User talk:Hgual
Hgual (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I've made solid improvements to a number of articles and commented on a couple of deletion discussions. Exactly what, in those contributions, has made someone decided to block me? Hgual (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- 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. Yamla (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2022 (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.
Hgual (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
How could I address the reason for being blocked when I don't know what that is? The block is obviously not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia; I have, as I said, made solid improvements to a number of articles and commented on a couple of deletion discussions. If something about my solid improvements offended you, then perhaps you misunderstood the edit concerned, or perhaps you're just confused about what kind of edits improve articles, and what kind of edits harm them. Hgual (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You accused of being the editor described on the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP page. In your next unblock request, you should address this reason. PhilKnight (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2022 (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.
Hgual (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The way you would easily tell if I am guilty of long-term abuse would be if my edits were abusive or in any way harmful. They are clearly not. The accusation is absurd. Blocking editors who harm the encyclopaedia makes good sense. Blocking editors who improve it, does not. Hgual (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Confirmed sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2022 (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.
Comments
[edit]- A typical first edit will remove the phrase "best known for" from an article with an edit summary of "rm pov". Sometimes edit summaries can be called "snarky", which may trigger reverts.
- None of my edits removed the phrase "best known for". What exactly would be wrong with that anyway?
- None of my edit summaries were "rm pov". What exactly would be wrong with that as well?
- None of my edit summaries could be called "snarky". Even if they were, why on earth would that trigger reverts?
- Subsequent attempts to re-insert the phrase will be reverted, sometimes with personal attacks in the edit summaries.
- Not applicable
- In a sustained edit war, the IP will be blocked or the page protected. After protection is removed and the block expires, the pattern repeats. In the event that the IP is blocked for a long-term (up to 3 months), the user swaps to another IP.
- Not applicable
- The principal problem with this case is that most edits made by this user are good-faith edits that are often supported by editors when looked at on their individual merits.
- I suppose that's not intended to be funny, but it is.
- This makes issues of conduct harder to enforce. That said, the IP will edit war with numerous other editors—including with offensive and aggressive summaries—even when his edits are poor, and a talk page thread is opened to explain the situation.
- Not applicable
- The editor involved has stated he is frustrated with being reverted without explanation ("These arbitrary reverts are a real slap in the face") and says that he gets "more satisfaction out of responding viciously than (he) would out of responding politely, and the end result is exactly the same".
- Who wouldn't be frustrated with being reverted without explanation? Why is anyone reverting good-faith edits that are often supported by editors when looked at on their individual merits, without explanation? That sounds like extremely poor conduct to me.
- They may also make accusations of poor English against whom they are in a dispute with.
- Not applicable. But also unintentionally very funny.
So, you are accusing me of "long term abuse", when my edits do not resemble the supposed abuse, except insofar as they are good faith edits, which I expect would be supported by any editor when looked at on their individual merits. And why on earth would you have a problem with edits like that? Hgual (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)