Rob Roilen

Who I Am ⚧️🫃🦅📰

Hello, I'm Rob. I'm an FtM Native American with a deep interest in the accuracy of journalism. My pronouns are they/them. I feel that my background provides a perspective that is often underrepresented and disregarded. I encourage my fellow editors to consider minority dissenting voices as equally valid when discussing contentious topics. See you out there.

Not respecting other editors

Hello, your page, currently with the description:

" Hello, I'm Rob. I'm here in an attempt to counter the unfortunately large community of Wikipedia editors who have absolutely zero intellectual integrity. Too bad there are enough of them with authority at this point that people like me get banned for arguing too much. See you out there!"

Directly goes against one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. Please see WP:5P4. Trulyy (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of an attack page

A page you created has been deleted as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow this is a pretty cavalier interpretation of the definition of an "attack page" and the guidelines laid out on Wikipedia:NOTFORUM since this is my own personal talk page. Thanks for making my point in record time. Rob Roilen (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Editors don't have their "own" pages. While there is an unwritten rule that editors shouldn't edit other editor's user pages except their talk page, User pages can be deleted at any time if their content violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is even a speedy deletion criteria, U5, to tag user pages that are just being used to host content that has no relationship to the encyclopedia. User pages get deleted every day. If you want a place where you can post whatever opinions you want, I suggest getting yourself a blog or website. There are many free services available. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The content that was deleted was very obviously not "attacking" anyone and was not addressing any specific person. I have no leverage here; I'm at the mercy of anonymous editors who have more privilege than me and can terminate my ability to freely edit the encyclopedia if they personally don't like my tone on talk pages. Surely I'm not the only person who understands why this isn't exactly fair. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

By editing here you have to obey our policies and guidelines just like everyone editing here does. If you don't think it's fair, you're welcome to start your own website or find one which suits you. There's no free speech on Wikipedia as with most private websites. Nil Einne (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Please explain to me how openly expressing my desire to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia by actively working to counter intellectually dishonest editors is against some sort of guideline. I would have thought that this is something Wikipedia would welcome. I chose to place what I said on the page that other editors specifically choose to visit when they might want to know more about me. At what point do I get to say I'm being harassed by other editors who simply disagree with my tone? Rob Roilen (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you choose to describe your fellow editors here as "intellectually dishonest editors" is a very bad sign that you may not be able to work in a collaborative project like Wikipedia. We get along here with each other, even those we disagree with without making personal attacks and calling another editor intellectually dishonest is an attack and not civil. Your contributions are welcome here as long as you abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines but one of the pillars of Wikipedia is civility and that means getting along with others without calling them names. There are editors here who've been active editors for decades who can't stand each other so it is possible to work with others you don't care for. You just have to remember if you lash out at others, it will hurt you more than it will hurt them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Despite your subjective interpretation of my comments, the fact remains that there are indeed editors here who are intellectually dishonest and only trying to inject their personal opinions into what should remain a neutral encyclopedia. Some of these editors even have a deep enough grasp of Wikipedia policies that they take advantage of them in an effort to censor newer or less experienced editors they personally disagree with. Broadly stating this concept on my own user or talk page is by no means an "attack" on anyone. Rob Roilen (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Folkezoft (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Kindly don't assume my assumptions. I do indeed start from a place of assuming that other editors are acting in what they feel to be good faith. However, there are points where it becomes obvious that other editors are not, in fact, interested in fact finding, educating themselves, publishing neutral points of view, or engaging in intellectual discussion regarding the topic at hand. Talk page discussions regularly become filibusters, and it may be impossible to reach a consensus because one or two editors refuse to actually engage.

Are you referencing my single post on Talk:2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden? Where I said "This page should not exist. Trying to spin another bombastic campaign rally into a literal Nazi event is beyond sensational and certainly against Wikipedia:NPOV."? If you personally disagree with this statement that is your right, but I think it would require a fairly loose interpretation of Wikipedia policies to characterize it as some sort of general assumption of bad faith. Rob Roilen (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

👏👏👏 132.147.140.229 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This neutral point of view you want is simply not compatible with what is being discussed. By this logic, a film or book's critical response can not be referred to as "widely acclaimed" or "panned by critics", because this is not a neutral perspective. A completely neutral point of view is not possible when the discourse surrounding it is not neutral. If the vast majority of information being presented shows bias against or towards a particular response, it's dishonest to present the opposite response as equally reliable. For example, in an article covering slavery, it would not be acceptable to give the anti-abolitionist perspective the same level of credit as the abolitionist perspective for the sake of neutrality. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a good observation. The relevant section of the policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I very much understand that you and several of the other editors I've been talking to are not fans of Donald Trump or Republicans. Not that it should matter or that I even expect anyone to believe me, but I'm not a Trump or Republican supporter myself and have literally never voted for a Republican, and have no future plans to do so.

But when I come across what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia article about a campaign rally, and literally every source cited is a newspaper that has only ever published negative things about Trump and Republicans - sometimes outright falsehoods - while openly endorsing Democratic politicians and their associates, the only right thing to do as an editor is try to restore the neutrality of the article.

That is why I have removed some of the most sensational language where the sources cited either mischaracterized the context of certain remarks or provided no context at all. Like I said in the talk page, if editors can provide factually accurate sources that are also tonally neutral, I fully support using them. Rob Roilen (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, you are delibretely ignoring my point on why your standards for neutrality are unrealistic. Likewise, your standards for what is and isn't factually accurate is not the final say here, your agreement is not necessary to establish a concensus. Wikipedia's rules ultimately decide this, you cannot make these judgements based on what you believe belongs "in an encyclopedia". Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Brittanica or a dictionary, it is it's own entity with its own rules, rules you need to follow.

Second, my (or anyone else's) dislike for Trump does not disqualify anyone from editing articles on Trump if they are following the site's rules of conduct. Likewise, a supporter of Trump is not automatically disqualified either. If the information is verifiable by consensus, it is valid. Your own personal standards for what you think makes a source too biased to include is not Wikipedia's standards for what sources can be included. There is a long list of people and organizations labelled as unreliable to use as a source depending on the topic, do you have any proof that the sources included in the article in question are one of these? Once again, you cannot set your own standard for this.

Lastly, very few people have a neutral view of Donald Trump, so this expectation for a neutral tone is not possible. Donald Trump is not a neutral figure, so how can the tone of an article covering Trump remain "tonally neutral"? I understand you feel strongly about thw Nazi comparisons, but how would an article on Adolf Hitler or Mengele remain tonally neutral? You simply cannot do it, the subject matter cannot be presented neutrually. 64.228.236.176 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not ignoring anything; my standards for neutrality are Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

"NPOV...means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (emphasis added)

It also says:

"This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." (emphasis added)

As an example, here are two mainstream sources that describe the Madison Square Garden rally in positive terms:

[1]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-supporters-outside-madison-square-garden-say-exhilarating-rally-shows-ny-play

[2]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/10/27/donald-trump-holds-rally-at-madison-square-garden-new-york/

Why are these articles, or articles similar to these, not cited at all in the article about the rally? Rob Roilen (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS

what does the Telegraph say behind its paywall? headlines are not considered reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This is manipulative, especially the parts emphasized.

