User talk:Editor940

Block appeal 12 April 2020

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

Editor940 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't know the rules on puppetry and I just did it to get an article marked as "good" so I could brag about it on my user page, no malice or dishonesty intended and not a major violation worthy of an infinite ban. Please unblock me; I am guilty and now have a clear understanding of the rules of puppetry and give you my solemn promise that this won't ever happen again.

Accept reason:

You are now unblocked, under the conditions agreed below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Do you have a good reason for repeatedly vandalizing your own user page and reverting yourself? Either you’re trying to get your edit count up to “show off” on your userpage again, or you’re manipulating your edit count in order to become extended-confirmed. Either way, it’s a bad look and you’re repeatedly triggering an edit filter. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: It's my user page not your user page; I can revert what I want on it; please focus on your own user page. Show me the policy I broke. Also, what you are doing now is Wikihounding because you are following me around on Wikipedia, undoing legitimate edits I am making on articles, and then leaving personal attacks on my talk page. See also WP:DAPE and WP:IUC letter (e).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor940 (talk • contribs)

So what are you doing? You've attracted the attention of ~~six~~ ~~seven~~ eight administrators now, and have been so unwise as to post to ANI to complain about all of that attention. It's Wikipedia's userpage, which as self-proclaimed Wikilawyer, you ought to understand. You're just allowed to use it, providing you behave appropriately. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: I am not a Wikilawyer- I was told it wasn't recommended to have that on my user page and I removed it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor940 (talk • contribs)

So what are you doing? This [1] was a bad idea, and you have given ample reason to suspect that you're not the new editor you claim to be, regardless of the bluster on display down the page. Acroterion (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous account?

Hi Editor940. Have you edited the encyclopedia before, possibly under another username/account? You seem to know your way around here remarkably well for someone with less than 500 edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: No, and if your gonna make a sock puppetry allegation, then you better have some evidence. That is an extremely serious Wikipedia charge.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor940 (talk • contribs)

I suggest you moderate your tone. In your brief tenure here your editing history has been highly acerbic. And yes it does suggest that you have in fact edited here before. I am very close to blocking you on WP:NOTHERE grounds and I think it is testimony to the restraint of my fellow admins that you haven't been (re)blocked already. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As am I. We all seem to be in a patient mood, but it's running out, especially after your "trolling" comment at ANI. Acroterion (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what happened to conditions 3 and 4 that you agreed to yesterday:

"No more personal attacks. The attacks you made, for example on MelanieN here and here, and on Eagles247 here were simply unacceptable, and they must not be repeated."

"Slow down, listen, don't automatically argue. When you are alerted to problems, warned about policy breaches, and things like that, stop and listen. Do not assume the person speaking to you is wrong, incompetent, evil, or whatever. Stop and remember that *you* are the inexperienced one here, and that experienced editors and admins are almost certainly trying to help (and are more likely to be right about Wikipedia policies than you)." Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like it if all of us can just take a step back here- another block is not necessary- I get I am not likable and take unpopular views (like advertising my support for Trump) but blocking me for beliving I am not here to help wouldn't be right. My edits to articles are only and have only been in good-faith and contructive, that is why Eagles247 undoing them here, here here, here and here got me upset. How about we end this debate and all just shake hands, ay?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor940 (talk • contribs)

How about you stop violating the terms of your unblock, starting now. Your politics aren't the problem. Step away from the computer. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; I was gonna go to bed now anyways.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor940 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) @ Editor940. Acroterion is correct. Your politics are not an issue. (For the record, mine are way to the right of you.) The problem is that you are behaving badly, serially abusing WP:AGF, and generally adopting a combative stance in almost all of your interactions with other editors who are in most cases trying to help you or at worst disagreeing with you respectfully. Going to bed is probably a good idea for now. I suggest you tread softly for the foreseeable future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPRIVACY

The policy I linked to was WP:BLPPRIVACY, not WP:PRIVACY. We cannot accept whitepages as a source for personal information, regardless if that person is famous or not. Kindly read the correct link and revert yourself. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: Ok, kindly tell me where in WP:BLPPRIVACY it says a famous person may not have their middle name posted. Should we remove other famous people's middle names then like Michael Joseph Jackson or Donald John Trump?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor940 (talk • contribs)

First three sentences. We only publish personal details like middle names if reliable sources have widely publicized them as well. Whitepages is not considered “widely publicized”. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: "Widely Publicized" is vague and ambiguous and whitepages has millions of users each month, so I would say it is widely publicized with that kind of site traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor940 (talk • contribs)

