User talk:MusenInvincible

Template:Navboxes

Hello. Please don't override the default title of {{Navboxes}} in NBA-related articles to add the page title. The convention per WP:NBAEL is to use the template's default title. Feel free to establish a new consensus at WT:NBA. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If there is consensus for changes to the default title, it's more efficient to edit the template's default display than flooding everyone's watchlist with mass page changes. Please stop, discuss, and establish consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait, you cannot block a user indefinitely just because the user did not immediately reply the talkpage comment in short period of time. If you want to discuss it, so discuss without "ban for indefinite expiration time", that truly excessive action of abusive admin to apply a ban on a user. As an admin, do you find any policy WP:RULES that if a user did not get WP:consensus related to non-binding Style advice then that user should be banned indefinitely? This is an abusive block for sure from admin who did not get quick response — MusenInvincible (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: It does not matter what subject's navbox it is. If I remember correctly, this practice is not done to any existing navbox nests. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

So BECAUSE ONLY I DID NOT GIVE FAST RESPONSE for adding some sentences on navbox templates with "advice" (not strict rule, nor vital policy) and "flooding watchlist" are punishable with indefinite ban? This is definitely nonsense. — MusenInvincible (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You have previously been blocked for edit warring and ignoring the consensus so this block is very much justifiable. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I wrote in the block log: Admins can feel free to unblock if the user is willing to discuss and establish consensus. You created an extreme case, making mass changes without any apparent consensus. I saw no benefit to Wikipedia for an editor to continue with mass changes that could leave mass reverts for others. Perhaps you just didn't see the notices? However, your intial responses have neither presented an established consensus, nor a plan to establish one. At this point, I'll leave it to an independent party to determine your status. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you (Sabbatino) understand what are you talking about? those blocks are quite abusive, if you know when there are "some users force consensus that obviously violating several policies" then the user (who trying to fix in accordance to the policies) has been banned because admin misinterpreting of WP:IDHT, is this justifiable? if you know when a user get banned because an aggressive editor reports inappropriately to noticeboard while the editor's behaviour still problematic in Arbitration Committee discussion, is this justifiable?

Not just because of "previous ban" argument (which you do not understand well) that admin action is justifiable, while your indefinite blocking just for not-fast response to "mere advice" problem, "flooding watchlist" and seeking a consensus, is very much unjustifiable from heedless and un-collaborative admin. — MusenInvincible (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: What consensus you looking for? after stripping edit rights from a user for "lame reasons", Don't you realize it? I saw no benefit to Wikipedia keep an admin who using a high privilege with lack of patience that might easily ban other users for minor problems. — MusenInvincible (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Please note that you are blocked, not banned - they are not the same thing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Yeah, I do understand the differences between block and ban, but technically these two are similarly restricting user to contribute, whether partial or total, to Wikipedia project. However, when a user is banned from editing any articles just for unaware of opinion-based Style essay for Navboxes and did not reply a comment within 20 minutes, then an indefinite block (which may be for a long time) applied to restrict the contribution.
If the admin could have been wiser, the admin might use a short period block of several hours (e.g. 24-hour block) to halt editing progress temporarily to continue discussing in talk page when the admin's notice on talk page had not been read and responded (while at that time, I was still busy on editing various articles and I did not realize the comment on my talk page could lead to an indefinite block if i didn't respond quickly), or (rather than a block to all topic) a topic ban of NBA related articles would be more acceptable if the admin considered that i have made some mistake related to certain topic, or if the admin is well experienced with the "Manual of Style", the admin can write a a "hidden text" WP:INVISIBLE on the sections, (for instance warning about adding more links on External links of Artificial intelligence) to remind any possible user in the future about a caution of consensus or specific notification, before changing or revising the article (which I did not find on the NBA articles that undid earlier) and I experienced dozens of my contributions reverted, and the reverting editor commented on my talk page for clarification then we discussed for a while, yet without block, nor ban.
At last, I hope users and admins would use WP:GOODFAITH that it's not my intention to vandalize or to degrade the quality of articles on Wikipedia, for I would be grateful to help improving Wikipedia articles and making some fixes comply with Wikipedia policy and guideline while I am given a chance; but if there's a mistake, talk with cold-head and not involving block/ban please... — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for mass changes without responding to concerns.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —Bagumba (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

6 June 2020

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).

