Geographyinitiative (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Thanks for your time reading this request- it may be a little lengthy, but I want to respond to the various points raised.
(1) The ANI referenced above shows me restoring a neutrality tag to the article. According to the neutrality page, you aren't supposed to remove that tag until the talk page discussion is finished, and there was an ongoing neutrality question throughout the process. The fact that the neutrality question was in existence when I restored the tag is made clear by the fact that the concensus was closed only AFTER I restored the tag. After that, I created a new NPOV tag for December 2020 based on the conflict of the consensus reached with NPOV policy.
(2) EdJohnston has asserted that I will pursue removal of the character 进 from the DPP page where it appears in the name 民进党 without end. That is not true, and I said as much on the DPP talk page- if the community actually goes against it, then yeah, that's it. ("I'd like to have the situation reviewed by the community at large." does not mean "I will contest this forever." When I write this, I am saying that I want some users other than the people in the discussion to have a look at what I'm saying. CaradhrasAiguo and MarkH21 are fine editors, but that's just one little segment of the community.) What I'm saying is is that the people involved so far are not the end-all-be-all of the discussion. For an example of me "giving up" on a contentious issue, see the Russell Islands issue I was involved in. There are upper level people on Wikipedia that I'd like to see review the issues I have raised- dispute resolution for instance. There are other options of course that could arise in the course of the discussion. I am pursuing removal currently based on undue "prominence of placement" in WP:NPOV and I do think I have a good case for dispute resolution to look into once it gets there. I anticipate some potential compromise positions- for instance, a change in the way that the name 民进党 is presented that satisfies WP:NPOV.
(3) "You did not agree to walk away from this dispute, to avoid a block." I had no expectation that there would be a block, otherwise I would have definitely walked away from the dispute. I want to edit and I have shown a willingness to submit to specific demands from authority on Wikipedia- for instance, someone told me to stop editing on the Jaggi Vasudev page a long time ago on threat of being banned, and I don't think I have made edits there since that time. If you want to create some kind of rule or limitation on my behavior as a condition for reinstatement, do it and I will follow it. My editing ability is not confined to the narrow topic on which the present ban is premised. Is there a problem on Wikipedia as a whole that is being corrected by this permanent ban on me? What's the message sent here to me or others- don't ask if a new consensus is consistent with NPOV? I can stop discussing the issue if I am required to, but it seems silly to limit my conversation beforehand if there is no actual rule that I'm breaking that I am aware of. If I have to stop editing on the DPP page to prevent being blocked, then I will do it, but I didn't know it was going to come to this simply by restoring that neutrality banner from DrIdiot. It seemed like I was just making it clear that the neutrality issue was still open on the talk page, which it was until later on.
It seems silly to ban me from the whole of Wikipedia for what the specific charge against me is. I understand that EdJohnston is just trying to protect the site from non-encyclopedia producing discussion, but I would like to raise a serious issue about undue "prominence of placement" under WP:NPOV at dispute resolution once it gets there- that's what I have been waiting on. (I'm referencing the sentence "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery.") EdJohnston says that there are discussions about this kind of issue all the time, and what I'm saying is that I have a great argument to make on this specific page vis-a-vis the original CfR's wording and NPOV policy. In this unblock request, I am not asking you to agree with me- I am asking that I not be crushed out of existence on Wikipedia because I think there's a problem with this consensus (which was made official only today) vis-a-vis NPOV policy.
As to whether I have exhausted the patience of other editors- I only engaged with the editors that responded to me or talked about me. When they asked me to stop discussing the issue, I did that for about a month until the neutrality tag was removed while there was an ongoing neutrality issue (that is, before the consensus was created today). If I have a position and they have a position, it only seems natural to respond to what they say and then move the discussion elsewhere or cut it off at a certain point.
(1) The ANI referenced above shows me restoring a neutrality tag to the article. According to the neutrality page, you aren't supposed to remove that tag until the talk page discussion is finished, and there was an ongoing neutrality question throughout the process. The fact that the neutrality question was in existence when I restored the tag is made clear by the fact that the concensus was closed only AFTER I restored the tag. After that, I created a new NPOV tag for December 2020 based on the conflict of the consensus reached with NPOV policy.
