User talk:Me Da Wikipedian

"Unexplained"

The edits I made from my IP address were not "unexplained". I know we are all suspicious of IP edits, but there's a long-standing issue of Toastmasters conflicted editors adding spammy links to their own PR. 9https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beatrice_Shilling&diff=1221407286&oldid=1221134972 this] is blatant spam. They genuinely seem to think that everything that organisation does is notable. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I see several other cases of pushing "Unexplained removal" as reversion and warning on edits that clearly had a stated reason. What are you doing here, Me Da Wikipedian? Slow it down. Improper patrolling is disruptive. -- ferret (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Enoooough, really. Me Da Wikipedian, when the month is over or in case you're unblocked with hopefully an agreement to stay far away from administrative areas for a while, please find something else to do than reviewing others' contributions and making things worse in the process. I came here because of your latest edit, Special:Diff/1222431472, breaking multiple discussions and leaving me reading confusedly for a few minutes by removing comments within (!) threads others had replied to. And then all the warnings here on this page. Users complaining about bad reverts. The edit warring that led to the previous block. The declined protection request discussion at RfPP. The very recent weird /56 range suggestion where /128's and /56's contribution lists are identical. The bad revert mentioned above. Enough of this. Please. The block is mainly limited to a month to prevent endless arguments and to allow administrators to simply decline it saying that you can also simply wait a month. Please find ways to contribute that do not eat more time than they donate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

My most sincere apologizes. The first edit was trying to remove personal attacks, but in retrospect I get that it was disruptive. I have only had 2 issues out of hundreds of reverts since my last block. The range suggestion was a mistake, and apoligzes for the revert. May I please be unblocked, under the condition that I stay away from administrative areas for a time of your choosing. I really do not intend to be disruptive. I am so sorry@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not questioning your good intentions, but I personally won't unblock, and the way to request someone else to do is described in the block message. You should have a clear idea about what you'd like to do in case you're unblocked, and you should describe that in such a request. Specific examples for helpful contributions currently prevented by the block would be beneficial. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

CVUA

I am sorry but I'll have to halt your training course for the duration of your block. I will evaluate in a later date but, during your block, please reread all the policies and guidelines in the field of vandalism, as well as warning users. I recommend that you add the {{unblock}} template, but describing the issues that led to your block and to convince admins that you won't edit disruptively again. Toadette^Edit! 05:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't read more on your talk page, but after I reviewed your recent contributions and saw a revert of accurately removed content, I am a little worried about your improper reverts. Yes, I've seen you reverting valid edits with accurate reasons, but the issues above led to your second block. You should really know what are you reverting, and you should really calm down, because haste can lead to many problems. If you were to apply for rollback right now, then your application will certainly be declined. I urge you to reread all of the policies and guidelines that were already given to you and take it to heart. Watch others' reverts and learn from them. See their reports at AIV and RFPP and also learn from them. I did the same back in my first months here on Wikipedia, watch and then reverting edits one by one, learning from my vandal fighting skills. I also suggest refraining from engaging with those who cast threats or personal attacks until at least a month or two. Toadette^Edit! 06:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Minor little issue called I'm blocked for a month though, so I couldn't possibly apply for rollback, revert edits, etc. Any suggestions for getting unblocked@ToadetteEdit Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Me Da Wikipedian (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Sorry this is a bit long, but there's a lot too say. First of all, I would like to say that I understand why I was blocked (for a series of unintentional disruptive edits during the Counter-Vandalism process). While I can not promise that I will not make another mistake (as I most likely will), I can promise that I will continue to try to learn and improve. Below are some useful contributions that the block prevents me from doing. Second of all, I have been improving. I had around 64% accuracy in my first week, the next 2 weeks around 97%, and the next 2 weeks around 99%. I will continue to improve, but needs you to gain experience, something hard to do when you are blocked. Third of all, I believe that, while I have an unacceptable false positive rate, I am doing more good than harm. 99% percent accuracy definetly on average helpful (even when considering that 1 mistake is more harmful than 1 correct revert is good). Next, I would like to explain the specific edits that led to the most recent block (although I understand that the pattern is the larger issue). The mistake highlighted by the IP was an honest mistake, don't know what I was thinking. The second issue was very confusing, and both me and an administator though it was vandalism. The 3rd issue was my mistake, I didn't see that that was spam and thought it was a good source. The 4th case was my attempt to remove personal attacks, although in retrospect I see how that makes reading the talk page annoying and confusing. The 5th was an edgecase, as the admin there pointed out, a judgment call, and a very similar case was decided to be protected right above. The 6th was a mistake, I thought there were 2 disruptive IPs on that range. I understand that these were quite disruptive however. In summary, I am really sorry for all disruption caused, and would like to be unblocked, and will try to not cause anymore accidental disruption. If totally necessary, I will refrain from administrative areas for some time, but as mentioned above I think I do more good than harm and would rather not. I would refrain from removing personal attacks for a month of two per @ToadetteEdit. Here are some bad edits I would revert if unblocked (many of them may be reverted by the time you see this/I post it. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Other things this prevents me from doing include my GA nomination, my DYK nomination, CVUA, expanding Sukhothai (city), etc. Requesting that I be unblocked for the above reasons.

