User talk:TheSpacebook/Archive1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:TheSpacebook. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome!

Hi TheSpacebook! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Where is Kate?. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I have started a discussion on the talk page here to avoid any further issues TheSpacebook (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Where is Kate?

Hello, TheSpacebook,

It was inappropriate to launch a second AFD for this article while the closure of the first AFD is being reviewed and doing so just caused chaos. Please do not do this in the future. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

On a similar note, your close of the requested move was less than ideal. Per WP:NACINV, closing editors should be uninvolved (e.g. they have not !voted). The proposer is free to WP:WITHDRAW the proposal, but closers must otherwise not have !voted. I'd recommend self-reverting. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Liz, just to own up that this was my mistake as well; after seeing that TheSpacebook was struggling to use the right AfD template, I created the AfD. I thought the external events would render the DRV, which was seemingly nearing consenus, moot, justifying a fresh AfD. I appreciate your coolheadedness over yesterday's drama (I was already long in awe of your work as a faithful administrator!), and I just hope we can reach a lasting consensus soon :)) IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you please be a bit less active on Talk:Where is Kate? I don't have problems with any specific thing you've said there, but the sheer quantity of comments from you is drowning out everyone else. See Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process for more details Mach61 19:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jp×g 🗯️ 12:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You continue to make repeated edits to your comments over on WP:AN. Please please stop. Use a tool such as a word processor to work on your comments and only post them when you are sure the comments are ready to be posted. It's perfectly fine to make the occasional change, but you are doing so over and over again, even after being warned about this. If your comment isn't ready to be posted, you shouldn't be posting it. --Yamla (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You have refused to listen and are continuing to be disruptive. I have blocked you from only Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for half an hour. That should give you time to figure out how you wish to proceed. Either figure out how to use the preview or figure out how to use some sort of word processor. Once this short block expires, I expect you not to refactor your comments on WP:AN any further, especially once people have responded to them. --Yamla (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Going forward, I’ll use the notes app on my phone to draft, and I’ll reply to my comments if I want to add more points. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for inappropriate off-wiki canvassing. 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 ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful, a block for pointing out off-Wikipedia that WP:BLP policy isn't properly being adhered to. Just what the project needs most to maintain its credibility... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