(2) EdJohnston has asserted that I will pursue removal of the character 进 from the DPP page where it appears in the name 民进党 without end. That is not true, and I said as much on the DPP talk page- if the community actually goes against it, then yeah, that's it. ("I'd like to have the situation reviewed by the community at large." does not mean "I will contest this forever." When I write this, I am saying that I want some users other than the people in the discussion to have a look at what I'm saying. CaradhrasAiguo and MarkH21 are fine editors, but that's just one little segment of the community.) What I'm saying is is that the people involved so far are not the end-all-be-all of the discussion. For an example of me "giving up" on a contentious issue, see the Russell Islands issue I was involved in. There are upper level people on Wikipedia that I'd like to see review the issues I have raised- dispute resolution for instance. There are other options of course that could arise in the course of the discussion. I am pursuing removal currently based on undue "prominence of placement" in WP:NPOV and I do think I have a good case for dispute resolution to look into once it gets there. I anticipate some potential compromise positions- for instance, a change in the way that the name 民进党 is presented that satisfies WP:NPOV.
(3) "You did not agree to walk away from this dispute, to avoid a block." I had no expectation that there would be a block, otherwise I would have definitely walked away from the dispute. I want to edit and I have shown a willingness to submit to specific demands from authority on Wikipedia- for instance, someone told me to stop editing on the Jaggi Vasudev page a long time ago on threat of being banned, and I don't think I have made edits there since that time. If you want to create some kind of rule or limitation on my behavior as a condition for reinstatement, do it and I will follow it. My editing ability is not confined to the narrow topic on which the present ban is premised. Is there a problem on Wikipedia as a whole that is being corrected by this permanent ban on me? What's the message sent here to me or others- don't ask if a new consensus is consistent with NPOV? I can stop discussing the issue if I am required to, but it seems silly to limit my conversation beforehand if there is no actual rule that I'm breaking that I am aware of. If I have to stop editing on the DPP page to prevent being blocked, then I will do it, but I didn't know it was going to come to this simply by restoring that neutrality banner from DrIdiot. It seemed like I was just making it clear that the neutrality issue was still open on the talk page, which it was until later on.
It seems silly to ban me from the whole of Wikipedia for what the specific charge against me is. I understand that EdJohnston is just trying to protect the site from non-encyclopedia producing discussion, but I would like to raise a serious issue about undue "prominence of placement" under WP:NPOV at dispute resolution once it gets there- that's what I have been waiting on. (I'm referencing the sentence "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery.") EdJohnston says that there are discussions about this kind of issue all the time, and what I'm saying is that I have a great argument to make on this specific page vis-a-vis the original CfR's wording and NPOV policy. In this unblock request, I am not asking you to agree with me- I am asking that I not be crushed out of existence on Wikipedia because I think there's a problem with this consensus (which was made official only today) vis-a-vis NPOV policy.
As to whether I have exhausted the patience of other editors- I only engaged with the editors that responded to me or talked about me. When they asked me to stop discussing the issue, I did that for about a month until the neutrality tag was removed while there was an ongoing neutrality issue (that is, before the consensus was created today). If I have a position and they have a position, it only seems natural to respond to what they say and then move the discussion elsewhere or cut it off at a certain point.
Despite all of this justification of my actions above and below, I can see that my edits on the DPP page regarding neutrality are not welcome. Hence although I still think my position is correct on some level, I want to go ahead and proactively and permanently abandon my efforts with regard to the DPP page if I am ever unblocked. In the past, this method has served me well and kept me out of trouble. I am not here for this one issue on this one page and I didn't think it would come to this.
I have realized that I make edits about very controversial material, so I have to take extra steps to prevent causing problems for the community of the encyclopedia. I can't treat these controversial topics so matter of factly- if restored, I need to actually go out of my way more than I do already to engage in community building.
Decline reason:
In this edit, EdJohnston said that you would be indefinitely blocked unless you agreed to find something else to do on Wikipedia. How can you say that you didn't know you'd be blocked? Did you think that he was bluffing? You said that you have a "willingness to submit to specific demands from authority". The problem is that you have to edit within consensus. If admins have to get involved and make specific demands, it's gone too far. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Unblock Denial Appeal[edit]
Geographyinitiative (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Responding to the last unblock request denial: the wording NinjaRobotPirate refers to is "Also, you should agree to stop arguing about this on the talk page or flagging your disagreement using the POV tags. Otherwise you'll most likely be indefinitely blocked" After EdJohnston said this, I said "I think this is something that should be reviewed at the highest levels- the dispute resolution board for instance." I was saying that I wanted to take this issue to the next step in the process where an authoritative answer could have been given- that means no more talk page discussion or flagging of the page: just an end to the discussion via a resolution from the dispute resolution people. This directly contradicts the idea that I would go on 'forever', which is part of the basis of the block. I think I could have come to a really good arrangement with MarkH21 where the characters would have been displayed in a qualified way if this issue had gotten the see the light of day at the dispute resolution board. Again I reiterate that I do not plan to discuss the issue ever again and I will actually go out of my way to avoid this issue if ever unblocked. Also, I don't think indefinite ban from all of English Wikipedia is necessarily warranted on this specific basis. Thanks for your consideration. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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.
