October 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am, demonstrably, here to build an encyclopedia? I've made several edits both with this account and as an IP editor. I believe I've covered this before? For instance, GeneralNotability, being a wikipedia discord "server admin", I'd expect that they'd know that I discussed building an encyclopedia there extensively as well, for instance, recently discussing the terms "anti-zionist" and "anti-israeli" on the discrimination sidebar template. Looking at the block log provides a little more information, which only makes this more confusing. It would be nice if that information, the information in the block log was duplicated in the talk page block message, could someone please clarify why I've been blocked for wikilawyering and for the majority of contributions being related to off-wiki problems? I was blocked because of the precise number of responses I made, if I understand this correctly, in the previous unblock discussion? Are those being counted for this block? And are the edits I made in arb com also being counted for this? Could someone please explain how these are valid reasons for a block? Thanks. Was being warned how many edits I was allowed to make before being indefinitely blocked without warning in my previous unblock appeal, and on arb com? Was that an option? Is this how things are typically done? Without any warning whatsoever?Tttmaker (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

could someone please clarify why I've been blocked for wikilawyering ...? I was blocked because of the precise number of responses I made, if I understand this correctly, in the previous unblock discussion? Are those being counted for this block? And are the edits I made in arb com also being counted for this? Could someone please explain how these are valid reasons for a block? I feel like you've answered your own question about wikilawyering there. If you want to be unblocked, you will have to show that you are here to do something on Wikipedia other than cause drama. You can start by stopping talking about Discord. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm trying to understand why I was blocked. Could you please expand on this whole wikilawyering thing? Now it's drama and talking about discord? I'm perfectly happy not talking about discord, but I was pointing to examples that would show GeneralNotability examples of me engaging in encyclopedia building, which I thought would be a good thing in appealing a block for the reason of not being here to build an encyclopedia. Apparently not? How can I show that I'm here to do something other than cause drama? As I said, I've made many edits to the wikipedia articles and talk space about building the encyclopedia. What else can I do? Maybe this will help. When you, Tamzin, say something about me wikilawyering, to make it clear, when I was talking about exactly how many edits I made in certain places and how many was I allowed to make, I was speaking metaphorically. Figuratively. It's like assumptions, in that it's imaginary, not real, fiction, but the difference between metaphor/figurative speech and assumptions is that a person using metaphor/figurative speech realizes it's imaginary, that it's not real, where someone making assumptions doesn't. I wasn't literally asking how many edits was I allowed... Look. GeneralNotability says they banned me for not here because half my edits were in a block appeal, and arb com... I couldn't control how many edits I made during a block appeal. I don't see how that could possibly be grounds for a ban. So that leaves only my edits on ArbCom which was only a few, although several minor edits, which I guess pads the numbers, but somehow I don't think I was banned for the minor edits, so GeneralNotability didn't ban me over block appeal edits I had no control over, GeneralNotability didn't ban me over minor edits. So GeneralNotablity seems to have banned me because of the edit I made creating the arbcom case, and or the seven responses I made in the arbcom case responding to statements and votes. And I don't really see how that's valid grounds for a permaban with no warning. Which is what I was trying to communicate. Is that wikilawyering? And, to clarify, wrt my first three edits, GeneralNotability themselves and possibly Tamzin were directly responsible for bringing... those things to the place where they were, so it would be quite hypocritical I'd say for them to hold that against me.Tttmaker (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This supports the need to leave you blocked. Yamla (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I feel like I'm handicapped in appealing this because of the vagueness of the block, and the lack of success in being able to get any explanation for why I was blocked. I don't know of any policy where the wikilawyering thing would come into play, I don't know of any policy that I broke in spirit but not the letter. Possibly that refers to not here, but, as I've explained before, I feel that accusation would be made in error. As I've said previously, I am here to build the encyclopedia. I've contributed as an IP editor to many articles and I've contributed to many articles under this account. So with no specifics all I think I can say is that the accusation seems from my point of view to be mistaken, that I am here to build an encyclopedia, that I've contributed in the past and I hope to contribute in the future. I don't know what else to say because of the lack of specifics in the block message, there, as far as I can tell being nothing in the message in my talk page and no specifics in the reason recorded in the block log. They mention that the "majority of their contributions involve importing off-wiki problems"... That's very very very confusing considering the circumstances. I successfully appealed a discord ban following the procedures that, among others, the blocking admin, GeneralNotability created. There was a pervious, successful wikipedia block appeal that I had no control over, which, as far as I can tell, was another case of a block that was the result of false assumptions. I could be mistaken, but I don't see how I should be blocked for these things. If I'm wrong in this thinking, please explain to me whatever mistake it is that I'm making. I also filed an arbcom case. If there's a reason to block me for these actions, please tell me, and tell me what policies I broke, how I constitute a serious threat to wikipedia such that the indef block is warranted.

