User talk:Awesome Aasim

Unblock request 1

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

See below.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=See below. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=See below. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=See below. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

wikiHow helped me notice my recently disruptive behavior: wasting time of other privileged editors cleaning up a mess. I notice exactly what I should do: revert vandalism, fix spelling, request page protection only if there is vandalism, tag pages with copyvio, and make edits to articles I feel like I know a lot about (such as technology and Wikipedia). And I want to say one more thing: I am kind, civil, only intending to improve Wikipedia. In other words: no more editing in the Wikipedia namespace unless if it is necessary (i.e. a policy prevents improvement of an article). I am not a vandal, I am here to build an encyclopedia, and I completely believe that projects such as Wikipedia, Wikimedia projects, and wikiHow will continue to succeed.

My second mistake: crossing policies from wikiHow and Wikipedia. That has gotten me blocked there, Anna let me know that it is a waste of my time, and that it is a waste of other wikiHow contributors' time. So I will respect that one project is one project is one project and another project is another project.

Finally, I think it is best that you revoke talk page access and shorten my block to six months from there. I am turning 16 tomorrow, I am getting less glued to policies, more specifically policies about pages in user space, user talk space, and much more. And yes Iridescent, Wikipedia is not my personal sandbox, it is an encyclopedia that is trying to gather all of the knowledge of all the persons into one relatively small array of servers (for a project with over 6824155 articles, no server size can satisfy Wikipedia's needs). I requested a block for six months about five months ago because I thought after six months I would become less disruptive. Now I am thinking six months from now, I will have my bad behavior in the distant past, and will start over and stop editing Wikipedia for a while. So all I am just asking is shorten my block to six months, and you will see that the disruption will stop. I no longer even click the "edit" button unless if I see something that I am interested in viewing the source of. I am very honest, have never evaded blocks, never committed sock puppetry, and now I am asking a shortening of my block to six months. I am competent in editing tech related articles, just not competent in other articles, or in certain tasks that I rush, such as new page patrolling. So let's just have my block shortened to six months, and my talk page access revoked, so that I can continue editing Wikipedia normally. I may have not been here to improve Wikipedia about six months ago, but I am now.

Thanks,

Ups and Downs (↕) 18:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sup, U&D? I suppose we're ~in WP:SO territory now, so @Primefac and Iridescent: as the original movers and shakers. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• I'd have no issue with unblocking iff it's on the understanding that:
  1. You make no edits to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (if a policy prevents improvement of an article you can discuss your proposed changes somewhere else);
  2. No disruption of Wikipedia processes such as your drive-by nominations at WP:RFPP, and we decide what's disruptive not you;
  3. No experimentation on any page other than sandboxes;
  4. No creation of redirects; if you genuinely feel a redirect is necessary, you can suggest to somebody else that they create it;
  5. No screwing around with html to make your userpage or talkpage intentionally difficult to read;
  6. If anyone complains about anything you do, regardless of whether you feel the complaint is merited, you immediately stop whatever it is that caused the complaint.

If you're willing to abide by the above, I don't see an issue with giving you a second chance; if you're not, then I do. If you don't like these conditions, propose some others and I'll copy the request to ANI so others can discuss them. ‑ Iridescent 19:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it is best to bring it to the administrator noticeboard before imposing these sanctions on me upon unblocking. Like I said, 6 months no talk page access should do. After a discussion at ANI, any uninvolved admin may alter my block. But first, discuss. And I would say regarding No creation of redirects, let's make it so that there are no creation of redirects that redirect to the project namespace. Anna on wikiHow also discussed that I should not create redirects such as Template:Db because wikiHow is different that Wikipedia and has different rules than Wikipedia. Ups and Downs (↕) 20:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Note to uninvolved admins: If you shorten or remove my block, then mark the unblock request as successful, otherwise, mark the unblock request as unsuccessful. Retracting because you dictate whether my request was successful or not, not me.

