User talk:Averroes 22

Archives: 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

August 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —valereee (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2021 (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).

Averroes 22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't know how this happened, I just was talking with other users about the last edits, I don't know how talk can be considered as "disruptive edits". They didn't give me any chance, and some continue using their personal opinions as arguments without giving any evidence [1]. How did me sinked his time as what he said here, while he participated in the discussion only once here. --Averroes 22 (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An appeal for unblock should include a description of your understanding of the reasons for your block and what you will do differently in the future. Instead you appear confused. I see from the ANI discussion that several highly experienced editors and administrators have patiently attempted to explain things to you, yet you persist in arguing. That is what appears to be a "time sink", not for any particular individual but collectively for the Wikipedia community. All of the information that you need to have has been given in that discussion. I encourage you to take a week or so to review what has been said to you, and actually read the policies and guidelines that others linked for you. Then, once you reach an understanding sufficient to formulate an appeal that explains your understanding of the reasons for this block, you may write another appeal. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2021 (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.

@Anachronist: I tried to understanding of the reasons for my block, but I couldn't find a clear reason for that. You can't block an editor for "time-sink", there is no Wikipedia policy says that. Why they participated in the discussion from the beginning if they are really feeling short of time? Also, I persisted in arguing because I want to see sources and evidences, not other editors' personal opinion about the spokesperson. --Averroes 22 (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is given as the reason for your block. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Where does it say this exactly? --Averroes 22 (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)}}[reply]

Are you serious? You're basically saying you cannot be bothered to read your block message above and follow the links in it. Sorry, there's nothing else I can tell you. Editing on Wikipedia requires the ability to comprehend what has been told to you. The block message is crystal clear.

Also, don't add commentary inside the declined unblock request. That isn't a dialogue area. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: I have check all links in the block message, I didn't find anything thing called "time-sink". --Averroes 22 (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Averroes, a time sink is an English colloquialism for something that causes people to waste their time. —valereee (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Yes, I know, I have mentioned this before, stop explaining simple things to me like I'm a four-year-old and then accusing me of not wanting to educate myself or not wanting to understand in order to waste time. --Averroes 22 (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So to be clear, what you're saying is that you understand exactly what a time sink is, but you wanted Anachronist to come back in here and explain why you wouldn't find a colloquial term in a formal statement of policy and why the term "disruptive editing" includes things like wasting other editors' time in endless explanations of policy to someone who either can't or won't understand? —valereee (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Yes, but I was not refusing to understand, I have explained this for you below, this block is a try to avoid the discussion with me, not really because "time-sink", You can't block a user because he refuse to accept the personal opinions of other editors which is not supported by source or evidence. --Averroes 22 (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the motivations of others is also a personal attack. In this case you are accusing me of blocking you so I personally could avoid discussion with you, which is at minimum an accusation of administrative abuse. Also if that were my nefarious plan, it doesn't seem to have worked out. —valereee (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Your assumption that I do not want to understand is an assumption of bad faith, I explained to you that your assumption is a wrong assumption, as I continued to argue because there was no evidence or source to support their claims, and you want to impose their personal opinions on me as if it were a Wikipedia policy. --Averroes 22 (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist and Valereee: You can block me indefinitely, I have no longer to be care, also a period of one month is too long period, and I think this request would be better than making the block only on certain pages. If you really think that I am making a disruptive edits, you should block me indefinitely, according to that Wikipedia policy. Also, you can prevent me from editing my talk page, it will not help me anymore. Wikipedia is taking a lot of my time, and in the end, bad faith is assumed. This is happened to me several times, even when I first blocked, after I have made an edit warring with a sock puppet. Wikipedia does not welcome everyone, I should have known this from the beginning. Thank you and have a nice day. --Averroes 22 (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2021 (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).

Averroes 22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My reasons are on the first appealing request above. You can at least make the block only on talk pages in order I can't "wasting time". The appealing request below doesn't contain any response of my arguments. Averroes 22 (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Perhaps the more relevant passage for your original block, and certainly now is that of a failure to get the point. This includes points such as Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time-wasting, for example, by continuing to say they don't understand what the problem is.. However, below in your conversation with editors you accuse them of things like not discussing the block with you, except there's a dozen comments that indicate otherwise. Valaree never mentioned a vote, yet you accused her of meaning that. Believe it or not, admins have more than dabbled in both consensus building and consensus assessment and as she noted, it was a consensus of a large number of editors, which means those who reason-back their decisions. With regard to your request, editors can't be allowed to continue with a namespace block on the talk page - that would make it impossible for you to resolve any future disputes properly, and almost certainly lead to an indefinite block. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2021 (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.