WP:CANVASS makes it clear what canvassing is and what it’s not. In the policy, it says "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus" and that "Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". Also WP:MEAT says "do not recruit people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate". In this case the BLP critique I had that Wikipedia was publishing exact location data of notable individuals homes, so I opened the topic in the BLP policy talk page, and notified a Wikipedia criticism forum and did NOT ask anyone to join in. I deemed this an appropriate place to notify, as per posting notifications of deletion discussions to relevant WikiProject pages is standard. Also, Wikipediocracy isn’t a monolith with its thinking, it discusses a wide-range of opinions, so I didn’t know what the other users would think about my concerns. Furthermore, my post began with “I’m requesting eyes”, so people can look; at no point did I ask anyone to actually engage with the discussion. One of the examples being that the articles of musicians Beyoncé and Jay-Z both had their actual postal address written in them, and the article for their home was titled with their actual postal address. WP:BLPPRIVACY says to not include the address, but it’s so weakly applied (the same with the Bill Gates’s house article), so I suggested a new policy WP:BLPHOME, which would omit exact location data if the building wasn’t notable before the notable individual moved it. It was immediately well received on Wikipedia, with other editors saying: "I totally agree with you here, this is a clear privacy concern that should prompt a specific BLP page", with another saying: "I would generally agree with excluding addresses from articles", and another editor saying: "I agree with this idea, which also seems to parallel WP:BLPNAME". Since my block, I have since been criticised for my edits on the Where is Kate? article, with an editor suggesting I “stay away” from BLP. However, if you look through most of my edits, you will see that I made hundreds of edits to keep it reliably sourced and keep tabloids out of the article and conspiracy theories sectioned off at the bottom, clearly labelled “unsubstantiated”. In addition to this, some of the most involved editors of that article and the main Catherine, Princess of Wales article have since praised me for doing so (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IgnatiusofLondon#A_barnstar_for_you!) and thanked me for my edits, saying ""Looking forward to our future collaborations with each other.(edit: I’m not sure if they’re thanking me or the other editor, but still agrees with the suitability of the article to be well sourced to protect the integrity of the main Catherine article.) and ""Thank you, likewise, for all your hard work in continuing the article's reliable sourcing and high standards; it has been a pleasure to collaborate with you. With my recent suggestion of a new policy WP:BLPHOME to protect exact location data of living individuals, being well received and my edits to keep tabloid sources out of and conspiracy theories sectioned off in an article which was about a current event of a living person also being well received, it is clear that I acted in good faith and that I’m here to build an encyclopedia. Furthermore, I use the same username on Wikipediocracy as I think it’s more commendable, as I firmly believe Wikipedia will be enriched if it allowed a dialogue to happen between the two sites. Blocking me suppresses criticism in an authoritarian fashion, as a ‘warning not to step out line again’. TheSpacebook (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'm not going to say whether the WO post was OK or not OK. The AN thread is still going, and maybe will come to a resolution. But per NYB below, I don't think a 1 week block for something that is a grey area was the right move. Depending on the results of the AN thread, you may or may not get a warning not to do it again (and I would certainly say you should not do it again until this is settled!). But the block is lifted, and you can participate in the AN thread. PLEASE don't re-edit your posts so much, per several comments at AN and NYB's comment below. I edit conflicted with you several times when trying to post this. There is no quicker way to lose a lot of goodwill than causing other people edit conflicts. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe the block should be reversed. As reflected in the current AN thread, how our anti-canvassing policy applies to off-wiki postings about on-wiki policy discussions is by no means clear or agreed-upon. But even if one believes that TheSpacebook violated the policy (of which I am not convinced), the context appears to be a good-faith concern about a legitimate BLP issue. Given the importance of good BLP practice for Wikipedia and for our article-subjects, it is understandable that one would wish to draw broad attention to policy discussions in this area. Blocking for doing so should certainly not be done as a first resort. Indeed, in any context, a good-faith editor with no block history should generally be warned before blocking, which was not done here, unless the misconduct was both serious and obvious. I am refraining from granting this unblock request only (1) because there is an ongoing discussion on the noticeboard, and (2) because in light of my past posts to Wikipediocracy, someone might possibly consider me "INVOLVED" with a bias in favor of that website (even though my most recent posts there would hardly support any such interpretation). Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
TheSpacebook, you do need to stop repeatedly editing your posts after posting them. It took me four tries with edit conflicts before I was able to post my comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Apologies to you too. I’m not going to add anything more to it. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I plan on accepting this unblock, mostly per NYB's comments, but am putting it on hold until I hear back from GN. In case there is anything I missed beyond the AN thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
If you don't stop revising your &%^&* unblock statement, I'm going to wash my hands of this and let someone else deal with it. I've been edit conflicted twice. It is really annoying. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
My apologies, I’m not going to add any more to it. TheSpacebook (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
OK, you're unblocked. Let me know if there are any autoblock problems. And, of course, I made a typo in your block log that I wish i could revise. Hopefully it's clear from context. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but I concur with Newyorkbrad after reviewing the discussion. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to make a note of my full block review comment, as the formatting has since been removed, making it harder to read: WP:CANVASS makes it clear what canvassing is and what it’s not. In the policy, it says In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus and that Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. Also WP:MEAT says do not recruit people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. In this case the BLP critique I had that Wikipedia was publishing exact location data of notable individuals homes, so I opened the topic in the BLP policy talk page, and notified a Wikipedia criticism forum and did NOT ask anyone to join in. I deemed this an appropriate place to notify, as per posting notifications of deletion discussions to relevant WikiProject pages is standard. Also, Wikipediocracy isn’t a monolith with its thinking, it discusses a wide-range of opinions, so I didn’t know what the other users would think about my concerns. Furthermore, my post began with “I’m requesting eyes”, so people can look; at no point did I ask anyone to actually engage with the discussion. One of the examples being that the articles of musicians Beyoncé and Jay-Z both had their actual postal address written in them, and the article for their home was titled with their actual postal address. WP:BLPPRIVACY says to not include the address, but it’s so weakly applied (the same with the Bill Gates’s house article), so I suggested a new policy WP:BLPHOME, which would omit exact location data if the building wasn’t notable before the notable individual moved it. It was immediately well received on Wikipedia, with other editors saying: I totally agree with you here, this is a clear privacy concern that should prompt a specific BLP page, with another saying: I would generally agree with excluding addresses from articles, and another editor saying: I agree with this idea, which also seems to parallel WP:BLPNAME. Since my block, I have since been criticised for my edits on the Where is Kate? article, with an editor suggesting I “stay away” from BLP. However, if you look through most of my edits, you will see that I made hundreds of edits to keep it reliably sourced and keep tabloids out of the article and conspiracy theories sectioned off at the bottom, clearly labelled “unsubstantiated”. In addition to this, some of the most involved editors of that article and the main Catherine, Princess of Wales article have since praised me for doing so (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IgnatiusofLondon#A_barnstar_for_you!) and thanked me for my edits, saying Looking forward to our future collaborations with each other.(edit: I’m not sure if they’re thanking me or the other editor, but still agrees with the suitability of the article to be well sourced to protect the integrity of the main Catherine article.) and Thank you, likewise, for all your hard work in continuing the article's reliable sourcing and high standards; it has been a pleasure to collaborate with you. With my recent suggestion of a new policy WP:BLPHOME to protect exact location data of living individuals, being well received and my edits to keep tabloid sources out of and conspiracy theories sectioned off in an article which was about a current event of a living person also being well received, it is clear that I acted in good faith and that I’m here to build an encyclopedia. Furthermore, I use the same username on Wikipediocracy as I think it’s more commendable, as I firmly believe Wikipedia will be enriched if it allowed a dialogue to happen between the two sites. Also when I said This doesn’t apply here as the not everyone on Wikipediocracy share the same view on everything., it was alarmingly removed by editor @Randy Kyrn (https://web.archive.org/web/20240401150219/https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1216704820&title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diffonly=1) on a comment which had zero replies. Blocking me suppresses criticism in an authoritarian fashion, as a ‘warning not to step out line again’. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Editing comments

