User talk:Illegally

May 2024

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Khirurg (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You and your friends have been involved in disruption of several articles (specifically regarding Albania), constantly reverting and blocking information you don't like even though is factual and sourced. You should be careful of getting blocked as well.

Information on Wikipedia must be free of biases and censoring. There is a reason why Wikipedia is open for everyone to edit, but it seems you've been trying to block everyone from editing. Your attempts won't last long.

Just by looking at your contribution history we can see who is the one doing edit wars.

If you disagree with a contribution, you explain your reasons and if I'm wrong (which I doubt), then I would agree to change it. Illegally (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illegally, do not send me any more e-mail.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I'm not allowed to ask for a comment on your decision to block me?

I asked that you proper investigate my "accusations" made on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring and not disregard them straight away.

You also added "WP:LOUTSOCK with Special:contributions/2A02:908:1997:1500:0:0:0:0/64" as a reason for blocking me, which has nothing to do with me. On what basis you came to that conclusion?

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked indefinitely without proper consideration

Decline reason:

The block appears to have been made with proper consideration. No comment with regard to CU data that specific IP address range. Yamla (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I realize I might have had an initial bad approach to editing as a new contributer and I took it too personal, I would appreciate if you could at least change my block to a less permanent one, I want to contribute to articles I like in the future, and not be part of edit warring anymore. Thanks.

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, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. 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
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (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.

Can you please explain what specific accounts you're referring to when you use "everyone" in "you've been trying to block everyone from editing" and who "we" are when you state "we can see who is the one doing edit wars" in your post above?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ponyo,

It seemed to me that the user had been reverting edits by made by other people, hence "everyone", no specific accounts to mention, it was just a general look on the user's history. But I guess I might have exaggerated and misjudged that.

"We" is just a way of expression.

Thanks for your consideration. Illegally (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm planning on making useful contributions. Illegally (talk) 13:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Great. Please tell what those are right after you address the reasons for the block. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2024 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

It's been a while, and I've already addressed my block reasons previously, as you can see in my talk page. I just want to have the freedom to edit articles that I have interest on, and by following the edit rules. I'm more aware of Wikipedia rules now.

Quoting from Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block: "Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only. Once they are over and learned from, they are in the past (unless repeated). Wikipedia and its administrators and arbitration committee have a real wish for everyone who is capable of acting responsibly to be able to enjoy editing."

That's what it says there, and my question to you, as administrators, is: do you have a real wish for everyone who is capable of acting responsibly to be able to enjoy editing? Because, if I'm being honest, I'm really not seeing that.

Is it fair to be blocked indefinitely for being caught up in edit warring as a first time editor? I didn't even know what edit warring was before, and I think a lot of new users get caught up into that as well.

But okay, this is my last request, I don't want to deal with it anymore because it seems pointless, it's up to you whether you unblock me or not.

Illegally (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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=It's been a while, and I've already addressed my block reasons previously, as you can see in my talk page. I just want to have the freedom to edit articles that I have interest on, and '''by following the edit rules'''. I'm more aware of Wikipedia rules now. 

Quoting from [[Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block]]: "''Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only. Once they are over and learned from, they are in the past (unless repeated). Wikipedia and its administrators and arbitration committee have a real wish for everyone who is capable of acting responsibly to be able to enjoy editing''."

That's what it says there, and my question to you, as administrators, is: do you have a real wish for everyone who is capable of acting responsibly to be able to enjoy editing? Because, if I'm being honest, I'm really not seeing that.

Is it fair to be blocked indefinitely for being caught up in edit warring as a first time editor? I didn't even know what edit warring was before, and I think a lot of new users get caught up into that as well.

But okay, this is my last request, I don't want to deal with it anymore because it seems pointless, it's up to you whether you unblock me or not.

 [[User:Illegally|Illegally]] ([[User talk:Illegally#top|talk]]) 15:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |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=It's been a while, and I've already addressed my block reasons previously, as you can see in my talk page. I just want to have the freedom to edit articles that I have interest on, and '''by following the edit rules'''. I'm more aware of Wikipedia rules now. 

Quoting from [[Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block]]: "''Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only. Once they are over and learned from, they are in the past (unless repeated). Wikipedia and its administrators and arbitration committee have a real wish for everyone who is capable of acting responsibly to be able to enjoy editing''."

That's what it says there, and my question to you, as administrators, is: do you have a real wish for everyone who is capable of acting responsibly to be able to enjoy editing? Because, if I'm being honest, I'm really not seeing that.

Is it fair to be blocked indefinitely for being caught up in edit warring as a first time editor? I didn't even know what edit warring was before, and I think a lot of new users get caught up into that as well.

But okay, this is my last request, I don't want to deal with it anymore because it seems pointless, it's up to you whether you unblock me or not.

 [[User:Illegally|Illegally]] ([[User talk:Illegally#top|talk]]) 15:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |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=It's been a while, and I've already addressed my block reasons previously, as you can see in my talk page. I just want to have the freedom to edit articles that I have interest on, and '''by following the edit rules'''. I'm more aware of Wikipedia rules now. 

Quoting from [[Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block]]: "''Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only. Once they are over and learned from, they are in the past (unless repeated). Wikipedia and its administrators and arbitration committee have a real wish for everyone who is capable of acting responsibly to be able to enjoy editing''."

That's what it says there, and my question to you, as administrators, is: do you have a real wish for everyone who is capable of acting responsibly to be able to enjoy editing? Because, if I'm being honest, I'm really not seeing that.

