DukeBiggie1
November 2020
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
DukeBiggie1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have expressed my views on the talk page of Donald Trump's article having not made an edit to the page, wanting to seek consensus, and this I believe is why I was suspended, which I consider to be unfair. The user Mandruss as is shown on the talk page was rude in his correspondence and on the neutral points of view board page and the user aforementioned through a proxy got be blocked. I never made an edit, rather, made by views on a contentious article known and I was supported by someone else, which Mandruss failed to concede on the neutral points of view board , rather another rude response from him. The only thing that one is guilty of was making their views beknown in an ongoing discussion of bias, people should be able to question the validity of an article.
Decline reason:
You were blocked for garbage like this. Yamla (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2020 (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.
DukeBiggie1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have accepted that I made unfair comments regarding bias in a Donald Trump Article (the reason for which I was blocked), my discourteous disagreement with Mandruss (as can be seen on the Donald Trump talk page) led to me being blocked. Mandruss has withdrawn his opposition to me being unblocked, on condition I do not repeat my offence and become more informed of policy, to which I have accepted (see user talk page).
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2020 (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.
- Interestingly, I am the person who created that "Response" page. I did so because I felt too many of the responses were rude (as well as inconsistent, incomplete, and/or unclear). For just one example, the word "nauseating" had been used in one response just a week or two before I created the page. Compared to what you'd get from most other experienced editors, I'd say I'm relatively respectful to people who speak very assertively from positions of willful ignorance. Sorry if that feels condescending to you. My suggestion to you, as to any others like you, is that you get involved in Wikipedia editing and start learning its policies in all their complexity and nuance. It takes years to become reasonably competent, but then you might actually be able to achieve some change. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your apology DukeBiggie1 (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia actually does not claim to be free of bias, as everything and everyone has biases. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and Wikipedia presents the sources of its information to readers so they can evaluate them and judge them for themselves as to any bias. If you just want to be told what you want to hear and stay in your bubble, you won't have a good experience here. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- @331dot:It makes a commitment to be neutral which leads t the same effect. Furthermore, one is expected to have reliable sources across the political spectrum, indeed, it can be disputed as to what is reliable. DukeBiggie1 (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- It commits to be neutral with its point of view, but if the reliable sources have a bias, that will still be reflected in Wikipedia. You can review WP:RS for what reliable sources are considered to be as well as this list of sources evaluated for their reliability. If most reliable sources say that something President Trump said is false, Wikipedia will say that as well. Wikipedia is not making the judgement, but the sources, Wikipedia is just summarizing it. If you disagree with what reliable sources say, you will need to take that up with them. I might suggest that you review WP:TRUTH as well. In any event, I digress. You are free to make another request if you would like to be unblocked, but you will need to be able to collaborate with others of differing viewpoints from all over the world. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- @331dot: Thank you for your response. Indeed, I aspire to collaborate wth others of differing viewpoints, I think the problem is some will not. Do you know how I go about making another unblock request? Thank you for your time. DukeBiggie1 (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Yamela: I think you may be referring to someone else, your sure you correctly attributed comments to me? DukeBiggie1 (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Would you help me in my unblock request? Thanks for your time. DukeBiggie1 (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- The decision is obviously not mine, but I would oppose a second chance unless you show that you have some concept of the extent of what you don't know about Wikipedia editing and are prepared to dramatically soften your tone accordingly, with the understanding that you might not get a third chance. Without that, I think your defensive reflex reaction to criticism will continue to be a problem. The above is an improvement, but it doesn't go far enough in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mandruss:I do concede my lack of knowledge and hope to develop it in the future and accordingly, I would soften my tone. DukeBiggie1 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. You are on record (that statement will be preserved forever in the history of this page). I withdraw my opposition to unblock. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Thank you. DukeBiggie1 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Mandruss:I do concede my lack of knowledge and hope to develop it in the future and accordingly, I would soften my tone. DukeBiggie1 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- What do you intend to edit if unblocked? I would be willing to consider an unblock if you were given a topic ban from the modern American Politics topic area. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
DukeBiggie1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I had an argument with Mandruss on the talk page of the Donald Trump article. As seen from our discussion on my user talk page I have recgonised my shortcomings I was too quick to jump in when not knowing much about Wikipedia's policy and I did not convey my views in a civil manner. I have learnt more about Wikipedia's NPOV policy and civility. CaptainElk on my user talk page kindly stated that he would consider an unblock if I were to have a topic ban, this was a while back, so I think the opportunity from him has unfortuentely passed. However, I would be happy to accept a topic ban on the Donald Trump page. DukeBiggie1 (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I will remove the block with your agreement to a topic ban from post-1992 American politics related edits. This will be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. You may appeal at WP:AN after 6 months from today. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- I will second CaptainEek's offer above, and unblock you if you agree to a topic ban from post-1992 American politics related articles (not just the Donald Trump article). 331dot (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- @331dot: Thank you for your offer and speedy response to my unblock request. I will accept this offer. DukeBiggie1 (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, could you give some idea of what you will edit about? Also be aware of what you are agreeing to; you would not be able to make any edits related to post-1992 American politics, even if only tangentially related. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- @331dot:I will make edits about UK politics I am quite interested in devolution, particularly, on the question of English devolution and how much power is already devolved in England. Yes I recognise this just am glad to be getting back to editing. DukeBiggie1 (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, could you give some idea of what you will edit about? Also be aware of what you are agreeing to; you would not be able to make any edits related to post-1992 American politics, even if only tangentially related. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)