block. If you are subsequently unable to edit again, we'll need your IP address to investigate the block. If you are concerned about providing this publicly, you can use WP:UTRS. If you don't know how to find your IP address, we are happy to explain how. Yamla (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2016 (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.


Please don't ever contact me by email again. If you persist on sending messages like the one you just did - including calling me "gestapo", you will find yourself unable to use the email function. SQLQuery me! 02:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

When the shoe fits ... You are responsible for what you do, and when that resembles Gestapo thuggery, you deserve to be called out for it. Go ahead and abuse your petty powers some more. Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
You know, you could have calmly and civilly raised a request in your email, which user:Yamla kindly posted to the admin noticeboard, to have the range block looked into. Instead, you've basically had a hissy fit, not just on wiki, but elsewhere. Your last edits prior to your attempt to edit were in 2013. You obviously have no insight into how much trouble some IP ranges are. If various admins and functionaries have seen fit to levy such a drastic block, a reasonable person would consider that there would be solid justification as to why such a course of action was taken. Instead you decide to go for the white cop/black man analogy and follow up by doubling down into Godwin's.
However, here is some education for you. Why are VPN's and proxies blocked? This policy WP:PROXY may enlighten you.
As for Why aren't you matching user IDs to IPs, this is expressly forbidden by the CheckUser policy. The CheckUser privilege is not to be used lightly for fishing expeditions and it is a violation of privacy for them to do so. If you didn't realise this after making your statement, I question your capability in IT.
Furthermore, your request to delete my user page and account is not possible. The reason being that any contributions that any user has made must be appropriately attributed. Even though our contributions are irrevocably released under CC BY SA 3.0, the copyright still belongs to the user that created the content.
I could go on attacking each of your points, but this should suffice to show that your unenlightened hissy fit does little except to show those of us who have seen your rant that Wikipedia is better off without short fused people such as yourself.
As a final note, from one Australian to another, I find your comment What, in particular, makes such IP addresses the targets of this proxy lynching activity? Is it because you're a white American cop and the IP address seemed like a black man to you? to be utterly disgusting, racist and abhorrent. I hope any admin who comes across your request will, instead of assisting you, indefinitely block your account directly with no recourse for return, because as you say we don't mix in that kind of disgusting company. Blackmane (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of WP:ANI discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


Are not for making personal attacks against other editors. Your situation is being discussed and at this point you are hindering yourself more than helping. Before responding, you may want to read WP:POLEMIC and WP:NPA. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


Per my close here, you need to email the Functionaries team for a Checkuser here. Dennis Brown - 19:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Notes from a 'dead' man

In summary, some of you turned what was a private communiqué into a public controversy. Broadcasting it to make it that was all your own doing. The reasonable man hypothesis isn't on your side in this one. Nor is any amount of lawyering to insist that a set of principles and guidelines is as fixed a set of rules as you'd like them to be.

In any case, there was plenty of evidence in the admin thread of everything I described in my critique. And none of this in any way affected Wikipedia’s actual pages. Just a small number of fragile egos that had to be reined in, in the end, by one of your own elders.

However, in conducting your little lynching party, you all erred in fact and judgement. And these were wilful errors one might reasonably expect exalted administrators not to make.

