H2umvee

July 2020

Hello, I'm Ed6767. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Early life of Shivaji—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Ed6767 talk! 01:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Ed6767 - aka wiki-Police! With power/contributions comes great responsibility. With you being selective, nothing will appear constructive. I merely rolled backed changes to it's previous edits. Provide constructive f/b and explanation of selective implementation of policies. I'm not one, who belongs to the defund the police. I appreciate, your effort on wiki. But, most of you folks largely get carried away. Yeah! I know a thing or two about sandboxing. Please let's not use the big brother cookie cutter response.

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Alivardi (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Alivardi - At it's best this is *cute*! "ONLY! PERSONAL! BLOCK! those worlds carry weight. And, that was a quick edit from a seasoned(?) editor. Unfortunately, I'm not a full-time editor (Is there one? :-)). I suggest we refresh understanding of WP:WHYBLOCK WP:NOPUNISH WP:AC/DS It's not difficult to go back and refresh. I'm a wiki donor, and avid user - At best, you can question my tone, but calling it "personal attacks" on my first ever edits/remarks is a s-t-r-e-t-c-h. I see a pattern here. The editor, whose unexplained edits were questioned could have responded. But, NOpe! It has to be round-robbin pack hunt for showcase neutrality. And, archives are editable for a reason. Wiki discourages it's editing. But, if they really wanted to STOP all archive edits, its less than a MINUTE of tech-effort to change a flag in the code. You retorted to quick acid-washing of all my edits. But, chose to completely ignore the unexplained (borderline) condescending editorial responses of those who have admin rights to Chhatrapati Shivaji wiki. I expected better! You can BLOCK me, but that may not be adhering to wiki-guidelines. And, the above is not a PERSONAL attack. [CAPS for emphasis] And, not everyone is for HIRE. H2umvee (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it is clear that you have no intention of editing in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. Your way of dealing with anyone you disagree with is to be contemptuous, patronising, and derisory, and you make frequent use of personal attacks, continuing to do so after warnings. You have also openly declared your intention of not following Wikipedia policy, and your editing confirms that you meant what you said. It is also evident that you are almost certainly evading blocks on other accounts. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks before doing so. JBW (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

JBW] - You crack me up! IMAGINATION gone WILD! That comment - "It is also evident that you are almost certainly evading blocks on other accounts". Get off your high horse. Blinders are cheap! H2umvee (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Here's a bit of advice on what's likely to succeed in getting an account blocked and what isn't. Administrators are on the whole unlikely to unblock someone who when blocked does yet again exactly what they were blocked for. You may or may not choose to take that advice, but I offer it to you in the hope it may help. JBW (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

JBW - My bad. I agree wrong choice of words, from my end. Emotions run high, and we have to be responsible for it, and own it. With that said - our actions precede inspiration - for us and for others too. You haven't responded about your claim of me evading blocks. You probably didn't use all tools at your disposal before making that statement. I cannot even advice you on how to do things because that would be looked down upon as patronizing. I don't think I'm going to trade my self-respect at wiki's door. But, as a concerned citizen I request you to look at my response below to NinjaRobotPirate to weed out MeatPuppetry. My only suggestion; Your call. The way, and with the speed at which the editors of Chhatrapati Shivaji and related pages of his history respond. - leave nothing to imagination of them being editors-in-residence. Which, probably is against wiki-policy. One needs some historical knowledge of the Indian subcontinent to understand that. Or, just enough time. I'm not sure if you have that. But, as a good citizen I appeal to the good citizen in you to investigate or delegate/guide someone whom you know and can. I'm from the tech, and little bit that I know, I can tell if wiki has tools they can easily grab these mischief mongers. I'm making assumptions about these editors (which are fair!) for you/wiki-admins to investigate. "Peace" - from sunny california. Even now, if any part of my response, gives a whiff of sarcasm blame it on my lack of polished grammar skills. Nothing more to it! Ty! H2umvee (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

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).

H2umvee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Allegation above by JBW is baseless and is nothing more than a figment of her/his imagination. Please *prove* the charge of - "It is also evident that you are almost certainly evading blocks on other accounts". I'm willing to share my co-ordinates, IP (it can/probably is tracked by wiki), or required personal info. Editors have to be careful before making decisions and accusing other newcomers of misconduct. The pages in question, are open for anyone about the duality of editors guarding it. No relevant explanation/rebuttal when a valid case is made by examples. The reason cited for blocking my account of not adhering to wiki-standards is the one I have contention with when it comes to the guarded and potentially loose standards of editions on Chhatrapati Shivaji page. There are numerous examples where other users have requested edits citing valid sources, which are conveniently rebuffed citing the language of the sources and popularity of authors. Such claims that only English literature/author will be deemed as authentic is nothing by bullying by editors. On the talk page(s) including archives there is enough evidence of questionable responses, tone and intent of editors. H2umvee (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2020 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you! NinjaRobotPirate for probably running checkuser. I appreciate your detailed suggestions. Please read no sarcasm.

• 1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

I know we all have limited time and it's a precious commodity. But, administration would be far beneficial to the community as a whole, if those powers are used for larger good, rather than to make a quick flip of block/unblock switch. If you care, which I suppose you probably do - please investigate the MeatPuppetry of those guarding the page of Chhatrapati Shivaji. Isn't pointing out that adhering to "*#will make useful contributions instead."?

If we are willing to do anything half-hearted (strictly limited to meaning: w/o putting enough time), it's nothing more than patronizing. H2umvee (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I suspect you're talking about the people who reverted you on Early life of Shivaji. Wikipedia is governed by consensus. Guidelines are often a record of consensus, including the manual of style. When you go against the manual of style, it may seem like a number of sock puppets or meat puppets are coming out of nowhere to revert you. However, this is simply how Wikipedia works. Editors who have no agenda beyond enforcing Wikipedia's guidelines are not meat puppets. Feel free to make another unblock request. A different admin will review it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. An editor is blocked from editing, with a substantial part of the reason given for the block being that they have been "contemptuous, patronising, and derisory" to other editors. That editor indicates a wish to be unblocked. They proceed to post long screeds of contemptuous, patronising, and derisory comments about other editors. Hmm. That's a good way of persuading an administrator that they understand the reason for the block and won't do the same again. Hmm. JBW (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)