User talk:Canawai'i
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Invitation to WikiProject Hawaii
[edit] |
Aloha, Canawai'i! You are invited to join WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort which aims to create, expand, and maintain Hawaii-related articles. If you'd like to join, please sign up here. All kōkua is appreciated! Mahalo! |
Peaceray (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Canawai'i (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"This account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia." What's going on here? If I’m reading this right – sort of complicated as it unfolds across multiple pages – Bilorv accused me of being a fellow named Henry Friedberg, who was banned from participating on Wikipedia. A developer looked at it and determined that I’m not, but said that I migh be two other accounts who are also supposed to be Henry Friedberg or maybe someone else “but I don't see evidence of intentional obfuscation”. I’m not sure how to parse all this, and I don’t know what you’re looking at, or how I’m supposed to rebut it. Bilorv seemed to be saying that Henry Friedberg had a thing for Marc Kielburger, and that my editing that article is why he accused me. It’s weird because I can’t see any contributions from Henry Friedberg in the article history but maybe I’m just not looking in the right place. Why I was I editing it? Like a lot of other people, I followed the election and the WE Charity dustup was big news. Marc Kielburger is the head of WE Charity and tesified before Parliament where he was grilled by opposition MPs. Same reason I assume that Bilorv is interested. I looked at this article and on the top is says, “This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.” This intruiged me so I thought I’d take a look under the hood and so what was going on, and see if I could help addres the problems. I went through two paragraphs of it line-by-line, checking each claim against the references put forth to support it. Most of them panned out, but a few didn’t, so I removed them. I didn’t do anything with the structure or really with the content besides making sure that the text matched what the references were saying. It does look like there was paid editing involved, or perhaps Marc Kielburger wrote it himself, because there were several statements which were not in the references, leading to the question, how did the writer know these things, was he working off a resumé, personal memory, etc.? I removed those passages. A few of the citations were out of place from the facts they were supposed to back up, so I moved them to the right places. Finally, a bunch of the references had no authors, dates, basic stuff like that – someone didn’t know how to write a proper bibliography, maybe also a sign of self-authorship – so I fixed those. “It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia’s content policies” – that’s what I was doing. Besides blocking me, Bilorv blanked all my changes and restored all of the previous text. So: either the text was not the result of paid editing, in which case why is the banner there,or it was and Bilorv just prevented it from being replaced by new text. Instead of cleaning up the artcile as the banner says should be done, he prevented it from being cleaned up, restored wrong citations, removed author names, readded unsupported claims, etc. If you don’t believe me, go through my contributions and tell me which were inaccurate or rules violations, then compare my versions to the ones that Bilorv brought back. If Wikipedia doesn’t want the article edited at all, you should say so, not invite people to help and then punish theose who pitch in. If the text is so bad (what I saw for the most part really wasn’t, mostly the references) I wonder why you don’t just delete it. This block was based upon something which I'm not part of and should be undone. The developer said I am not the people Bilorv accused me of being so why was I blocked? I have no problem with others looking at what I’m doing which is all public anyway,. I haven’t been here very long and have no big reputational stake to defend, but it really ticks me off that I sunk hours of my time into following the instructions, which said that the article needed cleanup, and this is what I get in return. It’s depressing to see that some problems literally cannot be fixed because if you try to fix them you get blocked. Why did you take down my own page? Please remove that ugly sign, put my Hawai'i stickers back and allow me to participate again.
Decline reason:
Thanks for the appeal, but the evidence here is fairly convincing.. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2021 (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.
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii § Campaign to upload Lāhainā photographs.