Geographyinitiative (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
According to the most recent comment on my talk page [1], I need to show that my block is no longer necessary because I understand what you have been blocked for, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and I will make useful contributions instead. I do not believe that the current block is necessary at this time.
(1) I know that the block is caused by my disputatious and annoying attitude on the DPP page. I apologize to the excellent user MarkH21 and other users involved in that discussion, which involved about fifty-four individual posts and the most recent three reverts on that talk page from me (excluding modifications) which included some repetitious material/argumentation. By way of explanation, in the immediate past before the DPP discussion, I had successfully prevented the addition of what I saw as spurious emerald mine material to the Elon Musk page by a similar long chain of posts on that talk page, so I didn't see "the harm" in participating in a protracted and contentious discussion that included some repetitive elements of discussion. I gave specific explanations above and elsewhere, but it was not appropriate to add that many posts or do the reverts I did on the DPP page or on the Elon Musk page, regardless of explanations.
(2) I can tell you now that I would never edit the DPP page or talk page again if ever unblocked. The issue I have with the DPP page is relatively minor. I have created a rule for myself which I am calling 1R+4 that would reduce the chance I would wear on the patience of other editors on Wikipedia. Under this rule, I would never do any other reverts beyond one revert of someone's edit. Any reverts of my own edits, I would not revert myself though I might advocate for switching things back within a discussion. Also, I would go no farther than four posts/edits in any discussion. This should help keep me out of the "annoying" range and squarely in the "offering a viewpoint" range in discussions. My first post would introduce my ideas, my second post would clarify my viewpoint for another user, my third post would answer any remaining questions and my fourth post would either move the discussion to dispute resolution or say that I am not continuing to participate for the sake of avoiding the non-encyclopedia producing discussion. (Here is an example where, in December 2020 immediately before my current block, I was experimenting with a similar method of intentionally and openly abandoning a contentious conversation and leaving others to work on it: [2]- I was doing this in reaction to the conversations I had had with MarkH21. (more recent example)) In the 1R+4 rule, I don't worry about what happens after a single revert or four posts. If the situation goes against the way I would have liked, then that's that and I just keep going with edits in other areas. If there is any doubt in your mind that I would go back to editing on and disputing things on the DPP page or annoying others generally, I would suggest a topic block of some type of whatever duration related to the page or any specific topic- if I am ever unblocked, it is my plan to act as if I have been given a permanent topic block on the DPP page and any other disputatious issue that leads to four posts/edits from me. Observing this rule may seem like it puts me at a disadvantage, but actually it would serve me very well to accomplish what I want to do (see part 3).
(3) I am sure that I could make useful contributions unrelated to the DPP page on other Wikipedia pages, as I have been doing on Wiktionary during this past two months or so and had previously done on Wikipedia proper. I have a collection of foreign language print books about Asian geography that are not online and have not been used to the full degree they could be used to augment English Wikipedia. Under 1R+4, I would be going out of my way to avoid trying anyone's patience about any disputed question. The confrontation aspect of Wikipedia is absolutely gone with 1R+4 and there's no room for anything except adding the hard facts and citations to Wikipedia that I like working on related to minor geography in Asia.
Again, I would like to emphasize that I apologize for the annoying behavior on the DPP talk page and elsewhere. I think I have set out a good rule for myself ("1R+4") to be able avoid annoying/disputatious discussion/editing thereby making sure to go out of my way to avoid trying the patience of other users while being able to participate in discussion/do simple maintainence in a productive capacity. If given the chance, I hope I can repair my relationships with other users that were off-put by my disruptive annoyingness and make this website a more fun environment and community for the creation of a better encyclopedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC) (modified)
(1) I know that the block is caused by my disputatious and annoying attitude on the DPP page. I apologize to the excellent user MarkH21 and other users involved in that discussion, which involved about fifty-four individual posts and the most recent three reverts on that talk page from me (excluding modifications) which included some repetitious material/argumentation. By way of explanation, in the immediate past before the DPP discussion, I had successfully prevented the addition of what I saw as spurious emerald mine material to the Elon Musk page by a similar long chain of posts on that talk page, so I didn't see "the harm" in participating in a protracted and contentious discussion that included some repetitive elements of discussion. I gave specific explanations above and elsewhere, but it was not appropriate to add that many posts or do the reverts I did on the DPP page or on the Elon Musk page, regardless of explanations.
