User talk:Rob Roilen

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

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)

---

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."

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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|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 [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/noticeboard#CNN|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, @[[User:Elli|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, @[[User:Elli|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 @[[User:Elli|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? :@[[User:Elli|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. :[[User:Rob Roilen|Rob Roilen]] ([[User talk:Rob Roilen#top|talk]]) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|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 [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/noticeboard#CNN|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, @[[User:Elli|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, @[[User:Elli|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 @[[User:Elli|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? :@[[User:Elli|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. :[[User:Rob Roilen|Rob Roilen]] ([[User talk:Rob Roilen#top|talk]]) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|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 [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/noticeboard#CNN|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, @[[User:Elli|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, @[[User:Elli|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 @[[User:Elli|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? :@[[User:Elli|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. :[[User:Rob Roilen|Rob Roilen]] ([[User talk:Rob Roilen#top|talk]]) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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)