User talk:Hulk576

Welcome!

Hello, Hulk576! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 22:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

April 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Military does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! – S. Rich (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm Adam9007. I noticed that in this edit to God, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edits at Jehovah's Witnesses

There are several problems with your recent edit at Jehovah's Witnesses [1], which has been reverted:

You changed 'adherents' to the jargon term 'publishers'.
The use of 'publishers involved in evangelising' is a tautology as the jargon term 'publishers' means 'adherents involved in evangelising'.
You replaced the average publisher values from 2022 with the peak publisher figures from 2022, claiming you were 'updating' to the '2022' figures. The 'peak' figures are less reliable as they can include individuals more than once due to late reports, as stated in The Watchtower, 15 August 2011, page 22: "“Peak publishers” is the highest number reporting for any one month of the service year and may include late reports that were not added to the preceding month’s report. In this way some publishers may be counted twice." This is why the average is used instead.
You changed quoted text to a form not present in the original quote. This is highly inappropriate. It is easy to verify that the original wording is that in the quoted source.
You falsely claimed in your edit summary that you 'fixed tampering with the article', whereas you introduced problems yourself, including a dishonest change to quoted text.

You are welcome to discuss your edits at the article's Talk page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information about rapid reverts at an article

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jehovah's Witnesses. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Hi, Hulk. You need to stop your aggressive posting at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses before I block you from it. This kind of post is unacceptable, even if the "Redacted" trick is sort of humorous. I think Jeffro77 was wrong to suggest that Wikipedia may not be the place for you, but that's a poor excuse for escalating your rhetoric the way you did. By the way, you say in the same post that you apologized to Theroadislong (if I understand your phrasing; the post seems rather hastily written). Where did you do that? I just looked at the history of TRIL's talkpage, and I don't see an apology. Did you use email? Bishonen | tålk 09:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I had left an apology on his talk page that was after what I'd said and unfortunately the Wiki Admin: Materialscientist deleted it but the message for through because Theroadislong forgave me. Hulk576 (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And no reason to threaten with a block, me and Jeffro77 are actually having an amazing conversation if you go take a look. The Redacted thing was a safer way that I'd found out in the wiki guidelines and policies Hulk576 (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(You use colons as if you're replying to yourself..!) As I said, I looked at the history of User talk:Theroadislong; in other words, I didn't merely look at what's on the page at the moment. (This is the page history. To read an edit in it, click on its "prev" link.) I saw all your posts, and I don't see anything remotely like an apology — it's all attacks. The only post of yours that Materialscientist removed is this. You seem to misremember what happened. Do you know how to create diffs? (Here is a simple guide). If you still think you apologized, please provide a diff for it. Bishonen | tålk 10:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

My puncuations poor, I'm trying to get a hang of wiki policies and guidelines still learning I do make mistakes don't we all but at the end of the day we're all human regardless of policies, guidelines, laws, if you read what I explained to wiki admin [Cullen328] you'd get a better understanding of who I am. Hulk576 (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean User:Cullen328 I presume, written as [[User:Cullen328]] . Doug Weller talk 10:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking discussions on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses

Please don't "clean up" the Jehovah's Witnesses talkpage by removing everything that's embarrassing for you. You can do that on your own talkpage, but not on article talk. If you think a resolved discussion is bloating up talk, you can "hat" it. That will mean it takes up much less room and is not in a reader's face, but it can still be accessed by somebody who's interested. I have restored the stuff you removed and hatted it. If you have any interest in learning this trick, please look at the code I used for hatting so you can do it yourself another time. Bishonen | tålk 12:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Ok thx I'll definitely do that next time and it has nothing to do with being "embarrasing" just was deleting a completed debate cuz I thought that's what you do to "clean up" the talk page and lessen the amaount of space it's taken up. Hulk576 (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

You have been blocked for two weeks from editing for harassing another editor. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Your intimidating behavior at User Talk:Jeffro77#I would like to talk to you in private? is not acceptable. It is harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the next block is likely to be indefinite. You have been warned by two administrators to abandon your battleground behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero justification for this ban!?!

If the talk pages have failed, name where else I can have a conversation that's not limited? It was in no way harassment. And you know it, I was being straightforward and saying I'm willing to have a discussion outside the talk pages to resolve the dispute. Hulk576 (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even specifically cite the policy/guidelines I broke? Hulk576 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anything you're harassing me for nothing. Hulk576 (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The policy that you broke is Wikipedia:Harassment, and you have been blocked twice previously for similar misbehavior. Also relevant is the subsection of the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not that can be found at the shortcut WP:BATTLEGROUND. Although it is not a formal policy, the widely respected essay Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process also sheds light on your behavior in recent weeks. If you disagree with the block I placed, you are free to file a formal appeal, following the instructions in the block notice carefully. Your appeal will be reviewed by another administrator, not by me. I recommend that you read the Guide to appealing blocks carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute was resolved between me and Jeffro77 and I was getting ready to take a long break from Wikipedia but NOOOO that's asking too much and you go ahead and ban me, It's illogical. Hulk576 (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the dispute was resolved is a lie. I will not engage with you further during your block period.—Jeffro77 (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deserve being banned/blocked every 5 seconds. For petty stuff that's not even severe when they're are worse people hacking the articles or vandalizing pages but Ohh...No we gotta target the editor whose trying to do unconventional tactics to reach a resolution cuz when I tried to reach out nobody helped. Hulk576 (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't nobody talking to you? Hulk576 (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go play victim somewhere else Hulk576 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ban you. I blocked you for two weeks. Bans and blocks are different things. Appeal the block if you disagree with it, but do not attack the other editor in any way, shape or form. Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim if this ain't harassment idk what is?