On the parts you emphasized: Editorial Bias refers to summarizing a source in a way that is biased. Editorial Bias is not adding sources that are biased.

You missed this part:

"It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." (Emphasis not added)

On your Fox News source, aside from the fact that Fox is listed as an unreliable source, are you aware that Fox News is consistently supportive of Donald Trump? If you are against adding sources from outlets consistently biased against Trump, why would you want a source from an outlet consistently biased towards Trump? Wouldn't this also be adding to the bias you are trying to avoid? 64.228.236.176 (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"If you are against adding sources from outlets consistently biased against Trump, why would you want a source from an outlet consistently biased towards Trump?"

Ah yes you are figuring it out in real time Rob Roilen (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse

Hello! Rob Roilen, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

You seem to have some questions on how Wikipedia works and its standards for inclusion of material. The Teahouse is a great place for new users to ask questions.

Briefly, Argument from Authority and other logical fallacies don't apply well here at Wikipedia because we do not engage in the creation of information or proof of trueness. We are a tertiary source that summarizes reliable sources to present verifiable information with due weight given to a topic's various facets. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

While there are many sources that Wikipedia may generally consider reliable, "reliable" should not mean "beyond scrutiny." "Reliability" should still be determined with care. Relying on a source just because it’s generally considered reputable can unintentionally skew neutrality, especially when sources on contentious topics may display implicit biases. Encouraging balanced assessments of sources is consistent with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and due weight. Rob Roilen (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

To discuss and debate a source's reliability, please visit WP:RSN. You may also be interested in reviewing WP:RSP. As for bias in reliable sources, WP:YESPOV provides a good explanation of why Wikipedia doesn't try to assert a neutral stance when reliable sources do not. We try to reflect the sources, including their points-of-view. That's why we call ourselves "editor" and not "authors". The hard part is coming to a consensus on how best to do that when considering multiple sources of varying quality (eg, HuffPo and BBC). EvergreenFir (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the references. I believe very strongly that Wikipedia's foundational principle of neutrality should take precedence over merely reflecting sources' biases. This principle isn’t about echoing a source’s viewpoint but rather about integrating diverse perspectives in a way that represents the topic fairly, accurately, and without leaning towards a single viewpoint.

By reflecting all sources—both their strengths and inherent biases—with balanced skepticism, Wikipedia avoids taking implicit stances and maintains a neutral, trustworthy stance across contentious subjects. Rob Roilen (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation

I am inviting you to state your case here. I have issued a report on this issue and am now informing you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents 64.228.236.176 (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Not listening

If you are told its not an RS issue you need to drop it. Please read wp:tenditous people will soon get fed up with aswering you every time you refuse to accept an answer. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

With respect, the conversation is not over yet, even if you personally might feel that it is. Rob Roilen (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It has been explained to you, if you refuse to drop it, it will not be a good look, but fine, you do not think you are doing any wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Original block template with a note about it having been replaced by a new, normal block

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Elli (talk | contribs) 03:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC) Noting that per discussion below, I've changed this to a non-AE block, so unblock requests can be dealt with without the added bureaucracy of AE, given the short block duration. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC) Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

You have been blocked for 24 hours (until 03:12:16, 3 November 2024) from editing, in response to persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, by Elli. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Block template replaced ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

To elaborate on this, you have opened multiple ANI threads, gotten your userpage deleted as an attack page and then recreated it complaining about said action, and the vast majority of your edits are arguing about American politics. If you continue editing in such a manner, you are likely to end up with a topic-ban or an indefinite block from the site. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems like an overreach.

- Why can't I open two ANI threads? Is there a limit? Do you even care about the context?

- I firmly believe the deletion of my attack page was in bad faith and a complete misuse of the "attack page" policy.

- Why can't I discuss contemporary American political issues? It's the country I live in, I find the topic interesting, I'm not the only editor holding similar points of view. My other edits have been about airplanes. How many talk page discussions about politics is too many?

I try discussing the reliability of sources in an article talk page and editors refer my behavior to admins. I try to take the discussion to the appropriate, very specific board for it and my discussion is immediately non-admin closed by an editor with a conflict of interest. I refer that direct violation of Wikipedia policy to the admin noticeboard and..... I'm the one who gets banned for 24 hours.

And now what if I think your conduct is unjustified? I guess I can't open a report about it without the fear of punishment. Rob Roilen (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

when I suggested you take your issues with sources to a noticeboard rather than discuss them within an article, why did you immediately recommend that administrators examine my Talk page?[3] soibangla (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Since I was one of the people who originally referred you to the noticeboards, I think I can offer a few more suggestions for you. You remain of course free to disregard the following, and delete this contribution from your talk page.

Now, I understand your frustration - sometimes, it looks like the policies on this website are an opaque wall of bureaucratic obstacles merely conceived to prevent editors from contributing. And right now, it may certainly feel to you like there's some concerted effort to attempt to stop you from introducing justified changes. But ultimately, what I've observed over the past few months of reading disputes like this one is that, at a certain point, the more you attempt to "fight back" against the tide, the less successful you'll seem to be. And this applies double when it comes to contentious topics. So - and this is meant with the utmost respect - please slow down, and when you are unblocked, try laying low and editing somewhere else. Remember - there is no rush for articles to be perfect ASAP. You don't have to edit this particular topic: Wikipedia is a work in progress, after all, with many pages in need of improvement. And, should your preferred changes not be accepted, do realize that it's not the end of the world, and accept it, at least for now. In some more weeks or months, you can perhaps try again, but right now, you are headed for an indefinite block. I'd even suggest withdrawing your unblock request below - it's only 24 hours, and it may show the other editors that you're willing to work within the process.

Oh, and by the way: an interest is not a conflict of interest. The editor merely being involved in the discussion, or having an opinion about it, does not automatically imply they have a COI. You can certainly question or criticize the editor's close of the discussion, but this is a serious accusation that would require concrete evidence. Failing the addition of said evidence, and if you're unwilling to withdraw your unblock request, I'd suggest at least retracting this. LaughingManiac (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard.

Here is why I strongly believe that the invocation of WP:BATTLEGROUND is unfounded and an abuse of authority, per the policy outlined on the page. The discussion in question is here.

- Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges or import personal conflicts - This is not a grudge or personal conflict. Although it could certainly be argued that other editors seem to have a personal conflict or grudge against me.

