User talk:Ryan Vesey/Archive 2

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Instant-runoff voting, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Cenarium (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2011 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

As can be clearly seen by me previous edits I have been a valuable contributor to wikipedia. The issue that resulted in my being blocked was in response/anger to disputes with User:HXL49 and at the limited action taken against him. It even seemed that other editors were yelling at me for bringing up the subject of his incivility. I have taken a break from Wikipedia due to the block and am ready to make valuable contributions again. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm prepared to believe you when you stated " I'm just trying to get blocked as fast as possible". Editing Wikipedia will require thick skin, which perhaps someday you will have. See you then. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:58, 13 May 2011 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am sincerely sorry for the errors I made that resulted in my being blocked. I admit that I became overly angry, and used poor editing as an excuse to be blocked from Wikipedia so I could take a forced Wikibreak. I will also admit that I was fully aware of the ability to take a forced Wikibreak when I made the edits, so I was using Wikipedia as a very poor medium to vent my anger. I hope that the administrator reviewing this takes time to view my contributions Ryan Vesey (contribs) and notices that the first 700 edits I made were beneficial to the site. The administrator should also notice that the edits I made on the Republic of China, that resulted in my argument with another editor and subsequent rants, were all made in good faith. I would finally like to say that I will not commit such a terrible offense as replacing content of pages in the future. If the administrator reviewing this does not believe I am ready to again make useful contributions to Wikipedia I request that he/she change my indefinite block into a block with an expiration Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree with Bwilkins above. Sorry Ryan but you've admitted that you were fully aware of the ability to take an enforced Wikibreak, yet you chose to vandalise the encyclopedia to get blocked? Sorry, I don't see any reason to overturn this. 5 albert square (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2011 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Since it seems that my past edits are not important enough to justify an unblock, I would like to write about how I have changed as an editor. The Problem

I failed to follow the procedural guidelines set about in WP:NAM.

I fought fire with fire when I met what I would perceive as a WikiOrc.

Due to the unresolved dispute I resorted to Disruptive editing

My Changes

As an editor I have changed in many ways.

I have read the articles such as WP:NAM and WP:DROP

I have learned from these articles and used it to control my temper.

I have taken a break from Wikipedia so I can think of my poor decision and decide how I will make better decisions in the future.

I have reaffirmed my decision to always be civil and to never engage in disruptive editing again.

Why You Should Unblock Me

I show a clear understanding of the issue that caused myself to be blocked.

I have taken full responsibility for my actions.

I have read more Wikipedia policy during my block.

Although it is not Wikipedia policy, an unblock would be in accordance with the Give 'em enough rope essay.

According to this essay, I will come back and be a genuinely productive editor again. If I am not a productive editor after having my block removed, I would be blocked again and would never be unblocked.

What I would like the Reviewing Admin to do if He/She Does Not Think I am Ready

Change my indefinite block to a block with an expiration.

Use the 2nd chance template on my page.

Thank you Ryan Vesey (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you in the light of the discussion below. Welcome back, and I hope you will have a successful second career here. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As a block reviewer, I think this user could benefit from a second chance. I'm waiting to get the input of other block reviewers, though, and the blocking admin.  Sandstein  20:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've had a brief dialog with this editor after he asked me for advice, and after having thought about it for a bit I agree - I think what we saw was an aberration and that he genuinely regrets it. I'll volunteer to keep my eyes on his edits for a while if unblocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, simply because I'd be worried about the same sort of thing happening if the user got into the same situation again with another editor. Would Ryan be open to mentoring if it was decided that he should be unblocked? That's the only way I can see forward.--5 albert square (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be very open to mentoring. I had actually explored the possibility of using that option long before I was blocked and any troubles arose with my actions. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I support unblocking. Ryan did some pretty stupid stuff, but he has a considerable history of constructive editing, and one silly incident, for which he has accepted responsibility and apologised. I see no reason not to give him another chance. My answer to "I'd be worried about the same sort of thing happening if the user got into the same situation again with another editor" is that I would reblock indefinitely, without further discussion. That is to say that any unblock would be conditional on the same thing not recurring. However, I don't expect that the need would arise: this was one outburst, totally out of character, as judged by past history. The only reason I have not already unblocked is that, since two admins have declined unblock requests, it does not look entirely uncontroversial, so I am willing to wait and see if any further opinions are forthcoming. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you to all of you who are supporting an unblock. Not only was this out of character in my Wikipedia editing, but also from my personal life. I would like to keep my personal life and Wikipedia fairly separate, but if an admin asks, I can provide a reference to prove this. Again, thanks for understanding and I am sincerely sorry for my actions. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to support an unblock on the condition that the user does get mentorship of some sort to prevent this from happening again.--5 albert square (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

If I am to be unblocked, I would like to ask this question now rather than later. What do other editors think is better between Twinkle and Huggle? Or some combination of the two? I have used Twinkle before. Does Huggle allow edit summaries, because that would be nice. It also states on the twinkle page that Friendly is being incorporated into Twinkle, does that mean I will be able to leave welcome messages using Twinkle? Ryan Vesey (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's really just individual choice with this Ryan as they are both different. Twinkle you can use whilst logged in to your normal internet explorer whereas Huggle you can only use if you log in via Huggle. It's been a couple of months now since I last used Huggle but I think it does allow edit summaries, I don't think the edit summaries are always automatic with it. As for Twinkle/Friendly I think they are in the middle of merging already.--5 albert square (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to rush things but...

It seems like there is fair consensus among the admins for an unblock. I also checked Cenarium's talk page and he/she stated that he/she would not be against an unblock. (On that note, how do you create a link to a specific edit?) Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Offer of unblocking

As you say, a consensus to unblock seems to have emerged. I am willing to unblock, but there is a point to 5 albert square's suggestion of mentoring. I am willing to take on that role. Consequently, I am making the following offer: I will unblock on the following conditions:

1. You accept that I will keep an eye on your editing, and give you any advice and/or warnings if I think I see any need for them. Although it would be unreasonable to say that you have to always automatically accept what I say, the understanding would be that you would normally be willing to take my advice on board. You can also turn to me to ask for help if you see a need for it.
2. You accept that in the event that you return to quite unacceptable editing, you may be blocked again, without further warning if necessary. (I would only use the "without further warning" option if I thought your editing was so grossly unacceptable that it had to be stopped immediately, but you would accept that the option was there. In fact I do not expect that such a reblock will become necessary at all, with or without warning: that is why I am willing to unblock you.)
3. We agree that this arrangement stays in place for at least three months, after which it can be reviewed to see if it needs to be prolonged.

If you agree, please indicate so here. Also, if any other administrator wishes to make any comment about this offer I hope they will do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think that's a very good and very fair offer, and if Ryan Vesey accepts it then I strongly support an unblock. (And I'm always happy to help with questions and/or guidance any time !James isn't around) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• No objection to an unblock here, either - but I do have a concern. Ryan asked about huggle and twinkle, above - I'd like to have him wait awhile before starting to use automated editing tools. If nothing else, he should have some time without problematic edits before being approved for the tools. Maybe just a formality, but it would be a reassurance that he is indeed sincere. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Accept I have no problem with the arrangement as it is laid out. Warning, I may come to you fairly often with questions to make myself a better editor, if it gets annoying I will go to my old habit of dispersing my questions between admins. On the issue of tools, I could go a little while without using them; however, I would like to continue using Lupin's Antip-Vandal Tool. Ryan Vesey (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• No objections to an unblock on my part as well.  Sandstein  16:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)