User talk:Helvitica Bold: Difference between revisions

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Michael (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

UNBLOCK REQUEST

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

• This was my first offense of any kind. * It was a permanent block. * He deleted my user page too. * The block reason was "advertising or promotion", not "vandalism". But I don't have anything to do with the parody site I linked to, I just saw it on the net. He never even asked me if I was associated with it, which one would think would be the bare minimum before blocking someone permanently. * He also blocked my email to prevent me from asking him about it. That seems strange, since the first thing you're supposed to when requesting unblock is contact the blocker. * The strangest thing of all: The "abuse log" gives a different reason for the block: "Vandalism-only account", However this is the the only one of my 200+ edits ever even reverted, and I have certainly never been accused of vandalism before. And lots of my edits were to advanced math articles, like, like Tangent Space, Poincaré algebra, Metric Tensor, Lagrangian , and Metric Space, meaning I'm a serious editor, not a kid here for vandalism. Though I was blocked a month ago, I'm only requesting unblock now because I keep seeing desperately needed improvements and clarifications in the science articles, and it grinds on me that I can't make the fixes or make info more readable to people who don't understand the topics. On the web, I saw a parody site of a topic, thought it was hilarious, and in an uncharacteristic seizure of impulsive bad judgement, I added it to the external links list for the topic here at wikipedia. I figured it would be eventually deleted, and that it wasn't a big deal like altering an article body would be. But if I had known that "vandalism" is this serious at Wikipedia, I never would have even considered it. It should go without saying that I won't add any more "funny" external links. If I had known it was this kind of serious, I certainly never would have in the first place. Even if I'm not unblocked, I'd like to request that the reason be changed to "vandalism" rather than "advertising", because "advertising" is factually incorrect since the site I linked to is not mine. If the reason is 'advertising", wikipedia is officially stating something bad about me that is not true. Badmouthing living persons when it even *might* be untrue is supposedly a huge big deal at wikipedia (as it should be). HelviticaBold)

Accept reason:

The reason given in the block log is "Vandalism-only account". (I have no idea where you get "advertising" as the reason.) I have looked at a large sample of your edits, and apart from your user page I have not found a single edit which could possibly be regarded as vandalism. Even the user page would, in my opinion, justify at most a warning, not an indefinite block. I am totally bewildered how anyone can call this a "vandalism-only account". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! But now I'm worried

You unblocked me (thanks!), but why does this page say that my unblock request was declined? Software error at wiki? I don't like it when bad weird things happen that I don't understand.

Also, see my user page. It was deleted as advertising, even though it had no links in it, didn't mention any products, and didn't suggest that people buy anything, do anything, or visit any web sites.

I'm confused about what is happening to me here. Who is this mike7? What does he have against me? If I ask him why he thought my edits were vandalism-only and why my user page is advertising, can he do something else bad to me instead of just telling me the answer, or is it safe here to ask an administrator who blocked you why he did it without him getting furious and making revenge because I asked him politely?

It sounds like a silly question, but look what just happened. He called 200 serious math and science edits a "vandalism only account".

In the back of my mind I thought of administrators here like benevolent parents who do a lot of hard work for free, but this is disappointing, and if he makes revenge when I ask why he did it, scary. I feel like I was just attacked and raped, and that he'll hit me again if I tell the police. HelviticaBold 22:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Helvitica Bold - The block came following your inclusion of content on the Abigail and Brittany Hensel article that led to the need for deletion revision. The reason for the block really should have been "vandalism" as opposed to "vandalism-only account", but your user page read, "[She is] eager to read this when she's sober to see WTF she posted on the internet THIS time." That, coupled with your (now-deleted) edit to the aforementioned article, made your account (despite its many positive contributions) seem suspect. Given your past constructive edits, it also seemed possible that your account may have been compromised. Had that been the case, leaving your account unblocked would have allowed for whomever had compromised the account to continue abusing editing privileges.

That said, I encourage you not to assume that you will be a victim of "revenge" for asking questions. As I recall, your account was actually reported at WP:AIV the day the block was instated, and my response was based on that report and a review of the situation - not on anything personal. Michael (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Mmm... okay, I feel better now. I'd like to point out for the record though, that "I am eager to read this when I'm sober to see WTF I posted on the internet this time" didn't refer to repeatedly vandalizing Wikipedia; it referred to crazy stuff I post in online forums (under my real name). I sometimes say "Oh shit, I shouldn't have posted that last night!"

Two more questions:

1- Why does this page say my unblock request was declined?

I'd like it changed please, because in the past month, I looked on websites that don't like Wikipedia, and it sounds like in this place, someone in an edit war would see it and tell everyone "Hey, she's supposed to be permanently blocked!" and tell an administrator friend to block me again. And we already observe that busy administrators don't always look into the relevant facts to decide whether to block someone permanently. And that's extremely backed up by people's stories on these anti-Wikipedia sites, some of which are shocking.

2- When are you going to restore my user page?

Did you not restore it on purpose, or was it an oversight?

3- If you're not going to restore it, why not,

since I scrupulously omitted any dirty, smutty, filthy, photos of me--even though when I look in the mirror, I don't see any dirt, smut, or filth.

Okay, make that three more questions!

...Oops, four:

4- Is my email still blocked?

HelviticaBold 04:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Helvetica, I stumbled across this from Recent Changes. For your first question, I think it was just a typo; JamesBWatson definitely did unblock you. I've boldly fixed it to say that it was accepted; I'll also drop him a line on his talk page to double check. That should mean that the Wikipedia email feature is available, as well. I'm not an admin myself, so I can't really answer your other questions, but happy editing! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)