User talk:Plorpy

Plorpy's talk page.

Plorpy's talk page

Plorpy (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Communication is required

Hey, Plorpy. I'm afraid communication isn't optional; you can read about that at WP:communication is required. Removing a message from your user talk doesn't make a concern go away, and an editor has expressed concern that you are continuing to make the same mistakes after there've been concerns expressed here. Please either come into the ANI section or respond here before editing again. Valereee (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee hi valereee- the complainer was unable to provide a single example of a bad-faith or erroneous edit among the nearly 3000 contributions I have made. I reasonably assumed they were being vexatious in their posts to my talk page. From past experience the best way to deal with these sorts of people is to ignore them. the burden is on them to provide specific examples of any significant editing errors or other rule breaking on my part. all the best, Plorpy (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I specifically pointed out three of your edits that were erroneous at ANI, following two very specific messages attempting to make you aware of that months apart. That you "reasonably assumed" I was being vexatious is your own baggage, and doesn't have any basis in anything I actually said. Remsense诉 20:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I would encourage any one to look at the specific instances mentioned by complainer and see for themselves. none of them are erroneous, none are in bad faith. best Plorpy (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think they're bad faith either, but they are obviously erroneous, per WP:SDNONE. Remsense诉 20:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I have followed the guidelines appropriately. I would encourage any objective editor or admin to actually look at my contributions in question. not only that, to consider the whole corpus of my contributions. the complainer seems primarily upset that I refused to acknowledge his posting on my talk page. Plorpy (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not my job to copy out what the guideline says verbatim, but a short description of Developmental stages of the large East Asian nation is not a helpful short description for History of China, as that article title is sufficiently detailed that an additional short description would not be helpful. Bears repeating that I could've explained this to you before; that's why communication is good. Remsense诉 20:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee appears there is no way to override this appeal. I have been communicating with you, the complainer, and other editors during this appeal, so obviously that is not the issue. I would again encourage you to review the actual edits and determine if they are worth closing my account. best Plorpy (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not your edits, the issue is your continued insistence that you will not communicate with certain editors according to your own personal tastes, which are ultimately incompatible with how everyone else abides by the civility policy. Remsense诉 20:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Set aside question of whether you are right or wrong, and address the reason for your block which is a refusal to communicate. If there are questions about your edits, then they need to be discussed. After the discussion, you may find you might need to modify your editing based on a revised understanding from the discussion, or maybe the person who asked about your edits comes away with a revised understanding and you don't change anything about your editing. Or maybe it's a bit of both. But none of that happens when you decide that you will not respond to any messages. -- Whpq (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Plorpy, I'm happy to unblock if you'll agree to keep responding and to respond to future concerns expressed here. The issue isn't whether your edits were correct. It's about refusing to communicate. Valereee (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

No objection to any other admin lifting this once this editor starts communicating. Valereee (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

the complainer was unable to provide a single example of a bad-faith or erroneous edit among the nearly 3000 contributions I have made. I reasonably assumed they were being vexatious in their posts to my talk page. From past experience the best way to deal with these sorts of people is to ignore them. the burden is on them to provide specific examples of any significant editing errors or other rule breaking on my part. all the best,re Plorpy (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Stating you will not communicate after being blocked for not communicating is 100% not addressing the reason for your block Whpq (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (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.

This wisdom from your past experience is not compatible with Wikipedia's civility policy, unfortunately. For the third time, communication is not optional. Remsense诉 20:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)