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

---

Request reason:

To the reviewing admin: I understand about a block imposed to a user to avoid major damage on articles. Nevertheless, my provided statements on section above show clear reasons about the "excessive" (indefinite) block over unwarned edit problems on a certain topic; If I will be given a chance to continue more constructive contributions; I will have a lot amount of work related to (mostly) Manual of Style compliance in English Wikipedia and I hope that I will be able to improve and participate to make the project better. Thank You in advance. — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2020 (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.

unblock discussion

Can you explain how your edits were non constructive and how you would edit constructively going forward? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 06:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Indefinte ≠ infinite. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 07:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Just reiterate, read section MusenInvincible#Template:Navboxes or especially this then you might understand my edits were not violating any policy (except a style essay according to User:Bagumba) nor damaging the articles, so ask that admin who claimed my edits were non constructive. For further edits, I will focus more on articles related to Manual of Style compliance, spelling errors, and any article which I could improve...

To be honest, no futher discussion essentially needed here because the section above is more than enough for unblock discussion; so I am only waiting for the result of the unblock request.

According to this table; Block expiration of Indefinite = infinity. — MusenInvincible (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

You're going to need to open a new unblock appeal with the template you used before, if you want a review from an admin. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Before that, I do want to ask - Is there any admin who is willing to unblock? — MusenInvincible (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Admins want to ensure the stability of the Wikipedia project. Any admin would be willing to unblock you if you can make a convincing argument that unblocking you would be beneficial rather than disruptive. Two different admins, me and Deepfriedokra, have conversed with you. Without an appeal, though, other admins aren't likely to see it. Using the unblock appeal template causes your appeal to be listed at Category:Requests for unblock. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I just want to express that the problem is this User:Bagumba blocks a user (me) to get my attention to discuss about my edits on template renaming. But instead of engaging the dispute reasonably and solve the problem, it looks like Bagumba walks away from discussion and abandons the purpose of the block to make discussion then throws the responsibility to other admins for the problem that he started himself.

According to the previous appeal, It's proven that (while waiting for weeks) no single admin willing to unblock after my reason and exposition, what I mean, are you convinced with my arguments above, or could you guarantee that this next appeal would be accepted? I don't want to waste my time to repeat the failed appeal. — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I cannot guarantee anything. Your previous appeal was declined on procedural grounds, not based on the merits of your arguments. I'll add that I haven't seen anyone decline an appeal before simply because too much time has passed; that reason for declining surprised me, to be honest. I suggest you try again, with more details. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'll add that the blocking admin's action was understandable given that your contributions show you were making several edits per minute, and did not respond or acknowledge comments made to this talk page in the 20 minute interval between the first concern expressed and finally being blocked. Yes, maybe you didn't have enough time, or you didn't see the automatic notices, but in the face of rapid disruptive changes occurring multiple times per minute, an admin really has no choice but to block first and discuss later, even though an attempt was made to initiate discussion. In your appeal, you need to explain what you would do differently going forward. If you can express your understanding of what went wrong and what will change if unblocked, in a way that is convincing to other admins that unblocking you won't lead to further disruption, then I don't see a problem unblocking you; and indeed the blocking administrator commented in the block log that unblocking is no problem if you are willing to engage in discussion and establish consensus, which, you have to admit, is something you didn't really do until you were blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If you said unblocking is "no problem", how about the unlimited (time expiration) block? is it logic when an admin expresses "Feel free to establish a new consensus at WT:NBA" with blocking me from all topics with indef block; and if that admin "willing to engage in discussion" while he imposes the long, or might be permanent, block (if there's no revocation) to a user after 20 minutes of response waiting, moreover saying "I'll leave it to an independent party to determine your status" and not give any comment after. Now, who's willing to discuss or willing to go away?
In the previous appeal, it took more than 14 days to get the final response as only formal closing for ignorance. Therefore, Could you assure this time that my appeal would be quickly responded instead of be neglected for weeks? — MusenInvincible (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Your block is "indefinite", not "unlimited". Indefinite means that the end of the block has yet to be determined, based on an appeal.

