Jump to content

User talk:Mariolovr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mariolovr (talk | contribs) at 07:41, 20 September 2020 (→‎Sockpuppet investigation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for persistent tendentious and disruptive editing. See [1]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 15:51, 18 September 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I definitely was not expecting this. First, I appreciate your position, but I feel like it needs reconsideration. As I said during the ANI, I am very sorry. My disruptive behavior was definitely a big mistake, and resulted from a severe misunderstanding of the rules, but I won't do it again. In fact, I had already stopped that behavior even before the ANI, and I had been trying to do more constructive things before this block (like starting an RfC to get consensus and fighting vandalism. All I ask is that I can get a second chance. Mariolovr (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block is warranted and appropriate. Salvio 17:02, 18 September 2020 (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.

The way you framed and went about that RfC is more evidence of tendentiousness, if anything, and the block is warranted and appropriate, as far as I'm concerned. However, I propose you a partial unblock: if you accept an indefinite ban from the topics of veganism, vegetarianism, animal rights, animal welfare, and the use of animals for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation, all topics to be broadly construed, I am willing to unblock you. Note that, should you accept the topic ban, making edits about animal rights everywhere on Wikipedia would lead to escalating blocks. Salvio 16:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was my first RfC, so I apologize if I mistakenly framed anything. I just wanted to avoid edit warring.
And unfortunately, that is a very extensive topic ban. I am only really interested in and knowledgeable about animal agriculture since I have experience working as a farmhand and at a meat packing plant. So if I am to be banned from contributing to those kind of articles, then that's equivalent to banning me from this site. And that, in my opinion, would be very unnecessary. Mariolovr (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I am declining your unblock request. Your editing style is definitely tendentious and pugnacious and, as such, an indefinite block is the only way of stopping disruption. Salvio 17:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, could you explain why you think that? I thought the only issue was the edit warring, which I had stopped. If I've violated some other rule, then I do not know about it. I really just want to be positive contributor. Mariolovr (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I never declined your offer. I just wanted you to reconsider it. If that is my only option, then I will accept it. @Salvio giuliano: Mariolovr (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I have seen your messages here and that I've discussed your unblock request on Bishonen's talk page. For the moment, as I said there, I'm somewhat on the fence. I think I'll first let the SPI its course, however... Salvio 11:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zalgo, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychologist Guy: what happens now that you've rescinded your investigation of me? Mariolovr (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mariolovr&oldid=979348400"