User talk:Lichinsol

BRD

(Note: I am not commenting on the actual edits)

Reverting should be done only when the content is inappropriate, otherwise develpment in wiki would hinder. If any problem in the edit, we re-edit it.Reverting is not the way suggested( by WP:BRD). What D.Lazard is doing is edit warring ,I am not!)

and your edit summary on Involute,

Dont give excuse for WP:BRD. Discussion must be done, but reverting should be done only if there is a huge problem in the edit.

are not technically correct.

WP:BRD is about the process where an editor may revert an edit if they do not consider it an improvement, after which the involved editors should discuss and not re-revert as you have done. So your re-revert could be considered aggressive and edit warring, whereas D.Lazard's revert is an acceptable challenge to your edit. Per BRD, the onus is on you to discuss after a revert, not re-revert.

Yes, BRD specifies that editors should re-edit rather than revert if they consider the result an improvement over the original state. But editors may revert if they do not consider the edits, even with refinements, an improvement of the article. Once the revert has already been done, discussion is the next step.

I hope that is helpful. The purpose of this comment is just to clarify what BRD actually means. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but the editor D.Lazard did not specify what problem he had with the edit. No edit should be reverted just because it is too bold.Lichinsol (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that is why you should then move to the talk page to discuss what the problems may be. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wont raise a discussion. A discussion should be raised by the one who has a problem with the edit, and should not revert it if it does not have problems. "Making an edit should not be the reason for a revert, also WP:BRD too should not be the reason", is what is clearly written in WP:BRD.—Lichinsol (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I had already discussed about it in the talk page of involuteLichinsol (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that BRD should not be used as a reason for a revert, and that the reverted should generally open a discussion. However, you should still not re-revert! Whether or not the reason given for the revert was correct or not, you should still not re-revert (unless it was possibly an accidental click of “undo” or something like that) and discuss instead. We can’t react to wrongs with more wrongs. In other words, I am just suggesting that you take the high ground and move to the talk page even when you think the other editor is incorrect. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lichinsol. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:18, 9 October 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize for indulging in sock-puppetry. I promise that I will never do things that harm the integrity of WIkipedia in future. It was my stupid urge to have my edit passed so I thought of using my old account.Lichinsol (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've demonstrated pretty clearly that we can't trust you and nothing in this unblock request convinces me otherwise. You are welcome to make a more convincing unblock request, but I think your best bet is to wait six months and then apply under WP:SO. Yamla (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

"Trust" is a relative word. If editors of Wikipedia assert trust to be bound by mere rules, then it is not true to say trust as TRUST. A not so experienced user tries to edit a part of an article, and uses sock-puppetry. But is this truly a part of vandalism? Did the editor have wrong intentions? Not necessarily. I take it as myself being a learner and trying to learn things in wikipedia. If I use my old account as puppet for a purpose for "the first time", I am learning how Wikipedia may work. But why is the user blocked in the first run? Why ain't a second chance given to the user? ASK ANY AUTO-CONFIRMED USER: DO U KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SOCK-PUPPETRY IN WIKIPEDIA? The answer would probably be 'no'. Blocking indefinitely a new user, atleast a warning should be given for the first time--the same way in an extreme edit warring. It is meaningless to indefinitely block a user just because he was guilty of puppetry. Blocking w/o giving a single chance is not the perfect solution for this matter. Blocking indefintely a dedicated user may hinder the development of wikipedia. Now, u may not assume a puppetry-guilty user a "dedicated one"!

The rules for preventing sock-puppetry and similar matters are not adequate. It was just out of my curiosity that my edit poll would increase if I use my old account as well. But this curious man didn't know about the outcomings of it. Most of the users who would have been blocked as such might have the same reason. And this does not qualify the user of "not being trust-worthy". The rule of blocking-indefinitely in one-go is so incorrect. It is a loophole in wikipedia's policy, I may say. All is needed is an amendment of this rule of 'blocking indefinitely a sock-puppeteer',and I mean it seriously, not in an angry exclamation. It is so easy to make and use multiple accounts in wikipedia, but so difficult for that new user to know that indulging in sock-puppetry may lead to an unconvincing ban in the matters of trust. Lichinsol (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You created a second account to feign consensus. This is a betrayal of the WP:CONSENSUS basis on which the Wikipedia community depends. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:48, 10 October 2019 (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.