User talk:Obsidi

I've indefinitely blocked you for WP:NOTHERE and WP:DE (in this instance, the two are interrelated). See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: acting on your own, or is this a community sanction? -Obsidi (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acting on my own, although I took into account the comments at the ANI thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2018 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to review my contributions and independantly confirm if I am WP:NOTHERE or disruptively editing. I’ve been a member of the Wikipedia community for almost a decade and, until now, I have never been blocked for anything. It has been over 1 and half years since the last time any user has even put a warning on my talk page for potentially violating policy. It is true that I rarely edit in article space. I prefer instead to discuss issues on talk and gain consensus that way. The only exception is for what I believe to be BLP violating material. I believe that WP:BLPREMOVE instructs us editors to remove such material immediately. The most recent editing dispute I was involved in concerned this edit. I removed a statement that said the subject of the article was inspired by neo-nazis and white supremacists. This statement was not cited in-line to any source. When questioned on talk concerning this statement it was claimed that this article supports the statement (even though it is not cited in-line and nowhere else in the article does it say the subject is inspired by neo-nazis). I was told by editors who disagreed with me that I had to dig up reliable sources refuting the sentence in the article before I could remove it for being badly sourced or an analysis of the source.[1] and [2]. I believe this to be contrary to WP:BLP policy. I’m not alone in my belief that this sentence at least potentially violates BLP. [3], [4],[5],[6],[7], [8], among others. Even after I was blocked other editors continued to believe that I was right[9] Another reason why removing my block is important is that my block is being used to threaten other editors who have similar disagreements with the content into silence over threats that they too could blocked for continuing to believe this violates BLP.[10] I have always worked during the time I have been here at Wikipedia, almost a decade now, to improve Wikipedia and make it the best online encyclopedia possible. I am not here to advocate for conservative causes or liberal causes (I’m actually libertarian as my userpage states). I have worked towards consensus and when consensus is against me I have moved on. Often, I can often improve Wikipedia merely by talking about it on talk pages and gaining consensus that way and not have to edit article space at all. I request that the block be lifted with a note that it should not have been imposed in the first place to preserve my good reputation. But even if the reviewing admin believed I have been disrupting in the area of politics, discretionary sanctions can be used to topic ban me from such articles (which I would appeal to AE, but it would prevent any kind of disruption in such areas until a consensus of uninvolved administrators can decide if I should be topic banned). As such, this block is not needed to prevent disruption. -Obsidi (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have reviewed the AN subthread which led to this block, as well as the comments below, and taken a look through your recent contributions to determine whether the blocking administrator was in error when placing this block. There does not appear to be an error. There was a very good chance the AN subthread would have closed with a consensus for an indefinite WP:NOTHERE/WP:DE block had Bbb23 not intervened, and that would have left you as de-facto site-banned. In a way (though you may not appreciate it) Bbb23 did you a favor, as you do not have to go to a noticeboard to get unblocked, but may instead place a well-crafted unblock request here for an administrator to consider. This, however, is not a well-crafted unblock request: it does not offer the unblocking admin any indication on how you might adjust your editing to avoid the concerns that led to the block. You seem reluctant to acknowledge that you may in any way be at fault, and indeed a successful unblock request does not require you to make that acknowledgement. What you will need to do, though, is articulate a game plan for adjusting your editing to minimize the concerns about disruptive editing and POV-pushing that other editors have expressed. You mentioned below the idea of accepting a topic ban in lieu of a block, although you said you would appeal that as well, which takes that option off the table for both you and any administrator wanting to get you back editing. You may want to reconsider that idea; it might be a good way to move forward. 28bytes (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2018 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The claims against me were by editors involved in a content dispute, and I had feared that Bbb23 had taken those claims at face value. But as 28bytes has reviewed my contributions and agrees that I should have been blocked, I will accept that. My intention was never to just use WP to debate politics or advocate for a political point of view. I’m sorry if my recent contributions are seen in that light. I will accept a 3 month topic ban from WP:ARBAPDS (except legal topics). Most legal topics are not directly AP2, but the few that I have edited that are (such as Brett Kavanaugh or Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination), no one has even accused me of POV pushing or disruption. I have no expertise beyond the normal editor in political topics and I am sure others can edit these topics as well as I can. But I do have expertise in the area of law more than most editors and would like to continue working in this area. With this topic ban in place I believe that would satisfy any reviewing admin that I am not a current threat to be pushing any political POV or otherwise disrupting such topics and, as such, that the block is no longer necessary. -Obsidi (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2018 (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.