"I think Jeffro77 was wrong to suggest that Wikipedia may not be the place for you, but that's a poor excuse for escalating your rhetoric the way you did."

This was by wiki admin:Bishonen Hulk576 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You show favoritism twords Jeffro77

By letting him get away with it but with me you hold me accountable for my actions unte the policies and guidelines plz😒 Hulk576 (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

under

Hulk576 (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite hypocritical Hulk576 (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drop it and focus on correcting your own misconduct, or I will revoke your talk page access. Cullen328 (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating facts jim, you're threatening me now with zero justification. Hulk576 (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning. Cullen328 (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Hulk576 (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

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 ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "threats" no longer stand I'm not gonna waste my time for something petty like this it's not worth it. You guys are dictators and that's exactly what you are and that's exactly why the policies and guidelines make reference to that term "dictators". Hulk576 (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page access has been revoked because of your latest personal attack. Please read WP:UTRS for your unblock option. Cullen328 (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #78808

is pending close. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

cross-posting as UTRS is sometimes glitchy:

I'm afraid this is drivel filled with empty, high-sounding nonsense. We know how wonderful Wikipedia is. It is your conduct that is problematical. You were originally blocked for personal attacks and harassment. Judging by your talk page, you consider this justified. It never is. There are even more problems on your talk page mentioned. I'd like you to deal with those, too. Calling us dictators was a sure-fire way to lose talk page access. (Yet another personal attack.) If you have withdrawn a threat of taking legal action, please state clearly that you have done so. Further threats or personal attacks via UTRS will result in you being banned from UTRS. The system will not allow another unblock request for forty-eight hours. Please use that time to review the voluminous coaching links left for you. Please be prepared to concisely and clearly describe what behaviors led to your being blocked and what you would do differently. To ensure you see this, I will cross-post to your talk page. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra GPTZero gives the appeal a 75% probability it's AI generated. Doug Weller talk 11:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Claptrap. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is closed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dif for legal threat -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #78985

Mulling restoring talk page access. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TPA reinstate #1

Talk page access reinstated. The user can make their unblock request here, retracting their legal threat and addressing their violations of WP:NPA. Hulk576, please thoroughly review WP:GAB before doing so. Your UTRS request was a mess and if you make a similar request here, expect to have it immediately declined and talk page access re-revoked. In particular, avoid any use of ChatGPT. We want to hear from you, not from an AI. --Yamla (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing WP:TBAN for Jehovah's Witnesses ‎ broadly construed, and also evincing a thorough understanding of WP:dispute resolution as unblock conditions. Thanks @Yamla: for handling the UTRS ticket. User needs to hear from more than just me. It's Sunday, so a more in depth analysis and courtesy pings can wait. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything stated in UTRS appeal #78985 was my own words and acknowledgement of my wrongdoing. and where it was I was wrong. Tho it may be considered a "mess" it was to me explaining the best that I could. It did have missing items that I proof-read that would've added to a more constructive response but ultimately I'm doing the best that I can to convey to you within my own limited range of understanding.

I stated that what lead the recent block was a misinterpretation of WP: Private Correspondence

And the WP:Legal Threats page doesn't specify exactly how to go about retracting the Legal Threat even tho done so 3 times now

I ended up deleting the Legal Threats thinking that would be formally retracting the threats and adhering to "You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved."}}

The WP:NPA was simply frustration of targeting by admins for simply making a mistake while contributing to the site like the ethos says "Anyone Can Edit. Unless 1 person says you're wrong even tho I provided substantial amount of evidence and had 2 additional consensus, Yet I'm wrong Why!?!

That simple fact that I have every Admin against me speaks the truth to that claim.

And it's not right!

Compared to the people who are actually vandalizing the site and in some forums I've have read have made threats to hack the site. And it's recent.

I'm a small fish, as compared to the Whales that are on the loose and who could careless about Admins power and do extremely more harm than me. But no...focus on me.

Also, why should I be banned from WP: Jehovahs Witnesses? I did nothing wrong other than following Wikipedias policies and guidelines by providing sources for the claims in the talk pages. Albeit, I've made mistakes but I at least acknowledged them.

It's my absolute failure, that I didn't read the policies or guidelines before I started editing on Wikipedia and before and that was an obvious big mistake, but there's no justification in banning me from a topic I genuinely tried to contribute to regardless of my actions.

I ask solely this, Please restore my editing on my user/talk page and please limit the block to 1 months time and when I eventually come back after that time passes and I'll be able to demonstrate to you that I've changed and become an editor who has studied all the ins and outs of Wikipedia and will contribute greatly to the Project in anyway that I can.

😔🙏 Hulk576 (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't WP:TBAN me from Jehovah's Witnesses ‎ as there's absolutely no reason to do so. Let me instead use it to demonstrate to you that I can be a productive editor on that article rather than a disruptive editor.😔🙏 Hulk576 (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with a WP:TBAN. I'd suggest Hulk576 should stay away from religion generally, but I'm not sure I'd necessarily make that a condition of unblock. I'm unsure what I'd like to see around WP:NPA, but I would need Hulk576 to be pretty darn convincing here. Not just a promise to refrain, something meaningfully convincing, a clear demonstration they understand how blatantly inappropriate they were behaving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamla (talk • contribs)

On a personal level I would like an apology for this appalling comment on my talk page [2] where you said “Hey Asshole I got a bigger fish that can bring you down from your high horse with your threats” Theroadislong (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the claim in this edit (since deleted), I am not aware of having received any 'formal apology', nor any general acknowledgement for various statements of mine that were falsely labelled as 'incorrect' by the editor, as well as a false claim that my comments at the Talk page constituted a conflict of interest. At the very least, any such 'apology' should indicate an understanding of what is being apologised for rather than a vague 'blanket apology', though I haven't seen that either. The editor's most recent comments directed at me[3][4] do not convey the tone of an apology. But maybe I missed something. Perhaps the editor can provide a diff of the apology.

