User talk:Skyranger11: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:34, 4 August 2021

August 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

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 ~~~~}}. -- Scott Burley (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z7

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).

Skyranger11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

After I received your first warning, I tried deleting the threat, but the user - Brocalli and Coffee reverted that change. What can I do if the user himself doesn't; want that removed. I also consulted the Wikipedia legal team and my legal consultant and both suggested I try and resolve this issue peacefully. I was on my way to start a new section and peacefully discuss with Brocalli & Coffee to remove the brand name from the comment or completely delete the comment, but before I could publish I got blocked. Request you to unblock this account and help me resolve this issue peacefully and get the brand name removed from a comment with negative sentiment ruining the public image of a brand without a solid base. Varunrai11 (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Maybe it's just me but you seem to still be holding the threat of legal action out there should this situation not be resolved to your satisfaction. Being unblocked after making legal threats requires the person to unequivocally withdraw any and all legal threats. Saying you'll try discussing it before taking legal action doesn't do that. You may make another request for someone else to review in case I have erred. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2021 (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).

Skyranger11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

After I received your first warning, I tried deleting the threat, but the user - Brocalli and Coffee reverted that change. What can I do if the user himself doesn't; want that removed. I also consulted the Wikipedia legal team and my legal consultant and both suggested I try and resolve this issue peacefully. I was on my way to start a new section and peacefully discuss with Brocalli & Coffee to remove the brand name from the comment or completely delete the comment, but before I could publish I got blocked. Request you to unblock this account and help me resolve this issue peacefully and get the brand name removed from a comment with negative sentiment ruining the public image of a brand without a solid base. I request you to unblock so that I can try talking to broccoli and coffee. Also, do you think what the user [Broccoli and coffee] did is correct? Is it okay to hamper the reputation of a brand by simply publishing baseless comments on a reputed platform like Wikipedia unnecessarily? People nowadays take Wikipedia more seriously than encyclopedias, so how can you allow someone to simply write anything without proof or reasoning. Varunrai11 (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Between your logged-in edits and your logged-out vandalism, I don't see how you can fit in here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:45, 2 August 2021 (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.

Varunrai11 (talk) 07:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Skyranger11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why I want to be a part of Wikipedia - There are many times when I have used Wikipedia in the past, to search for some information and there are cases when I have noticed that the citations are broken or few links are dead, and in those cases, I usually go and validate that information from elsewhere. I want to take the initiative of updating those citations and deadlinks to keep the information updated. That is something I'm really good at. Since I now understand the policies I won't add links from websites obviously abiding by the Wikipedia policies and of course no legal threats at all. Only logical and peaceful discussions if required. Kindly, unblock and let me be a part of this community. I also want to give it a shot and "peacefully" resolve the issue with Brocolli without raising any threats, or maybe give him suggestions on how else can he present the same information in a different way so that it doesn't hurt the company reputation. What do you suggest? Today is my first day here, I'm getting used to the platform. I have gone through the Wikipedia policies a past couple of days which helped me understand what lead to all this and I won't repeat this. Varunrai11 (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Since you were blocked for making a legal threat, and you withdrew that threat ([1]), you are unblocked. -- Scott Burley (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for resolution on this addition, Broccoli and Coffee made the right call in reverting it. Sociomix "diaries" appears to be something akin to a self-publishing platform like Blogspot or Medium; sites like that typically don't qualify as reliable sources and aren't appropriate refs, and per WP:EL policy, not appropriate in the external links section either. In other words, if Brocolli and Coffee hadn't reverted your additions, someone else would've. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be unblocked, you must unequivocally withdraw any and all legal threats. No one can stop you from pursuing legal action, but you cannot make legal threats on Wikipedia. Saying "I'll try to resolve this by talking before I do legal action" still holds the threat of legal action out there which has a chilling effect on others who might talk to you. I'm kinda surprised someone from the Foundation would tell you to come here with that in mind, and would be interested to hear from them here(although someone else will review your request). 331dot (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You also must explain the logged-out vandalism. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varunrai11 (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC) My intention of adding the link on the Bojack Horseman page was not to promote my link but to share a unique idea related to the outfits and looks created by the designer of Bojack Horseman, which hasn't been covered thoroughly. I believed that the information will be very useful for the reader who comes on Wikipedia and will find it very useful. But when Broccoli removed the external link, I requested him on his talk page to explain the issue. He explained the issue to me, and I realized that even though my intentions weren't to promote my link on the page, but it may seem otherwise. I respected his call and then decided to drop out and not share the link at all because I realized that Wikipedia is a space where everything moves with mutual consent. I have no problem with Brocolli reverting on the Bojack Horseman page, I am not complaining about that. I understood his point. The problem is with him marking the "brand name" un-reliable on his talk page in his comment while reverting back. The piece of content that I shared was thoroughly moderated and edited and it's not unreliable. And simply claiming a brand unreliable on a platform like Wikipedia can ruin the public image of a brand. This was the reason I wanted him to remove the brand name from his comment on his talk page. When I mentioned "reverted" in our discussion, I meant that - after receiving your first warning about the legal threat I tried to remove the threat from Broccoli's talk page and he reverted it. Also, he didn't let me remove the brand name from his comment on the talk page. Also, my next step was to create a "new section" and peacefully discuss it with him to remove the brand name from his talk page. If you are able to understand my concern now, what is the best way to resolve this? Is there any way you can help me with removing the brand name from his talk page? My first comment in this thread was not aligned, please ignore it, and help me out resolve this with Broccoli. Varunrai11 (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You had the same comment posted three times; I removed the two duplicates. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We've already said what you need to do to get unblocked. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varunrai11 (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC) talk - thanks for your response. So how can I unequivocally withdraw any and all legal threats to get myself unblocked? I have edited this thread and removed that piece. Is there anything else that I need to do? Please guide.Scott Burley[reply]

