fix |
Correcting ping |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
::True, though I'm (I believe) not obligated to lift the block myself if I have concerns. Any other admin is free to do so, and I very specifically don't want to stop anyone else from doing so. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 22:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC) |
::True, though I'm (I believe) not obligated to lift the block myself if I have concerns. Any other admin is free to do so, and I very specifically don't want to stop anyone else from doing so. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 22:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::He is entitled. I did a softblock because even though it was [[WP:COI|COI]] it was not blatant advertising. As I am [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]], I should not be the one to unblock. An uninvolved admin should review the request. -- [[User:Alexf|Alexf]]<sup><i>[[User talk:Alexf|(talk)]]</i></sup> 23:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC) |
:::He is entitled. I did a softblock because even though it was [[WP:COI|COI]] it was not blatant advertising. As I am [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]], I should not be the one to unblock. An uninvolved admin should review the request. -- [[User:Alexf|Alexf]]<sup><i>[[User talk:Alexf|(talk)]]</i></sup> 23:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
:: {{Ping|Yamla|Alexf|Just Chilling}} This is a good example of why I scarcely ever bother to even look at so-called "soft blocks" when I am reviewing unblock requests. At a rough guess about 99% of them are cases where an editor has clearly been editing for promotional purposes. For some reason the blocking administrator has chosen to ignore that and give a block which gives only the user name as a reason. That means that I have just three choices. (1) I can unblock the editor, in the full knowledge that he or she will be given the impression that the user name was the only problem, will continue to edit in unsuitable ways, and will be blocked again. That is totally unfair to the editor, who has been led by two different administrators to believe that what he or she is doing is acceptable, and then been blocked for doing it. I am sure that administrators who place these so-called "soft blocks" do so in good faith, believing that they are being kinder to the editor they block than if they gave a different kind of block, but in fact they are being unfair by misleading the editor. '''Note:''' This is not a hypothetical problem. Time and time again I have seen good faith editors in this situation in a state of shock at being indefinitely blocked in this situation. (2) I can decline the unblock request. Then I run the risk of people insisting that I had no right to do so, because a previous administrator who made what I think was the wrong decision has tied my hands, and I have no right to make an independent assessment of the situation and come to my own conclusion. (3) I can walk away and leave it for someone else to deal with. Which of those three is not an unhelpful way of dealing with the situation? |
|||
:: OK, so what about the 1% of cases where the user name really '''is''' the only problem? Well, in that case why would anyone even '''consider''' placing a block? The only reasonable and decent way to deal with that situation is to explain to the editor in a friendly way that the user name is unacceptable, and give them a chance to change it. Why on earth [[WP:BITE|bite]] a good faith inexperienced editor by throwing a block at them in that situation? |
|||
:: One more thing. Just Chilling, you say that the editor is "entitled" to an unblock, in a context which seems to imply criticism of Yamla for commenting without unblocking. So why have you not unblocked? <small>''The editor who uses the pseudonym''</small> "[[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]]" ([[User talk:JamesBWatson#top|talk]]) 16:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:31, 10 March 2018
Your submission at Articles for creation: Whats On Kapiti (March 2)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Whats On Kapiti and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Whats On Kapiti, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Hello, Kapitinz!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
|
You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.
If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
at the bottom of your talk page.
You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
at the bottom of your talk page. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. Thank you. Alexf(talk) 10:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Joshkapiti (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:Administrators should consider discussing any unblock with the blocking administrator (see the blocking policy).
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, please place {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1=Joshkapiti}}
on the administrator's talk page. Then replace this template with the following:
{{unblock-un on hold | 1=blocking administrator | 2=joshkapiti | 3=I want to keep using this account | 4=~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following:
{{unblock-un reviewed | 1=joshkapiti | reason=I want to keep using this account | accept=Allowing username change to requested username. Please select an option from [[Wikipedia:Changing username]] and file a request as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, replacing {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.
{{unblock-un reviewed | 1=joshkapiti | reason=I want to keep using this account | decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
- Globally renamed 'Kapitinz' to 'Joshkapiti'. Just Chilling (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Given your inappropriate edits which appear to be in violation of WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:PROMO, I'm unwilling to lift the block. Perhaps it would help if you clarified. What's your relationship to Whats On Kapiti? If unblocked, how would your future edits be different in order to abide by those policies? --Yamla (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Yamla and Alexf: - this is a soft block and, according to consensus, he is therefore entitled to an unblock after the rename (he was entitled to create a new account according to the block template). I empathise with your reluctance to unblock but the way forward looks to be to reblock with a hard block. Just Chilling (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Yamla, Alexf, and Just Chilling: This is a good example of why I scarcely ever bother to even look at so-called "soft blocks" when I am reviewing unblock requests. At a rough guess about 99% of them are cases where an editor has clearly been editing for promotional purposes. For some reason the blocking administrator has chosen to ignore that and give a block which gives only the user name as a reason. That means that I have just three choices. (1) I can unblock the editor, in the full knowledge that he or she will be given the impression that the user name was the only problem, will continue to edit in unsuitable ways, and will be blocked again. That is totally unfair to the editor, who has been led by two different administrators to believe that what he or she is doing is acceptable, and then been blocked for doing it. I am sure that administrators who place these so-called "soft blocks" do so in good faith, believing that they are being kinder to the editor they block than if they gave a different kind of block, but in fact they are being unfair by misleading the editor. Note: This is not a hypothetical problem. Time and time again I have seen good faith editors in this situation in a state of shock at being indefinitely blocked in this situation. (2) I can decline the unblock request. Then I run the risk of people insisting that I had no right to do so, because a previous administrator who made what I think was the wrong decision has tied my hands, and I have no right to make an independent assessment of the situation and come to my own conclusion. (3) I can walk away and leave it for someone else to deal with. Which of those three is not an unhelpful way of dealing with the situation?
- OK, so what about the 1% of cases where the user name really is the only problem? Well, in that case why would anyone even consider placing a block? The only reasonable and decent way to deal with that situation is to explain to the editor in a friendly way that the user name is unacceptable, and give them a chance to change it. Why on earth bite a good faith inexperienced editor by throwing a block at them in that situation?
- One more thing. Just Chilling, you say that the editor is "entitled" to an unblock, in a context which seems to imply criticism of Yamla for commenting without unblocking. So why have you not unblocked? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)