User talk:SummerFunMan

Standard Offer

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).

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

Request reason:

Hey guys, I've been itching to get back into good standing and correct errors here on the Wikipeda wherever I might see them. It's been way longer than the half-year waiting period to enact the standard offer; in fact, it's been almost three (3) years. So let's say that if I had waited for the originally prescribed 6 months, and you, the reviewer of this request, were to have said that you felt like you could only trust me if I had paid the price with even more time for some interesting reason, like say... 2 more years, and then even another reviewer said something like, "Nahh, he still isn't sincere enough; let's have him wait another half a year," then I've waited both of those periods out already too. So I've done my time and then already done it again and then some, and then even some more, and really am doing my very best to be very sincere with you now, I promise. Now, as you may have already seen that the blockage information here states, I was blocked for sockpuppetry instead of being patient enough with the prescribed discussion process back then as I will be now, and this is my master account. I understand that playing by the rules requires us to do bold/revert/discuss cycles with normally only one account instead, or only with multiple accounts when given permission to have them and we have declared that they are our alternates, and I agree to play that right way (not abuse multiple accounts). But I don't think I have a good excuse for an alternate account yet. I would like to learn why they are sometimes allowed and thought of as needed in some cases, but for now let's just work with me on this one account. Okay? One thing you may remember the standard-offer guide saying is that apologies aren't necessary; just an ownership of your past wrongdoings and a sincere description of how you'll improve your actions from those in order to do your best to help improve the project, which is what I'm doing my best to show you here right now. When I read articles of interest here, sometimes I notice errors, as any good reader does. I used to be able to correct them immediately. Sometimes I see places where such-and-such thing could be more specific, or more general, or less wordy, or whatever, and want to take the appropriate actions to clean those problem areas up so that they actually make sense and read how an encyclopedia should read. And of course I want to clean up vandalism whenever I see it too. Then I also know there are places that aren't really erroneous or unclear, but for whatever reason, just don't follow a certain style of flow, namely, that they don't match the prescribed style from the manual. So that's when I'll try to match the article to that style. But there can be times when another editor or few don't agree with the changes I've made, even though I think the improvements should be obvious to them. Back in those days, I'd just use a sock to try to take on more consensus weight. Right? But now I'll do things the right way. So instead of socking, I'll start a discussion on the article's talk page and then request other editors to discuss the problem so that we can find an agreeable solution. I know this is the right way to "play the Wiki," and I want to do it this way from now on, with the kindest wording that I can think of to try to help other editors stay willing to keep discussing with me until the concern is resolved, just like I'm doing my best to do so right now. I hope that my attempts to explain things thus far--especially the comparison between how I sock-puppeted before and how I'll do my best to follow the rules now by following the expected boldness/reversion/discussion cycle--will show you that I really am being sincere and do want to play the game without cheating, and now deserve to be unblocked in order to prove that to you by resuming my making of improvements to this project. SummerFunMan (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Further CU investigation strongly suggests recent IP socking and indicates that this account is a sock of banned user Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD". Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:09, 13 October 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.

Note to reviewing admin: please be aware of recent declined unblock requests and discussion at User talk:P004ME2. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui, the times you decide to speak up versus not to are interesting, indeed.

Note to reviewing admin.: yes, of course, as the declined requests were to inform me that socks aren't usually unblocked, and then an explanation for the only reasons they are, which helped me understand why my sock didn't qualify as one of the exceptions, hence the declined requests, hence my request here as I was instructed to do by someone who declined my request. So that's why we're here now with this request from the right account, the master account. SummerFunMan (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I speak up when I deem it necessary. Usually I don't. However, since you brought it up, I think it's worth clarifying: your first unblock request was, as you say, declined because it was not made by the master account. That was not the reason for your second request being declined. JamesBWatson, m.o.p. and I were generally in favour of giving you another chance, until it was noticed that you had continued your rather infantile talkpage graffiti last month. At that point, JBW chose to decline your appeal, as (based on that and some of your talkpage statements) it did not appear that you had in fact changed your behaviour. This information is pertinent to any administrator reviewing your current block, especially since you not only chose not to mention it in your appeal, but removed the entire discussion from your other account's talkpage. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page behavior is as sincere as possible. If you believe it isn't, then as I understand it (and this is not a demand, but just a declaration of what I understand), the onus is on him or/and you, the person or people making that claim, to describe why the claim was made and then suggest alternatives that he/she/you believe might be more palatable for some people, especially when the accused shows contrition as I have by asking for such description and suggestions so that I might know what you believe would be the best adjustments to make; which descriptions and suggestions I haven't yet seen, so am continuing to request.

As for this... what you call "graffiti"... it was only based on that iconic art that I made 2 years ago to show more connection between the two accounts; it's not new. Also as I've already said, I had no idea someone would take a simple little icon so much more seriously than an honestly sincere, long description of how I plan to follow wikipedia rules while improving the project. Also, as I've already said, that wasn't bothering anyone until now. Also, as I've already said, I was fine with erasing it to show as much sincerity as possible, so I did that. Also, as I've already said, I've never vandalized any article, so that should stand on its own merit as to how I'd go on and treat articles. What we do on our own account pages is just our business as long as it doesn't directly involve other people, which that didn't.

As for erasing the discussions from my other account, that is my right, per WP:BLANKING, and I chose to do it because I believe in clean starts, which that isn't exactly because of the history, but it's one easy step closer (and which the Standard Offer is supposed to be at least a partial attempt at), but I know you guys can read the history, so WP:BLANKING my other account's talk page should not be held against me, because it's not held against other editors—even other blocked editors. SummerFunMan (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be blunt, but this is more of the same wikilawyering that got you in a dump in the first place (well, aside from the socking, but you've owned up to that). You're not likely to be unblocked - not now, not after you've repeatedly talked yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. I can't decline your request as I'm too involved (and therefore biased) at this point, but, from an objective standpoint, you've no legs to stand on. If another editor/admin feels differently, I'll respect their judgment, but my mind's been made. m.o.p 13:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on our previous interactions I don't feel that it's appropriate for me to either accept or decline your appeal. However, I will do you the courtesy of posting it at WP:AN, per the usual Standard Offer process, since no-one else seems to have done so yet. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to AN: [1]. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yun, if you speak up when you believe it's necessary, then why didn't you believe it was necessary when I made my last 3 replies at my other account?

That is exactly what I'm talking about: things like this accusation of "wikilawyering." I've explained on my other page that I've my best to be sincere. The only other option is to say nothing—which obviously wouldn't get me anywhere—unless someone is willing to suggest what they believe would be better ways of writing to try to show my sincerity, which I'm asking for. I'm not trying to "wikilawyer," but I have no better idea on how to make my points than to say what I've already said here, and I've already posted everything about how I would resolve matters, the way the unblock guide describes. How is that "talking myself into a deeper hole"? And since you obviously believe there are ways of writing my plea that would sound more contrite and otherwise sincere to you and others, then will you please suggest them to me in specific detail? What else is there left for me to say or do in order to make this work? SummerFunMan (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your request for the standard offer

How many sock puppet accounts have you created? Are you able to list them here? Tiderolls 16:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]