User talk:Yon dee


 * What is your relationship with Froghollow32? And if you claim no relationship. please explain how you happened to make, a short time ago, exactly the same edit as this user did in November? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, we are wholly uninterested in your e-mail, which you mention in your unblock requests. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear I have no relation to Froghollow32. I have made the exact same edit as him as I thought it was the right edit to reinstate. It was my conclusion that Boomer Vial had reinstated malicious contact which I still think he had initially added. When conceding multiple users I've meant that i previously registered the same email in the past to Hebrew Wiki. I'd appreciate if you remove this block and examine the content of the page that I edited which instigated all of this. It is apparent to me that some of the tone of the content bear grudge against Mr Radcliffe and violates Wiki Policy towards living biographies. But I will let you be the judge of that. thanks.
 * I did what? Y'know, passing blame whether correct or incorrect is a very invalid way to have your request to be unblocked granted. In this case you are both correct, and incorrect. You are correct in the aspect that the content was not suitable for the article. However, you were incorrect in the aspect in that I originally added the material, as well as in thinking that I wouldn't be completely insulted that you attacked my character by suggesting that I added it. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 11:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

If it wasn't you who initially inserted the content - my sincere apologies. However, you were the one to undo the previous change and reinstate that content, hence my confusion. Having said that, I should not have pointed fingers - but to approach you on the talk page to try and re-edit this article together. Please accept this apology!


 * . I actually think it is plausible that the user coincidentally made the same edits as Froghollow32. They used the "undo" button, which made it easy for them to reinstate the same removal of content, and in my view, there were parts of the removal that were justified WP:BLP removals since the content was based on user-generated sources – here is my talk page comment regarding that (this makes me WP:INVOLVED, so please treat this as a comment from your average editor, not an administrator). I would be interested to see if a checkuser can clarify the relationship between these two accounts. Mz7 (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I and several other CUs have already checked this account, but while I can't speak for the others my own results were - there isn't enough evidence to say that there is clear connection, and (as is normal with these checks) it's also not possible to say that the accounts are definitely not related. Yunshui 雲 水  12:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Once again I proclaim my innocence, Mz7 is right that I simply used the undo feature. I don't understand how can it be that so many admins went over this, none came to a conclusive evidence that I am the accused account, yet you would not release my blocking. I've apologized to user Boomer Vial but as you see the content of the article in question is indeed problematic - which means my actions were not arbitrary at all! Having said all this, you might as well keep this block because if Wiki is so arbitrary that based on circumstantial evidence I cannot contribute anymore, then its your loss and thanks.
 * Thanks, Yunshui. Based on the nature of the edits removed, I think the behavioral evidence was enough to make a block within Alex Shih’s discretion – both you and the other account used the same idiosyncratic phrase “malicious content” in your edit summaries – but I don’t think I would have made the block myself without more conclusive evidence than there is. Another way of looking at this is this was a new user who saw content they thought was controversial, looked up Wikipedia’s WP:BLP policies (or perhaps were familiar with their general principles already after making a handful of contributions in 2015 to Hebrew Wikipedia, which may have a similar policy), and reverted thinking that the content violated those policies (which may have some truth if you examine the content that was restored) and noticing that the content had been removed on an earlier occasion before (perhaps copying the edit summary of the prior revert). On this basis, I would be unopposed to unblocking. Mz7 (talk) 14:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)