User talk:Minorview

If you remove the sock puppet tag again from your user page, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, you'rem badass. The sanction has expired. Please document the relevant policy. Minorview (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still blocked? Strangesad (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Minorview (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User Minorview. Thank you.Smeat75 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All you do is complain. Minorview (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for disruptive editing, specifically removing the sock puppet notice from your user page despite warning. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minorview, there has been an extended discussion at ANI about another user and a sock tag. Although the precise tag in this other user's case is different from yours, the situation is effectively the same. After participating in the discussion and also based on yet another discussion I had with an administrator, I've decided to remove the tag from your user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mouse may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in ways that are illegal with humans, although [[animal rights]] activitsts often object). A '''[[knockout mouse]]''' is a [[genetic engineering|genetically engineered]] [[mus musculus|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have responses to your WP:UNBAN request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic ban appeal. It would be helpful to your request if you responded when you can. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just commented there, but to say something here as well...

I don't support removing the topic ban, but your edits since the thing in April have (though few) all been entirely productive.

I strongly support your continuing to edit, and continuing to make edits like those. If you keep doing that, you will regain everyone's trust over time.

Keep up the good work. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have responses to your WP:UNBAN request at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic ban appeal. It would be helpful to your request if you responded when you can. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just commented there, but to say something here as well...

I don't support removing the topic ban, but your edits since the thing in April have (though few) all been entirely productive.

I strongly support your continuing to edit, and continuing to make edits like those. If you keep doing that, you will regain everyone's trust over time.

Keep up the good work. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've made a decision about this.

• Here's a thought-experiment. Suppose you went to the Arabaic wikipedia [1], and wanted to improve the neutrality of the article on Muhammad. Suppose that wiki has the same principles of neutrality and consensus as this one. Suppose your proposals would, in fact, improve the neutrality of the article. What would be some likely results?

• Do you think you might be topic-banned from articles related to religion? Might you be characterized as having an "anti-Islamic agenda"? Might the condition of the ban removal be that you "regain community trust"? (Namely, trust that you won't demand neutrality about Muhammad.) Ditto for the Hindi wiki and Shiva.....
• If you asnwered "yes" to any of those questions, then explain why Jesus on a Western-centric wiki is different.

• Consensus isn't a reliable enforcer of neutral principles when the subject is a consensus-religion. Not recognizing this is naive.
• The problem with Wikipedia is that the community doesn't understand how the community works. It doesn't understand its attempts to prevent socking (and disruption) often cause socking. Power has limits: you can't gain respect with power. The community can't gain respect simply by banning people.

• The recent disucssion on AN about me [2] make it clear that I am not going to be given a fair chance, even if the ban is lifted. Typical example: "this user has repeatedly demonstrated that they are here with an anti-religion agenda." I just reviewed the original decision to topic-ban Humanpublic [3]. It is pathetic. Facts are distorted, diffs are taken out of context, no careful effort at research is made. Repeatedly, the community is asked to give examples of rules-violations. Few if any are given. Repeatedly, it is pointed out that the accusations are distroted, nobody responds, or addresses the points. The sad thing is that this predictable. Predictable because carefully researching a complicated dispute is really time-consuming and really tedious, and because religion is a subject innately prone to prejudice. The initial discussion was full of the prejudices of the community, and the followups have been too. There is no chance of fairness here.

I can't think of anything I could do by being compliant and eventually getting the ban lifted in 6 months or a year that I can't do better and faster by making a sock account now. Can you? Minorview (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am way too busy at work to respond with what I'd like to right now (encouragement and some mentoring), so let me say this: (a) don't be discouraged, (b) don't threaten to sock (let alone do so). Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A block only prevents you from editing on one Wikipedia. For example, if you get blocked here, you can still edit on the German Wikipedia. However, a ban prevents you from editing on any Wikipedia, making it more severe than a block. Hope this helps. buffbills7701 02:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, and also not what I asked. I know the difference between a ban and a block. I was asking what the point of banning people is when it is trivial to sockpuppet. Minorview (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Minorview (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]