Me Da Wikipedian

BLP Issues

As a very late reply, I just stumbled upon [1] and wanted to make sure that you are aware of WP:BLPPRIMARY when the block expires. You do not need to reply to this message; it is purely for your information and may be unnecessary by now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware, thank you for bringing that to my attention@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries, thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Your welcome. Just wondering, other than the obvious (what I've been doing, trying to read the policies and not make mistakes), what should I do to not get blocked again in a week@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I mean, the most obvious way would be not editing => not getting blocked. But the best way to leave the old troubles behind while continuing to edit would perhaps be doing something entirely else than before – for example, not patrolling recent changes. Something else from the Task Center or the community portal than before. But that's far, far easier said than done. Why would anyone continue contributing to a volunteer project if their favorite tasks are prohibited for them? That makes it hard to provide a good answer; you'll probably need to consider why you're editing Wikipedia and if the same goal can be reached by doing things radically differently than before. Alternatively, you can of course continue recent changed patrolling, but the usual "I look at an edit, check if it's bad and simply revert if it is bad" approach has failed so far and you'd at least need to invent a new... algorithm for dealing with recent changes. A new way of approaching them. For example, a big issue may very well have been a perceived urgency to revert. You've been blocked for a month and Wikipedia is still running, so the urgency isn't actually there. Perhaps the most important point to remember more often is that your contributions are those of a volunteer and entirely optional in a huge community of others who can perform the same tasks. Yes, some biographies have issues and biographical issues may actually be urgent, but there is a considerable risk of making things worse by blindly jumping into them, so perhaps don't, at least not for a while after the block. Staying away from biographical content about living people reduces the amount of possible BLP violations to almost 0, and there's enough vandalism in articles about history too.

I would normally not provide such detailed advice to a volunteer who can just do what they like to do, but you genuinely seem to be seeking (almost step-by-step) instructions for how to continue, and perhaps rules to adhere to, and staying away from biographies of living people may actually be part of the advice you're looking for. If not, please ignore this message. Block expired means block expired; there are no strict conditions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

So, I may as well be blocked if I'm not editing to not get blocked. I would like, if possible, continue doing counter-vandalism work. I will stay away from BLPs for a few months. While I know block expired means block expired, if I'm blocked immediatly thereafter for the same thing, whats the point.

Another thing is that, as far I know, I've been fine on simplewiki. I have done anything different in counter-vandalism there than here. Any ideas to why I've been having such a bigger issue here?

Thank you.@ToBeFree: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to be unfair towards their community including Vermont who I deeply trust, but I'm afraid the following explanations are the most plausible:

• Article content there is less important to a topic's reputation, so there's less damage to be done and less publicity to be gained, and people (you and those looking at your edits, and probably even the vandals) behave with this in mind
• There are not enough people competent and caring about high-quality verifiable, neutral content enough to check experienced users' work and deal with patrolling issues

Things like that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lineage (anthropology)

Hello! Your submission of Lineage (anthropology) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --evrik ^(talk) 01:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Evrik User is blocked until June 5 and will not be able to participate at DYK at this time. -- ferret (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yup. --evrik ^(talk) 01:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I can however respond, here, and I will. It was in the article when it was submitted. Anyways, here is a new one:Did you know that lineages often have religious significance, determining ones religion and there role in that religion. Also, I do not appreciate unfounded allegations by @RoySmith that I am wasting their time and a sock. Thank you. @Evrik Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah @Rjjiii, maybe https://verfassungsblog.de/the-stubborn-subversiveness-of-judaisms-matrilineal-principle/ is better Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• You probably want to stop trying to edit from here, MDW. WP:PROXYING does apply. Interpretation of that particular policy varies widely, and some admin will simply block on the first instance, rather than warn you. I'm choosing to simply warn you as I would rather see you be able to keep talk page access. It's a tightrope, I know, but it's already been mentioned elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. As far as I can see, though, this falls under IAR. My helping fix my DYK nomination is pretty clearly helpful and productive. Also, what policy says is that "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content". I see no reason why the content is bad or disruptive in any way@Dennis Brown Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Me Da Wikipedian The sanction imposed on you is a month-long block from contributing to this project, so that it runs more smoothly, since your participation to-date has been too much of a disruption. You should refrain from all and any attempts to participate in the project for one month, since that's the essence of a block. Directing other editors in editing Wikipedia content and tagging other editors in order to argue with them is explictly going against the spirit of the sanction. Be warned. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Looking at WP:BMB and WP:BE, I think current community consensus documented in the banning and blocking policies is that evading sanctions and sockpuppetry are generally not seen as justifiable by WP:IAR. It's less clear about user talk pages and proxying, but I would still avoid trying to use "IAR" as a justification there either. Discussions about proxying are about the policy's wording and meaning, not about whether it can be ignored. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, the purpose of IAR, unless I am misunderstanding, is to prevent something like this. A rule is preventing constructive contributions. Also, I am not directing anyone to do anything, I responded on this talk page, which another editor (which, while I appreciate it, I did not tell them to do) transcluded it to the DYK nomination. @ToBeFree@Kashmiri Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Me Da Wikipedian, there's a bit of irony about this on a meta level: Even during a block that's meant to prevent this from happening, editor time is suddenly drawn to a discussion about proxying (even at the talk page of the blocking policy) because your good-faith contributions upset other editors. And even if only for that reason, perhaps you can agree to stop editing – entirely – until the block expires. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, that is fair. Also, yeah, something is wrong with the process if good contributions wind up in disruptive conversations to enforce and rule prevent good contributions. But whatever. Assuming you're still opposed to unblocking me(:@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is that different admin interpret the policy different. Some see any conversation that discusses changes to an article as a reason to take away talk page access, some are a bit more forgiving, and others (like myself) are a bit more liberal in allowing discussion regarding articles as long as it isn't direct proxy editing (telling someone to go add exact material, or verbally continuing an edit war, etc). To be honest, my warning was to head off a potential removal of TPA, as I personally didn't see any problem with doing a little clean up on a DYK because others were depending on it, but I just know that (again) others are much more strict. It would probably be helpful if there was more clarity on this, and honestly, we are probably overdue on an RFC to more clearly define what is and isn't ok on a user's talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not to actually proxy edit, but I agree we need some discussion on what that means.@Dennis Brown Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Please Don't Edit My User Page

Blocked, but @Plastikspork, please don't arbitrarily remove stuff from my user page. Thank you and have a nice day. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you! (yes)

Finally unblocked! I really thank you for the anti-vandalism work. Rrjmrrr (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.@Rrjmrrr Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lineage (anthropology)

Hello! Your submission of Lineage (anthropology) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Avyanna.Owam (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Criticism and violent communicating skills

Please elaborate. What did I do specifically and where? And also don't mess with my user page@Avyanna.Owam Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)