User talk:Wiki-Pharaoh

This is Wiki-Pharaoh's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2: 5 days

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely because you were found to not be here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Most of your contributions did not contribute positively to the mainspace, instead there were essays often lacking in coherence and purpose. Wikipedia is not a social experiment nor can it be allowed to be placed under the whim of various 'research projects.' We are all here because we care about knowledge, knowledge being freely available, and because of that we try to keep things simple and to the point. But our time, here on Wikipedia and on earth, is precious. And you have taken enough of it. Provocations, however subtle, are not welcomed nor tolerated. El_C 21:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Wiki-Pharaoh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17802 was submitted on Mar 16, 2017 23:16:45. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

I am appealing what I feel is a draconian style blocking by administrators that does not conform to numerous policies on Wikipedia. Firstly, the reason given for the block is that: “not here to contribute to building the encyclopaedia.” The warning issued by Iridescent. In this warning, it states “you’re warned repeatedly about your regularly wasting the time of other editors.” There is no evidence that I have wasted the time of any editor and editors on Wikipedia can either engage with discussions or not. This seems to me like a very thin argument to make a case that I should not be making policy proposals as it is “wasting editors time.” The policy proposals themselves are good faith proposals that are put forward for two primary reasons; Firstly, to induce conversation about the issue reflected in the policy proposal and secondly to allow me to evaluate and learn from the responses. The policy proposal itself was a request for other editor’s opinions. Furthermore, the notion that suggesting policies, advocating amendments or encouraging discussion is evidence for WP:NOTHERE is contradicted in the NOTHERE article itself- notably the section which indicates states: “Provided the user does so in an honest attempt [in reference to advocate policy amendments] to improve the encyclopaedia, in a constructive manner, and assuming the user's actions are not themselves disruptive, such conversations form the genesis for improvement to Wikipedia.” There is absolutely no evidence which exists that would indicate that any of my proposals are made in bad faith or that any are “trolling attempts.” I accept that perhaps some of them had naïve components to them, however this on its own is not a reason to constitute a block.

In addition to the points mentioned above, the blocking administrators seemed to deliberately ignore or omit my history of clearly constructive edits to Wikipedia. For example, I have worked on anti-vandalism, AfD opinions, getting rid of advert style articles, re-creating an article from scratch that was on the verge of being deleted and so on and so forth. This seems to suggest in evidentiary terms that I am indeed contributing constructively to Wikipedia contrary to the assertion of blocking administrators. I further make a point that all my edits including those on the policy pump page are attempting “so far as they can” to engage other editors in productive discussion in a civilized way. While I did make three policy proposals or discussion proposals within a short space of time they are all in good faith as can be reflected by what I wrote in them. In fact, I even self-nominated my WP:Rule 1 for deletion after I learned that no community consensus stood with it. In fact, admins have made claims that my proposals are all “rejected” however, this does not seem to be reflected in the discussions for clarifying school outcomes or the newest and last proposal about unreliable news sources. Editors other than the admins which appeared to hound me from the first proposal I made are the only ones who objected without really suggesting any basis for their objections other than referring to my competence.

I would like to conclude that some edits by admins appear to have tried in some way to intimidate me and thus I am driven in some respect to prove the better nature of the Wikipedia project by appealing to right what is a clear wrong. I’d like to further say that regardless of if this appeal succeeds or not I am going to take this matter to arb com because I believe admins in this case have violated Wikipedia policies including the administrator policies. This does not help Wikipedia, it does not make it an easier of better place for “anyone to edit” and it certainly doesn’t promote the kind of discussions needed when people are in constant fear of getting on the wrong side of admins just for asserting their opinions. Many people from a variety of backgrounds come onto Wikipedia in a collaborated effort to help the progress of free knowledge. People take to various aspects of the project and edit it in many ways beyond just mainspace to try and promote change for good. But when you have the environment created by certain admins who think it’s their way or no way it makes editing here near impossible unless you conform not to policy but their own standards.

