Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Michael (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UNBLOCK REQUEST

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

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

Request reason:

This was my first offense of any kind. * It was a permanent block. * He deleted my user page too. * The block reason was "advertising or promotion", not "vandalism". But I don't have anything to do with the parody site I linked to, I just saw it on the net. He never even asked me if I was associated with it, which one would think would be the bare minimum before blocking someone permanently. * He also blocked my email to prevent me from asking him about it. That seems strange, since the first thing you're supposed to when requesting unblock is contact the blocker. * The strangest thing of all: The "abuse log" gives a different reason for the block: "Vandalism-only account", However this is the the only one of my 200+ edits ever even reverted, and I have certainly never been accused of vandalism before. And lots of my edits were to advanced math articles, like, like Tangent Space, Poincaré algebra, Metric Tensor, Lagrangian , and Metric Space, meaning I'm a serious editor, not a kid here for vandalism. Though I was blocked a month ago, I'm only requesting unblock now because I keep seeing desperately needed improvements and clarifications in the science articles, and it grinds on me that I can't make the fixes or make info more readable to people who don't understand the topics. On the web, I saw a parody site of a topic, thought it was hilarious, and in an uncharacteristic seizure of impulsive bad judgement, I added it to the external links list for the topic here at wikipedia. I figured it would be eventually deleted, and that it wasn't a big deal like altering an article body would be. But if I had known that "vandalism" is this serious at Wikipedia, I never would have even considered it. It should go without saying that I won't add any more "funny" external links. If I had known it was this kind of serious, I certainly never would have in the first place. Even if I'm not unblocked, I'd like to request that the reason be changed to "vandalism" rather than "advertising", because "advertising" is factually incorrect since the site I linked to is not mine. If the reason is 'advertising", wikipedia is officially stating something bad about me that is not true. Badmouthing living persons when it even *might* be untrue is supposedly a huge big deal at wikipedia (as it should be). HelviticaBold)

Accept reason:

The reason given in the block log is "Vandalism-only account". (I have no idea where you get "advertising" as the reason.) I have looked at a large sample of your edits, and apart from your user page I have not found a single edit which could possibly be regarded as vandalism. Even the user page would, in my opinion, justify at most a warning, not an indefinite block. I am totally bewildered how anyone can call this a "vandalism-only account". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! But now I'm worried

You unblocked me (thanks!), but why does this page say that my unblock request was declined? Software error at wiki? I don't like it when bad weird things happen that I don't understand.

Also, see my user page. It was deleted as advertising, even though it had no links in it, didn't mention any products, and didn't suggest that people buy anything, do anything, or visit any web sites.

I'm confused about what is happening to me here. Who is this mike7? What does he have against me? If I ask him why he thought my edits were vandalism-only and why my user page is advertising, can he do something else bad to me instead of just telling me the answer, or is it safe here to ask an administrator who blocked you why he did it without him getting furious and making revenge because I asked him politely?

It sounds like a silly question, but look what just happened. He called 200 serious math and science edits a "vandalism only account".

In the back of my mind I thought of administrators here like benevolent parents who do a lot of hard work for free, but this is disappointing, and if he makes revenge when I ask why he did it, scary. I feel like I was just attacked and raped, and that he'll hit me again if I tell the police. HelviticaBold 22:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Helvitica Bold - The block came following your inclusion of content on the Abigail and Brittany Hensel article that led to the need for deletion revision. The reason for the block really should have been "vandalism" as opposed to "vandalism-only account", but your user page read, "[She is] eager to read this when she's sober to see WTF she posted on the internet THIS time." That, coupled with your (now-deleted) edit to the aforementioned article, made your account (despite its many positive contributions) seem suspect. Given your past constructive edits, it also seemed possible that your account may have been compromised. Had that been the case, leaving your account unblocked would have allowed for whomever had compromised the account to continue abusing editing privileges.

That said, I encourage you not to assume that you will be a victim of "revenge" for asking questions. As I recall, your account was actually reported at WP:AIV the day the block was instated, and my response was based on that report and a review of the situation - not on anything personal. Michael (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... okay, I feel better now. I'd like to point out for the record though, that "I am eager to read this when I'm sober to see WTF I posted on the internet this time" didn't refer to repeatedly vandalizing Wikipedia; it referred to crazy stuff I post in online forums (under my real name). I sometimes say "Oh shit, I shouldn't have posted that last night!"

Two more questions:

1- Why does this page say my unblock request was declined?

