Revision as of 16:08, 19 November 2022 editCPCnotCCP (talk | contribs)24 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:34, 19 November 2022 edit undo331dot (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators182,329 edits new posts to bottomNext edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
⚫ | == Reponse to Daniel Case in order to avoid overuse of UNBLOCK == | ||
⚫ | {{reply to|Daniel Case}} | ||
⚫ | I am going to address your decline decision by the order it was presented. Also copying {{ping | 331dot}} {{ping | Yamla }} since they provided instructions for me prior. | ||
⚫ | '''1.''' "the use of WP:NOTHERE as the block reason, while valid IMO" | ||
⚫ | '''Response''': I have already posted in my reasoning from Unblock #2, that the ] specifically stated that | ||
⚫ | {{Quote box|Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner | ||
⚫ | Merely advocating and implementing changes to Misplaced Pages articles or policies with reliable sources is allowed; even if these changes made are incompatible with certain Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, it is not the same as not being here to build an encyclopedia. The disagreeing editor should take care to not violate Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines such as not reverting due to a lack of consensus, getting the point, and civility in the course of challenging unpopular opinions.}} | ||
⚫ | -is allowed. | ||
⚫ | Furthermore, under "Advocating amendments to policies of guidelines of the same ], {{quote box | The community encompasses a very wide range of views. A user may believe a communal norm is too narrow or poorly approaches an issue, and take actions internally consistent with that viewpoint, such as advocating particular positions in discussions. Provided the user does so in an honest attempt to improve the encyclopedia, in a constructive manner, and assuming the user's actions are not themselves disruptive, such conversations form the genesis for improvement to Misplaced Pages.}} I do not understand how your opinion applies the ] since the two above guideline specifically states what I am doing is perfectly acceptable. Do you mind explaining how do you ignore the guideline listed? | ||
⚫ | '''2.''' "your username is unacceptable under that policy, another valid reason for this block." | ||
⚫ | '''Response''': I checked the ], ], there is no listed guideline in there that my username CPCnotCCP violates. There is simply no guideline that states that a username can not be a point of perspective. | ||
⚫ | The guideline clearly stated in ] that as an administrator, you should first assume good faith. Perhaps if you read why I select the username in the first unblock request you will understand why I choose that phrase. The second thing stated that if you find my name really objective, it is procedure for you to reach out to me and let me know that there is a problem. After that, you should of request comments on my username from other users. By instantly perma block me, none of Misplaced Pages guidelines is followed. Your comments are not valid. | ||
⚫ | '''3.''' "That username, in fact, indicates to me the same thing your edits do: you set this account up strictly to push a point of view. " | ||
⚫ | '''Response:''' This is where your statement tells me that you might be biased on this matter. Look at the evidence: {{strong|I NEVER EDITED THE ARTICLE ITSELF. I only replied to the TALK page to other users' perspectives.}} The TALK page, the very place where a user is suppose to be to have a discussion. I replied to TWO (2) user's comments. That is all I was able to do after the account was created, and within 20 hours of the account creation, my account was perma blocked. I did not get a chance to do anything else. How about you follow the Misplaced Pages's guideline of WP:GF assume good faith, and actually observe my actions for a while before you make up your mind? {{strong|Two (2) }}initial actions were enough of a sample size to justify a {{strong|perma}} block an account? That is the equivalent of a baby of 20 month old stepped on an ant and the baby will put to prison for life assuming that the baby will be a serial killer in the future. No neutral common sense will find two (2) sample size to enough to justify a permanent action, especially after I follow the guidelines and did NOT edit the article and only spoke in the TALK section. | ||
⚫ | '''Conclusion''' If you read my initial explaining in Unlock #1, I spoke about being neutral being the key, why I finally created an account, and why I want to have a discussion due to my perspective that some articles on Misplaced Pages is anything but neutral. Shall what I have encountered within 24 hour of my account creation be a precedent, I highly doubt that is the type of actions the creators of Misplaced Pages have intended. It is on the level of drawing dotted line linking far fetched reasoning against all published Misplaced Pages guidelines in order to silent and squash a perspective not shared by the people with privileges. I do not know if you will respond of any other admin will shine in their view point. But I am trying to talk it out with everyone before I request an arbitration hearing. Thank you and please comment, whatever your position may be. | ||
⚫ | ] (]) 16:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC) | ||
== Welcome! == | == Welcome! == | ||
Line 66: | Line 38: | ||
