User talk:Agendabender

Hi Agendabender. I would like to remind you of an edit you suggested regarding the Vidcon page earlier in the year. I think it is a worthwhile suggestion as I feel as strongly as you do on the subject. Having been challenged for a source, four days after you made the suggestion or so, a complete video was made (albeit by the harassee) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vyvv7P6Ldo on the subject. Despite the inherent bias I believe it to be an factual account; that highlights what you describe. What do you think? (I think you should make the addition to the main the page; if you still care about the topic). Thanks. Olijones (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Great that you wanted to talk about the banana peel in the tree, and thank you for providing a source. That's what we like! However, in my opinion, the event is really not notable enough for a Wikipedia mention. I'm sure you feel that it is (since I have a feeling you were involved with it somehow or attends the varsity), but it's not really of interest to people reading about the university in general. How you understand and have a great day! I'll throw in a welcoming too. Gaioa (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)'[reply]

I am surprised it took as long as it did for someone to remove that. I suggest reinstating it, if you wouldn't mind. Given that almost all searches of the school's name yield that it's only notability to the majority of the world is the banana incident, I see it as hugely notable. So does the media, and so does anyone searching for the school. I understand it seems ridiculous, but it is not for us to judge - they chose to react the way they did to a banana peel. We might see it as silly, but it's not our role to judge it merely to document what is notable. It's not as if it was a small thing either. They completely overhauled a curriculum, held several university wide investigations, seminars, counselling sessions, and spent a huge amount of money on it including hiring a marketing firm to 'handle' the PR spin.

And to date it is the only significantly notable thing about them - especially on a global stage. I understand the university might want to cover it up because it makes them look somewhat insane, but again, that's not our responsibility. On the contrary, assisting them in burying this story would be a clear case of POV. (I have posted this on your talk page as well, for ease of viewing.) Agendabender (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Agendabender! Thank you for your contributions. I am Gaioa and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Gaioa (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important alert regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Neutrality^talk 01:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.

Neutrality^talk 01:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked you from editing for the following reasons:

This unexplained antisemitic vandalism.
A pattern of agenda-driven editing, as reflected in your edit history and username.
Your unverified claim on your user page to have "edited here in the past" and been a "moderator" (presumably meaning an admin) on Wikipedia in the past, which raises questions regarding sock puppetry. --Neutrality^talk 01:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This block was discussed at WP:ANI. Recording for posterity. --Yamla (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request: Banned for pointing out POV issues.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am used to people pushing back on my NPOV queries in talk sections to try and improve the quality of articles by challenging issues that may be NPOV breaches, but to have a moderator named 'Neutrality' then block me arbitrarily for pointing out NPOV breaches is a bit ironic. Is this normal behaviour for them? Is it usual for them to add ban reasons based on their personal opinion rather than the user actually breaking any rules? Agendabender (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yamla (talk) 11:42, 31 January 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 project has come to an end.

The initial outset that Wikipedia is lost as an encyclopedia and has been politicized and turned into a propaganda soap box has been proven in my opinion. Improving it's quality by calling our political bias, left or right wing, is impossible. It appears that, contrary to my initial belief, the political agenda is not from right wing editors, but left wing editors, with almost 100% of obvious NPOV breaches being from the left. It was an interesting little project, but I'm off to scramble my IP and roll a new account, there's no way to get unbanned here when people can ban you just because they disagree with you. This is just like reddit - I suggest people roll a new account every day to avoid the drama of the thought police. Agendabender (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that, contrary to my initial belief, the political agenda is not from right wing editors, but left wing editors So what you're saying is that you decided to push back against a right-wing bias by making antisemitic edits (or at least, installing an antisemitic plugin in your browser), making bizarrely ignorant right-wing claims and pushing right-wing conspiracy theories? I've heard of "fight fire with fire", but I'm pretty sure it doesn't actually work that way. Anyways, good luck with your next block appeal. For the record, if you continue to use this page as a platform to vent against perceived wrongs, you can have your ability to edit it taken away, as well. I suggest you not do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]