Is it fair to be blocked indefinitely for being caught up in edit warring as a first time editor? I didn't even know what edit warring was before, and I think a lot of new users get caught up into that as well.

But okay, this is my last request, I don't want to deal with it anymore because it seems pointless, it's up to you whether you unblock me or not.

 [[User:Illegally|Illegally]] ([[User talk:Illegally#top|talk]]) 15:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Someone else will review your request, but I don't see anything on this page that addresses the reasons for the block. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Illegally. I do want to unblock you. Unfortunately, if I unblock you and then you turn out to cause harm, there is egg on my face (and yours, too). Therefore, even if my heart wants to unblock, my head needs to be convinced. I obviously cannot know anything about you other than your actions and words. However, it has been almost six months (the standard offer for blocked editors requires six months without editing), and I cannot blame you for not following the standard offer to the letter when you were never given a link to it! So pending satisfactory answers to the following questions (and a conversation with the blocking admin), I will unblock you. These questions will confirm you understand the relevant policies and guidelines.

In your own words, why were you blocked?
What types of edits do you want to make when unblocked?
When you have disputes with other editors, how will you resolve them? WP:Dispute resolution has the answer to this question.

Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi House,

Thanks for your reply!

I understand that admins deal with a lot of people everyday, and I guess it's not easy to distinguish people when all you can see is just virtual profiles and a few things that they write. Though there's no need for anticipatory anxiety, I think in life, maybe I'd rather make a mistake and get proven wrong and have an egg on my face, then regret not doing anything at all.

Actually, I think people shouldn't be throwing eggs at people faces at all (because they're delicious, it would be a waste :D).

Regarding your questions:

In your own words, why were you blocked?

The short explanation: I didn't follow proper editing guidelines, such as discussing thoroughly a controversial topic and coming to an agreement before editing, and I wasn't considerate and respectful enough of other editors who disaggree.

The long explantion

I came across the Illyrians article, and I thought it was missing an important point of historical information, and I added a sentence to address that ("Illyrians are generally known as ancestors of modern-day Albanians"), even though that might not be a fully proven fact, my sentence doesn't say it as a fact, and after all we don't really know any topic of history with 100% certainity, but it's something which I and many others believe, and it's a part of the Albanian identity. Even though there are insufficient material proofs, I would say that most historians would agree with that sentence, but I will not argue with that, you can just look it up by yourself if you have the time.

However, my change was reverted and I was a bit frustrated that I was just disregarded as a "disruption", and that's where I unknowingly stepped into an edit war. The editor seemed to not care about any explanation or the sources I provided for my change, and after taking a look at their contribution history, I had a feeling that they were a bit biased and felt like they were controlling the narrative in quite a few similar articles. Based on the editor page, it was likely that they were from Greece, a country neighboring Albania, these two countries share a long history, some good and some bad, and as with most countries bordering each other, there can be a minority of people who don't have good views of the country in the other side of the border, and therefore, I think it's understandable why I would accuse of nationalism, even though I might have been wrong, and I apologize if I wrongly accused anyone. I made a mistake of making things too personal.

In conclusion, I was frustrated that my edit was reverted and that led me to edit warring, but now I understand that my approach was wrong and I also wasn't being considerate enough. The editor who reverted me was following the rules, and I was not. Instead of continuously trying to edit something that was controversial, I should've opened a talk discussion and ask for a third-party opinion.

What types of edits do you want to make when unblocked?

If I said that I wouldn't edit any articles regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albania anymore, it would probably be a lie, since it's a topic that matters to me. But if I do edit, I will do so by following the editing rules, being objective, and considerate of other editors and their views. By learning from my previous mistakes.

Besides that, I might also do edits on other topics I have knowledge on, such as computer engineering. And I might also do edits for fixing small grammatical mistakes or typos on any random article that I notice.

When you have disputes with other editors, how will you resolve them? WP:Dispute resolution has the answer to this question.

I'll try to reason with the editor, ask for explanations & sources and provide explanations & sources, open a discussion on the talk page, and ask for more opinions from other editors.

Hope I answered your questions well, thank you again your help and I appreciate your consideration. Illegally (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough response to my questions! I am going to drop a couple of links which will be helpful when you are unblocked. WP:Third opinion is helpful for disputes involving exactly two editors. The dispute resolution noticeboard can provide moderated, structured discussion. And requests for comment can solicit outside perspectives.

It also turns out I forgot to ask you a question (sorry!), about editing while logged out. I see that you deny editing while not logged out from this account, and in general socking is hard to prove. Regardless of whether you actually edited while logged out, can you commit to not doing so in the future? Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the useful links!

Yes, regarding that, it wasn't me, but I understand that it can be hard to prove sometimes. Just for providing a little detail that I just noticed now: not that it matters much but the location of the IP that made the minor edit after me seems to be from Greece (see IPs 2a02:1388:40e3:b5cc:ad35:3e34:de4:ffc1 and 2a02:587:7235:7100:9b4d:2482:5aac:13ba at https://www.iplocation.net/ip-lookup), and I guess you as admins can see my account IPs, and you can notice that I never have logged in from Greece.

If I wanted to edit while logged out or using sock accounts, I would not have made an unblock request.

I do not plan on doing that in the future. Illegally (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for confirming. Admins actually cannot see your IP address – only "CheckUsers" can do that, and even then they will rarely connect accounts to IP addresses. Neither myself nor the admin who blocked you are CheckUsers; we can only go off of behavior.

@Bbb23: do you object to unblocking? It has been almost six months (c.f. WP:SO), and the answers to my questions give me confidence we can extend some WP:ROPE. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]