User talk:Geoffdice1
12 Rules for Life
[edit]Hi, your edits were reverted by two editors. Don't revert your edit and instead start a discussion on the article's talk page. Sincerely, --Miki Filigranski (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
July 2018
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Geoffdice1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Not given a reason (I supposedly violated the BLP policy, but not shown why this was the case) for being blocked. I have attempted many times to provide alternative points of view to this article, as have many others. One only needs to read the talk page of Jordan Peterson, the page in question, to view how many times this article has been revised and how certain editors are repeatedly removing any information that provides an alternative to their point of view. I can only suspect that this blocking may have been malicious. In addition, my addition to the talk page addressing why I was tagging this article as non-neutral was deleted.
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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Unblock requests that serve as a platform for continued attacks on other editors are declined. You did indeed violate the BLP policy. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2018 (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.
Geoffdice1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I appreciate that my description of the edit on the page was not suitable for Wikipedia decorum. The block was given because of unspecified violations of the BLP policy, but I assume it was for violating decorum? I apologize for that. I am happy to not put a NPOV warning on this page, nor will I use blanket attacks on editors. I will also attempt to be as factual as possible with any concerns I bring forward on any talk page.
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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2018 (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.
- That's not an unblock request, and it continues your theme of grievance expressed in the ublock request I declined. Stop that, or you will lose access to this talkpage for the duration of the block. Talkpages aren't a soapbox for animus against the article subject: this applies everywhere on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.- Personally, I would have made the block a disruptive editing block based on this [1], but it is amply clear that you have no business editing this biography, given the language in that diff and others. Your attempts at unblock requests have done nothing to change that view. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please don't assume that people supporting your block are fans of the subject. I would have blocked you for your behavior, and I'm definitely not a fan. You need learn our policies and to control your feelings, however difficult that might be. Just ride out the block and after that work patiently. Doug Weller talk 12:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I understand the supreme importance of maintaining a NPOV, but when the same editors over and over again delete any mention of controversy or criticism of a public figure who has received widespread criticism and negative attention in the media as well as praise, it is not neutral. It is impossible to edit the Jordan Peterson page to point out that there are serious criticisms with him, as they are all edited away and he is repeatedly given only positive spin. Jordan Peterson has been subject to multiple critical perspectives in the media, but any significant mention of the controversies which have erupted around him have been edited or reverted so that any sort of critical information as banal as possible, or to hide the critical views in lengthy paragraphs which sound more like the back of the author's book. There is no mechanism that I can see for alerting readers to the fact that this sort of biased information is being perpetrated on a Wikipedia page by devoted fans of the individual - the mechanism I attempted to use to draw attention to this bias got me blocked, and there is no way to dispute or even question why a blocking has occurred. This is not unique to the Jordan Peterson page, but it is exemplified in this case because - as has been noted by many outside of Wikipedia - fans of him have been responsible for this sort of behaviour in many internet contexts, and have been responsible for extreme harassing of critics, including death threats.
I now understand the difficulties people experience when trying to learn how to work with the very complex, user-unfriendly format of Wikipedia in such a hostile environment. Being blocked without any warnings - or any idea what I was being blocked for - does nothing to help newer users learn the policies and procedures of this forum. Why would I wish to continue to engage with Wikipedia in the editing process if this silencing is the norm?
As far as I understand, there is no procedure for disputing a administrator's decision to block without adequate explanation, except escalating it to an arbitration committee, which is daunting to say the least. Even a mechanism for asking - "What did I do wrong?" would be really helpful.
Because of the policies of Wikipedia, it becomes impossible to try to alert the Wikipedia community or an administrator that this sort of propaganda-like behaviour - systematic removal of critical information in order to only present positive spin - is happening. An attempt to draw attention to why I had tagged the article as disputing its neutrality lead me to be silenced - I admit freely that I was angry in this context, and if I was unable to maintain composure, I apologize, but the mechanism of blocking without even attempting to see if I understood why has just added to my frustration that I will ever be able to edit anything in Wikipedia, and so I will probably just give up. Congratulations - you just alienated another editor.
The irony of this situation is that, because I was blocked, I had no recourse to ascertain why I was blocked, as I could not message the administrator who blocked me. The procedure for appealing a decision is confusing and the procedure for arbitration is even more confusing. I assume that publishing this will probably lead to further sanction.
- In summary, you're pushing a resolutely negative portrayal of a living person from a point of view of antagonism against that person, which extends to completely unwarranted accusations that objections to your edits equate with support for the subject you're editing. That's what got you blocked - the accusations of bad faith you've been posting, without the slightest recognition that your behavior has caused your block. It is generally a bad idea to edit a subject where you have strong negative feelings, and your are extremely obvious. Spurious accusations that everybody who disagrees with you must be in sympathy with someone you clearly loathe aren't acceptable behavior here. The sooner you understand that the better. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)