User talk:Swamilive: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:12, 14 June 2010

Appealing indefinite block

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello Wikipedia administrators,

My account has been blocked for more than one and a half years and it is set to an indefinite block. I recognize the fact that I got it to this state by disrupting the harmony of Wikipedia and generally showing an infantile lack of decorum and respect. However, that was quite a long time ago and I no longer feel any desire to continue the types of activities I was doing back then. I am requesting that the Swamilive account be unblocked so that I can use it for constructive purposes. I understand that it must be very hard to take me seriously regarding this, considering the extent of my disruptions in the past. However, I can give you my word that I'm sincere. If need be, an appointed admin can monitor my behaviour, for as long as they feel is necessary, to ensure that I do not abuse editing privileges.

I assure you that I fully accept responsibility for all my behaviour in the past and I absolutely promise not to repeat any of the actions that got me blocked in the first place. In the time I've been off Wikipedia I've changed in a number of ways (I'm certainly a much more mature person than I was back then). I've also familiarized myself with the existing policies in preparation for my appeal and they are clear and well-understood. Overall, I've come to enjoy and respect Wikipedia and I use it nearly every day. I would really appreciate a chance to undo the wrong I did and to start making positive contributions.

Please give my request proper consideration.

Thank you,
Swamilive

Decline reason:

This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = [[Article title]] =) and save the page before you improve it.
Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Blueboy 96 01:44, 30 April 2010 (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.

I understand the reason for the decline, but it raises a few important points. Namely, concerning the bit about requiring the original blocking admin's approval. To the best of my observation, that particular admin has not been active on Wikipedia for over a year. Could the removal of my block be possible without his/her approval, considering the apparent fact that they no longer contribute to the project?

Secondly, the majority of the articles I've read and have encountered issues with need nothing more than simple corrections in grammar, punctuation, and spelling. I could scour the list of articles needing improvement, but in truth, the majority of the edits I intend to make, if unblocked, would be stylistic ones, rather than control of content. Surely, not every contributor to Wikipedia is expected to make substantial, referenced additions to articles. There are some, like myself, who would prefer to be useful in simply maintaining a degree of acceptable English. Swamilive (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion at ANI has revealed you were actively socking via IPs as late as March. This second chance is now revoked. Blueboy 96 03:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make that the end of May... ANI thread — e. ripley\^talk 14:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Ongoing vandalism and sock puppetry

Rear admiral

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rear_admiral&action=historysubmit&diff=364231941&oldid=362963092
- User talk:216.26.223.38
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.26.223.38

Brigadier General

List of sock puppets

Banned?

Elockid appears to have banned this account without any explanation. If there is reason for such a harsh and permanent change to my account status, I would appreciate being properly informed of what that reason is. Elockid's edit summary of "banned. nobody in their right mind would unblock you now" seems completely unfair if no feasible explanation is given. Swamilive (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lying or playing innocent isn't going to get you anywhere. I mean look at the thread above. So considering the amount of long-termvandalism and disruptive editing you have been doing, a ban is completely justified. Oh, the ban is on this account, the ban is placed on you. Elockid ^(Talk) 19:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elokid, bearing in mind that I'm not questioning your desire to prevent further vandalism from Swamilive, by what basis is the user now "banned"? Note that WP:BAN states "individual users, including admins, may not directly impose bans". Was there a discussion that I missed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're basically de facto banned since I don't think any administrator would unblock a long-term and persistent vandal (if you can find me a willing admin, I will remove tag myself). None of the other threads I've seen also suggests that the community wants him back. Of course, you may start a discussion if you feel this is inappropriate or if you feel so strongly about it, remove the tag. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Delicious carbuncle. I will accept a ban to this account if it can be both properly justified and imposed within the rules of Wikipedia. As it stands, one admin has taken it upon him/herself to impose a ban with no explanation or concensus from anyone else. Swamilive (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)I'm not suggesting that Swamilive be unblocked or that anyone would be willing to do so if requested, but that's not the point here. Since you admit that your action is contrary to policy, please remove the tag yourself. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said or admitted it was contrary to policy. My point is that they are basically banned, in this case de facto banned because no one at this point will unblock them. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an assumption I think only you are making, Elockid. Let the community impose a ban if that's the general concensus. Please don't assume the decisions of others. Swamilive (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed that your statement about them being "de facto banned" was a de facto admission that you knew they weren't banned by any of the means listed in the policy. Let's not make this complicated - they aren't banned and you shouldn't have added the tag. Please remove it. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle, will it cause you trouble to remove the tag yourself, since Elockid seems unwilling to do so? You seem to have a better grasp on policy here, but I don't know if removing such a tag will look bad on you. I don't really care who removes it, but I agree that it wasn't placed there with proper authority. Swamilive (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 :::::::That's an assumption I think only you are making, Elockid.  Let the community impose a ban if that's the general concensus.  Please don't assume the decisions of others. [[User:Swamilive|Swamilive]] ([[User talk:Swamilive#top|talk]]) 22:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 ::::::::Sorry, I assumed that your statement about them being "''de facto'' banned" was a ''de facto'' admission that you knew they weren't banned by any of the means listed in the policy. Let's not make this complicated - they aren't banned and you shouldn't have added the tag. Please remove it. Thanks. [[User:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]] ([[User talk:Delicious carbuncle|talk]]) 22:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
+:::::::::[[User:Delicious_carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle]], will it cause you trouble to remove the tag yourself, since Elockid seems unwilling to do so?  You seem to have a better grasp on policy here, but I don't know if removing such a tag will look bad on you.  I don't really care who removes it, but I agree that it wasn't placed there with proper authority.  [[User:Swamilive|Swamilive]] ([[User talk:Swamilive#top|talk]]) 22:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)