{{unblock reviewed |1=== focusing on unblock only, stripped out other requests == <span class="template-ping">@]:</span><span class="template-ping">@]:</span> Hello, my account was blocked. The reason given was "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: see contribs, SPA pushing a very specific POV)" 1. If you look at my two contribs, you will see that I have no article edits; I have started 2 talks in my attempt to talk to the users on the other point of view; and the contest with my user page. This is my first time creating an account after reading Misplaced Pages for years. This perma block is in contradiction with the policies posted in ] 2. No matter what the thoughts or the feeling that the original blocking admin had, there is no evidence based on my contrib of two talks to warrant a perma block. 3. Most importantly, under the reason given: "Not here to build an encyclopedia", the official guideline ] actually have a section that states : "What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not...." clause 5 "Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner". So even if we assume the reason stated is true that I had a specific POV, it is fully legal within the guidelines especially as I did not even edit the said article, I respected the guidelines and sought out a dialogue in the talk section. I support more neutral articles as it is still one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. I would like to have my account unblocked. Thank you. ] (]) 14:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC) |decline = Unfortunately, the use of NOTHERE as the block reason, while valid IMO, didn't allow the blocking admin to also indicate that your username is unacceptable under ], another valid reason for this block, and for that reason you will have to use {{tl|unblock-un}} to request a new username in the event you convince us to unblock you.<p>That username, in fact, indicates to me the same thing your edits do: you set this account up strictly to push a ]. That's effectively NOTHERE. — ] (]) 07:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)}} | {{unblock reviewed |1=== focusing on unblock only, stripped out other requests == <span class="template-ping">@]:</span><span class="template-ping">@]:</span> Hello, my account was blocked. The reason given was "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: see contribs, SPA pushing a very specific POV)" 1. If you look at my two contribs, you will see that I have no article edits; I have started 2 talks in my attempt to talk to the users on the other point of view; and the contest with my user page. This is my first time creating an account after reading Misplaced Pages for years. This perma block is in contradiction with the policies posted in ] 2. No matter what the thoughts or the feeling that the original blocking admin had, there is no evidence based on my contrib of two talks to warrant a perma block. 3. Most importantly, under the reason given: "Not here to build an encyclopedia", the official guideline ] actually have a section that states : "What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not...." clause 5 "Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner". So even if we assume the reason stated is true that I had a specific POV, it is fully legal within the guidelines especially as I did not even edit the said article, I respected the guidelines and sought out a dialogue in the talk section. I support more neutral articles as it is still one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. I would like to have my account unblocked. Thank you. ] (]) 14:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC) |decline = Unfortunately, the use of NOTHERE as the block reason, while valid IMO, didn't allow the blocking admin to also indicate that your username is unacceptable under ], another valid reason for this block, and for that reason you will have to use {{tl|unblock-un}} to request a new username in the event you convince us to unblock you.<p>That username, in fact, indicates to me the same thing your edits do: you set this account up strictly to push a ]. That's effectively NOTHERE. — ] (]) 07:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)}} | ||
⚫ | == Reponse to Daniel Case in order to avoid overuse of UNBLOCK == | ||
⚫ | {{reply to|Daniel Case}} | ||
⚫ | I am going to address your decline decision by the order it was presented. Also copying {{ping | 331dot}} {{ping | Yamla }} since they provided instructions for me prior. | ||
⚫ | '''1.''' "the use of WP:NOTHERE as the block reason, while valid IMO" | ||
⚫ | '''Response''': I have already posted in my reasoning from Unblock #2, that the ] specifically stated that | ||
⚫ | {{Quote box|Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner | ||
⚫ | Merely advocating and implementing changes to Misplaced Pages articles or policies with reliable sources is allowed; even if these changes made are incompatible with certain Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, it is not the same as not being here to build an encyclopedia. The disagreeing editor should take care to not violate Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines such as not reverting due to a lack of consensus, getting the point, and civility in the course of challenging unpopular opinions.}} | ||
⚫ | -is allowed. | ||