You have been asked over and over and over again to stop editing your comments. To either use the preview feature or use a word processor to ensure you don't need to edit your comments. You've been told over and over again how it interferes with other people responding to you. You have repeatedly agreed. You have repeatedly broken your word and edited comments you have previously posted, often editing the same comments over and over and over again. What's the problem here? Do you not understand what you are being told? Are you agreeing to stop doing something without understanding what you are agreeing to? Why are you doing this? And this and this and this? Are you being deliberately disruptive? It certainly looks like you are being deliberately disruptive. IT MUST STOP. Take the time you need before you post a comment to ensure it is correct, to ensure you won't need to edit it. And in particular, do not edit a comment after someone else has responded. You are free to use your sandbox (User:TheSpacebook/sandbox) if you can't figure out how to use the preview functionality and aren't willing to use a word processor. --Yamla (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked you from WP:AN for one hour to give you a chance to learn how to use the preview functionality or your sandbox or a word processor. --Yamla (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. --Yamla (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked again. I hope you take the hint this time. 3 hours, to all Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk pages. --Yamla (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to fix typos within the first minute of posting my comment? TheSpacebook (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You've been editing disruptively. You've repeatedly agreed to stop. You've been pointed to the preview functionality, to your sandbox, and to word processors. Enough. It stops now. The next block will be longer and site wide. --Yamla (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Since my last block, I have exclusively only fixed minor typos within the first minute or so of posting my comment. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Once you figure out how to use the preview functionality or your sandbox or a word processor to ensure you won't need to edit your comments, I'll be happy to lift your block. But, no more disruption. You've already agreed to stop, I'm holding you to this. --Yamla (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This feels like excessive overreach. Since 13:12 UTC, when you informed TheSpacebook of the block at WP:AN, of 23 edits, the editor's only non-substantial edits have been five:

16:35 UTC a serious security issue → a clear and serious security issue
15:54 UTC when something bursts in coverage for 1 weeks → when something bursts in coverage for 1 week
15:10 UTC that article recently has a gold-padlock protection → that article recently had a gold-padlock protection
14:40 UTC "Bill and Maria Bell residence" → "Bill and Maria Bell Residence"
13:16 UTC add a sentence to a comment four minutes after it was posted: There will obviously be some exceptions such a Listed Buildings or publicly owned, privately resided in government buildings.

