User talk:SeldomTimely

Source reliability
The sources are indeed not all equal. A good reference is WP:RSP then WP:RSN may be consulted on a case by case basis. — Paleo Neonate  – 03:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this meant to respond to respond to something I said? Because it doesn't. You should read my claims again, as they're carefully considered. Furthermore, the message indicating "you have should interest in Covid-19" is another red-flag about how things are handled around here. Nothing in my comment indicates any specific concern with Covid-19. The problem is general. That the comment happened to be on a Covid-19 related article is incidental. The point of contention regards inflammatory labels that are likely unjustified. And I say this as someone who has no stake in the particular subject matter: just someone who is worried that objectivity is being compromised on this platform. Administrators should not serve as blind instruments of the "policy" but seek to justify it when it is challenged, if the grounds are sound.


 * Anyway, once you've given a slew of sources a categorical pass, like the WP:RSN seems to do, what you have done is converted aspects of Wikipedia into instruments of propaganda. There are very pointed critiques from scholars about how corporate media operate. They weaponize decontextualized facts to create oftentimes politically biased narratives, especially in cases of conflicts of interest. This kind of nuance should be reflected in the policy. Objectivity qua objectivity should be the ultimate goal, not proxies and heuristics. I say this is a liberal that sees a creeping politicization of articles. Users should be able to raise these concerns. It is dangerous to cull constructive feedback. --SeldomTimely (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Important message
— Paleo Neonate  – 03:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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:. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Reviewing Admin: Territorial losers who respond emotionally to rational conversation and react like fascist dictators. is rather unambiguous, and leaves little doubt, especially with a non-apology like above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The reaction and actions taken by wikipedia user RandomCanadian in this case are completely unacceptable. My reaction was completely warranted given this person's actions, which speak louder than words. It is unacceptable that people of this caliber have this kind of power in this platform. I posted two comments that were completely well reasoned and mannered, was censored without justification or communication, then was blocked indefinitely. My heated verbal retort, I maintain, is no justification for these actions. You should develop far more accountable procedures in cases like this. Otherwise, the power-tripping of users like RandomCanadian will damage -- are damaging -- this platform and reasonable discussion to take place. Especially when you give people with this level of self-righteousness this level of power. NOBODY, and I REPEAT, NOBODY should have the POWER to censor or block someone on the basis of what I said above, unless some procedure and or rule is communicated to them before hand! It is inconceivable that these kind of Draconian measures are at the fingertips of people who reacted with undue indignation. Mark my words, this person's power-tripping will continue. SeldomTimely (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Unblock Account
Hello, again you display the same hubris as the editors who acted in concert to block someone indefinitely with very little justification. You made your decision far too quickly. I would like you to look at the entire spectrum of evidence and give a justification for why I was blocked indefinitely to begin with. I can understand a reprimand, but not an indefinite block for what transpired. What damage or disruption did I cause? None. There was a personal exchange with a power tripping editor. This caused me to respond indignantly to their unreasonable quarantining of my politely articulated concerns. If you're familiar with how the law works, it takes some careful consideration before you reach a decision on the evidence. Arbitrary power should always be avoided. Both the actions of the initial editor, who now also appears to be blocked, and the editor who made the blocking decision were immature. You need a process that follows reasonable procedure, as well as doles out punishment in proportion.

Unblock
SeldomTimely (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

"The block was completely justified. WP:NPA is a hard rule, and that you think your attacks are justified is another good reason to keep you blocked to protect Wikipedia. --jpgordon𝄢"

What "attack"lol? You don't realize that you have permanently banned a person who could otherwise make useful contributions for one off hand comment that was completely justified in my part. The regime that runs this place is literally akin to the Stanford Prison Experiment. Maybe you give a warning, but to permanently ban for something so benign is unthinkable, literally Nazi level stuff. Here's hoping a more humane, permissible contributor will disagree with the fringe groupthink that pervades the ruling so far. SeldomTimely (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Process
jpgordon𝄢𝄆 Have you read the WP:NPA that you cite? It refers to a process for resolving personal attacks. There were was zero process administered for a first time offense but arbitrarily issued a permanent block. It is a barbaric way of handling the situation without any consideration for the context that led to it in the first place, which was an editor power tripping on an issue raised politely. It's like cutting someone's hand for stealing or their tongue for cursing. SeldomTimely (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)