Buddylovely

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).

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

---

Request reason:

See IP discussion at 198.27.150.168. I was told to come here

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. ST47 (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2019 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:198.27.150.168 for the accusation of "disruptive editing". I honestly don't see the violation, so if you could point out where it is, I would greatly appreciate it, so I can avoid making the same mistake in the future. Please see this account for the accusation of sock puppet. I was aware of the violation and tried to avoid it. For evidence, please review the help requests I made with the IP address in order to avoid the accusation of being a sock puppet. Notice that the admins agreed that I should edit given that I couldn't recall the name, give it was like 5 years ago. If there are any other issues or complaints against me, please let me know. I assume I am handling everything the way is supposed to be handled but if that is not the case, let me know.

Decline reason:

-

If you can say "I honestly don't see the violation, so if you could point out where it is, I would greatly appreciate it" after the vast amount of time and trouble that various editors have put into explaining what has been wrong with your editing, then you are probably never going to understand. (Which, incidentally, confirms what is evident from your other editing. Over countless edits you have shown a consistent inability to understand what is said to you by other editors.) Also, continuing with "so I can avoid making the same mistake in the future" is utterly inconsistent with your history, which shows that no matter how many times the problems with your editing are explained to you, you continue in the same way, and do not "avoid making the same mistake in the future".

There is no need to give you a complete account of the reasons why you are blocked and will stay blocked, as there would be nothing there that you have not already been told, but just in case in the future there is ever a need for an administrator to check this, for his or her benefit here is a brief summary of the main points. This editor has been editing, using several accounts and also IP editing, over the course of over 12 years. The main focus of their editing has been persistently trying to make articles relating to corporation law conform to their specific and in some ways idiosyncratic views. Throughout that time it has been abundantly clear that this editor's views have been opposed by consensus, but they have doggedly kept on trying to push the same ideas into articles. The editor has exhibited about as large a case of WP:IDHT and WP:DROP as I have ever seen. There have also been other problems, such as misrepresentation of his or her editing history, personal attacks on other editors, wasting other editors' time with endless walls of text that don't provide anything constructive, etc etc. There is plenty of documentation of the issues in various places, particularly in the editing history of User talk:198.27.150.168. finally, the editor's approach to other editors is encapsulated in this one edit: [1]. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2019 (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.

Three more points relating to your block.

1. Your IP address is currently blocked for 3 years. An edit you made with that IP address indicates that you think that means that it will be acceptable for you to return to editing after 3 years. That is not so. This account is blocked, and unless and until an administrator agrees to unblock you, you do not have permission to edit English Wikipedia, and any account or IP address used for doing so will be blocked.
2. Now that I know of your disruptive editing history, I shall watch out for any future block evasion from you, and if I see any I shall be willing to edit-protect any and all pages that you edit. Please don't make that necessary, as doing so will be likely to cause inconvenience for legitimate editors wishing to make constructive edits, as well as stopping you.
3. Since your various unblock requests, here and on the IP talk page, have achieved nothing other than taking up time of administrators who could have been doing more constructive work, and since there is no indication whatever that you are likely to start posting unblock requests that have any remote chance of success, I shall remove your talk page access. You have already been told how to use the unblock ticket request system, but I hope you won't, as there is a considerable backlog of requests there, and taking up the time of people who review those requests by posting the kinds of request you post will further delay reviews for other editors who have already had to wait for a considerable time. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

