Noformation (talk | contribs) |
Dave souza (talk | contribs) →Give him another chance: comment |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
This user was never warned, at least not from what I can see. Why not use the guidelines set out in the [[WP:ROPE|give 'em enough rope essay]], and allow the user to edit again. I know this is not policy, but if poor editing patterns return he can be reblocked. [[User:Ryan Vesey|Ryan Vesey]] ([[User talk:Ryan Vesey|talk]]) 21:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC) |
This user was never warned, at least not from what I can see. Why not use the guidelines set out in the [[WP:ROPE|give 'em enough rope essay]], and allow the user to edit again. I know this is not policy, but if poor editing patterns return he can be reblocked. [[User:Ryan Vesey|Ryan Vesey]] ([[User talk:Ryan Vesey|talk]]) 21:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:This case is a bit puzzling. Wekn started out rather stereotypically, but was amenable to reasoned discussion, and has done some useful work including finding dead links that needed updating. Then Wekn seems to have gone on a spree of welcoming users indiscriminately, which is odd but probably reflects enthusiasm after being welcomed, and creating useless templates which is more of a nuisance. It's right that these activities have to stop, but an indefinite block seems excessive: a warning and a second chance to behave productively seems in order. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:24, 3 June 2011
June 2011
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Wekn reven i susej eht (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I I'm sorry! I didn't know I was doing anything wrong. I thought that by greeting people who weren't active, they might get motivation to edit seriously. I won't do it again. That is a promise. In the future, I'll make more constructive edits. [[User:Wekn reven i susej eht|<font color="blue">'''Wekn '''</font><font color="purple">'''reven i susej eht'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Wekn reven i susej eht|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Wekn reven i susej eht|Follow]]</sup></small> 17:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I I'm sorry! I didn't know I was doing anything wrong. I thought that by greeting people who weren't active, they might get motivation to edit seriously. I won't do it again. That is a promise. In the future, I'll make more constructive edits. [[User:Wekn reven i susej eht|<font color="blue">'''Wekn '''</font><font color="purple">'''reven i susej eht'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Wekn reven i susej eht|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Wekn reven i susej eht|Follow]]</sup></small> 17:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I I'm sorry! I didn't know I was doing anything wrong. I thought that by greeting people who weren't active, they might get motivation to edit seriously. I won't do it again. That is a promise. In the future, I'll make more constructive edits. [[User:Wekn reven i susej eht|<font color="blue">'''Wekn '''</font><font color="purple">'''reven i susej eht'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Wekn reven i susej eht|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Wekn reven i susej eht|Follow]]</sup></small> 17:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Also, I'm not a sock puppet. Is there some way to prove that? Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 17:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't say you were a sockpuppet in that SPI case. I was talking about all those usernames that began with Tro, which seemed very suspicious. I was beginning to think if you were the sockmaster because of those edits. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or / mine 17:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- What is a sockmaster? Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 17:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Another thing, not all the usernames start with Tro; the others would be: Tri, Wek, Da, and something else. I really am sorry about that. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 17:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not running a bot. It was all manual. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 17:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- A sockmaster is the user that abuses multiple accounts. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or / mine 17:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I only have 1 account. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 17:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- A sockmaster is the user that abuses multiple accounts. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or / mine 17:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not running a bot. It was all manual. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 17:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Another thing, not all the usernames start with Tro; the others would be: Tri, Wek, Da, and something else. I really am sorry about that. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 17:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
So your claim is that you manually created welcomes to all sorts of accounts by hand? A bunch of these accounts were created four years ago and never edited, yet you thought to welcome them now? Also, the text you added above is from some random article talk page. You also created a bunch of "templates" (which I have deleted) that consisted entirely of snippets from random talk pages. I'm sorry, but I don't think you're here to contribute positively - but I'll leave that to whichever admin reviews this case. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think you really jumped the gun in blocking this user. I seriously doubt that an ANI would result in a block here - you and me have both seen users do far worse than anything Wekn has done and with far less consequence. Wekn, may I suggest that you file an incident report at WP:ANI? Noformation Talk 22:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes (actually, I used OrangeMarlin's welcome w/my name). I did it just to make sure. The text from above was originally going to be in a 'exemplary discussions' subpage, but I didn't know how to create a subpage. The articles I chose weren't random. I am here to contribute positively. I may or may not be able to prove that to the wikipedia community. I understand your predicament. Whatever you say goes. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 18:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've been doing some reading. Isn't there some tool that helps prove if someone is/isn't a sockmaster? Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 18:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The most important thing I want you to know is that I won't be disruptive ever again/ Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 18:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen and been involved with a decent amount of talkpage discussion with this user and he has generally been easy to work with. He makes bold edits that usually get reverted, but thus far I have had no reason to assume bad faith because as we explain our reasoning for reversion, this user doesn't engage in edit warring and doesn't really even complain. I think it's obvious Wekn is biased towards a creationist standpoint, but that's ok because we all have our biases. I do think he is new to wikipedia and is slowly learning the ropes but at least in my experience, he has not been disruptive. If there was an ANI or SPI that I am not aware of then you can disregard this. If not, then perhaps a checkuser is in order before we jump right into a ban for sockpuppetry and an ANI is certainly in order if the ban is for disruptive behavior. While I agree that some of this usertalk business seems strange, it's very possible there is a non-malicious explanation and I think we should AGF until and unless we get a solid reason not to Noformation Talk 20:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Give him another chance
This user was never warned, at least not from what I can see. Why not use the guidelines set out in the give 'em enough rope essay, and allow the user to edit again. I know this is not policy, but if poor editing patterns return he can be reblocked. Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- This case is a bit puzzling. Wekn started out rather stereotypically, but was amenable to reasoned discussion, and has done some useful work including finding dead links that needed updating. Then Wekn seems to have gone on a spree of welcoming users indiscriminately, which is odd but probably reflects enthusiasm after being welcomed, and creating useless templates which is more of a nuisance. It's right that these activities have to stop, but an indefinite block seems excessive: a warning and a second chance to behave productively seems in order. . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)