Asking for guarantees about deadlines won't get you anywhere. Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Wikipedia is all volunteer work; this is not a job. Administrators have their own personal lives with no obligation to check in every day, and they have an endless workload of other stuff to do on Wikipedia. Your individual situation is not a problem for admins. In fact, I'll hazard a guess that, to the blocking admin and the one who declined your appeal, the instability you caused was solved by the block, and they have moved on. So your only recourse is to compose a good appeal, based on the advice you have been given... and wait. When you do this, it is listed on a category page that some administrators monitor, and it will get attention. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sure, my block is "indefinite", not "unlimited"; while without successful appeal, the time limit will be limitless...
Anyway, I appreciate your willingness to spend time and to discuss with detail explanation about this appeal consideration with me. — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

17 September 2020

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is the second time I make an appeal for review on imposed indefinite block, the problem is my edits related to template renaming viewed as disruptive by an admin while I am really unaware about the style advice editing on the NBA topic templates, in brief, I did those edits accidentally. The admin had invited me to talk about seeking consensus concerning this issue, however, the unprecedented behavior to impose indef block on me was taken shortly after. At first, I believed that's nothing wrong and I would surely have not done those errors if there was any warning or note on the articles; and after long considerations, I am finally aware of my fault, as like all human, It's natural that I could do some mistake and I admit it myself while making those edits which may be considered as a wrong way to contribute.
I would be grateful if I am given a chance to help to solve the problem; I will not do such thing again, and I suggest to include a useful "hidden text" WP:INVISIBLE / text-warning on the section of templates to prevent other users revising it improperly or to make them think twice before edit the articles with specific style consideration; so they would not experience the same mistake I did. — MusenInvincible (talk) 5:06 pm, 17 September 2020, Thursday (2 months, 2 days ago) (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

Hello MusenInvincible. To clarify the situation for you, you were blocked for making mass problematics edits "without responding to concerns". Looking through this page and your edit history, it appears that you have some difficulty with collegiate editing, and tend to have an aggressive, righteous attitude toward those who attempt to steer you toward being more cooperative. You have not adequately addressed the concern regarding not responding or cooperating. Indeed, you have a history of being combative, of ignoring consensus, and of blaming others instead of paying attention to their concerns. Of the several experienced and respected admins who have blocked you, you say: "they have done unnecessary block decisions on me". Without a significant change of attitude, which given the evidence displayed during this unblock request appears unlikely, I don't think you are suited to edit on Wikipedia which requires users to follow consensus and to behave cooperatively. This is not to say that you a bad person, simply that you are too individualistic for the almost monastic approach of the Wikipedia community. Given your past history I doubt if you will accept this block decline, but I think it is better for yourself, for Wikipedia, and for our volunteers, that you stop editing Wikipedia. If you do reflect on your time here on Wikipedia and what experienced users have said to you, and you come to a realisation that you have been going at things like a bull in a china shop and not paying enough attention to what has been said to you, and you wish to make another appeal you may do so. But be aware that if you use that new block appeal to complain that you were mistreated and/or that the admins got it wrong and were unjust to you, then you are likely to have your talkpage blocked, in which case you would need to appeal via Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. SilkTork (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2020 (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'm willing to unblock, but it seems like you misunderstood the reason for your block.

@Bagumba: correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me like the edits weren't as problematic as the flood of changes, as if an unapproved bot was running.