(2) I can tell you now that I would never edit the DPP page or talk page again if ever unblocked. The issue I have with the DPP page is relatively minor. I have created a rule for myself which I am calling 1R+4 that would reduce the chance I would wear on the patience of other editors on Wikipedia. Under this rule, I would never do any other reverts beyond one revert of someone's edit. Any reverts of my own edits, I would not revert myself though I might advocate for switching things back within a discussion. Also, I would go no farther than four posts/edits in any discussion. This should help keep me out of the "annoying" range and squarely in the "offering a viewpoint" range in discussions. My first post would introduce my ideas, my second post would clarify my viewpoint for another user, my third post would answer any remaining questions and my fourth post would either move the discussion to dispute resolution or say that I am not continuing to participate for the sake of avoiding the non-encyclopedia producing discussion. (Here is an example where, in December 2020 immediately before my current block, I was experimenting with a similar method of intentionally and openly abandoning a contentious conversation and leaving others to work on it: [2]- I was doing this in reaction to the conversations I had had with MarkH21. (more recent example)) In the 1R+4 rule, I don't worry about what happens after a single revert or four posts. If the situation goes against the way I would have liked, then that's that and I just keep going with edits in other areas. If there is any doubt in your mind that I would go back to editing on and disputing things on the DPP page or annoying others generally, I would suggest a topic block of some type of whatever duration related to the page or any specific topic- if I am ever unblocked, it is my plan to act as if I have been given a permanent topic block on the DPP page and any other disputatious issue that leads to four posts/edits from me. Observing this rule may seem like it puts me at a disadvantage, but actually it would serve me very well to accomplish what I want to do (see part 3).
(3) I am sure that I could make useful contributions unrelated to the DPP page on other Wikipedia pages, as I have been doing on Wiktionary during this past two months or so and had previously done on Wikipedia proper. I have a collection of foreign language print books about Asian geography that are not online and have not been used to the full degree they could be used to augment English Wikipedia. Under 1R+4, I would be going out of my way to avoid trying anyone's patience about any disputed question. The confrontation aspect of Wikipedia is absolutely gone with 1R+4 and there's no room for anything except adding the hard facts and citations to Wikipedia that I like working on related to minor geography in Asia.
Again, I would like to emphasize that I apologize for the annoying behavior on the DPP talk page and elsewhere. I think I have set out a good rule for myself ("1R+4") to be able avoid annoying/disputatious discussion/editing thereby making sure to go out of my way to avoid trying the patience of other users while being able to participate in discussion/do simple maintainence in a productive capacity. If given the chance, I hope I can repair my relationships with other users that were off-put by my disruptive annoyingness and make this website a more fun environment and community for the creation of a better encyclopedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC) (modified)
Decline reason:
I think that it's currently a bit too soon to unblock just yet, and the giant unblock request doesn't inspire confidence. That having been said, since you do seem to sincerely want to help contribute to Wikipedia, I would be willing to consider a standard offer-style unblock in a few months' time, and I think that the proposed 1RR+4 restrictions may be able to provide a useful framework for eventually rejoining the editing community. signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK (and the text " Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked" in each block notice) you are not allowed to remove declined unblock requests on active blocks. I have restored them.
- Considering that one of the reasons user:EdJohnston cited for indef'ing you was
Exhausting the patience of other editors
your repeated walls of text are not likely to help your case. Meters (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)- Thanks for pointing this out and restoring this material. I was just trying to clean up the large amount of superfluous material from the page (I plan to archive it if ever allowed) and I wasn't cognizant of/taking into account the rule about removing block-related info you pointed out. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I was considering what was written above by Meters that I am writing 'walls of text' that by definition exhaust the patience of other editors: it is very difficult to effectively respond to all the allegations that were brought against me in one writing. For instance, comments from the EdJohnston outside the explicit wording of the block were used in the initial denial of unblock (see above). It creates a situation where there is no way to mount an effective reply because any reply would be either too long or too short, and anything too complex might be considered Wikilawyering.
I have tried to show my honest beliefs and respond to the content of the unblock denials, but like I have written elsewhere, I am a little lost. I believe I have good intentions and good editing skills and could continue to be a productive Wikipedia editor outside the context of the DPP page having learned from the episode and adopted a new rule of thumb for myself ("1R+4") in all discussions to prevent this from happening again. If anyone finds a further question that can be asked, let me know and I will get back to you. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)- Here is my preliminary wording for the 1R+4 Rule (please give suggestions if interested): [3] " 1R+4 Rule: I limit myself to one revert (1R) and no return reverts (2R or 3R). To me, 2R is too unfriendly for a user not invested with authority by the community. I also limit myself to four posts in a discussion thread. On the fourth separate post by me on the same issue, it is manifest that I'm not convincing the other users. I will either tell the other users that I'm abandoning the discussion to prevent long, non-productive discussion or I will send the issue to dispute resolution page if the issue seems important enough for the big users to look at." Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- I was considering what was written above by Meters that I am writing 'walls of text' that by definition exhaust the patience of other editors: it is very difficult to effectively respond to all the allegations that were brought against me in one writing. For instance, comments from the EdJohnston outside the explicit wording of the block were used in the initial denial of unblock (see above). It creates a situation where there is no way to mount an effective reply because any reply would be either too long or too short, and anything too complex might be considered Wikilawyering.
