User talk:Aheedar

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

These [1][2] constitute personal attacks. Comment on the content, not the contributor.
This [3] is tag bombing/disrupive editing.

—Ruud 01:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I think that I have been blocked due to my honest attempt to escalate a completely biased discussion on two pages in Wikipedia. I believe that the user Ruud simply ignored my discussion about his changes on the page Swarm intelligence and left them unanswered. This is against freedom of speech and I just wanted to seek other editors comments on the neutrality of page. Why can't I share my idea and a editor can do whatever he wants? I am not the only one against his major changes and believe that someone needs to investigate this issue who has no conflict of interest with the editor. It sees that I have blocked because of personal attack and adding multiple tag. 1) I did not mean to attack someone's personality. One might be a very good editor in Wikipedia but beginner in the field of optimization. That was just my opinion, which might be true for sure. 2)I was not sure how to ask for help the check the neutrality of both title and content, so that is why I added two tags. I did not know that I have to add one tag. Aheedar (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Continuing with more personal attacks in your unblock request is not going to get you unblocked. Also, this is a private website and you have no rights to freedom of speech here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #16427 was submitted on Aug 27, 2016 08:50:25. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I first apologies in advance if this request for appeal should not be written with a new tag. My request for the first appeal was rejected, so pardon me if I would have to edit the other one. I understand that I have been blocked for personal attack, adding multiple tags, and disruptive changes. Regarding the first case, my comment was mostly on the content as you can see here [4] and here [5]. I would definitely edit my comment if the editor sent me a personal message or warning. This is my first experience, so I guess a lot of editors give another change to new comers and try not to bite them. After all, I apologies for my mistake. I would edit my comment on those two pages if I get unblocked and remove those part that constitute personal attack. Rest assure that I will never comment on contributor. Second, I did not know that I have to add one tag and adding multiple tags can be considered as disruptive changes. I added just two tags as you can see here [6] because both title and text are not neutral. I apologies for this mistake again. Finally, I was accused for "Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zwgeem". As you can see here [7], I do not have two accounts. I am just a new person in Wikipedia who was trying to escalate the major changes that an editor was trying to feed to a lot of pages on metaheuristics. Those discussions seem to highly biased and personal. Please let me know if I have to clarify anything else. I understand that I made some mistakes, apologies for them and hope I be given another chance. I hope that you believe me that I saw something very important in those changes. I hope one day, it will be proved that I was right. Aheedar (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I am very surprised that you have an earlier unblock request declined. This block was totally inappropriate, for several reasons. Firstly, to describe your critical remarks about another editor as "personal attacks" is a gross exaggeration. You do indeed have every right to express such criticisms. Secondly, even if one did view those remarks as personal attacks, the right way to deal both with those remarks and with the so-called "tag bombing/disrupive [sic] editing" from a new and inexperienced editor should have been to post a friendly message explaining what was considered unsuitable about them; blocking an editor immediately, without any warning or explanation as to what one thinks needs to be changed in that editor's editing, should be reserved for really serious problems. Thirdly, even if you had been properly warned and had continued, and even if we do take the view that the criticisms were "personal attacks", an indefinite block would have been excessive. However, even with those reasons for disagreeing with the block, I would be consulting the blocking administrator and suggesting to him that he reconsider the block, rather than acting unilaterally, if it weren't for the fact that he should not have even considered blocking in this case, as the block was for issues in which he was personally involved, including criticism of his editing. Wikipedia's policy on administrators states that "editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved", and I see no reason at all why this case should be regarded as an exception to that principle. No matter how strongly Ruud Koot felt that your editing was unacceptable and warranted a block, he should not have blocked you himself, but should have requested a review from an independent, uninvolved administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my unblock acceptance message, I originally wrote "I am very surprised that you have had two earlier unblock requests declined", but I now see that you have in fact had only one declined. The administrator who closed the UTRS unblock request has written "I saw a UTRS appeal of Aheedar's block and sent it back to be addressed on-wiki, and it struck me at the time as a weird block." Thus the request was not "declined", and I am not the only administrator who did not see the block as reasonable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JamesBWatson, you made my day :) I was very dismayed honestly, so thank you so much. I am quite new here and willing to dedicate my spare times for editing the pages that I understand. By the way, there is a related discussion on a page called admin notice board that you might be interested [8]. I think that your input will be helpful for the final decision as well. I was not able to write something because I was blocked. Thanks again and have a great day. Aheedar (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was actually drafting and editing a message for the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents when you posted the message above. Now that you are unblocked, you will be able to contribute to that discussion if you wish to, but if you do then my advice is to keep your comments reasonably short. At least one editor there has made posts so long that few if any editors will actually read them in their entirety, and you are likely to convey more information to others if you keep comments short enough that they will be read. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi Aheedar, I want to apologise for my decline of your unblock request, above. I clearly misread what had happened, and I failed to notice that the blocking admin was the editor engaged in a content disagreement. JamesBWatson is right, the admin should never have blocked you, and I should have taken more care and should have unblocked you. I can only apologise - and please do feel free to call in on my talk page if there's ever anything I can help you with. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Boing! said Zebedee and this is alright. I am quite new and definitely need the help of experienced editors like you. Thanks and catch you soon.