User talk:Spasticpuppy

June 2019
Hello, I'm TheAwesomeHwyh. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Shelby County v. Holder have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text at the end of your user talk page.
 * Also, you were engaging in an edit war. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  03:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I must admit that I don't at this time see the issue with the username, either(maybe animal abuse of some kind; if could please explain). Leaving that aside, though, you were edit warring in violation of policy. Please explain how to handle an editing dispute without edit warring. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * While I think the username is redundant, it is also about puppies! Please elucidate the user name nature of the edits block rationale. And if WP:EW, is the issue, I ask this user to please read up on edit warring and its alternatives. That information would be essential to an unblock, as 331dot mentions above.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * and, the user who reported this username said that in the UK, this is an insulting term used by schoolyard bullies against disabled people. A Google search easily verified that "spastic" is an insult to the disabled in the UK. That combined with immediate edit warring led to the block. If any other administrator is convinced that this is a genunine good faith editor, I do not object to unblocking. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  15:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Believe me, I have a much better understanding of how wikipedia works now. My intent was to update factual inaccuracy in an article. My edit was not a matter of opinion, just fact. My edit was undone repeatedly without explanation, and I was dubiously blocked from editing by an administrator. Meanwhile the article is still inaccurate. It's clear to me now that there's some sort of agenda at work here. Now that I know that, I'll be referencing wikipedia MUCH less frequently for information.
 * Once you are unblocked, the proper place to discuss the content issue is Talk: Shelby County v. Holder. My only agenda is to prevent edit warring and block disruptive usernames. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * From my perspective, the editors who undid my edit without bothering to comment were engaging in a form of edit war. I at least explained the rationale for my edit. How did you receive the complaint about my user name?  Was that on some public forum?
 * Well, as "spastic puppy" is a pejorative, I'm taking no chances with "twinkielover". And in light of the contentiousness, blaming others, and not agreeing to live and learn on the EW issue, I'm in no hurry to change the current status quo. Something just feels wrong here. Not to say any other renamer should hesitate if they feel sanguine about following through with the rename.Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking to be un-blocked any longer. I'm just documenting why this situation stinks. I could understand the possible rationale for the initial reversion of my edit:  There's a new editor who's deleting content, I'm going to check them by undoing it to let them know that people are watching and ensure good intent (and I might not bother to look closely to see if they're right.)  However two additional reversions of my edit (also without comment) indicates that people are working as a team to keep inaccurate information in the article.  And they don't bother commenting because they know their position is indefensible.  So instead they nudge an administrator (possibly offline) to shut me down.


 * The real indicator of where the priority lies here is that the inaccurate content is still in the article, and no one has even bothered to try to justify it.
 * Your conspiracy theory about "teams" working to keep inaccurate information in the article is false as is your theorizing about offline contact. Utterly false and without merit. Your username was reported to WP:UAA, a page I monitor as an administrator. I blocked you for your username and for your edit warring conduct. Since I am involved administratively, I cannot also take a stand on the content issue and I have no expertise in Supreme Court cases anyway. So this is what you should do: File an unblock request that includes a username devoid of indicators of trolling, promise not to edit war, and then discuss the content issues on the talk page. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  22:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the edit history for the WP:UAA page and see no reference to my user name in previous edits to the page. Perhaps I'm missing it...

If you want to continue this conversation, then write a properly formatted unblock request that another administrator will review. That is the purpose of your talk page access at this time. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)