UTRS

The reason your UTRS request wasn't answered is that the email address wasn't verified. Without a verified email address such requests will not be acted upon - there's a good chance that you wouldn't even receive an answer. Huon (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I am responding here because the IRC Help has banned by IP because I asked them to look into this. I don't know how I am supposed to respond if the UTRS does not send me a verification email and the administrators ban me for asking about it. Do you have any suggestions? Also, while I'm here, I want to say that it feels a lot like before. The stated reason for me being banned is this one edit: [2]. That edit occurred over 6 months ago and I served my time for it. This guy gave this as a reason, then banned me from my talk page, so I couldn't respond. Without the irc or the utrs, how am I supposed to respond?19:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I have spoken to this editor on IRC. For some strange reason they cannot get past the email verification step of UTRS. I had considered granting talk page access, but they left with a comment that shows that, despite the lengthy explanations on various talk pages, they still do not understand why their editing was disruptive. It thus seems likely that restoring talk page access would merely lead to a resumption of what we had before. Huon (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Contents UTRS appeal #41366, and I quote, "ffsdsfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I have replied via UTRS, "You can explain how your editing was was non constructive and how you will edit constructively, via UTRS or on your talk.". Looking forward to any constructive reply. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.  CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

UTRS decline

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. ( Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please see UTRS appeal #41366

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2021 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I will not use my other account, Sigiheri or sockpuppet or sign in as an IP to edit, ever. I will abide by all the rules of Wikipedia. Specifically I will not make "disruptive edits" and will make "useful contributions", instead. Regarding my sockpuppet, Sigiheri, I tried to get unbanned about 8 months ago, which got me into all kinds of trouble. It took me forever to understand what was going on, but now I get it. I now understand that most of the time, on my articles of interest, the editors are also administrators. These ppl may not be experts on a subject, but they know the rules. Therefore, all editors must be treated with respect as even if they don't know the subject, they do know how and what is required to edit the articles. I went through a lot of my edits as Sigiheri and I did find a place where I was rude to an editor. He was nice and said something like, "that's a very nice quote, but there are other points of view." When he could cite no other points of view in the literature I got rude because I thought he was being cute, and that was inappropriate on my part. I now understand that he was playing a valuable role by stating what she/he/they did. But, really, this person understood the rules better than I. Regardless, I pledge not to be rude to anyone, period. I want to be unblocked because I feel I contribute to articles within my area of expertise. For example, the article states that a "corporation is an organization". It's true it can be, but it can also be a "corporate sole" (i.e., one person) as the Wikipedia article itself states. It's not an organization unless you consider a corporate sole an organization. This appears to be a contradiction within the first paragraph of the article. I don't know how I'd re-write this, but others state that a corporation is a state granted contracting entity, a legal personality that can own property, sue and be sued, and contract in its own name. (I could cite many) It is a legal person in the courts. The state by statute enables an entity to hold property, contact in its own name through a designated board or office (i.e., agency), and make bylaws to govern employees. The article also calls the corporation an "aggregate, but this is one of three corporate personality theories, the others being natural person and artificial person (i.e, created by the state). Moreover, corporations are not aggregates of people, like partnerships, and they are not membership corporations, like the Church. But the deeper problem manifests itself in describing the publicly traded corporation without also describing government and non-profit corporations. The problem is that what makes a corporation is not defined. The article insinuates that a Charter creates a corporation, but charters were given to merchant member companies, like the Levant or Russian Company before 1600. The EIC is not considered the first corporation, the VOC is, because it was the first, in 1612, to secure (i.e., steal) investment capital to make it the property of the VOC. It had contracted the investment capital in 1602 for 10 years, which gave the world the first stock market for publicly traded shares, then in 1612 reneged. The VOC could not contract for debt in its own name until I think 1650. (Ceipley 2020) The EIC did not have an active stock market for its shares until the early 1800s. (Ireland 2018). Limited liability is unnecessary for publicly traded corporations to exist. It really wasn't a thing until the 1800s (Harris 2010 or 2020) California didn't grant until 1934, or so. The article has few good references. Through this, I do not mean to criticize, but want to convey the fact that I can help to improve this article. I could go on. I also realize that editors want to keep the page consistent with common knowledge and definitely do not anything activistic. I think this is the core understanding I need to have in order to get my edits "approved," so to speak. I plan to serve those who require evidence and anything else, and through this, I will learn and may find myself wrong at times. Regardless, I will stay true to my pledge of following the rules. If I can answer any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. I'm sorry for any typos.Buddylovely (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Let's trim this down a bit. The part about not socking is good. The part about sticking to one account is good, well required. You were blocked for "disruptive editing." What did you do then that you won't do anymore? What would you do instead under similar circumstances? How will you edit constructively? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2022 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This supplements my recent unblock request above. I was blocked for disruptive editing in 2013. I believe I reverted an edit 3 times and that was the reason for the block. I was not aware of the rule at the time. Now that I am aware of the rule not to revert 3 times, I will not do it again. Moreover, I will, in general, do nothing that might be construed as "disruptive. editing." Please let me know if I should address anything more. Thank you.Buddylovely (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

