User talk:Mister Sneeze A Lot

Talkback

Hello, Mister Sneeze A Lot. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 17:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your kind comments on the B P Wiesner page. I will sort out subheadings forthwith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prolumbo (talk • contribs) 14:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did a good job Prolumbo. You should be proud. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q&A

Hello, Given your contribution to the Monis Seige page, you might like to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Q&A_(Australian_talk_show)

Not really. I don't watch that show. Thanks though. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zim Integrated Shipping Services, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World Trade Center. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Berg

I made a suggestion to User:Str1977 on his Talk:Str1977 page regarding his repeated deletions of the See Also: Censorship tag you have added 4 times to the Alan Berg article, that the inclusion or exclusion of Censorship referral be discussed on the Talk:Alan Berg page, rather than in the reversion comments. Personally, I believe the censorship reference is valid, but I also think a discussion on the Talk page is more apropos than the repeated insertion/deletion cycle that might result in an editor being banned. Thanks.N0TABENE (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, I only noted the page on Alan Berg because it was referenced as being a similar case to the obviously censored through murder case of the Charlie Hebdo shooting. I was simply re-adding an earlier deleted "See also" to Alan Berg's page, as it seemed to have been deleted by accident. I am shocked that someone would think that someone who was murdered in order to censor him doesn't deserve a see also link. It seems very illogical to me. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mister Sneeze A Lot. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mister Sneeze A Lot. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I missed this one too. Thanks for the information but I don't really care too much either way. I'll leave it for more regular contributors. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per this. You need to decide if you want to participate here, with all the discussion and arguments it entails, or label everyone that disagrees with you or points you to community accepted norms as "bullying". Pinging Floquenbeam. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not label everyone who disagrees with me as a bully. I simply asked people not to be so disruptive. It was counterproductive to my request to have the other user's block reviewed. Check and you will see over 2 years of constructive edits here. My understanding of the definition of bullying includes multiple people responding to someone's request of one person. That's the very definition of bullying. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with someone, it has to do with behaviour. All I was doing was trying to get away from this bullying rhetoric. Oh, and Neil, I asked you not to respond. When someone asks you not to respond, and you continue to respond, that's called harassment. Thanks. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Yes, that revert of my warning with a "reverting bullying" edit summary was exactly the type of action I was warning them about. I have no objection to an unblock IFF MSAL agrees to stop characterizing everything they don't like as bullying (look thru their contribs... they do it a lot). If that is not acceptable, I'd recommend the block remain in place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't remove comments from the blocking admin, and the admin who issued the waring before the block, during an unblock review. That is part of the discussion/unblock process. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely untrue. Check Talk: August Ames and you will find plenty of disagreement and not a single accusation of bullying. I do not make such claims lightly. Check the dictionary definition and you will find that the behaviours I stated were bullying and harassment were in fact bullying and harassment, and that all I was doing was avoiding conflict. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk)

Again, I am asking an uninvolved person to look at my last 3 years of editing and to determine if I am disruptive or if this was simply some editors behaving in an inappropriate manner and my acting to protect myself from such inappropriate behaviours in a way that can be described as conflict resolution. I do not edit Wikipedia and improve articles so that I can be targeted for bullying and harassment. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, correcting your misconceptions is not bullying. Telling you you're flat out wrong is not bullying. Multiple editors addressing your points is not bullying. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested you not to contact me 3 times now. This is the dictionary definition of harassment, which IS a form of bullying. Thank you for proving my point. But please cease and desist from your inappropriate disruptive editing. Thank you. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding here as you pinged me and asked for an apology below. There is no misunderstanding on my part. What you fail to understand is that any editor may join a conversation on any page and reply to any post (subject to their editing restrictions). Rather than thanking these editors for looking into the situation, you characterize this as "bullying". [2] If you don't accept how talk page conversations work here, this situation is just going to repeat itself. Therefore, I recommend you remain blocked until you show understanding and acceptance of Wikipedia's collaborative nature. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Mister Sneeze A Lot (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There was no disruption. I asked someone a question, and had multiple very rude replies from other people, who I politely asked not to interfere. That is as far removed from disruption as is possible. Please can a sensible administrator who is not involved review this. Thank you. Please review my more than 3 years of edits, which I am sure you will find were very constructive. I sense some serious bias here, to try to justify a block of another user, who I sought to have reviewed. Please do a check and you will find that I am not that user. I was merely trying to create good article without disruption. Thank you. Oh, and going straight to indefinite is a bit harsh, as I said in my comments about the other user's indefinite block for swearing. As for me, I didn't even swear. All I did was to try to stop disruptive harassment (by people admitting that they were stalkers) and behaviours that fit the dictionary definition of bullying, including the below comments from NeilN. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Pretty much a moot/prodcedural decline after the lengthy discussion below. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:29, 16 December 2017 (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.

