User talk:Grewia

Welcome!
Hello, Grewia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

January 2015
Please stop notifying users of SPIs that have been opened against them. You're not even the editor who opened the SPI. Also, please stop commenting on SPIs about procedure. It doesn't matter whether what you say is correct. There's no reason for you to do so, again in cases that you haven't even initiated. Consider this a warning that if you persist in this unusual WP:SPA-like preoccupation with SPIs, you risk being blocked for disruptive editing. You're a new user unless you have other accounts you've used in the past. Go do something more constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have only added those notifications where I believe the users may not be aware that they have been accused. You did not say what you think the harm is, so have not justified your intimidatory warning. I know of several users who were glad to have the chance to rebut and disprove the accusations before being inevitably, but unjustly, blocked. Please supply a convincing reason for why not to forewarn accused users. Surely it's better to give them a chance to defend themselves before, rather then after, any block. After all, what is the Socksuspectnotice template for, if not for notifying the accused. And there is no mention in its documentation that it should not be used for that purpose. Grewia (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a time when it was optional to notify users when opening an SPI, although, even then, not encouraged. That option was removed from the instructions. I don't warn editors who open an SPI and notify the user(s) because there is still some confusion about this issue, but you are not opening an SPI. You are apparently championing the cause of the accused, both in your notifications and in your procedural comments. My warning stands. If you persist, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * so what's the template for, and why hasn't it been deleted, or at least a warning against usage put on it? Grewia (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * From your first 44 edits here, it has become clear that you have no interest in contributing to the encyclopaedia and equally clear that you are not a new editor. Thus, I have blocked you indefinitely. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * oh the irony! I was just trying to save an update to cognitive dissonance when my block took effect. How can you deduce that I "have no interest in contributing to the encyclopaedia" when I am sat here attempting to get clarity of an issue which I believe is seriously impeding the quality of said encyclopaedia? My mistake appears to be that I have arrived fully prepared and competent in the use of the wiki mark-up language. It appears to me that I have walked into the shit pit here that is parochially and dishonestly known as sockpuppet investigations. Your defensive reaction tells me all that I need to know. I fear that I wasn't the first, and won't be the last who knows that Wikipedia would benefit from a more intelligent and evidence-based approach to tacking the clearly self-inflicted problem of sock puppets. Good luck with that then, if you think the current system is working Grewia (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

you disappoint me, but you don't surprise me. Your rationale is lacking coherence though. My "claimed intent" is just that: my intent. I have been rather busy lately, but hope to have more spare time for a while now, so was just warming back up, ready for some serious work. But, apparently, I am to be thwarted and punished indefinitely. If I had actually vandalized Wikipedia I would be unblocked by now. Ludicrous really. All because I hold the wrong opinion about SPIs, apparently. What options am I left with now if I want to edit Wikipedia (apart from the obvious one of simply creating another account and cracking on)? I'm getting fed up with stabbing in the dark with unblock requests. I need clearer guidance to help me formulate an acceptable request. Are you willing to help me to do that please? Grewia (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because of your persistent unconvincing unblock requests (see warning in block notice), I have revoked your Talk page access. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)