The ongoing claim that the editor had gained consensus for their position is also false. Vyselink[5] and Anachronist[6] both very directly indicated that they do not share the editor's position, and no editor has specifically stated agreement with the editor's position. Instead, the editor took statements from two editors about preferring completely independent sources and misconstrued those as endorsement of secondary sources that explicitly cite a primary source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Throadislong, I am sorry for calling you those horrible words you didn't deserve it. I misinterpreted the whole situation and that's on me. I know that I misunderstood your warning as a threat rather than took it as actual advice and obviously I should've. Because at the end of the day knowing what I know now... goodness! I would've never have said a single thing and should've just stayed quiet and have known the WP: policies and guidelines from the get go. All I can do is this, repent from my wrongdoing and never allow it to happen again this I swear it.🙏😔

Sincerely, Hulk576. Hulk576 (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77, You're exactly right! I'd assumed that both of the Editors had reached a consensus when they cited this independent sources.

I apologize if you felt in anyway pressured by me when I was trying to reach out to you. I'd felt the talk pages were inadequate and felt like we could have a more engaging discussion on a platform that we could better communicate our thoughts on rather than keeping going back and forth unproductive. I had fallen under the assumption of WP: Private Correspondence as justification from my actions and for that I'm truly sorry.

Also, I'm sorry for the disruptive editing, I was just generally passionate about the article as it's personal to me but even more so when I thought I had the right information. Which of course anyone would be upset if they thought they made the correct edit but it eventually kept getting shutdown.

I'm also sorry for the personal attacks I hurled at you as you didn't deserve it, I was just frustrated with the whole ordeal and didn't know what else to do and obviously I showed my ignorance clearly! I'd felt like I couldn't win no matter what, I did eveything was wrong and to an inexperienced editor such as myself that's no justification in my actions

I hope you can truly forgive me for my actions and I promise to you Jeffro77, I will never make that mistake again as I see clearly now what that level of "ignorance" gets me.

Sincerely, Hulk576. Hulk576 (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Hulk576's recent comments, it's very clear there's no chance the block will be lifted at this time (WP:SNOWBALL) and the kindest thing would be to reinstate the talk page access revocation. If anyone disagrees, please speak up. --Yamla (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, reinstate. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TPA revoke #2

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Hulk576, I very strongly suggest you take at least six months off from en.wikipedia. After at least six months have passed, feel free to request an unblock via WP:UTRS. There's no reasonable possibility you'll be unblocked unless you propose a topic ban and unless you show considerably more understanding than you have done here of why you were blocked and what was wrong with your behaviour and why it was your fault, not the fault of other editors. --Yamla (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss something? I thought the apologies were acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to reinstate talk page access if you wish. I'll note that there was an edit conflict between the time Doug and I commented and the time I revoked talk page access (that is, Hulk576 added new comments I didn't see). --Yamla (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin though. Theroadislong (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you think I should reinstate talk page access and I'll do it if you think it's warranted. --Yamla (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness I was just curious to know what was "inappropriate and/or disruptive" about there latest comments, they appear to be what was being asked for. Theroadislong (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of this version of the page, the user had outright refused to consider a topic ban (I believe this is still the case) and had not apologised to the editors for harassment (I believe this changed subsequently). The user also didn't seem to understand consensus and had explicitly stated they didn't understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, though they did commit to reading these over the next month. --Yamla (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You perhaps didn't see the edit after that one here [7] where they were more conciliatory, but I'm happy for the user to sit out a longer block before requesting an unblock. Theroadislong (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no path forward without a topic ban, which the user has currently outright rejected. They are free to use WP:UTRS if they wish to request an unblock sooner. I'll note also they didn't actually attempt an unblock request here after the talk page access was reenabled. --Yamla (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s hard to determine whether the apology is sincere or a case of ‘saying what they want to hear’. But I would be tentatively willing to accept the apology and ‘endorse’ (it’s not in any way my decision) lifting the block. Subsequent behaviour could then establish the sincerity of the apology. That said, it might be of benefit to the editor to work on articles about other subjects while tension could remain.—Jeffro77 (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting strictly about TPA (and not about the indef), I have to agree with Theroadislong, here; those apologies sounded okay, and in particular, lost the earlier tone of "I'm gonna mouth the words I have to" and seemed to come from the heart; the tone now seems more, "I finally get it; what a jerk I was." While I agree with a T-ban, I think stopping TPA in response to those apologies sends the wrong message here: if we've asked them to do something, and they do it, a further sanction shouldn't be the result. Not entirely sure what to do, now; I think I'll try a friendly AN notice seeking additional eyes about this. Mathglot (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need. Two users have questioned my re-revocation of TPA, I'm happy to restore it. I do expect to see an unblock request from Hulk576, though. And I strongly suggest it includes a topic ban, but note Hulk576 isn't trying to convince me, they are trying to convince the next reviewing admin. --Yamla (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I had been spending the interim carefully summarizing the situation for a possible AN post, but as you point out, there's no need for that now. I'll keep the text around somewhere, in case anyone deems it helpful at some future point to have a relatively concise précis of what happened here; might save someone else the bother of recreating it. Mathglot (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TPA reinstate #2

Talk page access is reinstated. Note that the legal threat has been dealt with, leaving only the violations of WP:NPA and the question of general inappropriate editing around Jehovah's Witnesses. --Yamla (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was a nurse, so root cause analysis is part of me. I think we need to "ask the next question," and have the user show understanding of WP:dispute resolution processes. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 aka Jim, I definitely wanted to apologize to you for my actions, comments, and threats, and misconduct, you didn't deserve it Jim I acted out of ignorance and vitriol towards and for that I'm truly sorry, I understand where you were coming from and you were genuinely trying to help me when you posted the WP: policies and guidelines in good faith; when if you hadn't cared you wouldn't of posted those in response to my request, of which I was appreciative of. And obviously I blatantly disregarded it, I realized that there's no justification in my actions simply put and I acknowledge that, I need to be someone whose to open to other people's wisdom, criticism, Co-operation, rather than just being close-minded and ignorant.

