You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. You've already received numerous warnings and blocks in the past; consider this your final warning.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk
16:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Declanhx ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi Jaime. I gave the both of you an hour to reply to my contributions on the talk page and no responses were made. It's funny how you blissfully neglect the talk page but as soon I make the edit you don't like you're on it immediately. There was a discussion, and the agreement came to Agree: 1, Disagree 0. The consensus came to agree that the owner be anonymous and that's what my edit did. Furthermore, you have been aggressive and in breach of the good faith policy, you've neglected to provide sources and you didn't punish 66.69.180.204 for "edit warring" at all. This isn't for your benefit, this is so that your actions are summarized in writing for when I escalate this higher. You are not a tyrant. You must follow the rules. Declanhx ( talk) 19:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This isn't an unblock request, it's just general complaining. If you want to be unblocked early, you will need to demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked, and undertake not to repeat those actions. Girth Summit (blether) 19:38, 18 January 2022 (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.
Declanhx ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi admins. You can ignore the context if you need to. What's important to note from this is my perspective on the situation and how the admin has behaved poorly.
Context: Current notoriety has emerged on J.K.Rowling's property due to the content of this article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-60023868 where activists were able to track down the house of J.K.Rowling and protest outside. The article: /info/en/?search=Killiechassie at 23:28, 17 January 2022 was highly visible on google searches as a verifiable source that J.K.Rowling was connected to the property, with online discussions on the topic citing the article as proof of her ownership of the property.
I'm aware that current laws surrounding doxxing are ancient, but I thought it would be a good idea to at the very least mitigate the damage by coming to an agreement that the information should be removed to avoid J.K.Rowling facing unwanted protection, This fell under: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources , specifically the section barring the posting of addresses.
At 00:06, 18 January 2022 I made the final edit which went unchallenged for 14 hours until 13:59, when an unsigned user burst into the article to undo the article and demanded a change take place by editing the article first at this time, and at 14:34 makes their first contribution to the talk page,
At, 14:37 , I was at the gym and noticed that the page had been changed, I saw the user's contribution on the talk page, skimmed through it and decided it would be best for me to give out a proper and lengthy reply when I got home. At the time, I made an edit to the article on my mobile phone reversing their edit due to their edit reasons being completely incorrect on the surface. Such as: "As a public figure it's not really doxxing". I saw this as vandalism and something that should be debated in the talk page as per wikipedia policy. At 14:42 they undid the edit without any discussion or approval.
They were 1 strike away from the 3 edit reversal rule. at 14:49, 18 January another talk page post was made to add to points made at 13:59.
At 15:22, , The user I had spoken to yesterday did not chastise the new user for edit warring, and did not reverse their edit changes. I assumed they had just forgotten to do the edit themselves and did it myself at 16:26 , 2 minutes later, The admin immediately reversed this change and at 16:29, I receive an angry message on my talk page demanding that I stop editing an article without a good reason, or face an immediate ban. Which is wrong on two counts:
1) It's not reasonable to give a "final warning" or threaten someone with a ban without introducing yourself as an admin. I questioned whether they were an admin to begin with and rather than clarifying themselves politely I get a rude message back saying "If you remove source information again, I will indeed show you my perspective on this." At which point I refer him to /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#:~:text=Assuming%20good%20faith%20(AGF)%20is,the%20project%2C%20not%20hurt%20it and no apology is issued.
2) My reasoning was detailed and perfectly clear. While my first edit response of "no edit warring" can be seen as inadequate, my second was not. "The police stated that the incident wasn't intimidation, not doxxing. I will write a full reply to your input on the talk page. Please do not make edits without coming to an agreement first. Undoing edits is editing warring and not allowed on Wikipedia. I have set the part you edited back to how it was, if you want it changed, discuss it first". I countered the user's point, and explained to them the rules of Wikipedia. I try my best to follow the rules, and to the best of my knowledge this is the way to make edits on a page properly.
No reason was given as to why they saw the quote in 2) as an invalid reason.
I ask them on the talk page at 16:39, and his response is a lazy and rude: "My opinion has not changed, and I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing that I've already explained twice here"
Yet:
1) Their opinion has clearly changed, since the article went unedited by him for 14 hours with the changes I made.
2) He hasn't repeated reasoning as to why his opinion has changed, only his new opinion.
Anyway
at 17:23, I write a full response to the unsigned user, methodically countering their points and giving them insight into how wikipedia works.
I then write a request for sources at 17:27, and at 17:36 the admin replies with sources which show that the property does belong to J.K.Rowling but doesn't argue why it's not a privacy issue or relevant to the article.
I'm then ignored for 1 hour 30 minutes by the admin, I leave 1 hour after 3 additions made to the talk page at 17:56, 18:06 and 18:09, at which point I make the edit back and the admin goes into full authoritarian mode and blocks my account.