Between the time you were warned and the time you were blocked you made over 35 of the sort of edits you were warned about. The admin simply had no choice. If you are running a bot, you must get it approved first; see Wikipedia:Bots for more information. Do you agree? ~Anachronist (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist: My initial concern was seeing pages on my watchlist undergoing rapid changes without consensus. No problem with bold edits, so I left a note on their talk page to discuss. An immediate response is not generally expected, but the user remained online editing, continuing with the disputed edits. Perhaps they did not see the message yet. I left another message 14 minutes later. Still continues with disputed edits. In the meantime, I notice on their talk a then-recent discussion at User_talk:MusenInvincible#Reference_sections with Parsecboy and Chaheel Riens in a dispute about edit warring over reference sections. There, MusenInvincible had stated: Can you give me a policy that every editor must get a permission or a consensus before edit an article from several users that "they decided on a given style"? Is those pages their own pages or what?[1] (This WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and failure to WP:BRD, in highsight, are consistent in this current block.) Moreover, I saw that their block log showed a history with edit warring, including a one month block by Floquenbeam stating edit warring and disruptive editing, pretending to be amenable to discussion but ignoring the result when consensus is against you, and wasting the time of other editors. Previous block for edit warring evidently didn't get the message across. See WP:IDHT. Their talk page access was subsequently revoked. (Again, the behavior is consistent in hindsight.) With their mass edits still continuing, I blocked to get them to notice their talk page, if that was the reason they were continuing. Afterwards, MusenInvincible seems to say they saw the talk notice, yet continued to mass edit: ... while at that time, I was still busy on editing various articles and I did not realize the comment on my talk page could lead to an indefinite block if i didn't respond quickly ...[2] In this current unblock request, their asking for "hidden text" deflects responsibility. The problem was not a bold edit, but their failure to discuss after issues were raised. Mass edits to form a WP:FAITACCOMPLI are inappropriate. From a technical perspective, their mass edits to override the default display title of {{Navboxes}} from "Links to related articles" would be better achieved by getting consensus to change the template coding itself, not by mass changing each transclusion. I had stated this suggestion to them before the block.[3] Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Musicinvincible, there may be more concerns here than addressed in your appeal. While your appeal is open, you may revise or replace it. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist: The problem is not how many edits I made 'between the time I was warned and the time I was blocked.' The real problem is ' between the time I was warned and the time I was blocked I did not read the notification message' and there was no any warning on the articles about style advice.

@Bagumba: Where have you been all this time? after running away from unblock discussion which you should have joined if you have willingness to solve the dispute constructively; I think you don't understand the "fatal error" from what you've done by imposing block on a user indefinitely because of some accidental matters, not intentional ones. In this case, you have shown yourself having lack of "communication" approach (WP:COMMUNICATE) that is essential especially for administrators to handle problem.
Also, I could say you have some strange behavioral problems, because you were previously saying that I could "feel free" to seek on consensus by editing in the 'style advice' topic, but how could I "feel free" when you have passed indef block; - instead of topic ban or temporal ban - on me (because of lack of your patience to get some response) which barred my freedom to edit all the pages (except my personal page); this is contradiction, then you said that any admin could "feel free to unblock me if the user is willing to discuss and establish consensus" but after I had offered several possible solutions (while you offered nothing for consensus) and made this unblock appeal, you came in a sudden trying to hinder me to be unblocked, this is another contradiction, proving lack of your competence (WP:COMPETENCE) in handling a dispute.

