User talk:Waveclaira

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Note to other admins. This page is in reverse chronological order. The block is at the bottom, and each unblock request/decline goes up the page with the latest at the top (just under this comment). This is because the user kept insisting on placing each unblock request at the top of the page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Waveclaira (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

the last reviewer didnt directly address my comments or likely read it and gave something generic so that's fine (i guess?). i dont want to have to write anymore so in short im unblocking for all the reasons below and because the block from an involved editor was unmerited. i have taken responsibility for my edits by not making changes after the editor let me know that i should go to the talk page and get other people's views see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources and the editor that kept changing it back has not -- i dont think this is fair or right or the way this should be at all but already took responsibility. i dont think excessive burden of responsibility is just. i dont think you people should be supporting what i feel is not just, and i think this is bad overall. you shouldnt place excessive burden of responsibility on one editor. i dont know if there's a policy or guideline for that view since wikipedia is a mess, but the point is i had already taken responsibility by taking it to the talk page, and will not take any more responsibility because it is unjust, and it is more unjust to take excessive responsibility when others are hypocritical and have not taken any. it would be wrong in so many avenues for me to perform such injustice with this whole situation. im unblocking because i understand it isnt worth editing for the reasons laid out, so therefore, by not changing a page back in the future, i wont have this headache given that you arent showing you care about the editors' well-being. in the future, i'll leave a message on the "contentious" editor's talk page if my care is more than the pain. for example, this is a case where i care enough.. Waveclaira (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block was justified based on your disruptive and tendentious changes to an important content guideline without any discussion. Your subsequent behavior has also been disruptive. You refuse to accept responsibility for your behavior, you attack other editors, and you attack Wikipedia itself. Any future unblock requests that continue this pattern may result in a decline and a revocation of your talk page access privileges. Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

comment: i dont like how https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Waveclaira&diff=514671954&oldid=514671598 tried to purposely and intentionally put my unblock request at the bottom where it cannot be seen when the guideline says it should be one top. i dont like this at all. this is bad. this is an example of lack of responsibility of these editors. it isnt a part of the above, but it's important to note. Waveclaira (talk)

"To make an unblock request, copy the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here}}."
It's even underlined. The reason for this is to keep the block notices, unblock requests and block reviews in chronological order. Voceditenore (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Waveclaira (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

this editor Fluffer is not directly addressing my unblock comments. i am not getting an editor that is carefully and fully reviewing my comments. both editors should be blocked and selectively blocking me for Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources is wrong. this editor said that i should "collaborate rather than ignoring people who raise concerns about your edits or your ideas." i did collaborate and this is hypocritical as problems i raised are being ignored like the problems i brought up in the unblock request and there are other examples of problems. the editor also says that i "neither understand how your strategy was wrong, nor intend to change it." i dont know what the policy is on very minor edits is to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. given the problem, i had already changed my edits as there are no edits to the "contentious" page. i dont think this accusation is good or careful or fair. and i dont think that this arbitrary block for an arbitrary time limit should be allowed. the comment on "This unblock request indicates that you" is wrong. again, i think Fluffer is one-sided and i feel that the editor should be neutral. i am not getting a full and careful and neutral review of the problems i brought up. none of the problems i brought up are being directly addressed, not only on this page. to be clear that i have directly addressed Fluffer's comment, i dont think that editing a page where a "contentious" editor is giving you problems is not a good idea, and minor edits may be not aligned with some kind of policy, so therefore, i and anyone else should not be editing that page. this is wasteful, inefficient, stressful, frustrating, and gave me a huge headache. and this is bad for my well-being, and it doesnt seem like you care about that, so all that goes beyond anything and eventually leads to the conclusion that Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources is simply not worth editing even when you were trying to make it useful and helpful and more clear since people are ignoring that fact by not giving it a fair review. again, i dont think blocking whenever they want, and especially when it's one-sided and wasnt carefully reviewed, should be allowed and i dont like it. i also dont like that the various problems i brought up are being ignored. this is hypocritical of others. nothing is being done about that. the blocker was also an editor that has an interest --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TParis#Your_edit_to_.22Identifying_reliable_sources.22 -- i dont think this is a good thing overall, and am very unhappy with all this. i feel that the edits to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources should have been left alone as they were incomplete reorg to that page that i feel did make it better until specific problems with those edits are brought up. that didnt happen and i feel that the very minor edits should have been left and that also didnt happen. this is a huge hindrance to any form of progress. i dont think when an editor is trying to make a sensible improvement to a page, there should be this kind of problem and headache, and i think something should be done about this. instead people like Paris block when it's uncalled for because they are too lazy to actually make real progress to the situation. im totally against that. editors should be allowed to progress a page since nobody else is doing it. the pain that is caused overall is more detrimental than beneficial. i dont think the genuine problems i brought up are given careful consideration.

