User talk:Wlwl0623

Welcome!

Hi Wlwl0623! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 03:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warning of disruptive edits on January 6 United States Capitol attack‎

Hello, I'm Sameboat. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to January 6 United States Capitol attack‎ have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic January 6 United States Capitol attack. Thank you. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

––FormalDude (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just a heads up about WP:3RR

Hi there, sorry to stop by under these circumstances, but I wanted to make sure you were aware of the so-called "three revert rule." It can be found at WP:3RR. It says that you can't make more than three reverts in any 24 hour period (with narrow exceptions). A revert, in this case, is defined as one edit or a series of edits changing or deleting another editors' work. Violations often lead to short-term blocks. I'd also like to remind you that when content is disputed, the editor seeking to include bears the onus to demonstrate consensus. Cheers and happy editing. Dumuzid (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Wlwl0623 (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on January 6 United States Capitol attack. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wlwl0623 (talk) 00:56, 25 March 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).

Wlwl0623 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi Admin, my account was recently blocked, and I believe it was because of repeated reversions I made on a page. My edit behavior was certainly not good practice, and I'm hoping to ask for an unblock. :I made some addition about Jan 6 video on a page, and it was removed by another editor and moved to talk page. While expressing my disagreement on the talk page, I made several repeated reversions to others' edit in order to keep my addition. Clearly it was not good practice and I should have fully resolved the disagreement before continue editing the main page. I did not intend to engage in an edit war, and I was hoping to make the relevant page less bias, based on my opinion of course. Unfortunately, in this case, my intention resulted in wrongful behavior and practice. :I'm new to Wikipedia editing, and I'm still learning about community rules and best practices, including The three-revert rule, Righting great wrongs and reliable sources. I have great respect for other editors' contributions and opinions. Going forward, I certainly would not engage in edit war or similar behaviors again, and I hope to continue to make positive contribution to the project. Thank you! Wlwl0623 (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not fully address the reason for your block. Edit warring is part of the problem, but it's more the symptom rather than the problem. You were blocked because you were editing tendentiously, basically, and because you were thought not to be here to build an encyclopaedia. I agree with that assessment. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:48, 25 March 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.

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).

Wlwl0623 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for your response. And apologies for not addressing the concern of tendentious editing and "not to be here to build an encyclopaedia". I have read carefully through relevant rules on Wiki and I will certainly try to maintain a neutral point of view in future edits, while making constructive edits.

For this case specifically, I was trying to add different point of views from resources I came across. Unfortunately, my intention resulted in biased, unbalanced addition and unconstructive edits. On the other hand, as soon as some other editor pointed out Wiki's unreliable source list, I removed corresponding edits from those resources. Additionally, when some other editor pointed out biased phrasing in my edit, I respected their opinion and rephrased the sentence in an unbiased way. These, I hope, show my respect for the community rule and my goal to be neutral.

My intention was indeed to contribute positive and constructive material to the project. I hope to make continuous constructive contributions, and to show neutrality in my future edits.

Respectfully, I believe my editorial bias mainly revolve around my recent edits and I do think an indefinite block for such case is overly harsh, and deprives my chance of showing correction and improved behavior. Therefore, I hope to ask for an unblock to show my objective, neutral, constructive contributions going forward. Thank you!

Decline reason:

I don't think you should be unblocked if your intention is, in the near term, to edit about the January 6 attack and possibly post-1992 American politics more broadly. If you build up an edit history in other areas demonstrating your improved behavior and editing, you may later be permitted to edit in those areas. You may make a new request in which you describe the areas you wish to edit in, or if you prefer to, attempt to convince another admin to unblock you without this condition, but this is my opinion. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 25 March 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.

Hi Admin, there seemed to have been some vandalism activity on my page so I'm posting a fresh request below.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Wlwl0623 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi Admin, there seemed to have been some vandalism activity on my page and I'm not sure if Admin doesn't get notifications about my post anymore. so I'm posting a repeated request.

My request for unblock was definitely NOT for the purpose of continuing editing January 6 attack page in the near term. As a matter of fact, after January 6 attack edit and my retraction from the edit war, I made contributions in other domain and added unbiased research study to its page, validated by other editors as well. Admittedly, I originally sourced some references deemed unreliable by the community, which I wasn't aware of at the time of making the edit. However, I removed them as soon as that error was pointed out.

