User talk:Grewia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Grewia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015[edit]

Please stop notifying users of SPIs that have been opened against them. You're not even the editor who opened the SPI. Also, please stop commenting on SPIs about procedure. It doesn't matter whether what you say is correct. There's no reason for you to do so, again in cases that you haven't even initiated. Consider this a warning that if you persist in this unusual WP:SPA-like preoccupation with SPIs, you risk being blocked for disruptive editing. You're a new user unless you have other accounts you've used in the past. Go do something more constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I have only added those notifications where I believe the users may not be aware that they have been accused. You did not say what you think the harm is, so have not justified your intimidatory warning. I know of several users who were glad to have the chance to rebut and disprove the accusations before being inevitably, but unjustly, blocked. Please supply a convincing reason for why not to forewarn accused users. Surely it's better to give them a chance to defend themselves before, rather then after, any block. After all, what is the {{Socksuspectnotice}} template for, if not for notifying the accused. And there is no mention in its documentation that it should not be used for that purpose. Grewia (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time when it was optional to notify users when opening an SPI, although, even then, not encouraged. That option was removed from the instructions. I don't warn editors who open an SPI and notify the user(s) because there is still some confusion about this issue, but you are not opening an SPI. You are apparently championing the cause of the accused, both in your notifications and in your procedural comments. My warning stands. If you persist, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: so what's the template for, and why hasn't it been deleted, or at least a warning against usage put on it? Grewia (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From your first 44 edits here, it has become clear that you have no interest in contributing to the encyclopaedia and equally clear that you are not a new editor. Thus, I have blocked you indefinitely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: oh the irony! I was just trying to save an update to cognitive dissonance when my block took effect. How can you deduce that I "have no interest in contributing to the encyclopaedia" when I am sat here attempting to get clarity of an issue which I believe is seriously impeding the quality of said encyclopaedia? My mistake appears to be that I have arrived fully prepared and competent in the use of the wiki mark-up language. It appears to me that I have walked into the shit pit here that is parochially and dishonestly known as sockpuppet investigations. Your defensive reaction tells me all that I need to know. I fear that I wasn't the first, and won't be the last who knows that Wikipedia would benefit from a more intelligent and evidence-based approach to tacking the clearly self-inflicted problem of sock puppets. Good luck with that then, if you think the current system is working Grewia (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I do have a genuine interest in improving the encyclopaedic content (articles and media). That is why I decided to come here from the private wiki that I have been involved in for many years. I have a wide range of interests, and substantive edits and article creation on a private specialist psychology wiki. I am a psychology Ph.D, and one of the projects I was involved in during my studies included a study of the Wikipedia sock puppet problem; hence my first forays here were related to aspects of that. I thought I could make significant constructive improvements with respect to sock puppetry, by looking at what to me seem like weaknesses in the processes that are involved and improving content, or mitigating and reducing problems that make negative contributions to Wikipedia more likely. I certainly have a respect for core editing standards and behaving in accordance with core agreed policies when editing, including policies on content, and policies on behaviour. I will have a focus on encyclopaedia building and hope to keep non-encyclopaedia-related contributions to a limited level, in comparison to positive and directly constructive contributions to the encyclopaedia or its editorial processes. I am a believer in self-correction and heeding lessons. I believe that if I make mistakes, I will show a visible effort to learn from them. I will take editing very seriously and hope to improve my editorial ability and quality of input. Grewia (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You describe sock puppet investigations (SPI) as a "shit pit". You also describe the title as "parochially and dishonestly known". In my experience, editors who express vitriol towards SPI aren't new users. You also say that you were making edits that were focussed on areas which "seem like weaknesses in the processes". Your approach seems to be more focussed on demonstrating there is a problem, and less on actually improving processes. PhilKnight (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2015 (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.

@PhilKnight: It certainly wasn't "vitriol" in the malicious sense, it is merely strong criticism. After several months observing it and studying it, I say what I see. It is my honest opinion. Am I to be excluded for having the wrong opinion? To solve a problem you need first to identify the root cause, and not just the symptoms. It is very clear from the SPI pages that there is a problem, and also very clear from the processes that the root cause is not well understood (or at least not acknowledged). If you will forgive me saying so, you seem to be focussed here on suppressing my valid and constructive approach rather than searching for the root cause of the problem. It's not as if you get paid per block. Presumably you would be happier if the socking problem was drastically reduced rather than there were ever increasing numbers of SPIs being opened and ever increasing numbers of accounts being blocked for socking? Grewia (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Same as above appeal plus reply to PhilKnight's decline plus: as I cannot actually prove that I do not have a previous Wikipedia account, and as PhilKnight says he believes that I must have, what more can I do other than plead for, perhaps, a "probationary" unblock period to allow me to prove my worth? If that isn't possible, perhaps you could give me some advice as to what I can say to convince you that I'm not a sock myself. Grewia (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for abuse of multiple accounts (although that remains unproven) because it appeaers that you are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. As you have, to date, made no edits at all in article space, but apparently spent all of your time in SPI, which is inappropriate for an alleged new user, the accusation seems to be unarguable, and your unblock requests so far do not convince me otherwise. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:21, 4 January 2015 (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.

@Anthony Bradbury: so I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. I can't edit because I'm blocked, I can't get unblocked because I haven't made enough edits. I was blocked for being "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" so I described my intention with respect to improving the encyclopaedia and what I thought I had to offer. PhilKnight dismissed that stating he didn't believe I was a new user. So I explained that I was, but how come I am familiar with the wiki mark-up language and how my research activities had involved investigating the Wikipedia sock puppet phenomenon. You then dismissed that. What more can I do to get unblocked? Were my initial edits so heinous? Am I never going to be allowed to edit Wikipedia again? Grewia (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

1. I most certainly am here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. For a full description of how come, see the reason in my first unblock request.
2. I most certainly am a new account. For a full explanation of why it may appear otherwise see the reason in my second unblock request.
If whoever gets to review this is still not convinced as to my value, please elaborate so I can try and explain further; or just give me a second change to prove that I have something positive to offer and I'll try not to let you down. Grewia (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately your edits are not in alignment with your claimed intent. If you have studied the SPI process, and wanted to address weaknesses in the process, why did it take you three months to make edits to Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations, and those not relevant to the process in general? I would assume a scholar who has studied our processes and would like to suggest improvements based on peer-reviewed research would know more efficient ways to do so than by notifying individuals accused of sockpuppetry or by joining specific sockpuppetry investigations. Thus I do not think your claims in that regard are true. Huon (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2015 (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.

@Huon: you disappoint me, but you don't surprise me. Your rationale is lacking coherence though. My "claimed intent" is just that: my intent. I have been rather busy lately, but hope to have more spare time for a while now, so was just warming back up, ready for some serious work. But, apparently, I am to be thwarted and punished indefinitely. If I had actually vandalized Wikipedia I would be unblocked by now. Ludicrous really. All because I hold the wrong opinion about SPIs, apparently. What options am I left with now if I want to edit Wikipedia (apart from the obvious one of simply creating another account and cracking on)? I'm getting fed up with stabbing in the dark with unblock requests. I need clearer guidance to help me formulate an acceptable request. Are you willing to help me to do that please? Grewia (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your persistent unconvincing unblock requests (see warning in block notice), I have revoked your Talk page access. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]