User talk:Isonomia01

Archives

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).

Isonomia01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There are a couple reasons why I would like to be unblocked. 1. I want to fix the archive bot on my talk page, which is bugging me. It archived 6 sections to archive 150, and it is not listing archive 150 on the table in the right. I copied and pasted that from another user's page. I would like to ask how to do this on the teahouse. 2. There's nothing else that I want to do right now. But in the future I would like to continue to (a) correct typos in articles, (b) link key phrases to their respective articles. I know now that this is controversial but yesterday I wanted to improve the edit I made to the Sonoma County article, with regard for the feedback from Binksternet and Cullen. Of course I wanted to discuss this on the talk page, and ping the people who have expressed interest in partaking in or concerns about this edit, and wait for consensus before making the edit, and not making the edit if there is not consensus. But at this point there are other concerns, and I don't really want to think about that at all right now. I would also like to discuss possible edits on article talk pages, and possibly make edits to the articles after proposing them on the talk pages. And make new redirect pages where appropriate. If the reviewing administrator would like me to do anything else, feel free to let me know, preferably prior to adjudicating the unblock request. Likewise, if you have any questions for me, please feel more than welcome to ask. Thank you. Isonomia01 (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Those aren't reasons to unblock. Someone can fix the archive bot for you (not me, I try to avoid configuring archives). You must first address the reasons other editors have found your conduct concerning. Another admin has mentioned the standard offer. I suggest you consider that route to resuming editing. Acroterion (talk) 04:08, 30 December 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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Isonomia01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I support avoiding confrontation during consensus discussion and acknowledge that I could do a better job of that.
It is the viewpoint of the blocking administrator(s) that I treated Wikipedia like a "battleground". I understand that viewpoint. I will respect other editors, and I will respect consensus of the community. I promise that I will avoid conflict when it comes to discussing (or rather, not discussing) other people's behavior, and I will be more careful, and patient, when discussing topics that are potentially controversial. I also believe that my edits that were considered confrontational were relegated to mitigating situations where understanding is clearly justified, along with tolerance, based on the fact that the rules allowed me to file an AAR. Isonomia01 (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I suggest you take the standard offer and re-apply in 6 months time. PhilKnight (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2025 (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.

Unblock Request

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).

Isonomia01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm not entitled to "infinite patience". But I am entitled to at least one example supporting the allegations made against me. If it can't be explained why I was blocked in a factual manner (without aspersions), then I should be unblocked. I make positive contributions to the project. I did what I was supposed to do - that is, discuss disagreements politely. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutthroat_trout the Lahontan needs to be hyperlinked. Isonomia01 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2025 (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.

Note to reviewing admin. The many previous declined unblock requests have been archived by the archiving bot.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored them. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are more, so just a note to any reviewing admin that it's probably best to read through the archives anyway. -- asilvering (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to the ones from me being blocked before, not the current block. Please be clear. The first block was literally over reverting something once more than I should have, when I was the one who was using the talk page, and the other editor was making false allegations. I believe that I only asked to be unblocked once. The blocking administrators were asked to provide supporting examples and didn't. This time I was blocked because I filed an Administrative Action Review Request. Isonomia01 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested during the Administrative Action Review by other admins that you step back from interacting with me. Isonomia01 (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't blocked for filing an administrative review request. You were blocked because you used your request as forum for maligning anybody who disagreed with you and for treating Wikipedia as a battlegound. And yes, there's a lot of context that's in the history of this talkpage, including the comment I made about "infinite patience." I don't see that you're making any progress toward understanding why you were blocked, based on your comment above. Acroterion (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "[Y]ou used your request as forum for maligning anybody who disagreed with you". I did not malign anyone for disagreeing with me. Isonomia01 (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Context: This is after the last unblock request was rejected.

I've asked you if you have any examples supporting your assertions about my conduct.

I was banned because I filed a Administrative Action Review request.

I was polite and respectful during the course of that process.

Isonomia01 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Isonomia01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked because I filed an administrative review request. I was polite and respectful during that process. Isonomia01 (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The consensus of that review appears to me to be that you should be blocked indefinitely. Yamla (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2025 (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.

Because of repeated, repetitive unblock requests, I have revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I don't really object to removing TPA in this case, but I think you, specifically, being the one to revoke TPA is a really bad look given the circumstances. I think you should probably find someone else to assume this block for you. -- asilvering (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: You want to do it? I can unrevoke and you can revoke, seems like a lot of bother, but I understand your point.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'm similarly compromised, though less seriously. -- asilvering (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored TPA. My comment in the block log explains why.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revoke TPA. PhilKnight (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]