@Dlohcierekim: Apologies - I declined the much fuller unblock request below, apparently while you were putting this one on hold. If, with the agreement of the blocking admin, you feel you can unblock, then please do not hold off on my account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: No need to apologize. I saw the matter was under intense discussion and just cleared the unblock request. I agree that Jayron's porposal sounds reasonable and we await a response. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was writing this as Jayron was writing their much more eloquent proposal. No need to consult me to unblock if the main points of either proposal are agreed to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. Sadly, the person who had bullied me out of 2 previous accounts, User:NeilN, was allowed to block me indefinitely on this one. But it seems that you have consensus that bullying is fine on Wikipedia, and, in spite of doing absolutely nothing against any community standards whatsoever, you've allowed and encouraged him to do it again. But so be it. If the price of editing Wikipedia is that I must be subjected to abuse, then that is not a price that any reasonable person would ever take. It is a sad reflection of Wikipedia that someone who behaves as awfully as NeilN is allowed to remain an administrator and is even allowed to bully someone so badly that they are allowed to be the blocking admin to indefinitely block them. This would not be allowed anywhere else in the world, but it seems it is allowed on Wikipedia. And it is not worth it. I tried to run away from his abuse. I tried to hide. But there you go, he found me, and was allowed to give an indefinite block, like he did to so many other of his victims. For him to be allowed to post on my talk page here is an absurdity. And I request for this user page and talk page to be wiped so that his bullying is not encouraged in the future. Thank you. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned below, NeilN is one of the best, most respected, hardest-working administrators on Wikipedia. His integrity is beyond reproach. Going after him and making accusations about him is not going to help your case. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completely uninvolved admin here as well, and I agree with Softlavender and Boing! said Zebedee. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to an uninvolved administrator - please review the block, and the following facts

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).

Mister Sneeze A Lot (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see below in this thread - and please can others not edit this section, so that the point can be understood

First, I have over 3 years of editing history that you can review. There have been no blocks, no warnings, no disruptive editing whatsoever, but a lot of very productive editing.

About a week ago, I became aware of the suicide of August Ames and began to contribute to the article. I have coordinated with several other editors in a constructive way there, such that the article is currently, in my opinion, in a very good shape. It could still be improved, but it is certainly a major improvement to what it was like a week ago. The subject has articles in 24 other languages but the English language version is rather poor.

On 11 December I became aware of a new user called User:Winglebop Doodlepants, who had made several changes to the August Ames page, which I was contributing to, and was indefinitely blocked within minutes of his first edit. The first such edit [3] was reflecting what the common perception of the case is, but was correctly reverted [4]. His next edit seemed to me to be an improvement [5], which, after being oddly reverted, was again corrected, with better wording [6], yet for some reason the edit summary was removed. Again, while unsourced, this next edit was quite accurate and can be sourced [7].

My conclusion was that, while the new user was clearly being rude, he was adding accurate information, albeit without a source. It was not disruptive editing but rather editing that needed to be done in a more polite way and it seemed to me to be a misunderstanding based on the false belief that his edits were disruptive, possibly due to his being a new editor.

In seeing this, I then put a request for his block to be reviewed on his talk page [8], however, upon seeing no response in 4 hours, I deleted it [9], and instead posted it to the blocking administrator, User talk: GeneralizationsAreBad: [10].

It was, effectively, a request to review the indefinite nature of the block. This appeared to me to be a constructive editor, albeit one who is not quoting their sources and is swearing a bit. They certainly knew about the case. It seemed to me that the administrators who decided on the block, as well as those who looked at the edits, probably hadn't really looked at the truth of what was being said.

