User talk:DCTB

August 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 18:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal Block

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here ~~I have never edited. How can I be blocked by Star Mississippi for persistently making disruptive edits? DCTB (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You edited the Help Desk and those edits were disruptive. (Editing is any change to any type of page) Since you indicate you don't wish to contribute to Wikipedia, there is no need to remove the block, as blocks only prevent editing. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2023 (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.

~~For the first time I had a question for Wikipedia. Until that time I had mostly used Wikipedia to answer anything I was curious about. I only wanted to ask a question and hoped to get an email back if I was lucky. I had no idea my question would be in an open forum. I got threatened almost immediately, then the answer - yes pages get locked if administrators decide to, plus good advice and information (very helpful) - followed by an abusive response and a threat, along with lots of boasting and telling me Wikipedia are too rich to need my donation (that they ask for regularly) and to go elsewhere for my information. Now I have been blocked, yet I have never threatened or been abusive to anyone, just questioned why that person felt the need to accuse me with assumptions of things I had no intention of doing. That person was on a power trip and I expect an apology or to be able to make a formal complaint.~~

Volunteer editors (which include administrators) have no tie to any funds you may have donated. You're clearly here with an axe to grind which will not lead to an unblock. Star Mississippi 21:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I have an axe to grind? I only asked one question! I mentioned donation just to show I was a supporter of the site and have been donating for many years - irrelevant. I have been blocked only because an administrator felt he could be abusive and insult me, but did not like my response - which was neither abusive or threatening, but just questioned whether he was a genuine administrator, because it was shocking he talked like that, whilst representing Wikipedia. Whether I ever edit is also irrelevant, you have decided to take away my option to. I will keep donating because of how much I use the site, but that is irrelevant too.

There are no private areas on Wikipedia(though some are harder to find than others); everything is public. You are free to make a complaint to the Arbitration Committee, but I doubt they will pursue it very far. I could be wrong, though. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I would just like to know whether people representing Wikipedia should communicate with members of the public that way and then have them blocked because they are licensed to bully by Wikipedia, but not be responded to or they block you. If Wikipedia support that type of behaviour and do not request he apologise, then that will be interesting to know

No one said anything to you that merited an apology. Please file an unblock request or request to the Arbitration Committee, or you're likely to lose talk page access. Star Mississippi 22:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was an unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

A colleague of yours has given me a lot of explanation about how my question could have been read differently to how it was written and meant. Some of your colleagues were fine with it and gave me helpful answers that I thanked them for and others assumes bad intentions. I thought it would be question to someone at Wikipedia and had no idea it would be on a forum. If someone you do not know assumes the worst and attacks you for a reason you have no idea about, it is normal to respond and I never responded in an abusive manner or with profanities. I felt his response to me was unwarranted and unjustified, but I got blocked. If he had not got involved, I would have had my answer and moved on happy. He did not make any attempt to help, just vitriolic accusations and assumptions about my character that were not needed DCTB (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per WP:NOTHERE, I don't see how unblocking you will benefit this project. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:15, 29 August 2023 (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.

Context for reviewing admin. Star Mississippi 22:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have previously said you are not interested in editing Wikipedia. Have you changed your mind? 331dot (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying 331dot. It is not a matter of whether I do or do not want to post, it is the principle. To be blocked (indefinitely) because I responded to what I classed as bullying and false assumptions and accusations by someone who claimed to represent Wikipedia, seems unfair and further bullying, along with exceeding their position because they took offense to my question, without even checking they had understood the context first. I sent a question to what I thought would be someone on Wikipedia's help desk, letting them know that I was a fan and donated when asked - partly because I expected the person to be very busy and not excited about answering my question they would probably find tedious because it is probably something a lot of people wonder about. I had no idea it would be a forum. Some responses were great and answered my question, which I was grateful for and responded with thanks, then went off to look into what was said. Some assumed I was an atrocious troll and warned me about my actions, along with threats. That escalated into telling me my donation was irrelevant and I should go elsewhere for my information, with further false assumptions about my intentions. Then I was blocked for questioning if any representative would speak to a member of the public asking for help that way. In any other company they would be reprimanded or fired. I have never trolled anyone and was offended by the continued assumptions. Then to block me indefinitely was as bad as the bullying that the person claimed to stop! Cutting off my right to respond and also free speech because they had the power to. Why 'Disruptive Editing', to my own question responses? Surely that would be if I edited other peoples questions. I think an apology for assuming I am a troll and being vitriolic, then having me blocked is the least that should happen as a matter of decency. One of your people stereotyped me in a egregious way, no different than profiling, then treated me as if they knew me and had to teach me a lesson, on a power trip. If they had taken the time to read my response when I thanked your colleague, they would have realised that my question was an innocent inquiry about something that did not seem consistent with other pages. How would you feel? I am happy to be unblocked then close the account if that helps. It did seem a lot of work to ask one question, but now I know what it was for. Contacting Wikipedia is different to all the companies I have ever asked questions of in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCTB (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a company; it is a collaborative project. The Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on is a nonprofit organization, but they rarely are involved in day to day operations. Those are handled by us volunteers. Again, if you don't intend to edit, there is no need to remove this block and you should just stop using and abandon your account, and go on about your life. If you aren't going to edit, you shouldn't be further concerned about this. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the principle 331dot. He assumed I was a nasty troll with bad motives and set on me. I questioned why he responded that way and got blocked. That is unjust and unfair. My response to the other constructive helpful replies was polite and respectful, with gratitude - does that not indicate my actual intentions? Is this a big club that loyally backs each other? I have been lectured about why you protect accounts, but he trolled me and I got blocked?! Isn't that hypocritical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCTB (talk • contribs)