User talk:SpicyHabaneros
February 2024
[edit]
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
March 2024
[edit] Please refrain from using talk pages such as talk:Leo Frank for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Please stop this. See the reply. You've been given a lot of leeway but continuing to use article talk pages just to argue about the subject of an article might get you blocked. Bring sources, bring policies and guidelines, but don't treat the page as a discussion page about Leo Frank, Doug Weller talk 15:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
SpicyHabaneros (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Honest to goodness, I only wanted to further the discussion SpicyHabaneros (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello there, I see here that I received a warning on the 9th and 11th of march. I had not seen either of these until today. I see now that I have been indefinitely blocked. This is regrettable.
I am writing to request an unblock from the Wikipedia platform, with the intention of contributing to a wider variety of articles and branching out to other topics. I acknowledge that there may have been a misunderstanding or an unintentional violation of community rules that led to my block. It is essential for me to be able to contribute to the vast pool of knowledge that Wikipedia offers.
As I move forward, I assure you that I will take extra care to ensure that I follow all the community guidelines and contribute positively to the platform. I kindly ask that my account status be reviewed, and the block be lifted. I believe that this action will allow merenew nue my journey as a valuable member of the Wikipedia community, who is dedicated to sharing accurate and reliable information.
I would like to mention that I have no desire to contribute to the contentious topic of Leo Frank anymore. Even if in the future new solid information is provided by someone else, I will refrain from contributing any further input.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kind regards, SpicyHabaneros.
(P.S. - the RfC was a suggestion made by user Johnuniq @ 05:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC) on the talk page)
.
Decline reason:
GPTZero determined most of this post was 88% likely AI generated. We want to hear from you, not an AI. Please write your request in your own words without the aid of an AI. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2024 (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 initially placed your request in a section header- edits should be placed in the larger edit window, not the smaller section header window. You can avoid creating section headers entirely by clicking "edit" and not "add topic" at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Gratitude for explaining this to me. I have much to learn and have been diligently trying to master this site. However, it is not the easiest thing to become proficient in. It is a matter of time and guidance from individuals like yourself.
Regarding the text above in my original request, it would not be entirely accurate to say that it was AI generated. Some of it was typed out myself, with the rest being rewritten with the help of AI. I composed the text myself, then went back and improved the sentences using AI. Nevertheless, I have no issue rewritting it - 100% in my own words, below. I hope you will find that it acceptable though likely not as eloquently. Thanks again for the advice.
Hello there. I am formally requesting an unblock from Wikipedia. Belatedly, I did see that I had received 2 warnings on the 9th & 11th of March. I viewed these for the first time on the 13th, by which time I was banned permenantly. This both disappoints & saddens me, to have received an indefinite ban.
I hope you will reconsider this in light of the following reasons.
First and foremost, my intentions were not malicious in nature and regret that my contributions were misconstrued. Admittedly, I reread the contributions I have made thus far and can see how the diction and in particular the tone of my contributions were not in line with what is to be expected. Going forward, I aim to have professional and worthy contributions which are centered on the facts. Importantly, I will refrain from attacking or denigrating other contributors regardless of their opinions or viewpoints.
Further, in light of this action, my goals have changed. Now, my intentions are to begin contributing to a wider variety of articles and branching out to other topics that interest me and are less... controversial. I believe this will be a positive benefit both to myself and to the community at large. Indeed, as one user has rightfully pointed out, nearly 100% of my contributions were on the Leo Frank article. A few days ago, I enjoyed my time in the request for comments page. I hope to be able to go back into this page and contribute and share my thoughts on different articles.
Regarding the Leo Frank article in particular, I will refrain from contributing to it. I have zero desire to jump back into the pulpit and truly earn an indefinite ban. I hope the admin will be kind enough to understand that although I may have not lived up to wikipedia's standards, this was not deliberate. Honest to goodness, my initial goal was to further the conversation and have a more neutral article for the public consumption. I feel the sources used on the Frank page were themselves not a reliable source as wikipedia defines the term, nor did I feel as though it was getting a neutral point of view as wikipedia defines it as well. Indeed, this article has many dozens of citations which if one looks into them will see that they are based on a broadway production, Parade (musical). On the other hand, I tried and struggled to find sources which were appropriate. I have made my peace with this.
