User talk:WAccount1234567890

Welcome!

Hello, WAccount1234567890, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Begocc (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Four separate uninvolved editors have asked you to disengage over arguing about trivial things like date formatting, which has been, to-date, almost 100% of your edits thus far. This is not a desired trait or role in Wikipedia. This needs to stop. If you waste any more of the community's time rehashing your same arguments over this any further, your account will be blocked. Find something else to edit about. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. It's been a full week now and you've refused to disengage or literally talk about any other thing on Wikipedia, while all other participants have long stopped and moved on. Feel free to drop an WP:UNBLOCK request if you ever wish to convince people you're ready to return and work on something else more constructive than badgering people over date formatting. Sergecross73 msg me 12:06, 5 December 2023 (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).

WAccount1234567890 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Background:

I posted a "date format" comment on IceWelder's user page to challenge the date format change without explicit consensus from Nintendo's mdy date format on the talk page. Afterwards, discussions began on several pages, most importantly the Nintendo page, about whether or not it should be changed to mdy. The administrator closed the discussion page due to no consensus, but it seemed like the administrator had unfairly closed the discussion page, so I challenged the issue with the administrator (the administrator has now archived administrator's discussion history).

State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration:

(1) This administrator violates WP:BLOCKNO. The WP:BLOCKNO states "administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace." It is not a clear-cut vandalism.

(2) I've read WP:WHYBLOCK and I haven't violated anything (rather, the administrator may have violated this). The administrator also blocked me for the inappropriate reason of WP:DE. I've read WP:DE and the administrator ignore the rules for no reason, and since this is my first time, it makes sense to challenge it. WP:NOTNOTHERE clearly states that improving things related to WP:MOS is improving. Also, I thought I answered administrator's rationale, but it's not fair to ban me because administrator thinks I failed to answer administrator's rationale. And the administrator should have at least posted this on WP:AN before blocking (if you want to do this, do it). I am requesting cancellation to comply with the "Focusing on niche topic areas" and "Focusing on particular processes" specified in WP:NOTNOTHERE.

Give evidence (and the blocking administrator is missing something important):

I've discussed this on several talk pages, the most of which is Nintendo and the administrator's talk pages. My rationale is fully explained on Nintendo and the administrator's talk page. This is violating the rules, especially MOS:NUM, without good reason. There is also a strong consensus that Nintendo and Japan mainly use mdy. The MOS:NUM clearly states if discussion fails to resolve the question of which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If the administrator ends the discussion with no consensus, the article should be changed to mdy, but the administrator hasn't mentioned it without good reason. It is one more desirable than badgering people over ignoring rules.

Summary

In short, this administrator broke the rules without a good reason, thereby making the rules meaningless. It also violates WP:BLOCKNO and has blocked me without good reason. Despite these good reasons, if you can't decide, at least open a discussion on WP:AN. If, despite these good reasons, you are not unblocked, you can't deny there is a problem with Wikipedia. WAccount1234567890 (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You yourself said that the blocking admin was uninvolved. If they are involved, it was only because you involved them. From my examination of this matter, you are the only one who seems to have a dispute here- literally every other editor involved has told you that you are wrong about your hyper-interpretation of policy that is wikilawyering. You were told by several editors that you needed to drop this matter and that your persistence is disruptive but you did not change your behavior. That makes this block necessary to prevent your disruption. This is a good block, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2023 (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.