User talk:Southeastviewer

This page in a nutshell: If nobody agrees with you, you can either bow to the majority or be shown the door.

Wikipedia is not a court of law, where objective facts reign supreme. Wikipedia is a social club, where if you go against the group norms, you'll be asked to leave.

Everyone has a moment where they see a situation, reference policy, and are certain that their viewpoint is correct. Then, to their surprise, few if any other editors agree with them. Even after explaining their position and why it's correct, still nobody is swayed. At this point, the editor has two choices: keep trying to show that they're correct, or drop it and move on.

The problem with sticking to facts you know to be true is that Wikipedia is not governed by arbiters of objective truth. It is, at its core, a bunch of people. No matter how rock-solid your argument is, if nobody is convinced, then pressing the point will be seen as disruptive editing and get you removed from the site.

Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, is now a victim of the problematic system that he allowed for so long. This is a note of sympathy, not vindication, but not necessarily an endorsement of Larry's agenda/project (I do not know nor involved).

On his viral tweet, Larry Sanger wrote about the "consensus of a mob" and how the judges were "self-selected and hated me". As I am writing this, the tweet has been seen more than half a million times.

And that was something that I experienced here before.

Starting from a clash with a User A, and then a certain user (a very senior Wikipedia Royalty, no doubt) who knows the person I was clashing with, coming to help User A. Initially, I welcomed Mrs. Senior's role as the "lawyer" for the plaintiff. Imagine my surprise when I also saw her assuming role as a jury member and also a judge. Not long after that, regardless of what I said and counter-argument (defending yourself is called "bludgeoning"), it was no use. As a "junior" user, I could not stand against the "consensus".

That's how I learned there was no a fair court in Wikipedia. Just summon your friends to vote against you. And now Sanger has spoken about it publicly on his platform and thousands and thousands of people will see what is happening here. Regardless of your positions, it's not a good picture to block the co-founder from their company/website. No matter what is the case, the general public sympathy will go to him.

Please remember: You may not see it from your monitor, but from general outsiders' perspective your behaviour could be perceived badly (which will further harm Wikipedia's reputation). Compare to the behavior of the Reddit Lords: At least on Reddit, you could move to other subreddit who may have more liberal editors who would tolerate dissent. But here? All the powers are concentrated among some Wikipedia Royalty (sometimes whose glittery pages bring reminiscence to some 14 years olds on Tumblr back in the day) who have no limit in their power. Wikipedia editors are supposed to be better and fairer than that.

This behaviour in Wikipedia must change.

There must be a separate "judicial" system: Fairness and Common Sense dictate that jury must be neutral. Anyone who reads or studies law or ever does jury duty would understand this. You cannot be lawyers and judges and jury members at the same time during a case against another person. Confused by that concept? Welcome to the COMMON SENSE.

The World sees you now. And while I often criticize Elon Musk myself (I do not trust him or any Big Tech), what is happening here are just legitimizing Elon Musk's Grokpedia. Make no mistake, people who support Elon Musk (if not Elon himself) will exploit this event. It's not Elon Musk's fault. There are good, brilliant editors here who actually care about the quality of the page. But let's not deny there are also people who cannot limit their own power trip due to their exalted (online) hierarchy in this Social Club.

(For the record: I disagree with canvassing accusation against him. Unless there was a clear mob-calling, the fact that he aired his grievance on his personal social media account was not necessarily a canvassing. Not to mention it should be easy to detect some new bots accounts resulting from canvassing.)

A Wikipedia Founder Is Barred From Editing Articles on the Site - The New York Times

Southeastviewer (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that I am violating Wikipedia policy or that my behavior is disruptive, take it to an administrator noticeboard. Otherwise, do not make personal attacks. If you do take this to a noticeboard, expect scrutiny for your own behavior. I will not post on your talk page again unless required by policy. Grayfell (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are literally defaming me with dishonest arguments. Please scrutinize your behavior. Don't delete the evidence when I called you out. If you are ashamed of your behavior, then stop doing it.