That isn't the only think you have done incorrectly. Are we still all fascists? 331dot (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2022 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I will not edit disruptively. This includes name calling as ad hominem attacks are fallacious and do nothing to improve the article. I intend to only provide constructive edits. I will use only peer review articles for cites. I will provide consensus views of academics when asked. I am trying to cover everything here in a general way so as not to bring up specifics, which is my understanding of what I am supposed to do. I won't call names, I won't revert 3 times, I won't edit disruptively, I won't sock puppet, I intend to provide constructive edits. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to say here to cover all the bases. I''m trying my best.Buddylovely (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have not addressed 331dot's question as to your claim we are all fascists. Yamla (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2022 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have read the information on how to appeal a block. No where in that information does it state that I cannot have certain thoughts. Thus, if I believe someone is, say, uninformed, my goal is not to say it. In the same way, if I think someone is a fascist, I will not say it. This is why I stated above in response to the question that I would not name call. Is it required that I state that I will not think of administrators as fascist in order to get unblocked? If so, that seems inconsistent with the directions on how to appeal a block. I will say that I define fascists as those with illegitimate authority. If the authority does not come from the ppl who are overseen by the authority, it is not legitimate authority. If the illegitimate authority is also unaccountable to the ppl, it's even more fascist. This is more less Chomsky's definition of fascism. Related to editing, even if I believe someone is fascist, I will not say it. As mentioned above, I will not call names, edit disruptively, or sock puppet. I will follow all of the rules. I will edit constructively and will only use peer reviewed articles as citesBuddylovely (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The fact you are sticking to the idea that the admins are fascists tells me unblocking you would be a very poor idea for the project as a whole. Additionally, this discussion below seems to be a good deal of WP:IDHT, and as such I'm ending it by once again removing talk page access. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2022 (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.

So that sounds like a "yes" to me. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If I believe that you are appointed and not elected by editors and are unaccountable to editors, what does it matter? Do you ban ppl for thinking something you don't want them to think? Or do you ban ppl for their edits and comments? Regardless of what I believe about the administrators, I will not name-call. What more is needed from me to be unblocked besides agreeing to follow the rules?Buddylovely (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I just want an honest answer. I think I got it. Administratorship is not a position; it is a toolset. One is not elected to a toolset. Administrators have no more authority than any other editor. They have tools that would be irresponsible for everyone to have, given after community vetting. Admins can be and have been stripped of the tools. Are there always ways to improve processes and accountability? Sure. But saying there is none is factually incorrect and comparing that to fascism is offensive. You may be agreeing to not state your views but since we know you feel this way it is going to be difficult for you to work with us since we know you feel this way. I don't often do this but I oppose unblocking you. The admin that reviews this is free to disregard my views if they otherwise want to unblock you. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but administrators are not elected by editors to "a toolset"; instead they are appointed by some other group. If "Administrators have no more authority than any other editor" as you say, why do administrators have authority over banning me, which other editors do not have? It seems to me that ppl were not elected but have authority over me. In terms of accountability, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that administrators are not accountable to editors. If I'm wrong, please let me know. If my personal beliefs that administrators are (1) not elected by editors and (2) not accountable to editors are a reason to ban me forever, please tell me where to find this in the rules. If it is not in the rules, then on what basis are you banning me?Buddylovely (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If you want this matter taken to a community discussion, you can request that, but I don't think that would give you a better result(it would be worse if the community endorsed the block instead, making it even harder to get it removed, as now you only have to convince an admin). As I said, admins can be and actually have been stripped of their tools, as well as lesser sanctions. If you have ideas on increasing accountability, you can offer them once you are unblocked(keeping in mind that you are hardly the first person to want to do that). As I said, if you can convince someone to unblock you, they are free to disregard me. I do not think it benefits the community and a collaborative environment to have someone who thinks any members of it are fascists, but keeping that to themselves, participating. I don't have a specific rule to cite in front of me, so feel free to ignore me. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