Which of these edits deserves a block? Only the last edit could feasily cause any confusion/disruption to talk-page discussions, though it did not: the next comment in that section wasn't for another two hours. The other four edits are minor clarifications or grammatical corrections, which plenty of editors make, and for which I don't think they should be penalised. Have a look at the talkpage and contributions history of JackkBrown, who I don't think has ever received a block simply for not using the preview function, despite multiple ANI reports on other matters. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If there's a policy that means these kinds of corrections are not allowed or considered disruptive, I'd be grateful for the reference, because it would affect my own editing activity. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not just since 13:12 UTC. This is the sum total of their edits over the past couple of days, for which multiple people have complained. This is TheSpacebook agreeing to stop and then simply continuing. I'll be happy to lift this block if they commit to stopping (for real this time, not like when they previously agreed to stop). If this was just a case of them editing a couple of comments to fix spelling mistakes today, it would indeed be an overreach. Right now, if TheSpacebook leaves a comment, you are guaranteed to edit conflict if you respond, often for twenty minutes or so. It's disruptive, TheSpacebook has agreed it's inappropriate and agreed to stop, and currently shows no signs of stopping. --Yamla (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Right...so at 13:12 UTC, you blocked TheSpacebook for one hour to give [them] a chance to learn how to use the preview functionality or [their] sandbox or a word processor, and then four hours later, the earlier block having been lifted, you block them again for the same reason across namespaces, even though there is no evidence from their contributions to suggest that they didn't learn their lesson after the first block? It sounds like the first block was restorative while this new block is simply punitive. Surely this longer and more extensive block should have been applied at 13:12 UTC, and, not having been applied, WP:AGF suggests no further block should be applied until there is evidence that they haven't stopped? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ignatius post it on my behalf as a direct quote please. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually can u post it in WP:XRV instead. Where is the place for me to take this @Ignatius TheSpacebook (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Ignatius, would u be able to post the following in the admin noticeboard incident page please, with the title “Is fixing typos a blockable offence?”

Within the past few days, I acknowledge that I made a substantial amount of edits to my comments, this was becuase I didn't realise that it would disrupt other editors when they write their comments. I accept this. and this issue happened multiple times, leading to me being blocked multiple times, after I said I would cease.

However, since my block was lifted, I vowed again not to make large edits to my comments after I posted them. Since my block, I have exclusively only made edits on comments to fix minor typos within the first minute or so. And Yamla blcoked me for three hours.

Is this WP:TOOLMISUSE as it says "When a policy or communal norm is clear that tools should not be used" as WP:REDACT says "So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes"

Of all the comments I fixed minor typos on, they all had no replies, and made no major edits since being unblocked at 13:00 today.

I'm just asking if this was appropriate use of admin tools. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:TOOLMISUSE says: they should first discuss their concerns and issues with the respective administrator. Let's stay calm, assume good faith, and try to understand Yamla's reasoning before we head to WP:AARV. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Already have, I said: Since my last block, I have exclusively only fixed minor typos within the first minute or so of posting my comment.

And got the reply:

Once you figure out how to use the preview functionality or your sandbox or a word processor to ensure you won't need to edit your comments, I'll be happy to lift your block.

is this WP:TOOLMISUSE? TheSpacebook (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@IgnatiusofLondon take it WP:XRV please TheSpacebook (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Major edits are actually OK, from an edit conflict point of view; they aren't near-constant, and if anyone gets edit conflicted, it's likely to be you. It's the frequent minor corrections that cause problems for other editors. It doesn't matter if they've been commented on yet; that's not what causes the edit conflicts. It's the frequency and the rapidity. More to the point, you promised to stop. As someone who is now probably viewed by several people as "in your corner", I have no problem with these escalating blocks.

And please don't post this to XRV. It will likely boomerang on you. I don't think you fully understand how annoyed you are making people. To the point that I am second guessing my unblock yesterday, not because it was right, but because you have caused such frustration since then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Escalate it to the appropriate level for me please. Since 13:00 I’ve only fixed typos. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I won't try to fix my indenting because I don't want to get, or cause, yet another edit conflict. But @IgnatiusofLondon: please don't take this to AARV. It will not benefit anyone. -- Floquenbeam (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m clearly being targeted/scapegoated for all the doxxing yesterday. Please escalate it to the appropriate level TheSpacebook (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Quote me with the following please on where u deem this should be escalated to:

Within the past few days, I acknowledge that I made a substantial amount of edits to my comments, this was because I didn't realise that it would disrupt other editors when they write their comments. I accept this. and this issue happened multiple times, leading to me being blocked multiple times, after I said I would cease.

However, since my block was lifted, I vowed again not to make large edits to my comments after I posted them. Since my block, I have exclusively only made edits on comments to fix minor typos within the first minute or so. And Yamla blcoked me for three hours.

Is this WP:TOOLMISUSE as it says "When a policy or communal norm is clear that tools should not be used" as WP:REDACT says "So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes"

Of all the comments i fixed minor typos on, they all had no replies.

I'm just asking if this was appropriate use of admin tools TheSpacebook (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, let's stay calm, and see what Yamla says to my question at 17:20. I can see you're passionate and hurt, but that's always an invitation to take a step back and go off-wiki for a bit. Why not go outdoors for a walk? This is just a three-hour block, and if it doesn't get reversed, it's not the end of the world.