Southeastviewer (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of defamation are not made lightly. Again, please take them to the appropriate channels that Grayfall suggested. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just read his defamations on my thread at the MBTI's talk page before he quickly scrubbed it. @Harryhenry1

Southeastviewer (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he scrubbed it because it contained genuine personal attacks? Do you understand why he'd bristle at the defamation accusations? Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made a thread to prove he was defaming me by accusing me of using weasel words and insinuation. I listed the problem one by one, complete with quotes and @Grayfell deleted them. You are either lying on purpose or pretending to be neutral. @Harryhenry1

Southeastviewer (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's not defamation. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So how would you describe it when someone said you're X while you're not doing X? Please, do tell. @EvergreenFir

Southeastviewer (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Incorrect", "mistaken", "misinformed", "wrong". Perhaps they're even "assuming bad faith" or "casting aspersions". But libel and defamation imply legal liability and tangible harm. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about "legal" term in that conversation. But I'd take casting aspersions ("An aspersion is an attack on someone's reputation or character, similar to defamation.)

Southeastviewer (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used Wikipedia in a while, so I am asking you to guide me through this dispute resolution process. @EvergreenFir. I am not alone in questioning Myers-Briggs Type Indicator page. Some people are acting as editors, but as gatekeepers. Other editors already raised question about the page like a hit piece, yet the same gatekeepers were banding together to reject the revision. They are poisoning the well and then gatekeeping, and using "consensus" to delay revisions.

Southeastviewer (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you've repeatedly undone other editors, which is what we call edit warring. Dispute resolution should occur on the article's talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And if three editors work together to block credible sources (even from the same source they're using on the page) or gatekeep the page from revision, what would be your suggestion? Leave the page as it is even though it's a hit piece?

Southeastviewer (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the link about dispute resolution. You can even start a Request for Comment. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I could not report it because you blocked my IP.

Whoever reported me to you was throwing dust in your eyes. Read these. I'm not alone. They're just gatekeeping it. That page (MBTI) was violating NPOV so flagrantly.

Talk:Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Article_reads_like_a_hit_piece

Talk:Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#This_article_misinforms_readers_about_the_scientific_consensus._It_also_stomps_NPOV_into_the_dust_and_spits_on_it.

Talk:Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Why_is_this_article_quoting_Adam_Grant's_words?

Talk:Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Weasel_Words_and_Adam_Grant Southeastviewer (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

None of that justifies the edit warring and general hostility to the other editors. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Someone was casting aspersion and I have rights to debate back. You are talking about consensus while deliberately keeping information from @EvergreenFir that months ago multiple editors were already raising question about this page's quality. Yet their revision was blocked by the gatekeepers.

Wikipedia is built on community, it's not your page to gatekeep. You can't act as if you were owning the page.

Southeastviewer (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between having a debate with someone and making bold claims of libel and defamation. I have not kept any information from EvergreenFir, they blocked you solely for edit warring. Whatever discussion previously happened on the talk page is irrelevant. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You lie again. I never say anything about "libel". He was casting aspersion toward me as explained above.

Southeastviewer (talk) 07:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Libel and defamation", I was quoting from EvergreenFir there, but you were claiming defamation until EvergreenFir clarified the proper terms to use. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

She gave an example. I did not say anything about libel, did I? Talk to your friend Greyfell to stop casting aspersion next time.

Southeastviewer (talk) 07:49, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Grayfell's friend. And for someone angry at aspersion casting, you seem to be doing a lot of it yourself when you're this hostile to editors. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the perceived hostility came from the lying and casting aspersion in the first place? Look in the mirror?

Southeastviewer (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw you involved in the debate at the MBTI page's talk. Are you even a neutral party here when you block me?

You talk about consensus. Do you see what's happening here?

Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#This article was written with extreme bias

Talk:Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Article_reads_like_a_hit_piece

Talk:Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#This_article_misinforms_readers_about_the_scientific_consensus._It_also_stomps_NPOV_into_the_dust_and_spits_on_it.

Talk:Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Why_is_this_article_quoting_Adam_Grant's_words?

Talk:Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator#Weasel_Words_and_Adam_Grant

Someone actually said (in 2024): It was a good effort, but very few people on this website will be able to get past Grayfell, MrOllie, and EvergreenFir.

I demand an answer, otherwise I might have to suspect you were abusing the block feature. @EvergreenFir by pretending to be neutral.

Southeastviewer (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How were they abusing the block feature when it was a clear case of edit warring? Harryhenry1 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove my blocking so I can report it first. @EvergreenFir

Southeastviewer (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's just 2 days. You could've reported it before edit warring, as you were asked to do several times. Harryhenry1 (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I will. I am also gathering evidences from the previous threads.