Blocked

I thought you said you were going to bed? I've blocked you for continuing to violate term #4 of your unblock. Our patience is not unlimited, and nobody wants to sit and argue with you about everything you seem to want to debate. This is a short block, please take it seriously, because we're serious. Acroterion (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request isn't a good look, and it violates term #3. Other admins are welcome to adjust the block accordingly. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Actually it's funny you say that- I had just brushed my teeth and changed and checked Wikipedia once more before turning out the light- and waiting for me was a snide comment from eagles247 arguing with me on my own talk page. So I responded. Now I'm blocked. God bless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor940 (talk • contribs)

@Acroterion: I'm old and tired and sleep deprived. could you (anyone) point me to unblock conditions? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: [2] —{ Cryptic Canadian } 03:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one asked me, but I think under the circumstances user has been granted a boon. More than one. I would have blocked for longer, but there are more than enough admins looking at this, so I'll leave it to them. Good advice has been given. More than once. Please do take advantage of it. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:23, 14 April 2020 (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).

Editor940 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block was done out of spite, not substantive; blocked for responding to a comment on my own user talk page in a polite manner. This block simply has no basis, show me a policy I broke by responding to a comment on MY talk page. Blocking me for arguing with a post on MY user talk page is actually PROHIBITED by Wikipedia- see WP:CDB. You should know the rules better than that blocking admin.

Decline reason:

(Corrected unblock template decline. See below. Multiple edit conflicts.) Block is entirely reasonable and remarkably restrained given everything below. I STRONGLY advise you to step back and consider everything that has been said to you. You are an inch from an indefinite block. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2020 (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.

@Ad Orientem: Did you seriously doctor my appeal by changing my words to different things and change the link I gave to something else, then decline saying it was reasonable?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor940 (talk • contribs)

There were several edit conflicts in there while I was trying to respond to your unblock request. I copied an earlier version. I will correct the template directly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to decline your block request for exactly the same reason except to add that you are VERY lucky your current block is not indefinite, it's one more comment that demonstrates you aren't listening before that happens. My VERY strong advice to you is that you DO NOT edit or look at Wikipedia during the rest of this block. Once the block expires, read all of the WP:PRIMER page then find some productive work to do at the Wikipedia:Task Center. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 14 April 2020 (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).

Editor940 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Now blocking admin has edited my appeal, changed my words around, changed links I put to other things, then declined. You may not block a user for being in argument WP:CDB which you explicitly explained you blocked me for. This block is illegitimate and I'm not in violation of prior terms, it doesn't say I can't respond to a comment on my talk page politely- but you are in violation of WP:CDB

Decline reason:

As you were previously told a number of times you were on the edge of being blocked indefinitely and you have now been because you have demonstrated that you're unable to edit Wikipedia constructively. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:38, 14 April 2020 (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.

(edit conflict) I was about to decline the unblock request myself, with the rationale: "Your editing history reflects several different types of serious misconduct, to the point of being ridiculous." Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough, I've removed talkpage access to stop the hole from getting deeper, and you're an inch from having your indefinite block restored. You have 24 hours to decide if you're going to contribute or just argue. Acroterion (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This insanity has gone on long enough. I have tried a half dozen times to correct the unblock decline with a million edit conflicts. Your abusive behavior has gone beyond all reasonable bounds. We are done here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor940, you're probably wondering what happens next. Well, there's the standard offer. If you can go six months without editing English Wikipedia, we'll review your block then. That means no sock puppets or block evasion via editing while logged out. You are encouraged to edit other Wikimedia projects, though. Waiting six months will show us that you can follow our rules, and making constructive edits on other projects will show us that you deserve a second chance here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your email

Editor940, thank you for your email. I'm disappointed to wake this morning and see what has happened. You were not blocked simply for the one specific reply to a comment here, you were blocked for the sum total of your recent actions - that final comment was just the last straw. Sadly, I think both your block and the removal of your talk page privileges are justified, as you clearly, repeatedly, broke unblock conditions #3 and #4 to which you had agreed. I concluded my unblock conditions with "But you need to understand that if you cause any further disruption leading to another block, the best you would get then is the Standard Offer." That's really your only option now, and you will just have to accept it. And please, no more emails. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that there is a clear admin consensus, above, for the block, and I wouldn't be able to override it even if I disagreed with it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page shuffled

I came across this page from the post at ANI today and found it impossible to follow, which I gather is part of the reason the user is now blocked. I've attempted to put the posts in [chrono]logical order based on timestamps as best I could without interrupting threads. Just a reminder that all new sections should go at the bottom of talk pages, and replies should go below the comments they're replying to. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do the same last night, but gave up after five or so edit conflicts.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problem. The present order is about the best that can be expected, thank you Ivanvector for organizing it. Acroterion (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Email of 04-26-2020

