124.181.82.220

there was no personal attack, take it up with ANI, calling someone incompetent is not a personal attack, claiming racism is not a personal attack either. Pushing your own views falls under "I don't like it." Well tough... It also fails on the grounds of morally offensive views. You may not like the term Indigenous, that's tough, also. Just because you don't like it take it up with someone else who cares and I quote:

"The fact that an idea or topic is morally outrageous is not a reason to leave it out of Wikipedia. If a morally outrageous idea or practice has received notable coverage from neutral, independent sources (not just its originator), we provide a valuable service by describing it as well as the criticisms and opposition it has received."

Or just simply go away and stop bothering my talk page. --124.181.82.220 (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

You have been given several last chances. Stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Since you appear to misunderstand my suggestion on my talkpage, please remember that self-identification pertains to ethnic identity, not to nationality. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Simple abuse of power

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The term incompetent is not a personal attack when used in relation to policy. The term racist is not a personal attack either especially when it is a clearly identified racist perspective not to recognise indigenous people in Australia. In relation to a unanimous consensus we the people in Australia have accepted as a common-law term, and government policy as well as through academic consensus in relation to Indigenous people that Indigenous Australian is the catch-all term for these self identified people. "I don't like it" is not an excuse when it comes to this matter either. Refer as above. 124.181.82.220 (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Yes it is, yes it is, and if you're not interested in adhering to Wikipedia's policies and norms in that regard, please stay away. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:35, 10 October 2019 (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.

Where I have referred to competency is required there is no personal attack

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).

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

---

Request reason:

In fact there is a clear link to policy and procedure about incompetency. Wikipedia is not, or at least should not be a place for racially charged alternate facts dominating articles either and this is one place where racially charged alternate facts by the vocal minority are commonplace in lots of places around the world about Indigeneity and Australia just so happens to be one of those places... However, when the consensus of the majority in this country is to represent these people in a particular way, when their identity is challenged by what is nothing more than simplified skullduggery then their beliefs and values should all the more so be protected and respected. Also accuracy is required. I submit that by ignoring the majority consensus of the people of Australia that you yourself are turning Wikpedia into the very battleground you are trying to avoid. 124.181.82.220 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You show no understanding for why you were blocked, and show no indication you will stop calling people "racist" or "incompetent" for disagreeing with you. Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. If you are truly editing with a neutral point of view, it should be impossible to tell what your POV is, and I don't think that's the case. The things you accuse others of -- like 'tendentious' editing -- are what you yourself are doing. Is it not you that is turning Wikipedia into that "battleground"? Antandrus (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2019 (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.

Being unaware of bias means being able to recognise.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

And this is why Wikipedia is often the defender of incompetency. I can acknowledge the perspective and then state with the weight of evidence what the true neutral perspective is especially in this politically charged arena. That is a sign of my education as a learned person who has a post-graduate university degree. I can even understand the perspective, which is why my perspective is not what is right, but what is just and what is true in this instance, and this, my friend, is why everyone who is anyone outside of the Wikipedia community laughs at the armchair enthusiasts that edit here and yes I recognise my last statement as being biased, but also at the same time my true and correct opinion of Wikipedia as a failed endeavor which is also why I will NEVER register an account here. You have simply left the idiots, including yourself, in charge of the village. 124.181.82.220 (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Based on both this request and the since-deleted comments you left below, I am not only declining your request but also revoking talk page access. —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2019 (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.

You likely will not be unblocked and will likely lose your talkpage access because I am going to tell the blocking admin that you are abusing your talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

---