Like Floquenbeam, I can't see AARV or ANI causing a fuss over a three-hour block. I think it's excessive, which is why I asked Yamla my question at 17:20. But TheSpacebook, the best hope you have is to convince Yamla that this newest block is excessive or unnecessary, and to that extent, what I would do in your situation is to reiterate that you understood what you did wrong that justified your previous blocks, promise to hold your word this time, and not disrupt discussions by causing edit conflicts through excessively editing comments. Maybe even use this opportunity to create User:TheSpacebook/sandbox! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That’s three admins that have unfairly targeted me within the past 24hrs. First GeneralNotability blocking me for a whole week before the discussion had ended. JPxG making fraudulent claims about me saying: I gave assistance in doxing the admin who blocked them and saying TheSpacebook's reaction [to doxxing] seems to have been to post a clapping emoji

And now I’m being blocked by another admin for only fixing typos?

This seems grossly unfair and that I’m being scapegoated and targeted. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IgnatiusofLondon, I want to state clearly that I think you raising this concern is appropriate. I don't agree with the concern, but I sincerely appreciate you raising it. Furthermore, if any admin watching this thinks my block is an overreach, please immediately lift the block without any further consultation. No hard feelings. To the question at hand. I think the question is a little unclear. I think your (IgnatiusofLondon) position is that TheSpacebook did meaningfully change their behaviour after the earlier block, and so didn't deserve the second block today. My position is that I think they didn't meaningfully change their block. For example, there's no indication they've started using the preview functionality, no indication they've started using the sandbox, no indication they'll be able to let their comments stand, and clear indication this is not the case. This is not meant to be the end of the discussion. IgnatiusofLondon, how sure are you of your position? How sure are you that TheSpacebook has been using e.g. the Preview feature and/or will be able to post comments in the future without editing them over and over and over again? If you can tell me, honestly, that you are sure of this and that you'll raise the issue if you subsequently see evidence to the contrary (and will look for that evidence), I'll go and lift the block right now. If I have answered a different question than you posed, please restate your question. --Yamla (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I did meaningfully change. I wrote all my comments in my notes app and copied and pasted. Since 13:00 today. All edits have therefore been typo corrections. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You can tell that I’ve been using the notes app, because you can see in my edits that I haven’t been making mass edits to my comments, due to me drafting them in my notes app. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is not a typo correction. But thank you for using an external tool to help with your writing. --Yamla (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s very much in the same class as a typo though. Just adding one more word to make my point clear. Whereas before I would add whole sentences/paragraphs. En mass every single minute. This was one singular correction. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

How can you look at my edits and judge that there hasn’t been a substantial shift in the amount of edits I do and the amount that gets changed since my 13:00 block? TheSpacebook (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Yamla. I worry this is a rather high standard to hold another editor to. Other than create User:TheSpacebook/sandbox, what can TheSpacebook do to show you and the community that they've changed their behaviour? The only thing that comes to mind is not repeat their behaviour, and as I say, nothing in their contributions suggests they have repeated their behaviour since 13:12 UTC: there have only been minor clarifications or grammatical corrections, none of which suggest any actual disruption or intent to cause disruption. Though I must say I'm getting edit conflicts now, but that's because we're all here in lively discussion! I just wonder if WP:AGF doesn't mean the presumption should be on the side that TheSpacebook is listening and responding?

I also realise I'm possibly "less fussed": I collaborate with the notorious JackkBrown; I regularly edit my own comments when I know nobody's looking; and I think a bigger source of disruption is TheSpacebook's tendency to overwhelm a discussion with alternative suggestions, which I think is the sign of an enthusiastic editor with a lot to offer, but some talkpage maturity to undergo! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 18:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Previously overwhelm, may I just add. I haven’t done it since my 13:12 block was lifted and if you look at my edits, u can see there is a clear and substantial difference because I draft in my notes app. TheSpacebook (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Also this is clearly a case of biting the newcomer. Wince my 13:12 block was lifted, the corrections I have made have made the comments more precise to allow for my point to be made more clearly. I am here to build an encyclopedia, if you actually read the policy changes I’m trying to implement and mine and Ignatius’ work on Where is Kate? to keep it well sourced and without conspiracies. TheSpacebook (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, TheSpacebook, take a walk. You can't do anything about the previous blocks. You can maybe do something about this block, but the more you're saying, the more it feels like you need off-wiki time anyway. Remember: WP:AGF. Don't accuse other editors of scapegoating you or making fraudulent claims, not least when one administrator was kind enough to stick their neck out, disagree with your block, and revert it – an administrator whose goodwill you are burning. You're going to burn through a lot of good faith if you keep going down this route.

