User talk:UponAShiningStar

June 2019
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. bd2412 T 18:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Thank you for restoring access to my talk page. I would love to give you an explanation, but I really can't. I don't understand why I have been blocked. The reason that "I'm not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" is pretty vague. Could you give me more information about what I'm accused of that caused this block, such as if it because of the page blanking? UponAShiningStar (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your first edit to this encyclopedia was obvious vandalism, falsely stating that a common flower "has the unique property of exploding when in contact with water". Your handful of remaining edits to articles are generally low-value rewordings, but your recent history clearly consists of nothing but you fishing for the emails of other editors. Based on the several messages you have deleted from your talk page, you have made several attempts to solicit this information through email contacts in which you ask them to email you back so you can request edits, and insist that this communication can only be conducted through your receiving communications from them by email. This behavior is mildly disruptive and highly suspicious, and you will no longer be enabled to carry it out. bd2412  T 03:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a clear idea of why I have been blocked.

Firstly, about my first edit. I admit completely that the information was incorrect. However, it was not intentional vandalism. What I meant to write was that the seeds pop when coming into contact with water, as said on the page. The placing of the edit, along with the misleading content was unintentional.

I fully admit that the placing of the edit and information was incorrect. I see how it can be seen as vandalism, and I am fully ashamed of the edit. However, I hope you can show some leniency as it was my first edit, and only a single one made with good intent.

On the topic of the emails, I admit that I attempted to obtain the email addresses of two users on this talk page. However, both of these were administrators, not just random users, and I intended to send them an important private request, not to request edits of any kind. The reason I wanted their email addresses was because I wished to send the requests with my own email service, which has much better options for security and privacy than the Wikipedia email service.

In my opinion, by this argument, any email sent on Wikipedia with the intent of receiving a reply is "fishing for emails". Any Wikipedia user who sends an email likely expects the recipient to reply abd is requesting that the recipient disclose their email to them. I understand that my activity was seen as much more suspicious and was likely seen as such because all of my replies were through email. I can see why it was seen as inappropriate discussion on my user talk page. I apologise and will refrain from using my talk page for such activities in the future. However, since I was expecting a reply instead of any reply on the talk page, I was only asking that the address be privatly disclosed to me, and I disagree with you that the act of asking for an email address was a malicious activity itself.

Still, I can see how this activity can be seen as suspicious, and I am willing to cease it immediately. In the future, I will not engage in this activity. I apologise for any disruption that this activity has caused. However, I had no malicious intent whatsoever. I can assure you that I'm most definitely here with good intent and to contribute to Wikipedia. In recent days, I have just found myself in a situation that has necessitated me to make private requests of administrators, all of which were legitimate. This can be testified to by several of them.

Certainly, even if I have few edits, I am allowed to make requests of an administrator as much as anyone else?

As for the removal of the comments, my impression was that I'm fully within my rights to remove any content on my user talk page once I have read them. In this case, the reason I removed those comments was not to hide the activity, but just to affirm that they have been read.

All in all, I am willing to immediately cease and refrain from this activity n the future. I concede my activity was highly suspicious, but it was all done with good intentions, and I am absolutely here to contribute to Wikipedia. I don't see how my acts, while "mildly disruptive" and "highly suspicious" can be said to be a violation of any policy. At the least, it is not a violation of the reason cited for my block and I don't believe it justifies an indefinite block without any prior warning.

Nonetheless, I see your point and the potential disruption and suspicion this activity brings, and I am willing to refrain from any such activity in the future. I commend you for your diligence, but I hope you will remove this block as a misunderstanding. The discussion on the talk page was one-sided and did not reveal my well-intentioned reasons for requesting that the email address be privately disclosed to me. UponAShiningStar (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have unblocked you. I can see no legitimate reason why you would need to communicate with admins through emails that are outside of the Wikipedia email service, and if you attempt to push for that outcome again, I will restore the block. bd2412  T 16:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I reiterate that there is no legitimate reason why you would need to communicate with admins through emails that are outside of the Wikipedia email service, unless you are perhaps being stalked or harassed on Wikipedia and fear to communicate that information in a public sphere. Since I can see no indication that you have been subject to such conditions here, there is nothing further to say here. There is no reason that the entire content of both emails you have sent me could not have been posted publicly, unless your intent is to hide improper activity. bd2412  T 17:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I continue to find your account to be suspicious, and difficult to believe. I am therefore going to open a WP:ANI case regarding your assertions, and a Checkuser case with respect to your account. If you are telling the truth, it will be confirmed; if not, that too will become readily apparent, and appropriate consequences will follow. bd2412  T 18:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
A discussion has been initiated at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You are welcome to participate. Please note that anything that you communicate to me by email from this point on will be posted in that discussion. As I have informed you of this condition, I will consider any further emails from you as consent to repost their contents. bd2412 T 18:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)