User talk:Kai3952/Archive 8

User talk page length

Hi! I see that the length of this talk page is becoming quite long. It is rather difficult to navigate & edit, and will soon include too many templates such that MediaWiki can't handle displaying it, causing inclusion in Category:User talk pages where template include size is exceeded and a situation in which templates do not not work at the bottom. Some old browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kB. Please archive this talk page in accordance with the guidelines laid out here. You can do this automatically with ArchiverBot, and to quickly use a standard setup for ArchiverBot, simply place "{{subst:User:Jeff G./usertalksetup}}" at the top of your user talk page. If you don't setup archiving, someone will when that happens. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 19:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Because I'm considering to archive it in another way.--Kai3952 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 year

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 year for the following reason: Producing more drama after the previous block. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Mys_721tx (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I fully understand why the admin did so. I willing to delete all photos I took and never upload the content for a HOST violation ever again (of course the other 2,000+ photos will not continue to upload). When unblocked, I will delete the photos as soon as possible. I need to learn a lesson to avoid making the same mistake again. So I give up my defense/explanation and accept the block for one year.--Kai3952 (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "After that time I never harassed User:Beeblebrox and have fulfilled my promise, so I don't understand why User:Mys_721tx holding my responsible for the harassment accountable for my actions before three months. If it is harassment, it should be blocked at the moment it occurs. Maybe he thinks that the harassment refers to this: special:diff/662423985. I think he may have misunderstood me when I says that he ignored my pleas for help. But I'm saying the truth, because he did not respond for 25 days. His judgement on the copyright of the original work is generally sound and positive, I just trusted his judgment, so I asked him to check all works of User:黃紀翔. And also, if he didn't want to be harassed, he should have warned me, but he didn't. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I can't believe someone I trust is blocking my account. If administrators cannot be trusted, what should I do?--Kai3952 (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC) To all administrators: I apologize for my actions. I do understand that it is my personal problem especially offended User:Mys_721tx (see: special:diff/662423985). About the report itself--two things: I promise that I'll not upload the content for a HOST violation and no longer harassed them. As for Polda18's talk page, I no longer harassed him and promise that I'll stay away from the task that checked whether the uploaders had the copyrighted material from somewhere on the internet or the content uploaded without permission. In the same way, it also applies to User:Mys_721tx.--Kai3952 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Despite the sincerely expressed apology, I've still decided to withdraw my unblock request. Because the harassment that was happened again after the last block, and it proved that I didn't learn my lesson.--Kai3952 (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)" Decline reason: "As the request is withdrawn, I have no other choice than to decline it. Taivo (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

Mys_721tx，既然選擇不理我，卻還要對我封鎖，而且封鎖理由是拿三個月前的事，行跡相當明顯，封鎖理由只是藉口，目的是為了你自己。可是你不理人，我的腦袋並不是你的腦袋，怎麼可能會知道你在想什麼，更不用說你不想被我打擾，這一點你完全沒有顧及到。因此，在沒有告訴我情況下，你直接封鎖我是不合理的。我知道你的封鎖是有前例可循，就像User:AT，將我的求助看成是騷擾。不過，你都不理人了，我有問題也不會問你了，因為我之前我根本不知道你是這種人。你的封鎖果然驗證我的話：「對commons而言不是好事」。--Kai3952 (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

特別是我等你25天，這25天並沒有頻繁找你，其中第二次詢問距離第一次相隔21天，我今天是第三次找你，結果你是在幾小時之後才封鎖我，況且前二次都是在討論User:黃紀翔，你前二次都沒有回應。由此可知，你真的很可怕，因為前面有過一次被你封鎖，現在我又被你封鎖，似乎只要我找你，你就會封鎖我，現在才明白你對我的敵意居然存在這麼久了。反正，我在第三次時，我有說不會找你，現在你封鎖我，更加證明你對我的確有敵意，但我無可奈何，誰叫大家選你當管理員，我只能被你惡整。解封之後，我還是會繼續推動正事（討論User:黃紀翔），只不過你是拿你的權力顧自己，所以我還是堅持完成對commons有幫助的事，你的封鎖阻止不了我的堅持。--Kai3952 (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

還有一種可能，你是用封鎖來告訴我，你是站在Reke相同的立場，目的是要我停止對任何人的照片版權審查。如果是這個可能，按照Reke說法，別人在這一點做得比我好很多，相較之下，我的確不適合對別人的照片審查版權。然而，commons社群都鼓勵我用積極的態度才是對commons有幫助，所以我才抱著學習的態度找你請教照片的版權問題。從這裡來看，你的封鎖的確是會讓我怯步，甚至我會覺得不應該堅持。我不知道你會不會在意別人散播關於你的事情。假如封鎖目的真的是為了阻止我審查照片的版權，我只能找別人求助，然後說前面的原因，後面的結果，但是不會斷言你封鎖的動機是出於你個人，那麼別人怎麼看你，是否會信任你，這不是我能控制的，因為我只是憑事實去說，唯一問題是他們看不懂中文。因此，我必須先向你說明，同時先向你說聲：「抱歉」--Kai3952 (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

To all administrators:

