User talk:Yon dee
Yon dee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Why have you blocked this account please ? If I registered this email previously it was in error and I'm a valid contributor. Please unlock this account - thank you
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui 雲水 09:16, 5 January 2018 (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.
Yon dee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Mod, I understand the block reason but again I must say that if I've registered this email with a different user in the past it was unintentional and was only registered again as I absent mindnessly forgot I had a former user. I do not make many edits but I have contributed to Hebrew wiki with a whole new translation and I am removing malicious contant when I see them, I dully request to unblock the user. If U direct me to any other users who have the same email as myself I will personally cancel them. Thank you
Decline reason:
Your other account was used in November 2017 to make the same large-scale content removal. I find it difficult to accept that you forgot about its existence. Just Chilling (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2018 (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.
Yon dee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Mod, the allegation that I re-did changes from another account that I hold are NOT TRUE. I think you are associating my account with somebody else's and you can easily check the IP. Modification that I've made today were adhered with Wiki policy of living people's biography. Writing about someone that he is "Not a farmer nor a Gentleman" is malicious and has nothing to do with biography. I have never had any contact with Mr Radcliff but I saw that biography and was appalled. the fact that you re-instated the content shows that you didn't look at the edit history of this value. The multiple accounts accusation which i conceded absent-minded, is only in connection with Hebrew Wiki, I have never used my email/IP on a different occasion to edit that specific UK Wiki content, and these serious allegations are based on speculation only. Please unblock this user: As I said, my contributions to Wiki are valid and am not I was simply enforcing (or thought I was) Wiki's policy against a user who most certainly re-edited that specific value over and over, with apparent bias. thanks.
Decline reason:
Procedural close only - a new unblock request is not needed for every reply, and will not speed up the unblock process in any way. SQLQuery me! 03:33, 7 January 2018 (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.
- What is your relationship with Froghollow32? And if you claim no relationship. please explain how you happened to make, a short time ago, exactly the same edit as this user did in November? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Incidentally, we are wholly uninterested in your e-mail, which you mention in your unblock requests. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear @Anthony Bradbury: I have no relation to Froghollow32. I have made the exact same edit as him as I thought it was the right edit to reinstate. It was my conclusion that Boomer Vial had reinstated malicious contact which I still think he had initially added. When conceding multiple users I've meant that i previously registered the same email in the past to Hebrew Wiki. I'd appreciate if you remove this block and examine the content of the page that I edited which instigated all of this. It is apparent to me that some of the tone of the content bear grudge against Mr Radcliffe and violates Wiki Policy towards living biographies. But I will let you be the judge of that. thanks.
- I did what? Y'know, passing blame whether correct or incorrect is a very invalid way to have your request to be unblocked granted. In this case you are both correct, and incorrect. You are correct in the aspect that the content was not suitable for the article. However, you were incorrect in the aspect in that I originally added the material, as well as in thinking that I wouldn't be completely insulted that you attacked my character by suggesting that I added it. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 11:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Boomer Vial:If it wasn't you who initially inserted the content - my sincere apologies. However, you were the one to undo the previous change and reinstate that content, hence my confusion. Having said that, I should not have pointed fingers - but to approach you on the talk page to try and re-edit this article together. Please accept this apology!
Yon dee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Further to my reply to Anthony Bradbury I'm being accused of being a user - Froghollow32 - which I am not, simply because I've done a similar edit as him, which I still stand behind - as the current revised version of the page contains malicious content. I request that this block will be removed please, as I am not this multiple users that I'm accused of. This can be checked by an IP check, and I don't understand how can Wiki Mods who had saw my appeal deny it based on a circumstantial allegation. Alternatively, I request that my user is deleted altogether and I will stop contributing to Wiki. Many thanks
Accept reason:
Accepting this final unblock request based on apology to Boomer Vial and the suggestion by Mz7. Alex Shih (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- {{Checkuser needed}}. I actually think it is plausible that the user coincidentally made the same edits as Froghollow32. They used the "undo" button, which made it easy for them to reinstate the same removal of content, and in my view, there were parts of the removal that were justified WP:BLP removals since the content was based on user-generated sources – here is my talk page comment regarding that (this makes me WP:INVOLVED, so please treat this as a comment from your average editor, not an administrator). I would be interested to see if a checkuser can clarify the relationship between these two accounts. Mz7 (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- I and several other CUs have already checked this account, but while I can't speak for the others my own results were
Inconclusive - there isn't enough evidence to say that there is clear connection, and (as is normal with these checks) it's also not possible to say that the accounts are definitely not related. Yunshui 雲水 12:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Yunshui: Once again I proclaim my innocence, Mz7 is right that I simply used the undo feature. I don't understand how can it be that so many admins went over this, none came to a conclusive evidence that I am the accused account, yet you would not release my blocking. I've apologized to user Boomer Vial but as you see the content of the article in question is indeed problematic - which means my actions were not arbitrary at all! Having said all this, you might as well keep this block because if Wiki is so arbitrary that based on circumstantial evidence I cannot contribute anymore, then its your loss and thanks.
- Thanks, Yunshui. Based on the nature of the edits removed, I think the behavioral evidence was enough to make a block within Alex Shih’s discretion – both you and the other account used the same idiosyncratic phrase “malicious content” in your edit summaries – but I don’t think I would have made the block myself without more conclusive evidence than there is. Another way of looking at this is this was a new user who saw content they thought was controversial, looked up Wikipedia’s WP:BLP policies (or perhaps were familiar with their general principles already after making a handful of contributions in 2015 to Hebrew Wikipedia, which may have a similar policy), and reverted thinking that the content violated those policies (which may have some truth if you examine the content that was restored) and noticing that the content had been removed on an earlier occasion before (perhaps copying the edit summary of the prior revert). On this basis, I would be unopposed to unblocking. Mz7 (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)