Finally, I want to apologize for the Legal Threats towards you as you didn't deserve it I'd felt as tho I was backed into a corner and had no way out and resorted to something I'd learned in the WP:guidelines and policies and there was absolutely no justification for it and the amount of stupidity that was must've truly confounded you and everybody else as did me I know that.

At the end of the day Jim I respect you for who you are an honest, Good hardworking outgoing person whose genuinely contributed to this platform way more than I'll ever do tbh and to label you as a "Dictator" Is an ultimate spit in the face to anyone who spends the insane amount of hours dedicating their lives essentially to contributing to this amazing project, whereas I've done Soo little to contribute to the project. Before getting blocked I'd reached 200 edits which is like wow! I went from being inactive and having generally 100 edits to a span 200 in such a short amount of time, albeit for the wrong reasons but goes to show that I'm pretty speedy no lie. Epecially when I'm doing this on my phone and you guys have specialized tools. But compared to the figures you have to I'll never reach those figures and I really don't plan on doing so or really stive to be an Admin as I've researched is not an easy thing to attain and requires almost ADHD like attention to the site whereas for me I just generally did short edits every now and then.

I hope you can truly forgive Jim, And moving forward I'd like you and and every other Admin/Experienced editor to help me learn how I can be the best contributive editor that I can be on Wikipedia.🙏😔

Sincerely, Hulk576, Hulk576 (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An extraordinary gift

Hulk576, Tl;dr: wait out your six months before appealing; recognize the extraordinary gift you were offered by those most injured by your recent behavior; practice improving your skills through discussion here or contributions to sister projects, including other Wikipedias where you are not blocked.

Given that you are now indef-blocked and there were murmurings of a T-ban above, you are not out of the woods, not by a long shot. One admin recommended a six-month hiatus from Wikipedia, and I think I agree with him. (More on that below.) That said, there are editors here (me included) who will try to help you develop the skills you need to get back in good standing. Much patience will be required on your part.

Nevertheless, despite the seriousness of the situation, it could be even worse; you could still be blocked from this page as well. I hope you recognize the extraordinary gift you've been offered in having your Talk page access restored, and in particular, how that came about. There are fully five admins who are involved on this page, which is kind of amazing (and at least one more, who blanked an appalling comment of yours at a user page); hardly the kind of attention one wants to attract.

More important, is the fact that the two editors who suffered the most directly from your actions are willing to give you a second chance. By mentioning them, I'm not asking you to repeat apologies you have made already; rather, I'm simply asking you to look at the lengths to which editors you have attacked are nevertheless willing to see in you the possibility to make positive contributions to the encyclopedia going forward. Do you see how extraordinary and selfless an action this is? The two editors you most reviled, Theroadislong and Jeffro77, are the ones who tipped the balance in the discussions above, leading to your Talk page access being restored by an admin. I hope you appreciate their willingness to set aside their hurt, and place their hope in you for your future contributions. So, please don't prove them and me and everybody wrong!

So, where does this leave you now? Well, it leaves you indefinitely blocked for now. I can't tell you what to do or not to do, but I would also advise you not to appeal your block until six months have passed. It would be premature at this point, and might be seen as an annoyance after previous attempts, or that it's just too soon, and you need time to fully reflect on what went wrong, let it sink in, and digest it all so you can make a proper, well-reasoned appeal after the time has elapsed.

In the meantime, I think you have two avenues available to you now:

honing your skills and trying them out at Wikimedia sister projects, where you are not blocked; and
trying to improve your skills by discussion with other editors here at your Talk page.

This isn't an either-or, and you can do both. If you speak Spanish, you can contribute to Spanish Wikipedia, here. (There are about 300 other language Wikipedias as well.) Do a good job there, without screwing up, and that will count a lot when it comes time to make your block appeal. But it takes some time to establish a track record editing elsewhere, so be patient, and use the time wisely. If you don't speak a foreign language, then consider contributing at Simple English Wikipedia, here. Be aware that each Wikimedia project has its own policies and guidelines, and while things like WP:Verifiability or WP:CIVILITY may have counterparts at other Wikipedias, they might not, or they might be different from ours, so please familiarize yourself with the local policies or guidelines wherever you go, and follow their rules, not ours.

As far as the second point: if you can recognize your own issues, and are willing to discuss them openly in a non-defensive manner, with a willingness to take on advice from other editors, that could be a way of deepening your understanding of how things work around here, and how to edit in a collaborative manner without running into the problems you have recently. It might also raise the likelihood that a block appeal down the road might be approved, if admins viewing your discussions here can see your sincere attempts at avoiding prior problems.

The situation is serious, but not hopeless. Reflect, practice, discuss; use your time wisely. Hope to see you back editing here eventually, with a whole new attitude, and whole new set of skills under your belt. If you want help, ask for it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Please stop. We appreciate that you've apologised to everyone and withdrawn your legal threat. But Wikipedia is not a social network (see WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK) and you have access to this talk page solely so you can make a future unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok absolutely! Hulk576 (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be ok for me to leave up my apology to Cullen328 or no? Hulk576 (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk, if an admin decides it is inappropriate to leave it up, they will either collapse or remove it, and either way, you needn't worry about it. At this point, it's probably best to just go quiet here for the time being. In my opinion, it's probably okay to ask them (or me) a question about how you can get started at Simple Wikipedia (or some other one), because that would be a preparatory step for you as far as skills training before writing your block appeal down the road; but it would be better to pose such questions elsewhere (i.e., not on English Wikipedia).

