User talk:Nstouski

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. DrKay (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block by DrKay

Summary of events:

I was involved in a difference of opinion over some article content; I preferred an older, long-standing version of the text while others preferred a newer one. User:DrKay was among the latter group.

On the recommendation of a more experienced user, I opened an RfC, in which I referred to two events in the 1980s (with no reliably established dates, but according to some involved parties, separated by approximately two years) as happening "around the same time".
DrKay objected to my wording, and edited my comment, saying "There was no source that said they had a relationship at the time of conception"
I reverted their edit, on the grounds that I had not alleged any specific ordering of events, just noted that they were broadly proximate.
DrKay blocked me indefinitely from Wikipedia, including my talk page (until I requested that this page be unblocked for appeal purposes)
When asked for his reasoning, DrKay cited "contentious material" without elaboration.

It feels that DrKay and I have different linguistic intuitions. I'd say the below are unremarkable statements:

Google and Apple entered the smartphone market at around the same time (roughly a year apart)
Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace conceived of their theories of evolution at around the same time (up to several years apart)
Diana and Charles commenced their affairs at around the same time (up to a year apart)

And that none of them imply a specific ordering of the two events they concern. I appreciate these things are subjective, but note that it would have been very easy to write a sentence like "conceived during their relationship". I did not choose that phrasing, because it alleges something I neither believe nor consider appropriate in an encyclopedia. I felt it important to acknowledge the broadly similar timeframes because it's one of the main reasons the speculation exists at all. Nstouski (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The blocking admin interpreted my phrasing "around the same time as" (an uncontroversial observation of rough proximity) to mean "at the same time as" (which would be contentious, and a WP:BLP issue). I acknowledge that language is subjective and that authors cannot control how their writings are interpreted, but I can with authority attest that I had no intention of making the statement DrKay took from my words; if I had, I (as most English speakers) would have used the second phrasing. While I feel that DrKay's interpretation was an unusual one, I would have been happy to work with them to find a phrasing that communicated the relevant facts without any perception of inappropriateness, but the content of their edit message suggested they had simply misread my text, and I had not realised they had administrative privileges (in the context, informed by other interactions with this user, I took 'blocking' to mean the same as muting on other platforms), so I reverted and was immediately banned. I will certainly be more careful in the face of similar threats in the future. For additional context, including diffs and a summary of events, please above section of this page. Nstouski (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Maybe we can unblock you around the same time as you were blocked? Context is important, and claiming that in this context two years are "around the same time" is absurd. Particularly when this is part of a wider campaign to make the rumors more prominent, and the denials appear less credible. Huon (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks for your time, Huon.

when this is part of a wider campaign to make the rumors more prominent, and the denials appear less credible

'Campaign' seems a bit uncharitable. This isn't my main account (don't worry, I've stopped editing on my other one), and it's a tiny fraction of my activity on Wikipedia. It was pure coincidence that I noticed the content had been swept under the rug earlier in the year.

I understand that we see the meaning of the text differently. Do people often get permanently blocked for one-off talk page summaries that they're perfectly willing to reword? Are you going to also block SergeWoodzing because he shares most of my view on the article content? Nstouski (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When people restore a BLP violation that they've been explicitly told they shouldn't restore or they'll be blocked, then yes, they get blocked. The block isn't permanent; it will last until you can convince us that you understand the problem with your conduct and that you won't repeat it. I haven't seen SergeWoodzing engage in BLP violations, so there's no reason to block him. Huon (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have reverted if I'd thought DrKay was an admin. I agree there's an interpretation that constitutes a BLP violation, and if I'd known it'd be a prominent one then I'd've chosen different wording (even on this sparsely used account, there're examples of me looking for phrasal compromises, like this sequence: 1, 2, 3). If you want a guarantee that I'll never write words that'll be taken differently to how I intend them, I can't give it. Nstouski (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]