I have complied with the unblock procedures appropriately as Wikipedia policy for unblock case while Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Yet, I don't think Bagumba as admin follow any fundamental policy related to blocking me indefinitely by poor judgement. Since I cannot file a request to ANI or dispute noticeboard about this dispute, I hope by inviting more experienced Admins @PhilKnight:, @331dot:, @Only: could help settle this problem fairly. — MusenInvincible (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Calling out the blocking admin for WP:COMPETENCE will not help your case. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not calling out User:Bagumba for WP:COMPETENCE, but I am calling out if there's any wise admin concerning with Wikipedia policies and guidelines who can evaluate this excessive block of minor problem imposed by that admin who has misused the administrative tools. Maybe @Robert McClenon: from DRN could give some help? — MusenInvincible (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. DRN handles content disputes, not conduct disputes. In looking this over briefly, before deciding whether to conduct a more detailed review, I see that it appears that User:Floquenbeam blocked the subject for one month, then User:Bishonen turned off the talk page, then the block expired, then User:Bagumba blocked indefinitely. So it appears that three administrators think that something was wrong. I haven't reviewed what the controversial edits were. I do see that User:MuseInvincible was asked whether they understood why their edits were considered disruptive, and they didn't answer. Maybe if they would explain why their edits were considered disruptive, someone could respond. My question for the blocking administrators is whether there has been a block review at WP:AN. If not, I think that one can't do any harm. In the meantime, leaving the subject blocked until they can explain what they think the dispute is seems like a reasonable idea. I don't normally give advice on conduct disputes, other than to avoid disruptive conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I was inviting you to discuss here since I could not file my case to DRN in order to solve this dispute, nor ANI for admin discussion. But I do know you as expert through a lot of discussions in DRN, therefore I had expected you could give mediation wisely. While responding to your notices about my previous blocks, you have to know the context well, first case, when a user asking for admins by opening a thread on ANI related to sensitive "religion" issue for more insights there, is that punishable for 1 month block just a couple of tens minutes after the thread opened?
second case, when a user renamed a title of thread on his own talk page following the controversial 1 month block, is that punishable for 1 month block also on talk page, instead of admin calming down the tense to discuss properly?
third case, when a user renamed a number of templates on articles unawarely, is that punishable for an indef block? In brief, I do believe these blocks are improper or unjustifiable.
From you, I actually wanted your response about this dispute: when a content edit activity related to renaming of templates opposed by admin claiming about "flooding watchlist"-thing then those edits reverted and imposing block afterward, do you consider 'template renaming edits' and 'flooding watchlist' are disruptive that punishable with an (long) indef block? This is not about disruptive, this is about abuse of administrative tools against minor matters. — MusenInvincible (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

In addition, @Bagumba:'s action is a clear violation that a block should not be imposed on content dispute such as template renaming while I have followed unblock appeal;
@Robert McClenon: Are you still there? — MusenInvincible (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Possible Unblock Discussion

User:MusenInvincible - I am puzzled as to what I am being asked about. I have looked at the above talk page but not reviewed it in tedious detail. I see that you have been blocked by multiple administrators and are requesting to be unblocked. I also see that you are asking me whether I can help somehow, and I assume that you are asking for mediation of a conduct dispute. I have mediated content disputes. I am willing to try to act as a third party if I can understand what the issues are and who the parties are. So first please tell me, in short paragraphs: Who do you think are the blocking administrators? Once I know that, we can determine whether they are willing to talk. What do you think are the reasons for the block? There are references above to large numbers of edits. Were you making large numbers of edits? Were you using a script to make the edits? Were you running a bot? Had other users attempted to discuss the edits? Were you willing, or were you unwilling, to discuss the edits? I will list the points that I would like you to answer:

• 1. Who are the blocking administrators?
• 2. Why do you think that they have blocked you?
• 3. What do you think that you were doing that caused the block?
• 4. Were you making a large number of edits? If so, where and how?
• 5. Any other comments, in one paragraph.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks as if the following administrators have been involved at least briefly: User:Floquenbeam, User:Bishonen, User:Anachronist, User:Bagumba, User:Deepfriedokra, User:Redrose64. If any of them want to provide additional background, that is up to them. User:MusenInvincible - I may have answered question 1. You need to answer questions 2 through 4. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