To my surprise, I found clear evidence of offensive statements. At that time I said to him:, "我將來也不會再找他幫忙" (translated into English as: "I won t ask him for help in the future").--Kai3952 (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Judging from his interaction with me (often without a response for a few weeks), this block actions seems to "imply" that he does not want to be harassed by me. If so, I apologize for my actions and promise that it won't happen again. I stared at my promise with determination, confident in my future because I can always find the right person when I need assistance and what type of help I require. From now on I will stay away from his talk page.--Kai3952 (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Kai, all the interactions I have seen with you and a variety of other editors have followed the same pattern: you make accusations about others (often on other wikipedias, far outside Commons' remit) and how badly they treat you. Then you receive a slight degree of support here, because most editors simply want other editors to have an easy time editing here, but then you turn on them and accuse them of the same sort of (unevidenced) harrassment. As a result, there's simply no-one left who cares whether you're blocked or not. No-one is still that concerned as to see you unblocked: you have alienated all the editors who might have supported you.

Yes, this is probably unfair. But we're here with responsibilities towards ourselves, and towards the goals of the project. It would need someone exceptionally altruistic to still be bothered to argue your case, and I doubt that there is anyone left. You have burned all of your bridges. You have driven away all of those who might have supported you. But this is not our problem – Wikimedia doesn't have a "right" for you to edit here, and if that's the way you behave, then that's the way you end up being treated. I am sorry about this, but not much. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am wrong. If this is the only problem, then as long as I can change my interactions with other editors and move for the better, no one cares what I've done in the past. What do you suggest I do about it?--Kai3952 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You might be better asking Mys_721tx that, as the blocking admin. But the point would be to ask, and then listen to the answer. So far your reaction has always been to tell other people how wrong they are in their behaviour towards you. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for offending you. Maybe it's my tone that makes it look bad. Honestly, I've promise that I will stay away from Mys_721tx, so I can't to ask him. The upside to this is that it would definitely not let I have the chance to harass him anymore. But I won't forget your suggestion. I really appreciate your suggestion and your words. --Kai3952 (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "I got a email from the UCoC. For the purpose of improving my actions, I hereby request any admin to verify email authenticity.--Kai3952 (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)" Decline reason: "The purpose of the unblock template is just that, to request an unblock; it is not to request that an admin "verify email authenticity". Please do not use the template or make requests other than for the purpose of addressing the unblocking conditions at COM:BP. Эlcobbola talk 16:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

@Elcobbola: I am very sorry about this mistake but I think you need to know what the UCoC says in the email. Because the UCoC is suspicious of this block, Polda18's talk page and AN/U, both involve the same dispute: To discuss that the same alleged HOST violation. However, out of respect for the Commons community, their suggestion is: "To work with the Commons community on this matter, through their available community process where you may lodge a dispute in the village pump." That is to say, all the evidence points to my HOST violation, and intimidation/harassment is "not" the real reason for this block. As per this point, I need to reach consensus with an admin. That's why you need to verify email authenticity.--Kai3952 (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "Three days ago, I get further confirmation from the UCoC, who told me that their suggestion would be to work with the Commons community. Therefore, I admit my mistakes, and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience they have faced due to my actions: I harassed users through my explanation about my HOST violation. I know I'm a recidivist and convicted of violating "intimidation/harassment" (three times so far). After self-reflection, I realized that all mistakes come from my overly persistent: always stick to my own ideas and suspicious of the opinions of others. Now I understand why the UCoC suggested me to work with the Commons community. I should learn to keep my mouth shut sometimes and then patiently listen to and respect different arguments or opinions. To take an example from this thread on AN/U, when everyone is talking about my HOST violation, I should keep my mouth shut to avoid harassment and misunderstandings (being seen as defending my actions). If they have a consensus for violating HOST, then I have to accept it instead of resisting and denying it. After my account is blocked for three times for harassment violation, it was enough to make me learn my lesson. This means that I have to control this behavior more strictly than anyone. So given my situation (including trolling and ongoing drama), a capacity for rational interaction with others and a capacity for work with the community are equally important and must be done. Apart from this problem, I'm glad I didn't create more problems for all of us. I recognized the danger signs when more and more Taiwanese users started talking about something I do. I know they can't accept Commons's policies, so I can understand why they're against the idea of my working. However, the Commons community is people from all over the world, not just Taiwan. If the consensus of the Commons community is opposite to that of the Taiwanese community, I will choose the former. Because if I choose the latter, I may be blocked for violating the policy. Maybe for this reason, Taiwanese users alienated me and talk behind my back on off-wiki sites. This question is beyond my ability, and no one (including the UCoC) knows how to resolve it. Given this background, I will try as hard as possible to keep my civility. If necessary, I will ignore them to avoid my mistakes again.--Kai3952 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)" Decline reason: "mostly because you wrote in 11th of June: "I willing to delete all photos I took and never upload the content for a HOST violation ever again (of course the other 2,000+ photos will not continue to upload). When unblocked, I will delete the photos as soon as possible." This is not acceptable. You cannot revoke free licenses. But now three your unblock requests are declined in a row, so I'll reblock you without talkpage access. We will welcome you back after your year-long block will expire. Taivo (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)