I don't mind having a temporary block of editing January 6 attack page. I would argue against a temporary block for post-1992 American politics more broadly because I'm confident that I will show improved edit practice and neutrality in this area if given the opportunity.

As you can see in my edit history, my contributions also include areas such as history, music, American laws. And my future intended edit areas include history, music, laws, mathematics, statistics, economics and finance, etc. I'm not sure if you can see my Chinese-language contributions, those span in areas such as music, European history, American government structure, etc. And most of my edits are in the Chinese project.

In summary, although post-1992 American politics is one of my main interests, I do intend to contribute to other areas as well. With that said, I would still hope not to be blocked in this area due to reasons aforementioned. To further clarify, I don't have any politically related edits "planned" as we speak, so it's really the general permission to contribute and edit that I care about. And I'm confident I can contribute unbiased, constructive information in this area going forward. Please let me know what you think.

Either a temporary block on certain topic or a full unblock, I'm hoping to get a response soon so I can continue my contribution.

Thank you!

Accept reason:

I am removing the block based on you accepting a topic ban from post 1992-American politics. You may appeal this after one year. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I received your email. As I've reviewed one of your requests, ideally I should not review another for fairness. Someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, multiple days have passed and no one seems to be looking at my response anymore. Is there a way that you could help me on this? I can accept your suggestion that only certain topics are blocked. In this case, wouldn't you be a good choice to proceed with your suggestion and unblock me (partially)? I didn't express any intention to edit political topics in the near term to begin with anyway, so the reason of you denying my request was more of a caution from your side as opposed to a conclusion from my request. Wlwl0623 (talk)

I would greatly prefer to leave this to someone else, we will see what happens. Admins are volunteers and our number stays the same or even goes down slightly over time while our tasks grow. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:, I can see an unblock with a AP2 topic ban being a reasonable thing worth a try. Thoughts, Wlwl?

Courcelles (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Since it's okay with you I'll speed this up and unblock pending comment by Wlwl. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks guys. Two quick questions, (1) what is AP2? I couldn't find its definition (2) is it correct that this is a temporary (yet indifinite) ban, so with a proven track record in the future, I can request an unban? Wlwl0623 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"AP2" refers to post-1992 American politics. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Yes, it is a temporary but indefinite topic ban- Courcelles may know more but I believe the usual process is that it may be appealled after a year. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot understood, I'm fine with it. you can proceed then as it seems this is the best deal I can get for now. thanks Wlwl0623 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot and waiting for Courcelles answer about appeal policy Wlwl0623 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans are broadly construed- if an edit has anything at all to do with post 1992 American politics, you can't make it. You could edit about Ronald Reagan but not Bill Clinton, as an example. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot not that I have anything in mind, but what about topics discussed in today's topics, because one can argue nearly everything is politically related, from gun rights, abortion, to media, geopolitical news? Wlwl0623 (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the AP2 restriction is a broad topic area. 331dot (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot then, with my latest request, do you and Courcelles really think such a long period borad ban is needed? it's not like I was deliberately initiating edit war with political agenda in mind. I certainly will try to remain neutral and respect wiki rules Wlwl0623 (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot for a first time offender, I see this unnecessarily harsh and suppressing potential contributions to the project Wlwl0623 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can leave this open to see if a different admin will offer a better deal. Unless you are going to be a very intensive editor in the short term I think a ban appeal in less time than a year is not likely to succeed, but I'm not the blocking admin and I shouldn't decline another request, so it's not up to me. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot thanks, I'll ask the blocking Admin here and let you know Wlwl0623 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, looks like no other admins are looking at this, not even the original blocking one. Could you proceed with the partial unblock then? Thanks! Wlwl0623 (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Courcelles, what do you think? A year of topic ban seems unnecessarily long to me. I've understood the rule and will try to be neutral going forward. AP2 is a very broad topic, which might include something not necessarily political event or figure related. I believe I can make good contribution to American law and economics areas. So I'm hoping for a full unblock here. If you haven't, I strongly suggest you read my request above, which shows my intention and plan ahead. And you can always full block me again if you think I make tendentious edits again anyway. Thanks!

I received your email, if you state here that you accept the topic ban as proposed, I will remove the block. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot yes I accept, thanks Wlwl0623 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]