I would like to close this with a note about my research here. I’m in fact conducting research on Wikipedia but that does not mean that I have a goal to “disrupt it.” Less there be any evidence to suggest I have done so, this block is not only completely unwarranted but arbitrary in nature. It sets a dangerous and ominous presence over the internal processes of Wikipedia especially if new policies have no hope of getting anywhere when they do not conform to a certain “selective” set of Wikipedia editors opinions. That is all, thank you. →ὦiki-Pharaoh^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 00:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see no indication that you understand why your conduct was deemed problematic or that you would change your approach if unblocked. Secondly, you previously said that all your editing on Wikipedia is related to your research; if you conduct that research as part of your work for that biotechnology company, you are in violation of the disclosure requirements for paid editing. As an aside, I really wonder why a biotechnology company would employ a lawyer as a researcher. Huon (talk) 02:44, 17 March 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.

Administrator note For the convenience of reviewing admins: the discussion that led to this block [1]. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to further expand on some issues raised earlier and refer to policy to articulate my points. Beeblebrox, an administrator, checkuser and oversight is entrusted with the privacy of users yet he has demonstrated a clear disregard for Wikipedia:No personal attacks and specifically the introductory statement “comment on content and not on the contributor.” He has further disregarded the policy Wikipedia:Libel by communicating libellous material in his edit summaries. For example, at 01:21, 17 March 2017 Beeblebrox removed the content on my homepage with an edit summary reading “I don’t think anyone believes one word of these claims of doing legit (legitimate) research.” I am conducting research for BREATHEFRESH LIMITED (United Kingdom) which is a company that specialises in Research and experimental development on biotechnology (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10383019.) I would be happy to provide evidence of further credentials to the Wikimedia foundation should my name not be believed, Furthermore, his edit summaries at 21:01, 16 March 2017 read “dear lord, what a load of crap” in response to my edits which is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. This user’s behaviour clearly demonstrates that he has it “out” for me and should never have been involved with me as his only intention seems to cause me distress. The behaviour of other editors in this matter are similarly contentious of Wikipedia’s policies if not more however, I will have to elaborate further at a later time and date because I have other things to deal with. →ὦiki-Pharaoh^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 02:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You had 14 administrators support either a topic ban or overall block, and from what I can tell only about half of them had ever interacted with you before the ANI was started. Even if Beeblebrox was out to get you, do you seriously think that a half-dozen uninvolved admin who reviewed the case are also out to get you? The ANI had nothing to do with your research, but with the borderline-TENDITIOUS creation of proposals, and everyone was in agreement. You say that you're active in the anti-vandal scene, and I won't deny that you've done good work there, but the vast majority of what you've done has been in the WP space. You were asked (multiple times, by multiple editors) to spend more time in the article space, and instead you decided to ignore them. I'm willing to assume good faith that you would continue your anti-vandal work if you were unblocked, but the act of running off to tattle to mommy makes me less inclined to endorse an unblock. Primefac (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor note, even if in the unlikely circumstance that you manage to find a sympathetic admin, the topic ban of editing in the Wikipedia space (with, I would assume, the exception to AFDs) would still very much be in place. You'd still be able to do your anti-vandal work and edit articles, but wouldn't be able to make or suggest new guidelines. Primefac (talk) 02:45, 17 March 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).

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

Request reason:

Firstly I am a director and not an employee. Secondly I have never been informed about the paid editing issue (I will fix this once unbanned) and finally ", that is because I have no idea why suggesting changes to policy if they are promoting constructive discussion is unacceptable. However, at this point I realise that the community finds it "inconvenient" for me to make further edits on the WP space and therefore will discontinue it. If this had been explained without the use of WP:UNCIVIL language such as connotating to me wasting editors time, I would have happily obliged but I did not want to recipicate this negative behavior with a response. Once people began to show signs of serious discontent I actually ceased from editing the WP space at that point. The consequencial onslaught to ban me from the WP space was really uneccesarry as I got the point a long time before. Perhaps there is a case here of assuming guilt but I am prepared to accept that it is only human nature to attack what looks like something you do not like. With respect, the ban to make a point did not need to happen because it cemented the idea in my mind that Wikipedia is functioning on the whims of despot administrators rather than those who genuinely care about the project. With this said, I appreciate the concerns raised and as this is an established community I must respect the decisions made. Upon my unban I intend to rarely edit Wikipedia just as before this happened. I'll attempt to keep on anti-vandal work and the like. By the same token of the comments made here, I still do not believe administrators acted properly and by the policy that administrators are supposed to act by. Kind regards, →ὦiki-Pharaoh^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 03:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'd say 15 administrators makes a rather clear and complete consensus that you do not belong here, at this time. You may appeal again in 6 months time, as per the standard offer. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:23, 17 March 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.