In my opinion, the block length should be reviewed to be between 1 week and 1 month, and then, if they continue to be disruptive, then escalate it. Too often we lose good editors due to misunderstandings and over-reactions.

However, this process was disrupted by the unwelcome response by the uninvolved editor User: Softlavender, who I note has been warned by administrators for disruptive editing, and whose response I took to be very rude and inappropriate [11]. Also, you will note that he refers to himself as a talk page stalker, and stalker is a form of bully, as you will note.

I responded in a polite manner that the message was not intended for him [12] and politely followed this up on his own talk page with a similar message: [13].

The response to that was answered by yet another uninvolved party, in this case User: SkyWarrior in public: [14].

At this stage, I had written to one person, had a second person respond, and when writing to the second person to ask them not to be involved, I had a third uninvolved person become involved.

Now, the reality is that such behaviour, by both Softlavender and SkyWarrior in public was disruptive, as it disrupted my request to GeneralizationsAreBad. If you look at your dictionary definition, a form of harassment is one person answering on behalf of someone else. What both of them did, in their responses, was harassment, which is a form of bullying.

After this, I deleted both threads so as to remove the harassment from Wikipedia and to remove myself from both unwanted arguments: [15] and [16].

This was followed by a warning by another uninvolved administrator here: [17], which I removed, per talk page policy here: [18] and was promptly indefinitely blocked by uninvolved administrator User:NeilN, essentially blocking me from removing harassment and bullying from my own talk page.

Talk page policy, it should be noted, allows a user to remove from their talk page any content that they find offensive. I took an inappropriate warning to be offensive.

Indeed, if an uninvolved administrator were to revoke this block, I intend to remove this entire discussion as well, as it disrupts from my attempts to contribute to Wikipedia.

In closing, I will say that I appear to have been targeted because I sought to draw attention to a new user adding accurate, albeit unsourced, information, albeit in a rude way, being immediately indefinitely blocked, and I was first stalked, then harassed, and now indefinitely blocked myself in order to justify that block.

My attempt was to try to help to make this a better Wikipedia that does not bully users, and yet, in my attempt to resolve a misunderstanding, I have found myself targeted, in what is now an unjustifiable indefinite block.

You can see, through my 3 years of previous constructive editing, that I am good for Wikipedia, and you can see for all bar my attempt to have this block of this new user reviewed, and the subsequent inappropriate behaviour by numerous editors to try to justify it (and then trying to justify the next one's behaviour etc) that I have done nothing more than to try to distance myself from this inappropriate behaviour, as a form of conflict resolution.

I did not request the contact from these users, and I know very well what bullying is and is not. I would not have been made aware of the August Ames case if that was not a field of expertise.

I did not make false accusations of bullying. Rather, I very minimally mentioned it so as to help to resolve a conflict.

I trust that this is sufficient information to warrant the block being revoked, and, if it isn't too much to ask, I'd greatly appreciate an apology from the blocking admin for the misunderstanding, so that we can work together in the future. Thank you. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've been totally uninvolved in any of this, but it's abundantly clear that you regularly label disagreement with your own views as "bullying" - the most recent example I can see is at User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad, where you launch straight into such an accusation after the only thing that happened is that several editors disagreed with you (and other editors are most definitely allowed to offer their opinions when you make a comment or request at a specific user talk page).

Cyberbullying is a very serious thing, and you abuse genuine victims when you throw out the bullying card just because other people disagree with you - and I think you need to commit to ceasing the use of that tactic if you wish to be unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should just add that yes, the redactions that seem to have kicked this whole thing off were most definitely handled correctly (as was the block), as a number of admins have previously told you - and now another one is telling you the same. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2017 (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.