- nor is it the place to carry on ideological battles or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear - Since it's not the last part, @Elli is suggesting that an editor attempting to discuss source reliability on the specific noticeboard for that is "carrying on ideological battles." What's the point of having the board if I can't use it to open a discussion?

- In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making unilateral changes to policies - I did not make a unilateral change to policies.

- Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. - I did not "disrupt" Wikipedia unless, again, @Elli is implying that taking a very specific discussion to a very specific board is "disruptive." Per Wikipedia:POINT: If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If anything, there's a strong argument that the non-admin closure of my legitimate discussion was "disruptive", especially since it was immediately re-opened.

- Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation - The content of my remarks is unambiguous; I have been specifically trying to engage in a good faith discussion about a specific element of Wikipedia policy.

- Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. - I have not done this but at this point I can argue that other editors have indeed harassed me (like non-admin closing a legitimate discussion and referring me to ANI even though no policy was violated) and @Elli's abuse of authority with this block makes me feel intimidated and wary of even attempting to express myself here.

I genuinely do not understand the attitude of other editors in this situation. I attempted to discuss the reliability of sources on an article talk page and other editors who personally disagreed with me tried to have me sanctioned and said it was the wrong place. So, in good faith, I took the discussion to the very specific noticeboard meant for discussing the reliability of sources, and my discussion was immediately non-admin closed by an editor with a conflict of interest who later even admitted to being "inebriated". Then, I referred this blatant violation of Wikipedia policy to ANI, it was easily decided in my favor, the discussion of reliable sources was reopened, and... I was blocked from editing for 24 hours. Was the inebriated editor who blatantly violated policy to stifle my discussion sanctioned? Were the other editors who refused to engage in any real conversation sanctioned or addressed in any way?

@Elli has suggested that I could be banned from even discussing American politics on talk pages simply because that is the most recent topic I have discussed.

Surely I am not the only person who sees the grave issue here. This does not scream "Wikipedia is open to intellectual debate" and in fact suggests that there is very little possibility for someone who is legitimately concerned about an element of policy to ever even begin to make an argument.

Rob Roilen (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The block has expired. The original block that led to the request for copying the appeal had additionally already been converted to a normal block. There is now a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrative action review § Abuse of authority about the alleged administrative misconduct. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Rob Roilen (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Elli and Rob Roilen, a 24-hour arbitration enforcement block is usually too short to be meaningfully reviewable. Normally, unblock requests are procedurally accepted/declined when a block expires; copying this appeal to a noticeboard would lead to a discussion exceeding the block in length. That's not what an unblock request is for, though; that's something that can be dealt with separately in case the concern is tool misuse by an administrator. For example, after a 24-hour block that is perceived to be completely unjust, the concerns can be voiced on the blocking administrator's talk page by the editor whose block has expired, and taken to WP:AN by the user themselves in case the response is problematic.

The original idea behind arbitration enforcement blocks is that they can't be simply undone by other administrators, making them more persistent/strong than default blocks. The requirement for them to be appealable somehow, however, makes them unsuitable for short-duration blocks or situations where an unblock decline is more likely than a problematic unblock accept. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree that's fair. I was considering doing a longer block (perhaps a week), but didn't want to be too harsh as the first sanction. Would you have suggested a 24h non-AE block (and maybe a logged warning)? Elli (talk | contribs) 17:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Elli I'd appreciate a reply to my comments above. I would also appreciate if you copied my unblock request to the appropriate admin boards. Rob Roilen (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Admins don't usually review their own unblock requests, so I'll leave copying the request to someone uninvolved. However, I can respond to the issues you've raised. The main reason for your block wasn't just opening the second ANI thread (which you were substantively correct on), it's your general approach to this topic area. There's this discussion for example. Whenever you get told "no", it seems like you jump to another noticeboard to try to push your case, whether that be ANI or RSP.

The type of comments you've left is also well below what's expected in this topic area: You should be ashamed of yourselves for actively contributing to the degradation of open information sharing. is an example from the above discussion. Per above: Please explain to me how openly expressing my desire to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia by actively working to counter intellectually dishonest editors is against some sort of guideline. your goal seems to be fighting against other editors you deem "intellectually dishonest"; that's textbook BATTLEGROUND behavior. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Elli Is that what the request for copying is suggesting you do, though? Because I see it simply as a means for this to be brought to the attention of other admins when I have the inability to post because I am blocked, and I see that as your responsibility because you are the blocking administrator.

And again, I feel like you are personally completely misinterpreting what I've said and done, and that perhaps you are not the appropriate admin to handle this case.

Per Intellectual honesty, in order to avoid being perceived as intellectually dishonest:

- One's personal beliefs or politics do not interfere with the pursuit of truth

- Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted, even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis

- Facts are presented in an unbiased manner and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another

Some of the behavior of other editors directly fits the definition of intellectual dishonesty. When is it appropriate to call attention to this behavior? What if I genuinely, deeply feel that this is occurring here and impacting the integrity of the encyclopedia? Right now it seems like my input has been officially deemed unimportant. Rob Roilen (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

All unblock requests are at CAT:RFU and noone is required to copy a request anywhere else. In this case here, due to the nature of the block, someone would have to copy the appeal to a noticeboard before an unblock can be considered, but in case Elli feels obligated to do so, I'd rather recommend that she undoes the arbitration-enforcement part of this block because it adds absurd bureaucracy to 24-hour blocks and the admin action can be discussed independently of an unblock request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll change it to a normal block and a logged warning. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I was about to reply to your 17:03 message that I like the idea. I hadn't thought about this option. The warning can be appealed and the block can be normally reviewed, or, in case it is expired but was abusive, dealt with using the normal "talk to the admin, take it to WP:AN if that doesn't help" approach. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Per what you've mentioned, how am I supposed to assume good faith at this point and feel like taking the discussion to the admin's talk page would be productive? I am genuinely asking, because of course I'd like to assume good faith, but being blocked from voicing my thoughts by someone in a way I feel was unjust does not inspire confidence that that same person would admit any wrongdoing. If I believe the block was an abuse of authority, why shouldn't I take it directly to AN? Rob Roilen (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Because that's the approach recommended by multiple policies (Wikipedia:Administrators § Grievances by users ("administrator abuse"), Wikipedia:Dispute resolution § Noticeboards 2) and usually required by those who review the issue. Taking something directly to a noticeboard without attempting a discussion on the user's talk page usually just leads to the thread being closed or rejected purely for this reason. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Noted, thank you. I'm just not entirely sure what to say? "Hello yes I believe you abused your authority as an administrator" and they say "no I didn't", then what? Rob Roilen (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Well. I see your point. But I think, looking at the unblock request above, which I'm personally not reviewing because you have voiced concerns about my deletion and I could be seen as lacking impartiality, that you do have specific reasons why you see the block as abusive and can explain them, just as you'd have to explain them on a noticeboard anyway. And I'm pretty sure that Elli will take the time to address your concerns rather than just dismissing them. This still leaves the option of taking the matter to AN afterwards, but your actual message and the actual response will probably show why both should exist before the noticeboard thread is made. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Understood, thank you for the perspective. The fact that I'm unable to discuss this with the admin who blocked me on their actual talk page until the block expires is very much a Catch-22 and feels distinctly unfair. Rob Roilen (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Elli Perhaps you'd like to weigh in. My ability to speak and resolve this through the appropriate channels has been limited in a way I feel is unjust. You are the only person who can change that unless another administrator weighs in, and that won't happen unless you copy the unblock request to the appropriate board as requested. Rob Roilen (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have explained why I blocked you above. Nothing you've said since has given the impression that you at all understand those issues, or that you'll edit in a constructive, collaborative manner when unblocked (and your block will expire in a few hours anyway). Also, any other admin can see this unblock request and address it in the meantime; this request doesn't need to be copied to another noticeboard for that to take place. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Elli I am kindly asking you to copy it to the appropriate notice boards as per the unblock request template instructions. Rob Roilen (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