Remember: you are not blocked at other Wikipedias, you can go there right now and ask all you want. For example, you can go to the Simple Wikipedia community Talk page at Wikipedia:Simple talk and introduce yourself and ask a question. I will also leave you a welcome message at your Talk page on Simple, so you should get a notification about that in a minute, unless you have notifications turned off. Good luck, and it's best not to respond here at all (except for a block appeal or something closely related to it). You can ping me from Simple Wikipedia (or any Wikipedia), and I'll respond over there. Good luck! (Non-administrator comment) Mathglot (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an Appeal.

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).

Hulk576 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am formally requesting that the block be lifted on my account on the basis that I have taken the time to reflect and learn more about wikipedias ins and outs, and want to continue be a productive contibuter on wikipedia even tho I fell short in my earlier misguided ways as a "noob" editor but I'm back and better than Ever! All I ever wanted to do was to continue to contribute to the project in the only way I knew how which was to do 'mini edits' in the topics that I was interested in. I hope you can you give me another chance to be a new person on wikipedia. Thank you! And Good day!Hulk576 (talk) 12:42 am, 15 March 2024, last Friday (4 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

per concerns raised by blocking admin in #Unblock discussion -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:55, 18 March 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.

. Hulk576 (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock discussion

Where are we on the WP:TOPICBAN on Jehovah's Witnesses?
Do we need a zero tolerance condition for edit warring and personal attacks?
@Mathglot: will you be available to guide appellant?

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not seeing recommended edits elsewhere, but I think we have enough. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: for advise and consent. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, thanks for asking. I oppose unblocking at this time for several reasons, with the comments about ChatGPT being the most significant, but the overall tone of the comments concerns me as well. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I Believe the WP:TOPICBAN is completely unnecessary due the fact that I have no prior history with set topic since last year, and was just simply trying to contribute by updating to the 'Supposed' factual statistics.

•Edit warring in and of itself is counterproductive and is counterintuitive to what it was I was trying to do from the start. I engaged in it, In due part to me feeling as tho I was being targeted for simply providing overwhelming evidence to justify my edits and was constantly being shutdown without even so much as to why? by outside sources I was wrong .

•I have no history of vandalizing the platform, No history of evading a block. Hulk576 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've been blocked since Sept. 2023, but we'll see . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, I will be available to guide Hulk, but in a limited fashion, so I would like to check in with Hulk first about this.

@Hulk: I can help you stay on track, in a somewhat limited fashion due to other demands on my time. I can see it working out, if you can take the initiative as far as staying on track: what I mean by this, is finding me and asking about any possibly dodgy edit first *before* you make it, instead of me looking over your shoulder all the time or critiquing problematic edits after they have already been made. Would that work for you?

Here's how that might work: every time you are about to make an edit, decide if the edit is *clearly and obviously okay*, or is possibly in a grey zone where you're not quite sure if it's okay or not. For the grey-zone edits, stop before you hit the "Publish" button, and start a new section either on the article Talk page where you can explain about your proposed edit and ask editors there what they think about it (and {{ping}} me from there as well), or else ask in a new section below, here on your Talk page, pinging me plus any other editors of your choice (not admins, generally). I'll try and check in with you from time to time as well, as I'm able. Would that kind of limited, non-interventionist guidance work for you? If so, I'm willing to help you on that basis. Either way, hope it all works out for you! Mathglot (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mathglot. I agree to that compromise. Hulk576 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before I even publish an edit I must take it up with him or and admin before I can do independent edits. Hulk576 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a chance that’s all I ask! Hulk576 (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, *not* every edit! Try to think about the edit before you make it, and triage it, into 1. definitely okay, 2. maybe okay (not sure), and 3. Definitely not okay. Obviously, don't make the #3 edits, ever. Go ahead and make the #1 edits without asking anybody. For those grey-zone edits in the middle, where you're not sure, go ahead and ask first. (and generally, ask me or other non-admin editors; admins are very busy)! Mathglot (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that! yea I understand, admins are very busy. Every edit I’ve made has gone unattested besides obviously the JW ones which I’ve yet to find someone who could disprove that the edits I made were factually incorrect from the sources I listed last year. All I wanna do I be a contributor on Wikipedia that’s all. Hulk576 (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more nothing less Hulk576 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe admins tho view me as a disruptor… or to put it bluntly a nuisance to the platform which in and of itself goes against wikipedias Ethos ”Anyone Can Edit”

albeit there are guidelines that I failed to conceive but I did gain an understanding of their implementation and why they are what they are.

I don’t know what more I have to do to get unblocked? Hulk576 (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I retracted my statements, made proper apologies accordingly, waited 5-6 months to attempt an appeal. It’s like come on man!?! I just want to go back to the way things were where I was subtly doing mini edits to topics I was interested in. Hulk576 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding the JW page because god forbid anyone NOT having contributed to a topic that’s meaningful to them. Hulk576 (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean come on! This is unsustainable and ties in directly to my points outlined in “Wikipedia need to change”. Hulk576 (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you’ve got ChatGPT and Elon Musk saying this about Wikipedia. Then obviously something’s wrong. Hulk576 (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the misuse of my talk page earlier. And I accept your terms.

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).

Hulk576 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologize for the misuse of my talk page earlier and I accept Yamala’s terms for a WP:TopicBan on “Jehovahs Witnesses”. I would however, like to know if there could be a way to restore my editing privileges on that page in the future if at all possible? I love Wikipedia! and want to be able to be a contributor towards the shared goal of “notitia pro omnibus”.Hulk576 (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Battleground behavior during unblock discussion, unwilling to accept topic ban, and discussion has been going on more than 2 weeks with problems increasing rather than decreasing. I'm not confident you read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, that might help next time. 6 months is not a requirement, but it is a social norm; I'm not confident an unblock request sooner than that will be looked on favorably. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 13 October 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.

