User talk:Artificial Nagger

March 2022

Hello, I'm Mako001. I noticed that in this edit to Arlington County, Virginia, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1094669658

Please explain your edit summary. What does that have to do with your edit? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, really. I think the microphone to text function “eavesdropped” on me and inserted it there. Technology is a double edged sword. Artificial Nagger (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find that hard to believe. Be sure to remain WP:CIVIL when you are on Wikipedia. You are responsible for anything that gets published under your screen name, whether you intended it or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don’t care what you believe. Regardless, this conversation’s very existence is like dotting the i. Artificial Nagger (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Hello, I'm TylerBurden. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Roald Dahl, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Not only adding, but apparently also repeatedly restoring once removed. TylerBurden (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

I reverted your closed of the discussion "Long Term pattern of violations of WP:CIVIL by The Rambling Man" at WP:ANI. You should not be closing any discussions at administrative noticeboards, but certainly not one as controversial as that one. Please do not do so again.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t get my knickers in a twist over this, but you’re just wasting everyone’s time by re-opening. There is no consensus now, there will be no consensus this evening, and none tomorrow. At best someone will give TRM a talking-to on his talk-page which if he’s feeling charitable he will actually leave up.

You should not be closing any discussions at administrative noticeboards

Oh really? Or is this a challenge? Artificial Nagger (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hello. Your username (and frankly quite a bit more) is up for discussion. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Artificial_Nagger. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I don’t understand what’s going on. Out of those 9 or so categories listed, none of those apply to my editing. I’m assuming you don’t go around looking for people to block, but even if you are, I don’t see how I got your attention in the first place. Artificial Nagger (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox hello. Could you please answer me? The block document says you’re supposed to do so. It’s not an unreasonable question. Thank you Artificial Nagger (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to appeal the block is detailed in the block notice. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not what I’m asking about. You said it “ appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.” And that “NOTHERE” page listed several unpleasant behaviors. I feel that none of those labels can honestly be applied to me. Maybe I’m wrong. So what was I doing that was so horrible that you had to screw with my enjoyment of looking up occasional points of interest, occasionally fixing grammar, sometimes content, and adding new sources? It seems to me that is exactly what is needed to build an encyclopedia and that is what I was doing. Artificial Nagger (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock guide you suggested says this

It's important that you understand the reasons why the administrator blocked you before starting an unblock request. A block is not intended as punishment; it's meant to prevent you from making disruptive edits, either in good faith or as vandalism.

As I have said above, I don’t understand the reason “NOTHERE” you said I was violating. What in my editing history has given you any reasons to accuse me of this. I’m getting frustrated that you aren’t answering me as the blocking instructions require you to do. Do you even care? Human being here.

Artificial Nagger (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are completely insincere and know exactly why you are blocked. If I'm wrong about that and you are as innocent as you are claiming to be I'm sure you can write a successful appeal that will convince a reviewing administrator to unblock you. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am asking to be unblocked, because I would like to be able to make edits again. That is the reason after all, but I suspect you would like a reason for *you* to unblock me, which is the reason for this. Frankly I’m uncertain to as why I was blocked in the first place. I was given a reason of **NOTHERE** up above. At first I noticed all the “bad” behaviors. And I went thru them one by one, and I can honestly say I’m “not guilty” of any of them. Well, maybe I’ve been **baited** by a couple of editors before. But I solved the problem by leaving the area and going on my way. Look back at the last couple of months. The majority of the edits I made were small grammar corrections. And me, of all people to be correcting grammar is hilarious. And if they weren’t grammar they were adding new sources. The majority of the subjects are almost like a history of what I’ve been seeing on TV. Or the movies since I bought a “season pass” at the theater. The only “argument” I got in wasn’t really an argument. At least not to me. It was about whether we should call, in the article, the musical group “The Chicks” as “The Chicks” throughout the article or call them by their more well known and previous name “The Dixie Chicks” when they were known as such, because it was confusing. We solved that it seems, and no one appeared to even get angry. But other than that, I can’t tell you precisely why I got blocked, even though I asked several times, even though the “you’ve been blocked” document says they have to tell you. All I got were snotty replies. So honestly, I’d like to say “I’m sorry, I won’t do X again” but I don’t know what X is. And while I was reading the NOTHERE I saw this HERE part. It has the following sections * Genuine interest and improvement — When I’m reading something and I see errors like a missing comma, it annoys me. I would call fixing that a genuine interest *at* improving. * Respect for core editing standards - They seem pretty basic and makes sense. Especially the sourcing standards. * A focus on encyclopedia building - I’ll be honest here, I don’t understand the purpose of this goal. Why else would people be making non-encyclopedia edits? * Self-correction and heeding lessons - Nobody’s perfect, least of all me. Might take me once, twice, nine times, but eventually I figure it out. Or I find a pro. So I don’t know how Beetlebrox gets off and says that I’m “Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia” but, whatever. I don’t even care what he thinks anymore. I may not “build” this place because I don’t create articles or do any heavy labor, but according to the criteria above it’s patently obvious that I am HERE to keep this encyclopedia neat and tidy with commas in all the right places. And that should be good enough, because that’s all I’m willing to do. —-Sayonara Artificial Nagger (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed block evasion via WP:LOUTSOCK. Yamla (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Yamla Excuse me, I know what a sock is, but what is a LOUTSOCK? And I don’t have any other Wikipedia accounts. I’ve only edited with this account and ip addresses. May I ask how you “confirmed” me evading a block of account I don’t have? This is getting kafkaesque, just wow.