Decline reason:

Per the discussion below, I believe "a month pause is a good idea; you can wait" is correct. You continue to see vandal patrol as some sort of race where collateral that occurs as a result of you going to quickly and not properly reviewing edits is ok. It's not ok. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ponyo:I do not see counter-vandalism as a race, but I am a realist and accept that I will never be perfect, just continuily imrpove and get close to that. It don't think not properly reviewing edits is ok, I don't try to, I at least think I'm reviewing my revert correctly. I would, as previously stated, be willing to accept a temporary 0RR, which would deal with the issues the block is for, while allowing me to constructively edit the remainder of the site

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I should have made more clear that I was hoping for non-reverts when I recommended providing examples for future contributions, but okay... You would revert Special:Diff/1222443839, as an unblock request example? Using which summary? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I would do it manually, and explain that at least part of it is in fact sourced. @ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you click "undo" on the edit, provide an explanatory summary and save the page? Or multiple edits? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I would do neither. I would manually look through, see what is backed by that source, and either remove the rest or find sources for it@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Then please go ahead, imagine you could do so right now – which content exactly would you restore or which source would you add? What exactly would happen? (superseded by edit conflict, already resolved) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, after looking at this, the sole reference appear to be a broken link (something I caught when trying to see what should be removed and not), so I would probably leave it alone Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Aha! Yes. Thanks. I hope the block wasn't needed to reach that conclusion because else you'd have already demonstrated its necessity. See, I'd prefer you not to revert edits for a while. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Not to step on ToBeFree's toes in guiding this, but this is kinda the problem. You said you would revert this because part of it was "in fact sourced". But the unsourced BLP parts still have to be removed, and through the course of this guided questioning, you admit you never even checked the source before that. -- ferret (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I never said that I would revert the entire thing, just the parts that were sourced. When I was asked to specifically say which parts were sourced (which in the actual case of a revert like this I would do), I realized it shouldn't have been reverted, something that I would have realized before actually reverting@Ferret@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It's okay; this may well be true. I think there were cases leading to questions and warnings above where the realization didn't come before someone complained, but I'm fine with assuming that you'd have noticed the issue with reverting Special:Diff/1222443839 while doing so. Having to provide a list of diffs you'd revert puts you under some time pressure because if you submit the list too late, people could just say you copied others' already-performed actions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Would you be willing to unblock me, and, if so, on what conditions, if any?@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Me Da Wikipedian, in the edit warring block section above, I had already noticed a focus on percentages/statistics regarding good vs. bad edits. I'm highly sympathetic about this as I love statistics and I do also specifically love statistics about Wikipedia edits. However, they're not really going to help with understanding the issue or demonstrating an understanding in an unblock request; they're unsuitable as arguments for an unblock, I'd say. Of the diff list you provided as an example, I only found one that would be obviously problematic to revert. Special:Diff/1222595568, for example, is less clear. In situations such as that diff, editors may reasonably argue that the response to apparent content removal vandalism can't always be going to a library and checking every reference before undoing the vandalism. Reverting Special:Diff/1222443839 would almost certainly have been a bad idea, reverting Special:Diff/1222595568 is a difficult decision. And the others, if I have checked correctly, are fine to be reverted.

