User talk:Vanished user liuoejwoie
[Ticket#2018080610001798] request for courtesy vanishing
[edit]
Vanished user liuoejwoie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." See the reasoning below. There is no threat of disruption, nor has there been for a decade. I am not even requesting the ability to resume editing. I just want my accounts deleted. If you need me to explain further or to discuss, I am willing to do so. Beisnj (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Courtesy vanishing is only granted to editors in good standing. As you don't intend to resume editing, there is no reason to unblock you; unblocks are only done if there is a benefit to the project. I am declining your request. If you haven't edited in a decade and don't intend to, I wouldn't worry about this. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2019 (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.
- 331dot, I won't place another unblock request right now because I don't want to be seen as argumentative. However, I must point out that your rationale for declining my unblock request does not meet the standards established by the blocking policy. I am not asking for any kind of favor. I am actually just asking that the rules be applied correctly -- the same rules that I failed to adhere to over a decade ago. Hopefully, in lieu of badgering administrators with repeated unblock requests, I can count on you to simply be convinced to properly apply the policy. I don't say that to antagonize or insult, only to state the application of the facts to the policy as I see it. Beisnj (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- I invite you to make another appeal to attempt to convince another administrator; I don't consider that argumentative. I currently do not feel that my rationale is incorrect. To unblock a user, I must be assured not only that they will not be disruptive, but that they will make constructive contributions to this project. You state that you do not intend to edit; if that is the case, there is no benefit to the project in unblocking you. Furthermore, it is in my opinion unlikely you will be granted a courtesy vanishing, as in order to be in good standing you would need to have made constructive contributions to this project. I'm unclear as to why this is an issue now since you have been blocked for 13 years and effectively 'vanished', but you don't need to tell me why. Again, feel free to make another request, my word is not the final or only word. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- 331dot, I ask one thing. This will help me if I request an unblock again. You have said an unblock is not warranted if "there is no benefit to the project in unblocking" me. Where do you find this language in the blocking policy? I see it nowhere. What I see in the policy is that "Blocks should not be used...if there is no current conduct issue of concern." Surely, edits from 12 or 13 years ago cannot be construed as "current conduct".
- Look also at the guide to appealing blocks. I have to convince an administrator "that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption." There is nothing about convincing an administrator that I wish to benefit Wikipedia by making constructive edits. I agree that courtesy vanishing according to the policy is not a guarantee in my situation. But an unblock is proper at this point. I can tackle the issue of courtesy vanishing after this unblocking matter. Beisnj (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- That specific language is not in the blocking policy. I would have most likely unblocked simply based on the time frame of your conduct had you not stated that you don't wish to edit. The Guide to Appealing Blocks states under the header "Agree to follow Wikipedia community customs" that "Give people a reason to trust you again. Promise, credibly, that you will stop doing whatever got you blocked. Earn back our trust by proposing improvements to articles or proposing firm steps you will take so the issue cannot happen again." It also states "Tell us why you are here. Say how you intend to help contribute to the encyclopedia after you are unblocked". You don't wish to edit, so you can't propose any article improvements, and you only want to be unblocked to request courtesy vanishing(which will likely not be given). You have also effectively been vanished for 13 years. Knowing what you intend to do if unblocked helps assure me that you won't be disruptive. I don't have that with a statement that you aren't going to edit. As I said, you are welcome to make a new request to attempt to convince another administrator to unblock you- and I say now that if they see merit in doing so, they may unblock you without asking me and regardless of my views. As I've said, I don't wish to. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- The blocking policy does not support what you are saying. The "guide to appealing blocks" is not a policy. Given the notice banners at the top of the pages for the blocking policy and the guide to appeals, the blocking policy holds more weight than the appeals guide if there is a conflict. You are taking a couple of lines from the guide to circumvent the policy. Even then, notice that the guide provides an "or" statement.
- "Earn back our trust by proposing improvements to articles OR (emphasis added) proposing firm steps you will take so the issue cannot happen again." By vanishing, I am proposing a firm step so that the issue cannot happen again.
- I want to point out that one of your statements strains logic considerably. You said, "Knowing what you intend to do if unblocked helps assure me that you won't be disruptive. I don't have that with a statement that you aren't going to edit." Actually, knowing that I am not going to edit does let you know that I will not be disruptive. By definition, non-editors do not make disruptive edits. In any event, if no unblock is forthcoming, I will let this go for a while and try again later. (I'm not taking my ball and going home or trying to get the last word. I will read any responses. I am just content to leave it alone for a bit.) Beisnj (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I say again, I invite you to request unblock again. I still believe that there is no need to unblock you so you can not edit. If you hadn't made this request, no one at all would have known, leaving you effectively vanished. It puzzles me as to why you don't just go back to abandoning this account and go on with your life as you had done for 13 years, but I'm content to remain puzzled. You are free to request unblock at your convenience. 331dot (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- That specific language is not in the blocking policy. I would have most likely unblocked simply based on the time frame of your conduct had you not stated that you don't wish to edit. The Guide to Appealing Blocks states under the header "Agree to follow Wikipedia community customs" that "Give people a reason to trust you again. Promise, credibly, that you will stop doing whatever got you blocked. Earn back our trust by proposing improvements to articles or proposing firm steps you will take so the issue cannot happen again." It also states "Tell us why you are here. Say how you intend to help contribute to the encyclopedia after you are unblocked". You don't wish to edit, so you can't propose any article improvements, and you only want to be unblocked to request courtesy vanishing(which will likely not be given). You have also effectively been vanished for 13 years. Knowing what you intend to do if unblocked helps assure me that you won't be disruptive. I don't have that with a statement that you aren't going to edit. As I said, you are welcome to make a new request to attempt to convince another administrator to unblock you- and I say now that if they see merit in doing so, they may unblock you without asking me and regardless of my views. As I've said, I don't wish to. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I invite you to make another appeal to attempt to convince another administrator; I don't consider that argumentative. I currently do not feel that my rationale is incorrect. To unblock a user, I must be assured not only that they will not be disruptive, but that they will make constructive contributions to this project. You state that you do not intend to edit; if that is the case, there is no benefit to the project in unblocking you. Furthermore, it is in my opinion unlikely you will be granted a courtesy vanishing, as in order to be in good standing you would need to have made constructive contributions to this project. I'm unclear as to why this is an issue now since you have been blocked for 13 years and effectively 'vanished', but you don't need to tell me why. Again, feel free to make another request, my word is not the final or only word. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Would it be possible for the following accounts to be courtesy vanished from Wikipedia? It's my understanding under the blocking rules that I should be returned to good standing since blocking is not punishment. It's meant to prevent disruption. I have no plan to disrupt Wikipedia, nor have I done so in a decade. Further, once in good standing, if I am permanently done editing (and I am), I may have my accounts "vanished."
User:Beisnj User:Duckdid User:Handface User:Hosfant User:Hytorium
On a further note, I apologize if anything I am doing here is technically a rule violation. I haven't edited Wikipedia in a decade, and I don't remember how any of it works. It actually looks like some stuff has changed.
Beisnj (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
AfD Nomination: Mike Adams (criminology professor)
[edit]-- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
[edit]
Hello Beisnj! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 220 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
- Chad Ford - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Christina Lindley for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christina Lindley 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/Christina Lindley 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 template from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article X, Y 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/X, Y until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)