These instructions were specific to a type of block that was unnecessary and has been removed since. Unblock requests are normally handled on the talk page of the blocked user, not a noticeboard. There is no reason why yours would be preferred over all the others at CAT:RFU in this regard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree Ah I understand. To be clear, I don't want special treatment, I just want an uninvolved administrator to review this case because I genuinely believe the block was an abuse of authority.

I don't see what options I have anymore though. I've attempted to formally appeal to Elli in good faith. Rob Roilen (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I had misinterpreted the request and I didn't properly explain this. You're already doing everything correctly. The template {{unblock}} contains code that automatically adds your request to a category full of unblock requests, and there's a sadly-too-small group of individual administrators having a look at them and reviewing them in their free time. This leads to delays of sometimes months. Some appeals are quickly and simply declined on sight, and some are easy to accept too. Yours is tricky; I hope we can agree that properly reviewing this situation would take a while. This is not your fault.

What makes the situation a bit absurd is that the block is so short. There probably have already been multiple administrators looking at this discussion and thinking "I can just wait less than a day and this will have resolved itself; why should I get involved?"

This is one of the reasons why we sometimes say that Wikipedia is not a court. The people at a court are professionals, paid to ensure a fair process. We're just a volunteer community. Blocks expire. Most expired blocks are never thoroughly individually reviewed. Unblock requests are for dealing with current blocks, not the past. In less than 24 hours, your block will be in the past, though, and the default "talk to the admin, take it to WP:AN if that doesn't help" approach applies then. I understand how Catch-22 this must feel but I hope you can see why it ended up being like this. Perhaps someone even does review your request during the 24 hours, but you'd either be unblocked or not unblocked, and you'd still be in the same situation. The unblock request review itself wouldn't even make a difference. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I appreciate the in-depth explanation, that all makes sense to me.

I'd like to think that there are admins here who can see that this admin conduct was completely uncalled for. The length of the ban is irrelevant, since there are still editors casting aspersions about me and doubting my good faith and I can't defend myself.

Elli This is my final formal request that you unblock me. So far you have not engaged with any of my attempts to discuss this here, so this doesn't exactly feel like a two-way street. Rob Roilen (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to unblock you here. If another administrator unblocks you, or after your block expires, you are welcome to take my action to WP:XRV or WP:AN if you consider it abusive/unfair and think it merits further review. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Elli Noted. I will consider this discussion to be the appropriate prerequisite for taking the incident to one of those noticeboards. Rob Roilen (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
@ToBeFree I mention copying the request simply because it is part of the template, and because having my unblock request copied over when I personally cannot do it would maintain the appearance of good faith administration. I understand what you are saying about the AE part of the block though. Rob Roilen (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to criticize your following of the block template's instructions, which did explicitly ask you to request this. I just wanted to clarify that this procedure creates a strange situation for very short blocks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel, you need to read wp:forumshop. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Your continued discouragement that I attempt to discuss topics I genuinely find very important is dismaying. Rob Roilen (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not what you have been told, you need to actually wp:listen and WP:DROPTHESTICK, read WP:NOTDUMB and stop trying to win arguments by wp:badgering the project until you get your way. But I will stop replying to you here, for the reason stated, badgering. Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, this is a collaborative project. No matter how important you find something, if the community feel you're just wasting our time with pointless discussions then you need to stop. You don't get to dictate to the community what's important and while we can to some extent just ignore discussions, it's a lot more difficult when they're at highly monitored community noticed boards like ANI or RSN. While AARV isn't quite so highly monitored it's still intended as a place for dealing with issues that are important to the community rather than only to one editor. You're free to write a blog where you talk about what you feel is important or join some other community where they would agree whatever you have to say is important. Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nil Einne Why is my clearly stated goal of attempting to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia by discussing the reliability of a source not important to the community? It's such a specific thing that there's a board entirely dedicated to it, and that's where I went, specifically after editors suggested I take the discussion off of talk pages. Shutting down my discussion after less than a single day does not suggest that the community you speak of is legitimately interested in good faith discussion.

And again, it seems like there is still more to discuss about the reliability of the source. It's unfortunate that the actual discussion remains closed. Rob Roilen (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There have been at least 21 discussions on CNN. No one else felt you raised anything that had been considered before or that was likely to lead to any change on the consensus on CNN. Plenty of editors directly addressed the points you raised, you may not feel they addressed them sufficiently but it seems likely nearly everyone else does. A discussion which is not going to do anything other to re-affirm what was already established in 21 previous discussions is not surprisingly seen as a pointless waste of everyone's time. To be clear, this doesn't mean it's impossible discuss CNN ever again, but it would need to with a lot more high quality evidence suggesting the need for a change than you demonstrated. Most likely this would need to come from an editor with vast more experience in how we assess the reliability of sources than you because IMO it's clear that one of the problems is you don't really understand that or a lot of other things about how wikipedia works. Nil Einne (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify my vast more experience point, considering the 21 previous discussions, while consensus can change over time and I'd sat we have gotten stricter on sources in the past 5 years ago (although some of those discussions were after) in this case over this specific issue and considering the communities general sentiment at RSN it's likely there either needs to have been a significant change in CNN's content which I don't think there has been or an editor needs to be able to present a lot of high quality evidence in a way that is a lot clearer than previously to get a concrete change. This is very difficult even for experienced editors to do.

For example in a recent RfC on the UK's Daily Telegraph which was focused on one very specific area and did lead to some sort of minor change after an extreme amount of discussion; it's clear that the evidence presented wasn't as compelling as the editor who started the RfC thought. The editor spent IIRC several weeks gathering evidence with the help of others and drafting that RfC. The editor had planned to start an RfC on a different source but with the same narrow focus but given the outcome of the Telegraph one realised that this would not be productive and so abandoned that plan.

