User talk:NonhumanAnimalAutonomy

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

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

Request reason:

I promise never to cause any form of damage or disruption on Wikipedia, and I apologise for any disruption I have inadvertently and unintentionally caused. In this case - blocking was completely unnecessary to prevent disruption, as I had already given my assurance early-on that I never intended to cause disruption, and would never do so again. I further give my word that no assertions on living persons will be added to articles or their respective talk pages. I would very much like to contribute to Wikipedia. If I am given the chance to do so, I intend to abide by Wikipedia protocols at all times. If unblocked I also plan to change my username to something more neutral (less activist).NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Accept reason:

As blocking admin and per comments by other users, including the user who reported the distribution, I agree a second chance is warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy regarding blocking and unblocking:

"Users may be blocked from editing by Wikipedia administrators to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia.

Blocks are lifted if they are not (or no longer) necessary to prevent such damage or disruption."[1]

@Alison: Please review my unblock request? NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE WP:GF

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

What Actually Happened Here

I am a newcomer to Wikipedia.

When I began editing the article Cruelty to Animals I knew nothing about Wikipedia protocol, Wikipedia markup language, or how Wikipedia's messaging system worked.

At the start I received several automated notifications, such as "you have made your first edit", so (for some time) I simply ignored the notifications. I started to learn how to edit by studying the source code in the article itself. I spent many hours working on the first draught of edits to the article, and continued the next day. Suddenly, as I was about to publish my edits, an edit-conflict appeared above. I assumed another editor was also making changes, so I waited some minutes before trying again. Finally I succeeded in publishing the changes. 5 minutes later.. another edit conflict appeared, and I resubmitted the page edit.

As it turned out, my edits were actually undone by User:Girth Summit, and I had been missing messages warning me to stop reverting. I was unaware of what was happening until I checked my messages, and found I was being told to stop. It took me some time to work out how to reply to the messages. In my first reply to Girth Summit I asked that the text I had been working on be left as it was, and that I would add sources later when I had time. I received no immediate reply, so I restored only my own text manually, without reverting the whole page. 39 minutes later I received a reply from GirthSummit stating he could not comply with my request, and that I would be blocked for edit warring. In fact, I was not intentionally edit warring, since I had no idea what was happening until after I read the messages. I replied again that I would no longer edit the article. Yet this did not seem to be enough. I stated several times that I was finished with editing, and still it was not enough.

The atmosphere on Wikipedia had become toxic, and I simply wanted nothing to do with it any longer. My intention was to improve the article, by adding the underlying ethics which make cruelty to non-human animals unacceptable. And suddenly it became complete chaos, all due to a lack of communication, and my ignorance of Wikipedia protocol. I am now very aware that Wikipedia is not the place for ethical activism. Ignorance of the rules may not be a defence, but I am sorry none-the-less.

Please accept my apologies for any disruption I have unitentionally caused, it will not happen again. With Kind Regards. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

@NonhumanAnimalAutonomy: (Non-administrator comment) If you are unblocked, will you promise not to add fringe theories to articles? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have my word and promise. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NonhumanAnimalAutonomy, just for your information; the reason stated in my decline was the only part of your statement that applied to your block. Tiderolls 17:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tide rolls, you have only to tell me what is expected of me, and I will do it. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read WP:GAB as suggested in the block notice? If you have questions after reading that, post them here and I'll do my best to answer. Tiderolls 17:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just read WP:GAB. The last thing I want is to cause damage or disruption on Wikipedia. I have never intended to do such a thing. Any disruption my uncited edits may have caused was absolutely unintentional. I made some mistakes due to my failure to learn the rules prior to editing. I am truly sorry for that. Please give me another chance? NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That explanation is much more WP:GAB compliant. You may want to post a different unblock request with that in mind if you really want to edit further. I realize it's a bit frustrating just try to keep your cool. Tiderolls 18:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to review the unblock request, given my prior interactions with the user; I wanted to note that I wouldn't be opposed to a second chance, provided the user is willing to spend a bit of time reading about how we create content here, and to abide by some important principles. Specifically:

Edit warring and the BRD cycle. If you add content, and someone reverts you, you need to discuss it with them on the article talk page before reinstating. Ask them what their concerns are, and listen to what they say.
Related to that, it is necessary to assume good faith of others. You thought that I was reverting you because I disagreed with you; I wasn't, was reverting you because your edits were not compliant with our policies and guidelines. My personal opinions never came into it, don't make assumptions like that when entering into discussions with others.
Verifiability and reliable sources. Any content you add should be supported by reliable sources. Advocacy websites, such as nonhumanrights.org, should not be used to support any assertion of fact; they may be useful as a primary source to provide information about the organisation's views in an article about the organisation, but generally we should rely on mainstream scholarly secondary sources for any assertion of fact that is going to be expressed in Wikipedia's voice.
Assertions about living people need to be made very cautiously, with appropriate sourcing. It is never OK to say that a specific named individual is an animal abuser unless you have a very reliable source saying that they have been convicted of abusing animals. Even then, it shouldn't be put in such emotive terms; we should say something like 'On 1 January 2019, Madeup Nameson was convicted of cruelty to animals at Nowhere Crown Court.' You must not apply your own interpretation to a source - if a source says that someone has conducted experiments on animals, that's all you can say. Even if you have a different source saying that animal experimentation is cruel and unnecessary, using that to justify such a description of a person who conducts experimentation on animals is improper synthesis. We literally summarise what sources say - we don't combine them to make a novel argument or interpretation. Note that the BLP policy applies to talk pages as well as articles.
Original research is not allowed. You cannot write something that needs to be justified by argumentation - again, anything we add to articles should be a summary of what a reliable source tells us.
Conflicts of interest are a problem. If a person is a passionate member of an advocacy group, they should probably not edit content related to that group.
Finally, WP:NOTADVOCACY. We simply don't exist to push a particular perspective, and people who come here to do that often get frustrated and disappointed. If you only want to edit Wikipedia to further your campaign to get the rights of animals to personhood reognised, you will be wasting your time and I'd genuinely advise you to go elsewhere. You should only edit here if you feel you can put your own opinions and passions to one side.

Please understand that I'm not trying to place any excessive restrictions on you here because of your views: we all work under these restrictions. If we allowed everyone to edit from their own perspective, we would have endless, constant wars between all sorts of factions; these restrictions are actually what allow us to make progress as a project. If you are willing to read all of this stuff, and think you can abide by it, I am not opposed to an unblock. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 08:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, I have read your advice, and I intend to abide by it. In retrospect I was too hasty in assuming everyone was ganging up on me for personal reasons, such as me being an animal rights activist. I am sorry we got off to a bad start. Maybe you can forgive me. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this unblock. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 09:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.

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).

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

Request reason:

please read full explanation on talk page

Decline reason:

User states they have no interest in editing further. Tiderolls 16:01, 12 April 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.