Southeastviewer (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have made a number of personal attacks on me against our policy WP:NPA on the Myers briggs talk page here1 and here2 also another also here3. In another talk page section This too.

That is a lot of nasty and unfounded untrue accusations you have made against me. Withdraw them, or I will report you as I find them demeaning coming from somebody with so little experience of the project.

In order to help you, I suggest you strike the comments. This acknowledges your mistakes in a manner that does not disrupt (any further) the conversation on that page. If you dont strike, and withdraw this I will report your nastiness to admins. I expect you would be blocked. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 10:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me, you know about our policy on personal attacks, see this just above. - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 10:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me to delete this? You made a specific claim, and I verified it against the available record. And just to be clear there were other two other editors who already visited the talk. You made a claim. I simply checked. You didn't like the result. Maybe don't make a claim if you can't back it up.

Did you see this? User talk:Roxy the dog#January 2026 Southeastviewer

They can have checked the talk page for years without having made a comment themselves. You can't prove or disprove that either way, so calling him a liar is pushing things too far. Harryhenry1 (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are here again, watching my page just to jump in to whoever attacks me first.

When Grayfell accused my twice, did you stop him/her? Did you tell him/her to stop? No? Or are you just hanging on my page and helping anyone who has case against me?

Southeastviewer (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't need to stop them because I thought they were in the right. Harryhenry1 (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not? They said I was using weasel words (I did not). They said I was insinuating (I did not, Greyfell admitted themselves that the source was wrong, so my words were not insinuation).

Which part of Greyfell's comments were right? The one calling me using weasel words or insinuating? @Harryhenry1?

Southeastviewer (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to keep tagging me. I thought their comment was an entirely fair critique. Harryhenry1 (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely where your bias becomes visible. When others direct personal criticisms or cast aspersions toward me, you readily frame them as “fair critiques.” Yet when I respond with my own criticisms, you step in and align with them while presenting yourself as neutral.

I want to be honest about my boundaries: I am not comfortable having you engage on my page in this manner. If your presence here is simply to monitor me because of the discussion on the MBTI talk page, it creates a sense of unease rather than a constructive atmosphere. It's intrusive instead of constructive.

Southeastviewer (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, but remember to please don't let your feelings get the better of you. Being paranoid and angry towards the editors isn't helping anyone. Harryhenry1 (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That characterization is a deflection. Framing valid criticism as paranoia is a rhetorical move that undermines honest discussion. Mind yourself.

Southeastviewer (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear: I am fine if there were third party editors (not Everygreen or Grenfell) who check it and strike the comments. Please don't come here and give threatening words like that.

Southeastviewer (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you at WP:ANI. The report can be found here Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 13:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied. The reply can be found here: Southeastviewer (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want to place on record that there have been sustained and coordinated attacks against me since I raised concerns about gatekeeping and bias on the MBTI page. The escalation is not incidental. It followed directly after I identified and challenged those behaviors.

It is also notable that nearly all parties involved in the current dispute have prior involvement with the MBTI page. Most of the users above, who present themselves as unrelated, became involved shortly thereafter and began directing criticism and challenges toward me. The timing and sequence are clear and documented. These actions only began after I questioned the gatekeeping practices on that page.

Southeastviewer (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:There is no cabal. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming there is one. Two of them are verifiably worked together in one page.

One of them just appeared here out of nowhere after I debated them and pressing my positions.

Southeastviewer (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly I'm very disappointed with the proceeding on that board. It's so one-sided. No cross-examinations. Someone was even scrutinizing my edit history. It's literally unfair, no matter from which angle you see it.

Southeastviewer (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I took the time to scanalyze the true believers™ edits over the last 4 years.

Some have found solace in the oft quoted maybe it's them after all . Augmented Seventh (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I literally have to check that page twice to make sure I read correctly. That single essay is very sad because it's so true. And immediately remember how Imperatrix behaved on that thread against me.

It's sad because there are people and editors who still believe Wikipedia is quite objective.

If more people knew about that essay, Elon Musk would be vindicated.

Thank you for sharing that. I felt sad, still feel sad at the injustice. But after reading that...... I'm sad about the state of this website.

Southeastviewer (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Again.