⚫ | Furthermore, under "Advocating amendments to policies of guidelines of the same ], {{quote box | The community encompasses a very wide range of views. A user may believe a communal norm is too narrow or poorly approaches an issue, and take actions internally consistent with that viewpoint, such as advocating particular positions in discussions. Provided the user does so in an honest attempt to improve the encyclopedia, in a constructive manner, and assuming the user's actions are not themselves disruptive, such conversations form the genesis for improvement to Misplaced Pages.}} I do not understand how your opinion applies the ] since the two above guideline specifically states what I am doing is perfectly acceptable. Do you mind explaining how do you ignore the guideline listed? | ||
⚫ | '''2.''' "your username is unacceptable under that policy, another valid reason for this block." | ||
⚫ | '''Response''': I checked the ], ], there is no listed guideline in there that my username CPCnotCCP violates. There is simply no guideline that states that a username can not be a point of perspective. | ||
⚫ | The guideline clearly stated in ] that as an administrator, you should first assume good faith. Perhaps if you read why I select the username in the first unblock request you will understand why I choose that phrase. The second thing stated that if you find my name really objective, it is procedure for you to reach out to me and let me know that there is a problem. After that, you should of request comments on my username from other users. By instantly perma block me, none of Misplaced Pages guidelines is followed. Your comments are not valid. | ||
⚫ | '''3.''' "That username, in fact, indicates to me the same thing your edits do: you set this account up strictly to push a point of view. " | ||
⚫ | '''Response:''' This is where your statement tells me that you might be biased on this matter. Look at the evidence: {{strong|I NEVER EDITED THE ARTICLE ITSELF. I only replied to the TALK page to other users' perspectives.}} The TALK page, the very place where a user is suppose to be to have a discussion. I replied to TWO (2) user's comments. That is all I was able to do after the account was created, and within 20 hours of the account creation, my account was perma blocked. I did not get a chance to do anything else. How about you follow the Misplaced Pages's guideline of WP:GF assume good faith, and actually observe my actions for a while before you make up your mind? {{strong|Two (2) }}initial actions were enough of a sample size to justify a {{strong|perma}} block an account? That is the equivalent of a baby of 20 month old stepped on an ant and the baby will put to prison for life assuming that the baby will be a serial killer in the future. No neutral common sense will find two (2) sample size to enough to justify a permanent action, especially after I follow the guidelines and did NOT edit the article and only spoke in the TALK section. | ||
⚫ | '''Conclusion''' If you read my initial explaining in Unlock #1, I spoke about being neutral being the key, why I finally created an account, and why I want to have a discussion due to my perspective that some articles on Misplaced Pages is anything but neutral. Shall what I have encountered within 24 hour of my account creation be a precedent, I highly doubt that is the type of actions the creators of Misplaced Pages have intended. It is on the level of drawing dotted line linking far fetched reasoning against all published Misplaced Pages guidelines in order to silent and squash a perspective not shared by the people with privileges. I do not know if you will respond of any other admin will shine in their view point. But I am trying to talk it out with everyone before I request an arbitration hearing. Thank you and please comment, whatever your position may be. | ||
⚫ | ] (]) 16:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:34, 19 November 2022
Welcome!
Hello, CPCnotCCP, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:CPCnotCCP, may not conform to some of Misplaced Pages's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.
Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.
New to Misplaced Pages? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Misplaced Pages page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.
- Article development
- Standard layout
- Lead section
- The perfect article
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Equine-man (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User:CPCnotCCP
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. A tag has been placed on User:CPCnotCCP requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Misplaced Pages's goals. Please note that Misplaced Pages is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Equine-man (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --CPCnotCCP (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that the about me section clearly spells out my opinions and it relays my intention of putting the requests through properly channel. CPCnotCCP (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
November 2022
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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 ~~~~}}
. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I am not the blocking admin, but I have added this template so the user can request here and not through UTRS. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hello dot, thank you for taking a look at this. I understand that you have closed the UTRS 2 appeal and redirected here.