@Mathglot:, are you still interested in mentoring this user if they're unblocked? @Yamla:, any additional concerns if your topic ban proposal is accepted? @Cullen328 and Deepfriedokra: any thoughts? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, the editor apologized to me quite profusely exactly a year ago. If other adminstrators have concluded that this editor is ready to return to editing, I will not object. Cullen328 (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accept mentoring, conditional on the response to the following question:

Hulk576, can you please explain to me in your own words, what a "topic ban on 'Jehovah's Witnesses'" is, how long does it last, and what happens if you don't stick to the terms? Mathglot (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My.

Head is empty -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the first line of a haiku? If it is, I like it, and hope to hear the rest. If it isn't, I sympathize. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to ChatGPT (I think the first time I've used ChatGPT on Wikipedia), the full haiku is My head is empty, whispers of forgotten dreams, silence fills the void." Note that Cullen328 is the original blocking admin here. Frankly, I don't think Hulk576 is a great candidate but do not oppose an unblock if Mathglot is on board. --Yamla (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, synchronicity: I was busy doing the same at GPT and it decided it was: "My head is empty / blocked editor’s plea arrives / Wiki whispers weigh." Somewhere in some deep digi-neuronal morass, there is a liaison of synapses leading from 'haiku' to 'whispers', methinks. (And apologies to Hulk for the sidetrack; we're only human, too!) Mathglot (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the topic ban for WP:Jehovahs Witnesses was a proposal by the admin:Yamala “Where are we on the WP:TOPICBAN on Jehovah's Witnesses?”. Pertaining to the duration of the Ban, it was something even I was wondering about? And obviously if I don’t stick to the terms we get get to do this all over again. I’ve learned my lesson through and through that I messed up and let my ego become the best of me when I should’ve just done everything by the books so to speak and be cordial about it. I feel as tho I’m ready to turn over a new leaf and give it another go but this time I’m not gonna make the same mistake that I did before. But I would be grateful if you and the other admins would mentor me on the right path. Hulk576 (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hulk. I probably wasn't clear: what I was asking for, is to explain to me what a "topic ban on 'Jehovah's Witnesses'" means, as if I were a Wikipedia editor who had never heard of the term "topic ban" before, or only vaguely. What is it, and in particular, how does it constrain your editing during the ban? As far as what would happen if you don't stick to it, I am not an admin but my understanding based on your situation and general experience is that you would most likely end up with another indefinite block that would however be much harder to come back from than this time around. So, you really don't want to go there. Mathglot (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, to correctly anwser your question. A Topic Ban means that certain topic in question WP:Jehovah's Witness will be inaccesible for me to edit. I would be able to edit in all the other articles on Wikipedia excluding that one. So I'm very well aware of what it means. Mathglot, I've been on the site for over 10 years, I made a mistake I acknowledge that but honestly who hasn't? For you insinuate that'd I'd make the same mistake again is honestly quite insulting.

I've served my time, I've learned my lesson and I'd just like to move on and continue doing my part as an editor and contribute the information I come across. Hulk576 (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think you are prohibited from a single article, the non-existent WP:Jehovah's Witness article. This is not correct. A topic ban is for the entire topic, not just a single article (and particularly, not just for a non-existent article). --Yamla (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't feel as tho that anwser sufficed then do plz take it up with Yamla Hulk576 (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who proposed it this I feel as tho as it's unnecessary given that Jeffro77Hulk576 (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd apologized to him and that we we were cool! So to speak. Hulk576 (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that this is unnecessary and your fundamental misunderstanding of WP:TOPICBAN will be held against you when considering your unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tell me who else proposed/agreed to this besides you? Hulk576 (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else said they were in favour of a WP:TOPICBAN except you. Hulk576 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You guys let the ones who actually do harm to the site get away with proxy while all I did was have a little feud over something that was foolish. Hulk576 (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have to say about that? Hulk576 (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original block was placed by Cullen328 not you. Hulk576 (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If other admins agree to the topic ban then I'll adhere to it. Hulk576 (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But bring in the original plaintiff Jeffro77 b4 doing so? Hulk576 (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I'll say this, thank you for at least citing the Topic Ban section as I just read it and became aware of what you ment. Hulk576 (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a caveat to the topic Ban and that being I only ever did the main article Jehovah's witnesses never anything tied directly or indirectly to it so... Hulk576 (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you think you can explain what the topic ban would entail, now? Which of the following pages would you be allowed to edit, and for the ones you are allowed to, would any restrictions apply?

Elli (talk | contribs) 16:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hulk. (in reply to your 11:30 comment) That is actually not correct, as Yamla already indicated. This is not a test, and I don't care that you got the definition of topic ban wrong just now. This is about me volunteering my time to help you, at zero pay, and making sure I am not just throwing my time down the drain. I am still willing to help you, but I need to know that you do, in fact, understand what the topic ban is, and it is not *just* about editing the Jehovah's Witnesses article. Also, it's somewhat concerning that you apparently hadn't read WP:Topic ban until today (@11:58), but now that you have, can you take another crack at specifying what it is and how it restricts you? Please be aware that I am not trying to make you jump through hoops, it is about making sure you *do* understand what it means, because you can't agree to the terms of something you don't understand, and I want to help you, but only if you understand the terms.