I have made, as I count, 23 content edits under this account and dozens more as an IP editor (wikipedia logs me out after 2-3 days even if I've been active and I prefer not to use the remember thing).  This, as I understand it puts me in like the 90th percentile?  95th?  99th? of most active editors.  Apparently half of all people that, I guess, have wikipedia accounts have no edits?  Perhaps this has escaped the attention of certain people...  I can't find the page where I saw those figures though.  Should I file this under administrator action review?  Block policy states:  "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked.".  Just saying "clearly" not here, naming policies, and making vague statements about "importing off-wiki problems" without specifics does not seem to meet that bar to me.  What should I do here?  How do I request a more clear reason for why I was blocked?  What specific edits are under question?Tttmaker (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Inability to properly file a block appeal, continued wikilawyering, repeated pinging to individuals who clearly have opt'd not to further engage. Revoking TPA. -- ferret (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Note the user removed an old unblock appeal that was going stale. As it had not been declined, that's probably ok. However they removed it claiming some sort of "bug" regarding the unblock category, which they should probably explain. -- ferret (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well... You can look in the request for unblock category, according to that the date of block was august 26th, when this block was october 11th, and for the time of request, the time on the rfu is october 11th, when, in fact, this appeal was made on the 18th... so, it's a relatively self-explanatory bug, but blanking those sections didn't "fix" the bug. Also, for some reason, I couldn't use the reply feature and had to use the edit source feature.Tttmaker (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I probably shouldn't barge in when I'm not involved in this situation, but 'wikilawyering' means to abuse the Wikipedia rules/guidelines in a way that defies the point of them, for example, using the rules to win an argument, humiliate a user, or to get an excuse to edit war. I'm not quite sure what this guy did, but judging by the way they submit your appeal requests in such an elaborate and technical manner, it feels like they're the kind of person to do something like that. - 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐬 (let's chat!) 22:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I did either of those things, though thank you for that judgement. Again, what can I work with when I'm given no specifics but the rules? How else can I make an argument when the only thing I have to make the argument are the rules, because the block message was literally "You're blocked: reason: none", and the block log message, as far as I can tell, gave no more specifics. As you kind of say, wikilawyering is violating the spirit of the rule while adhering to the letter of the rule... But, I don't think I even know which rule or policy I was supposed to have violated the spirit of. Presumably it's the not here to build an encyclopdia policy, but I don't see how that applies if you look beyond the surface of the argument for the reasons I've stated.22:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC) Tttmaker (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: Blocking policy states: "Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them. Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page. It is often easier to explain the reason for a block at the time than it is to explain a block well after the event." You are therefore required to supply a clear and specific reason for this block. Why exactly did you block me for "not here to build an encyclopedia"? Why did you block me for wikilawyering? What edits can you reference where I wikilawyered and how am I supposed to have violated the wikilawyering essay in those edits? Also, please explain this: "Majority of their contributions involve importing off-wiki problems", particularly how it applies given that, among others, you, GeneralNotability were directly responsible for placing discord ban appeals on WP:discord, which was a policy put in place after I made my first attempt in my eventually successful discord ban appeal, where the consensus of several wikipedia admins was that my actions were appropriate, as I understand it. Specifically what "contributions" of mine are you counting as "importing off-wiki problems"? By my count, because there was, at the time, no formal process to appeal a discord ban, I made the same request on three talk pages, so, that's one, or three "contributions". As you probably know, I was blocked for doing that. The successful appeal was long and tedious. For the record, are you counting those edits as "importing off-wiki problems"? As I've said, I had no control over how many edits I made during that. I believe the consensus was that that was a mistake, and, as you do know, the result was the creation of the discord ban appeal procedure. I did not even make a single edit there, as that was conducted, entirely on discord iirc... You should approve... Yet instead you indef blocked me... Then, of course, as an arbcom clerk, you should know, I filed an arbcom case. And that resulted in I think ~7-8 edits? Anyway. Please provide a clear and specific reason for why you indef blocked me. How exactly did I violate not-here? Which of the three groups of edits are you considering as "contributions [that] involve importing off-wiki problems"? The talk page ban appeals that were made because there was no formal discord ban appeal that resulted in a successful appeal and the creation of the discord ban policy? The comments I made appealing the block I was given for appealing my ban on wikipedia discord server admin talk pages? The arb-com case I filed? Could you explain exactly why? You say the majority of my contributions? What do you mean? The ~500 word arb com case request? The number of edits? Because of the wikipedia block appeal I made after I was blocked for making the (eventually successful) wikipedia talk page appeals on the wikipedia talk pages? None of this makes sense to me.Tttmaker (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022 (2)