You may make a statement to the effect of "I withdraw any and all legal threats" . You also need to address your logged out edits. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varunrai11 (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC) "I withdraw any and all legal threats made on Wikipedia."Scott Burley Thanks for the guidance talk. Also, please guide me that according to you what should be my next step to peacefully resolve the issue that I'm facing with Brocolli? I want to make sure that I don't violate any Wikipedia policy. I wasn't aware of these policies beforehand otherwise I would have never violated them. Once again thanks for the help.[reply]

I'm not sure that there is a next step with regards to that. As Ohnoitsjamie states, the issue isn't just that user's actions, as any user would have done what they did. You would be free to discuss it with them or other editors in general, but I'm not sure what you want to happen is going to happen. I certainly am not the last word, though, and someone else will be reviewing your request. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varunrai11 (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC) 331dot (talk) - Okay, so is my profile unblocked now and can I proceed and peacefully discuss the case with Brocolli? Who exactly unblocks my profile, aren't you the admin who works with the Wikipedia team? Scott Burley[reply]

To be fair to you, someone who has not yet reviewed a request will look at this and evaluate your request. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varunrai11 (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Do I need to do anything else for someone else to take a look at this? I mean do I need to request an unblock again?[reply]

You have an open request and it is pending; you don't need to do anything else at the moment. Administrators are volunteers, so please be patient. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You also must explain the logged-out vandalism.--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varunrai11 (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC) --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 Hello, sure I'm ready to cooperate in every possible way to become a good Wikipedia user moving ahead and I won't write anything in logged in and logged out state that causes any discord but will first and foremost show more trust in the Wikipedia policies. I feel aligned now. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 please guide what should I do next. I just hope I'm able to connect with you and make you understand that I truly want to peacefully move ahead as a good Wikipedia user.[reply]

I'll try to make this simple; if you were to be unblocked, neither you, nor anyone else, will be adding links to sociomix diaries, per WP:RS and WP:EL. It's already been explained to you why that addition was not appropriate, and there's no point in explaining it again. With that out the way, are there other edits you're interested in making to Wikipedia? If so, could you provide an example? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been observing this play out but tried to stay out. This user's primary goals no longer seem to be adding links to Sociomix, but it seems to be removing mentions of that website, even going so far as refactoring other user comments (see here and here for example). Not sure if there's a COI or what, but this seems to be the "issue" they're referring to when they say resolve the issue that I'm facing with Brocolli and help me out resolve this with Broccoli above. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 16:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that Broccoli and Coffee. User:Varunrai11, if you refactor another user's comments again as you did here, you will immediately lose your ability to edit this talk page further. I hope that's clear. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varunrai11 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk That was in the past before getting blocked and I totally understand that I should have not done that.[reply]

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk - of course I want to be on Wikipedia, I use Wikipedia everyday and it has always helped me gain so much knowledge. Based on my experience with you guys since yesterday, I'm actually impressed how disciplined this community is and this is truly what is responsible for running Wikipedia the way it is. This is very inspiring for me and I really want to stay as part of the community. There are many times when I have used Wikipedia in the past, to search for some information and there are cases when I have noticed that the citations are broken or the links are dead, and in those cases, I usually go and validate that information from elsewhere. I would definitely like to update those links and fix those dead links and citations. That is something I'm really good at. I won't add the diaries links.