And just to re-iterate this was from an experienced editor who understood the community norms about how we assess sources than you IMO a lot better, as well as our policies and guidelines but they were still wrong about how compelling their evidence would be to the community. It's incredibly unlikely an inexperienced editor will understand things well enough to be able to present such a case and the assessment of basically everyone who's look at it no matter how they feel about CNN is you did not do so in that RfC despite multiple comments from you.

BTW, how the editor handled this demonstrates another thing. For pretty much everyone with sufficient experience, there are times when you thought the community consensus would clearly be one way when it turns out it wasn't. There are times when you may strongly disagree with the community consensus. Any editor here needs to be able to learn from when the community consensus is against them. In the Telegraph RfC case it wasn't even that consensus on a whole was against them, but there was no consensus, and as I said after a lot of discussion and heat it might have sort of lead to some small change; yet the editor still understood this meant it was foolish to try the same thing with another source.

And equally important editors also need to be able to accept community consensus that is against how they feel no matter how strongly, which means they can't keep trying to change that consensus or act as if there isn't that consensus. To be clear, this means I expect for most of us there are cases where we dislike and disagree with the community consensus but we operate under that consensus nevertheless. If for some reason an editor can't, generally in such cases the only real option is to avoid situations where it comes up as much as possible or if even that's not enough some editors do voluntarily leave over it.

One thing I'm not sure if anyone has directly mentioned to you but WP:NOTBURO etc means you cannot expect to just read every single one of our policies, guidelines and supplements etc and expect to understand perfectly how things work around here. In fact, while I'm not in the camp of those who feel it's often unnecessary read them I do acknowledge that just reading them will often mean an editor still doesn't understand that well how we operate around here and in some cases can even cause more confusion.

BTW especially in light of what's said below I'd emphasise that there were ~4500 words in that discussion. I don't know how many were from you but I'd say at least 1/3 were from other editors. This is more than the average discussion at RSN so it's it's not even like there was no discussion. In fact there seems to have been ample discussion for what was raised.

Also to repeat what I've said above in a different way, please understand that any discussion on a community noticeboard with the exception of the help desks etc should generally be something the needs input from the wider community. I mean there are some limited cases when it's okay for an editor to seek clarification just for themselves but this should be done sparingly and also requires the editor to be able to quickly accept and understand the clarification that was offered rather than continue to debate the point just because they're not satisfied with the responses. We don't do prolonged noticeboard discussions just to satisfy one specific editor be it you or anyone else.

As has been mentioned before, if you want to better understand how things operate around here, you can ask at the help desks which as they are intended for that purpose are generally fine with confused editors trying to understand stuff, although do bear in mind even they will have their limits on how much editors can explain stuff to you before you need to get it.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

One final clarification, I'm aware your examples are new. However the general sentiment seems to be that the points they raised are not something that is new or compelling. On a personal level, I'd go as far as to suggest that it's likely similar issues have been raised in all previous 21 discussions.

And further about the experience editor point, I think an experienced editor is likely to understand that a dispute over the framing over a quote in a single article is unlikely to lead to a change in the status of CNN something mentioned by editors in that discussion. (There was actually a lot of debate about one particular issue and the articles that dealt with it and how this was framed etc in the recent Telegraph RfC but there wasn't only one article, there were other issues raised and there are reasons why the particular issue was considered much more compelling for that specific limited purpose RfC.)

Further I think an experienced would not have used Fox as an example, since they would better understand the recent concerns over Fox. While it's true our assessment of Fox News was already less accepting of it even before the most recent concerns, ultimately the recent stuff combined with the ages and that I'd suggest even the evidence against Fox was much more compelling even pre-dominion and especially much more compelling than what you presented means you trying to use Fox News as an example was always likely to be more harmful to the case you were trying to make than in support.

Bearing in mind also that while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments have a bit more weight at RSN than they do elsewhere since equal treatment of sources is something we strive for, they're still far less compelling that just considering the source and its problems without comparing a great deal to how we treat other sources and why.

I'm fairly sure WP:RGW has been mentioned to you before, but it's important you understand that we can't correct problems in the world. If Fox News and other sources on the "right" are on the whole worse than similarly popular and mainstream sources on the "left", then they will be treated worse on Wikipedia. We are not going to remove left leaning sources just to try and be fair or balanced (a sort of pun). Even if those sources are also imperfect, if they aren't bad enough then they may still be allowed while other sources often aren't.

I have an interesting perspective here. As someone who grew up in Malaysia before I moved to New Zealand, I have only limited experience with CNN. But I've always and still feel that even the CNN International arm are fairly biased to an American and Western PoV. Even the BBC World News, while fairly UK and Western biased are less so than CNN IMO. Al Jazeera has an interesting mix of bias but even they, IMO can have a Western bias in a number of areas.

While I think you're technically allowed to discuss the Arab - Israeli conflict on your talk page it's probably not something you should be thinking about a great deal at this stage so I'll only briefly mention that IMO, CNN has generally been terribly biased in favour of Israel, BBC a fair amount less but still fairly so too. All based on my impression before the recent flareup. Al Jazeera is obviously in the opposite direction and is one of the few okay sources we have in this. It seems to have so far survived in that regard.

Note that I used to watch Al Jazeera a bit, in part because it's free but it was also a good way to keep informed of world news in some ways better than BBC and other sources because it was IMO better at covering stuff from Africa and elsewhere than them; and all this meant I could mostly listen to it in the background while doing stuff and keep informed. I stopped in part because I find the A-I coverage generally depressing and when I have watched it they have been fairly saturated with coverage which not surprisingly meant they were also far less useful for finding out what's going on in the world.

But also because as much as I feel Al Jazeera provides an important perspective I do feel they sometimes go too far and otherwise do and say stuff which I find unhelpful and annoying. While this is their live news reports which is something we rarely use I get the impression it's also in their other coverage and this all unfortunately may one day lead to them being less accepted here. In other words, even I as someone who thinks they offer a very important perspective which I tend to agree with far more than the BBC let alone CNN, recognises that their coverage has problems.

Back to CNN, more recently, I've also come to understand they are excessively sensationalistic as unfortunately a lot of the media is nowadays but something made worse by the fact they're a profit oriented company with a 24 hour news network in a world where there's often nothing that interesting. (I think it was Jon Stewart who said CNN is the sort of thing great for stuff like the September 11 attacks in the US, but fortunately those sort of things are rare.) This is sometimes a lot of news whether print, online or broadcast also suffer from in a variety of ways. And IMO it's well recognised that at least part of the problem is how they are able to draw views for that all important advertising especially with the modern problem of getting enough revenue to exist with the way the markets etc have changed and certain companies like Google and Facebook dominate the ad space.

