User talk:Ilovemydoodle

We do not use {{delete}} for entries unless they are clearly non-existent, spam, vandalism, mistakes (by editors), etc. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Isn’t “Jewkraine” obviously spam? Ilovemydoodle (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

How so? — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like a made word used for vandalism. Ilovemydoodle (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, it has 3 cites so it meets CFI, right? Just because a term is derogatory, offensive, etc. doesn't mean it's spam or vandalism. Acolyte of Ice (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Got it. Ilovemydoodle (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Bidenism

Why on earth would you delete all the useful content like citations? Equinox ◑ 14:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I already fixed it. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

@Equinox How were my edits “absolutely egregious vandalism”? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Please explain, I am genuinely confused. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Deleting senses just because you disagree with them is vandalism. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection I don’t "disagree", the ones I kept are far more common. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection Also, how am I a "a known troublemaker at Wikipedia"? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Unblock

@Equinox Could I have an unblock discussion? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

No. But you can wait a week, it's only a week block. Please try to behave a bit more sane after that. Nobody wants to baby-sit you. Equinox ◑ 08:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I still don't understand how I vandalized. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Block

@Surjection I was mass-reverting an IP address range that mostly consisted of LTAs and vandals, but also had a few legitimate users. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection Could you unblock as this was a false block? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

No. It's clear you are simply incapable of contributing constructively - every time after your block expired you just found a new way of being disruptive. This one will not. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection Do you really think that I am trying to be disruptive? My first block was for a mistake I made when I was very new to editing. My second block was because the admin misunderstood what I was trying to do. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, by "contributing constructively" do you mean here or in general? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection, Equinox, Koavf, -sche, or any other active admin here I still don’t understand, other than a few edits I made on my first day of editing, I really don't understand how any of my editing are disruptive. You could say that some of the cross-wiki reverts are wrong, but those were part of a mass-revert on a IP range, which will never be 100% perfect. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection: Can you provide a diff that justifies an indefinite ban? From what I've seen, all he did was remove unsourced material added by an IP range. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf I might have accidentally undid a constructive edit, but I had to process thousands of edits, so I couldn't spend too much time on each one. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf Some of Surjection's other recent blocks here also appear to have been made prematurely. For example: This user, who made two non-constructive edits and was then indef'd. Not trying to attack him (or anyone for that matter), I just think that it might need to be looked into. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Just look at the edit history of this user. They've already been blocked on two other WMF sites as a timewaster, and I'm inclined to agree. It doesn't matter whether he's trying to be disruptive (which to me looks like that is at least partly true), but he just clearly is. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 09:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection And how is that related at all? That had to do with me misusing noticeboards, nothing at all to do with vandalism or disruptive editing. Also, I will (hopefully) get appealed on those two wikis soon as well. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Justifying a block with by saying that the user was blocked on an another wiki after the original reason was proven false isn't a good reason for maintaining a block. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf Doesn't the policy say to revert all edits by block- or ban-evading users? I know that because this is (probably) an open proxy of some sort, it will have some legitimate users that are not blocked or banned, but since a large portion of them are, shouldn't the assumption be that the edits are bad (and should be reverted) and if they turn out to be good, they can be reinstated later? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That is a typical approach to ban evasion, yes, but nothing at Wiktionary:Blocking policy obliges undoing all edits of a banned user. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf On most small wikis, if no local policy contradicting with the policy of the equivalent-language wikipedia exists, it is usually assumed to follow the wikipedia version of that policy. So I would assume that it would be the correct thing to do here. But, even if you disagree, I still don't understand how that justifies any negative behavior, let alone an indefinite block.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out the difference in reaction between this wiki and every-other wiki I had interactions relating to this situation. Most wikis did not care at all, some gave a warning, followed by me explaining and having that warning remove, and a few, e.g. Yiddish Wikipedia, thanked me. But, this was the only wiki where I was given no warnings or messages and just blocked inexplicably.

Quite interesting that some on a completely different wiki in a completely different language seeing me seemingly make disruptive edits assumed good faith and thanked me, while the English wiki, seeing me make good edits with occasional mistake, blocked me indefinitely. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's often true that smaller wikis just follow en.wp policy by default, so I understand assuming it, but this is not really that small and does have some well-developed policies and procedures. I also agree that I don't see a strong rationale for an indefinite block here. I'm not really in a place to start warring with an admin or try to undermine another trusted member of the community, but I am struggling to understand what is so disruptive that it requires an indefinite block. I don't see any diffs provided that are obviously bad and I took a look at a few random ones that seemed just fine to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Unblock

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Ilovemydoodle (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Block was falsely made, as I was mass-reverting edits by a (shared) IP range (whose edits are mostly from vandals and LTAs, but contain some legitimate contributions) and was not intentionally vandalizing pages. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)