  1. I emailed SQL only because I could not access any normal Wikipedia remedy. You might want to simulate that experience to gauge how quickly it becomes tedious. Maybe you people need to reconsider how a blocked user can communicate with the relevant ‘chain of command’. And I didn’t pick the name out of a hat: it was explicitly listed as the author of the block I encountered at the time (do I need to repeat again that separate notices apply to separate IP addresses being used by a single editor?).
  2. SQL, you may well object to being likened to the Gestapo, but immediately responding with the threat of disabling my ability to email anyone, at a time when that was in fact the only means of communicating with Wikipedia, is hardly proof that the similes I used are misplaced. I always thought admins were supposed to be more level-headed and thick-skinned than mere mortals. But I shouldn't take that for granted, now, should I. If there was no truth to what I said to you in my email, why did it upset you so much? What nerve did I hit?
  3. Yamla was the one to make this entire exchange public. This hardly makes it my sustained or deliberate attempt to be disruptive. If you attack a man, you must expect a response. Blocking me is an attack. Misrepresenting what I say (and admitting to not having read what I said) is an attack. On that basis, I expected a response from SQL, but not a lynch mob in the admin thread. The essay on my user page was my response to SQL’s threat on my talk pages.
  4. Yamla has defended an IP block on the basis that I was able to edit my pages after accessing them using someone else’s PC and ISP. In effect I remain blocked from my own PC. I explained this already. Why is it so hard to understand that the ability to circumvent a block is not equivalent to being unblocked? Is it now also clear to all that an IP range block with international reach can affect thousands of users who may have never said an angry word on Wikipedia?
  5. Yamla said calling an admin a Gestapo thug was reason enough to block me (the semantic distinction between ban and block is meaningless in this context). What I implied is that all Wikipedia admins are open to be characterised that way if the behaviour warrants it. The suggestion that admins are above critique because they are admins is absurd. The behaviour I attributed to 'Wikistapo' is in fact precisely the behaviour that then ensued. There was even a comment to that effect on the admin thread, albeit by an IP editor (not me: I stand by what I say quite openly).
  6. Why does likening another editor’s behaviour to a Gestapo thug warrant blocking, only in death? How did this become an issue for Wikipedia until Yamla made it one? How does it impact on the Wikipedia project except to question what has happened to Wikipedia’s mission in the hands of crude administration? And if that is no longer a valid question, are you not admitting that Wikipedia is not now about encyclopaedic endeavours so much as preserving power without responsibility for bureaucrats? Are you really so threatened by little old me that you behave exactly like the cops who claim they feared for their lives before assassinating unarmed black men?
  7. Was Blackmane a ring-in? Just looking to suck up for an extra Barnstar? Almost everything said by that one is a hysterical distortion of what actually occurred. But can you honestly say this user’s contribution was anything less than thuggish lynch mob behaviour?
  8. I suspect you didn’t read what I wrote, or pay attention to its sequence in this farce, clpo13. Have you done anything at all, ever, to think about and improve one of the primary goals of Wikipedia, which is to attract and retain editors who do not think like the narrow clique that controls it? Or is it too certain you too will be the target of bullying if you do?
  9. … a warning is sufficient at this time … , eh, SQL? A warning about what, specifically? Not to disagree with admin decisions. Not to speak my mind? Not to respond to threats? I realise that you, alone, have cause to differ with me. So be it. I don’t agree with the way you exercise your power, and you don’t like being called Wikistapo. But you're the one with the whip-hand. If I'm wrong about you, you'll have my apology. And in public. If that is still an option when I reach my conclusions about this entire affair.
  10. As was stated elsewhere, only in death, you can’t actually tell what contributions I’ve made, only when and where I was logged in under my name. I don't do edit warring, and none of this contrived little drama has affected any actual page. Now, or in the past. It seems plain to me that admins control what is permitted ontology and epistemology, even when these are suborned by ideological fabrication. I learnt that lesson a loooong time ago.
  11. Advice on IPBE noted, SQL. I will consider that route only if the answers I get from my service provider and Vituzzu make it seem appropriate. I note that Vituzzu’s talk page has at least one other request from a Wikimedia/Pedia user (unknown to me) being blocked for the same reason. As I have already stated, I doubt I will edit again, knowing that Wikipedia articles and editors are subject to ideological censorship and interventions. I made it plain that my intention right now is just to get to the bottom of how it is that a policy as contradictory as the one applying to IP blocks can be enforced to the detriment of editors, and by administrators apparently ignorant of and indifferent to how it really works. After that I suspect I’m gone regardless of blocks, bans, or Gestapo bullying.
  12. Another tilt at censorship, eh, Only in death, Dennis Brown. How is being blocked not a personal attack on me to begin with? Oh yes, I see: it’s not personal because you guys have no actual idea of how an IP block might affect editors. Does that not warrant a comment implying (wilful) stupidity? You people may all agree that what I have to say is not flattering, but you cannot deny that Wikipedia is very much a public organisation, and therefore subject to public scrutiny and comment. My commentary is not at all out of sync with similar commentary made in and about the American political sphere, and if you think your actions are not overtly ideological and political you are delusional (the common man hypothesis again).

On that point, I note that there are Wikipedia editors, and even admins, who agree with almost everything I said, even though they counselled me not to make waves, knowing as they do what would occur here. I guess I just don’t like being jerked around or bullied. Particularly not by people so devoid of integrity and courage that they hide behind pseudonyms and an inability to clearly articulate their reasoning for behaving like a lynch mob.

In summary, then, you all think I overreacted, and then did everything to prove my critique to be right on the money. No overreaction from any of you people, eh? That's why Dennis Brown didn't have to shut you down, right? The next time Wikimedia/Wikipedia again discusses why numbers for attracting and retaining new editors are so low, you might pay attention to the answer that floats around every time the topic had been raised in the past decade: the culture of administrator behaviour here is so corrosively rude and irrationally interventionist that it has driven away most academics, subject matter experts, women, and non-white men of all ages. That's not intended as an excuse for any sharpness of words by me, but it may explain why I move there quicker than you'd all like.

If this is how you administer ‘knowledge’, the only thing for certain about Wikipedia now is that knowledge has been killed off in order to maintain and advance the privilege of a narrow clique resembling everything I described in the essay you deleted Only in death. The only alternative explanation I can think of is the 'I was in fear of my life' doctrine. Are you that fearful?

Certainement qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde est en droit de vous rendre injuste. Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

You are not entitled[edit]

  • If you go into a restaurant and the soup is cold, you don't compare the waiter to a Nazi and start pounding your fist on the table. Your rights haven't been violated because you have no rights here, none of us do. You got caught up in an IP block, a very simple thing that was very simple to remedy by contacting a Checkuser. Instead of being polite, you freaked out and acted abusively towards someone who didn't do the block to begin with. No admin is going to unblock an entire range for one person to edit without a Checkuser taking a look first. It was you that made it "public" by overreacting with an aggressive email. So either contact a Checkuser or don't, but get off your pedestal. You aren't a special little snowflake. IPBE isn't a right, it isn't automatic and it is rare, so don't assume it will automatically be granted. After the abusive email, this rant and other concerns, I wouldn't grant it if I were a Checkuser. Dennis Brown - 11:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah! That's right!! You tell 'im, bro!!! Who the fuck does that guy think he is!!!! Goddam snowflakes're ruinin' the place. We should just build a goddam big wall to keep 'em all out. Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Han Chinese[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Han Chinese. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Terry McAuliffe[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Terry McAuliffe. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential election, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)