I am quite confused by a response that assumes something that is patently false. At no stage did I make a false accusation of cyberbullying. This is not something I would ever do. I was editing an article on August Ames, who is perhaps the most famous ever example of a victim of cyberbullying when this all happened. Perhaps my mindset was one of being more protective of bullying than I ordinarily would be, however, as I will reiterate, when people say that they are stalkers, and act like stalkers, it seems more than a bit farcical to claim that I have done something wrong by referring to them as stalkers, does it not? Proud stalkers are actually not stalkers? I absolutely did not accuse anyone of being a bully with the exception of people who told me they were. I don't know what you want. There are THREE YEARS of editing to look at. Why is nobody looking at that? See how many times I used the word "bully" in those THREE YEARS. I can answer it for you - 0. The answer is 0. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am entirely uninvolved, so here is my assessment of the situation. Take it as you will:

Wikipedia is an open project, and your personal talkpage notwithstanding, all editors are free to comment on any discussion that attracts their attention. Requesting that uninvolved editors stay out of a discussion is antithetical to Wikipedia, indeed the voices of uninvolved editors are necessary when breaking deadlocks due to personal conflicts. It is ironic that you here ask for an uninvolved editor to review your case, where before you called the attention of other uninvolved editors unwanted and disparaged it as stalking and bullying.
Disagreement is not bullying. You have referred to the edits of those who disagreed with you as "bullying" (shown above in diffs already cited). Bullying is not a magic word you get to say that trumps others points when they disagree with you. Do not throw it around willy-nilly.
The locus of the original dispute, the now blocked user whose edits to a BLP have been redacted, was clearly handled properly initially. Every single administrator at Wikipedia, had they tripped over those (now redacted) edits would have removed them and blocked the account who left them immediately; it wasn't even close. I'm sorry that you cannot read them now, but that's besides the point. At this point several independent admins (myself included) have reviewed these edits, and they were beyond the pale in terms of BLP violations and abusive through the edit summaries. That matter should be dropped. That's not a productive road for you to go down.
The block here is necessary because your battleground mentality and refusal to drop the matter indicated that a block is needed to redirect your attention away from this. Indefinite is not infinite, and we just need assurances that you intend to walk away from this.

Given that, I would feel comfortable discussing an unblock proposal for you with the blocking admin if you can freely and clearly indicate that 1) You understand that all Wikipedia editors are welcome to comment on all discussions at Wikipedia, and should not be chastised for giving their unsolicited opinions on matters. 2) That you agree to stop using accusations of bullying as a means to shut down good-faith debate. 3) You understand that admins have reviewed the now-blocked account and now-redacted text and you also will no longer press forward with that discussion any further. If you can clearly agree to those terms, I think we can move forward. --Jayron 32 17:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mister Sneeze A Lot: This is very good advice you have been given here by Jayron, and I really do think that following it is your only realistic hope of getting yourself unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. So what you are saying is that I must admit to something I did not do? Or admit to a false accusation that I secretly meant something that I did not mean? I am quite confused. I have two people calling themselves stalkers. They used those words themselves. And I absolutely was not calling everyone bullies. To accuse me of that is a blatant lie. I was similarly not shutting down any discussions at all. I was simply withdrawing my involvement from them. I was not making any accusations at all, false or otherwise. I was repeating how people were referring to themselves. If someone does not wish to be referred to as a stalker, they should not refer to themselves as a stalker. But if someone, who refers to themselves as a stalker, is also acting as a stalker, then it seems more than a little farcical that I am in trouble for referring to them as a stalker. In saying that, if you wish to tell me I must do something, then I can do something. But telling me that referring to two people as stalkers who referred to themselves as stalkers is wrong is a bizarre request. And, as you will note, prior to this, I didn't do this at all, and I only did this because they referred to themselves in this way. There is no battleground mentality. There was an attack on me after I requested for an indefinite block to be reviewed. Nothing more, nothing less. So if, in effect, you are asking me to never again request for an indefinite block of someone else to be reviewed, as that seems to be the only thing I can be said to have done "wrong", then fine, I am happy to adhere to that request, though I would like for all involved to ask themselves if their behaviour in shutting down that request was reasonable. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look. I tried to give you an out. Your maintenance that you did not call another editor's actions "bullying" is demonstratedly false. That is the word you used. here you used it and here you used it and here you used it. This is not something that other people are using their memory for and then misremembering or falsely accusing you of. Those are your words that you used. If you cannot or will not agree to not use those words again, which was a simple request, and instead claim that you never used them in the face of the evidence that you did use the word "Bullying" "bullied" and other such terms, then I'm afraid Wikipedia will not be worse for the loss of you. I gave you a simple way forward, but if it's more important for you to retain the illusion that you didn't call others bullies (when you did) than vaya con dios, my friend, because I am ending my involvement here. You will be bothered by me no more. --Jayron 32 15:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"User: Softlavender, who I note has been warned by administrators for disruptive editing". That's news to me! Could you please edify me with WP:DIFFs so that I may avail myself of this information and understand where administrators have ever considered my editing to be "disruptive editing"? Thanks very much in advance. Softlavender (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Other people commenting does not constitute bullying. And since Wikipedia relies on consensus, it would be almost impossible to achieve its various goals without the comments of others. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this response to another section, so that it does not confuse. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a procedural note: SkyWarrior in public is the account I use when, well, editing in public. If anyone has any further inquiries that require my attention then please ping me using my main account, which is the one writing this note. SkyWarrior 17:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