- Thanks for pointing this out and restoring this material. I was just trying to clean up the large amount of superfluous material from the page (I plan to archive it if ever allowed) and I wasn't cognizant of/taking into account the rule about removing block-related info you pointed out. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Appeal[edit]
Hello @EdJohnston:- I would like to ask you to take a look at what I have here if you have a moment. I have admitted the errors that I have made and have tried to create a plan to prevent those errors from ever arising again, and I think it will work. I apologize to you for my haughty comment/reply to you in December. I'm not asking for unblock today or this month necessarily, and I'm certainly not asking for any unblock ever from the DPP page or from any area where I have written any annoying, disputatious material. But I have what I think is a roadmap for being an account closely focused on encyclopedia building and avoiding the possibility of annoyance. In a rule I call 1R+4, I have sworn off 2R (undoing reverts by others of things I write) and 3R as well as any comments beyond a fourth comment on a disputed issue, and have begun to do that on Wiktionary ([4], see above also). In my view, 2R, 3R and the fifth comment are tools that I don't ever need to use to get the 99% of my useful edits on the board. In the time I have been blocked so far, I have done some really interesting work on Wiktionary that has improved that website's grasp of 19th and 20th century vocabulary related to the geography of China. If unblocked at some point for Wikipedia, I would go back to doing my work on the Asian geography stubs. This 1R+4 personal rule will directly prevent the circumstances that lead to annoyance from other users. Is there anything I can do to restore your faith in me? Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC) (modified)
- Hello Geoographyinitiative. I'm replying since you pinged me above. If it were solely up to me, I would decline an unblock. Other admins can consider your request and take whatever action they think best. You have been blocked six times in the past since mid-2019 so any promises of improved behavior in the future aren't persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Thanks for your comment. I would like to explain my block log and show how it demonstrates that I will not cause any more problems on the DPP page. Of the six blocks, two were specifically unblocked by an admin (block three and four). One of the blocks was about issues I had with the Manual of Style. (block two) Since that block, I have haven't edited there or on that issue, proving that I can "stay out" of an issue once it is clear the discussion/editing is not productive for the encyclopedia. That proves that I could do it again with the DPP page, doesn't it? The oldest 24 hour block (block one) was an issue related to the Manual of Style too but it was where I learned the difference between giving an opinion and what constituted an attack on another user. Block five was related to reverts on the DPP page. It is my understanding that the 1R+4 rule will specifically prevent the behavior I was blocked for here (block six) and in block five, and it will prevent annoyingness generally elsewhere generally. If the number 'six' defines the situation, I lose automatically. But I was never asked to defend the record of the entire block log as part of this process. Let me know if this makes any sense to you. I believe I know what the problem was, have found a way to prevent it, and I will make good contributions to Wikipedia. I believe that (paraphrasing above) 'the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia and the block is no longer necessary because I understand what you have been blocked for, will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead.' Is there anything I can do to show that? Again, I am not asking for immediate unblock or unblock from the DPP page. Let me know if there's anything I can do because I am doing some great work on Wiktionary and I deeply believe I would be a very productive user here and significantly less likely to annoy anyone with the 1R+4 rule I have created. I am not offering a false promise that I will somehow never 'annoy' anyone on this website again- opinions may differ here and there, and that is by its nature an annoyance to anyone involved. But what I do offer a methodology that if I had followed would have prevented my ban, and would, if I am allowed to use it, reduce my capability to annoy anyone on this website ever by limiting the scope of my activities. As for the DPP page itself, I will treat it like I have treated the Manual of Style page since 2019; I would put any discussion that reaches the four post level into that category as well. Please let me know what's wrong with this plan and help me reform it if you have the time! Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC) (modified)
Examples of 1R+4[edit]
I plan to add a listing of events on Wiktionary, Wikimedia Commons, Mandarin Wikipedia etc that triggered my 1R+4 thinking and how it influenced my actions in a way that seem to make 1R+4 an effective personal rule for my situation to avoid annoying others.
- [5] In this discussion (also discussed above), I did a 1R and 3 comments. The 1R was undone (but not totally a 2R). I still believe I am correct, but it is not my place to go "over the hill" to try to get an essentially minor issue corrected. I have other stuff to do that is not in controversy. I made a third comment and proactively removed myself from the discussion so as to prevent the possibility of a long, non-encyclopedia producing discussion.
