Chestmas
Welcome edit
|
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse! edit
|
May 2015 edit
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 18:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC) |
Chestmas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There is zero actual evidence that I have made any edits that any previous Wikipedia editor has ever made. I noticed a major amount of promotional writing on the Vocativ page and attempted to add some improvement banners. I then made efforts on the article's talk page to try and compromise. But no discussion was ever had, and I was simply blocked for filing a 3RR complaint against the person who refused to talk on the talk page with me. How in the world is that worthy of a block? How is discussing on the talkpage and abiding by 3RR worthy of a block? Chestmas (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your contribution history seems completely consistent with the reason given for the block. It is sort of obvious. Chillum 18:21, 2 May 2015 (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.
Chestmas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have done nothing but follow Wikipedia rules to the letter. And saying "it's kind of obvious" ... really? So new editors that can figure out this incredibly simple website with very obvious rules gets blocked? Where is your evidence that there is any link between myself and any editor? Have you even read the Vocativ page for promotionalism? Use checkuser for god's sake. Chestmas (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There are numerous features of your editing which scream out that you are not a new editor. However, even if we accept your claim that this account is not a sockpuppet, you have been disruptive and unconstructive in other ways, such as maliciously stalking the edits of Intermittentgardener, so unblocking this account would not be beneficial to the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2015 (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.
- You don't seem like a new editor to me. Chillum 18:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- User:Chillum 1) All the previous editors you claim are the same as me, fumbled all the way through. They also made no edits I made. I just read them all; there is no possible way we are the same person, beyond my saying so (which I would know). This is just insulting. 2) Not every new editor is stupid, how is it not easy to follow the examples of the people you are discussing with. Saying "oh, you know how to talk to me, so you must be bad" is a serious breach of what IG called good faith. 3) You have zero evidence that I have disrupted Wikipedia in any way. You cannot show in any way that I have done anything but tried to discuss Wikipedia, got shut down by an aggressive editor, and complained. I read the policy now, a sock block requires you to disrupt the site. How have I done that? 4) No one has responded to my requests to discuss promotional writing on the Vocativ page. No one. And then I get blocked. I have to agree, it is very suspicious that there is some COI (conflicting interest) going on here, as I read on the talk page before contributing. Chestmas (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- We do not have to agree on this. Another uninvolved admin will give you another review soon. I will respect the judgment of that admin. Chillum 18:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- User:Chillum Thank you. If I get block for this, I'm fine with that, as there are likely many rules I do not know. To be honest, I have very little further interest in the Vocativ page at this point. Just thought I'd poke my nose in to help. Vocativ is a pretty big outfit in the US, and a lot of us read it. I read it all the time. A lot of hackers do. Though apparently none of us are smart enough to deal with this site :) True what they say about the inclusionary environment here. Reminds me of the early 90s. Good luck to you. Chestmas (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- We do not have to agree on this. Another uninvolved admin will give you another review soon. I will respect the judgment of that admin. Chillum 18:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)