User talk:Grymbler

Blocked again

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry Grymbler (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I know you mean well, but it should be clear to you by now that Wikipedia isn't the right project for you, as you seem to be unwilling to unable to understand our content policies. I'm sure there are other forums on the Internet for you to discuss minor aircraft incidents police shootings. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised/shattered by this action. I can't remember, that i was blocked before. But you're right: I'm not willing to understand the content policies. That's why i accept that lecture. As long as i can write in the discussion section, i'm fine with that situation. Thank you for your feedback. Grymbler (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You can discuss these topics outside of Wikipedia. I'm going to continue blocking you, whether on one of your IP ranges or named accounts, as long as you continue attempting to evade your block. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry again. This feels like it's going in a complete wrong direction that i wanted. In the german discussion section is already a link and information to that incident happened on October 2023. That's why i thought it is ok to write something about that in the discussion section.

I will not change anything on the article site anymore (independently of being blocked or not). I'm not planning to create other accounts and i don't try to evade my block. I'm shattered that you apparently assume that. I already told you, that i accept that lecture. Until this part, i was fine with your decission. Your last reply is very aggressive in a way which feels not appropriate for this situation. Grymbler (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The situation is that you've been attempting to evade blocks for more than a year. Your poor-quality edits are nearly always reverted by another editor (not just me); that should indicate to you that your edits clearly aren't appropriate for Wikipedia, and that you are wasting many people's time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this information, because now it's pretty much clear to me, that you are talking to the wrong person respectively think I'm someone else.

I'm not attempting to evade blocks. Reason 1: I've now idea how to do this. Reason 2: I had never been blocked before.

The Titan Airways edit was my first one ever in the English section of Wikipedia. I'm a german user. My last edit in the German section was in September 2023 and it is still live.

I hope this is helpful to clarify the situation. Grymbler (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I know you're not being truthful. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, you had the history with that person. But that's not me and your behavior to me is unacceptable. I gave you the chance to clarify the situation but it looks like you're not interested. From now on, I will fight against your decision and your behavior to me. Grymbler (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Admin blocked me, because of confusing me with someone else.Grymbler (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The reason for the block is correct. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2024 (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.

Admin OhNoitsJamie blocked me, because he obviously is thinking, i'm someone, who is activally trying to disturb. But he is confusing me with someone else. Furthermore, I would like to complain about his behavior. Details can be found in the talk page. Grymbler (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2024 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Same reasons as before. This block was made, because OhNoitsJamie is confusing me with someone else. I want a fair inspection in this case. I want to show, that the things i wrote are the truth. I want that someone will give me the chance to proof the truthness of what i was writing. I want to know the person who OhNoitsJamie is thinking i am. I will provide my personal information (german id card, video call, ...). I want someone who is investigating, not judging because of his emotions. Grymbler (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Confirming that this is clear block evasion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2024 (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.

Help me!

Hi. Recently i added a part in an article about an accident of an airplane. See Accidents and incidents. Shortly after, admin OhNoitsJamie blocked me. See [1]. I was confused, because i had never been blocked before. He said, i'm unwilling to unable to understand the content policies. And i agreed, because i'm not familiar with the content policies in detail. Therefore i accepted that he said i shouldn't edit anymore. But then it came to the point, that he is misunderstanding me with someone else, who was making whatever for things in the past, which OhNoitsJamie annoyed. I tried to explain, that i'm not the person he is thinking i am, but he don't trust me. For me, it is the first time i was getting in touch with OhNoitsJamie. It feels like, i'm the boy in the story with the wolf and the sheeps, but it starts when the boy is screaming for help, when the wolf is really there, but nobody is listening to me anymore. And i'm missing the part, that happened before. Currently i don't care much about the block in the english wikipedia, because i'm german and i can live that my account is blocked here. But there is still the point, that OhNoitsJamie is misunderstanding me with someone else, and i want to clarify, that there is a mistake. I hope someone will investigate this. I will help as much as i can.

Grymbler (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone did already investigate. In fact, two someones did, both highly respected admins with a great deal of experience in this area. They both independently looked at the details of the block and affirmed it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Obviously they didn't checked it in the way that i expected, because nobody is telling me: Oh yes, there was that misunderstanding you are talking about. We are sorry for that mistake. The opposite is the case. I am called a liar/not being truthful (which hurts and is not fair, because of the reasons i explained). I am accused to evade blocks, which i didn't. I am accused to act like a Duck (or however you call that duck test), but that's not me.

Nobody told me, what i had done exactly in the past, that occured to the point that i was getting blocked.