- I am making this both a block appeal and a request for discipline on Fastily. This is due to on two separate actions that he took, not only are the reasons that he linked to his actions are false, I find that he did so with malicious intent. For the sake of the argument, even if I was wrong, there is no logical reason to perma block a new user who finally decide to make an account based on only two history contribs. It is a poor choice to have someone like Fastily to be the first experiences that a new user may have to deal with here on Misplaced Pages, which I hope still adheres to its own published guidelines. Thank you for your time. CPCnotCCP (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
CPCnotCCP (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
== Admin abuse by Fastily == Dear Misplaced Pages action board, My account have been blocked in what I believe to be admin abuse from Fastily. I would like to have my account unblocked and Fastily disciplined and stripped of admin rights. This is what happened: After reading Misplaced Pages for years and watching article after article slide out of neutral point of view, I finally decided to make an account and reach out to those people that appeared to be editing the articles biased and see if there is a more neutral common ground that can be restored on the articles. My username, CPCnotCCP, came from what I believe in to one of the most biased example in recently history, hence I used it as my username. One of the first things I did was edited my user page. I put in some statements about my beliefs, such as "the world will be in better shape if we are all talking and working together", and "I firmly believe that Misplaced Pages should be neutral". This user page, within hours was deleted without any conversations from Fastily. The reason that was tied in for the deletion was for "U5. Blatant misuse of Misplaced Pages as a web host". Please keep in mind that I did not post any links or pictures or videos. I just wrote in plain text what I believed in, especially neutrality. I contested this deletion and left on Fastily's talk page about why did he made such deletion. A user FormalDude told me that I will need to accumulate 5 edits or more in order to have an opinion in my user page. I found that to be odd, because Misplaced Pages could of just have a built in feature to not allow edits on user page until such count is reached, but I accepted the answer and left the following: "Ok, thanks for letting me know. But still, to flag and delete opinions like "I believe that the world should work together" as U5, stating that it's advertisement or using Misplaced Pages as a webhost, with absolutely no communication to me what so ever, is twisted. CPCnotCCP (talk) 12:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Hours later, I found my account perma blocked. Again, without reaching out to me or even bother to have a conversation. The reason left for the perma block was "19:47, 5 November 2022 Fastily talk contribs blocked CPCnotCCP talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: see contribs, SPA pushing a very specific POV)" Let us follow Fastily's reason for a second. If you look at my contrib, you will see that I have no article edits, I have 2 talks in my attempt to talk to the user in the other point of view, and the contest with my user page. That is it. To claim that I am "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: see contribs, SPA pushing a very specific POV" from just two actions is actually very un-clear. While I do present a different view in the talk page than some of the users, there are certainly other people that supported it. Misplaced Pages is not based on assumptions, it is based on facts and evidence. But more importantly and specifically stated in Misplaced Pages rules, in the WP:NOTNOTHERE, it states that "Advocating amendments to policies or guidelines" and WP:NOTHERENORMS "Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner, are specifically legal. I respected the rules and tried to avoid any article edit or revert wars by having expressed my point of view in the talk section. My actions are fully within the Misplaced Pages guidelines. At a minimum, Fastily did not fully understand the rules that the Misplaced Pages have set. More so, it can be said that Fastily was on a power trip and did not like the fact that I objected to his deletion of my user page, and abused his admin power and illegally blocked me. On the high side, it can be said that Fastily may not share my views on such topic and his actions are done in order to censor my opposing views. Regardless of which view you believe happened here, Fastily is unfit to be an admin as he has abused his power. The two separate actions that Fastily used his admin privilege on me were both done with ill intention. Finally, Fastily's actions completely violates WP:BITE, 1, 3, 6, and 8. He did not follow the Misplaced Pages's guideline of "assume good faith" and took action that permanently disabled my actions here on Misplaced Pages without appeal to a block. I hope you are reading this will agree with my perspectives and adhere to the Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Thank you. CPCnotCCP (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblock requests aren't the place to investigate admin abuse. Unblock reviewers such as myself are not empowered to strip another admin of their admin permission. If you truly believe there's been admin abuse, please contact WP:ARBCOM via email. I'll warn you, though, I see nothing that would come close to justifying stripping Fastily of their admin rights. If instead you wish to contest your block, WP:GAB explains how to do so. You'd need to drop your attempt to strip Fastily of admin rights in any such request, though, because again, unblock requests aren't the place for that. Yamla (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2022 (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.
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).CPCnotCCP (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
== focusing on unblock only, stripped out other requests == @Yamla:@331dot: Hello, my account was blocked. The reason given was "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: see contribs, SPA pushing a very specific POV)" 1. If you look at my two contribs, you will see that I have no article edits; I have started 2 talks in my attempt to talk to the users on the other point of view; and the contest with my user page. This is my first time creating an account after reading Misplaced Pages for years. This perma block is in contradiction with the policies posted in wp:bite 2. No matter what the thoughts or the feeling that the original blocking admin had, there is no evidence based on my contrib of two talks to warrant a perma block. 3. Most importantly, under the reason given: "Not here to build an encyclopedia", the official guideline wp:NOTNOTHERE actually have a section that states : "What "not here to build an encyclopedia" is not...." clause 5 "Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner". So even if we assume the reason stated is true that I had a specific POV, it is fully legal within the guidelines especially as I did not even edit the said article, I respected the guidelines and sought out a dialogue in the talk section. I support more neutral articles as it is still one of the five pillars of Misplaced Pages. I would like to have my account unblocked. Thank you. CPCnotCCP (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unfortunately, the use of NOTHERE as the block reason, while valid IMO, didn't allow the blocking admin to also indicate that your username is unacceptable under that policy, another valid reason for this block, and for that reason you will have to use {{unblock-un}} to request a new username in the event you convince us to unblock you.That username, in fact, indicates to me the same thing your edits do: you set this account up strictly to push a point of view. That's effectively NOTHERE. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2022 (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.