- In this edit, after a long period of not doing work on the area, what amounts to a 1R (actually more like a "37R") was done on this page [6]. Applying my rule of 1R+4, I recognized that even if I could come up with some justification to do the 2R ("38R") and restore content I added the page, it is outside the scope of what I want to do on Wikis to do any 2Rs of any type anywhere. Therefore I did not revert it. Also, because of the contentious discussion that had already gone way past 4 comments (linked in the link above), I also actively chose not to engage the editor or community on the issue. Like above, I still believe I am correct, but it is not my place to go "over the hill" to try to get an essentially minor issue corrected about an image. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- In this edit [7], part of an edit I had just made was reverted on a basis that I don't agree with (as of this writing). I considered it as a 1R and hence under the 1R+4 rule, I did not revert it, avoiding what would have been an annoying 2R. Having avoided the 2R, I also avoided any discussion. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- In this discussion [8] I refrained from using 2R on an edit of mine from 2019 that was removed in 2021. It would have been too unfriendly and essentially non-productive for the website. Better just to go straight to discussion than to "punch my fellow editor in the nose" (as it were) and then go to discussion. I started a discussion on the talk page and made four individual posts (five edits total- one was a slight addition to one of my existing posts). Eventually the material I had added in 2019 was restored seemingly as a result of the discussion. If it had not been restored, then I would have just left the page as is and continued on other projects: this one issue, whether or not I consider it important, is less important than avoiding participating in interminable discussion (which this topic has led to on non-Wiktionary Chinese language discussion threads linked in our talk page discussion). Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Potential Benefit to Wikipedia[edit]
I am afraid to make any further elaboration here for fear I will exhaust patience with a text wall, but I want to state that I can make a more fleshed-out case for the potential benefit I would have to the site if unblocked. I have a GRE in the 99% percentile on reading, speak Mandarin, have a large Mandarin book collection on areas not covered in English Wikipedia, and I have a long record both on Wikipedia and Wiktionary, of doing nitty-gritty work on plain facts- I participated in Asian Month three times. Check my record on Wiktionary these past three months. My work on Wikipedia/Wiktionary/Wikimedia Commons shows up in news articles. My maps are used to explain events that get into the Wikipedia front page, like with the maps on the 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes page or my map on the Norilsk oil spill page. I can elaborate further if needed, but the point is: I have a HUGE area that I would LOVE to keep working on that has nothing to do with the DPP page and I'm telling you, it would be an amazing comeback. The 1R+4 rule would prevent annoyance/patience exhausting: I will go out of my way to avoid any conflict- no 2R from me! Talk page debate limited to four comments! I would become something like a model Wikipedia editor. I am an idealistic person, so I still have hope someone might look at this. Let me know if you want some more details. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC) (modified)
- You are indefinitely blocked, partially for "exhausting the patience of other editors." Multiple unblock requests have been denied. Your continuing walls of text are not helping. They are certainly not evidence that you would avoid "annoyance/patience exhausting" in the future. In my opinion, neither is your pledge to restrict yourself to 1 revert followed by 4 talk page arguments. I would not even consider supporting an unblock until you have stopped posting for an extended period.
- Please don't ask me to clarify or justify anything I have written. I will not do so, and I don't want to give the appearance of tricking you into continuing this. I suggest that you not post anything here for at least the six months of the WP:STANDARD offer, and instead contribute elsewhere on Wikipedia. Maybe then an unblock would be successful. Read WP:SO carefully. An appeal of an indef block involves a community review, and if the the appeal then fails the block is converted to a community ban. So, it's in your best interest not to pursue this prematurely. Meters (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to see you blocked[edit]
|
The Geography Barnstar | |
| Irregardless of the reason you have been blocked for, your positive contributions to Wikipedia, especially those that improved Wikipedia's coverage of geography, and your tireless work will never be forgotten and will always be appreciated! Take care! Hope to see you around soon! VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 10:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC) |
Temporary pause- I plan to restart this unblock request at a later time.
unblock|reason=I would like to request unblock (maybe some type of unblock with stipulations or requirements). I have apologized to the users involved at the DPP page for being annoying with a large number of response posts and have committed not to edit on the DPP page again. To prevent myself from being annoying in the future to anyone, over the past six-seven months of about 7,000 edits on Wiktionary since blocked on Wikipedia and 1,000 edits on Wikimedia Commons, I haven't had any problems due to a personal rule I have made for myself called 1R+4 List- I automatically give up on interactions that go beyond a certain arbitrary numerical limit of comments (but not in a rude way). I am a useful editor, and have written lots of content on minor Asian geography on Wiktionary (42,000 edits) that I would like to integrate into Wikipedia. I have a record of minor geography edits that stretches to Asian Month 2017.