Finally, it is important I feel to acknowledge that going forward I will hold myself to a higher standard in order to comply with all the rules on wikipedia. For sensitive topics in particular, one person's opinion is not enough. Reliable sources are necessary. If the available sources do not substantiate my views, it may be best to simply state that there are insufficient, or in this case inappropriate, sources for my opinions and leave it at that — or simply not contribute anything at all to avoid further agitation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Kind regards, SpicyHabaneros.
(P.S. - the RfC was a suggestion made by user Johnuniq @ 05:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC) on the talk page, this was not my idea and it does not strike me as inappropriate given the controversial nature of the talk page as it currently stands. If someone could please clarify if it is inappropriate, I would appreciate that. I have gone over the RfC page two times now and am still a bit vague as to why this was not correct, according to a user.)
I respect your decision regardless.
SpicyHabaneros (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)SpicyHabanerosSpicyHabaneros (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please tell in a new unblock request(with the template as you did the first request) what less controversial topics you will edit about. It would be a good idea for you, given comments like "That is in part due to bogus folks like yourself who habror ulterior motives" to review assume good faith and show us your understanding of that. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Johnuniq made that suggestion in the context of a completely different discussion about a different subject: whether to include the wrongful conviction in the short description (basically, a few words summarizing the article), not whether to include the wrongful conviction at all. (Even then, they weren't exactly serious in that suggestion, though I can't totally fault you for not picking up on that particular bit of subtext.) The choice of what to put in a short description is a stylistic choice that's ultimately governed by consensus, which can be assessed by an RfC. The decision to fundamentally rewrite the article to remove mentions of the historical consensus of Frank's wrongful conviction, however, is a content decision that is ultimately governed by reliable sources, and since you still have yet to cite any (blogspot blogs and an article from a "far-right and virulently anti-Semitic publication" very much do not count), an RfC is an utter waste of time, since without actual sources to support your opinion, there is only one conclusion it could come to. Frankly, I find your assertion that your "initial goal was to further the conversation and have a more neutral article for the public consumption" unbelievable, given your use of words like "travesty" and phrases like "malicious deceptive lying". That is not the language of someone trying to further the conversation, and the assertion that the sources cited in the article are not reliable while a blogspot blog is demonstrates either a complete misunderstanding of the reliable sources policy, or--more likely--a flagrant disregard of it. Honestly, I can't find any plausible explanation other than pure and simple anti-Semitism, but if my colleagues feel you can be constructive editing other fields, then I won't stand in their way. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
SpicyHabaneros (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Mistakes were made, admittedly. My motivations were decent, but I went about it in an undecent and undignified way. I hope to prove to be a valuable contributor in the future... SpicyHabaneros (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
We can only judge by what we've seen you do here on Wikipedia, and what I've seen is a desire to change the narrative concerning Leo Frank from what is supported by reputable scholarship to something espoused as a cause celebre by bigots, using completely nonsensical sources, such as extremist blogs and agitprop aggregators that are entirely at odds with this encyclopedia's policies. I do not feel comfortable unblocking you. Acroterion (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2024 (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.
I concede entirely my diction and tone was not appropriate and aim to do better in the future. The dispersions made against other users was especially uncalled-for. Holding strong personal opinions on the matter I became rash and emotional. After having gone back and reread my posts I experience a deep & disgraceful feeling. My judgement was not with me during some of these posts to which I am highly embarassed. The only thing I can do is to take this as a lesson and not repeat this classic mistake going forward, not just here but in all aspects where it can be applied.
If necessary, the utilization of the antiquated method whereby folks would, during the time whereby they were feeling impassioned from a debte on an exciting subject, write a heated letter saying what they really feel. Except instead of sending the letter immediately, the letter would be withehld until the next day. By that time the fiery state of mind would have largely passed. With a solid sound of mind, one would reread the letter. Almost always the day-old letter never gets sent as it was written. Instead, a much more understanding version takes its place and renders a much more favorable response. The same principle I plan to use here to avoid this flagrant type of mistake.