Oh, and for sure, no Twinkle! Twinkle is also a big reason for this disruption. Ups and Downs (↕) 20:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to say, I'm not sure what the no talk-page access is meant to achieve, really; yes, I know it's because you (Redacted) about on it, and want to responsd positively (more power to that), but it wasn't the most egregious of your "offences" such as to require such a drastic remedy and in any case, it's unthinkable, surely, that in a collaborative environment—where communication is not just necessary but paramount—that you are unable to respond to other editors-! Meh, I think Iridescent's suggestions are sound in this matter. The point is, that after a ~?few months of successful, productive editing under those constraints will make it (probably) a dead cert when you come to ask for them to be lifted. See what I mean? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 20:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 and Iridescent: Just bring it up to the administrator notice board, hopefully this almost year-long long list of problems will not happen again and will be fixed. I will list all of the things I have did wrong and what I will do to address them:

• Misusing Wikipedia as a webhost - no more edits to userspace unless if it helps Wikipedia (such as drafts or pseudo-templates)
• Breaking templates while trying to help (see Floquenbeam's archive). - always test in the sandbox and preview edits to avoid breaking things
• Too many bogus page protection requests - only request if there is excessive vandalism or if consensus agrees

• Also, no Twinkle since most disruption occurred with Twinkle.

• Too many pointless redirects - only redirect from a page in the (main) namespace to another page in the (main) namespace. If in doubt, don't redirect.
• Editing other people's pages and being glued to policies such as WP:SMI - understand that policies are not concrete or set in stone, they can be changed if it prevents someone from doing something (WP:IAR).

If you can figure anything else that is disruptive, add it to the above list and I will try to find solutions for them. Ups and Downs (↕) 22:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone there? Hello? Ups and Downs (↕) 04:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll post a neutral notification at AN asking for third parties to review, but per this I withdraw my support for an unblock. Wikipedia doesn't revolve around you, and if you're complaining because one of your comments doesn't receive a reply for six hours, to me it's a clear indication that the immaturity issues are still there. ‑ Iridescent 09:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You are right. Saying "Hello?" will not make the unblock process go faster. I do not completely disagree, I agree with 1 and 2, I just believe that in order for such sanctions to be imposed, there may need to be consensus. Now I need to go to sleep now. See you later. Ups and Downs (↕) 09:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Notification posted at WP:AN#UpsandDowns1234 block review. ‑ Iridescent 09:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I decide I will agree with these sanctions for the next six months. Violation of these sanctions is grounds for reblocking, and I have a few that I want to add. ANB may also have some they may want to add. I am just saying I agree with these sanctions. Now for the rest of the community. Ups and Downs (↕) 05:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Why I was blocked in the first place

The reason why I was blocked in the first place was for three reasons:

• Unencyclopedic behavior
• Disruptive editing
• Too much timewasting with other editors

And to see that I am on a tight leash, that means I must either make productive edits after I am unblocked (if this appeal succeeds which is unlikely) or risk being reblocked. But the thing is, I was blocked not because of WP:CIR, but because I just wasted time of other editors. As Primefac said, my contributions are 50% self-reverts and more than a few places where [Primefac] had to revert. So no more timewasting, I understand why I was blocked, for mixed good and bad editing. Ups and Downs (↕) 15:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and any CU may check my user account, but the IP I edited from and logged on to is shared. Not my home IP, my school IP. I never edit while logged out (maybe except once for testing purposes). That school IP was blocked before for vandalism, but before I even had access to it. I do not do sock puppetry because it is dishonest. One account for everything, period. Ups and Downs (↕) 15:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Last thing to consider: I know I do not know everything, since my common sense is still being developed. Ups and Downs (↕) 15:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Standard offer looks ok to me.--Moxy (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see, I am seeing more and more and more and more and more and more annoyance because of my tendentious editing: [1]. Really? This appears very disruptive to Wikipedia. See WP:CANTHEARYOU. I was not getting the point. At least I won't do that again. Ups and Downs (↕) 18:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Understand all I am trying to do is acknowledge my mistakes, and cringing when looking at my disruptive edits. I made several mistakes, and I understand why they are disruptive, and I want to make Useful contributions. I did mess up, and I am acknowledging my cross-wiki mistakes. Ups and Downs (↕) 19:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

* useful contributions Ups and Downs (↕) 19:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nyttend: not April, but August. Shorten it to six months from now, not from August 2017. Ups and Downs (↕) 23:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I quit. This is very frustrating, at this point, I am taking an indefinite wikibreak. Goodbye for a long time. Ups and Downs (↕) 07:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)