User talk:Monolithica

Welcome

Hello, Monolithica, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - ^theWOLFchild 17:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Motivations for editing Wikipedia

"The motivations of highly active Wikipedians", Wikimania 2012 talk

"What makes you more likely to edit?" WP Editor Survey April 2011
"What makes you less likely to edit?" WP Editor Survey April 2011

60% of editors whose edits had been reverted without any explanation said that this made them less likely to edit, while only 9% of editors whose edits had been reverted with explanation felt less inclined to edit. (Video by Barry Newstead (WMF) watch )

Concerning the SPI investigation

You may have noted you were recently lumped into a (now closed) sockpuppet investigation with my accounts. I'm sorry you had to be dragged into this. You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. You just had the bad luck of getting your sentence "(remove {{webarchive}} from reference and |page= from {{cite web}} citations, [and] ensure {{tooltip}} is only used for abbreviations)" interpreted as having very similar interests when you actually clicked the link on the previous request. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 15:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E to the Pi times i:Thanks for the heads-up. I was totally unaware of it. How did you come to learn of it so quickly as it unfolded? A single expression does not a sock puppet make. Does the accuser have some kind of axe to grind with you? Thanks also for your clarification on the request for permissions page. Learning here is a continual process. — Monolithica (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this. I made 2 edits with my alternate account which probably should have been made my main account. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 16:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E to the Pi times i: I'm glad that it's satisfactorily resolved. How did you become aware of the investigation in real-time; did someone leave a message on your Talk page? Thanks, — Monolithica (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to address the other curiosities you had: I knew about the investigation because of the notifications system, which sends a "ping" whenever one mentions your username and signs the end of the post. I similarly got a notification when you used the {{reply to}} template, because it linked to my username. Notifications are useful for getting someone's attention in a discussion (though one has to be careful not to canvass).

Another note on the notifications system: you can also thank users for any edit to any page, and its a nice way of showing appreciation. All thanks are publicly logged.

Learning here is definitely a continual process. There are so many policies and guidelines, but you'll gradually begin to develop a picture (I suspect you already have, if you have edited on an IP address prior to this account). For quick reference, Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines are useful. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 17:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages

Please take care not to add {{stub}} and {{orphan}} to disambiguation pages, as you did here - AWB sometimes offers wrong suggestions but it's your responsibility not to make incorrect edits with it. A disambiguation page is supposed to be an orphan, and is not a stub. Thanks. PamD 17:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Thanks for the correction. I'm aware that disambiguation pages aren't stubs, and are meant to be orphans, but it was my first time using AWB. I somehow missed it was a disambiguation page. I was still adjusting to the visual interface from prior experience using Dispenser and DabSolver. I'm more used to it now; it just so happened to slip by. I'll pay closer attention going forward. — Monolithica (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #21223 was submitted on Apr 15, 2018 09:10:16. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've previously contributed as an IP editor. I created an account because I have an upcoming visit to a university in Beijing and wished to avoid interruptions accessing Wikipedia from China while I'm there. I was hastily blocked under a mismatched identity based on behavioral analysis that was cursory and incomplete. The scant evidence amounts to a few superficial and cherry-picked commonalities that could have been shared with anyone. There was no history of diffs, nor policy violation to point to, merely two users with similar maintenance interests (myself and User: E to the Pi times i) voiced openly in straightforward discussion on the AutoWikiBrowser request for permissions page. The initial reviewing clerk declined the Checkuser request due to a lack of any evidence. Simply holding similar maintenance interests should not be sufficient to merit opening an investigation, let alone be grounds for indefinite block (WP:WITCHHUNT). Absent policy violations, the CU that followed was a misuse of CU permissions (WP:NOTFISHING).[1][2][3][4] Rather than technical data, the block was enacted under claims of purported behavioral similarities. Yet the principal claimed commonality between the accounts: "an interest in copyediting", is so widespread it has its own heavily-populated category (Wikipedian WikiGnomes). In the course of everyday browsing, it's not unusual to come upon grammatical, spelling and formatting errors, and it's only straightforward to correct them. As a new user, it's the first exercise assigned by The Wikipedia Adventure. Given the guidelines, a block is unmerited.[5][6] The cherry-picked behavioral evidence presented is neither representative nor an accurate depiction of my full contributions to the site. I've contributed 862 edits over 529 pages from a wide variety of topics. Contrary to the claim that my edits focus on human rights, my account doesn't hold a single edit on the subject. My editing history includes general maintenance, formatting, layout and grammar corrections, copy editing and link disambiguation as needed, with a wide variety of topics at hand. From my contributions to date, pages that haven't been modified since my latest edits can be found here. My editing history has been neither random nor haphazard. I followed closely in line with the categories needing the most work (i.e., points) that came in through Dispenser and DabSolver on a day-to-day basis. Outside of semi-automated edits, my freestyle editing topics came from dovetailing the contributions history of sci-fi author and notable Wikipedian Geoffrey Landis. I'm a fan of his work and just came across his contributions to the project. I'm hopeful this clarification of topics sources may help resolve any misunderstandings drawn from superficial similarities between the accounts. Additional features distinguishing my account from any of the socks, and/or the sockmaster, include (1) the frequency of my contributions (both socks, and sockmaster, built up very few edits over an extended period of time, whereas my enthusiasm for the first-time use of the new editing tools is readily apparent), (2) my use of userboxes as community identifiers (userboxes were absent in any of the other claimed linked accounts), (3) my navigation splash page is personally designed, taking significant creativity and effort to produce, unlike any of the other accounts, which have little in the way of personal or distinguishing features, (4) my everyday use of advanced scripting functionality and semi-automated maintenance tools, and (5) my contributions to essays on Wikipedia policy, another demonstration of wider community interest and long-term intent. Each of these characteristics demonstrate good faith and open integration with the larger community as a whole, and run counter to any hastily-drawn conclusions drawn from a few cherry-picked bits of evidence out of nearly a thousand personal contributions. In the first phase of this investigation I faced equally unfounded accusations that I was someone else's sock altogether—also absent any kind of policy violations or disruptive conduct. E to the Pi times i, the other accused editor in this case, independently came to the same conclusions, calling for exoneration as follows:

"Pardon this late comment from a non-admin, but I do not see the behavioral sockpuppet evidence for Monolithica and R. Anthony convincing. While Sro23 has pointed out the few edits which have some relation, if one looks through the majority of Monolithica's edits, they have been general maintenance: link disambiguation, tagging, and copy editing, none of which are disruptive. R. Anthony has made edits to the topics of human rights and space—but most of their edits are in userspace. Unless you have a specific case where they've repeatedly exhibited specific similar arguments or behavior to Altman on a specific page, I think it's premature to jump on them as supposed socks, and I find this quick indefinite block to be biting them."

Please consider removing the block so I may continue contributing to the community. Thank you, — Monolithica (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have asked another CheckUser to review this block in private, and they confirmed Bbb23's findings to me: that you are technically indistinguishable from R. Anthony (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Because of that, and because administrators cannot lift a CheckUser block without the consent of a CheckUser, I am declining your unblock request. At this point, given both your claims of private information and your allegations of abuse of process, appealing on-wiki would not be the best option for you. Your best option at this time to appeal your block would be to contact the Arbitation Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org The committee also reviews allegations of violations of the local CheckUser policy. If you also believe that the global CheckUser policy was violated, you may make a request to the Ombudsman Commission by emailing cu-ombuds-llists.wikimedia.org. The Arbitration Committee, however, would be responsible for reviewing the local block on en.wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2018 (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.