The sources I provided were not acceptable. I cannot state this anyore simply than that. With hindsight, I regret linking them. Understand, if you will, my position at the time. Holding strong views on the matter, I sought sources to substantiate them for this community and the public at large. Alas, I was not able to find any with One exception. A handful of copies from the front pages of various newspaper headlines front in the heated days/weeks/months/years following the murder of Mary Phagan. Most of these newspapers were not the flame-fanning yellow journalism type publications either. However, this was not possible because the page is under such scrutiny -—no photos or media can be added at this time. This is mostly beside the point, however.
Looking back, I definitely should have let it be at this point and not pushed the matter further. I messed up, I have excuses, but that doesn't absolve me of my culpability. I am appealing to your good graces to please exercise leniency and please remove my block. A combination of posting whilst emotional, of not understanding the complex web of standards/rules, and my intentions having been misconstrued due to poor diction/tone led to low quality posts on my end.
With great respect, I must push back on one part of your reply. Politely. I must tell you very stragihtforwardly that your belief regarding my motivations were fueled by "pure and simple anti-Semitism" are false - though it is my fault for having used such strong and misleading language that was bound to be misconstrued. Still, to assert that I hold antS-semitic views is esciically unbecoming of an adminsitrator. It is true, is it not, that both administrators and contributors are to assume good faith? If I am incorrect here please let me know. In more than one previous post I have stated that my mother was Jewish anI i consider myselfthniincally Jewish. I hold no prejudicial views other than a strong hatred of probable murders and probable rapists. I made this clear at one point long ago, but likely you have not seen it or did not recall ,it so I am emphasizing again, excuse my repitition if you in fact do recall this.
Therefore, I adamantly reassert my wholehearted belief that all I ever really wanted was to realign this article so that it conforms to Wikipedia standards (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ) with particular emphasis on limiting editorial bias. The denigration of other users, the use of sources which are very much unacceptable, the ignorance of standards/rules regarding my posts, and other mistakes I have acknowledged and apologized for. Nevertheless, this is one point which I must strongly dispute. It can never be known by anybody besides myself what the true motivations were. I ask that you show me the assumption of good faith which I failed to show others, admittedly.
As a new contributor, I am still learning every day the standards and rules as well as where/when/how to post, In addition, there are many functions that can be utilized. There is a great deal to learn and I am trying my hardest, but it just takes time. I hope this is taken into consideration upon careful reflection with this request.
Going forward, I look towards the many various topics which interest me the most. Maritime shipping is one niche area I am very much interested in, and having read some articles earlier today there was one area I wanted to add with a source. Sadly, it was here that I found out about my having been blocked indefinitely. Other topics include current political taking-heads e.g., Charles Murphy whom I wanted to give input on earlier today. The RfC page was rich with various topics that contributors were seeking input on. I was especially excited to contribute here, in a respectful and constructive way of course. There are many others topics too, though I find most articles that interest me have already been fleshed out to the furthest possibility given the current sources. This is not an extensive list, just a few things that come to my mind currently. In addition to branching out to other unrelated and less controversial topics, I came to the conclusion that if an admin would be kind enough and show restraint I would not only avoid the Leo Frank article entirely, but stay away from any article that is remotely controversial without having high-quality, reliable sources to substantiate my views.
I hope this adequately touches on your concerns, and serves to sincerely ameliorate the reputation which I have rightfully earned up to this point. This will likely be my final appeal to remove this unblock, unless there is another question or inquiry which I have yet to touch on. I do not believe there are any others, but will wait and see for now. There is a bright future for me here on Wikipedia for me I truly believe... Though not in the Leo Frank article, of course. Finally, I want to end this with a blanket apology to those users whom I disparaged needlessly. I hope that they, regardless of the decision made, can perhaps come to some understanding of my motivations and the reasoning behind the multiple mistakes which I have made.