Maybe that highly respected admins checked this as much as they can. But the reasons for their behaviour, their information must be wrong. Maybe admins cannot help me in this case. Maybe some IT guy needs to check that. However, please investigate the points i'm talking about. Grymbler (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The first administrator (I'm not going to ping anybody) found that the other account was editing from the exact same IP range, making "nearly identical edits." [2], so yes, it was far more than simple suspicion. Disruptively adding in extremely minor incidents to aircraft/airline pages isn't exactly a typical behavior.

So start with the same IP address range making nearly identical edits. Then, add in the fact that you immediately responded with "I'm not willing to understand the content policies." And in your follow-up queries, you have continued to say misleading things. For example, in the help block, you only referred to the original admin as misunderstanding you, conveniently leaving out the fact that three separate admins independently reviewed the block and came to the identical conclusion.

I'm only an uninvolved editor (at least until now), so you don't need to convince me. But I can't see any reason to conclude that the three admins are wrong. There's a great deal of evidence against you, and nothing against that evidence other than your word. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for your response. Honestly, i appreciate that kind of response. More than just the last ones by others, which felt just like the say "guilty" and no more. You do also point to some important things, which gives me the opportunity to explain my sentences.

Saying, that i'm editing from the exact same IP range (and for me, range means that there is more than just me) and making "nearly identical edits" is like breathing the same air which everybody else is doing. This might be an indication, but it is no evidence.

Another point which might leads to misunderstandings: You are not the first person who is talking about minor incidents in relation to that Titan Airways broken windows. But in the documents and webpages i found, they are talking about an accident.

See [3]https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aaib-report-airbus-a321-253nx-g-oatw-on-4-october-2023

This is confusing for me, because you are saying it is a minor incident, but the AAIB is talking about an accident. Why is there a difference?

Now to that really good point you noticed. I said: "But you're right: I'm not willing to understand the content policies.". I used the words, which OhNoitsJamie used in his reply before: "...as you seem to be unwilling to unable to understand our content policies.". This was my reaction to his one. At that moment, i did not now, that OhNoitsJamie is already misunderstanding me with someone else. I just thought, that i made a mistake. That i disregarded a rule which is written in the content policies. And if i knew the content policies, i would not had done that mistake. But also: I wanted to do that small edit, but i don't wanted to read the whole content polices to do edits like this one. That's why i said: "That's why i accept that lecture.".

I DON'T wanted to say: Fuck of that content polices.

I wanted to say: You are obviously right, because it feels like i made a mistake which i did not know about, so hey, i'm sorry and it is better for me and you, if i don't edit here anymore. I'm fine with that.

But i'm not fine with being misunderstood with someone else.

Now to the point that you say i continued to say misleading things. I don't find the help block at the moment, of that section you are talking about. But it might be possible, that at the time i was asking for help, there was only one admin, OhNoitsJamie, who was involved. I asked for help and requested the unblock at different times. Another important point: i'm german. my english vocabulary is not that good to explain and understand everything, as i wish. Saying misleading things or things who might be understood wrong is easy. And i'm sorry for this, but i can't do better.

But even now, that three separate admins indepentendly reviewed the block: i know they are wrong. but i don't know what exactly they check. i don't know how they work to check this here. i don't know if they know each other and they don't really check this, because they trust OhNoitsJamie and that's it. I just don't know how this is working here. But i see that it is not working well. And i don't have trust in all those admins. How should i?

Try to move into my situation. Or any other situation, where you think you are innocent, but all the other people don't believe you. How would you feel? How would you act?

That's my challange here and it is damn hard.

You are saying, that "There's a great deal of evidence against" me. But all i see by now are circumstancials. I don't see any evidence. As far as i understand the meaning of IP range, it is not an evidence to point to me.

And as long as my word is the only thing to fight against that misunderstanding, i will use it. Grymbler (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

You are blocked from Wikipedia because (1) the content you add is usually poorly written in an unencyclopedic tone (2) you continue to add content about minor aircraft incidents and other news events are not notable enough to be mentioned in articles. Despite the many warnings from a variety of editors across your various IP ranges, you continue to try to do the same things. Regarding the first point, perhaps you should stick to adding content to the Wikipedia of your native language. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 11:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm blocked, because you are confusing me with someone else. Still.

The Titan Airways edit was my first and only one in the english wikipedia. Still.

And i already said, that i will not edit in the english wikipedia anymore. I don't wanna make contact with you again. I don't wanna get into such a situation like this here. It feels terrible.

But i will not end this, as long as that wrong block without evidence and those false allegations are alive. Grymbler (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)