Furthermore, at 14:45 , He asks me to talk to him on his talk page, and then greets me rudely on his talk page in response at 16:21. "I have no idea what you're talking about."
TL;DR: / Summary of context: The admin hasn't acted in a way that shows empathy. He has been rude, impatient , wrong and unfair. I would normally take the week and not put the effort in, but the admin's actions are distasteful and it's not something you should allow on your website.
Unblock appeal:
I try my best to understand and abide by the rules. Breaking them isn't something I intend or desire to do. I'm passionate about helping an individual not get doxxed on the internet. I would understand it being frustrating for an admin to deal with someone debating whether an cat was Brown/Copper for example, but the unfortunate truth we have to accept is that wikipedia's content has wider implications, and the posting of someone's address needs to be treated correctly.
As far as understanding why I've been banned goes, I can empathise that repeated edits are annoying. I can understand why an admin dealing with the same page for hours is annoying. My edits were not intended to be "edit warring", and I tried my best to stimulate discussion on the talk pages. Even at this very moment they are unanswered 3 hours later. I would like to follow the rules properly and be a productive user. I personally think trying to save someone from harm by being doxed through the proper methods qualifies me for this.
I have no desire to "repeat" actions that are against wikipedia's rules. I only want to help people.
Thank you. Declanhx ( talk) 21:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Declanhx ( talk) 21:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You're blocked for edit warring, and this long post barely even touches on it. In particular, "I saw this as vandalism and something that should be debated in the talk page as per wikipedia policy.
" makes no sense because vandalism is never allowed on Wikipedia under any circumstances. Any edit that is made with the intention to improve Wikipedia is, by definition,
not vandalism, and if something can be debated, it can not be vandalism. That said, if you find content that you think violates our
policy on biographies of living persons, you can remove it immediately without discussion and even claim
an exemption to edit warring. When experienced editors disagree that it's a policy violation, the next step is either
dispute resolution or
the BLP noticeboard. If you had raised the issue at the proper noticeboard instead of continuing to edit war, maybe you would have gotten consensus to remove the content instead of being indefinitely blocked.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
04:13, 19 January 2022 (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.
refrain from further edit warring, use article talk pages, and use dispute resolution efforts if discussion fails, to which they agreed (see block log and user talk history). From my perspective, a one-week block for starting up with edit warring again is pretty lenient; your mileage may, of course, vary. Girth Summit (blether) 21:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Girth Summit
(blether)
00:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. You've already received numerous warnings and blocks in the past; consider this your final warning.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk
16:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Declanhx ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi Jaime. I gave the both of you an hour to reply to my contributions on the talk page and no responses were made. It's funny how you blissfully neglect the talk page but as soon I make the edit you don't like you're on it immediately. There was a discussion, and the agreement came to Agree: 1, Disagree 0. The consensus came to agree that the owner be anonymous and that's what my edit did. Furthermore, you have been aggressive and in breach of the good faith policy, you've neglected to provide sources and you didn't punish 66.69.180.204 for "edit warring" at all. This isn't for your benefit, this is so that your actions are summarized in writing for when I escalate this higher. You are not a tyrant. You must follow the rules. Declanhx ( talk) 19:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This isn't an unblock request, it's just general complaining. If you want to be unblocked early, you will need to demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked, and undertake not to repeat those actions. Girth Summit (blether) 19:38, 18 January 2022 (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.
Declanhx ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi admins. You can ignore the context if you need to. What's important to note from this is my perspective on the situation and how the admin has behaved poorly.
Context: Current notoriety has emerged on J.K.Rowling's property due to the content of this article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-60023868 where activists were able to track down the house of J.K.Rowling and protest outside. The article: /info/en/?search=Killiechassie at 23:28, 17 January 2022 was highly visible on google searches as a verifiable source that J.K.Rowling was connected to the property, with online discussions on the topic citing the article as proof of her ownership of the property.
I'm aware that current laws surrounding doxxing are ancient, but I thought it would be a good idea to at the very least mitigate the damage by coming to an agreement that the information should be removed to avoid J.K.Rowling facing unwanted protection, This fell under: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_personal_information_and_using_primary_sources , specifically the section barring the posting of addresses.
At 00:06, 18 January 2022 I made the final edit which went unchallenged for 14 hours until 13:59, when an unsigned user burst into the article to undo the article and demanded a change take place by editing the article first at this time, and at 14:34 makes their first contribution to the talk page,
At, 14:37 , I was at the gym and noticed that the page had been changed, I saw the user's contribution on the talk page, skimmed through it and decided it would be best for me to give out a proper and lengthy reply when I got home. At the time, I made an edit to the article on my mobile phone reversing their edit due to their edit reasons being completely incorrect on the surface. Such as: "As a public figure it's not really doxxing". I saw this as vandalism and something that should be debated in the talk page as per wikipedia policy. At 14:42 they undid the edit without any discussion or approval.