As the blocking admin, I've never met or heard about you before today, but I've seen enough to tell that your contributions to the projectspace had not been constructive. I found your deleted Wikipedia:No religion especially disconcerting. Even its more benign parts are problematic: calling someone an idiot for making an attempt to fix a toaster with a dildo—Really? You thought that belonged on the projectspace? In the end, it just took time to handle all of that, as it is taking time to handle this. But what benefit does the encyclopedia see from any of this? The true tyranny here is the tyranny of time, which we never have enough of. El_C 03:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He did some marvelous mainspace contributions, including Death of Max Spiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) recently. He did mention trying to contribute to Jeremy Corbyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which were reverted. He did discuss the content changes under the former name "Olowe2011" in 2015, especially at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 1#User:JJARichardson and User:NickCT and Talk:Jeremy Corbyn/Archive 3. Here are his past contributions on the article. I hate to see him go just because of his failed proposals, supposed research on Wikipedia, and claims of paid editing on Wikipedia. I'm not sure whether I'll accept what is done here. I remember my first block in 2011, but that was... wayyy different from this case. Also, I wasn't and never have been a paid editor. Maybe he can counter the paid editing claims against him. Otherwise, if he admits his faults, remorse for his actions, and wants to re-contribute to Wikipedia after six months from now, so we can give him welcome arms. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more details about this alleged research I see, the less sense it makes. According to the site linked to, this user is a 23 year-old lawyer who since December has been the director of a pharmaceutical and biotechnology firm that (according to their repeated claims on-wiki) for some reason is conducting research that consists of submitting numerous essays and policy proposals on Wikipedia? And you're surprised that others are expressing disbelief? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: That is a government ran website they tend to be rather reliable. I do not understand why you are so fascinated by the research issue because it is really irrelevant. What is relevant is that the edits I have made on the project are judged objectively, impartially and without bias. I have no problem notifying of "paid editing" if so required. Moreover, I am not "the director" there are a number of them. I think you have treated me very unfairly and to be honest I am not entirely sure why you keep posting onto my talk page to engage with me given that you seem to be in the habit of defaming me in edit summaries. Your focus is really disproportionately on me rather than the content I produce. It is a valid issue that some of the old content I made might have been in bad taste but I am not sure what that has to do with anything now. Conclusively, my research is not supposed to interfere with anything and it clearly has, this was a completely unforeseen and unintended affect. The only thing I can do is apologize for the inconvenience and assure that it will not happen again so far as I can control. Wikipedia presents an extraordinarily unique research opportunity but is also a good place to revert vandals from time to time. →ὦiki-Pharaoh^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 04:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your the one who keeps bringing up your alleged research. I don't doubt that the organization exists, what is hard to fathom is what Wikipedia policies could possibly have to do with pharma/biotech research. It's just not believable and calls into question whether you are being honest about anything you say here. That being said, despite what you have repeatedly implied about other Wikipedia ausers, I actually don't have unlimited time to spend dealing with you and am happy to leave it other to other admins to handle your case from here on out. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: . Now I would very much appreciate that you remove any untrue claims you have written about me which could damage my reputation. Furthermore, the company actually funds other research projects usually related to technology. I would elaborate extensively on the actual research itself however, there would be a risk of introducing subject (participant) and sociability bias. After the study is concluded and written up I will be happy to give you a copy. →ὦiki-Pharaoh^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 05:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what that is supposed to prove, but it seems like a pretty poor idea to go posting your ID on a file sharing website, just so you know. For someone who is criticizing me for being too focused on them seem to be trying to get my attention an awful lot, you can stop pinging me anytime now and that'd be just fine. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Wiki-Pharaoh (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17825 was submitted on Mar 20, 2017 14:25:57. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Paradoctor (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]