User talk:68.50.40.47

Wikipedia admins don't follow their own stated policies. It enables bullying.

Occupation of Poland (1939-1945)

Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Occupation of Poland (1939-1945). - Do it again and you'll be reported for removing sourced information without a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Namely, here.

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 ~~~~}}. Lourdes 06:31, 25 August 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

the editor who I disparaged User:Beyond My Ken was engaging in bullying. He was reverting my edits not because he disagreed with them (he has since clarified that he does agree that the content was wrong), but rather because he wanted to assert his domination on this website. If you examine his edit history, you will see he uses wikipedia explicitly for the goal of citing AN/I on other editors again and again. It is his hobby. I may have violated a policy against calling a spade a spade when that spade is a fellow editor, but by blocking me you have encouraged his bullying. 68.50.40.47 (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, I cannot unblock you at this time. You must tell us what you did wrong and what you will do instead. Blaming other users will not result in unblocking. -- Deep fried okra 09:30, 25 August 2019 (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.

Just to be clear, I do not agree with the IP that the material is "wrong" and should be deleted. Much like the last discussion about it that was held on the talk page five years ago, I think the language needs to be tweaked a little -- that's not the same thing, and it certainly doesn't warrant total removal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lol, User:Beyond My Ken appears to stipulate that he uses wikipedia to bully other editors. 68.50.40.47 (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to state the painfully obvious I don't "stipulate" any such thing, and I absolutely do not use Wikipedia to bully other editors. I edit Wikipedia to improve the articles so they provide accurate information, are well written and visually interesting, and serve our readers as best we can. I've been doing that for 14 years, and I will continue to do so as long as I am able to contribute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing it since December 2003, woo, look, I'm senior! (sarcasm) I gave up maintaining an account on here long ago because bullying is so prevalent here.

User:Beyond My Ken demonstrates his desire to bully me by citing the above comment as further evidence that I must be blocked (I don't know how to link directly to a comment from AN/I, sorry). He is feeling the thrill of power, the high of knowing he might actually get me blocked, might even get an investigation going that makes the block permanent or multi-faceted! Oh, how he tingles in anticipation of such a victory! For the record, my user account is User:Galexander, and on that user page I described this exact kind of interaction in 2007. It is not a new problem. 68.50.40.47 (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't know what I did wrong. I attempted to remove content which every contributor to the discussion on that content has acknowledged is not factually accurate. Another editor reverted my changes, instructing me to engage in the discussion, but he did not himself engage in that discussion. We both then participated in an edit war wherein I exhibited an interest in discussin/g the content on both his User talk page and on the Talk page for the article in question. He repeatedly asserted his dominance on procedural grounds without any engagement on the content in question. He went to AN/I and begged for me to be blocked. The first admin to review it suggested that he engage me on the content. I attempted again to engage him on the content and he told me to go away. Then he re-petitioned AN/I for me to be blocked, still without contributing to the content discussion. That behavior is bullying, and I called it out as such on my own User talk page. I was blocked. I pointed out that my accusation of bullying was factually correct, and that I should have been warned first as my personal attack was not severe or repeated. I pointed out that blocking someone on behalf of a bully and in contravention of wikipedia's stated policies on personal attacks contributes to the bullying problem on here. I was not wrong in pointing this out. The bully I called out has continued to bully other editors, using personal attacks and threats to enlist admins, specifically in place of content discussion on article talk pages. What would you have me do differently? Apologize to a bully like I was in grade school and you were the teacher, unable to view the incident of bullying and thus unable to tell what actually happened? 68.50.40.47 (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

68.50.40.47 (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given your response above and above, I realize that your agenda is to continue attacks on other editors. In the light of this, here's the deal – you'll have to basically apologise for the personal attack and you'll have to remove the personal attack. You'll have to guarantee that you will not repeat such behaviour. You will also have to stop harassing other editors by alluding to their editing as bullying. Do this, and your block would not be extended beyond 31 hours. Your response will decide whether any administrator should increase the block or let it remain at 31 hours. Thanks, Lourdes 07:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I have demonstrated on Talk:Occupation Of Poland (1939-1945) that I am able and willing to contribute meaningfully and civilly to Wikipedia and that User:Beyond My Ken coming on to me with an instant threat to bring me to the attention of AN/I was unwarranted and that this entire interaction could have gone smoothly if he had merely indicated that he was willing to have a discussion on that article's talk page. He did not indicate to me he was willing to have that content-based discussion even after we had several back and forths in which I indicated I wished he would do so. It is my belief that he only contributed to the article's talk page because he recognized that it looked bad that he had involved AN/I before even attempting to discuss the matter. If you think that wikipedia is improved by blocking contributors whenever a bully asks you to then I do not think there is anything I can do to help you. Engaging in bullying is bad for wikipedia and is a constant complaint of new editors. Personal attacks *are* bad, and so is bullying. You're picking sides, here. 68.50.40.47 (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, look at his edit history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=912382997

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).

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

Request reason:

Also, the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy says I deserve a warning, not an instant block. As an aside, the logic for rejecting personal attacks is the same as the logic against using threats to block another editor in place of reasoned debate. 68.50.40.47 (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not entitled to a certain number of warnings, or any warnings at all if it is deemed necessary(per Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Consequences of personal attacks: "In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption.") It's not "bullying" to disagree with you. I do not believe this response meets the criteria laid out by Lourdes above. As such, I don't believe it would benefit Wikipedia to unblock you at this time, and I am declining your request. I have also decided to lengthen the block to a couple weeks. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2019 (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.

One instance of calling a guy who went to AN/I before even attempting to discuss a content change a "dickhead" on my own personal User_talk page counts as an extreme case, huh? You haven't convinced me that the administration here values content or contributors. 68.50.40.47 (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, as it's pretty clear your views are baked in. However, to be unblocked, you will need to do as asked above. If your behavior does not change after the block expires, your next one will likely be longer. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your technique for improving wikipedia is really impressive, I see why they made you an admin. 68.50.40.47 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.