@Nosebagbear: I have never said that I didn't understand, they themselves wasted their time and started explaining basic things, and then she starting accusing me that I don't want to understand. Where does I accused them that they didn't discuss the block with me? So did you think that the opinions of others which is not supported by source or evidence a consensus? A personal opinion of tow (or three) editors can't be considered as a consensus. Ok, I will give you other request: You can block me indefinitely, I have no longer to be care, also a period of one month is too long period, and I think this request would be better than making the block only on certain pages. If you really think that I am making a disruptive edits, you should block me indefinitely, according to that Wikipedia policy. Also, you can prevent me from editing my talk page, it will not help me anymore. Wikipedia is taking a lot of my time, and in the end, bad faith is assumed. This is happened to me several times, even when I first blocked, after I have made an edit warring with a sock puppet. It seems that Wikipedia does not welcome everyone, I should have known this from the beginning. Thank you and have a nice day. --Averroes 22 (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2021 (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).

Averroes 22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My reasons are on the first appealing request above. You can at least make the block only on talk pages in order I can't "wasting time". Averroes 22 (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your behaviour here has convinced me unblocking you would be a mistake. I was seriously tempted to extend your block indefinitely once again, but decided not to do so. The last time I did this, you were extended a second chance. But I'll warn you, you are headed in that direction. Yamla (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2021 (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.

@Yamla: Did you see me now deny any Wikipedia policy? Can you explain to me what behaviour do you mean? --Averroes 22 (talk) 14:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: You can block me indefinitely, I have no longer to be care, also a period of one month is too long period, and I think this request would be better than making the block only on certain pages. If you really think that I am making a disruptive edits, you should block me indefinitely, according to that Wikipedia policy. Also, you can prevent me from editing my talk page, it will not help me anymore. Wikipedia is taking a lot of my time, and in the end, bad faith is assumed. This is happened to me several times, even when I first blocked, after I have made an edit warring with a sock puppet. It seems that Wikipedia does not welcome everyone, I should have known this from the beginning. Thank you and have a nice day. --Averroes 22 (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm a woman. You can enable Preferences>Gadgets>Browsing>Navigation Popups, which will allow you to hover over a username and see that, among other things about an editor. —valereee (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Averroes, in the block notice, it says "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions."

Wasting other editors' time is considered disruptive -- volunteer time is the most important resource we have, and it doesn't matter whether a given editor whose time you're wasting has plenty of it or not. There are better things they can do with it than argue with someone who absolutely refuses to understand and won't take steps to educate themselves. At some point -- and I think that ANI was pretty much past that -- it also becomes an issue of competence, which is also considered disruptive editing.

You seem to be capable of learning policy, but you're reading WP:Tag-teaming and WP:Hounding instead of stuff that will actually help you learn to edit productively. Go learn what people were trying to explain to you. Start with the multiple links provided in that ANI about consensus and reliable sources and statements made via press releases/public relations/official spokespersons. When you understand it well enough to at least explain what others were trying to say, come back and make a new unblock request that shows you at least understand. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: So do you consider my refusal of personal opinions which is not based on evidence a refusal to understand? The other editors who are got themselves into the discussion, and they discuss a lot on that page, so if you think that trying to resolve conflicts and explain things to other users is a waste of time you can go and ask them to stop trying to do this. Most of what they explained to me I knew before, and I didn't ask them to explain it to me, but they have wasted their time and they explain this to me, but I was not know that the function of the spokesperson is to lie or exaggerate things, but apparently this information is a personal opinion. Continuing accusing me that I do not want to understand is assuming bad faith, I am willing to concede any of my edits as I did previously and will do again provided there is a clear consensus with clear evidence. --Averroes 22 (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. No one was giving you a personal opinion. They were telling you how, by consensus, policy is interpreted. It's not one person's opinion. Here on wikipedia, policy settled through consensus represents literally thousands of people's opinions on any given issue. Sometimes tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. —valereee (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Really? You look didn't read this policy WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is NOT a vote, they should give evidence support what they claim. A personal opinion of tow (or three) editors can't be considered as consensus. --Averroes 22 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three days ago you said that now that you understood phrases like "You look didn't read this policy" could be interpreted as a personal attack, you would stop using it. Accusing someone of explaining policy without themselves having read that policy is indeed a personal attack, as it assumes they are operating in bad faith in a discussion. —valereee (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: "You look didn't read this" is not similar with "You look didn't read this well". Also assuming bad faith? I didn't mean that, because any one may forget something in the policy, and these words I used are figurative expressions. Is this comment in order to avoid replying to me? --Averroes 22 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

By request, this user is now indefinitely blocked with talk page access revoked. They may change their mind and apply via WP:UTRS for unblock consideration. Note that the indefinite part of the block is by request, but I think any reading of this page would show they were heading that way anyway. --Yamla (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 47094

UTRS appeal #47094 has been closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for UTRS appeal #47429. Cabayi (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]