It's only three hours. Take a walk. I have your talkpage watchlisted; it's how I came across Yamla's block and started questioning it. Don't worry: I will take any administrator overreaching their powers to AARV. But stay calm, and don't stop assuming good faith. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for continuing to stick up for me. It is greatly appreciated. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Despite numerous edit conflicts and against my better judgement ("better" being more than a little debatable), I have lifted my block. IgnatiusofLondon worked hard to convince me I should extend WP:AGF here and I'm willing to be convinced. TheSpacebook, please please please please please slow down. Please reread the discussion here and see how your edits are at times disruptive. You don't have to agree that they've been disruptive today, but you should be aware that several people have concerns. What significantly counts in your favour, though, is that you have started using an external tool to help with your edits. That's a real step and made it much easier for me to assume good faith (WP:AGF). IgnatiusofLondon, in case I didn't say earlier, I thank you for your advocacy here. It's not easy to do so. TheSpacebook, welcome back and happy editing. --Yamla (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Copied from above so it’s a reply to you. That was clearly a case of biting the newcomer. Wince my 13:12 block was lifted, the corrections I have made have made the comments more precise to allow for my point to be made more clearly. I am here to build an encyclopedia, if you actually read the policy changes I’m trying to implement and mine and Ignatius’ work on Where is Kate? to keep it well sourced and without conspiracies. TheSpacebook (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh my goodness...for the last time, assume good faith. Say thank you to Yamla for lifting your block, take a walk, slow down, and don't accuse other editors of biting you, scapegoating you, or making fraudulent claims about you. If you would just say thank you, and maybe create User:TheSpacebook/sandbox, this can all be over. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 18:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok I accept everything you’re saying about assuming good faith, apart from the fraudulent claim part. The following was objectively fraudulent and borders on libel (not a legal threat, I’m not going to take anyone to court lol): I gave assistance in doxing the admin who blocked them and saying TheSpacebook's reaction [to doxxing] seems to have been to post a clapping emoji TheSpacebook (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again. You keep sticking up for me in every instance which is great to see that you immediately welcomed me into the community when I started editing a couple of months ago. TheSpacebook (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Also who even runs the backend of Wikipedia? It can already log edits with the blue and yellow highlights, so edit conflicts shouldn’t even be happening if they have the technology already working and available? TheSpacebook (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll be honest: you're right that it's kind of weird that we have this problem in this day and age, but I don't actually mind edit conflicts, not that I get them very often. I find that an edit conflict is a helpful invitation to slow down and remember Wikipedia isn't a social networking site. I remember one time, another editor and I were trying to edit the same article at the same time and I was getting frustrated about all the edit conflicts. I went on a walk for half an hour and when I returned, I made much more effective and concise contributions than had I tried to power on through the edit conflicts. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 18:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to you, Yamla! @TheSpacebook, my advice still stands: slow down, take a walk, and assume good faith. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 18:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Can I just add clarification on this IgnatiusofLondon worked hard to convince me I should extend WP:AGF here and I'm willing to be convinced. Did my comments in this discussion not convince you, or was it solely Ignatius that did? TheSpacebook (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Can I just get* clarification (I don’t want to edit conflict this page haha) @Yamla TheSpacebook (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

One of your comments significantly helped convince me. That you had indeed started using an external tool, as I pointed out above. Had you not brought that up, I'm unsure I'd have decided to lift the block. I mean "unsure" literally and exactly. But you did bring it up and I found that weighed significantly in your favour. So, no, it was not just IgnatiusofLondon's comments, it was also what you said. --Yamla (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

:) TheSpacebook (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Read me.... Don't get sucked down a rabbit hole. Moxy🍁 21:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that. However it is ridiculous that someone is able to spread extremely false allegations on a public platform with no consequences. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You're anonymous who cares. The question people will be asking is are you here to help build the encyclopedia or not? Moxy🍁 21:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

FYI I just closed an AN thread JPxG started about you and an AN/I thread you started about JPxG. I really want to encourage you to slow down and avoid those two pages for awhile. 28bytes (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for mediating. I would also appreciate if u told him the exact same thing. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Your request for arbitration has been declined

The request for arbitration you filed has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. ArbCom felt that there was insufficient evidence to warrant an ADMINCOND case, nor any other issues rising to the level of requiring arbitration. For the Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 16:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This is my talk page by the way!