Again, I appreciate your consideration and want to especially thank your explanation/tips on posting here, as I have found it hard to master the complex web standards, rules, & functions unique to Wikipedia.
Sincerely, SpicyHabaneros. SpicyHabaneros (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Assume good faith" is not a suicide pact. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, cites magazines that "praised Adolf Hitler[...]and lamented his death" like a duck, is familiar with blogs that say extrajudicial lynchings are deserved and hosts an article called "in defense of Hitler" like a duck, we are not obligated to pretend that it's not obviously a duck.
- That said, I welcome review of my actions, so if and when you do get unblocked, feel free to raise the issue at one of the relevant noticeboards, and I will happily accept the review and criticism of my peers. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are getting at with this reply. I tried to explain my reasoning for using the sources I did, and admitted my error in doing so. Furthermore, it is possible for a loony site to contain both truth and wacky tidbits of info. Anybody who tries to find sources on the subject in question will indeed find it is strange that the internet seems to have been largely scrubed of decent sources. On the other hand, the possibility also exists that perhaps there are no decent sources because -—dare I say -—I am incorrect regarding my views? I should acknowledge that here and now, though I still hold my original beliefs, I have been forced to consider that it is at the very least possible that I am incorrect. After all, surely there should be some decent sources out there. Alas, none could be found. Nevertheless, the specific pages I linked I reviewed and agreed with the specific facts on those specific pages. That doesn't mean they were acceptable sources, however. Finally, the nature of my sources doesn't mean that other sources used, in particular there remain over a dozen cited sources based on Parade (musical). This is a textbook case of fiction, and is somehow allowed to be presented as fact.
- No longer do I care about that article. I'll take my loss. It is a matter of sources and I cannot hope to win that fight and understand that now. I regret getting so involved in it, and especially regret my diction and tone. What is done cannot be changed is done. I can only ask for forgiveness, take this as a learning lesson, and branch off into other less controversial topics and add content with valuable sources going… that is, if an admin sees it fit to give me another chance. Regardless, I have apologized once and will do so again. But not a 3rd time. I have made my peace and wish you all the best.
- Cheers, SpicyHabaneros. SpicyHabaneros (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
SpicyHabaneros (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Would kindly request an uninvolved administrator look over my appeal SpicyHabaneros (talk) 9:05 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
OK, you got it. So not finding reliable sources that said what you wanted to say, you chose those that were, well. . . .See boilerplate. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2024 (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.
I will refrain from repeating what I have previously written, but I would like to briefly address the following points. Recently, an administrator who was involved in the discussion leading to my punishments rejected my appeal. It is worth noting that this administrator expressed discomfort with my focus on a single topic on Wikipedia. While I acknowledge this to be true and have admitted my mistake. Importantly, I am uncertain how this issue can be resolved if I am blocked from contributing to other subjects. I have already provided numerous examples of different topics that I intend to dedicate my time, energy, and effort towards. Furthermore, I have explicitly stated that I have no intention of continuing with the controversial Leo Frank article that I have already covered much to my own demise.
The administrator has raised concerns about the sources I have utilized. In hindsight, I share the same reservations. I have repeatedly acknowledged my understanding of why these sources were deemed inappropriate and have explained why I reluctantly resorted to using them. It is peculiar that these were the only available sources at the time, particularly considering the sensitive nature of the subject. How is it possible that every reliable source is in complete agreement? Nevertheless, the validity of other sources (i.e., a fictional representation of the Broadway play Parade cited over a dozen times) does not justify the inclusion of clearly anti-Semitic sources. Wikipedia should not be at the forefront of the information stream; instead, we should exercise caution and rely on reliable sources. In the absence of such sources, it is better to refrain from adding any information. This was my most significant mistake. My main point is that I acknowledge the inappropriateness of my sources and understand which sources I should have used and will use in the future.
In conclusion, I kindly request that another administrator review my previous statements and reconsider the indefinite ban.
Kind regards, SpicyHabaneros
- This [1] doesn't make me an "involved administrator." I was dealing with your inappropriate conduct on that talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)