User talk:Awater01

Welcome!

Hi Awater01! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 03:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring combined with noticeable incivility.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is really absurd. I'm restoring a page to its original version and now I'm blocked? Can you explain this, because this is just shocking. Awater01 (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the policy against edit warring should already answer this question quite sufficiently. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I was the one who went to the talk page! Even though this exact same discussion was already resolved long time ago. And now I am banned. This is really absurd. Seriously, what the hell is this? Awater01 (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Seriously what are you doing here? The user who reported me instigated the edit war himself and is not capable of having a sensible discussion on the TP, but you're banning me? Can you explain this absurd action? Awater01 (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: And btw, you're talking about not being civil, even when he started calling me 'nothing more than a nationalist Dutch (sic)'. Again, what is this? Awater01 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2023 (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).

Awater01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I restored the page to its original version when the other user instigated an edit war himself. But he reported me and now I'm banned? This is really absurd. I was even the one who went to the talk page. Awater01 (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Restoring the article to its original version can still be edit warring, and it is possible to edit war, and post on the talk page. You do not address your incivility. I think an unblock should be possible in this case, but you need to accept you were edit warring, and you were uncivil. PhilKnight (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2023 (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.

@PhilKnight:It was certainly not my intention to edit war, only to bring the article back to its original state. If that's edit warring, then fine, I won't do it again. With regard to being uncivil, I'm sorry, but the user simply had nothing sensible to say and was edit warring himself. Sure, I didn't react very nice, but neither was he (e.g. he started insulting me by calling me a nationalist). However, if my responses are not allowed, then I obviously won't do it again. Awater01 (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bans and blocks are not the same; this is a block. Blocks can be created with an automatic expiry date, especially if there are reasons to believe that similar behavior will not continue after the date. Where such reasons are not obvious, an indefinite block can be helpful to ensure that a proper unblock request is made first. Such a request should demonstrate an understanding of what led to the block and why it was disruptive. It should also explain why others can be sure that the behavior won't continue in the future. Ideally, it should additionally describe which helpful contributions are currently prevented by the block, as specific as possible.

Regarding "not capable of having a sensible discussion on the TP", in an unblock discussion about a civility-related block, I'm afraid the block duration was a fine choice and there is currently no reason to believe it should be reduced.

The block is about your behavior, not others' behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: So you get to decide that just like that? This is really kafkaesk. I'm sorry but this is really unbelievable. The user who reported has really no clue of what he's talking about. When I say "not capable of having a sensible discussion on the TP", then that's merely my opinion of his way of arguing; it makes no sense whatsoever.

It would also be nice if you explain why I, and not the other user, am the one who's blocked? He's the one who started the edit war. I'm the one who restored the page to its original version when there already had been a resolved (!) discussion on the exact same matter some time ago. Can you please explain that? This is unfair to the extent that it becomes absurd. Awater01 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Can you explain to me why I am disruptive, even though I'm the one who's seeking a discussion and starting one, even though I'm the one who's restoring the page to its original version. Awater01 (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been edit warring, and you have been incivil. That's the explanation. Neither discussion nor others' behavior makes you exempt from these two policies. I'm currently cleaning up the talk page discussion at Talk:Baruch Spinoza#Nationality which is unfortunately full of personal attacks and lacks a focus on the article content. Yes, it does contain completely unnecessary remarks from both sides of the discussion. Yes, it may have been, or still be, reasonable to block more than just one editor in this matter. I've found one who clearly violated two policies and blocked them; there is not a single policy-based argument against the block here on this page so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case it isn't clear and relieves you, there will be at least one other administrator independently reviewing the block in response to your request above, and the request will either become green or red depending on their response. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: So a sentence like: 'It's really astonishing, the confidence with which you're bragging your ignorance.' Is what you call a personal attack? And is a reason to block someone? Seriously, what are you talking about? This man is quoting a book, brags about me not having read it, even though he clearly didn't even read it himself; the information he denied was in the book was evidently already in the preface! But then I can't call him ignorant?

Really, I don't understand this at all. If you look at the archives of the page, then you see that the exact same discussion was held some time ago. Then some guy comes along who clearly has an agenda, makes contributions in bad English, starts multiple edit wars, provides the most ridiculous arguments in a discussion, doesn't accept general agreement in scholarly work (I have supplied more than enough!) and at the end snitches me at the admin board when I don't agree with him. But I get blocked. Really, if this is Wikipedia in 2023, then it's better for me to leave. Awater01 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Awater01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It was certainly not my intention to edit war, only to bring the article back to its original state. If that's edit warring, then fine, I won't do it again. With regard to being uncivil, I'm sorry, but the user simply had nothing sensible to say and was edit warring himself. Sure, I didn't react very nice, but neither was he (e.g. he started insulting me by calling me a nationalist). However, if my responses are not allowed, then I obviously won't do it again.

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=It was certainly not my intention to edit war, only to bring the article back to its original state. If that's edit warring, then fine, I won't do it again. With regard to being uncivil, I'm sorry, but the user simply had nothing sensible to say and was edit warring himself. Sure, I didn't react very nice, but neither was he (e.g. he started insulting me by calling me a nationalist). However, if my responses are not allowed, then I obviously won't do it again. |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=It was certainly not my intention to edit war, only to bring the article back to its original state. If that's edit warring, then fine, I won't do it again. With regard to being uncivil, I'm sorry, but the user simply had nothing sensible to say and was edit warring himself. Sure, I didn't react very nice, but neither was he (e.g. he started insulting me by calling me a nationalist). However, if my responses are not allowed, then I obviously won't do it again. |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=It was certainly not my intention to edit war, only to bring the article back to its original state. If that's edit warring, then fine, I won't do it again. With regard to being uncivil, I'm sorry, but the user simply had nothing sensible to say and was edit warring himself. Sure, I didn't react very nice, but neither was he (e.g. he started insulting me by calling me a nationalist). However, if my responses are not allowed, then I obviously won't do it again. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Awater01 (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)}[reply]