Feel free to drop me a comment TheSpacebook (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Advice

Not sure if you want to hear from me right now, but as I said at AN, I think you've been doing good too. So, when you return:

WP:ASSUMECOMPETENCE: It's a redlink. Maybe there's a note somewhere it could point to, but basically, you need to assume more competence in fellow editors. You didn't need to highlight your points, or leave important notes, or repeat again and again the same points. When people ignore or seem to ignore your point, assume it was not convincing rather than assuming it was completely missed. Assume people won't vote to ban you without reading the whole thing carefully and independently verifying the salient points or asking you for clarification if there's something needing clarifying.
Just because people said "don't edit comments that have been replied to" doesn't mean "it's completely fine to edit a comment that has not yet been replied to, a dozen times." People won't know when to read your comment seriously when they don't know how many more changes you're going to make to it before you stop. We need WP:DIFFS a lot. Making a zillion edits makes it impossible to find them. When someone is looking to find a diff for one of your comments, it necessitates going through 50 revisions to find the one diff that adequately represents what you actually wanted to say. People who want to edit the page or section have to wait or retry every time you make one more edit between them clicking the edit and publish buttons. If you can't spot all the typos before publishing, consider leaving some of the typos as they are, especially the ones that have little or no effect on what you mean. If you say something and later think you should have used a different phrase, just let it go. If you say something and you later think you could have said more, ask yourself whether it's important enough to make a whole new comment to say it. If it isn't, it does not need to be appended to the existing comment. If you need a hard rule, here's one: you get one edit after you publish your comment to add significant text to it before it's replied to, zero if it's been replied to already, you get an average of one typo correction edit per comment, and try to never be the person with the most edits or most volume of text added to any thread on Wikipedia, ever. If you are on top, wait till you would still be second after you make the comment you want to make. Even in a dramaboard thread about you, you don't need to correct everyone, reply to everyone. For one thing, what you see as setting the record straight, almost all the time, is just a difference of opinion between a third objective party and you who can not by nature be objective about yourself.
Don't go back and edit your comments from places where the conversation has already moved on from, even if they have not been directly replied to. People will have read them and taken them into account. When people come back again, they will look for new developments at the bottom or in signatures in existing branches. They're not going to read the comment they've already read in case there's someone like you goes back and adds text to existing old comments. When you have to change existing comments, follow WP:REDACT; you may want to read the rest of that page too. People know to watch out for the strikethroughs and underlines and notes that may explain those. Again, these need to have been done for important reasons, reasons that are worth taking time and attention of readers.
As it says at the top at AN, if you're new and find yourself wanting to post to AN, post to the Teahouse instead.

Regards, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

What they said ^. I'll add:

Admins can see deleted edits, so presume they are taking those into account when looking at your contributions.

One of the first responses to you at AN made an important point: For the vast majority of issues, you should go to the editor's talk page first. The userbox creator, KomradeKalashnikov, modified the image in the user box as soon as they became aware there was an issue. Done and dusted. (I know you rejected the suggestion at AN. That was an unwarranted accusation of bad faith). Talk to people first. It's a matter of respect, and also saves the time of an unneeded noticeboard discussion.

Obey big coloured boxes and other warnings that appear at the top of pages. There is very, very rarely a reason to think they don't apply to you or your concern. Your failure to give KomradeKalashnikov a talk-page notification when you opened an AN section about the userbox they created violated a big yellow notice that appears when creating a new section on that noticeboard. Your many edits to the section after it had been closed all violated a clear instruction not to modify the hatted section; you even added to the admin's statement closing it. (I would have expected those changes to be summarily removed; you're lucky not to have received a strongly worded notice about them on this page.) Your move of the house article while it was at AfD broke a rule that's clearly stated in the AfD templates—because it breaks them.

