User talk:PlatonicRule
Suggestion for a new Warning Item on the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines page
[edit]Please see the below unblock requests and the subsequent Unblock discussion for the background on this suggestion.
Just for future reference, if any Wikipedia administrator stumbles across this, you might consider adding a warning to the WP:Policies_and_guidelines page so that new users don't run into the same problem I did. Something along the lines of:
"If you see a talking point on an article, and you want to sign up to Wikipedia to support one of the arguments being made, you're not allowed to contribute if you live within an unspecified proximity of the user who made the argument you want to support. Any attempt to do so will result in your account being blocked, as well as the account of the person whose comment you tried to support."
Granted, users may find this a bizarre restriction, and may not be able to determine how close they live to the user whose point they happened to agree with, and whether the distance is within the allowed unspecified range, but at least it will discourage people from signing up and contributing, and save them some time that would otherwise have been wasted.
You'd also need a warning for users who make arguments that other people agree with, such that those people would then try to sign up to support the user, and happen to live within X km of them. It would be difficult for a normal user to monitor when someone within an unspecified range agrees with them and decides to sign up to support their argument, so I would suggest a warning similar to the below.
"Please note that if your arguments on a talk page appear to be accurate and convincing, you may have your account blocked if someone within an unspecified proximity to you signs up to support one of your arguments. To reduce this possibility, please avoid reasoned or referenced arguments, and proper citations."
This may result in more inaccuracies being added to Wikipedia articles as users try to avoid making valid points, but in some cases this may go unnoticed by the general public, such as in Wikipedia articles on politics, which I've commonly observed people derisively mocking.
Kind Regards. PlatonicRule (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
PlatonicRule (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not user Holy Logician, who appears to be a veteran Wiki user or at least a more knowledgeable editor than I am. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, which you could probably see from all my edits trying to learn to use the layout characters and learning how to sign properly, and separate comments on a talk page. Could you please unblock me. I don't mind having a chat about it if there's anything you need to confirm.
Decline reason:
A brand-new user and your first edit just happens to be a long essay on Flag of Syria? Oh, and it turns out just by total coincidence that you are editing in proximity, if not from the exact same address, as Holy Logician (talk · contribs)? It's possible, just possible, that you aren't the same person but it just stretches credulity to believe you are anything other than a WP:MEAT. Yamla (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2018 (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.
PlatonicRule (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
PlatonicRule (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It's not chance that I posted on the Flag of Syria page. It's what I signed up to edit, and specifically with a view to support the argument that user Holy Logician was making, because I believe it's correct. There are a lot of Syria supporters in Australia, so it's not so far fetched to be in proximity of another, particularly if the proximity range is large. I'm glad to find they're possibly nearby at any rate. However, there's always the possibility that the other person is on a VPN, which could place them in any other country. I put a good deal of effort into making an informed comment with relevant references, and this is not a good experience as a first time user. I know I'm not the same user, so is there something I can provide that would demonstrate that to you?
Decline reason:
If you and the other editor were editing via VPN, the underlying ip is probably now blocked - as editing via VPN is prohibited here. This is not likely how this played out, however. Advanced technical evidence ties you to this other account. Not to mention the behavioral evidence. SQLQuery me! 03:07, 6 February 2018 (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.
PlatonicRule (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi. I didn't say I was using a VPN. I said it might look like the other person is also in Australia near me if they are using a VPN to connect. I wouldn't know, it's just a possibility I considered. I did a bit of reading on CheckUser, and I understand that there is an algorithm falsely indicating that the two accounts are for the same person. I'm not sure what you mean by behavioural evidence, and if you might be mistaking that for similar opinion or debating style. In any case, no one seems to care about evidence to the contrary, and frankly now I'm just really discouraged from even continuing to try to demonstrate that I'm not this other person. I feel like I'm in the movie Gattaca, where you could be standing right in front of a person and they'd place more trust in a computer to identify you than their own eyes, and even despite them. You know what, don't worry about it. I was genuinely trying to meaningfully contribute, and now I feel I wasted my time on this site.
Decline reason:
The available evidence does seem to indicate that the accounts are operated by the same person. Declined. —DoRD (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2018 (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.
UNblock discussion
[edit]Let's assume for now that you convince us that your block was just a ghastly error based on circumstance. That's really a discussion to be had with the WP:CheckUsers. What areas would you like to edit? I would require a WP:Topic ban on Flag of Syria, Syria, & the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed. One single edit could lead to reblocking. Would you wish to be unblocked under this condition? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think by now it's quite obvious I'm a new user, as made evident by the number and nature of edits I had to make just to post one comment.
- I understand that having an automated process to monitor suspected abuses is a useful tool, but I don't think it should be blindly relied upon in all cases, and I appreciate that you're considering my case despite the CheckUser result.
- As I previously mentioned, I signed up to help correct an inaccuracy on the Flag of Syria page. I've been following the conflict in Syria from the very beginning, including through sources inside the country, and I've visited the country only recently as well. I had assumed that having some expertise on a topic would engender some encouragement to contribute, rather than inspire a topic ban. I did nothing wrong in signing up, and my intention was and is to make a fair contribution in accordance with the Wiki rules, which I believe I did (I hope).
- So in answer to your question, if I'm going to be sanctioned for trying to do what I believe Wikipedia contributors and editors are supposed to be doing, then that's not a community I'd want to be a part of, as I'd feel discouraged from editing or contributing to any page, let alone a page on a topic I'm knowledgeable in. PlatonicRule (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)