You may now say that these other diffs demonstrate that unblocking you would mainly help the encyclopedia, but it's not that easy. If you don't make a good revert, someone more experienced will eventually probably do so. Your presence in that case just shortens the revert time, which may not be that important. If you make a bad revert, however, damage that would otherwise not have happened is suddenly introduced by an extended-confirmed user whose edits are exempt from most manual and automated checks. No percentage can explain this imbalance.

I personally would prefer not to unblock at the moment as I believe a month of pause would be beneficial to everyone involved; in case someone wants to unblock, perhaps 0RR (prohibiting any reverts) and a requirement to stay away from administrative-action-requesting pages except for filing really necessary vandalism reports at AIV may be an idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I am using the statistics to show that I am doing less harm than good, as 100:1 (even with your caveat) still indicates that much more good than harm done. Is it really 100 times more disruptive to revert me once in a while when a make a mistake than 100 bad edits being reverted faster are good? I explained about your second example earlier. To your first, if experienced editors who know what theyre doing reasonably disagree, that is hardly grounds to block me/keep me block. What was wrong with the 3rd. A bad revert, will, as this talk page shows, be quickly caught and reverted. Keep in mind that all but the first of the potentially problematic reverts wound up being reverted by someone else.

"Your presence in that case just shortens the revert time, which may not be that important"-I disagree, the quicker it is reverted, the less people see it.

Why do you think that a month of pause would be good, because as previously I can't gain experience and improved whilst blocked. And how about the rest of my unblock As for the last sentence, how long would these proposed restrictions be in place?@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The restriction would be in place for no more than a year, and a month or two would be more reasonable given that the restriction could simply be avoided by waiting a month instead of agreeing to it. But part of why this block automatically expires is that I'm not really interested in having this discussion, or making others spend too much time on it. A quick "a month pause is a good idea; you can wait" decline might be my favored approach. I have provided all explanations I need to, I think, and I notice more and more that I won't be convinced to unblock, so I hope it's understandable if I stop replying here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that is fair. I will leave the unblock open for another admin, but I get this isn't going anywhere@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Research your facts

ambassador position is vacant 2A00:23EE:1038:54B2:4424:5CE:C1D5:35C6 (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean, what ambassador, where, and how this is relevant. Also, I am blocked, so I can't edit any page other than this right now, so I'm probably not the best person to go to Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The IP presumably refers to their only other edit, concerning content that you reinstated three times between 3 May and 5 May. I note that on this revert, you included the comment "Unexplained content removal" in your edit summary, even though the edit that you reverted had stated "Update , vacant ambassador position, uk.gov reference of list diplomatic staff", and included a source (even if malformed). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed that because I didn't see there was a reference, just broken template and content changed/removed at first. Then realized and informed them why I reverted@Redrose64 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You reverted three times. Unexplained, no reliable source, Unexplained. The first revert, they simply said "Update", so I could grant you that. But the third one they were clear that the post is vacant, and you still used "Unexplained", and you gave them a level 3 warning for "Unexplained". This is, essentially, why you are blocked. Patrollers are expected to be accurate and give the proper warnings, otherwise those they are warning are told the wrong things. -- ferret (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The second one clearly had no reliable source. Third one I should have used no reliable source (as they still did not provide a source correctly, and explain). Sorry for that@Ferret Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Me Da Wikipedian No. An URL to a reliable source was provided,[11] just the editor made a mistake with brackets. You are expected to use your brain and fix such minor issues instead of reverting everything that's not up to your standard (and reintroducing false information to Wikipedia in the process). The third revert was a complete abuse of the process, and I fully agree with the block. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

In the visual, at least, all I saw was a broken template, and didn't see there was a source@Kashmiri Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobox changes show up as plain wikitext in visual diffs. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about actually lokking at the infobox, where I saw a redlinked reference to nowhere@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no red link in the infobox diff view when there's a broken reference in the infobox. The only way to see it is to scroll very far down or to view the article without any diff, then hover over exactly the right reference. Also, even {{https://example.com}} displays as shown to the left. So I personally find it hard to buy this explanation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, I didn't know this was even a real link, although I probably should have checked@ToBeFree Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Although to be fair, the IP editor should not have persisted in repeating their edit that has been challenged, per WP:WTAF, especially that they might be incorrect. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

As a very late reply, I just stumbled upon [12] 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)