Given my concerns, I'm not happy that Chinese, Russian, Singaporean, Malaysian, Indian and other sources are sources we treat with much more concerns than sources with such a Western etc bias. However I can also see why it has to be like this because many of the sources clearly do have significant problems which makes them far less reliable. In other words, it's a problem with the world I cannot fix and so I have to accept that it is how it is. This doesn't mean I can't try to mould how we treat various sources but it does mean I have to accept there will be differences no matter how unfair it may seem that those perspectives are less represented in the sources we use.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive commentary, I do appreciate your perspective. I even agree with you for the most part.

But what I am trying to do with CNN is not have CNN at large considered "unreliable" and shown in a red box at RS/P. I simply think there is a strong argument to consider splitting off CNN's political commentary and providing a caveat regarding its implicit bias rendering commentary inaccurate, as has been done with other sources.

I think any rational adult understands that a discussion like this takes much longer than 24 hours, so closing my RS/N discussion before a single day had passed was a complete misuse of policy in favor of what appears to be a supermajority.

And I still believe very strongly that my examples of CNN's recent political commentary demonstrated undeniable inaccuracy. I genuinely believe that the editors trying to shut down that discussion were violating policy or at the very least violating the entire spirit of debate at Wikipedia. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Walk away

I'm pleading with you, now. Promise the community you'll walk away from American politics, for six months. Otherwise, you're likely end up t-banned for who knows how long. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Look, what are we talking about here? Genuinely. I appreciate your effort to reach out to me, but I did take my deeper concerns to a very specific board, in order to avoid clogging up talk pages on articles. Now I've spent two days trying to get that discussion opened again so I can, in good faith, discuss the reliability of a particular source which undoubtedly causes many disagreements between editors.

Silencing me indefinitely for that is wrong, on a human level, not just a Wikipedia policy level. I've lost count of the number of editors calling the appeals a "time sink" or "sealioning" while they simultaneously outright refuse to allow the actual conversation to even take place at all and demand that I be banned.

I'm trying to appeal to common sense, here. I don't need to edit American politics articles or discuss things on their talk pages if I'm spending my efforts at RS/N. Rob Roilen (talk) 03:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not the biggest fan of CNN either. But the Wiki-community (via consensus) has judged it to be a reliable source. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

And I do understand that, and I don't even want Wikipedia to list CNN as an "unreliable source" or something extreme like that. I just am trying to start a discussion about how I think it would be fair to consider breaking off the "political commentary" segment of CNN into a separate category on RS/P that has a caveat about potential bias. I don't know how to get more reasonable than that, and now I'm blocked for a week before the Administrative Action Review was even completed. Rob Roilen (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This block is unreasonable because:

a) There is an open Administrative Action Review discussion I am involved in that has not been resolved.

b) Disruptive editing "is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia." I am currently in the middle of a discussion that stems from my genuine desire to discuss the reliability of a source on the specific board for that purpose. This is the very essence of "building the encyclopedia". For this reason, the block violates the blocking policy.

Rob Roilen (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First and foremost, I have not participated in the RSN, ANI or the AARV discussion, and I do not have enough interest in American politics to form strong opinions one way or another on the reliability of CNN. So you can consider me as very uninvolved. On being blocked for disruptive editing, your recent comments including this indicate a continuation of battleground behavior since your last block. Moreover, creating an AARV thread to review your 24-hour block doesn't align with discuss[ing] the reliability of a source, which you have stated as your primary intention. Taking other editors to ANI or admin actions to AARV just continues to use up other editors' time for no good reason, and I would have blocked indefinitely myself, so this block is clearly justified. I'd strongly recommend you to return to productive editing if you are given a chance to return. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:11, 4 November 2024 (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.

@SarekOfVulcan Per WP:BLOCKFAQ: "If you can show that you won't continue the behavior, the block should be lifted." I do not understand what it is I am supposed to not do - argue my case in an Administrative Action Review? I am genuinely confused about the scope and timing of this. Rob Roilen (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I will break my self-imposed exile to say this.

You have been blocked more than once, that should be enough to tell you that even if you think you are right, the people who administer this site do not. So let's use a working analogy, if your boss tells you to clean the bog, you do so or get the sack, even if that is not your job.

So even if you are right (for god's sake read WP:NOTDUMB), that does not matter, and all that will happen is you will get longer and longer blocks until you are no longer an issue. That may even include losing access to your talk page (and also please read wp:sock).

You are not going to get your way, no matter how much you talk, you will just be BARRED. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I am reviewing this block. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I am arguing that what you are talking about is wrong on a human level, and not just a Wikipedia policy level. A minority dissenting voice appeared and was immediately squashed; banned from commenting. The policy used to ban me doesn't apply, per the points in my appeal, so this ban is clearly to punish me and not to prevent me from damaging the encyclopedia. The implication is that my desire to discuss the reliability of sources is somehow damaging the encyclopedia. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Just.. find a more pleasurable activity than writing words on a website to cause other people to write words back at you. And in what way does the color of a row in a table matter? It is just something editors have determined through discussions to form consensus. You might be unhappy with it, but we all gotta deal with not being able change certain things in our lives somehow. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It is common knowledge at this point that Wikipedia articles, and especially their ledes, show up as one of the first results on search engines and sometimes even get an entire sidebar in search results. I have noticed entirely too many times that articles with decidedly non-neutral tone appear when searching for political commentary, and many times commentary from CNN is cited as sources in these articles. I take this kind of thing seriously, I believe that the average person is unduly influenced and misinformed at times by this commentary and that affects the world we all live in as these people apply their distorted understandings to reality.

I would appreciate if this block was undone, according to the reasons in my appeal above. Rob Roilen (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