I'd like it changed please, because in the past month, I looked on websites that don't like Wikipedia, and it sounds like in this place, someone in an edit war would see it and tell everyone "Hey, she's supposed to be permanently blocked!" and tell an administrator friend to block me again. And we already observe that busy administrators don't always look into the relevant facts to decide whether to block someone permanently. That's extremely backed up by people's stories on these anti-Wikipedia sites, and some of the injustices are shocking.

2- When are you going to restore my user page?

When anyone goes to my user page to find out more about me, it says for all the world to see, that it was deleted as advertising, even though it had no links in it, didn't mention any products, was short, and didn't suggest that people buy anything, do anything, or visit any web sites. I don't want people to think that about me! Did you not restore it on purpose, or was it an oversight?

3- If you're not going to restore it, why not,

since I scrupulously omitted any dirty, smutty, filthy, photos of me--even though when I look in the mirror, I don't see any dirt, smut, or filth.

Okay, make that three more questions!

...Oops, four:

4- Is my email still blocked?

HelviticaBold 04:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Helvetica, I stumbled across this from Recent Changes. For your first question, I think it was just a typo; JamesBWatson definitely did unblock you. I've boldly fixed it to say that it was accepted; I'll also drop him a line on his talk page to double check. That should mean that the Wikipedia email feature is available, as well. I'm not an admin myself, so I can't really answer your other questions, but happy editing! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, you can always create your user page again, if you like; then the deletion log entry won't show on it. (Just...you might want to be doubly-sure that the content is okay!) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what was wrong with my user page?

JamesBWatson said:

I have looked at a large sample of your edits, and apart from your user page I have not found a single edit which could possibly be regarded as vandalism.

Thank you for unblocking me after I was permanently blocked for a vandalism-only account when, as you said, my history shows not a single edit which could possibly be regarded as vandalism. But I never should have been blocked in the first place and I'm kind of pissed off about it (not at you). Are the (other) admins here as crazy / evil / careless / stupid as they say at the anti-wikipedia sites I visited when I was completely inappropriately, permanently blocked?

James also said:

Even the user page would, in my opinion, justify at most a warning, not an indefinite block.

What was on my user page that deserved a warning? How can I recreate it without knowing what was wrong with it? And why won't you restore it after I put a lot of work into it, even after requesting that you restore it twice? Are you one of the bad admins too?

How about if you restore it but tell me what was wrong with it so I can fix it?

HelviticaBold 09:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I thought that the user page was self-promotional. However, it was unsuitable in other ways too, coming close to being vandalism. Really, if you honestly can't tell that the sort of nonsense it contained was unsuitable then it's difficult to know where to start. In any case, it was a misuse of Wikipedia userspace to post extensive content which did not seem to be anything to do with Wikipedia, nor even a simple factual statement of a few background facts about you for context. It is unfortunate that the blocking administrator gave "vandalism only account" as the reason for the block, because a consequence was that, having ascertained that this was not a vandalism only account, I concluded that the block was probably mistaken. Had the block log just said "vandalism" I would have consulted the blocking admin to ask where the vandalism was. I have now seen the edit that led to your block, and I agree it was pretty silly, though perhaps a brief block would have been enough. However, it's not a question of being "crazy/evil/careless/stupid". It is very easy to click on the wrong link: I have done it myself. As for "even after requesting that you restore it twice", this is the first time that you have drawn my attention to the issue. You have done some constructive work here, and I suggest that you continue with that, and forget the other sides of your editing, whether it be writing nonsense in your user page, accusing others of being evil, stupid, etc, or whatever else it may be. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. You said: As for "even after requesting that you restore it twice", this is the first time that you have drawn my attention to the issue.

Okay, NOW is the second request. Will you please restore my user page so I can fix the problems I can only guess at since you only provided only a vague description of what was wrong? Obviously, I will be expecting you or whoever banned me to judge it severely (and if those anti-wikipedia sites are correct, prejudicially), so I'm not likely to try to "get away" with anything.

You also said If you honestly can't tell that the sort of nonsense it contained was unsuitable then it's difficult to know where to start.

