User talk:Handroid7

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, Handroid7. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Also worthwhile acquainting yourself with the functions of global user pages. Happy editing!

— billinghurst sDrewth 03:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metawiki is not a complaints forum for the disgrunted[edit]

Hi. You issues with Bbb23 at English Wikipedia are not a matter for MetaWiki administrators, nor for Metawiki. Issues from a wiki belong at that wiki, not spread to other wikis. So please try to resolve your issues at English Wikipedia with the processes in place for their resolution or for arbitration. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: I have no access to the talk page there. That access was revoked for asking legitimate questions. Therefore, I posted here. What do you suggest me to do instead? --Handroid7 (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... resolve your issues at English Wikipedia with the processes in place for their resolution or for arbitration — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. --Handroid7 (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So where in Billinghurst's message does it say it was OK to bring the issue to Commons? -- Tegel _(Talk) 11:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tegel: I didn't bring the issue to commons, just the document. Because I can't put it on the English Wikipedia. Commons is for original content, isn't it? Also, you need to understand that Bbb23 abused his administratorship. --Handroid7 (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is a place for media files, not en.wiki issues. En.wiki has ways for you to address the issue. You can contact the ArbitrationCommittee, or use the Unblock Ticket Request System to request to be unblocked if your talk page access is revoked. -- Tegel _(Talk) 11:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tegel: That page is not an attack page. It contains zero personal attacks, just a purely factual document. Also, I have already tried UTRS, and answered their questions, yet their reply asked the same questions that I have already answered. I guess I need to try again. --Handroid7 (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Purely factual document can still be off-topic. Did you get a reply on your UTRS-case? -- Tegel _(Talk) 16:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tegel: I am about to finish the UTRS case and send it. But where else am I supposed to document the abusive behaviour of Bbb23? --Handroid7 (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a different account before? -- Tegel _(Talk) 16:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tegel: Everything that happened has been documented here: User_talk:Handroid7#Unblock_request:_Zero_abuse.. User:Chanc20190325 was blocked for anti-circumcision editing. But because I have learnt my lessons (anti-circumcision edits are considered inappropriate), I have not repeated that once with this account. None of my edits through this account remotely touch the topic of circumcision. Therefore, there is no reason for the block anymore. By the way, I appreciate your assistance. --Handroid7 (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you had an account that got blocked, and then you created a new account and continued to edit without solving the issues that you had with your first account? Yes, that is to circumvent a block and that is not allowed on most wikis, so I understand why you are having problem to get the account unblocked.

I see on your en.wiki talk page that you have sent in two cases to the UTRS-system. I assume that the first case that is closed was closed by someone else than Bbb23, right? -- Tegel _(Talk) 17:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tegel: Yes, the first UTRS case was delined by someone else. Bbb23 is not a member of the ArbCom, last time I checked. Also, I wanted to leave my contaminated past behind. But because I have already learnt from the mistake with the previous account (anti-circumcision editing), I never did it even once with the current account. The purpose of the block was preventing me from doing anti-circumcision editing on Wikipedia, which I have not done once with the new account. --Handroid7 (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So now there is at least two admins on en.wiki that don't want to unblock your account. It doesn't matter that you didn't edit the same type of articles with the new account as the account that got blocked. You as a person got blocked and it doesn't matter that you created a new account. You are still blocked and that is why the new account got blocked as well. At least that is how it looks from my perspective. I have given you the two options that I can think of so I have nothing else to add to this case. -- Tegel _(Talk) 21:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tegel: So should I first request an unblock from the original account? (From a logical perspective, that would not make any difference, but if it is really necessary, I guess it is the only way.)

Also, according to w:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, I acted in a legitimate way. --Handroid7 (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should have asked for unblocking the original account instead of creating a new account, but that is a little bit late for that now. You have already created a new account to circumvent your block and that puts you in a worse situation.

For that rule to apply you need to convince the local community that you have made Wikipedia better by creating a new account, and from what I can see you haven't managed to do that. -- Tegel _(Talk) 22:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tegel: They silenced me before I could even say much in first place. I made >1000 legitimate and clean edits and also crafted good draft articles (, of which all have been erased by Bbb23), which I stated on that talk page. So I have indeed made Wikipedia better.

Also, while creating that new account, I thought that my legitimate contributions would automatically speak for themselves. They judged me without looking into my contributions, apparently. --Handroid7 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how that works. What you did is block evasion. Once you were blocked with your account Chanc20190325 you would have needed to try to get the block for this account lifted first. You could have tried to make use of the standard offer, i.e. waiting 6 months with no edit and then a promise not to repeat the behavior leading to your block. In fact this is the only way forward for you now as far as I can see. Remove the complaint pages, do something else for (at least) 6 months, then try to get one of your accounts unblocked referring to the standard offer. --Count Count (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Count Count: But according to w:WP:IAR, evading that block in favour of Wikipedia (good edits) is appropriate. Now, it is too late to request an unblock for Chanc20190325. Had I known in July 2019, that I would get blocked despite of legitimate, clean and productive edits, I would have done that first. --Handroid7 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, read en:WP:NOTIAR. --Count Count (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Count Count: It says “Rule-breakers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged.”, which I did by making over 1000 legitimate edits. --Handroid7 (talk)

Just read the first bullet point: "Ignore all rules" does not prevent the enforcement of certain policies. --Count Count (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Count Count: Alright, I get that. But I have learnt from my mistake a long time ago, already. I will now follow the instructions given to me by Tegel. --Handroid7 (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tegel: The reply of the second UTRS case claims I have not addressed the reason for my block, despite I clearly have. I have now lost my access to UTRS. I don't know what to do. I would want to do a brief chat on IRC, but again, I guess that they would kick me on sight, not giving me a chance.

In my second UTRS, I have also linked to that document of Bbb23's questionable behaviour, but the replying administrator also labelled it an attack page, despite it is legitimate criticism. I don't understand. --Handroid7 (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand why so many administrators are saying the same thing, it's going to be difficult for you to make a successful unblock request. Regardless of that, I suggest you read en:Wikipedia:Standard offer. If you remind me, I'll restore your talk page access after six months. If you haven't engaged in any block evasion or sock puppetry in that time, someone will evaluate a new unblock request. There are always options available to you. As a last resort, you can also appeal to English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]