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).
I’m not sure what User:GeneralNotability wants to hear by way of “explanation”. I created one hoax article - not articles plural as he has stated - almost two years ago. I shouldn’t have done but I’m not sure what’s necessary as “explanation”. I’m a productive and positive editor that aside and an indefinite block seems disproportion. Amisom (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2020 (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'd like to register my opposition to unblocking a user who knowingly let a hoax article sit for two years while "editing productively" and ignored concerns about it for equally as long. GRINCHIDICAE🎄02:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This vandal does not seem to understand the situation or what a productive and positive editor actually is. This isn't something that was "done" and over, it is something that is still ongoing by virtue of this hoax information making it into at least 11 other sites. Putting the word explanation in quotes in the unblock request (twice) shows an arrogant disregard for this ongoing situation. At a minimum they should clean up the mess which they created with this hoax before being considered foran unblock (I will still oppose any unblock). // Timothy :: talk06:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: I note that the block explanation says, "unblock at your discretion once they've satisfactorily answered User:CaptainEek's question about whether they've made other hoaxes". To be fair to myself I have answered that ('No') and it's unclear what more is necessary. Requiring me to take [at least] six months out beause of something I did once nearly two years ago feels punitive and that's not what the blocking system is there for. Amisom (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amisom, My suggestion for you cleaning up your mess is simple: Go to every single site where this information is present, explain the situation and have the material deleted. This is an entirely reasonable beginning, but I highly doubt you will even start to do this. An unblock shouldn't even be mentioned before this is completely done.
You did not do this two years ago: this is an ongoing situation. This block is not punitive, it is preventative: Your continuing dismissive attitude towards this situation is reason to assume you do not understand the situation and I believe you will do this again given the opportunity. When you ignored posts about this ongoing situation until you were blocked, it showed you had no intention of answering for your actions, short of being blocked. I do not believe you regret your actions, I believe you regret being caught (your claim on other editors to AGF about your actions is completely gone). On top of all this you haven't even mentioned the needless work you created for others. The above replies show your sole concern is about how this impacts you, not other editors, not WP.
You do know that the mirror sites are run by robots right? They're not manually compiled. They don't accept contacts from members of the public. Amisom (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How you correct the situation you created is your problem, not others. Spend the time you used to spend on WP figuring out a solution. // Timothy :: talk11:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have zero credibility on determining what is constructive, and I disagree it is impossible, start with WHOIS lookup for domain contact information. // Timothy :: talk17:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TimothyBlue, knock it off. I have never seen an administrator care about mirror sites in unblock requests. What those sites do or do not do with our information is not our problem, and expecting a blocked editor to take offwiki action like this is basically unacceptable as an unblock condition, both from a practical perspective and a "things that we can reasonably ask someone to do" perspective. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy’s suggestion (while doubtless made in goood faith) was unrealistic and far from sensible. I’m not sure why you think we should overlook this fact just beveusse he’s a long-standing excellent contributor and threatening to leave: those things don’t somehow magically make his proposal sensible. Amisom (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The requests may or may not be unreasonable, but calling them harassing, with all the baggage that word carries, is too strong. Amisom: you say that TimothyBlue's suggestion was "doubtless made in good faith", but earlier you also all but claimed he deliberately suggested impossible conditions so you would never be unblocked. I'm not sure what gives. – Teratix₵23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a hoax article is one thing. Sitting on the article for two years without informing anyone is another – and without intervention I don't see any reason this situation would have changed. Wilfully ignoring multiple editors' concerns posted on their talk page – to the point where they needed to be blocked before they started taking them seriously – is just the icing on the cake, and spending as much time comparing themselves to Sisyphus as reflecting on their own conduct in unblock discussions is the cherry on top. I don't see any evidence these behaviours will change if Amisom is unblocked. If they are ever unblocked, at a bare minimum they should be indefinitely required to submit their articles through AfC. – Teratix₵23:53, 18 December 2020 (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).
The blocking admin said I shouldn't be unblocked until I answered a specified question. I have answered it. The blocking admin has thus advised me to file a new unblock request.
Decline reason:
Given Amisom's failure to be accountable for their edits prior to their block, I don't see a compelling reason to unblock at this time, and would suggest that Amisom should pursue the standard offer route to unblock if they wish to regain the community's trust. signed, Rosguilltalk18:33, 22 December 2020 (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.