The project has many, many policies and guidelines. I was going to note that your first housekeeping edit to this page was to remove the "Welcome" template you were given, but it happens that you got one without many links (although it did link to the Teahouse—note that that's a help space for new editors, not a noticeboard to suggest policy changes). I think you might find this master index useful for looking things up. If you prefer, this is the template I usually use to welcome people. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I went to WPO on Carrite's recommendation. I don't think I found what I was looking for. But,
1. As you can see, someone else promptly corrected when a quote was mistakenly attributed to you.
2. You said no one will see it if you posted here while you can't at AN. I don't know if you are aware that pageviews can be checked. This page was viewed 500 times yesterday. It may be 500 more times today, while only a dozen or so editors have edited the AN thread about you.[1]
3. See also: WP:WL.
— Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Late April 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing and violations of the Law of Holes. 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 ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

It seems unfair, and out of policy to start up a new proposal on a page which I can’t edit to defend myself. Two lies/misrepresentations have already been made about me particularly after their reply to Yamla "I would suggest if you are tired of the poster, you skip over his material" is a complete lie. I was sanctioned for editing my comments and haven’t done anything since by block, so opening this new sanction doesn’t seem to be policy based. We've already lost one good admin over this user, it's time to put an end to the nonsense violates WP:NOPUNISH as per, Blocks should not be used: to retaliate, to disparage, to punish; or if there is no current conduct issue of concern. :Most importantly, the reasoning behind the new sanction is (underline added) banned from posting to project space and project talk space, with the sole exception of responding to complaints against them, which is nonsensical, with the reasoning because they edit their posts repeatedly after posting, and that they don't know when to post to noticeboards as the comments I edited (the reason for the sanction) were the ones I was responding to complaints against me. So how does this solve the "problem" the proposer is trying to solve? I quite busy this weekend, so I won’t be as active on this, but I hope the discussion is bought back to policy, and not to WP:PUNISH me, and also note that I’ve already been sanctioned for editing comments, and haven’t done it since my block. To note, I have began to edit articles since my block, albeit three. But I hope editors can assume good faith. I bought the Nazi symbolism issue straight to the AN, as I didn’t want to open up a lengthy deletion debate which could turn anti-Semitic, by those defending the userbox. I recently programmed a solution to the suicide line issue which met in the middle of the debate about disclaimers and inclusion (User:TheSpacebook/lifeline). I also have some drafts for some main-space articles, but I must go through each claim and fact-check each source. This is getting long, but I hope editors can look past my blunders, and focus on my intentions. I feel as though this is how intentional-vandals are dealt with. But admitted, I do need to work on comment-editing. But I have made improvements as I haven’t: edit-warred, canvassed, and I have been sensitive around contentious topics (hence keeping my drafts offline and checking each claim). No one can deny that I’ve made improvements, but now my room for improvement is the comment-editing. The improvements on those other issues shouldn’t be ignored.

Decline reason:

You have made 202 edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard in the last 19 days. It has been explained at that noticeboard and this talk page how excessive tweaking is unnecessary and disruptive. The block was to prevent disruption to other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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’ll also give a special thanks to @Levivich and @Yngvadottir for holding those other editors claims to account and steering the ship over there. It is greatly appreciated. But I feel as though I must have the right to respond myself, as such false and misrepresentative claims are not appropriate for a discussion regarding a proposed ban. TheSpacebook (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The latest comment Cut the head off the snake, let them actually edit articles, and grow up a bit seems to also violate WP:NOPUNISH. TheSpacebook (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It's clearly preventive and in fact generous as it allows you to continue to edit articles and develop your skills at editing. Surely that's something you want? Your actions outside of article space have been disruptive and consumed a lot of other editors' time, and that has now been prevented for short while. You were heading for a community ban and hopefully this will help ensure that won't happen. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

see, the really discouraging thing is that I told you hours and hours ago that SFR did you a favour. Everyone told you to shut up and edit some articles. Everyone. On both sites. I may yet support a CIR block. Dude. Shut UP already. Elinruby (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Topic ban from Project space

Per the consensus at this AN thread, you are topic banned from project space and project talk space, which would be Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk:. An exception is responding to complaints about yourself. At this time, I will not enforce this with a partial block, but another admin is free to levy one if appropriate. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for your contributions. I will suggest it is best to cite your sources including a link to the source. This can be done automatically in visual editor, by using the URL or DOI url and the citation will auto complete.

Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is based upon independent secondary sources: this means academic reviews, meta analyses, expert written books, etc rather than primary source studies (which may be prone to methodological issues). Zenomonoz (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit: I see you did add a DOI link on one of them, which I missed. Aim to do this for all the sources. If it doesn't have a DOI just use the URL parameter. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about linking, I'll go through all my recent contributions and add the relevant DOI/link. Could you provide an example that warrants why I might need a reminder about Wikipedia's reliance on "independent secondary sources"? All the studies I have cited are from peer-reviewed journals, otherwise made clear as with the New Scientist magazine (which isn't primary). I can't find any instances of me using primary source studies. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)