One other thing: you have repeatedly apologized, and used expressions like "served my time", as if the block was a punishment for doing something wrong, and so after X amount of time, the crime is forgiven. That is totally *not* what the block is about, it is not a punishment for doing something wrong, it is a preventive measure to stop disruption to the encyclopedia. You can come back one day after an indefinite block, or one year or many years—it is strictly about persuading admins that the disruption will not be repeated; no "time served" is required at all, and no apologies, either (unless you abused someone personally, and I'm not aware of that here).

Finally, I'm getting a strong feeling of impatience, frustration, maybe even a little anger, all understandable in your situation, I probably would, too. But starting out editing with a topic ban in that mood is risky. I'll leave it up to you what you want to do, either proceed with this now, or would you prefer to take a deep breath and take a week or so to just shake off the feeling and come back fresh and start off relaxed? Your choice, but either way, when you decide you are ready, please take another crack at the what-is-a-topic-ban and how it affects your editing (hint: not just that one article). Not a test—I just want to make sure that my support and mentorship will really help you. I want you to be able to edit successfully here; the encyclopedia needs good editors. I don't care a fig what got you blocked before, as long as you can do good work going forward. Take care, Mathglot (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article ban forbids an editor from editing a specific article or set of articles. The text of the ban should state whether the ban includes or excludes the article's talk page. Editors subject to an article ban are free to edit other related pages or discuss the topic elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article bans may be enforced using partial blocks from the affected pages.

I intend to decline this unblock request as combative and ultimately non-responsive, unless someone besides Hulk576 objects. I believe it is likely that the battleground mentality is going to continue if the user is unblocked, and they do not appear willing to accept the proposed topic ban. Copy/pasting the section verbatim is not the clever move you thought it was. If anyone objects, now is the time. @Mathglot:, thank you for trying. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I cannot see another path at this point. Hulk, I really wanted to help you help yourself become a productive editor here, but for whatever reason, at this time you keep getting in your own way. If after a long break you decide to try another block appeal down the road—which won't be easy, let's face it—I'm still willing to help, so feel free to ping me at that time. All the best to you, Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I was mentioned here recently, quite oddly as the "plaintiff". The intent of having me 'brought in as the plaintiff' is unclear, but the phrasing suggests an ongoing grudge that does not seem consistent with a proper understanding of the purpose of the block or what a topic ban would constitute.--Jeffro77 Talk 08:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk576 (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t hiding the fact I copy and pasted that’s just cheap Hulk576 (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk576 (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to say that I’m more frustrated than combative and I think that it’s really rich to assume that I’ll continue the battleground behavior when I have no prior history of doing such things. Hulk576 (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 10:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk) 10:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You know something interesting? I made a mistake and I 100% owned up to it and acknowledged it and I'm treated like a threat to this site.

Where as if Admins make a mistake they can do no wrong.

Please make this make sense to me? Hulk576 (talk) 10:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IGN Hulk576 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Hill 2 Remake Wikipedia Page Locked Down After ‘Persistent Disruptive Editing’ Lowers Review Scores Hulk576 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera:

Wikipedia war: Fierce row erupts over Israel’s deadly Nuseirat assault Hulk576 (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I'm sorry! I let you down mathglot truly I'm upset and frustrated and of course I'll be combative over this whole ordeal because I'm the only one who'll defend myself 🙏 Hulk576 (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Yet it’s harder for new editors to find their way in. Previous generations often began by making small edits, like fixing typos or spotting vandalism, but nowadays many of these tasks are handled by automated tools. Without clear entry points, new editors may dive into editing more contentious articles, where a single misstep could trigger harsh feedback. Experienced Wikipedians aren’t known for being nicey-nice: if an old-timer posts curt, pointed feedback on a new user’s talk page (where editors discuss improvements to articles), the public nature of the critique can be shameful enough to discourage the newcomer from continuing as a regular volunteer". This is from The Guardian Hulk576 (talk) 10:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do better! Hulk576 (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The most popular topic on Wikipedia in 2023 could also be the website’s downfall: ChatGPT. English Wikipedia’s ChatGPT page garnered nearly 50 million total visitors so far this year as of Nov. 28, making it more popular than even Taylor Swift and Barbie, according to a report from Wikipedia’s nonprofit host, the Wikimedia Foundation". Quartz don't know if they're reliable but this is an opinion. Hulk576 (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

btw I use mobile so that's why it's kinda hard to convey what I'm saying. I don't have a computer. Hulk576 (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah re-reading that've what I wrote I can see how you get that impression of me, See the thing is is that you have to look at it from my POV I'm someone whose frustrated and fed up with being treated like a pariah except from Mathglot for something soo stupid and irrelevant that it's quite laughable. It almost seems like you're laughing at my expense because I'm making these mistakes and screwing myself over and you're getting a kick out of it not looking at it from a point of compassion or empathy. Which is honestly disturbing. I'm not good at explaining and definitely have problems with grammar and punctuation. But not everybody knows everything. Some people are good and one thing and some are good at other things. Hulk576 (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, to properly state why I called you a plaintiff Jeffro77 is because I was trying to characterize you without referencing your name.

