User talk:TheGracefulSlick: Difference between revisions
→Unblock request denied: Replying to QEDK (using reply-link) |
→Unblock request denied: thank you Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 270: | Line 270: | ||
Hey, I just closed your unblock request thread at AN as declined. The general consensus is against your unblock, still, I think you should contribute to other projects, so as to convince your peers that you can still be a positive contributor. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 17:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC) |
Hey, I just closed your unblock request thread at AN as declined. The general consensus is against your unblock, still, I think you should contribute to other projects, so as to convince your peers that you can still be a positive contributor. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 17:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
:I would certainly not discourage you from participating to other projects (Simple English, for instance, would let you still write content). But I'm not sure that will help you with being unblocked here and I would caution you about having that be your take away. There are going to be some number of people who feel you're out of chances and would oppose pretty much any appeal. Not a lot you can do there except acknowledge their right to feel that way. I think, however, there are some number of us (myself included) who could be convinced. I would read the thread before your next appeal - as painful as I am sure it is - and really try to address the concerns. For instance, could you lay-out a ''binding'' process you could use to re-establish trust? I'm reluctant to get into too many details because, at least for me, I need to know it comes genuinely from you and not through coaching or telling me (or others) what you think we want to hear. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC) |
:I would certainly not discourage you from participating to other projects (Simple English, for instance, would let you still write content). But I'm not sure that will help you with being unblocked here and I would caution you about having that be your take away. There are going to be some number of people who feel you're out of chances and would oppose pretty much any appeal. Not a lot you can do there except acknowledge their right to feel that way. I think, however, there are some number of us (myself included) who could be convinced. I would read the thread before your next appeal - as painful as I am sure it is - and really try to address the concerns. For instance, could you lay-out a ''binding'' process you could use to re-establish trust? I'm reluctant to get into too many details because, at least for me, I need to know it comes genuinely from you and not through coaching or telling me (or others) what you think we want to hear. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC) |
||
::{{u|Barkeep49}} I appreciate the advice. I will not outline a process right now because I know it requires much more consideration—something I will do as I contribute in other ways over the next few months. I will certainly keep the thread saved and re-read it when the time comes. Thank you for your help and consideration.[[User:TheGracefulSlick|TheGracefulSlick]] ([[User talk:TheGracefulSlick#top|talk]]) 20:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:53, 5 February 2020
The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Backlog Banzai
In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!
Greetings!
After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:
- Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
- Diversity winner
- Gender-gap fillers
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
January 2020
TheGracefulSlick (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was re-blocked originally for my deceitful behavior and nonchalant avoidance of a promise I made to the community as a condition of an early unblock request. I dug myself in a deeper hole thereafter by avoiding the block with two sockpuppets. After the second sock, I came at a crossroads: make another sock or truly evaluate what put me in this position in the first place. I stopped trying to cast blame on others and pointed the finger back at myself. But I am not here now to make excuses for the behavior and give the “correct” combination of words to persuade you to unblock me. I was disrespectful, arrogant, immature, and a liar who treated consensus (and hence the editors who formed it) like nothing; I believed I was always in the right and ought to do what suited me, regardless of the words of editors much more experienced than me. I don’t want to be that type of person—a narcissistic, conceited jackass—nor do I want that to be my final mark here. Having been working in my first job, I have learned from real-world experience the value of honesty, of teamwork, and of respect for others. I would like to believe I have matured since then. The only way I see how I can demonstrate an actual change in my character is by asking for the opportunity here, with the understanding it will be a long road before I can rebuild anyone’s trust in me. If I am granted that opportunity, I intend to finally fulfill my original pledge (avoiding controversial topic areas and modern-day politics indefinitely), as well as any additional conditions made here, to demonstrate that I truly respect the judgement of others. I also hope to resume improving content on women and WWII biographies. This, with the understanding that any lapse should result in a site ban with no chance of re-entry into the project. As this may very likely be my final opportunity to address the community, I extend my apologies. I know for many my words probably hold no value, and I have no one to fault for that but myself. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You must really think we're idiots. You already made this heartfelt apology last time you were unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2020 (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.