But you still show no evidence of understanding my point or accepting that simply commenting does not constitute bullying, as you claim. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I *DO NOT CLAIM* that *AT ALL*. I hope that you understand THAT - something which there are a hell of a lot of false claims of, but absolutely no evidence whatsoever. THREE YEARS OF EDITING before this. In that time, I never once accused anyone of editing. The only time I made that claim was when someone told me that they were a bully. That's more than a little strange that everyone here is assuming something that is patently false. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important

Only one unblock request at a time. Please choose one and delete the other, or, delete both and start over. Starting over would be my advice. Neither of your requests are WP:GAB compliant and will certainly be declined. Tiderolls 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we're also handling this (see my comments above). We needn't be bureaucratic for its own sake. If having two requests open bothers you, you're allowed to ignore this talk page. We've got it from here, thanks! --Jayron 32 18:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see it's well in hand. Thanks for letting me know my options WRT to my watch list as well. Tiderolls 18:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can delete the first one if you like, but I simply wrote it simply, then provided some links to clarify that at no stage was I making any false accusations of bullying. Sadly, in spite of proof of that, not a single person was able to figure that out, and the false accusations that I had called people bullies has persisted. The only people I said were bullies were people who told me they were bullies, and acted like bullies. And that was solely in relation to a request by me to have an editor's indefinite block reviewed with a view to making it a 1 week or perhaps 1 month long block. If you want to ignore THREE YEARS of constructive editing based on one misunderstanding and a lot of false assertions, then I am very disappointed. What you have to ask yourselves is whether you think that THREE YEARS of constructive editing warrants an indefinite ban based on a false assertion that I had been falsely accusing everyone of bullying - or whether the fact that these people told me (as the links above prove) that they were bullies invalidates any claim that anything I said was false. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: I suggest that Mister Sneeze A Lot get a new dictionary. He is adamant that his characterizations of good-faith posts by good-faith experienced editors and administrators as "bullying" and/or "harassment" are correct, and has invoked the dictionary at least four times so far on this talkpage as his defense. Something seems amiss, and it all seems to point to his dictionary. Softlavender (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. My first encounter with him was at Ancient Astronauts where he changed the spelling of artifact, stating that artifact was something stuck in your teeth. He was reverted by another editor who correctly said this was a regional spelling variation. He reverted again and that's where I entered and it went downhill from there when I tried to explain it on his talk page.[19] His response on my talk page was a section heading "That's very rude of you" and calling it "an ignorance issue" and said that all he "was doing was correcting a mistake, and you choose to be a whopping great jerk about it. It is a very minor thing, but I expect you to correct that mistake, because otherwise you look like an idiot. Thank you for not being so rude and obnoxious."[20] This is not an editor that works well with others. Doug Weller talk 07:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another oddity is that, as with the attempts to get Winglebop Doodlepants unblocked, this is not the first time Mister Sneeze A Lot has gone out of his way to repeatedly and exhaustively attempt to get another user unblocked/exonerated. His eighth edit ever on this account was a request to get Bettifm unblocked: [21], and he proceeded to make 30+ more edits, on a variety of pages, to effect that: [22] (Control+F bettifm), mostly on Bettifm's talkpage: [23]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today's comments

Hey guys.