0xDeadbeef I genuinely do not understand why you are referencing the comment in your denial as "battleground behavior". Please explain to me how pleading my case in an admin review, responding to comments, and trying to provide relevant context somehow aligns with the battleground policy. Rob Roilen Rob Roilen (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I implore you to reexamine this according to the specific policy. Editors are now calling for me to be banned from even discussing the reliability of sources. This is wrong Rob Roilen (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Rob, at this point just give up. This is getting you nowhere. If you keep going you're only going to get your block extended, or worse. Great Mercian (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's getting me nowhere, no one is actually engaging with me rationally. I don't want to be part of a community that can't tolerate a minority dissenting voice and abuses policy to silence it. And then when I attempt to use the appropriate channels to appeal my case I'm told that I'm "wasting time" by admins as if there is some sort of secret time limit on discussions. As if these, what, 25 people determine the course of the entire encyclopedia? There is no actual possibility of reasonable discussion under these circumstances. Someone wanted to discuss the reliability of a source and was silenced. That is wrong. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Trying to help you, but you're not listening, bud. You got two choices. Change your behavior or the community will show you the door. We don't have rights here, only privileges. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Change what behavior? I asked a specific question in my block appeal: what behavior am I supposed to change in order to have the block undone? I have so far been ignored by the blocking admin. This block is meant to punish me, which is against blocking policy. And of course, I can't argue that case on the appropriate board now. This is textbook censorship of dissent and abuse of authority. Rob Roilen (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You have been told MULTIPLE TIMEs to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and have only doubled down on it. Blocking you for repeated WP:IDHT is not censorship. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If you examine the discussions that lead to this, you will see multiple examples of me asking specific questions in good faith and being ignored. I have asked many, many times for examples of specific policy violations and have been ignored, especially by admins. Arguing that I am somehow "battling" or "attacking" others for simply trying to discuss what I feel has been a drastic infringement of my speech sets such an incredibly worrying precedent for any future minority dissenting voice who wants to participate, is sanctioned, and then tries to appeal their case by examining policy. Rob Roilen (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are plenty of dissenting voices, you see them all the time on RSN, ANI etc and these editors have no problem expressing their dissent where relevant without being subject to any sanction. And 25 editors is actually a lot of editors for most consensus decisions. I'm fairly sure the majority of editors subject to community sanctions were sanctioned as the result of discussions with fewer participants. And even a number of RSPS entries are from discussions with fewer participants. While wikipedia has quite a few more active editors, many editors chose not to participate in any given discussion. Particularly on a high profile boards, you can assume that many more editors have seen a discussion than have decided to participate. Also you're still treating wikipedia way too much as a court of law or some place with clearly defined rules when there needs to be a rule which perfectly applies to any given situation or else what you're doing is fine and you're able to argue whether a rule does apply to something. But that isn't how wikipedia works. Plenty of editors have tried to explain to you why it's disruptive to continually start pointless threads on high profile noticeboards and then refuse to accept what everyone who participated is telling you. And there's no question that your threads are pointless when everyone who participated and anyone who didn't participate but offered views elsewhere agrees. In fact many threads which at least have two or three dissenting voices have are often still fairly pointless. BTW, as you've been told before, you like me and everyone else here has absolutely no right to speech here so you're never going to get anywhere if that's how you view Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and appreciate your continued input. My question though is what is supposed to happen when someone comes to Wikipedia, uses their best judgement to assess integrity in good faith, and determines that there appears to be a significant issue? Maybe the consensus against them is 100 to 1 and even administrators refuse to hear them out, but there are simply verifiable lapses in adherence to policy. What then? The person is supposed to just give up and walk away without trying to meaningfully contribute to something they find important? Even when that thing influences millions of people every day? Rob Roilen (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Rob Roilen, I hope you don't mind if I give my opinion as someone who is completely uninvolved & inexperienced, who literally stumbled across this all a few days ago & has been watching in the background.

The problem isn't in what you say, it's how you're saying it. People are responding to you, but you're so focused that you're missing their answers.

I can tell that you genuinely feel very strongly about what you're saying; you're clearly smart enough to know that the more strongly we feel about something, the harder it is to see the bigger picture? Could this be happening with you?

Regardless of all that, Wikipedia is a website, with it's own rules. Neither you, nor I, have any rights here. There is no free speech. The website works a certain way and you can either go with that or not use the site.

Wikipedia works through consensus. You've raised many different threads and dozens of editors have replied to you. I've seen them try to reason with you, try to explain and answer your questions, even plead with you - but you're so laser-focused that you're either missing or disregarding their answers as unsatisfactory.

Please, if you take one thing from this post, I'm asking that you take a few days off - the one week block would be great for that. You can then come back and look through the history of the posts, write down any questions that haven't been genuinely answered, then rephrase them in a clear and concise manner.

I can't - and won't - enter into the complexities of how Wikipedia works, as so many others have done that already. If you genuinely care about Wikipedia, please realise that you're not going to change anything if you carry on this way, you're just going to get blocked.

Work with everyone here, not against them. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your input, I do appreciate it that you chimed in. I understand your point about Wikipedia having its own rules, but to that point I have been attempting to abide by those rules to the best of my knowledge and have yet to receive a reply from the people who have limited my speech that directly addresses how I have apparently broken those rules. The reasoning for this unblock decline references a comment that I feel would have to be pretty loosely interpreted to find evidence of "battleground behavior" - and since it is not an explicit insult, act of vandalism, accusation, etc., I think the room for error in admin interpretation warrants additional consideration.

WP:BLUD even provides an additional stipulation explaining how someone in my position may need to reply to many editors and admins in the process of an administrative report. It states that "It is disruptive to say they are bludgeoning and link here if they are simply replying to other's questions or claims, and doing so in a responsible manner."

In the meantime, a number of editors have accused me of things, insulted me, assumed bad faith, and generally objected to my tone before considering my input, and then further accused me of "bludgeoning", "sealioning" and "battleground behavior" when I tried to address their comments. This is explicitly against the mission of Wikipedia, if we are to consider the stated policies and guidelines meaningful.

At a certain point I think it becomes fair for me to assume that many of these editors simply do not agree with me personally, and are appealing to policy and essays in an effort to have me silenced. I welcome their personal disagreement as long as it does not interfere with good faith discussion, especially about reliable sources for the encyclopedia. Rob Roilen (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Please just give up. Just accept you've been blocked. There's no point needlessly agruing about it. Great Mercian (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I believe this block violates Wikipedia's blocking policy as it appears punitive rather than preventive. My intention has always been to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia’s neutrality. The “battleground behavior” claim misinterprets my appeal for common sense in discussions, which I consider an important part of collaborative editing.

Per WP:BLOCKFAQ I have requested that the blocking administrators clarify which behavior they see as falling under the disruptive editing policy, yet I’ve received no specific guidance on what behavior to amend. This lack of communication undermines trust in administrative decisions and discourages minority perspectives. I ask for reconsideration and constructive feedback on necessary behavioral adjustments.

To be more specific about my request for clarity, at the moment I genuinely feel that I am being asked to say "I will not open a discussion about the reliability of sources ever again", and that if I do not agree to that, I face being blocked indefinitely. Everything stems from what I believe to be the obviously improper handling of my RS/N discussion. I was advised to take my discussion to RS/N here.

Just documenting here that Hy_Brasil was asked by HoadRog about hastily closing the CNN RS/N discussion and offered no reply before the question was characterized as "nonsense" and deleted.

I believe this section within WP:BLUD is very applicable: [[4]]

Rob Roilen (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It is a good block, and it has now been replaced by an indefinite one for the trolling done while the appeal was open. You can appeal that block separately. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2024 (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.

I don't think anyone feels you should commit to "not open a discussion about the reliability of sources ever again" since starting a discussion about the reliability of sources isn't something inherently wrong or forbidden. In fact it's something good when done correctly.

