User talk:Keyakakushi46
Fuck botspam
October 2017[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Alex Shih (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Keyakakushi46 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What spurious accusations are these? I've made encyclopediaic edits and corrections, if someone disagrees I invite them to show some evidence to the contrary. E: > SPA created to target certain user Which user? please show evidence of this. > blatant POV-pushing across different fields Which POV have I been pushing? Show some evidence. > see contribution history for details Show specific pieces of evidence, this is too broad. This is very low quality moderation on your part Alex Shih. Keyakakushi46 (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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. Yamla (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2017 (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.
- For the next reviewer: What initially caught my attention was Special:Diff/806707056, where it was one of the rare times I would describe an edit as downright blatant trolling. If this was an experienced editor, I would have issued a only warning. As I was reading through the contribution history of this account, I noticed that the account was created on 14:04, 16 August 2017, and immediately began engage in suspicious editing behavior against Volunteer Marek as indicated by Editor Interaction Analyser Timeline, which would probably need to checked by SPI. This AN/I thread offers some background context of the situation, and with the trolling over the Cynthia B. Lee article, I do not believe this account was created to contribute to encyclopedia in good faith. I would however be gladly to unblock this account myself if a third opinion does not find these evidence compelling. Thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Keyakakushi46 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
>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
Holy fucking shit how disingenuous can you be Yamla? My unblock request clearly addressed each very vague and unfounded reason given by Alex Shih.
> the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
It isn't as my commit history includes no damage done to wikipedia and claiming anything else is just blatant lying. I've pointed out untruths, corrected vandalisms and added very relevant information about a filesystem.
> 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.
Good job, you've demonstrated that you didn't even read the unblock request.
Ah wonderful retroactive justifying of a ban by Alex Shih.
>What initially caught my attention was Special:Diff/806707056, where it was one of the rare times I would describe an edit as downright blatant trolling.
So you are against people expressing an opinion that a completely unnoteworthy tidbit about an completely unnoteworthy and unnotable person is not DYK worthy? How do you suppose a quality of wikipedia could be kept even as somewhat non-shitty if people get banned for something this fucking minor? Do you really love echo-chambers this much?
>If this was an experienced editor, I would have issued a only warning.
Ah cool, discrimination at it's finest. Apparently WP:AGF only applies to established editors and new editors can just be disregarded like air. This is why wikipedia can't get new editors. You are the reason.
>As I was reading through the contribution history of this account, I noticed that the account was created on 14:04, 16 August 2017,
Oh woe, a new account! We can't let anyone new in our secret club!
>and immediately began engage in suspicious editing behavior against Volunteer Marek as indicated by Editor Interaction Analyser Timeline
I didn't engage in any kind of editing behavior against anyone. I did argue with him on talk pages, but isn't that what's supposed to happen when there is disagreement about the contents of an article? Is this not exactly what Wikipedia policies mandate? Apparently not. Apparently disagreeing with a long standing editor is now ban-worthy crime.
>which would probably need to checked by SPI.
Please don't cas Aspersions with no good evidence. I might not be the most experienced editor but that does not mean it's ok to accuse me all willy nilly like you are doing here. It's really baffling how this kind of behavior is ok for an admin.
>This AN/I thread offers some background context of the situation, and with the trolling over the Cynthia B. Lee article,
There was no trolling but a genuine belief that the article was not good quality and does not provide encyclopediac information about a notable person. Just because you disagree with me on this does not mean that I am trolling. Please stop trying to win arguments with ad hominems and present proper arguments.
>I do not believe this account was created to contribute to encyclopedia in good faith.
If you check my history you'll see I've been contributing encyclopediac information where I can and fixing vandalism when I see it. Just because you disagree about a single page with me is not good grounds for assuming that I am acting in bad faith.
>I would however be gladly to unblock this account myself if a third opinion does not find these evidence compelling.
No one is going to stand up for a new editor like me and you know it and that is why you seem to be using this opportunity to go on a power trip and bully me. Sure this is common behavior on wikipedia and a big reason for why the site is in such a bad shape currently, so ask yourself: Do you really want to be the reason for that?
Keyakakushi46 (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Request reinforces the need for the block. The next inappropriate unblock request will result in talk page access being revoked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:07, 30 October 2017 (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.
Keyakakushi46 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hey MSGJ, it would be good if you actually read the baseless accusations and discrimination that is happening here instead of dismissing me without a proper reply. You did not give a single bit of constructive criticism or a single word of response to why I think I should be unblocked. This also applies to Alex Shih and Yamla just as much. I request that the next admin actually reads the previous messages and responds in a meaningful way, instead of acting discriminatingly like you have. Is this really how you want Wikipedia to be perceived? As an echo chamber where you get banned for a disagreement and none of your arguments for unbanned are ever even read? Keyakakushi46 (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Talk page access revoked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2017 (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.