User talk:Underwoods Witch

Welcome!

Hello, Underwoods Witch, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aug 23

Please read wp:not and wp:spa. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:bite. I have like, 10 edits only. A rational mind wouldn't expect a huge variety of subjects yet. Thank you for understanding that I need time to make more edits! Underwoods Witch (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But so far all of your edits have been to promote one specific and very narrow POV (in a rather aggressive way, describing articles as asinine for example). It might be best to edit in less contentious or controversial areas, and not jump in at the deep end or suggest users do not have rational minds (read wp:npa, which you have breached more or less from your first edit, implying users are racist for example). Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No they haven't. I have two ongoing conversations. One about witchcraft, and another about bogus sources being used in cunning folk. By next werk, i may be discussing trains or spoons (which are actually more interesting than most people would think), but it's only been a few hours. Let me wade into a couple conversations before trying to manage 10 at once Underwoods Witch (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

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 ~~~~}}. Lourdes 10:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summary, misleading tendentious, baiting, misdirected racism accusations, misdirected persecution accusations... These are your initial edits to Wikipedia and these are disruptive. To prevent similar such further disruption, I am blocking you indefinitely with immediate effect. Thank you, Lourdes 10:46, 21 August 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize if I made men feel uncomfortable by calling them out in their safe space. As a woman, I will know better than to speak up when men are speaking, per Wikipedia policy i guess. Underwoods Witch (talk) 15:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Obvious troll is obvious. WP:GAB explains how to write an unblock request in a manner that is not so obviously inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2023 (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.

I support the unblocking of this editor. I do not see a progressive series of warnings about any of the behaviors cited by the blocking admin. Blocking someone who has received no formal warnings at all seems extreme. Skyerise (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise I'm not sure what your interest is here, but there is no requirement for going through every level of warnings, or for any warnings at all. Admins are empowered to act to prevent disruption as is necessary, and sometimes that requires not warning. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

horses eye back

@User:Horse Eye's Back: Im currently banned for replying to a user who called me emotional. Why are you pinging me to mock me on the Witchcraft article talk page? I'm already blocked, have fun not at my expense. Underwoods Witch (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious as to whether or not you could actually influence wikipedia with your faith tradition, that is the opposite of mocking. Did you ever end up weaving a cantrip to keep uninitiated editors off of the topic? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you were able to find this despite not being pinged correctly. How much time do you spend trying to message blocked editors? You should be happy it isn't considered disruptive to be a jerk to people here Underwoods Witch (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged by the edit in this diff[1]. I'm still curious about your faith tradition... Does it involve invoking spirits or other beings? If so would you consider it kosher off-wiki canvassing wise? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kosher? There is lots of kosher things not on Wikipedia, entire aisles at some stores even. Are you trying to ask if i summon spirits, and if do, are they considered canvassed? I dunno, i guess if some ghosts appear with accounts you can ask if they came from my summoning circle, or just wandered on in. Underwoods Witch (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep an eye out, if it matters to you I had no idea that you were blocked when I tagged you originally. If I had I probably wouldn't have. Wish you the best. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I appear to have been blocked after no discussion, followed immediately by another uninvolved editor jumping in to mock me. If unblocked I will avoid religious topics, and not let people know I'm a woman, to help keep things calm. Were there links to policies i should have read, could someone provide these to me? Underwoods Witch (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Perhaps WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND for starters. You haven't been asked to hide that you are a woman. There isn't a requirement for a discussion before a block, and I think it would be a bad idea for there to be one now. Agreeing to avoid the topic area is a start, but we will then need to know what edits you will make instead. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2023 (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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

To answer 331dot, I would mostly copy edit in areas related to food. Check out my most recent edits before my block. They are entirely non controversial and about food and related areas. Again, I would stay away from religious topics or anything that seems like more argument than article fixing Underwoods Witch (talk) 05:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I am happy to be able to give you another chance. As you can see below, this is done with the agreement of the administrators who declined your previous unblock requests, and of Lourdes (particularly significant, as she blocked you in the first place). Welcome back to contributing you Wikipedia; I hope you will now have a successful time doing so. JBW (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To help administrators evaluate your unblock request, please answer the following questions below:

What behaviours led to the block, and why were they wrong?
What will you do in the future to avoid this behaviour again if unblocked?

Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720::

What behaviors led to the block? Being tenditious, as per Wikipedia standards led to some of it. I took someone's response for consensus in one instance when they weren't actually clearly in agreement, as though Wikipedia was reddit. I won't do that any further. What other behavior? I shouldn't edit about articles i care about at a level more than "this is interesting". Nothing about my politics, religion, or the dark places in between those things. I will stick to topics I'm "merely" interested in, like foods, restaurants, and some popular music maybe. Anything else risks an argument deeper than "prove it"

What will I do to avoid it? Again, stay in areas where i can't see my opinions being so passionate as to cause issues. We may not agree on what's in a curry, and if your sources prove me wrong... I'm updating my personal cookbook Underwoods Witch (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any good reason, in the light of the assurances Underwoods Witch has given above, not to give her another chance. Her approach now is very different what it was, and it seems to me she has substantially addressed the concerns. @Lourdes, Yamla, 331dot, and Z1720:, do any of you wish to express an opinion? JBW (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections. I'm hopeful in this case. --Yamla (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. I defer to your judgment JBW. Z1720 (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor with such a super sense of humour should put her English and literary skills to good effect. I am surprised they got off on the wrong foot -- we could have been good friends (maybe still....). Jokes apart. All good here. Thanks, Lourdes 15:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Virtuous Pedophiles. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you to get consensus for your challenged version. Use the article talk page, get a wp:3o if the talk page doesn't get attention. Underwoods Witch (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

--Blablubbs (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]