So the elephant in the room is that I have been traumatised by some severe constant bullying in all forms of my life since I was born, including numerous attempts on my life, physical bullying, verbal bullying and cyber bullying. I have been tortured, tormented, the whole lot. So one of the coping mechanisms that I have in order to deal with this, a coping mechanism that works very, very well, is that if in doubt I withdraw myself from the environment.

I have had discussions with people on Wikipedia about this, and this is my third account on here, after I had some experiences on Wikipedia that other administrators regarded as bullying, and my changing my account name was a way to stop the bullying from continuing. Nonetheless, in spite of this, at least one administrator who was a part of the bullying was able to find my subsequent accounts and continue the bullying. This is not something that I will talk about in too much detail here.

I am not making false accusations of bullying because, quite simply, I am not making any accusations at all. I have, for the most part, removed harassment with no comments whatsoever. It is only in times of extreme stress that I have put in the bullying comment in the edit summary.

The claims that they are to shut down an argument or that I am in some way lessening real bullying are incredibly ignorant. I have been dealing with this for more than 40 years here, and I know very clearly what is and what isn't bullying.

I am not going to sit here and lie to you by confessing to lying, because I didn't lie. I am not going to say that I promise not to make fake bullying claims again because I didn't make any in the first place.

At this point, I think it is reasonable to request to be given a new username so that the bullying doesn't continue, as, with what has happened here, it has gotten a bit out of control.

August Ames is perhaps the worst example of cyber bullying that has been publicly made available. It is no longer in the news, as of 2 days ago, and the current Wikipedia entry is quite reasonable, in my opinion. The only remaining issue is whether it is appropriate for details about what was said to her to convince her to kill herself to be put on Wikipedia. I would love to have some discussion on that, but instead all I have is a revert on it and I was blocked indefinitely, having the effect of preventing any discussion. I think, from an encyclopaedic point of view, it is important to include an actual court, and it is in no way of undue importance, because it is important to note just the kinds of comments, such as the one there, asking her to take a cyanide pill, which led to her suicide.

The main reason not to include it, in my opinion, is because there were other things that were said and it isn't clear which comments pushed her over the edge and which she ignored. There may therefore be an argument to not include anything at all.

The problem is that far too many people are unaware of just how devastating bullying is. They think that people who are oppressed and subjected to bullying are making it up, and are horrible people for being upset about it.

At the end of the day, I have contributed more than three years worth of contributions here with no blocks, no warnings, and no major problems with anyone, other than a few incidents which I withdrew from at the earliest possible example.

I therefore request, in order to stop continued bullying, to be granted a fourth account, and, obviously, for the administrator who had previously bullied me on a previous account, NeilN, to have his unjustifiable indefinite block removed. I also request for him not to be told what my new account name is.

A previous account that I had to abandon due to bullying was User:KrampusC. I had another one in between that one and this, but it didn't last long due to bullying. The bullying stemmed primarily from User:NeilN, who unfortunately seems to have found my account here and indefinitely blocked me for no valid reason whatsoever. Numerous administrators at the time confirmed that NeilN's actions constituted bullying, and I am disappointed to note that he is still an administrator and was allowed to block me.