My block is not currently being appealed (it was a while ago and expired), so I haven't been participating here because, to be frank, I'm not obligated to, and this appears to be a timesink. I am 100% confident that MI will never accept my perspective on their behavior here as true or valid, so when the current block is not based on my views, why bother? He is currently blocked because other admins think he is too disruptive. While I agree with that assessment, I choose not to go around and around in circles trying to convince MI to change their approach anymore. The status quo is fine with me. I would prefer not to be pinged here anymore (tho I don't begrudge the two previous ones). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why I was mentioned (although I have posted above), my name is not in the block log for this user. That shows that the answer to question 1 is Bagumba (talk · contribs), all previous entries in the block log having expired by the time that the current block was imposed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I stated to Musicinvincible above, "If you can express your understanding of what went wrong and what will change if unblocked, in a way that is convincing to other admins that unblocking you won't lead to further disruption, then I don't see a problem unblocking you". The blocking administrator subsequently went into detail about issues that Musicinvincible did not address in the appeal, and did not address after I asked that the appeal be revised. The only person who can clear up the points of contention is Musicinvincible, who so far hasn't yet directly addressed the blocking admin's comments. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I've had this editor on my watchlist for some time and have warned them for various things, eg suggesting that people whose edits they don't like will burn in Hell. Their block log suggests that they still haven't learned how to edit without disruption and their more recent comments above convince me even more that they should not be unblocked. Doug Weller talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

To Robert McClenon, I got several users attempted to discuss the edits in various articles by put a message on my talk page because they tried to remind me about some rule which I might overlook, for instance main category addition on articles or reducing much categories on redirects, that I had no knowledge earlier that those edits could be contested by other users. If you read several threads in this talk page above, you can read that I am more than willing to discuss or explain in detail and long paragraph when a user try to get my clarification over a problem.

answer no. 1 & no. 2, I don't know them, but I do conclude that they have done unnecessary block decisions on me, while this kind of action should've never happened if they had good faith and could communicate (WP:COMMUNICATE) properly or put the dispute on noticeboard.

answer no. 3, they have blocked me because of (mostly) content disputes, first block is for a disambig page edits, second and third related to opening ANI thread and response to controversial block on my talk page, fourth/current block is for not responding quickly to admin consensus discussion on NBA edit.

answer no. 4, about quick mass edits, I did that, but I was not using any scripts or bots to do large numbers of edits, I just wanted to make rapid changes on a lot of articles which I considered they could be improved (even only a little rename edit) then I saved a lot edits simultaneously in seconds.

no. 5, I just wanted to contribute more on a lot articles which, according to me, I could possibly improve for better quality of article, whether in Manual of Style, simple renaming, adding categories, etc. as long as I am sure that my mass edits did not damage or vandalize the articles.

@Anachronist: If you can express your understanding as reasonable man do you consider "Mass changes with responding to concerns...if the user is willing to discuss" is a convincing argument for admin to block a user indefinitely? just for seeking consensus?
if you asked me that I didn't address reason why I was blocked, you might be wrong; all the alibi given by Bagumba when blocking me is not strong reason for an indef block, is there another reason that I possibly overlook? what's that? Nevertheless, the block is never unjustifiable because blocking on accidental matters by user who have no any knowledge related to style adviced. And one more thing, please be civil and don't alter a username for ridiculous thing, because I would consider that as a personal attack. — MusenInvincible (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

First let me apologize. Every time I see your username it looks like "Musicinvincible" in my brain. It still does. I honestly never realized until just now when you brought it up that it's MusenInvincible (and it took me some effort to spell it that way just now). I can't say that this is due to my touch of dyslexia (which has gotten me in trouble with the IRS) but could be related.

Yes, an indefinite block is justified for disruption that does not stop after a reasonable interval of time has elapsed for a user to respond, as was the case here. Indefinite doesn't mean permanent. It just means that the block remains in place until the situation is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The job of an administrator is to maintain stability of the Wikipedia project. If one user is causing disruption to multiple articles per minute and not engaging in discussion, the only viable response is an indefinite block, followed by discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sure you were not paying attention for what i have explained earlier, but I will reiterate again,
So you think that a simple rename of template text by adding { title = Articles related to { PAGENAME } } is disruptive and 'serious issue'? Come on! later, it's not about 20 minutes interval, but it is unawareness about the style advice of certain topic (WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association) while I found no any such style advice in other template, moreover how do I and any other users know that there is such 'advice'-thing while no edit warning on the article? besides, I did not realize about the message on my talk page while I was still busy on editing articles on other templates? then I also experienced similar situations on main category addition on articles or reducing much categories on redirects yet the users would notify me and wait a few hours for my response without any block.
For me, topic ban is more precise and justifiable related to my unintentional mistakes on WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association while total ban / block on all topics indefinitely is utterly excessive and no logic for sure.
and one more important thing, saying "not engaging in discussion" is not good reason for an indef block... — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Sort of Reply