If the administrators are in fact accountable to editors, I stand corrected. I would need more information, but I am open to that possibility. I do NOT think that editors are appointed and unaccountable, so I'm not sure who you refer to as "members." I also do not intend to work with anyone except editors, even someone is also an administrator, I would work with them as an editor. To be clear: I do not believe that I would work with anyone but editors, who I do not view as appointed and unaccountable. Buddylovely (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

You can't avoid dealing with administrators in all circumstances. Everyone on Wikipedia is a "member" of this community. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It's true, you may need to "deal with me" as an administrator-"member' in an authoritative role. But you will not work with me in editing articles as an administrator. Rather you will work with me as an editor-"member". If I keep my word and do not disruptively edit, etc., you will actually not need to "deal with me" in an administrator-member role.

If I understand your words, you want to ban me for life on the chance you may have to discipline me, because you don't feel you can "deal with me" if I view the administrators as not elected by editors and unaccountable to editors. Do I have it right or is that statement incorrect regarding you pov?Buddylovely (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Perhaps you are not aware of the highly negative connotation that the word "fascist" has, where I come from, it is not much different from being called a Nazi. No, I don't want to work with someone who considers me a fascist, even if you keep it to yourself. This isn't just about me, though, I can take some hits, but I think your presence in these circumstances does not benefit the community at large. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Nazi is a type of fascism, but not the definition of fascism. That is your personal definition. I did not call anyone a Nazi nor do I believe anyone is a Nazi. I explained exactly what I meant by the term. Again, you will not be "working with me" as an administrator, but rather as an editor. Buddylovely (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

FYI Here is a dictionary definition of fascism: "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic (i.e., authoritarian) or dictatorial control." Notice that where is no reference to Nazis and it describes many institutions. I would suggest that Wikipedia editors are held under strong authoritarian control by administrators who are not elected by and unaccountable to those who they control. This definition appears to me to fit how Wikipedia is administered, but I am probably missing something. What am I missing; what is incorrect?Buddylovely (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have said that we are held accountable but you seem to ignore this. There is always room for improvement, but it does happen. I've said and you seem to dismiss that administrator is not an elected position or authoritative position and not intended to be, it is a toolset. You may review how the community determines who has the admin tools at WP:RFA. I have nothing else to say. You will either be unblocked, or not. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I did not ignore what you said and in fact responded with "If the administrators are in fact accountable to editors, I stand corrected. I would need more information, but I am open to that possibility." If looks from what you posted that administrators are in fact elected by editors, so I stand corrected. Thank you. If you have any information on accountability, I would like that too. If administrators are also accountable to editors, I obviously had it wrong.Buddylovely (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

From this study https://snap.stanford.edu/data/wiki-Elec.html, it seems that 1/2 of the voters were administrators, which does not seem very democratic. In the USA, we have a "flawed democracy" determined by money. I would feel less inclined to call administrators "appointed" if more editors voted relative to administrators, which could easily be accomplished by communicating the option to vote to editors. I hope you understand that importance of a true democratic system to avoid accusations of authoritarian control. Also, please understand, I am not disagreeing to disagree and simply want to be factual.Buddylovely (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I can say that Wikipedia is not a democracy. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

We agree. So what your you call the basis for authority at Wikipedia if not a democracy?Buddylovely (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #56928

is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #57007

is closed. User may want to consider appeal to WP:AN six months from now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom email

address is arbcom-enwikimedia.org Best, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)