WP:LOUTSOCK explains this. You edited while signed out, while this account was blocked. I confirmed you did this via WP:CHECKUSER. --Yamla (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla (do I have to type your name in every time?) Ok, I can explain that. After I was blocked, my browser was cleared. And when I went to Wikipedia to edit this page, I noticed the pink blocked banner. I ended up not editing this and went on to something else. Today I go to the front page of Wikipedia, and I must have hit edit on one of the links because the editing source page was up. But I noticed that the pink block banner was gone. I had no idea why. So I made a small edit, I’m not even sure what page it was on. Beetle? I can’t even find it now. But you obviously can. But it was a small edit like removing a comma. So I logged in and saw the pink block bar again. Then I logged out (oh, now I know what LOUT means) and this time the pink bar was back. I guess Wikipedia ties my account to my ip address. That’s why I was logging in and out I suppose, to see how things work. So I guess I did LOUT, but it wasn’t really my attention to evade the block he placed, I’m just curious by nature. So what you said earlier is another way of that *I’m* socking myself? Guilty. Though it wasn’t my intent if that means anything, and I don’t intend to do it again. I hope this makes sense, but it’s really what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artificial Nagger (talk • contribs)

This reasonably accurately describes the edit in question. I've already declined the unblock request so won't be reviewing any further requests, but you are free to make a new one. --Yamla (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once you decline you can’t change your mind? Sorry if I’m bugging you. I do appreciate your time. Artificial Nagger (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally inappropriate for an admin to review multiple unblock requests for the same person. --Yamla (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

My reason hasn’t changed from the request I made a few weeks ago above. The previous person who looked at this said I was editing logged out, which I don’t deny, but it wasn’t my intent to get around the block. I explained that I was confused about the pink block banner appearing/disappearing so I made some test edits to Yamla (above) who appears to take me at my word. In any case I haven’t edited since, and I’m quite annoyed. I see things I want to correct or add sources, etc. and I can’t because purportedly I’m “not here to build an encyclopedia”. Now I know you probably don’t give a crap I’m annoyed, but you should care that I haven’t been able to correct things or add sources, etc. because these actions are what “building an encyclopedia” needs to be built. This adds insult to injury being told I’m not here to build and encyclopedia. This is the reason I should be unblocked. I just want to go about my business and do my mostly small things. I’m not creating havoc, vandalizing or bugging anyone either. I would have asked this weeks ago, but it takes time to fill out these unblock requests. So please look at the previous block request as well, because the reasons haven’t changed.

Decline reason:

Declining as the user has never returned to reply to the discussion here as they said they would be doing soon, and this has been on hold for ample time. From my reading, there has been zero accountability from the user about what very obviously does appear to be a clear username hard block situation. The user simply claims they are innocent and don't know why they are blocked, which I don't believe is a good faith line of defense given the circumstances. There is an admin who has suggested essentially treating this as a softblock situation and this is not to say the user cannot negotiate an unblock with any individual admin. However, this would require accepting the user's claim in good faith that they literally can't see why they are blocked and this is some sort of misunderstanding. I simply cannot buy that argument on its face especially with the user being unable to even begin to talk through the fact that they are blocked over serious concerns of bad faith conduct—even if their editing has been mostly benign. This is not a situation where I would be comfortable unblocking in good faith without accountability from the user. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Checkuser note: I don't see evidence of recent logged-out editing since Yamla's decline.