Well, I am willing to copy a block request from here to WP:AN as a neutral facilitator if that is what you are asking me to do, and if it appears to me that reasonable editors might at least think twice. If so, it should be concise, and should address at least points 3 and 4. Bear in mind that I will read it before I copy it to WP:AN and will see whether it seems consistent with what is on this page. But it will have to be a better explanation than I have seen here. If you really don't understand, then maybe you don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks a lot for your initiative to mediate in this issue. To copy it to WP:AN will be good, while I suggest that it will be better to copy it to talk pages of several admins who well-experienced for unblock cases and good faith track record, in case you know some, maybe?
I will try to make the explanation concise.
Unblock request: There are various claims for my block: from "flooding watchlist", "mass changes without consensus" etc. which are content dispute cases that can be discussed for later improvement.
The core reason of this block is my edits related to template renaming without any knowledge of style advice on the NBA topic templates that User:Bagumba (blocking admin) contested for a discussion, but Bagumba has been running away from the responsibility and the constructive talk instead of making efforts to reach consensus, at the same time, I has been being blocked for months.
If there any admin willing to evaluate this block, it would be much appreciated. — MusenInvincible (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I have evaluated your unblock request above, and taken into account your comments here and elsewhere. You continue to miss the aspect of the block that it was because you were not responding to concerns. If you had stopped editing to address the concerns of the blocking admin, you would not have been blocked. Simple as that. Yet you continue to feel that it is the blocking admin's fault that you ignored their messages. In this last comment to Robert McClenon who has been very patient with you, and has given up his time to assist you, you still malign the blocking admin, Bagumba, by saying "Bagumba has been running away from the responsibility". It is actually you who are running away from responsibility. SilkTork (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Did I aware? or consciously ignore? read this, or forget, because it might be useless if not reading a problem as whole then give a judgement.

The reason of indef block because "the user did not respond to Admin message (concern)" or "making accusation of ignoring Admin message on talk page" issue is very questionable, as well as the reasons of the previous blocks on me which are unwarranted.

I have already given detailed tenable passage over and over again about why I should not have been blocked, hoping a wise would revoke the block decision eventually. But, whimsical replies I received instead. This all just like a good thread titled "an extensive block discussion just for a simple 'no-reply' mistake." Quite a serious problem, isn't it? :/ — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You were warned. You carried on, and made another 20 edits which were wrong. You were given a second warning. You still carried on, and made another 17 edits which were wrong. Your block record indicates someone who does not follow consensus, and prefers to assert their own way of doing things. So, given your track record, that you were doing something inappropriate, that you had been warned twice and were not responding, then a block to stop you was appropriate. This is what we do. We block humans or bots which are making inappropriate mass changes until the person responsible is aware of what was inappropriate and agrees to stop doing it. We have site banned some users for making even minor mass changes against consensus. That is because inappropriate mass changes cause work for volunteers in undoing the edits. We rely on users abiding by consensus, and following procedures. We are also wary of people who do not follow consensus, are augmentative, are aggressive, and are unable to see where and when they are wrong. The block note does say "Admins can feel free to unblock if the user is willing to discuss and establish consensus." You would have been unblocked the same day if you had established what the problem was, and either committed to not doing it again, or sought appropriate consensus for your actions. Instead you responded with aggression: "truly excessive action of abusive admin", "This is an abusive block", "This is definitely nonsense.", "Do you (Sabbatino) understand what are you talking about? those blocks are quite abusive", etc. You still do not appear to see that this was your error, and that you have continued to make a problem for yourself. At this stage, given that we are some months down the line, and you are still arguing that it wasn't your fault, I am not sure if you are able to reflect on what has happened, and learn from it. But I still hold out that hope, which is why I am still responding to you. We all make mistakes. That's how we learn. You made a mistake. You were blocked for it. I am prepared to unblock if you can show that you have learned from this experience, and that you will not get so angry and combative in future. Can you convince me that when someone points out that you have done something that is not in accordance with our established procedures, that you will go - "Ooops, sorry. I didn't realise. Thanks for the heads up. I won't do that again." instead of getting angry and attacking the person who pointed out your error? If you can, I will unblock (with conditions on your behaviour). If you can't, then I will unwatch this page and not be coming back here any more. It's in your hands. The responsibility is yours. SilkTork (talk)

