User talk:Southeastviewer

Hello, Southeastviewer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

AF1011 (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you.

Please review WP:TALK and remember to focus on content. --Hipal (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel like they are just provoking me and then jumping here to find opportunities to block me from editing. Greyfell accused me twice in the Talk page (MBTI page), but did they get blocked? No.

And I am not comfortable with @Harryhenry1 in my page. Every time there is someone making a case against me (because the Talk on MBTI page), he is always there to help them. I am not comfortable with his presence here. Please help.

Southeastviewer (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Btw, I also open if you would guide me about this. I've rectified my approach after your notification.

Southeastviewer (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Please help me

Southeastviewer (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, but my availability is very limited. I suggest WP:TEA --Hipal (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I will, but could you check my appeal below? What should I do?

Southeastviewer (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks. Again.

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

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)

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)

---

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)
• 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)

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

  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)

  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)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's policy against harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

This one week sitewide block is in addition to the block above. Personal attacks and harassment are not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother whatever your currently doing @Cullen328, but what exactly happened? From reading the situation I have yet to understand it fully. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 07:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Campssitie, your most recent comment at WP:ANI#Personal Attacks indicates that you now understand the situation. Please refrain from idle curiosity on the talk pages of blocked editors. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wrote this comment before understanding. Best regards to you, as I will not reply again. ★ Campssitie (msg) (contribs) 🧋🏖 08:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)