User talk:Krett12/Archive 4: Difference between revisions

Krett12 has asked for quick deletion of this user talk page. The reason for asking for deletion is: U1 (User request of page in user namespace) %5B%5BWP%3AQD%23U1%7CQD+U1%5D%5D%3A+User+page+or+subpage+where+user+asks+for+deletion If you think this user talk page should not be deleted, please add {{Wait}} below this message, and then say why on this user talk page's talk page. Please do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. Administrators, remember to check what links here, the page history (last edit), and the page log, before deletion.

Archive 1 2 3

You have no authority to change the date like that, not to mention that it was not fully agreed that all RfDs will close on the end of this year. On WP:ST there is a total of 1 agreement (not including original proposer) and 1 disagreement. Stop messing around with things you should not be involved in and contribute to articles instead. Chenzw  Talk  02:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the 18th, I issued you a final warning stating that you needed to find something productive to do for the project. A day later you were blocked for not being able to do so. Since the unblock has expired, I have seen multiple instances of you continuing to not show the competence required for this project. Your holiday card issue. Your reverts at Meow. Your unblock requests on your alternate account. Your can I get this oversighted edit. Your aBUSE filter title and overall thread/"mission" there. Your changes at the Chikki Panday ‎ RFD. This totally unnecessary edit.

These have all occurred in just about a week. You clearly are not getting the point and the warnings. Since the block, you've made just over 60 edits. Two to articles. Two. You're not being a productive member of the project. As such, I have blocked you for the next month. Other admins are always welcome to review. Personally, I think a month might be lenient and welcome extension if other admins deem fit. When you return, please return with a plan to be a productive member of the project through article improvements. Only (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about we take a look thru all the edits you are pointing out. I fixed the holiday card, you used the plural reverts when I made one edit, I am welcome to make unblock requests, an edit summary is almost never disruptive, same thing for a title, skip this one, and a totally necessary edit. One disruptive edit. One. I'm considering requesting a interaction ban. A month is actually overboard for one edit. Besides, you can never be blocked for not doing something. My first block, I said I would contact a steward, but decided not to since it only was 24 hours. My second block, I tried using the local procedure. If you intend to block me for a month, I am going to request a few things from the Arb Com

• An interaction ban
• For the block to be removed (maybe shortened)
• For someone to point out to you that my efforts to not be disruptive are only making you consider these non-disruptive edits disruptive.

Also, are you aware that you are calling the kettle black?. I do everything you do, with the exception of not making a bunch of unnecessary blocks to a user who everybody thought was fine until just a few days after you started editing here again. Awful big coincidence. I started editing simplewiki with only one goal : Don't be treated as awful as enwiki treats me. Unfortunately, there are a few editors who don't bother to read this page. Are you one of them? You tell me. I'll be honest, I have no idea. no idea. I tried to help Wikipedia by suggesting ways to be one step ahead of vandals, but you call that disruptive,likely because there's already filters. How was I supposed to know that? Everywhere I go, every single edit I make, you think it's disruptive. You will think my next edit is disruptive (and I don't even know what it will be!). Disruptive, disruptive, disruptive. It's kind of hard to take you seriously. I mean, you issued me an only warning for an edit that I reverted. You never think about how others feel. Especially about you. Can you give me evidence you stopped to think before you blocked me? You considered a month lenient so I'm going to assume you didn't. Who would find my edits less disruptive, you, me, or Jimbo? The answer is either me or Jimbo. If you extend the block, you may find stuff you didn't think about to happen (no that is not a threat, it's actually something I can't control). Maybe you should like a little while to think about how I feel. I can prove to you I'm thinking twice, I commented out something you would probably think is "disruptive". . So, imagine if you were trying to help Wikipedia, and someone came along and told you every single edit you made was disruptive, even though everything had been fine your first two months. Then, cut out some other stuff, and after you try to do something to prove you're not disruptive, you are blocked for a month right before a new year. Would that feel good? If you answer yes, I don't believe you. I will not be replying to any comments from you claiming I am disruptive. Krett12 (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are not using your user talk page to appeal your block, I have revoked editing permissions from your own user talk page. If you would like to appeal your block, kindly send an email to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org instead. Be advised that simple.wiki has no ArbCom and that en.wiki ArbCom has no jurisdiction/authority over the affairs of this wiki.

For the record, I agree that Only's block action is valid and do not believe that there was any abuse of administrative powers. Chenzw  Talk  06:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion on AN which concerns you. Because you are currently not able to edit your own user talk page, if you have anything you wish to say, you may send them by email (please see above for the email address to send to), and someone will put it on AN for you. Chenzw  Talk  09:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The community has decided to impose a temporary ban. The ban will expire at 14:17 1 June 2016 (UTC). Once expired, you are free to edit as normal. If you wish, you may attempt to appeal the ban, starting from 1 March 2016. Since your talk-page access has been revoked, any appeals or other requests that you make will have to be sent by e-mail to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Osiris (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]