while all editors should take responsibility for edits they make to problem pages like Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources , i had already given the problem, BUT i feel there is a huge lack of responsibility on the part of others that are hypocritical with problems being brought up. like when i put the unblock request, the editor fluffer just gave a very generic and careless review. i dont agree with this. this is all very bad and makes contributing not worth it. i dont like how the editor that was changing my edits on Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources was completely changing my comments on a dispute page for the reason that editor didnt like my inclusion of the related reliable source issue. so instead of changing just that part, that editor changed everything which shouldnt be allowed. so i cooperated and understood and removed it (even though i may disagree with it) and that editor finally stopped giving that problem. then later when i asked for a 3rd-party neutral view about that editor's actions, i just get these one-sided careless comments that just ignored my problems, and this was on a page that was expected to have better people but instead i got something worse. how can editors make any progress of awful stuff in need of work when nobody is protecting them, and as shown above, they dont. this is bad overall. and in case i couldnt be clearer on what is bad overall, it is the huge lack of responsibility on the part of hypocritical others and the pain they cause which i just completely completely disagree with. i just dont feel that there's a genuine interest in the well-being of editors who tried to make progress on a page about reliability within a completely volunteer org, so why should they? i dont understand why we should. i just dont understand why when it's such a problem. there's far better ways to make things better with limited time if it's like this.

Waveclaira (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Stop, slow down, please study the guide to appealing blocks, and then make an unblock request that addresses the reason for your unblock. In particular, do not attack other volunteers. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

all these are my reasons. you're not giving any specifics that directly addresses the problems so you shouldnt be reviewing this. the gab is also way to long and i dont have time like that. you have to give specific reasons if you're going to decline.

Waveclaira (talk)

  • Please stop editing and re-editing your unblock requests. You're making it nearly impossible for anyone to respond to you with the rapid series of edits you're making. This process works much better if you say everything you need to say in one edit. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
you see this? i have no policy citated for this. it's not "nearly impossible" -- and this works just fine since if i need to make edits for clarification and the comment is basically trying to obstruct me from it. this wikipedia project would work a lot if you didnt post these demands when you have already shown me i cannot trust you for your one-sided lack of responsibility. even though you dont cite any policy, i really cant be wasting time like this. and just in case it wasnt clear -- This whole project would work much better if you didnt make demands that is not directly progressing wikipedia's content. since i just cant take this, i wont make any further comments (since nobody cares anyway)
Waveclaira (talk) 
I'm sorry, I guess I didn't explain that clearly - I wasn't saying there's some abstract policy that disallows you from editing your unblock requests, I was saying that from a technical standpoint, if you're continually editing this page, no one ELSE can edit it to respond to you, because the software doesn't allow that to happen. Now, I've restored jpgordon's decline of your unblock, which you had moved out of the unblock request template. Please don't do that again - you can respond to his decline as you wish, outside the template, but the unblock request itself and the response by an admin must stay in it (that one is a rule - you can't remove an unblock decline by someone else just because you don't like it). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
what are you talking about -- it's stil there -- i told you already i dont trust you so you should Stop bothering me by this point since you're only causing more problems
Waveclaira (talk)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Waveclaira (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

this is arbitrary. the editor on the Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources page should be blocked as well for changing back my progress. there hasn't been any changes on that page, and one week is also too long. it isn't fair that i don't have any say or input from a neutral editor. this block is very biased and one-sided. i dont think progressive edits that were in many parts minor should be arbitrarily blocked to one editor and not both. i dont think this should be allowed. "Waveclaira (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Looking at what you've been doing...yeah, that was disruptive. As people have explained to you, policies are important and contentious things, and you can't just go ramming through whatever you want when other editors are opposing it in good faith. This is a collaborative project, and if you want to edit here, you must be willing to collaborate rather than ignoring people who raise concerns about your edits or your ideas. This unblock request indicates that you neither understand how your strategy was wrong, nor intend to change it, and while those things are the case, you won't be granted an unblock. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

September 2012[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - TP 14:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of multiple accounts[edit]

  • Indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Talk page revoked for troll like behavior during the unblock process. CU indicated possible link to Dualus, but the contribs, particularly the starting ones, definitively indicate that this is a sock of someone who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia in a collegiate manner. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 19:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Appears to be a new editor who doesn't properly comment changes—moved a lot of US-specific material from the Internet privacy article to the talk page, and didn't sign the talk page, so it would seem at first glance that the editor had deleted a mass of material, because there were no edit summary comments indicating that it had been moved to the talk page. LittleBen (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I trust Dennis Brown's assesment that this is not a new user.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)