Wanggaeparkgae
July 2020 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ƏXPLICIT 03:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Unblock edit
Wanggaeparkgae (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
was blocked by the person who has a protection order on Jackson Wang’s wiki page, which attempts fans from correcting misinformation and updating when needed (it has not been updated with so much relevant information for a while). I was blocked because I asked for a harmful piece of information to the artist be removed. The responses kept saying “It is sourced and netural” so it is allowed, but it is not sourced correctly. It cities an article, which has absolutely no proof of the statement made about a weibo post. It does not show the weibo post or anything. I request to be unblocked so I, as an ACTUAL fan, can edit and remove it and update his wikipedia to 2020/2019 occurrences too because they missed a LOT. I should not be blocked for being “rude” because I was rejected not once, not twice, THREE times and just told to get a consensus and when I pointed out the source is unreliable, the person blocked me. This is not what fair is.Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See below. Salvio 07:50, 24 July 2020 (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.
I have added more to the appeal I sent Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The user who blocked me runs a kpop fansite. It is LITERALLY in their profile. This is a serious conflict of interest. They’re a kpop fan and blocked Jackson’s page from being edited and now are refusing to open it again or to let his fans remove harmful information. There is an agenda to this, and I don’t understand how Wikipedia is allowing this childishness. Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Unblock Explained in Depth edit
Wanggaeparkgae (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
In addition to my first post, I would like to add how can I be blocked indefinitely (which is for serious issues) for disruptive editing when the whole issue is about a page I can not access TO EDIT? I did no disruptive editing at all. I only edited book series I love and not disruptively. The admin who reported me runs a kpop fansite and is refusing to let Jackson fans update and protect Jackson’s Wikipedia page. Along with another admin, they are blocking anyone who sends requests about the unreliable information in the Wikipedia (They assume it’s me, but I’m clearly blocked). Please unblock me. I literally just want to help my idol. I don’t understand why I’m being punished. Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request per WP:NOTTHEM and because it does not address the reason for your block. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Salvio 07:52, 24 July 2020 (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.
- Wanggaeparkgae, to start off, blaming others for your actions is one of the easy ways to get your unblock request declined. I don't really know how you got the idea in the first place that the user who blocked you "runs a kpop fansite". You'll also need to address your hostile responses, especially this: when you're told to get consensus, you responded, "no btch change it". You also admitted doing what the Wikipedia community calls "off-site canvassing" and "meatpuppetry" right here - telling your followers on social media to spam the talk page with requests is one sure-fire way to get you and your followers blocked indefinitely from editing. theinstantmatrix (talk) 06:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- User has shown precisely no interest in achieving consensus when it was explained to them that Wikipedia works on that basis, and as Theinstantmatrix points out, subsequently went on to try (as they close to suggested they might on the post in my talk page) [meat/sock]puppetry to get their way anyway. That needs to be addressed before the user can be unblocked, and they need to understand that it's not
punishment
, but rather to protect the encyclopedia from the damage they might cause - if they'll ignore policy and explicitly express intent to defy consensus in one area, there's no evidence they'd accept it in any other. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 07:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
1. The reason I was blocked is because I was rude because I was rejected, which, yes, is childish on my part and the other social media things I said I’d do.
2. I will stop demanding it from others and being rude to them.
3. I will stick to editing on my own like the book series I was and be useful.
Now to respond to Naypta:
1. The user who blocked me has a Twitter in their profile, which goes to a fansite. That is how I got that idea.
2. About my hostile responses about consensus, I was like that because I don’t understand how I’m supposed to be able to get consensus when all of you already disagree with me, even when I asked all 3 of you nicely.
3. And yes I understand what I said I would do with the social media, but it felt like I couldn’t do anything else since none of you understood my point of view on the topic. I won’t do it again.
4. About your last paragraph, I said I won’t do the social media thing again, so let me just respond to the last few points. I won’t cause any damage. That has never been my intention. I was just on Jackson’s Wikipedia page for Social 50 and was reading it and thinking about how so many things could be added when I saw the problematic one (problematic in my view). My intention has always been to help his page/other pages, not harm.
To end, I don’t know if I should just reply here or like fill out another block talk page on mine, so I will just see if you reply to this. Again, I’m sorry for being disrespectful, but I am also new to this, and I didn’t know it would be so hard to change something with which I believe I have valid reasons (plus, the fact that only his is blocked from editing added onto my frustration because the page needs many new things added). Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, can someone please explain to me how I can be blocked indefinitely due to disruptive editing when the issue was I could do no editing? Isn’t it wrong to block me for something I didn’t do Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wanggaeparkgae, if you want administrators to notice your unblock request, you'll need to use the template {{unblock}}, otherwise it will not be noticed by anyone. That said, I'm not sure your unblock request is good enough (although I'm not going to decline it, since I have already done that once). Speaking strictly for myself, you still seem to have problems accepting consensus when it goes against you. Promising to edit on your own is not enough, since all of Wikipedia should be written through consensus building. Salvio 18:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Unblock Attempt edit
{{unblock|reason=1. The reason I was blocked is because I was rude because I was rejected when I asked some to remove something I didn’t like on a semi-protected page, which, yes, is childish on my part and the other social media things I said I’d do.
2. I will stop demanding it from others and being rude to them.
3. I will stick to editing on my own like the book series I was and be useful. I will also obtain consensus when needed (I realize this was my biggest issue and will act accordingly).Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)}
Unblock Attempt (think i formatted other one incorrectly) edit
{{unblock|reason= 1. The reason I was blocked is because I was rude because I was rejected when I asked some to remove something I didn’t like on a semi-protected page, which, yes, is childish on my part and the other social media things I said I’d do.
2. I will stop demanding it from others and being rude to them.
3. I will stick to editing on my own like the book series I was and be useful. I will also obtain consensus when needed. I realize this was my biggest issue and will act accordinglyWanggaeparkgae (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)}
Unblock edit
Wanggaeparkgae (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
1. The reason I was blocked is because I was rude because I was rejected when I asked some to remove something I didn’t like on a semi-protected page, which, yes, is childish on my part and the other social media things I said I’d do. 2. I will stop demanding it from others and being rude to them. 3. I will stick to editing on my own like the book series I was and be useful. I will also obtain consensus when needed. I realize this was my biggest issue and will act accordingly Wanggaeparkgae (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I'll accept, given the apologies (without restrictions for the topic area). I have seen some progress on this talk page--no more insults, and a slightly more appropriate level of discourse. Wanggaeparkgae, this is not the internet, where you can cuss at, and talk to and about people as if they're just another fool on Instagram or 4chan. Please edit with an appropriately formal level--think proper grammar and punctuation, no emojis, etc. We don't need you to write like a senator or a lawyer, but some of us are actually adults and do not appreciate being talked to like our kids talk to us. I'm pinging Explicit, and it's probably a good idea for you to take back the ridiculous suggestion that Explicit is running some scam here. Good luck, and please don't make me regret this. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)