After speaking with the blocking admins (cc @GeneralNotability and @Ferret), I would like to propose some conditions for you to be unblocked. (See WP:CONDUNBLOCK.)

Topic ban~~s from the Israel/Palestine topic area and~~ from Discord servers related to Wikipedia, ~~both~~ "broadly construed"
No ~~wikilawyering or~~ posting long walls of text. I admit these are subjective, but you must be far less verbose than you have been. I recommend silently observing how other editors interact with each other for a while before trying to participate in project discussions again.

I recommend not trying to appeal these for at least several months.

Thoughts on the conditions? Enterprisey (talk!) 16:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first mention of the Israel/Palestine issue. Did that ever have anything to do with the original block? Also, referring to ferrets appeal decline, I don't think I pinged GeneralNotability more than once that I remember off the top of my head. And it is clearly, per policy, the responsibility of the blocking admin to explain the block, that apparently now has something to do with Israel/Palestine? Again, as I understand it, wikilawyering is breaking the spirit of a rule/policy while following the letter, and again, I can't think of a time that I did that and nobody seems to be able to point one out to me. As for the "long walls of text", those are mostly because I don't see a clear explanation of why I was blocked in the first place. And again another block with no real explanation. How for instance would I appeal the conditions of a block when there's no explanation of the block? This is all disorienting, iirc wikilawyering was one of the original rationales, but when did I do that until after I appealed the block with no real explanation? So it's a catch-22. A block that's too vague to appeal, and an open ended appeal is "wikilawyering". Tttmaker (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can either agree to the unblock conditions, or remain blocked. No one is going to entertain further rambling. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Israel/Palestine: saw your edits regarding the Yom Kippur War on October 6, like this one. It's a difficult topic area to edit in, so I would prefer you stay out of it for now. I thought the block was explained, but I'll add more explanation: initially it was for talking about the Discord ban on here. The Discord server is not managed by the community as a whole, so discussion onwiki wouldn't do much. Then you started posting rather lengthy messages, which makes it difficult for other community members to discuss things with you. That's why the block appeals mention "wikilawyering". One bullet point on WP:WIKILAWYER is "Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express". But whatever, I guess we can leave that out of the conditions and just stick to "no walls of text", if that's easier to follow? Unfortunately that does mean if you have many points to make, you would have to choose the most important ones and/or to engage in discussions for longer periods of time. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how would I appeal a topic ban? Why would I be topic banned for, in that case, asking if the way the Yom Kippur War was presented on the front page, without the context that Israel was occupying the Egyptian Sinai was neutrally worded and in line with policy? How, in the future would I appeal a topic ban for that? When you say "talking about the discord ban on here", do you mean appealing it on WP:discord talk or whatever, following the official appeal process? Filing an arbcom case request when that appeal was rejected with no discussion? Is that really an appropriate reason, in line with blocking policy for an indefinite block? A block to prevent serious damage to wikipedia by preventing some sort of imminent threat? What exact damage is this block preventing? And what rather lengthy messages are you referring to? I suppose I may as well appeal again, but if that fails I'll file an administrative action review (however a blocked user is supposed to do that) because the blocking admin refuses to explain this block. Tttmaker (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the link I posted to WP:CONDUNBLOCK, which states how appeals for topic bans happen. Upon review, I misjudged the evidence and I have struck the Israel/Palestine topic ban in the condition. Regarding Discord, I mean talking about the Wikipedia Discord server in any way. You can't appeal it "on-wiki"; bans from that server are not under the jurisdiction of the community. The "damage" would be using community members' time in a way that does not contribute to building an encyclopedia. And finally, the lengthy messages can be found in your contributions. A particular example would be the one sent on this talk page at 23:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC). The block would be appealed to WP:AN next, although I will warn you that there are a variety of outcomes of such a discussion, including a community ban. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not asking about the mechanics of appealing topic bans, I was asking how to appeal bans that don't have clear, valid reasons for the ban. My experience is that, for, whatever reason, those bans can be almost impossible to appeal, because there is no clear or valid reason for the ban in the first place, which infinitely complicates the process of appealing it, which is why they are invalid in the first place, which is why they should be among the easiest to appeal, yet experience teaches another thing. I accept the conditions of the unblock, I never intended to pursue THAT WHOSE NAME MAY NOT BE UTTERED in this namespace which made the indef block even more confusing. It seems I may not have the imagination to be a wiki admin. Tttmaker (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