I hold no grudge against you as the way I viewed it back then. I was hoping to have your input on wether or not the you felt the Topic Ban is justified but see as how you stated "proper understanding of the purpose of the block or what a topic ban would constitute". Hulk576 (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is self-evident that referring to me as a 'plaintiff' while also referencing my username was not 'trying to characterize me without referencing my name'. The fact that you made 25 edits to the page since my comment, with no intervening comments from anyone else, including deletions of some of your intervening comments, does not inspire confidence. Your initial response[8] (which you subsequently deleted[9]) seemed to be missing a clause so it was difficult to parse the intended meaning, but appears to be a continuation of previous misrepresentation of my responses (at least in principle if not in specific intent). Additionally, some of your subsequent comments suggest you don't really want to be here anyway[10][11][12] and your tangent into the risk ChatGPT poses for Wikipedia [13] verges on bizarre. But in response to your specific query for my input... it does seem that you deliberately tried to skirt around what a topic ban would actually entail. My view is that if admins do decide to unblock you, a topic ban around the subject that triggered your initial block would be justified, as I am not convinced that you do not intend (or will not feel compelled) to return to previous behaviour. However, no part of the decision is up to me.--Jeffro77 Talk 13:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right in that manner, I had rejected the Topic Ban because I had no prior history of this “battlefield mentality”

nor am someone who intends harm on the platform as there are other people better suited at that then myself. I had only contributed to that topic as I felt I knew it well and provided irrefutable evidence to warrant my edits. Also I was taken aback Jeffro77 to see that you’re an atheist editing a page about religion and was honestly Ironic.

to put it into perspective that’d be a person either a liberal/conservative political ideology editing for both the Democratic Party or Republican Party Wiki article.

This “Tangent in ChatGpt” is merely to state that change is inevitable on this site, And the current model of donation is unsustainable that’s more than blatantly obvious given how many time you see the banner per year. Hulk576 (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hulk. This will be my last comment here for a good while. Some of your comments above are counterproductive. When you are blocked, your Talk page should be used essentially for one thing: to prepare and file your block appeal, or ask specific questions about it. You have already done that and filed it at the top of this section. After that, your best strategy is mostly to just wait. Continuing on in the way you have above just hurts your case. (As the block appeal has not been acted on yet, you could in theory still adjust or improve it, but you've spent a lot of words talking about it already, so I'm not sure that would helpful at this point. You could also, in theory, ask for clarification about the appeal or respond to admin questions, but I think that's been done already.) Pretty much anything else will not help your case.

An indefinite block is no picnic, but it is not final (like a Community ban is), and there are a couple of things you can do now if that remains the outcome here. One is, go silent here for a long time, because as bad as things are, they can get worse—admins can revoke your talk page access so you won't be able to write on this page anymore. Your best strategy to avoid that is to either go completely silent here (for months, at least) or confine your comments to brief, direct responses to admins or others assisting you with your block appeal, and nothing more. (That also means it is probably best not to even respond to this comment, unless just a word or two to say you have read it.)

There is one other thing you can do, and it has to do with the scope of an indefinite block: did you know that your block applies to all pages (except this one) at Wikipedia—that is, at English Wikipedia (en.wiki.x.io) only? By that I mean, it does not apply to Spanish Wikipedia, or French Wikipedia, or any of the other 300 or so Wikipedias. It also does not apply to Simple Wikipedia (written in Simple English), or to Wiktionary (Wikipedia's dictionary project), or any of the other Wikimedia sister projects. This means that you are only blocked here, and not anyplace else. An excellent way to prepare yourself for a block appeal down the road a ways, is to start editing one of those other Wikipedias or related projects, and establish a track record of doing a good job there without getting blocked or attracting undue attention from Admins at those projects. I would pick one or two projects (try Simple Wikipedia and Wiktionary, for example) and just start editing there. You are not blocked there, regardless what happens here, and you can ping me there for help, if you want. Make a lot of good edits, start some articles, ask for help there, and build a good reputation. You automatically have the same userid there, so you can just log in right now. After you have 500 or 1000 edits and maybe six months' experience minimum and a spotless record there, then come back here and think about writing a new block appeal based on your clean record there. At that point, if you want assistance in your block appeal, you are welcome to ping me here at that time. (Of course, to do that, you will need to avoid having your TPA (talk page access) removed, so please keep that in mind!) I wish you well, I probably won't respond here anymore, but do ping me at another project about how to get going there if you decide you want to try that avenue. Best of luck, Mathglot (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the advice Mathglot, I will say this isn’t that the most ridiculous thing you’ve ever heard. All of that just to return editing while there are more malicious actors at play getting away with it by proxy and ban evading aka using a VPN. Give me B4 the end of the year to hopefully reach my goal of being an editor once again. Because this 6 month wait is all nothing more than nonsense! and I invite anyone to say otherwise. Hulk576 (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone from The Guardian and Al Jazeera is even saying that then ya’ll gotta problem. Hulk576 (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Flo!

as I stated earlier your reign will soon come to an end

AI will make you obsolete so here’s to that 🥳 Hulk576 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I so fixated on AI? Because I know like you know things are changing at a rapid pace and soon Wikipedia will either be bought out or have to integrate AI to remain relevant in the sphere. Which will entail a change to the platform never before seen in its 23 years. If YouTube, X formally twitter changed then the same will apply to Wikipedia. I hope you remember how you treated a good editor who never vandalized the site nor was trying to be “Disruptive” when you couldn’t even disprove the edits I made were disruptive and were in fact factual on the basis that Major Puplication like BBC and Reuters and CNN all stated that the information I put was factual.

This is the problem with Wikipedia Admins most of all above everyone else they have an Elitist mentality because they’ve been on the platform for a long time and have the power to either “Block” or “Ban” individuals with the special tools granted to them from Wikipedia. I don’t have those tools nor do I desire to waste my life attaining such thing when it’s no different to people saying they’re wasting their lives on playing video games. So be proud of yourselves Admins!

when either this site dies because they’ll eventually run out of their precious donations and they’ll be a competitor the like of which we’ve never seen b4 just remember “I’ll be there”

🍺🥳👍 Hulk576 (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

⌚🕰️⏳⌛ Hulk576 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They asking for donations again! Hulk576 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s now been officially 10 years ago today!

It’s now been 10 years ago today since I joined Wikipedia and started editing.

Tho my edits aren’t numerous they were at least impactful to the site to add refinement and clarity to the subjects that I were interested in.

If given the chance I’d like to make it another 10 years more…?

Cheers🍺 Hulk576 (talk) 05:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]