@Rosguill: In what sense have I failed to be accountable? I accept that I created a hoax. I’ve confirmed that I haven’t created more than one. I’ve asked what people would like me to do about this and (aside from one suggestion so daft that it was rejected by the blocking admin) there has been no response. What more do you think I should of done? Amisom (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The unaccountability was prior to having been blocked, when you failed to engage with questions about your prior edits, as well as sitting on a hoax for 2 years. There is no easy way to repair a violation of trust, and the standard offer, linked above, is the main process by which editors are expected to do so. signed, Rosguilltalk18:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorizedfor all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
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).
This is a WP:OFFER application to be unblocked. It's been six months. I've not socked. I've also complied with the condition in the block log, ie that I confirm whether or nto I made other hoaxes (I haven't). I'm also not going to make other hoaxes because I recognise that it misleads people and wastes time.
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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I'm sorry but I did not evade any block. I work in the office of a large place o worship outside London, and have three colleagues. I assume we share an IP address because that's where I edit from and maybe it was one of them. I don't know how User:Yamla identified this edit or what it was, but if they can give details I'mj happy to ask colleagues if it ws them?
Decline reason:
We get this sort of request all the time and have to decline it because there's no way to verify it beyond taking your word for it (However, I should add that while I don't have checkuser access myself, and never have, I do know enough about how it works to advise you that even in this situation it's not impossible to distinguish three computers in the same workplace, on the same node). — Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 27 June 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.
Much like myself, Yamla has access to the checkuser tool. This allows us to see information from system logs such as what browser made the edit, and what IP. My opinion is that the device that was used to make the logged-out edit in question is Technically indistinguishable from the device that was used to edit with this account. !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ21:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following your appeal to the Arbitration Committee, I've removed the checkuser portion of the block, but you will still need to address hoax issue. This is without particular comment on who is responsible for that edit—there was but the one edit and the explanation in the appeal is plausible. The more important issue is the creation of hoax articles. Maxim(talk)15:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:OFFER application to be unblocked. It's been six months. I've not socked. I've also complied with the condition in the block log, ie that I confirm whether or nto I made other hoaxes (I haven't). I'm also not going to make other hoaxes because I recognise that it misleads people and wastes time. Note: my previous request for WP:OFFER was turned down following a checkuers, but that checkuser has now been overturned byt he Arbitration committee, so I would like it to be considered afresh please.
An indefinite requirement to put all future page creations for the mainspace through the WP:AFC process instead
An indefinite prohibition of using offline or paywalled sources for the addition or restoration of any material to existing mainspace pages. If you add a citation to an existing mainspace page, it has to contain a link to an easily accessible Internet source.
An indefinite prohibition of re-adding material that you had originally added, and that has afterwards been removed by someone else for verifiability or neutrality concerns. You are welcome to create a discussion on the article's talk page if this happens, but you must not re-add the material if other users have expressed disagreement about its inclusion. If a consensus for inclusion is reached, someone else can re-add the material on your behalf. This is a much stricter interpretation of the edit warring policy than WP:3RR, and violating this restriction is defined as edit warring.
If there is a way back, it won't be an easy one. I have revoked extended-confirmation and rollback for now; you'll need to slowly re-build your reputation from lower than zero. I propose the following binding unblock conditions:
An indefinite prohibition of directly creating (including creating by moving, and including the replacement of a redirect by actual content) pages – any kind of pages, even redirects and disambiguations – in the article namespace.
An indefinite requirement to put all future page creations for the mainspace through the WP:AFC process instead: By creating a draft in the Draft namespace (not the User namespace), adding {{subst:AfC draft}} to it and following its instructions.
An indefinite requirement to place the following code at the very top of any new page created by you in the Article or Draft namespace: {{ombox|type=speedy|text=The creator of this page has previously created [[Jeanette Magel]], a <strong>hoax article</strong>. Do not review this page unless you, yourself, have thoroughly verified its accuracy. This notice must not be removed until the page has been accepted and moved to the mainspace.}} – and not to modify or remove this notice yourself, even after the article has been accepted and moved. This requirement, with "The creator" replaced by "An editor", also applies to existing drafts if you significantly extend them, add any offline or paywalled source to them, or submit them for review.
An indefinite prohibition of using offline or paywalled sources for the addition or restoration of any material to existing mainspace pages. If you add a citation to an existing mainspace page, it has to contain a link to an easily accessible Internet source.
An indefinite prohibition of re-adding material that you had originally added, and that has afterwards been removed by someone else for verifiability or neutrality concerns. You are welcome to create a discussion on the article's talk page if this happens, but you must not re-add the material if other users have expressed disagreement about its inclusion. If a consensus for inclusion is reached, someone else can re-add the material on your behalf. This is a much stricter interpretation of the edit warring policy than WP:3RR, and violating this restriction is defined as edit warring.
