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 have not harassed any user. All I have ever done on wikipedia is leave 3 comments asking for a malicious user to stop mass deleting articles Jejd99 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 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.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
I have not harassed any user and I don't see why the first appeal was rejected. I have read the policy and not contravened anything in it. Even if I had broken any rules it says I first need a warning first and that the ban starts at 24 hours, not an indefinite ban without warning. If I can actually be given a specific reason why I was banned then I am happy to apologise but I can't apologise for breaking a rule I haven't broken!Jejd99 (talk) 1:27 pm, 11 November 2024, Monday (1 month, 6 days ago) (UTC−9)
I did not know the process about stopping articles being deleted but I do now thanks to the comment from discospinster at the top of the page. However this has nothing to do with harassment which is why it says I have been banned Jejd99 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is where you're supposed to report users for vandalising pages. But that doesn't make that a good edit. The page at WP:VANDAL is pretty long, but I recommend reading that one and WP:AGF. Then I think you'll be able to answer the question. -- asilvering (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so I can't say someone isn't acting in good faith then? I said that to try and say a policy said user had broken but I will withdraw it in that case Jejd99 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is that I shouldn't be assuming bad faith from another user without providing evidence. I am happy to accept that I shouldn't have done that although I still don't see how that is breaking the harassment policy. What the admin who banned me is implying in the above comment is that I was harassing a user by tracking their actions, which is a ridiculous accusation in and of itself but even if it were true that I was tracking a particular user, it specifically says this isn't against the harassment policy on the second last paragraph on the policy page itself. I'm happy to be told where I have done the process run such as like you have done but that shouldn't be a reason to ban me for a different policy entirely Jejd99 (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not quite, but I think you're getting there, so I'll explain. When you report someone at AIV, you're saying that their edits unambiguously constitute vandalism, which we define as behaviour deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. So by reporting ItsKesha to AIV for nominating various articles for deletion, what you were saying was that their edits were unambiguously, obviously intended as a way to destroy the encyclopedia. There are two significant problems there: one, it means you've completely failed to assume good faith on ItsKesha's part, and you had no reason to do that (people can make very bad edits and not be intending to damage the encyclopedia); two, it means you're saying that a very normal kind of edit (nominating something for deletion) is unambiguously vandalism, and no admin is going to believe that. So it was harassment, in that the effect was that you were accusing ItsKesha of being out to destroy the place, and additionally it was an inappropriate thing to take to AIV (even if ItsKesha is trying to harm the encyclopedia).
I know you disagree with this, which is fine - you can be as upset at ItsKesha's actions as you like, and you won't be alone there. But do you at least understand the logic here? -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the logic. I agree that if it was the odd article then the second assumption would have been unreasonable but I think it was justified when it is literally hundreds of articles about the same topic at once, leaving no room for anyone to reasonably edit them all to sufficient quality. There probably are merits to some or even most of them being deleted but it isn't productive to just say "unnotable darts player, all my warmest wishes" and refuse to entertain opinions to the contrary or answer very basic concerns that other users have about the behaviour of the user (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive358#Can_an_uninvolved_admin_please_step_in_over_toxicity_and_BATTLEGROUND_at_darts-related_pages or the users own talk page, it isn't just me with concerns!) I still believe the reporting of the user was justified (which you are welcome to disagree on) however I accept that I didn't do it in the correct manner. I'm happy to agree to disagree that this is harassment as opposed to a misunderstanding of the exact wording of the policy.
Thank you though for actually explaining things to me unlike the other admins in this process. I can't say I'm particularly motivated to want to start editing articles even if the ban is lifted as I am not convinced the articles would stay online even if done properly but at least I understand the processes better now if I ever do! Jejd99 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: Yes, but there's a bunch of stale data and the rest is Possible. The article overlap (including deleted articles) is impressive for someone with only a handful edits though!-- Ponyobons mots23:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