NinjaRobotPirate no I do not. If I am somehow calling you “idiots” for reflecting on what I did wrong, then I apologize. I wish for another admin to review this appeal and if they come to the same conclusion then I will reflect more on the errors I made.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
(Note: I would like my appeal to be re-reviewed and sent to AN for community decision. I do not think anyone is an “idiot”. I was just reflecting on the mistakes I made. I do not know what else I am to do.) I was re-blocked originally for my deceitful behavior and nonchalant avoidance of a promise I made to the community as a condition of an early unblock request. I dug myself in a deeper hole thereafter by avoiding the block with two sockpuppets. After the second sock, I came at a crossroads: make another sock or truly evaluate what put me in this position in the first place. I stopped trying to cast blame on others and pointed the finger back at myself. But I am not here now to make excuses for the behavior and give the “correct” combination of words to persuade you to unblock me. I was disrespectful, arrogant, immature, and a liar who treated consensus (and hence the editors who formed it) like nothing; I believed I was always in the right and ought to do what suited me, regardless of the words of editors much more experienced than me. I don’t want to be that type of person—a narcissistic, conceited jackass—nor do I want that to be my final mark here. Having been working in my first job, I have learned from real-world experience the value of honesty, of teamwork, and of respect for others. I would like to believe I have matured since then. The only way I see how I can demonstrate an actual change in my character is by asking for the opportunity here, with the understanding it will be a long road before I can rebuild anyone’s trust in me. If I am granted that opportunity, I intend to finally fulfill my original pledge (avoiding controversial topic areas and modern-day politics indefinitely), as well as any additional conditions made here, to demonstrate that I truly respect the judgement of others. I also hope to resume improving content on women and WWII biographies. This, with the understanding that any lapse should result in a site ban with no chance of re-entry into the project. As this may very likely be my final opportunity to address the community, I extend my apologies. I know for many my words probably hold no value, and I have no one to fault for that but myself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 7:59 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)
Decline reason:
I was initially sympathetic to this request but, on seeing [1] I don't see the reasons for the block (the "uncontroversial edits" part) addressed. Given the history contained in that link, I think a generic unblock request of the sort above is insufficient. regentspark (comment) 14:44, 10 January 2020 (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.
Unblock discussion and carry-to-AN discussion
- I don't think we've ever interacted before. Hi, I'm Barkeep49. I'm curious what you make of the fact that your first unblock request sat unactioned for a day and what I should make of the fact that you decided to post the same appeal a second time without taking the (rather blunt but not exactly unfair) feedback offered to you by the first sysop to decline? Barkeep49 (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 I figured it stood for a day because I submitted the appeal rather late at night; I never thought much of that, honestly. I understood what the first sysop said but I have to respectfully disagree with it, especially the “idiot” part. I kept the appeal as is because this was my honest reflection of my mistakes, not a ruse meant to insult anyone’s intelligence. If I made another statement, it would feel too much to me like trying to find the “correct” answer to being unblocked. That seems disingenuous to me. If I am wrong for thinking that, I can reflect and work on another statement.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 I take it to mean CAT:RFU is perpetually backlogged. I for one am now incapable of parsing unblock requests. I find this request reasonable and have reason to believe there has not been recent socking, but I am living it to anyone with functional brain cells.-- Deepfriedokra 14:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: fair enough on the backlog (I don't normally patrol these parts) and I found it reasonable too. Of course their last unblock request to the community was also reasonable which is why it was accepted. I agree with RegentPark's (and before that NRP's) decline. I was looking for some more frank acknowledgement of the ways they abused the community's trust repeatedly including in this very process.