• See this is the problem Obsidi has asked for two unblocks in short succession and in both refuses any sort of culpability in their block. That doesn't suggest somebody who learned their lesson and isn't going to cause more problems. Especially since they are asking for specific terms on the T-Ban to allow them to continue editing the pages they want to edit. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The admin above noted that You seem reluctant to acknowledge that you may in any way be at fault, and indeed a successful unblock request does not require you to make that acknowledgement. I wasn't intentionally violating the policies, that I know, but I acknowledged that I may have accidentally done so. I was accused of just being here to debate politics and push a political point of view. Are you afraid that debating politics isn't really why I am here? That I will push some other point of view if I am topic banned from politics? That seems at odds with the very point of this block and surely doesn't represent an ongoing disruption if it doesn't even exist yet. -Obsidi (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find your desire for a t-ban that allows you free to edit articles like Brett Kavanaugh to be concerning in light of your edit history. I mean it's not ultimately up to me but you were just blocked, and this is your second unblock request in short succession and your response in both seems to be to declare that you were more wronged against than wronging. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about my edit history at Brett Kavanaugh do you find concerning? Blocks are not about punishment or assigning blame, they are to prevent on-going disruption (its not about who was wronged or wronging at all). My first unblock request was merely to ask an uninvolved administrator to confirm that I should have been blocked. I got that. My second request assumes that unintentional disruption occurred and proposed a way to prevent any such disruption going forward. -Obsidi (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see zero evidence that Obsidi has actually listened to what multiple editors have told him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive995#User:MjolnirPants. His arguments that he did nothing wrong have convinced exactly zero people. I recommend the following:

• Tell him that his unblock requests have been evaluated by uninvolved admins and rejected.
• Tell him to wait six months before asking again.
• Tell him that when he asks again six months from now he needs to show that he understands what got him blocked and a commitment to do things differently if unblocked.
• If he keeps asking, take away his talk page access.

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have admitted I did something wrong, just not that it was intentional. And many editors have asked that I be unblocked including David Tornheim, Tornado chaser, Connor Behan, Jweiss11. Blocks are short term meant to prevent on-going disruption. Removing talk page access is meant only for those who are using the talk pages to make personal attack or to play games and make a point. And even then, when talk page access is revoked, unblock requests can be made via the Unblock Ticket Request System. -Obsidi (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentional, eh?

Because you are clearly WP:IHT regarding what you were told at ANI, here are some quotes from a bunch of different editors:

I am having a hard time believing that the behavior described above was unintentional, but let us WP:AGF and take you at your word. If it wan't intentional, then you are incapable of refraining from unintentionally behaving the same way in the future, and thus should remain blocked until you can convince an admin that you understand what you did wrong and are capable of "intentionally" stopping the behavior. --Guy Macon (talk)

I offered to be topic banned from all political articles. If I was only here to advocate for a political point of view then I could no longer do that. -Obsidi (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a theory as to why all of these different people. many of whom disagree about many other things, have all looked at your edit history and decided that you should be blocked from editing Wikipedia? Please don't respond by pointing out that some people don't want you blocked; It exceedingly rare that everyone agrees. Most people have zero people calling for them to be blocked. You have a bunch of them. Please think carefully. Why? What is the common factor?

There once was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway. Upon hearing on the radio (over the honking horns) that there was a drunk driver who was driving the wrong way on the freeway, he peered through his windshield, noticed all of the headlights heading toward him, and exclaimed "My God! There are DOZENS of them!!" --Guy Macon (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to opine on the motivations of other editors. I will merely note that I have apologized for any unintentional disruption I caused and proposed a way to prevent it from continuing. -Obsidi (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and the community has rejected your proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is still pending and will be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. The involved editors who have watched my page are not the entire community. -Obsidi (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to administrators: This editor's colossal wiki-lawyering and self-justification, in addition to his removal of much of other editors' good-faith commentary from this thread, all over the past two weeks, both illustrate exactly what a colossal time-waste and disruptive editor this user is. Softlavender (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I spoke with Obsidi in the -unblock IRC channel, and I'd be open to the possibility of an unblock with indefinite topic-bans from the topics of (1) American politics per the AP2 ArbCom case and (2) fringe and conspiracy theories, including climate change denial, with the topic bans to be appealed no sooner than in six months. Bbb23 and 28bytes, thoughts? Obsidi, please indicate here whether you'd agree to an unblock with such conditions imposed. Huon (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what you think is needed, I will agree to it. -Obsidi (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: No objections from me, although you may want to check with Bbb23 directly since I believe he has pings disabled. 28bytes (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@28bytes: I don't have pings disabled. Someone mistakenly said/thought that and I guess it spread. Sometimes I wish I did have pings disabled, though. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) All I see is continuing wikilawyering by Obsidi. It's fitting given his relatively new lawyer status in real life. Obsidi is not and will not be an asset to this project. This is a user who perceives themself as a senior legal advisor and who wants to practice their skills at Wikipedia. This is an admitted right-wing user who clearly has an agenda. To some extent, Huon, you've made the case against Obsidi yourself. If a users needs two topic bans to be a constructive contributor to the encyclopedia, the waste of time of other editors permitting them to do that is fairly obvious.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did admit that I am a right-wing person (although I am libertarian). But my intention was not to advocate for such views. I'm sorry I let my personal views influence my editing here, it won't happen again. I am a lawyer (and it isn't new), but I am not here to "practice [my] skills" as a lawyer. I've already passed the bar and I have plenty of other ways to practice law before real judges. I've never been blocked or topic banned before, and the issues will not arise again in any other area. -Obsidi (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]