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 In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.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)

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)

Unblock request

 * Thanks for your time,.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)