This block violates wikipedia blocking policy. The blocking admin refuses to fulfill their obligation to explain the block. When/how exactly was I "wikilawyering"? How (and which) were my actions under the "not here to build an encyclopedia" umbrella disruptive? How does this indefinite block conform to block policy? "prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." This block does not serve any of these purposes. Particularly because the blocking admin refuses to explain the block in the first place. I have not been disruptive in my editing, certainly not in the "majority" of my editing. I have made ~23+ constructive edits under this account, as well as dozens more as an IP editor and I have created no disruption that has been pointed out to me. At times when, for instance, my edits have been reverted, I have discussed them and proceeded editing in those areas in constructive ways, and not in disruptive ways. I have done what I can to follow wikipedia policy and follow any policies and guidelines as they've been presented to me. I believe I have not violated the NOTHERE policy, but, if I have, I am prepared to correct any disruptive behavior as it's pointed out to me. It's been pointed out to me that, peoples tea leaf readings of the "wikilawyering" reference in the block log entry refers not to violating the spirit but not the letter of wiki policies, but, instead being too verbose. I don't know which of the edits I made before this block were disruptive in this way, but, I will try, moving forward, to be more direct, and to not post "walls of text". Again, I am willing to address any other issues with my editing.Tttmaker (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In the first sentence you went immediately back to Wikilawyering. TPA is being revoked yet again and I would not recommend requesting an unblock any time soon. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Endorsing RickinBaltimore's decline. -- ferret (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that UTRS appeal #65757 is open.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Enterprisey:-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I intend to accept in a few days on UTRS barring any objection here, rationale being I think they've clearly committed to not posting walls of text or talking about Discord and I think they should have a chance to prove that. cc @Ferret, cc @RickinBaltimore. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I object. I don't see this being a good idea. I have a feeling we very well may be back here sooner than later. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I object. Enterprisey, can you explain how any of this addresses the guidance you attempted to give the editor? They haven't heeded anything you've stated, so I don't understand why you would unblock. In fact, having had this exact appeal declined, they posted it verbatim without editing to UTRS, where it is now rightfully declined again. The appeal admits no wrongdoing, continues to wikilawyer, and promises nothing of the sort about Discord or avoiding sanction areas, etc. -- ferret (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I object, very strongly. Everything shows that the editor is unable to understand what wikilawyering is, and can't see that they are doing it when they are. Repeatedly, in the course of denying that they have been wikilawyering, they have done blatant and obvious wikilawyering. For someone who doesn't know what wikilawyering is, and who does it even when they are saying that they aren't doing it, to say that they will abstain from wikilawyering, is meaningless. Likewise with the other problems with the editor, as Ferret has rightly pointed out, the editor shows no sign of understanding them, or of indicating in what way their editing will differ from that in the past. I also wonder why Enterprisey has removed wikilawyering from his original unblock conditions. There may be an explanation somewhere, but if so I can't find it. Since wikilawyering is both one of the reasons given for the block, and also one of the problems exhibited plainly and repeatedly here on this page in the course of unblock appeals, to unblock without that issue having been addressed doesn't seem to make sense. If Deepfriedokra doesn't mind my quoting his comment to Tttmaker on UTRS, "That you cannot see that your disruption is disruptive argues against ever unblocking you." JBW (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Not at all. I put it quite well, did I not? I've recused because I cannot be objective. That's because my initial unblock was a stupid mistake. And so it goes. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I object as well. This is getting ridiculous. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the clear consensus above, I have declined UTRS unblock request #65757. I may also say that a message posted to that UTRS appeal provides yet further indication that the editor simply can't understand the reasons for the block. JBW (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]