Well I'd like to ask you to try anyway. You see, it really isn't any of Wikipedia's business', and you have no idea how distasteful it is to say it, but I am autistic, and though I know you normal people don't believe the condition exists, I assure you it does (and that the only good thing about it is that I can do math easily). For example, this might help you understand why it is so hard to figure out social propriety analytically when people like me lack the ability to do it intuitively:

You said I "post extensive content which did not seem to be anything to do with Wikipedia", so I think my next version should be shorter. Another problem might be that I said what my part time job is (stripper and occasionally, pay for sex). But I may not be correct; it may be something else. People like me have a big problem detecting the level of honesty that is socially correct. We also take everything other people say at face value. We see normal people as sneaky and dishonest, never meaning what they say or saying what they mean.

The problem may be the content of my image, even though it is G-rated. But if it is my occupation that is "bad", and I suspect it is, I have no way of knowing why it is okay for you to say you work as a teacher but it is not okay to say what I do for a living. You called my user page "self-promotional" and "vandalism". I don't know what that means, since I'm not selling anything and I would think it's literally impossible to vandalize your own user page. So I have to do my best to understand using heuristics:

The problem MAY be that part of what I do is illegal. If it is, I need to know that and delete that part. But Americans also believe sex, per se, is "bad", so the problem might be the sex-taboo. If that is the case, then both the stripper and the prostie parts must be removed. But you see, I can't tell. However, judging from experience, the problem will turn out to be none of the above, but either some other factor I didn't notice, or some "meta" issue out of left field that I can't even think of an example for.

On top of that, experience also tells me that explanations like this often make people even more mad at me, and I definitely don't know why that is, since I'm responding to a concern you had and I'm being both honest and direct about it.

So you see, "if you can't tell that the sort of nonsense it contained was unsuitable then it's difficult to know where to start" doesn't actually give me enough information to fix my user page because, as a matter of fact, yes, I can't tell what what about it is unsuitable. I am not joshing with you, trolling you, trying to fool you, making humor, being evil, or wasting my time in any way other than trying—probably for naught—how I can have a user page like everybody else has and yet not make the normal people mad at me. If it's too much effort for you to be more explicit, THAT"S FINE, I understand! But then just say so, so that I won't get even further confused and reply again. I'll just do the best I can on my own.

Finally, I assure you that I am not the only autistic who has these problems. Many of us are every bit as screwed-up as "Rain Man". The only difference being that we can hide it better, and in my case, the magic tricks I can do aren't worth a damn IRL since hyperbolic geometry isn't useful in Las Vegas.

I really would have preferred not to tell all this to the Wikipedia community, and the fact that I have to makes me as disgusted and angry as being wrongly banned as a "vandalism only" account when my 200 edits have been about things like group theory.

So again: please restore my user page and tell me what parts you don't like about it so I can fix or remove them. If you don't, I'm likely to recreate it with the problem still in it, and, since you're a normal person, you'll interpret that as deliberately insulting you, or challenging you, or whatever negative motivation you normal people would attribute to someone trapped behind the looking glass, completely bewildered, trying politely to figure out WTF is going on in their social context.

HelviticaBold 02:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NEVER MIND

I just re-read the above, and I can see I'm being characteristically naive and falling into the same trap I always do: trusting people to be well-intentioned, logical, patient, helpful, and interested.

Unless you have something you want to say, please don't feel the need to respond. I'll recreate my user page the best I can using the vague, emotion-laden hints that you non-autistics use instead of information.

I'll just deal with whatever people have to say about it, and with whatever mistaken, insulting, wrong inferences they make about me personally. And I'll continue improving the math articles until I'm wrongly banned again for god-knows-what.

HelviticaBold 02:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make a lot of assumptions.

You refer to " trusting people to be well-intentioned, logical, patient, helpful, and interested." Certainly I am well-intentioned.

It is a very common tendency for newcomers to Wikipedia to think that the word "promotion" can refer only to promotion of something for sale, to gain money. I don't know why. I would have thought that "promotion" in the senses of trying to make something better known, and of trying to make something appear good, were just as common and recognised uses of the word, but perhaps I am wrong.

I have looked back at your user page. I still think it is unsuitable as a Wikipedia user page, because it looks too much like an attempt to promote yourself in the sense of just showing yourself off to the world, and unrelated to editing Wikipedia. I also think that telling people in capital letters to masturbate seems pretty close to vandalism. However, I accept that it is not as totally unacceptable as some user pages I have seen, so I did decide to restore it. However, another editor has said "the user page itself looks like an ad a hooker might post", and I have decided that a combination of that and my own doubts about its suitability are enough to keep it deleted.

Despite what you say, the message immediately above this one does not do a very good job of assuming good faith. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)