User talk:Offend

Hi Offend! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

17:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Offend! Thank you for your contributions. I am Girth Summit and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! GirthSummit _(blether) 16:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Counter vandalsim[edit]

Hi - thanks for your recent efforts in countering vandalism. If you'd like to learn more about best practice, and how to do it more efficiently, take a look at WP:CVUA. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, I will take a look. Thank you. Offend (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly advice[edit]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. INeedSupport ^:3 16:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - good to see you starting to use warnings. It looks like you're reverting and adding the templates manually - you might want to read up on WP:Twinkle, a really useful counter-vandalism tool - it lets you do all sorts of things very easily, such as reverting edits, welcoming and warming new users, and filing reports at AIV etc. All this (and more!) can be explained if you'd like to sign up for CVUA. Don't know what time zone you're in, but I've got a slot if you're interested. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't use it yet because I'm not autoconfirmed, according to the Wikipedia:Twinkle page. Offend (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course. Well, that won't take long.

Do you mind if I ask you a slightly awkward question? I see that you recently added a CSD tag to a page (one that the author had been messing about with since I tagged it myself). That's not something that brand new editors usually know how to do. Have you edited before under a different account? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to WP:GCSD for the speedy deletion tags. Offend (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly the right guideline - I'm just astonished that you found the problematic draft article and the relevant guideline on how to deal with it (entirely appropriately) on your second day of editing. I'm genuinely not accusing you of anything - so far as I can see, everything you've done since registering has been entirely productive - I just wondered if you had some experience already, perhaps under a different account or an IP. I'm not trying to trick you into admitting to socking - per WP:CLEANSTART, users are permitted to start again with a new account if they've had issues in the past - I just don't want to spend time teaching you to suck eggs if you already know your way around. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had an old account some time ago in the past but forgotten the details and was locked out. I'm not super knowledgeable in the policies/guidelines here but I think they're simple enough to help me find my way around. Thanks for offering to help. Offend (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, that's good enough for me. (I also notice that you're very good at threading your posts, which I appreciate). You're doing good work so I'm on your side - e. I am happy to offer you assistance that you need. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About: Ulan_Tuya[edit]

About: Ulan_Tuya, still in the process of improvement, in line with the attention, on the 2019 CCTV Spring Festival gala.^[1] 赵彦彬 (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Look at the Google search results".

March 2019[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

—DoRD (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD:, this account was made in accordance with policy. ArbCom was notified. 🤟 O F F E N D 😼 15:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care whether you notified ArbCom or not, I don't think that you're even eligible for CLEANSTART. You may appeal your block to the committee per the above message. —DoRD (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and your blatant lie above doesn't help your case. —DoRD (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've emailed the Committee. How has my account been used abusively? and what I said to Girth isn't a lie, although the obscure wording makes it look like it is, it's misunderstood. This was done with the Committee's approval, I waited a whole week to get the "green light" and they said I'm good to go. I don't currently have other accounts. 🤟 O F F E N D 😼 16:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note here that the Arbitration Committee does not "green light" clean starts; per policy, "no one can grant permission for a clean start." We did, however, receive a notification of the clean start, and we've received your email mentioned above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing the Committee is not responding positively regarding this matter when it is them who've gotten me into this mess in the first place. I asked them if I'm permitted to take a clean start and they said, weeks before I created this account that, "Yes, [omitted], so long as there are still no active sanctions against their account." That is a form of approval and considering the Committee governs this Wiki, I assumed their decision would simply override policy. Now that I've been blocked, they're acting as if they have no idea of what happened and that DoRD's unjust blocking of me is supported by policy when it is I who have followed procedure and taken appropriate steps into making sure this won't go wrong. All the steps were done correctly and policies adhered to, so DoRD's block comes off as unusually bizarre. It has been a week since an arbitrator last informed me of their discussion, in which the outcome appears to be pending. I'm still waiting.. still prevented from contributing constructively to Wikipedia even when I've done nothing wrong. 🤟 O F F E N D 😼 12:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Offend - since our earlier correspondence I'd been meaning to check in with you and see how you were getting on - I just got round to doing that today and saw this conversation. I don't know whether you're still checking this page, but I feel I ought to say something.

I don't want to run any risk of doxxing so I'm not going to mention any specifics; I expect you already worked out that I didn't really buy the stuff you fed me above, but if you are who I think you are then I'll just say this: whatever has happened between us, I think you're an enormously productive and effective editor, and I greatly appreciate your work here. If you could just find a way of contributing without the attitude, I sincerely believe that you'd be a massive net benefit. I've no idea what correspondence you're having (if any) with ArbCom at the moment, but I hope you find a way back to continuing your good work. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 21:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: You're really nice and considerate, administrators should be more like you. A vast majority of administrators I've interacted with are tyrannical and do not exercise common sense when it comes to dealing with users. I doubt I'm going to ever be back because the arbs have offered "their way or the highway". I've rejected their offer because I still standby the fact that I have not done anything wrong in the first place and that my clean start has been legitimate. Furthermore, it was them who said I'm allowed to clean start but when I got blocked, they refused to back me up. That's more like problem-creating than problem-solving, which is what the Committee was created for. Instead of tackling the bigger issues, they prefer to go after editors like me who actually want to help the encyclopedia. It's ridiculous and disappointing. Thanks a lot for your kind words. 🤟 O F F E N D 😼 20:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On balance, most of my interactions with admins have been pretty positive. Some of them can be a bit high-and-mighty, or curt, but the trick is not to worry about that sort of thing. They have a lot of demands on their time, they deal with a lot of unpleasantness - so if they slip a bit in terms of courtesy from time to time I'm not that bothered.

As for fairness, I know very little about any of this, so I can't say whether or not I agree that you've been treated unfairly. I will give you a bit of advice, if you want it. Sometimes in life, unfairness is so important that it's necessary to fight it with everything you've got, but that's not always the case - sometimes though it's better just to smile sweetly and suck it up, in the interests of the bigger picture. If you enjoy editing Wikipedia, and you'd like to return (and there are plenty of people who would be glad to see you do so) - why not just accept their offer? Maybe it's fair, maybe it's not, but if it's a route to get what you want then you should take it. That's the way I see it anyway - you must do what's right for you, of course. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flooded with them hundreds unblocked following successful appeal[edit]

Following a successful appeal via email to the arbitration committee, Flooded with them hundreds has been unblocked, with an indefinite one-account restriction and the agreement to publicly disclose all past accounts. The account restriction has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Arbitration Committee. The past accounts are:

For the Arbitration Committee,
GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Flooded with them hundreds unblocked following successful appeal

[1] "Look at the Google search results".

[1]