User talk:Sigiheri

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at Corporation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process, continuing to attack editors, or other disruptive reasons. You may still contest any current block by using the unblock ticket request system, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This guy BBB23 is over the top. He had no good reason to block me and seems to garner pleasure from blocking people. I would argue that an admin should specify exactly the reason for a block and not just reference an article that may or may not apply.

May 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ... discospinster _talk 23:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think you should provide evidence if you block someone that is specific and not general. You simply say there was "disruptive editing" but provide zero evidence. Typically, when someone accuses another, they provide evidence. Are Admins above this type of basic justice? This is a serious question.

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).

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

Request reason:

I set up a dispute resolution and NO ONE responded. I set up a TALK section and it was clear I was right about shareholder ownership. I therefore made the undo on joint stock companies because no one argued against it and I was blocked. Screw these editors, screw Wikipedia. You all can write stupid, incorrect entries then block those who disagree until you die. Sigiheri (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Screw these editors, screw Wikipedia" Well if you feel that way, then go. Why the hell do you want to be unblocked, then? So you can continue to be a dick? Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2013 (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.

Sigiheri (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the comment by Daniel Case is totally inappropriate. Is it typical for Admin to call frustrated editors "dicks"? I feel like he failed to do his job.

January 2021

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).

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

Request reason:

'I will not edit any page, ever. I will only post to the talk pages, from now on. Nor will I "sock-puppet", ever. I now realize that few ppl, if any, editing the corporation page are experts, legal or otherwise. I have multiple degrees, including a PhD, and I've published multiple peer reviewed journal articles, some directly related to the topic.

I now understand that wikipedia is geared toward publishing a consensus point of view, no matter how inaccurate according to the minority of experts. If wikipedia is after a consensus and not accuracy, I was mistaken all along.

Given the relative lack of education of those editing the corporation page, I do not feel that I will be able to edit directly to fix their many errors. Those who are not educated do not realize it and talk like they are. I find their behavior extremely frustrating as it's not academic. Few can even reference a peer reviewed article and feel that a non-peer reviewed article is just as good. How can a serious person tolerate such non-sense? But I understand that if the consensus will always rule the day, so be it.

Given this potentially explosive situation, I do not feel comfortable editing pages. But I do feel that I can post to the talk page to try to gain a consensus. Or at least I can register a complaint about the article and point to what the experts say.

I think it is important that I express that the corporation page is extremely political. The Law and Economics guys are trying to spin their ridiculous narrative that the corporation is merely a "nexus of contracts." That point of view supports deregulation and has been bought and paid for by the Koch brothers et al. (See Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America). Gindis 2020, Cambridge Papers "On the origins, meaning and influence of Jensen and Meckling’s definition of the firm" explains some of what is going on. I guess the bottom line is that the free enterprise ppl/shareholder capitalism group and the managerial/Nader/Berle/Chandler group are still at odds about how the corporation and its shareholders are represented to the public. I believe it is important that admin understand the political nature of the article and perhaps editors.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, this does not convince me that you really understand Wikipedia's policies, will edit in a collaborative manner, and aren't here simply to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Yamla (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2021 (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.