" avoidance of a promise I made to the community as a condition of an early unblock request"
just doesn't come close to grappling with that for me even if it is factually accurate and nominally addressing that legacy. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: fair enough on the backlog (I don't normally patrol these parts) and I found it reasonable too. Of course their last unblock request to the community was also reasonable which is why it was accepted. I agree with RegentPark's (and before that NRP's) decline. I was looking for some more frank acknowledgement of the ways they abused the community's trust repeatedly including in this very process.
- Barkeep49 I take it to mean CAT:RFU is perpetually backlogged. I for one am now incapable of parsing unblock requests. I find this request reasonable and have reason to believe there has not been recent socking, but I am living it to anyone with functional brain cells.-- Deepfriedokra 14:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 I figured it stood for a day because I submitted the appeal rather late at night; I never thought much of that, honestly. I understood what the first sysop said but I have to respectfully disagree with it, especially the “idiot” part. I kept the appeal as is because this was my honest reflection of my mistakes, not a ruse meant to insult anyone’s intelligence. If I made another statement, it would feel too much to me like trying to find the “correct” answer to being unblocked. That seems disingenuous to me. If I am wrong for thinking that, I can reflect and work on another statement.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: I will be unavailable for much till Monday pm, florida time. If anyone is to carry this to AN, it must be someone else.-- Deepfriedokra 17:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Well it won't be me either. I recognize that TGS is right that if they had changed the wording from appeal 1 to appeal 2 that they'd have been criticized by some for that. Clearly I criticized them for not changing. That's the reality of the situation and it is, as they do acknowledge, one of their own making. I've already noted where I feel the statement comes up short and their reply gave me nothing to reconsider. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 clearly I should have discussed how I pleaded ignorance to conditions of my previous unblock when I knew I was obviously breaking them and attempting to manipulate the wording of the unblock to my advantage.I can try again in six months or so as I see I did not address everything I should have. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to open a Standard Offer thread for TheGracefulSlick. I came here now having just done a bit of a cleanup on Them (band) and thinking "What happened to TGS, this sort of stuff is right up his street?" and came here. It's been over a year since the last block, and it seems that the problems stemmed from a lack of clarification over what he should and shouldn't do. Obviously I have a bit of a bias towards unblocking TGS as we've done great work together on a couple of articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 I would be happy to give it a try because I want to get back to helping. I have a lot to prove that I am worth another opportunity, and I intend to make the best of it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, it's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer : TheGracefulSlick, we'll see what happens. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 I appreciate you sticking your neck out for me. I can tell the appeal will not go as I had hoped but at least it gave me some things to take away from it as an opportunity to grow. I will take the advice of users who recommended that I work on other projects. I am not sure where I will go because, in all honesty, writing articles is the one thing I was good at, but I will find a new way to help. Thank you so much for your faith in me. Hopefully someday I will be able to help out with that Them article. Take care.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, it's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Standard offer : TheGracefulSlick, we'll see what happens. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Unblock request denied
Hey, I just closed your unblock request thread at AN as declined. The general consensus is against your unblock, still, I think you should contribute to other projects, so as to convince your peers that you can still be a positive contributor. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I would certainly not discourage you from participating to other projects (Simple English, for instance, would let you still write content). But I'm not sure that will help you with being unblocked here and I would caution you about having that be your take away. There are going to be some number of people who feel you're out of chances and would oppose pretty much any appeal. Not a lot you can do there except acknowledge their right to feel that way. I think, however, there are some number of us (myself included) who could be convinced. I would read the thread before your next appeal - as painful as I am sure it is - and really try to address the concerns. For instance, could you lay-out a binding process you could use to re-establish trust? I'm reluctant to get into too many details because, at least for me, I need to know it comes genuinely from you and not through coaching or telling me (or others) what you think we want to hear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 I appreciate the advice. I will not outline a process right now because I know it requires much more consideration—something I will do as I contribute in other ways over the next few months. I will certainly keep the thread saved and re-read it when the time comes. Thank you for your help and consideration.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)