User talk:97RGr

Welcome from me

Hello! Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave a message if you have anything to say. 97RGr (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked account

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

97RGr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have looked at Bbb23's 'sock puppet' investigation, where he has accused me of sockpuppetry only because incorrect edits had come from users with my IP in the past, and that some of my more recent edits were similar to these puppet accounts. These old accounts were all created by my stepsister who I share my house and internet access with and I have spoken to her. She had told me previously about editing Wikipedia (but not her edits) and I then decided to start an account around December or January. The edits on N/E/NE London areas that I have made were in fact inspired by these edits; I had noticed there was some controversy on the Waltham Abbey page in the past and I looked at those edits. I thought that the fact that the town is in the Greater London Urban Area and the metropolitan area should be mentioned first as Waltham Abbey has always been considered a London area due to its location in between Waltham Forest and Enfield. I find it ridiculous how this account has been blocked when I have done nothing but try to simplify and improve pages on Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

Both technical and behavioural evidence have given the blocking administrator sufficient grounds to block the account. Alongside this in your unblock request your explanation contradicts itself. You say you were aware of your siblings editing but not her edits, in the next sentence say you were inspired by her edits to make the same kind. This makes your explanation unconvincing enough to decline. Amortias (T)(C) 20:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

97RGr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please read this carefully: I am again requesting an unblock because I believe Amortias' conclusion was unfair and he/she failed to understand my simple justification. I'll reword this to avoid further confusion: I was aware of my stepsister editing on Wikipedia, but I didn't know what she was editing until I discovered that my account had been blocked and she told me that she created several accounts and what articles she had edited. Anyway, the edits I performed were not in any way disruptive or a violation of any Wikipedia policies. When I was inspired by my sister's edits, I did not know whose edits they were as I only saw them in the article's edit history. Amortias' 'contradiction' that he supposedly found in my justification is therefore nonexistent. Amortias said that I made 'edits of the same kind'. This is false: my edits were not at all of the same kind as my stepsister's as she made disruptive edits by altering facts in order to display incorrect information. The only similarity my edits share with my sister's is that mine prioritised the town's proximity to London and location in London's metropolitan and urban areas as the town is locally considered a London area. This is the only element of my sister's editing I was inspired by. I would like to stress again that my account has not performed any action against the policies of Wikipedia and I have not omitted or altered any correct information.

Decline reason:

Having looked at the overlap in edits, I simply don't buy your story. To be clear, I don't believe there are two separate, completely independent people here. I suspect there's only one but even if there are actually two, the edits were so similar as to certainly be a violation of WP:MEAT. Yamla (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

97RGr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yamla's review against me is a less detailed repeat of Amortias'. He/She has written three sentences saying that I am a liar, my stepsister is me and that our edits are similar. My previous review had clearly not been taken on board; my edits were not disruptive or against any Wikipedia policies. I changed the priority of information, simplified information and added new information. My sister's edits were disruptive: she had created and used several accounts to omit information and alter correct information. To be clear, the edits are not in any way similar, and both our intentions were completely different. I was inspired by seeing how 'London' was made to stand out on the page, and I subsequently edited the article by adding the fact that the town was in London's urban and metropolitan areas as the area is locally considered a London area and I have always lived in that local area. I subsequently made similar edits to other nearby towns where I grew up and the same situation applies. Again, I did not break any Wikipedia policies or perform any disruptive editing. Yamla has also bizarrely accused me of 'meat puppetry'. This also shows that he/she has not looked at mine or my sister's edits properly as I did not alter any information.

Decline reason:

Upon review of the evidence presented at the SPI, as well as my own behavioural check of the accounts listed here, I find it exceedingly unlikely that you are separate individuals and your convoluted explanation makes no sense to me. For these reasons I'm declining your unblock appeal. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Blocking administrator

As you know, I attempted to use my talk page to communicate with a user who you know that has unnecessarily reverted my edits, and whose actions I do not agree with. You almost immediately deleted my messages from my talk page, stating "you are not permitted to discuss articles/edits while blocked". I have been looking for the Wikipedia policy that says this, but all I have found so far are things that seem rather against your statement, so please, if possible, could you give me a link to the Wikipedia policy that says blocked users are not permitted to discuss edits when blocked, as you did not do so initially. Regards, 97RGr (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What have you found that "seem rather against your statement"?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Blocking Policy says "Blocks should be used to prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." I don't understand how a block should affect my right to communicate with other users on my talk page for clearly appropriate reasons. Thanks, 97RGr (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing you're allowed to do on your Talk page is to discuss your block and make non-abusive unblock requests. The block restricts you from editing any page at Wikipedia except your Talk page. That means that doing something you would normally do if you were not blocked is not permitted. Life does not continue as normal. If you persist in making inappropriate edits on your Talk page after having been warned, your access to this page may be revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: You have still not answered my question-I asked what policy says that this is the only thing you could do on your talk page if you are blocked. I only made one 'inappropriate' edit which was removed immediately. 97RGr (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:, please, if possible, could you answer my question. You are aware of my reply due to your recent activity on Wikipedia, and all your responses to events on my talk page have been almost immediate apart from this one. 97RGr (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: You also violated WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. You did not inform me of my block at any time. It says: "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked." 97RGr (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, stop beating the dead horse. TJH2018 talk 19:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: If "Life does not continue as normal" for me as you say, please could you at least allow me to discuss my block with you, which you have allowed me to do. 97RGr (talk)

@TJH2018:There shouldn't be a dead horse! He/she is my blocking administrator! Is there any chance you could assist me, or does no policy even exist?! Regards, 97RGr (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anything you say about your stepsister or your other related claims. As far as I'm concerned, you are a sock puppet and shouldn't even be requesting an unblock from this page but from the Talk page of the master. You know why you were blocked. I explained to you about some of your edits here. You're simply being obtuse. You've said all you have to say. More of this new nonsense will result in revocation of your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: 1) What exactly are my 'other related claims' that you don't believe? 2) Why should I not be requesting an unblock? What have I done wrong? 3) You have not explained anything! 4) Please could you point out any 'new nonsense'? As far as I can see, this nonsense of mine is nonexistent. 5) You know you have violated WP:EXPLAINBLOCK - you did not explain to me why I was blocked and I had to work it out for myself. As the blocking administrator it is your responsibility to at least tell the blocked user that they have been blocked and why! 6) I have not got a clue why you keep threatening to revoke my access to my own talk page! 7) Please, if possible, could you give me a link to the Wikipedia policy that says blocked users are not permitted to discuss edits when blocked. 97RGr (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]