Southeastviewer (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Talk:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) for disruptive editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was reported for disruptive editing. The accusation is not fair and the punishment is excessive. First of all, if you check the Talk page on Myers-Briggs' page, there were almost 20 editors who spoke up against the problem of the page for not being neutral. Yes, I admit I was getting heated debate with two editors who guard the page (and I stand with my position that they should allow other editors to revise the MBTI page). But to avoid edit war, I was advised to send a request to RfC to fix the problem, and I did send the request and practically stopped edit warring after my request was sent. I also acknowledge I was conflicting with other editor Roxy, but I apologized to her and I would accept if my three comments that offended her were deleted. However, there is another editor, whom I never talked to until today, who really campaigned against me to block/ban me. It was so unjust. During a voting, I was still trying to defend myself, yet another admin already banned me from the MBTI page and its Talk page. I think the punishment is excessive, and coming after the edit warring was stopped and my apology to Roxy. The punishment is not fair at all.

Decline reason:

Continued WP:NOTTHEM above and below shows no indication unblocking would be productive and in fact a broader block is probably needed. Star Mississippi 23:54, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

• Relevant AN/I thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal Attacks. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I have closed your discussion at The Teahouse. Please keep things on one page. Take some time out (there's no deadline) and then read the "guide to appealing blocks" referred to above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  When you say be brief, how brief is it? Should I just leave out the context? Southeastviewer (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not about just vs. unjust. The blocking philosophy is that blocks are preventative, not a punishment. I.e. blocks get applied to prevent further harm, rather than to punish the blocked editor. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The block happened after the edit war was over and after I apologized to Roxie. If you couldn't see it's just a social club vendetta, I wouldn't try to convince you.

  Southeastviewer (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, in the past 4 months I have learned better from Wikipedia writers about my violations and I own up my mistake on MBTI page and to be more mindful and careful in disagreement. But I would like to access Wikipedia Library to get some researchers, and I am unable to access it because the current blocking. Could you please release the block? Thank you.

Decline reason:

You seem interested in the unblock solely to access the Wikipedia Library. No. Nor have you provided any reason to believe it would be beneficial to lift this extremely narrow block. Yamla (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

You are correct that I am interested in Wikipedia library, but I hope you are not assuming I was totally disregarding with what happened. The issue happened four months ago, and I have learned to avoid the same issue. Another Wikipedia user told me that this block could be uplifted after doing some learning about the issue, and since I have not attempted to violate that block or disturb that page in any way, I believe I have a good case for my good behavior. As for the reason, I think the reason to access the library is to find better sources for Wikipedia's articles. I hope that helps to clear the misunderstanding

Decline reason:

At this time you are only blocked from editing a single topic, and given your history there, I see no reason to lift that block after only a few months. Further frivolous requests are increasingly likely to result in a full block. OhNoitsJamie ^talk 14:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Southeastviewer (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Your complete misunderstanding of how en wiki works will do you no favors in your unblock request. You are partially blocked from one page. It's exactly like one subreddit. Please stop soapboxing and edit the project or you're unlikely to regain full access. Star Mississippi 11:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Southeastviewer.

To start with, I am sympathetic to your plights; Wikipedia can definitely have lower tolerance for misbehavior from newcomers (who also don't know the rules or culture here, and so more easily break that tolerance). I faced similar issues when I first became active here around a year ago. My advice is to always try to keep the higher ground; try to collaborate on the talk page even if you feel they are being unfair, let things go if you can, and take everyone in the best of faith.

For example, on Communist Party of Indonesia, I mainly agreed with you on the underlying dispute and did not think it was fair for people to cite your behavior on other topics to dismiss your argument on that one, but reverting again after three other users had reverted you does not come off well (and will lead to a block). And coming off as hostile on the talk page, whether or not you feel it is justified, makes it harder to collaborate with them. In this particular case, one of the users had specifically said they were okay with changing the wording, and you can see it did not take long to find a wording everyone was happy with.

The recent stuff (calling someone "Wikipedia Royalty", for example) is not helpful either, and I would suggest removing that. I don't know this particular dispute well, but it seems like it started with similar issues, and spiraled from there. You might be right that you were treated unfairly, but continuing to fight over it is not going to be good for you or the project. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I was not referring to the guy on Communist Page (I believe he is a male). But I take your point and revise.

Southeastviewer (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]