Oh hai Thanks for joining the talk. I understand your point and I know whatever happened yesterday should have not happened. I should have rather peacefully, discussed my concern with you and trusted that you would be considerate rather than assuming that you won't cooperate. Should have followed the Wikipedia policies. I see that people here are ready to listen and consider what I have to say. In good faith, I request you to remove that comment and the name of the "brand" from your talk page. I get your point and will keep in mind what kind of links qualify and should go ahead and what kind of links don't qualify but calling the brand unreliable like this can affect the reputation and the public image of the brand especially if it's on Wikipedia. I hope you consider my request and remove it from your talk page. I will really appreciate it. Friends?

No one is calling a "brand" unreliable. We're simply saying that in terms of Wikipedia's reliable sources policy, that site as well as similar sites (e.g., Medium, Wordpress) that host user contributed content do not meet Wikipedia guidelines. That doesn't mean that there aren't good articles with valuable information on those sites, just that those sites aren't appropriate to be used on Wikipedia as reference and in most cases external links. Relevant policy sections include WP:UGC, WP:RSSELF, as well as this list which addresses many examples of potential sources in terms of meeting our criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varunrai11 (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC) ^Talk I went through the policies today and I completely understand what you are trying to say but the way it was written in Broccoli's Oh hai talk page, it looks different and it seems as if the comment is pointing at the credibility of the brandname which isn't good for the brand image. This is the only reason, I'm requesting Broccoli in good faith to edit it and remove my comment and the name of the brand from the talk page. If he can do that in good faith, I will appreciate it.[reply]

Why? The name of the site was perfectly relevant to that discussion. It's also available in the edit histories. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varunrai11 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC) ^Talk The way you have explained it is very different from the way he has written it. This line that Brocolli has written - "Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, and [brand name] does not meet those standards" - calls out the brand as unreliable. This is the only reason, I'm requesting Broccoli Oh hai remove my comment and the name of the brand from the talk page. If he can remove the brand name in good faith, I will appreciate it. And since I now understand the policies and all set to make a fresh start, kindly unblock my account so that I can become a part of the wiki community.[reply]

Brocolli and Coffee is under no obligation to keep or remove anything from their talk page. Can you provide some specific examples of edits you'd like to make if unblocked? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varunrai11 (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC) There are many times when I have used Wikipedia in the past, to search for some information and there are cases when I have noticed that the citations are broken or few links are dead, and in those cases, I usually go and validate that information from elsewhere. I want to take the initiative of updating those citations and deadlinks to keep the information updated. That is something I'm really good at. Since I now understand the policies I won't add links from websites obviously abiding by the Wikipedia policies and of course no legal threats at all. Only logical and peaceful discussions if required. Kindly, unblock and let me be a part of this community.[reply]

I'd suggest amending your current unblock request to reflect this; the current version sounds like you just want to get unblocked so you can continue a discussion with Coffee and Brocolli that has already concluded. (If unblocked I recommend that you drop that stick). It would also help to state that you unequivocally withdraw any legal threats in that unblock request as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varunrai11 (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC) I have updated the review request, as suggested by you.[reply]

As I mentioned before, Brocolli and Coffee is under no obligation to remove or change anything on their talk page, per WP:OWNTALK. They are also in their right to decline further conversations about that. I'm less inclined to unblock if you're just going to start hounding them as soon as the block is lifted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varunrai11 (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the unblock and thanks for sharing WP:OWNTALK. This is very useful. I will keep this in mind. I'm now able to understand how Wikipedia works even better. I will go through this info thoroughly. Don't worry about that Brocolli is my Wikipedia buddy now.[reply]

Am I supposed to remove the legal threat from Brocolli's page or should I leave it as it is? What do you suggest? Why I'm saying this is because I don't want new users who visit Broccoli's page to think it's normal to give legal threats on talk pages. Will you be addressing this or the wikipedia team or you want me to talk to broccoli about it. I'm just doing this to improve wikipedia and the user experience.

And I will take your suggestion related to Broccoli's comment. Abiding by the wikipedia policies if I talk to Broccoli I will respectfully and peacefully suggest ways to improve the information he presented on his talk page so that it is useful for other users who are new on the platform so that they don't repeat the same mistake as I did. You yourself presented the same thing on this talk page way better than him, I can only suggest him hoping that he cooperates and improves the presentation of content to improve the presentation of the information available on wikipedia, the rest is his call. I can only try. Please feel free to share insights or anything else you wish to. Thanks for unblocking once again. You are also my best buddy now.