I'm neutral on the unblock request. I see some good edits, some less than good edits, and what appears to be a categorical denial of any wrongdoing (or, if there were wrongdoing, it was due to other's actions/baiting) in the original unblock request. I normally wouldn't consider the original unblock request, but it's being specifically pointed to here. SQL ^{Query Me!} 16:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no evidence of logged out editing since Yamla because I have not edited anything but this talk page. Nor have I created a new account and edited from there. Every time my activities elsewhere brought me to Wikipedia and I saw something amiss, like a missing comma, I was unable to make the edit and I considered making a new account. But I didn’t. I agreed to follow “the rules” here and making a new account to get around a blocked one is surely not kosher. So to edit again, my only track is to engage in the process here. Allowing me to edit will make the articles I touch, only better articles. Can anyone truly deny this? Artificial Nagger (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla can you please look at this again since the logged out editing is not relevant? Or how can I get someone else to review this? The guides do not mention the long lags between responses, so I don’t know what to expect. Thanks. Artificial Nagger (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the logged out editing is not relevant", as your logged-out editing is very relevant. I will note that I concur with SQL's finding above, that no further logged-out editing has occurred. As you know, I won't be reviewing your unblock request again. If it's insufficiently convincing for any other reviewing admin to take action, you need to substantially reword it. --Yamla (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

Well, I thought you thought that my explanation on the “logged out” editing was plausible, if not reasonable that you took me at my word that I wasn’t intentionally trying to “evade scrutiny” to “game the system”. Even if the edits you looked at weeks ago that were made under my ip were made under my account, no one would bat an eye at them.
I’m not going to beg you to look at this again, even though I don’t understand your reasoning for refusing to do so. Your reason for declining was “Confirmed block evasion via WP:LOUTSOCK” and you certainly appeared to accept my explanation. There doesn’t appear to be a “administrator law” against you continuing. Regardless, when I posted my initial unblock, you responded fairly quickly. When I posted the second, SQL responded about the logged out part somewhat quickly as well. While that issue (logged out editing) appears to be resolved (and I ask you to stipulate for the moment that it is resolved) no one else is responding. Does this not go back into a queue or something? The guide just says to submit a new request and leave the declined one up. It says nothing about what to do if no one responds. You suggest I rewrite this, but can I delete this (second request) because it hasn’t been declined?

Artificial Nagger (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Can someone please help me with this unblock request? Do I need to re-write it?

Also, it being “published” where it can be seen?

--Artificial Nagger (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is open and pending, Admins are volunteers, doing what they can when they can. Please be patient. Adding additional requests for help will not speed up the process. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand they volunteer as well. Thanks for letting me know this is “open”. Artificial Nagger (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are such requests publicized anywhere? I’m curious as to how long “open and pending” can equate too. Artificial Nagger (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the category you are in below, you will see the 'queue'. I'm taking a look at this now. It might take a day or so. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be as kind to share the URL? Thanks for the help. Artificial Nagger (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally the only category this page is in. If you don't know how to find out what categories a page is in by this stage, please take the time to do so. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Having reviewed your activity, which let's be honest is a bit mixed, I've decided that you can probably be unblocked. I've two conditions. The first is that you get a rename for your account. This was previously discussed at RFCN in case you've forgotten.[1] The second condition is one for the future. I'm sure you have come across the definition of 'trolling' before. The condition is that you don't even appear to try. Subject to any objections from the admins previously involved, you may now inform us of your choice of your new username. @Beeblebrox and Yamla: -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, but real life is taking place. Yes the irony is not escaping me. I’ll try to reply this weekend (I have some questions) but that might even slip another week. Artificial Nagger (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to decline. User was straightforwardly blocked pursuant to a discussion as to whether they are a troll, as indicated by their username and edits. They were notified of this discussion as we can see above. They were blocked after convincing evidence was presented that there is disruptive intent. At face value, the block is extremely convincing. It took me a matter of minutes to fully understand the entire situation, so the fact that they’re still claiming that they literally have no idea why they’re blocked seems unlikely. If they do not specifically and convincingly refute the conclusions reached in that discussion, they should not be unblocked. Looking over everything, they are nowhere close to being unblocked based on the current situation. If you have a convincing rationale that the block was a misunderstanding, you should post it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @Zzuuzz: ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that I hear Swarm's concerns, and I don't even object to Beeblebrox's block. Yet I don't fully agree with the timeline or the way forward. This user was blocked 3 minutes after being notified of the username discussion. That discussion was itself not exactly conclusive, even on the username. The edits are not particularly troll-like. As a package I conclude the user made an initial mistake in choosing this username (and it's a fact that they will not continue editing with it). The question we should be asking is not what the punishment is for the choice of username, but whether the user can make productive edits and keep out of trouble going forward. I'm willing to give them a chance to try. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]