They were 1 strike away from the 3 edit reversal rule. at 14:49, 18 January another talk page post was made to add to points made at 13:59.
At 15:22, , The user I had spoken to yesterday did not chastise the new user for edit warring, and did not reverse their edit changes. I assumed they had just forgotten to do the edit themselves and did it myself at 16:26 , 2 minutes later, The admin immediately reversed this change and at 16:29, I receive an angry message on my talk page demanding that I stop editing an article without a good reason, or face an immediate ban. Which is wrong on two counts:
1) It's not reasonable to give a "final warning" or threaten someone with a ban without introducing yourself as an admin. I questioned whether they were an admin to begin with and rather than clarifying themselves politely I get a rude message back saying "If you remove source information again, I will indeed show you my perspective on this." At which point I refer him to /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#:~:text=Assuming%20good%20faith%20(AGF)%20is,the%20project%2C%20not%20hurt%20it and no apology is issued.
2) My reasoning was detailed and perfectly clear. While my first edit response of "no edit warring" can be seen as inadequate, my second was not. "The police stated that the incident wasn't intimidation, not doxxing. I will write a full reply to your input on the talk page. Please do not make edits without coming to an agreement first. Undoing edits is editing warring and not allowed on Wikipedia. I have set the part you edited back to how it was, if you want it changed, discuss it first". I countered the user's point, and explained to them the rules of Wikipedia. I try my best to follow the rules, and to the best of my knowledge this is the way to make edits on a page properly.
No reason was given as to why they saw the quote in 2) as an invalid reason.
I ask them on the talk page at 16:39, and his response is a lazy and rude: "My opinion has not changed, and I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing that I've already explained twice here"
Yet:
1) Their opinion has clearly changed, since the article went unedited by him for 14 hours with the changes I made.
2) He hasn't repeated reasoning as to why his opinion has changed, only his new opinion.
Anyway
at 17:23, I write a full response to the unsigned user, methodically countering their points and giving them insight into how wikipedia works.
I then write a request for sources at 17:27, and at 17:36 the admin replies with sources which show that the property does belong to J.K.Rowling but doesn't argue why it's not a privacy issue or relevant to the article.
I'm then ignored for 1 hour 30 minutes by the admin, I leave 1 hour after 3 additions made to the talk page at 17:56, 18:06 and 18:09, at which point I make the edit back and the admin goes into full authoritarian mode and blocks my account.
Furthermore, at 14:45 , He asks me to talk to him on his talk page, and then greets me rudely on his talk page in response at 16:21. "I have no idea what you're talking about."
TL;DR: / Summary of context: The admin hasn't acted in a way that shows empathy. He has been rude, impatient , wrong and unfair. I would normally take the week and not put the effort in, but the admin's actions are distasteful and it's not something you should allow on your website.
Unblock appeal:
I try my best to understand and abide by the rules. Breaking them isn't something I intend or desire to do. I'm passionate about helping an individual not get doxxed on the internet. I would understand it being frustrating for an admin to deal with someone debating whether an cat was Brown/Copper for example, but the unfortunate truth we have to accept is that wikipedia's content has wider implications, and the posting of someone's address needs to be treated correctly.
As far as understanding why I've been banned goes, I can empathise that repeated edits are annoying. I can understand why an admin dealing with the same page for hours is annoying. My edits were not intended to be "edit warring", and I tried my best to stimulate discussion on the talk pages. Even at this very moment they are unanswered 3 hours later. I would like to follow the rules properly and be a productive user. I personally think trying to save someone from harm by being doxed through the proper methods qualifies me for this.
I have no desire to "repeat" actions that are against wikipedia's rules. I only want to help people.
Thank you. Declanhx ( talk) 21:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Declanhx ( talk) 21:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You're blocked for edit warring, and this long post barely even touches on it. In particular, "I saw this as vandalism and something that should be debated in the talk page as per wikipedia policy.
" makes no sense because vandalism is never allowed on Wikipedia under any circumstances. Any edit that is made with the intention to improve Wikipedia is, by definition,
not vandalism, and if something can be debated, it can not be vandalism. That said, if you find content that you think violates our
policy on biographies of living persons, you can remove it immediately without discussion and even claim
an exemption to edit warring. When experienced editors disagree that it's a policy violation, the next step is either
dispute resolution or
the BLP noticeboard. If you had raised the issue at the proper noticeboard instead of continuing to edit war, maybe you would have gotten consensus to remove the content instead of being indefinitely blocked.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
04:13, 19 January 2022 (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.
refrain from further edit warring, use article talk pages, and use dispute resolution efforts if discussion fails, to which they agreed (see block log and user talk history). From my perspective, a one-week block for starting up with edit warring again is pretty lenient; your mileage may, of course, vary. Girth Summit (blether) 21:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Girth Summit
(blether)
00:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)