Note to unblocking admins: I had a discussion on IRC with this user, and spent a while trying to get them access back to an account. They had several autoblocks plus a VPN on, but we got that sorted. However, I could not get things to work on their original account, so I think it best to treat the old account as toast and just use this one. My take: this user can be productive, but I expect them to show they know how to make edit requests, what edit warring is, and to understand that they were in the wrong in the first place. The block is now 7 years old, although they did do some logged out editing ~2 years ago. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is mostly edited by and intended for lay people, as it only summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and not necessarily what experts in various fields state. That isn't to say expert editors are not welcome, but they need to be aware of how things work here. I'd suggest reading WP:EXPERT for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I would disagree that "...it only summarize what independent reliable sourse state..." I see a number of unreliable sources in the reference section of the Corporation page, such as #2 and #37.Sigiheri (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a volunteer project with over 6 million articles where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content by us, we can only address what we know about. Helping us to remove inappropriate sources is something that we can always use help with. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The corporation article is poorly written and poorly cited. It's a real piece of garbage that lay editors protect because they don't know any better. They are pawns of capitalist propaganda who have been warped into believing in a fantasy world. I can help, but I need to be unleashed.Sigiheri (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Yamla: I guess you failed to read the first line in the appeal where I state that "I will not edit any page, ever. I will only post to the talk pages, from now on." Therefore, your concern that I will not edit in a collaborative manner is not warranted. I agree that I won't edit in a collaborative manner, so I'm not editing at all!!!!!!! It's too bad there's no accountability because this is egregious, imo.Sigiheri (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. I have no desire to unblock you if you are going to go causing a ruckus over on various talk pages. You are free to request another unblock and a different administrator will review it. --Yamla (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yamla, It would be nice if you familiarized yourself with the background of an appeal before denying it. I have stated that I am only interested in the corporation page. Therefore, once again, your fear are unwarranted. Also, you state in the your denial of my appeal that you don't think I'll edit in a collaborative manner. So if you did read my appeal as you assert, why did you state something that makes zero sense? Serious question.Sigiheri (talk)

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).

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

Request reason:

Yamla failed to read the first line in the appeal where I state that "I will not edit any page, ever. I will only post to the talk pages, from now on." Therefore, his concern that I will not edit in a collaborative manner is not warranted. I agree that I won't edit in a collaborative manner, because I'm not editing at all!!!!!!! When I mentioned this, Yamla changed his reason: "I have no desire to unblock you if you are going to go causing a ruckus over on various talk pages." On what basis does he make this accusation? He makes it because I stated the political nature of the article, AND PROVIDED SOURCES, and because I stated FACTS with SOURCES, he thinks I will be political and RIGHTGREATWRONGS. He has zero evidence that I will do this. In fact, he has evidence I won't do it because I stated I would not edit. He is denying my appeal based on made up nonsense. In my most recently denied appeal, 331dot states: "Just contributing to talk pages does not significantly aid this project, so on balance I see no benefit to unblocking you if you have no intention of editing articles." So if the talk pages do not aid in editing, why have them at all? Is it the case that a user must edit in order to be unblocked or is 331dot making stuff up? If 331dot is not making stuff up, where is the policy that states that you must edit if you are unblocked? Sigiheri (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your posts here come across as argumentative and arrogant, which seems likely to continue if you're unblocked. For example, the people who disagree with you are automatically "pawns of capitalist propaganda". How can you compromise with someone that you see that contemptuously? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2021 (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.

NinjaRobotPirate: Another random decision with zero basis. I am posting an appeal, so call it argumentative, but isn't that what I'm supposed to do? Lay out an argument for why I should be unblocked? NinjaRobotPirate, asserts that my posts come across to you as, "arrogant." I take this fact-free opinion as an ad hominem attack. He bases his denial on my attempt to convey the political situation to the page to admin. I am pointing out that many ppl have been inculcated in an incorrect way to think about the corporation. In that sense, these people are "pawns of capitalist propaganda". I am not directly calling ppl that, nor would I. Yet, NinjaRobertPirate wants to be the thought police. He thinks that because I describe the situation that way to admin to get unblocked that I will call ppl names. It's a preposterous and thoughtless inference. Why does NijaRobortpirot draw a conclusion that what I say to admin is not what I say to editors? It's ridiculous. Nijarobertpirate should be banned from any authority to make decisions like this, imo.

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).

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

Request reason:

1. I won't sock puppet. 2. I won't edit war because I won't edit. I will just use the talk page. Unless this is illegal. If so, let me know the policy I am violating. My plan is to simply alert editors to the mistakes on the page and the references that are relevant. I do not plan to discuss credentials, etc. Sigiheri (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have wasted enough of our time. Talk page access revoked. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 16:45, 15 February 2021 (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.

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.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

You've been told repeatedly - you're blocked. No amount of hassling / trolling the same 30 admins on IRC is likely to get you unblocked. Make your case at UTRS, or to the Arbitration Committee. SQL ^{Query me!} 00:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]