I do personally think and am fairly sure others agree that you should not be opening RSN discussions until you far better understand how we assess sources and all the other aspects of what goes in to being able to open a thread. As I've said this won't come simply from reading our policies and guidelines but will only come from editing here, reading what others say and understanding it even when you don't agree with it, seeing what the community consensus is and how it develops and various other things. Very likely and especially if you are going to start one on a source with as much discussion as CNN, it it would take many months of contribution to RSN without opening any threads but instead just offering your comments where relevant sometimes replying but avoiding bludgeoning and accepting and learning from when community consensus is against you even if you disagree with it.

To be clear, I don't think this is something you should be doing anytime soon either. Even without a topic ban, I'd suggest you stay away from RSN more or less completely until you have a lot more experience. Then if you still feel it's something you wish to do, start slow and start to contribute to discussions in a small way. Then if you still want to and you're able to contribute productively as e.g. others might reference and agree with or expand on what you've said you can contribute more often and in more depth.

But it isn't just RSN. It's unlikely you should be opening ANI threads or XRV or starting discussions on any policy pages or frankly anything on the Wikipedia side and only participating when you are named. And even when you are named, be very careful that you aren't bludgeoning etc. If after one or two comments you haven't convinced people of your PoV you'll generally need to accept how they view things and not try to convince them further no matter how you feel it's inconsistent with however you read some policy or guideline or that their view lacks common sense or whatever else.

Frankly even for just trying to attract attention to help resolve disputes, I'd suggest you stay away from places like BLPN, FTN etc unless someone else has already opened a thread and even then bear in mind all I said earlier about avoiding bludgeoning etc. Even for DRN which is a fairly structured place which likely reduces the risk you'll do stuff which gets you into trouble, I'd suggest you let some other party open the thread. They're going to need to agree to it for it to be accepted so there's no reason it would have to be you.

All this means you need to concentrate on working on articles both by directly editing and discussing changes on talk pages. I think a recent American politics topic ban is likely so this won't be a a choice but even if it was I'd strongly suggest that whatever you chose to work on should be very far from that, or anything else contentious. (I won't say all CTOP areas since technically all BLPs are CTOP however you can use CTOP and community discretionary sanctions as guidance of places you should take care with and potentially avoid.)

Since you are not indefinitely blocked at the moment, you don't actually have to tell anyone what you plan to work on when you come back and can instead just wait that 1 week. But I'd suggest you think about it and consider careful whether you can do so without getting into excessive disputes because you don't agree with how we treat various sources, or OR and our verifiability requirements etc. BTW, I'd also suggest you withdraw the appeal and make no more and wait it out, spending the time thinking about stuff like this.

Oh and it should go without saying you need to stop saying editors are dishonest or lack common sense or anything of that sort, no matter whether you are specifically naming any particular editor nor how much you feel it is justified. (While there are some things which can be personal attacks which are okay to say in certain cases where there is sufficient evidence it's justified, most of what you've said are stuff that are frankly unlikely to ever be justified. And in so much as some stuff can be justified, your judgment of when it is, is very far from the communities'.)

I've moved this to the end as it's a sort of aside although could come into play for any topic ban. Note that on Wikipedia the worst we tend to do is indefinite which is distinctly different from permanent. While in some rare cases someone has burnt their bridges so badly that indefinite is possibly going to be permanent in most case indefinite just means for an indeterminate length of time. Sometimes it can even be for a very short length of time depending on precisely why there was need for the indefinite. More commonly it might be a reasonable length of time but it will depend a lot on the situation.

6 months is a standard we often use as a minimum for a lot of appeals but this doesn't mean it's automatically all good after 6 months. The editor also needs to be able to convince us that the problems won't repeat, which for an editor who isn't site blocked/banned generally means there needs to be enough productive editing elsewhere with few enough problems that we don't think they'll repeat; along with what they can say to convince us they won't repeat. All this also means that if you think you're being asked to permanently stop opening RSN discussions, you're almost definitely wrong since it's not something we're ever likely to do. I mean for stuff not allowed here e.g. personal attacks then yes editors are asked to permanently stop making them, but that's sort of a different kettle of fish.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, when I say except when the thread concerns you, I mean if someone has started a discussion about you it's likely fine for you to contribute in a limited way. I'm not suggesting you should be opening threads to dispute some action taken against you or start a thread to try and reverse a close or anything of that sort. Don't open threads yourself point blank. Nil Einne (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

As a final word of advice, one way you can IMO assess whether you're ready for RSN would likely be if you can read that CNN thread and see how wrong you were. If you can't, there's a fair chance you're not ready for RSN. To a lesser extent I would say this also applies to the ANI and AARV threads. Nil Einne (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for replying after I said final but it occurred to me my last comment could be misunderstood. I'm not saying you need to agree that CNN is perfectly fine. It'll likely be fine to contribute even if you continue to personally think CNN is a trash source we should never use. I'd also said it's fine if you continue to think that the death thing etc are a great example of why we should never use CNN. However if you want to contribute successfully to RSN I do think at a minimum you should be able to understand why that thread was never likely to achieve anything productive and your continually contributions were not likely to change anyone's mind and that no matter how much you personally felt they were wrong, you had to accept community consensus was against you on the various issues you raised. Nil Einne (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I do wonder whether we're just being trolled here given that I had neglected the first section on this page. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What exactly are you implying..? Rob Roilen (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef: it was added quite recently [5] (after your decline) but seriously it’s well past time to indef. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you...really implying what I think you're implying?? Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here Rob Roilen (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Liz I see in one of your recent posts in the ANI discussion that my inability to participate in the discussion is not lost on you. It could even be argued that this block and the ensuing pile-on has been disruptive. I ask that you consider my unblock appeal with this in mind. Rob Roilen (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

UTRS

UTRS appeal #96210, UTRS appeal #96469, & UTRS appeal #96614 have all been declined. JBW (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

email

To answer your email to me:

1. If you really honestly believe that you are blocked "for asking questions", then that is yet one more piece of evidence that you don't understand the reasons for the block, which means that if unblocked you would be unable to avoid doing the same things again.
2. You refer to bring "blocked from Wikipedia forever". It will be forever only if you can't show an understanding of the reasons for the block and undertake not to do the same again. As I told you at UTRS, You are not going to be unblocked because you keep on adding more and more examples of exactly what led to your being blocked.
3. If what you have been told "doesn't make sense" to you, then that is another form of words saying that you don't understand the reasons for the block. It has all been explained to you, and if those explanations don't make sense to you then it's difficult to know what else could be said to help you understand. However, I have just one suggestion which may possibly help you so I will try offering you that suggestion. If it doesn't help, then I honestly can't think of anything else that may help. Try re-reading the things that have been said to you, but this time try to imagine that they were written in good faith by people who genuinely believed that the things they said to you were accurate descriptions of problems with your approach. I'm not asking you to believe that they were right to think that, just to try to imagine how things looked to people who held that view. If you can do that it may enable you to see why you are blocked

Since you are now using email for the same kind of thing which led to loss of talk page access, email access will go the same way.