Additionally:
Your editing will likely be watched carefully, and possibly with a noticeable amount of general distrust, so you may receive multiple notifications about multiple concerns from the same user. You agree that this is expectable and a necessary evil after your hoax creation, and not a form of harassment – specifically not "hounding".
You will be accountable for your contributions, similar to what is usually required from administrators per WP:ADMINACCT and WP:ADMINCOND. Specifically, you will not dismiss others' concerns because they are not administrators ([2], [3]). You will neither ignore, nor remove without answer, any messages written by human editors on your talk page. If you repeatedly do so, you may be re-blocked, and you agree that an overly dismissive response to reasonable concerns can be a block-justifying issue by itself (cf. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS/WP:IDHT).
You will stay in the top three sections of the Graham's hierarchy of disagreement pyramid on article talk pages and in other content-related discussions, such as deletion discussions: Refutation and counterarguments are fine, pure contradiction is problematic, responding to others' tone or ad hominem answers in such discussions may lead to a re-block without any warning. Specifically, you will not respond to others by telling them "don't be so patronising" ([4]) or by accusing them of lying ([5]).
These conditions can then be appealed at WP:AN at any time, and the exceptions at WP:BANEX apply.
If you explicitly agree to these conditions, I'm in favor of an unblock and will implement it unless there are objections from other administrators, especially GeneralNotability, EdJohnston or SilkTork.
ToBeFree. I am not entirely comfortable with this user. They are intelligent, but also somewhat devious (wikilawering over technicalities rather than getting the point and apologising), dishonest (creating a convincing hoax article), combative, opiniated, and problematic. They tend to get into arguments with people over minor incidents, and will take these minor matters to ANI, thus dragging in others, and wasting volunteers' time. On looking back through their contributions, they don't stand out at the moment as being a genuine asset to the project: they add little of quality, spending most of their time removing material. On the other hand, the material they remove is often inappropriate, so they are doing the right thing. Though the way they remove it can lead to misunderstandings and arguments, they have of late been using the talkpage to get consensus to remove material, which is a positive step forward. And I feel that on the whole they are moving toward becoming a useful member of the project.
As you have laid out some helpful restrictions, and there are positive signs in Amisom's recent editing, I am not going to object to the unblocking. Perhaps the restrictions on creating pages could be softened. Amisom has only created four pages (and the other three are not hoaxes), so this is not an area they are interested in (their main area of interest is in removing material rather than adding, and - as I say above, they seem to have a good nose for finding inappropriate material) - indeed, I would like them to become more involved in adding material, and in creating pages, as I feel that is useful in giving them a greater understanding of Wikipedia. An editor is more rounded when they are involved in both removing and adding material.
I haven't looked fully into Amisom's history, but it might be possible that their combative and uncooperative stance may stem from resentment when new at poor treatment from more experienced users. When I was a new user I experienced poor treatment from experienced users. I think we could as a community be more welcoming and protective of new users, especially those who make mistakes. It is almost inevitable that new users will make mistakes, and we shouldn't be ramming those mistakes down their throat, we should instead be more supportive and helpful.
On the article creation restrictions, I would suggest dropping the first and third restriction, and modifying the second one to just putting article creations through AFC. I don't think creating hoax articles is why Amisom is here; and though they don't appear to have explained themselves, I see it as an intellectual experiment, the answer to which they have now found, and so would be unlikely to repeat again - especially knowing that if they did they would be blocked indefinitely.
Also, informally, I would suggest to Amisom that if they have removed material and someone has objected or reverted, that they not revert or revert back, but reach out to an admin, and I'll include myself in that, to look into the matter. And if they feel they wish to take a matter to ANI, that they first reach out to an admin, and I include myself in that, to discuss the matter first. And that they follow the advice of the admin. Though, of course, if they feel that they can handle the situation themselves first by talking it through calmly and politely on the talkpage, so much the better. But if that starts to go badly, then the option to reach out to an admin will still be there.
Thank you very much, SilkTork, for the detailed analysis! I'm fine with adjusting the restrictions as described by you, and would also be interested in Amisom's opinion about this all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Amisom! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from regulations.gov, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Bwrs (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for sending the previous message -- you were right to remove that content. However, this time it looks like you accidentally added it back in somehow, so I've re-removed it. — Garrett W. {☎✍}18:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect Wikipedia:Listicle has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 24 § Wikipedia:Listicle until a consensus is reached. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)