User talk:Krett12

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

2016

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).

Krett12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I promise to stick to reverting vandalism and other basic things

Decline reason:

Considering how you ignored multiple attempts to reason you in the past, this request is nowhere near to giving me the confidence about unblocking you. Max Semenik (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2016 (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.

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).

Krett12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The only ones that were valid and explained WHY it was wrong were s long time ago

Decline reason:

That is plainly not true. I really like to help people get unblocked, but your failure to even see the problems here means that I can not see any justification for unblocking at this time. There have been many many warnings here, up until this very month, yet you have simply blanked them all before requesting an unblock - I urge you to go back and properly understand them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2016 (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.

So what warnings/issues from admins and other users do you consider "valid", and which ones do you consider invalid then? only (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I already explained--but I"m willing to do it again. This IS valid. It explains why they consider it wrong in a politely and civilly voiced manner. I responded, and everyone went to bed happy that night. This, in my opinion, is not valid. It doesn't actually explain why, says snarky and sometimes even intimidating thing that I will "be reported" (something that is by itself innapropriate), even though the error I made was fairly minor and definintely was in no was deserving of that.

That clarified enough? Krett12 (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• You just removed the declined unblock requests with the comment "I know it says to not remove unblcok requests but they are taking up a lot of space". That means you clearly know that you must not do that, so do not do it again or you are likely to lose the ability to edit even this talk page. I have to say, this looks like yet another example of you not listening and just going ahead with whatever you personally think is best regardless of Wikipedia policies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but you did not respond to my actual point. Krett12 (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought I had in my decline of your unblock request when I said "There have been many many warnings here, up until this very month, yet you have simply blanked them all before requesting an unblock - I urge you to go back and properly understand them". If you think I am wrong, then please feel free to post a new unblock request and another admin will review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you mind if I put up two? I have two different reasons. Krett12 (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You only need one unblock request - you can include as many reasons as you want in it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2016 (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).

Krett12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have two reasons I want to be unblocked. One of them is that in addition to my erors, I make many helpful changes. I make enough helpful changes that I am here to contribute to the encyclopedia. THe other one is based off of the classic {{2nd chance}} For example I saw this coming from a mile away and would have reverted it if I wasn't blocked. Many of the warnings I received were several months ago and would like to have another chance. :) I will pay lots of attention and will very rarely (and sometimes even never) do something as stupid as nominate user warning template for deletion. seriously, what was i thinking??. As previously stated, I am mainly, although some roadbumps, a productive member and want to regain the previlige of editing

Decline reason:

I don't see enough competence in editing to merit an unblock at this point. Maybe try again in a few years? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:56, 24 February 2016 (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.

Please let me know your concerns if you have any. Krett12 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

How exactly did you see that one random vandal edit "coming from a mile away"? How did you know he or she would make that edit before it was made? Also, you say your problems and warnings were months ago, yet you bring up the example of you nominating an important template for deletion...mere hours before your block. only (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about you maintaining a personal website where you post examples of "funny" pieces of vandalism from Wikipedia. Seems contrary to WP:DENY to me. only (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What I meant by "a mile away" is that I was pretty sure it was vandalism before I clicked on DIFF button. I've only done something as stupid as the deletion once, so if I was the admin I would accept them promising to not do it again. I have stopped linking to that website per that exact page you posted, but I'm not going to take it down. I'm not going to list the website Only is talking about for the exact thing he just said. Krett12 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Above you said "This IS valid" and then went on to say "I responded, and everyone went to bed happy that night." I never saw that response as you responded and then removed it off your talk page 1 minute later. I thought you were acting just like previously, removing concerns you didn't like. Looking at your answer now, how is this better than Cluebot's message? -- GB fan 02:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed it because I was archiving. There is NO policy that states you must keep 'em in an archive. About how mine was better, you tell me. After you reverted it you reinstated it. Krett12 (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Archiving a minute after you reply is generally considered uncooperative, as it gives the other editor almost no time to read your reply and makes it look like you're trying to avoid scrutiny. This is another example of how you just don't understand how to work in a collaborative environment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I did immediately revert myself but that was because I had used the wrong revert link. The one I used the first time didn't allow me to leave a reason. That should only have been used if your edit was vandalism. I did not believe it was so I reverted myself. I then came back immediately and restored the original message with an explanation. I can't give a reason how your warning is better as I do not believe it is. I believe it is much worse. You are the only person who has ever said yours is better. So how is it better? I believe your whole response to my message above is a sign that you don't understand how to work in a collabrative environment. The first two sentences try to deflect the point that you only left your response to my question for less than a minute and turn it on to how their is no policy on how to archive. Then you take part of the story the history shows and turn it back on me to answer my question. You don't appear to like it when you are criticized or questioned about your actions. -- GB fan 10:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That's right, I don't like it. NOBODY likes it, they just are OK with it. I may be blocked, but I still have rights too. I'm Ok with being told I'm not perfect, but I would still like it to be appropriately phrased. Krett12 (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

