User talk:KatelynARG

Saving some space

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).

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

Request reason:

So now I'm blocked by the admin who was defending me seconds ago. This is how I see it: * An admin welcome me * Users start reverting my edits without reason * I reinstate my good changes * Someone else accuses me of vandalism and being a sock puppet * The first admin who welcomes me defends me * That same admin now blocks me This is ridiculous! --- Katelyn ^Talk 00:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of that gives any ground for an unblock. 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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2017 (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.

You can defend yourself. You have full access to this page. --Yamla (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defense

Okay, time to write my defense. Please copy this into the "Comments by other users" on the vandalism report against me. I'm going to do this in bullet form - responding to each individual issue/accusation in order to keep this as short as possible.

Issue #1: Unexplained reverting - Numerous editors have reverted my edits to articles as if they were vandalism.

Response: None of my edits were vandalism, as defined here. All of my edits were attempts to improve the project. Not to come across harsh or anything, but as a Portland resident for more than 10 years, I know what I'm doing when editing Portland-related articles. If you aren't from Portland, you can't say that you know more than someone who has lived there for the last decade of her life.

Issue #2: False accusations of vandalism - Numerous editors have falsely accused me of vandalism. One editor even reported me to WP:AIV with these false claims, and that same editor has also engaged in personal attacks against me.

Response: Again, none of my edits were vandalism. All I was doing was updating Portland-related articles to be more accurate. For example, the nickname "Bridgetown" is either a hoax or just a name that a group of people gave to the city, because in my 10+ years of living in Portland I have never heard that name be used. The Fremont Bridge article should be about the bridge in Portland with a link to the bridge in Seattle, rather than a disambiguation page listing the two. The bridge in Portland is much, much more spoken of than the bridge in Seattle. Even on a newscast once, when there was an accident on the Fremont Bridge in Portland and a ship collision on the Fremont Bridge in Seattle, the Portland story got more media coverage and attention.

Issue #3: False accusations of sock puppetry: - Two editors have teamed up to accuse me of being someone else whom I am most definitely not. The only evidence they have provided for this is a "similarity" in userpages, which is wholly insufficient as lots of user pages belonging to different users are similar to each other.

Response: The user whom I have been accused of being supposedly "loves bridges". However, let me ask this: How in the world can I have a love for bridges when I was working to remove heavy overcoverage of Portland's bridges from articles? Someone who loves bridges wouldn't do that. IMHO the bridges of Portland have been referenced in way too many places and in way too much detail (heck, one article even referred to them as tourist attractions!) Despite this obvious proof of not being someone who loves bridges, these two editors have teamed up and have even requested the use of a tool that invades my privacy.

Issue #4: Oshwah - Admin Oshwah appears to have changed sides completely.

Response: Oshwah left a message on my talk page saying "Welcome to the project". He then warned me about excessive reverting, and in the wake of that warning, I stopped reverting. Oshwah then defended me and declined the false report at AIV of vandalism. However, he then changed sides and turned his back on me - reinstating a personal attack against me that I removed and then proceeding to block me for "disruptive editing". Seriously? People who are traitors should not be admins (that statement has both a serious and a humorous meaning to it)

Requesting comments from main involved parties @Sro23:, @Oshwah: and @Yamla:. However, any comments that contain personal attacks and/or further false accusations will be removed on sight. --- Katelyn ^Talk 01:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please copy my above defense (the text between the two horizontal lines) to the "Comments by other users" section on the vandal report against me. Once you've done this, just remove the admin help template and this comment - there's no need to reply here. --- Katelyn ^Talk 01:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KatelynARG - I blocked you because it became clear that you were reverting everyone else's edits without care, and that you were going to continue to do so until I put a stop to it. Your account is less than a few hours old, and you manged to begin an edit war over five articles. You were warned by BillCat here for edit warring and were told to discuss your disputes on the articles' talk pages. Not only did you continue reverting on each article, you took things to their respective talk pages - and you started reverting people there as well! This is when I left you a message and told you that this had to stop. Someone filed a report against you at AIV, which you reverted by commenting out. This was a legitimate report. The editor wasn't "attacking" you; he looked in your contributions and saw the numerous amount of reverting you were doing to multiple pages and reported you. This is why I restored the AIV report. I then declined the report and defended you at AIV, because I had talked to you about this and felt that you were doing to stop. But then... you reverted my edit at AIV and removed the report again. This is when I knew that action had to be taken - it became clear that you were reverting any edits that other people had objected to and without any regard to what was said back to you, and to the point that you were being disruptive to the very process that was going to give you a chance to understand. I declined the report at AIV, yet you still reverted the previous edit I made there. This block was absolutely necessary because you weren't going to stop otherwise. Take time, read through the Wikipedia policies that you were talked about, and you're welcome to edit constructively when the block expires. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Fremont Interchange

The article Fremont Interchange has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails to meet WP:GNG: lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Imzadi 1979 → 22:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fremont Interchange for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fremont Interchange is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fremont Interchange until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 02:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KatelynARG, I hope you will work out what you need to do, and get reinstated/unblocked as an editor. I came here after noticing and commenting at the AFD about the Fremont Interchange. It would obviously help that article if there were sources mentioning/discussing the interchange. You would be very welcome to comment at the AFD, yourself, and also to develop the article even while the AFD is ongoing.

By the way, my impression of editor Oshwah is that they are very helpful and fair, and I advise you to take their advice. Offhand it looks like you need to read up on some policy stuff, including about not deleting chunks of discussions (which is obviously disruptive), and promise not to do that in the future, and then you would probably be unblocked. --do ncr am 19:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Your good will is kind but misplaced. This sock account is not going to be unblocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:36, 24 August 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Two editors have teamed up to accuse me of being someone else whom I am most definitely not. The only evidence they have provided for this is a "similarity" in userpages, which is wholly insufficient as lots of user pages belonging to different users are similar to each other. The user whom I have been accused of being supposedly "loves bridges". However, let me ask this: How in the world can I have a love for bridges when I was working to remove heavy overcoverage of Portland's bridges from articles? Someone who loves bridges wouldn't do that. IMHO the bridges of Portland have been referenced in way too many places and in way too much detail (heck, one article even referred to them as tourist attractions!) Despite this evidence that I don't love bridges, I've still been blocked and I would like to request that it be overturned. Also, in response to @DoRD: from the SPI page, I was not "abusing a proxy-like service". The range that you blocked was my main Internet connection, and thus now I have to write this from my mobile device. --- Katelyn ^Talk 4:23 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I can confirm webhost use until this last unblock request; the service provides webhosting and proxies, and I'm not sure which is the case here (though evidence points to proxy). Coupled with the behavioral evidence – and DoRD is really familiar with the master – I'm declining the request. You can appeal this block to the Arbitration Committee. Katie^talk 02:15, 27 August 2017 (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 needed Adding this template since the block is marked as a CheckUser block. --- Katelyn ^Talk 21:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]