User talk:PotatoCyborg

May 2024[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing the article about Christ University because your account exists almost exclusively for the purpose of edit warring the same content into the article in violation of WP:EW, WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am writing to respectfully contest the indefinite block placed on my account, which was done on the grounds of edit warring and violations of WP:EW, WP:ONUS, and WP:BURDEN. I believe there has been a misunderstanding of my intentions and actions, and I would like to clarify my position and seek reconsideration. Background and Context I have been involved in editing/restoring the Christ University Wikipedia page with the goal of maintaining a balanced and comprehensive account of the institution's history. My primary concern has been the removal of the entire "Controversies" section by individuals who appear to be associated with the university. These sections included incidents that are well-documented by reliable national news organizations. Notable incidents, such as allegations of sexual harassment during online examinations, a student's attempted suicide following sexual harassment by a faculty member, and student protests over university regulations, are significant aspects of the university's history and have impacted its reputation.

The removal of this content by university-associated individuals violates Wikipedia's guidelines on Conflict of Interest guideline (WP:COI), Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) and Not Censored (WP:NOTCENSORED). These actions compromise the integrity and completeness of the article, preventing a fair and accurate representation of Christ University's history. It is crucial to include these incidents to ensure a complete and neutral representation of Christ University on Wikipedia.

Discussion and Consensus Efforts

On 16:17, 24 March 2024, I initiated a discussion on the talk page to address these concerns. In my post, I emphasized the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines on Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV), Verifiability (WP:V), and Not Censored (WP:NOTCENSORED). Despite my efforts to engage in a constructive dialogue, the individuals responsible for substantial edits, including the removal of over 18,000 bytes of content, did not respond to my discussion. Furthermore, these individuals appear to have associations with Christ University, as verified through a simple Google search. They also did not respond to all the messages I left on their personal talk pages and continued to make massive removals of content.

Addressing the Reasons for the Block

   Edit Warring (WP:EW): My intent has never been to engage in edit wars. My edits were aimed at restoring verified and notable content that adheres to Wikipedia's standards. I sought to discuss and build consensus through the talk page, but my efforts were met with silence from the other party.

   Onus (WP:ONUS): I have provided citations from reliable sources for the content I reinstated. These sources meet Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability and notability. The onus is indeed on those seeking to include or restore information to demonstrate its verifiability and relevance, which I believe I have done adequately.

   Burden (WP:BURDEN): The incidents I referenced have been reported by multiple reputable news outlets. I have also been diligent in maintaining a neutral point of view in my contributions.

Contributions and Intent

I frequently contribute to other Wikipedia pages, and my goal is to ensure that all articles maintain a neutral and comprehensive account of their subjects. I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and have no interest in participating in edit wars or disruptive behavior. Request for Unblock

I respectfully request that my block be reconsidered. I am willing to engage in further discussion and seek consensus through appropriate dispute resolution channels. My aim is to contribute positively to Wikipedia and uphold its standards of verifiability, neutrality, and completeness.

Thank you for considering my request.

Decline reason:

Since you don't indicate a need to access that particular article, there's no need to do anything here. I don't think this needs to be here forever, and given the reason for the block I think once you show you have contributed more extensively to Wikipedia the block can be removed. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2024 (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.

The content was restored after full page protection without a consensus for inclusion having been found. Previous discussions that didn't lead to anything but continued disagreement can be found at [1] and [2]; I'd prefer to see at least one editor, preferably not with an account dedicated to this, express their agreement with including the material at Talk:Christ University. This could be a third opinion or people responding to an RfC, and the block doesn't prevent you from seeking either.

The material is currently present in the article without consensus, and you and LeoFrank need to seek uninvolved opinions before continuing to edit war about this. I don't think that removing a block limited to the article is currently productive.

PotatoCyborg, if I see correctly, you haven't invited LeoFrank to the discussion yet; I'll do so now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ToBeFree, I had invited LeoFrank in the edit summaries, but you're right, I should have also invited them on their talk page. Thank you for doing so. ~ PotatoCyborg

You are blocked only from a single article, you can edit literally every other article on Wikipedia. You can also use the article talk page to propose edits(as edit request). What do you need access to the article itself for? 331dot (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot,

My main reason for submitting the appeal is to defend myself, as I believe the allegations and reasons mentioned in the block are inaccurate. I wanted to provide background and clarifications regarding my actions.

At this point, I honestly don't mind being blocked from editing the article directly. It seems that many editors are now watching over the page, so I don't think the university-affiliated individuals will attempt to whitewash the content. As long as the page maintains a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), I am happy. PotatoCyborg (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]