• Here's a suggestion that might possibly have a chance... Your block on Simple Wikipedia expires in June 2016, so get back to editing that project without getting into any more trouble, and when you are able to show six months of trouble-free editing there, come back here and ask for a WP:Standard Offer unblock? I obviously can't make any promises, but I think that would improve your chances considerably. Anyone got any thoughts? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No, thank you for that thought (most admins act as if blocked users have no rights). The simple english wikipedia has something called the "one strike" rule. You can be blocked if you break the rules even once if you are blocked on another project. I also don't really want to go back to simplewiki--I'm really upset about the way I was treated. I would talk more, but I need to respond to the other messages now. Krett12 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, your choice, but I'm a little disappointed that you are not open to the suggestion. I've examined your history at Simple and it shows all of the same kind of problems you've had at English Wikipedia, so being able to show you've understood and rectified the problems there would have greatly improved your chances of an unblock here. The only thing I can suggest now is that you wait and go for a WP:Standard Offer. I'd leave it for at least the recommended six months, as I think an unblock sooner than that would be unlikely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The not being open was only part of it, the mean thing was the one strike rule. I might be able to manage not getting blocked again, but not with the onestrike rule being involved. Which is why I wanted to be unblocked here before the community ban expired. Krett12 (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Well, Before the block I would have wondered why the template existed if this was an unacceptable use. I would have just asked someone after it. The block reason says that I "refuse to slow down and be careful"---I know you don't want to unblock me, but could we work out an expiry time? How 'bout the 29th? That's about two months. That could give me time to hit the digital "books" (WikiEssays) and be ready to regain editing by then? Krett12 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I will not adjust the block, but you can try asking the blocking admin if you like @Floquenbeam: You can also request an unblock any time you want, but I think the WP:Standard Offer is the best you're going to get, and even then it's far from certain that you will be ready to come back in six months. I've made the only suggestion I'm going to make, above, but you have rejected it and I now have nothing further to say - so please do not ping me any more. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to be solved just by reading policies; it's going to require reading policies and maturing. That can't be rushed, and is measured in years, not weeks. I wouldn't be willing to lift the block myself for at least a year. I was going to suggest the "Simple Wikipedia" route BsZ recommended, but if that isn't something you want to do, then come back here in a year and we can see if anything has changed. Like BsZ above, I've explained myself pretty clearly, satisfying WP:ADMINACCT, and don't have anything further to say, so I won't be replying further. Any other admin is welcome to do whatever they think best without consulting me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fine. Krett12 (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

2019

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).

Krett12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have read through the messages from three years ago, and I believe to have resolved all my issues. I would like to request an unblock per the WP:Standard offer as I believe I will be able to help constructively. I offer review and explanation to all of my actions if anyone has any questions about them. Krett12 (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This unblock request 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. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
  1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
  2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
     • do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
     • do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
     • do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
     • do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
  3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
  4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
  5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.
• Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion 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 "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2019 (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.

Sidenote, I am now using User:Computer_Fizz as my main account, appealing through this account as requested. If the unblock request is accepted, I would appreciate if that account is unblocked for primary use. Krett12 (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe this block is no longer peventative. Krett/Computer Fizz has done beneficial work on the Simple English Wikipedia, and from what I can see the only issues on this project occured in 2016. I wish I had commented sooner to endorse an unblock prior to its closure, although I will ask Yamla to reconsider. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to lift the block, but Vermont's comment is a pretty strong endorsement. Krett12, that leaves you with two options. You can follow the second-chance I outlined above, or you can make a new unblock request without following the second-chance. If you do so, please indicate that you've been offered the second-chance but you have my endorsement to request another review without following that process. Normally, rejecting the second-chance would be held against you somewhat, but I don't believe that would be appropriate here. If you do decide to follow through with the second-chance, I'll be happy to review the result. So, you have a couple of options and are welcome to take either. --Yamla (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Yamla for the reconsideration over Vermont's message. I believe that, since most of my work revolves around anti-vandalism and not content creation, that the standard second chance is not a good option for me and choose to appeal per Vermont's comments as you allowed me to per above. I open myself to any questions by the reviewing admin. Krett12 (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sidenote: Thank you User:Bradv for lifting my autoblocks :) Krett12 (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem. For what it's worth, I've had a look through your contributions to Simple and based on that I agree with the others here that it's worth giving you a second chance. – bradv🍁 04:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Krett12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

per above Krett12 (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC) (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= per above [[User:Krett12|Krett12]] ([[User talk:Krett12#top|talk]]) 04:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC) (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= per above [[User:Krett12|Krett12]] ([[User talk:Krett12#top|talk]]) 04:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC) (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= per above [[User:Krett12|Krett12]] ([[User talk:Krett12#top|talk]]) 04:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC) (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@Floquenbeam: I'd also like a weigh-in from you to see if the original issues you saw you now believe to be resolved. Krett12 (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• I respect Vermont's and Bradv's judgement on the usefulness of your contribs at Simple English Wikipedia. I think I said 3.5 years ago that this seemed to be a maturity issue. Looks like that's what happened? I'm inclined to unblock, so if any admin watching here disagrees, please say so in the next day or so (you've waited 3.5 years, Krett12, so I assume you're OK waiting another day). My intention would be to simply unblock without a lot of specific restrictions, but Krett12 please note that you'll need to be more careful than normal; in particular, if an experienced editor says to stop doing something, then stop doing it until there's a resolution to whatever the issue is. And please go slow. I don't see any issue with switching to User:Computer_Fizz, so I'll probably unblock that one (referencing the discussion on this page) and reblock this one with autoblocking turned off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to you all for backing me. None of this probably would have happened otherwise. Note to @Floquenbeam: I would like to request that you do not leave my krett12 account blocked though because I am going to ask meta to delete it. And they refuse to delete it if it's blocked on any wiki. i understand if you do end up keeping it blocked though (although maybe a good idea to link here). Also i got autoblocked again so my reply times may be longer...but I'm still reading the talk page :) Krett12 (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)