Please consider the latest appeal[edit]
I'm writing on behalf of my fellow editor with whom I have collaborated productively in a number of geography related pages of Wikipedia down the years, to ask to thoroughly consider her latest unblock request. Particularly, I'm appealing to NinjaRobotPirate, Rosguill, EdJohnston, Meters and all other involved and interested parties to look at in a different light and give her an opportunity to continue contributing to Wikipedia in a positive way and further improve relevant pages. Some of the geography related pages need constant improvement, but without her, frankly, not much improvement has been made there. Please note that she has been blocked since December, 2020 and it's almost 7 months now. Thank you in advance. Take care and stay safe!--VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 07:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's a lot to read here, and I'm not interested in reading through 2000 words of unblock appeals. I don't even understand what "1R+4" is. It's bad enough that Wikipedians write in incomprehensible acronym-filled jargon, but to invent your own shorthand makes it even worse. But the parts that were comprehensible look fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate: Please keep in mind that two of the three block appeals were denied on technical grounds for timing reasons (procedural declines). The current "1R+4 List" concept is laid out immediately above in part B of the latest appeal. The gist is: no second reverts, no fifth comments, and a list of all incidents that touch on these boundaries so I and others can monitor myself. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC) (modified)
- @NinjaRobotPirate: Per your comments, I have shortened the unblock request. (Original more detailed text of unblock request is in the history.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC) (modified)
- I'm not an admin so I can't unblock, but if I were, I would not unblock. In my opinion this editor simply does not understand why she was blocked ("Exhausting the patience of other editors.") as shown by the continued walls of text and bludgeoning behaviour. The self-proposed "1R+4 List" Rule is nothing but a formalized procedure whereby the editor will take everything she does not get her way on to conflict resolution. I find the lack of comprehension as to why this is inappropriate astounding. Meters (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Meters: I have evidence that Meters's contention is mistaken. The editor says I "will take everything she does not get her way on to conflict resolution."
Actually, there's a list of incidents (part of the "1R+4 List" Rule name) here that I mentioned above "(3) I have a special, publicly available list of all incidents that involve my "1R+4 List" Rule so I can show where I have gotten close to "the line" (4 comments, or a revert I didn't do because of this rule). If you want more details on this or any incident, let me know- my list is currently on Wiktionary at [9]." In that list, there are several occurences where I got to four comments and stopped communication on an issue, and only one where I took it to conflict resolution. The one issue that I took to conflict resolution was with a user that was later banned for other reasons. The other things that didn't go my way, I just stopped discussion of and let go.
Also, I have a 500-word absolute upper limit for invidual comment length, measured via https://wordcounttools.com. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC) (modified)- The fact that you continue to modify or even completely remove posts that have already been replied to is further evidence that you don't get this. Removing your wall of text that I replied to does not help your case. i will not discuss this. Please do not ping me again. Meters (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's a very confusing situation for me because I enjoy my Wiktionary work and I am trying hard to fit in to Wikipedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Don't worry, Geographyinitiative, everything will be all right. I believe you need to thoroughly reassess your unblock request, restructuring and revising its content at the same time. But prior to that, I suggest you understand what exactly is asked from you and what everybody wants to hear from you. Then, please try to keep it as short as possible just as it has been rightfully recommended by a number of admins. I'm pretty much convinced that sooner or later one of the admins will fancy your request and unblock you eventually. Be assured that I'm with you in this to the end. Stay safe, stay strong! --VisioncurveTimendi causa est nescire 13:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's a very confusing situation for me because I enjoy my Wiktionary work and I am trying hard to fit in to Wikipedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that you continue to modify or even completely remove posts that have already been replied to is further evidence that you don't get this. Removing your wall of text that I replied to does not help your case. i will not discuss this. Please do not ping me again. Meters (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Meters: I have evidence that Meters's contention is mistaken. The editor says I "will take everything she does not get her way on to conflict resolution."
- I'm not an admin so I can't unblock, but if I were, I would not unblock. In my opinion this editor simply does not understand why she was blocked ("Exhausting the patience of other editors.") as shown by the continued walls of text and bludgeoning behaviour. The self-proposed "1R+4 List" Rule is nothing but a formalized procedure whereby the editor will take everything she does not get her way on to conflict resolution. I find the lack of comprehension as to why this is inappropriate astounding. Meters (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Geographyinitiative (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I apologize for overcommenting on the DPP page, and I won't edit or talk on that page again. To prevent myself from causing annoyance to anyone, over the past seven months of about 8,000 or so edits on Wiktionary and 1,000+ edits on Wikimedia Commons, I automatically give up on interactions that go beyond a certain arbitrary numerical limit of comments (4) regardless of the outcome (but not in a rude way). I have made several personal rules including not doing 2Rs and a maximum upper limit of 500 words on a comment (see [10] for details). I think I can be a useful editor on minor geography in Asia- I have written lots of content on minor Asian geography on Wiktionary (43,000 edits) and I have a record of minor geography edits on Wikipedia that stretches to Asian Month 2017. My hope is to make some new articles for Asian Month 2021.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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.
