User talk:WillyBig: Difference between revisions

Line 32: Line 32:

::::::CheckUser results are inconclusive, but the behavioural footprint is incredibly similar. It seems highly likely this is another sock. [[User:DatGuy|DatGuy]]<sup>[[User talk:DatGuy|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/DatGuy|Contribs]]</sub> 19:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

== {{unblock | ~~reason~~=Lesson learned[[User:WillyBig|WillyBig]] ([[User talk:WillyBig#top|talk]]) 10:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)}} ==

{{unblock =Lesson learned[[User:WillyBig|WillyBig]] ([[User talk:WillyBig#top|talk]]) 10:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC) =

In short, I understand the reason for my block. The wikipedia talk pages are NOT a forum, as has been now drilled into me. The talk page is for users to suggest edits specifically… with sources where possible and in most cases. I look forward to actively participating in other less controversial pages, of which I have some already in mind. Nevertheless, I would politely request this unblock to be removed, which I think most fair peoples would agree was perhaps made in haste. This is my only account and it went from freedom of access to a permaban. I believe harsh punishments like this permaban are hurtful to the community and discourage newcomers, especially considering my being new to this website and not fully understanding all the intricacies.

Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate on what you find that I have done which is inappropriate? I noticed it goes against the narrative you have been advocating for. That doesn’t inherently make it inappropriate. It is the talk page.

I did post this to another user who has said something similar to me. It works in both cases. Thank you. WillyBig (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages are for specific suggestions for article improvement, based on reliable sources, not for general debate or personal theorizing.

And again, why did you single out Dinnerstein and put his name in capital letters on the talkpage? Acroterion (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, apologies, my goal was to improve the article but absent reliable sources… I should refrain from continuing down this route. Thanks for your understanding. I still think the article is woefully one-sided and the same article in different languages says that Leo Frank was guilty… which is quite the discrepancy… until someone can find a reliable source (as in, reliable according to the many Frank defenders) there is not much point to opine further. WillyBig (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as in, reliable according to the many Frank defenders No, reliable, as in the prevailing consensus of academic scholarship is what rules here, even if it doesn’t on other languages. Again, why did you single out Dinnerstein and capitalize his name? Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not mind my asking you this… how is it that original trial documents are not reliable? I am at a loss as to why that would be anything but unreliable or biased. Dinnerstein’s name shouldn’t have been capitalized. I copied his name from another source, pasted it, and out of haste never went back to correct it. It is not to add emphasis. WillyBig (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to a user who in an earlier discussion on the talk page tried to use original trial documents as source material…. they were subsequently denied as originating from an anti-Semitic source. That is despite the documents, a couple PDF files if I recall, and just the files. There was nothing that smacked of racism or prejudice anywhere in them. WillyBig (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the problem with using trial documents for analysis is that they are WP:PRIMARY sources and entirely inappropriate for conclusions. Andre🚐 01:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. Andre🚐 22:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely asking, I do not want to get blocked. But I feel as though perhaps there is undue targeting because of the nature of your viewpoint and my raising issue with it. WillyBig (talk) 07:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? I was replying to someone who had commented on my talk page! Why would I be indefinitely blocked? This is outrageous. How is this at all correct? WillyBig (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then ask for an unblock. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 19 September 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Whilst replying to another user who had commented on a previous post of mine, I was abruptly banned indefinitely. This is an incorrect application of the most harsh punishment… I strongly believe that, in this case, there shouldn’t be any punishment as there is no merit for it. The reason given for this ban was the accusation that WillyBig is not here to build an encyclopedia. WillyBig has been respectful, inquisitive, and has always asked for clarification when needed. He looks forward to editing less controversial topics, as it would appear he has stumbled into a proverbial minefield. In short, my replying to another user’s comment does not merit any punishment, let alone an indefinite ban, as I have been respectful and shown good faith in all my posts thus far and will continue to do so.

Decline reason:

You need to acknowledge problems in your approach to editing. I am not prepared to unblock you to continue to edit in the manner you have so far. If you were to commit to doing something else, something useful, an unblock could be possible. I am declining your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2025 (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.

WillyBig (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing administrators should review this diff [1]. Acroterion (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block is good and should be maintained. User is clearly NOTHERE and is WP:RGW questioning apparently reliable sources and soapboxing on their personal Leo Frank theories and was repeatedly warned, and their unblock request shows no indication that they understand. Andre🚐 01:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is just the same sock as User:No1BallBreaker again? —JBL (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks like it (“Hello all” “Hi all”) Andre🚐 18:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy what do you think? Doug Weller talk 18:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser results are inconclusive, but the behavioural footprint is incredibly similar. It seems highly likely this is another sock. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your consideration in this matter. WillyBig (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment