User talk:InedibleDevon

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Ciscocat. 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:

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hi Ciscocat! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Tom & Jerry (2021 American film). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I’ll go over the links in this text box. Thank you. InedibleDevon (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I want to clarify: is the block for 31 remaining hours (as of writing this) or 31 hours that have passed out of the five-day block declared on the admin board? InedibleDevon (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm not sure if this is true, but I think it means 31 remaining hours (as of the time you were blocked). So I think from when you were blocked, you'll become unblocked after 31 hours have elapsed from the block. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outing

I have removed the content you added as it violates WP:OUTING. You absolutely must not repost it. I will remove it from the history momentarily. --Yamla (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This makes complete sense, apologies. Is it possible for me to revise the post and omit links to personal information? InedibleDevon (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Provided you do not violate WP:OUTING, you are free to revise and repost that information. Please be very sure you have read and thoroughly understood WP:OUTING as it can be a little subtle at times. --Yamla (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed any direct links to outside info about the user, but retained mention of that activity. Also since you linked me to that page, I discovered guidelines I felt I could bring up that I felt were violated, is this fine? InedibleDevon (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential block appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello,

I respect the decision to place a block on my ability to edit, and I am in no rush to reverse or circumvent it. However, I didn’t think it would hurt to attempt to appeal the block and explain my perspective.

The user on the other end of this incident will claim that I have “cyber-stalked” him. It is true that they and I have a history prior to this squabble, but nothing I have done represents a violation of their privacy. To the contrary, although not relevant to the confines of Wikipedia, the user had a history of harassing users unprovoked, including mutuals of mine, on sites like Twitter and Letterboxd, over Tom & Jerry (2021 American film). I realize this isn’t necessarily important to the edit warring on this platform, but I do think it paints a picture regarding the motivations behind the user’s edits.

I can also say that I would never edit the pages in question if I didn’t feel I was actually contributing to or improving upon them. This user has exhibited quite an extreme fixation on the 2021 Tom & Jerry film, and I felt that their bias was negatively informing their contributions to that film’s page and going against WP:NPV. This includes unsourced and erroneous claims that elements of the production process were “claimed to be a world-first adoption in animation,” as well as being very adamant about the ambiguous claim that the film “innovated and introduced many software techniques.”

While not wholly relevant here, there is nothing significant about the methods they bring up regarding this film that are radically different from other animated projects; thus I believe this is misleading and excessive. Additionally, when I brought up Hotel Transylvania as an example of a film that used similar methods, the user began to make unnecessary edits to that film’s page, including moving the topic of animation into its own section without properly expanding it.

The user may argue that I was vandalizing the page, but I think a look at my edit history will show that I was often trying to erase these instances of bias; there were also times where I sought to embed quotations from the very sources they coveted in order to make the paragraph more succinct and clear. Although I surveilled their edit history, I do not believe my conduct falls under WP:HOUND as my own edits were made to correct errors regarding structure and citation. They also believe that I have ordered certain users to do my bidding; this is false, I have never had any external interactions with these users, nor did I command them to get involved.

Additionally, on several occasions, such as this one, the user has addressed me by my real-life name, which is a violation of WP:PRIVACY and if it’s possible, I would like this to be removed, as it brings me discomfort.Accusations of bias have also been directed by the user at other reputable editors. In our interactions on their user talk page they have called me a coward, an egotistical jerk, and told me to seek therapy, which is a violation of WP:NPA. (In the interest of transparency, some of my retorts are not much more civil.)

My modus operandi on Wikipedia has never been to contribute without good reason or putting thought into it, and I believe that continued to be the case with my edits during this incident. However, I can admit that my pre-existing feud with this person did colour my motivations. I regret that, and I apologize. I fully recognize and own the fact that I contributed to the warring, and I think that is a perfectly legitimate reason to sanction me. Nevertheless, I have shared all this to give further context regarding what happened and why. I would prefer to put this behind me, and in the future I am committed to contributing to Wikipedia in good faith without allowing baggage to get in the way.

Thank you.

InedibleDevon (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring. Please make a new unblock request and stay on that topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2024 (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.