Reponse to Daniel Case in order to avoid overuse of UNBLOCK
@Daniel Case: I am going to address your decline decision by the order it was presented. Also copying @331dot: @Yamla: since they provided instructions for me prior.
1. "the use of WP:NOTHERE as the block reason, while valid IMO"
Response: I have already posted in my reasoning from Unblock #2, that the WP:NOTNOTHERE specifically stated that
Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions – in a non-disruptive manner Merely advocating and implementing changes to Misplaced Pages articles or policies with reliable sources is allowed; even if these changes made are incompatible with certain Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, it is not the same as not being here to build an encyclopedia. The disagreeing editor should take care to not violate Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines such as not reverting due to a lack of consensus, getting the point, and civility in the course of challenging unpopular opinions.
-is allowed.
Furthermore, under "Advocating amendments to policies of guidelines of the same WP:NOTNOTHERE,
The community encompasses a very wide range of views. A user may believe a communal norm is too narrow or poorly approaches an issue, and take actions internally consistent with that viewpoint, such as advocating particular positions in discussions. Provided the user does so in an honest attempt to improve the encyclopedia, in a constructive manner, and assuming the user's actions are not themselves disruptive, such conversations form the genesis for improvement to Misplaced Pages.
I do not understand how your opinion applies the WP:NOTHERE since the two above guideline specifically states what I am doing is perfectly acceptable. Do you mind explaining how do you ignore the guideline listed?
2. "your username is unacceptable under that policy, another valid reason for this block."
Response: I checked the WP:IU, WP:ATTACKNAME, there is no listed guideline in there that my username CPCnotCCP violates. There is simply no guideline that states that a username can not be a point of perspective. The guideline clearly stated in WP:BADNAME that as an administrator, you should first assume good faith. Perhaps if you read why I select the username in the first unblock request you will understand why I choose that phrase. The second thing stated that if you find my name really objective, it is procedure for you to reach out to me and let me know that there is a problem. After that, you should of request comments on my username from other users. By instantly perma block me, none of Misplaced Pages guidelines is followed. Your comments are not valid.
3. "That username, in fact, indicates to me the same thing your edits do: you set this account up strictly to push a point of view. "
Response: This is where your statement tells me that you might be biased on this matter. Look at the evidence: I NEVER EDITED THE ARTICLE ITSELF. I only replied to the TALK page to other users' perspectives. The TALK page, the very place where a user is suppose to be to have a discussion. I replied to TWO (2) user's comments. That is all I was able to do after the account was created, and within 20 hours of the account creation, my account was perma blocked. I did not get a chance to do anything else. How about you follow the Misplaced Pages's guideline of WP:GF assume good faith, and actually observe my actions for a while before you make up your mind? Two (2) initial actions were enough of a sample size to justify a perma block an account? That is the equivalent of a baby of 20 month old stepped on an ant and the baby will put to prison for life assuming that the baby will be a serial killer in the future. No neutral common sense will find two (2) sample size to enough to justify a permanent action, especially after I follow the guidelines and did NOT edit the article and only spoke in the TALK section.
Conclusion If you read my initial explaining in Unlock #1, I spoke about being neutral being the key, why I finally created an account, and why I want to have a discussion due to my perspective that some articles on Misplaced Pages is anything but neutral. Shall what I have encountered within 24 hour of my account creation be a precedent, I highly doubt that is the type of actions the creators of Misplaced Pages have intended. It is on the level of drawing dotted line linking far fetched reasoning against all published Misplaced Pages guidelines in order to silent and squash a perspective not shared by the people with privileges. I do not know if you will respond of any other admin will shine in their view point. But I am trying to talk it out with everyone before I request an arbitration hearing. Thank you and please comment, whatever your position may be.