I have received your email requesting that your block be lifted or given an expiration date. Although I was the blocking admin, there was a strong consensus among numerous other admins supporting the block. As such, even if I were inclined to do so, I would not lift the block on my own. That said, if you are willing to wait six months from your date of block, you can email me and I will restore your talk page access so that you can request a standard offer. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have received your followup email and my above decision stands. However, you should be aware that you are only blocked on this wiki. You may edit and contribute on any of the others including Commons and Simple English. If you can demonstrate a record of constructive editing on other wikis that would bolster your chances of being unblocked in six months. Good luck and see you in September. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I have revoked the user's email privileges and this is now a checkuser block, they've been emailing several users and abusing multiple accounts (besides what's obvious on this page). Please feel free to restore email or talk page access as you see fit but please check with the CUs or Arbcom before returning any edit privileges. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 07:25, 28 April 2020 (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).

Editor940 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a friend of this Editor and am submitting his appeal for him: "It has been two weeks since the block; we were all arguing with each other and the block was impulsive. I encourage you to look at all of my edits on articles- all in good faith and to build an encyclopedia. So the reason I was blocked, WP:NOTHERE "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia" has no evidence or facts in its support. Look strictly at the facts and ignore the people's opinions on this page. The evidence and facts all point to the same conclusion; not one edit of mine has ever supported the idea that I am "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia." Wikipedia policy and all the facts and evidence demand for my unblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InnocentIAm (talk • contribs) 06:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sock blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2020 (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.

Any new account that pops up to make a similar request will be blocked, and no request will be considered except from the User:Editor940 account via WP:UTRS (and almost certainly not before six months from the last problem/socking, which means six months from today). Any further disruption at this talk page could end up getting it protected from editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 30785

https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/30785 is now closed. Response carried over:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Indeed, blocks are preventative and non punitive. Your talk page makes it clear that that preventative function is being fulfilled bu your lock. Your unblock request does not convince me that you understand the reasons for your block and would edit constructively. Be all that as it may, this is a checkuser block. Please read the part of this guide-- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks pertaining thereto.

--Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 02:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have received your email requesting to be unblocked. However, as your block has been reclassified as a check user block only an admin with cu rights can unblock you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have received your email requesting to be unblocked. Our talk page makes it clear that that preventative function is being fulfilled by your block. Your unblock request does not convince me that you understand the reasons for your block and would edit constructively. Additionally, as your block has been reclassified as a check user block only an admin with cu rights can unblock you, since you appear to have violated the terms set for the standard offer. Acroterion (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: @Acroterion: How is he emailing people again? He had his email privileges revoked for harassment. —{ Cryptic Canadian } 05:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic Canadian: He emailed me (and I'm guessing Acroterion) from Simple English. FTR I'm not upset. The email wasn't harassing. He was asking to be unblocked and I replied above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was from Simple English. The email was polite and respectful, but there is a lack of patience and clue apparent in the unblock requests, and a failure to abide by the terms of the SO. Acroterion (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting I was also emailed from simple. Suffice it to say I am not restoring talk page access. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was emailed as well from Simple a few days ago, probably the same one as the others above. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now he's been globally locked because he couldn't drop the WP:STICK and wait for a standard offer. —{ Cryptic Canadian } 20:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Offer

@Ad Orientem: @Acroterion: @Boing! said Zebedee: It has now been TEN months since the initial block. It has been over six months since the Global block in June which was the most recent. The global block was requested for "harassment". However, all of the admins to whom I send an email said the same thing, "the email was polite and respectful", and "FTR I'm not upset. The email wasn't harassing". The global block was not necessary as this i\whole thing derived from an argument 10 months ago, which, was a cool down block which really aren't permitted. Regardless, longer than the standard offer has been completed and I want to get back to editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.208.45 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No chance until you stop evading your block. --Yamla (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 39240 is closed

UTRS appeal #39240 is closed.

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have again not addressed the reasons for your block. You seem to be saying you were blocked on the unreasonable whim of others and that you are somehow entitled to be unblocked because you have not edited in six months or more. That is your claim, however, who is 75Broncos? What other accounts have you used? What accounts have you used prior to Editor940?

Most significantly, this is a check user block. Ordinary admins may not modify or remove check user blocks. Therefore, the English Wikipedia unblock team is declining your unblock request and will not hear your case. Your final avenue of appeal is to email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org. You can address the questions I presented above with them. You are banned from UTRS for 6 months. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]