Thank you. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) The thing is, Mister Sneeze A Lot, if you cannot handle normal good-faith communications and interactions from/with others, and if you experience that as bullying, you would just carry the same problems into yet another account. Moreover, if you do not see and accept that your continued characterization of those communications/interactions as bullying or harassment was incorrect, you are not going to be unblocked in the first place, no matter how many years you've been here or how many edits you've made. It may be hard to grasp that, but that's the viewpoint of those on the outside looking in. Your subjective world has to be able to interact with the wider community of Wikipedia, and to have the competence to do so with enough social skills and social resilience that you do not bog down the community with these sorts of accusations, demands, and disruptions. Softlavender (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to post in the section above when I saw this latest from you, so I'll post a modified version here instead:
I was wondering where you got the "refer to themselves as a stalker" thing from, but looking again at User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad#Your block of Winglebop Doodlepants I'm assuming you mean the use of the {{tps}} template (which links to Wikipedia:Talk page stalker). That's just a common, light-hearted bit of Wikipedia jargon that just means "I just happened to be watching" not "I'm actually a real genuine stalker". Two people provided good sensible answers, factually answering the points you made, and your response? Just over an hour after your opening post: "Still no responses from the person I asked the question of. Incredible. Bullying much?" So no, you did not just describe others of being stalkers who had described themselves as stalkers - you really did openly accuse two good-faith respondents of bullying when all one had done was used the "talk page stalker" template. And you doubled down on it with "And they are not attacks. They are requests for bullying to end." when challenged on it.
I'm sorry to hear about your history of real-life bullying (it's not something I have any experience of, so I can't pretend to understand how it feels or what it can do to people), and I can see how you would have a strong interest in article subjects who have similarly suffered. But (and I'm really not trying to play at amateur psychologist here) have you considered that your own experiences might be leading you to overreact to disagreements and that you perhaps see bullying where there really isn't any? In that User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad discussion, I honestly don't see anyone coming close to bullying. The same goes for the interaction with Doug Weller (who is one of Wikipedia's most easy-going contributors), described above - it was just a civil disagreement with you (and one in which he happened to be right), of the kind that happen maybe a thousand times a day across our five million articles. If that kind of everyday disagreement and discussion (which is essential for the development of Wikipedia) causes you such problems, then I honestly don't know what to suggest.
You ask for another new account in order to escape from the bullying again - but I genuinely, honestly, don't see any bullying. In fact, if you've gone through three accounts already because you have seen bullying on every one, do you not think you should consider the possibility that maybe you have been repeatedly misinterpreting genuine disagreement as bullying? If you want to abandon this account and start a new one, I suggest you would need to consult ArbCom and seek their approval, as it would need to be based on your past record that the rest of us can not see - and I can't see the community agreeing to it based on what can be seen openly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may, I'd like to add to that a comment I posted above, about another very odd accusation that came out of the blue. In his second unblock request, Mister Sneeze A Lot stated *"User: Softlavender, who I note has been warned by administrators for disruptive editing...". I would like some substantiation of that outrageous claim. Softlavender (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I therefore request, in order to stop continued bullying, to be granted a fourth account, and, obviously, for the administrator who had previously bullied me on a previous account, NeilN, to have his unjustifiable indefinite block removed." I have no idea what your past accounts were or indeed you had past accounts. I don't think granting you a new account would be very productive as you seem to have no intention of changing what you characterize as bullying and would cause the community to waste more time when the same behavior starts with the new account. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I request again, as I requested 3 years ago, for the bully NeilN to be removed from his status as a Wikipedia administrator, so as to stop these outrageous actions that he has taken against multiple people. I did not wish to make these requests public, but it has gone on for far too long. Thank you. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief, NeilN is one of the very best administrators we have, and his integrity is irreproachable. Softlavender (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Softlavender. Even though I've been here a long time, I wasn't an admin three years ago. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. LOL. In that case ... no I really don't know what to make of this ... LOL. Softlavender (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you are using this talk page to escalate your accusations of bullying without any evidence whatsoever (in this case, accusing NeilN, who in my opinion is one of our most mild-mannered admins) and to make further personal attacks, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page. Please, please, take some time off to think about this and reconsider your approach. After that, WP:UTRS is the recommended venue if you want to make a further appeal - but I strongly suggest that contacting ArbCom would be a better approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN and Softlavender: it was ~~User:NickD~~ that Krampus was complaining about.[24] Doug Weller talk 15:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Apologies to all, it was User:Nick-D. I'm finished here. Mister Sneeze A Lot, I hope you accept that I don't think you'd want to accuse the wrong person. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the accusation against NeilN seems to be a misidentification, but that does not change the fact that this page was being used to continue making unsubstantiated accusations of bullying in violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPA policy. And as it is not appropriate for those accusations to be made here without evidence (evidence which allegedly spans unidentified accounts) I believe the suspension of talk page access is appropriate and that User:Mister Sneeze A Lot should take the accusations to ArbCom. If, through whatever route, a future reviewer is satisfied that the public accusations of bullying will stop, I would have no objection to the restoration of talk page rights. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]