User talk:2804:14D:4CA9:81C4:E87D:465B:64FF:E514

November 2021[edit]

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2021 (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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

2804:14D:4CA9:81C4:E87D:465B:64FF:E514 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can you please explain what such personal attack happened? It seems kafkaesque at best to be blocked by an attack and never told what the attack is. I didn't edit any article. I commented on a talk page. All those comments are gone, I can't say who removed them of if I did by mistake. I was talking to another user who sent a warning. The post on their page is not extremely polite, yet it starts with "Well do go on, I welcome the criticism." and is an honest and passionate, if inflamed, accord of something deeply wrong with the wiki (unless a complete rewrite and backtrack of articles are the expected behavior) -- and, if anything, my last comment about the badges the user has on their profile meant they sure are well educated enough to hold such debates and reflect on big questions of design and philosophy of the wiki. If some of that should fall within "attack" category I should be AT LEAST informed what parts exactly are problematic and, if it be the interest of the offended, be given a chance to apologize for it. This standard of reproaching is, itself, unjustifiable.2804:14D:4CA9:81C4:E87D:465B:64FF:E514 (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your initial comments were completely unacceptable for a public, civil, and collaborative environment. They went beyond passion. If you need to be told what was unacceptable about your comments, you shouldn't edit Wikipedia until you figure that out yourself. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 23 November 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 initial comments were completely unacceptable for a public, civil, and collaborative environment.

There seems to be a major misunderstanding here. The other user said I was blocked because of the "continuation". You seem to be saying I'm blocked because of the initial comments, the ones I was already warned for. I don't mean to say the block is undeserved, but your reviewing/appealling body is strange/inconsistent for the original judge replied differently and EXACTLY because he wasn't clear on his ruling (which was my original complaint) you are now MAINTAINING the same decision yet BASED ON SOMETHING ELSE entirely.

> If you need to be told what was unacceptable about your comments, you shouldn't edit Wikipedia until you figure that out yourself. I am declining your request.

A judge usually has not the faculty to deny someone the exact content for what they are being sentenced. At no point I even requested a retrial, just clarification. It's been three times now that administrators commented on the page without offering any. I am happy to let it go though as I feel criticizing the appeal system is just the surest way of getting an even longer block.

Your edit to that talkpage was completely unacceptable and block-worthy on its own. Your verbose complaints to the administrator who warned you for your now-deleted behavior are aggravating factors - the encyclopedia isn't a forum for your abuse. Acroterion (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. This is not an unblock request. I just felt like a warning and a block for the same offense seems bis in idem, a violation of due process anywhere it exists. About the "verbose complaints", not my first language, hence the style a bit off. I'm not saying you didn't have good faith, you couldn't have known. There is a reason why those of neolatin mother languages speak mostly unwillingly "sophisticated" english, we learn it for science and we lean on latin cognates for vocabulary. Can't go to a bakery and buy anything. Anyways, being blocked I can't offer apologies (can't say if they want it either) and nor can I delete the messages on that page. I'd like you to pass on my apologies if at all possible and remove whatever it is offensive, or the whole section, since I can't. Thanks.2804:14D:4CA9:81C4:E87D:465B:64FF:E514 (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop means stop. t doesn't mean that you may switch to a loftier tone to repeatedly complain on the talkpage of the editor who warned you. There is no patience for that kind of conduct here. I would have blocked you for your very first edit, but EF was being patient. Your response to her shows that patience is not always rewarded, and it's the continuation in a different key that is why you're blocked. You aren't entitled to continue to waste volunteer time after your first, grossly offensive edit.. Acroterion (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "repeated complaints" were meant as a conversation, in a talk page. I can't figure what else or where else it goes for. If it's volunteer time you can just not do it? I don't get how can *I* "waste" volunteer time. Either that or you're saying that the whole appeal process is just a kangaroo court and that appealing is a waste of time for there is prejudice. In that sense it seems that the waste of time is to have an appellate body itself.

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.