After long paragraphs with thousands of words I've been typing for months, do you consider I be unaware here? while what the response of the blocking admin after I reply, revoking this block? no.

When I talk about "abusive" is when I am questioning "indefinite longer extensive blocking period without specific limit" choice. if it was only temporal block for kind of 'shock therapy' which I could have revise the problems by myself, or topic ban since it was only for specific range of articles, I would never have to be offended. I am not angry when somebody points out a mistake, I am angry when somebody chooses to the severe indefinite block just to demand a reply and consensus, while the problem could be solved through alternative ones without that kind of huge block.

If you consider my protest expressions 'aggressive', how about this one: A user trying to contribute more without any knowledge of 'style consensus' of templates while renaming those templates (without vandalism) then this action must be responded with longtime block without certain limit; after the blocked one try to discuss and give some solution, but go deserted. yeah, it sounds not aggressive for somebody in different position, except me.

For "Ooops, sorry. I didn't realise. Thanks for the heads up. I won't do that again." text. I guess this earlier might be close enough. — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I am unfollowing this page and muting your notification, so I will no longer see what you have written, even if you ping me. Editing Wikipedia doesn't suit everyone. I don't think editing Wikipedia is for you. That's not to say that you're a bad person. We're all different. It takes a certain kind of patience and willingness to assume good faith that not everyone has. Some really good people have found editing Wikipedia too frustrating and annoying. This is the last comment I will make here, and if you reply I will not see it. You may find another admin willing to unblock you, but you'll need to really take on board what admins have been saying to you. If you don't, you're not going to be unblocked. SilkTork (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for help

I need wise insights from admins who well adept of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially on blocking policy

Do:

• not replying in minutes to admin message who inviting to discuss for consensus
• content dispute of adding text to navbox template (title = Articles related to { PAGENAME }) [4] [5] [6]
• flooding everyone's watchlist

include to serious issues where the doer deserve to be punished with block / indef block?

I really need help, please, I have been facing these around for months...

— MusenInvincible (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Nobody's expected to provide instant replies but if your controversial edits get challenged, you need to provide an explanation for them, especially if you wish to continue making more of the same kind of potentially controversial edit. It's definitely not a good idea to continue editing while there are unaddressed concerns on your talk page regarding the kind of editing you're currently engaging in and that is something that may result in a temporary "may I have your attention for a minute" block.
• Content disputes are normal.
• I don't think "flooding" someone's watchlist is a legitimate concern unless the edits that cause the "flooding" are problematic on their own (e.g. because they're cosmetic). 78.28.55.237 (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive in any case, so no one should be "punished" with a block. Blocks are meant to be preventative of future disruption. Content disputes are to be discussed. Go Phightins! 12:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Quibbling over your block for 9 months, quibbling over a "random IP user" answering your question (quite well in my opinion), reopening it when already answered - these are not the activities allowed on a blocked user's talk page. Your persistent re-asking of questions already answered is not compatible with retaining access to your talk page. UTRS is your last remaining venue for an unblock request. Cabayi (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

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 why you should be 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 post of this notice.

 Cabayi (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)