- @EdJohnston: Hey EdJohnston, I want to say that I will not edit on the DPP page ever again and that I have not been troublesome and in fact really productive on English Wiktionary (and Wikimedia Commons) for these past months. I believe in the Wikipedia project's ideals and I have come up with some ways to limit my participation so I am not annoying (four comments on a talk page, no second or third reverts, max 500 words per comment, etc.- see above) I have made an improvement or change in my pattern of behavior any time I have had something negative I was doing pointed out to me. I would like to sincerely request your review of my case. I believe I would be a really great Wikipedia editor. Thanks for your consideration. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
- I won't be taking any action here, but other admins can do as they think best. Your recent edits on this page don't give me any confidence about a successful future for you on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Geographyinitiative (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I apologize for overcommenting on the DPP page, and I won't edit or talk on that page again. To prevent myself from causing annoyance to anyone, over the past eight months of about 8,000+ edits on Wiktionary and 1,000+ edits on Wikimedia Commons, I automatically give up on interactions that go beyond a certain arbitrary numerical limit of comments (4) regardless of the outcome (but not in a rude way- just bow out to prevent extended argument). I have made several personal rules including not doing 2Rs and a maximum upper limit of 500 words on a comment (see [11] for details). I think I can be a useful Wikipedia editor on minor geography in Asia too- I have written lots of content on minor Asian geography on Wiktionary (43,000 edits total, Chinese language type topics) and I have a record of minor geography edits on Wikipedia that stretches to Asian Month 2017. My hope is to make some new articles for Asian Month 2021.
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.
Administrator use only:
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 apologize for overcommenting on the DPP page, and I won't edit or talk on that page again. To prevent myself from causing annoyance to anyone, over the past eight months of about 8,000+ edits on Wiktionary and 1,000+ edits on Wikimedia Commons, I automatically give up on interactions that go beyond a certain arbitrary numerical limit of comments (4) regardless of the outcome (but not in a rude way- just bow out to prevent extended argument). I have made several personal rules including not doing 2Rs and a maximum upper limit of 500 words on a comment (see [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Geographyinitiative/Sandbox] for details). I think I can be a useful Wikipedia editor on minor geography in Asia too- I have written lots of content on minor Asian geography on Wiktionary (43,000 edits total, Chinese language type topics) and I have a record of minor geography edits on Wikipedia that stretches to Asian Month 2017. My hope is to make some new articles for Asian Month 2021. |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 apologize for overcommenting on the DPP page, and I won't edit or talk on that page again. To prevent myself from causing annoyance to anyone, over the past eight months of about 8,000+ edits on Wiktionary and 1,000+ edits on Wikimedia Commons, I automatically give up on interactions that go beyond a certain arbitrary numerical limit of comments (4) regardless of the outcome (but not in a rude way- just bow out to prevent extended argument). I have made several personal rules including not doing 2Rs and a maximum upper limit of 500 words on a comment (see [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Geographyinitiative/Sandbox] for details). I think I can be a useful Wikipedia editor on minor geography in Asia too- I have written lots of content on minor Asian geography on Wiktionary (43,000 edits total, Chinese language type topics) and I have a record of minor geography edits on Wikipedia that stretches to Asian Month 2017. My hope is to make some new articles for Asian Month 2021. |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 apologize for overcommenting on the DPP page, and I won't edit or talk on that page again. To prevent myself from causing annoyance to anyone, over the past eight months of about 8,000+ edits on Wiktionary and 1,000+ edits on Wikimedia Commons, I automatically give up on interactions that go beyond a certain arbitrary numerical limit of comments (4) regardless of the outcome (but not in a rude way- just bow out to prevent extended argument). I have made several personal rules including not doing 2Rs and a maximum upper limit of 500 words on a comment (see [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Geographyinitiative/Sandbox] for details). I think I can be a useful Wikipedia editor on minor geography in Asia too- I have written lots of content on minor Asian geography on Wiktionary (43,000 edits total, Chinese language type topics) and I have a record of minor geography edits on Wikipedia that stretches to Asian Month 2017. My hope is to make some new articles for Asian Month 2021. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}