User talk:Wikipedian770

As you no doubt expected, you have been blocked from editing again, for continuing the same kind of editing that led to your previous block. Naturally, this time the block is for a significantly longer period. JBW (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to appeal this block. I do not know what I did to piss you off by editing my personal sandbox (and I still don't understand how one can vandalize their own sandbox, or how editing my sandbox of all things could possibly be interpreted as a hoax – after all, I was not editing an actual page?). Regardless, I guess I apologize about being passionate about Alternate History. Furthermore, I don't believe my edits have been unconstructive in general. Going forward, I would like to be able to contribute in a positive way towards pages on elections in particular. And I don't see being able to have a sandbox I can edit for a hobby of mine as unproductive. Wikipedian770 (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly want to do self-promotion, but under these circumstances I feel it is fair I follow up with a few wikiboxes of mine - you can see it is not my intention whatsoever to mislead anyone whatsoever, I use my sandbox for althist projects like many others on here do. RFK primaries LBJ in 1964 [1] Ralph Nader runs in 1972 [2] Italy with the Netherlands’ electoral system (PR with 0.67% threshold) [3]. Wikipedian770 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll conclude by adding I'm not aware of any precedent as far as blocking one for editing their own sandbox using alternate history as a hobby. For example, I follow User:TzarThePoliticalNerd on X/Twitter for their althist stuff and I do not know what sets User:TzarThePoliticalNerd/sandbox apart from my sandbox. I would deeply appreciate the opportunity to continue editing, as I love this site. I've spent countless hours reading Wikipedia pages, just like yourself I imagine. Wikipedian770 (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will also point to constructive edits I have made on Wikipedia. While I was not logged in, revisions from 18:42 23 October 2022 to 22:05 24 October 2022 on List of mayors of Springfield, Missouri were made by me. Wikipedian770 (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, my new autistic fixation is The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York and I would like to be able to make an edit or two as I continue to listen to the book. I strongly recommend it! Wikipedian770 (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2024 (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).

Wikipedian770 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See above

Decline reason:

If Tzar resumes editing they will probably be blocked as WP:NOTHERE. A slight difference between you and them is that all the figures they used in their ficticious draft are long dead, whereas everyone you wrote about is alive(RFK Jr, Senator Markey) which might confuse people who know nothing about US politics, even as a draft. But, that's all beside the point. If you want to write alternative histories, you should do that somewhere else. You'll need to agree to stop all such activity and tell us what you will do instead in order to be unblocked, I think anyway. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (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.

@331dot while I do think the points you made are valid, I don’t feel that you took into consideration that I was editing my sandbox, as opposed to creating a draft (which I thought is not the same thing as a sandbox?) or editing an article itself – which I am well aware would constitute vandalism. As far as I’m aware, it is not outlined anywhere that using one’s sandbox for the purpose I was is vandalism as @JBW tagged my sandbox when he deleted it the first time. And furthermore, it’s my understanding from what I was reading under Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes, Wikipedia:Hoaxes, and Wikipedia:Vandalism, that it is recommended the first time a user is warned for vandalism that they use their own sandbox. Is that not what I was doing? I was not disruptively editing articles or creating new pages. You mentioned I was not using people who are dead in my wikiboxes. I don’t feel that you took into consideration the links I provided showing I had. Regardless, I’ll concede and make it clear in my sandbox in some way that it is fictitious. Or worse, I guess I will just not have a sandbox, if that is what is necessary. As I had mentioned earlier, I would like to be able to continue to be able contribute in a productive way towards pages on elections and politics, as I was doing before. So please tell me what it is I need to do to make that happen. Wikipedian770 (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very aware that you were editing your sandbox. Many other editors see sandboxes(typically in the Recent Changes feed where every edit to every type of page on Wikipedia is logged) as efforts to create articles. Even setting that aside- your sandbox is not for fooling around in or writing things that have nothing to do with building this encyclopedia- like writing alternative histories- even if you made it very clear that's what you were doing(which you didn't). If your alternative histories were part of some effort to practice editing so that you can then go and edit an actual article- you haven't said so thus far. My review puts an end to my formal involvement in this matter, you may make a new request for someone else to review, and any decision they make will be up to them in consultation with the blocking admin, not me. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2024 (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).

Wikipedian770 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I suppose I’ll make this my last unblock request, as it is only a 6 month block and I can still make constructive edits in some way if I really feel the need to at some point, as I’ve done quite a few times while logged out on my phone. I do recognize that I have made unconstructive edits to my sandbox (see conversation above), and I ask that whoever reviews this work with me in good faith here – it is not, nor has it ever been my intention to be a bad actor on Wikipedia. Lord forgive another autistic trans woman for having a hobby making election wikiboxes on her sandbox, something that can be done elsewhere (there is a mock elections wiki [4] that I suppose can be used specifically for this hobby).

Decline reason:

As per below, you have evaded your block by editing while logged out. Yamla (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2024 (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.

Just wait 6 months. It's not that long. Every time you edit while logged out, you could reset the 6 month timer. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you stating you have illicitly evaded your block by editing while signed out? --Yamla (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. As mentioned earlier, “While I was not logged in, revisions from 18:42 23 October 2022 to 22:05 24 October 2022 on List of mayors of Springfield, Missouri were made by me.” I was not blocked during this period, I just had not bothered logging in the moment. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Wikipedian770 (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I sincerely appreciate your clarification. --Yamla (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will abide by the accepted convention that an administrator does not decline an unblock request on their own block, so that the blocked editor gets an independent review, but I will tell you that if it were not my own block I would decline your request, and in the hope that it may help you to rewrite your unblock request so that it has a better chance of success, I will outline my reasons. You are, of course, free to take on board this attempt to help or not.

You have still shown no understanding that Wikipedia is not a platform for playing or publishing fiction, and that use of the Wikipedia servers as a free place to play around is an abuse. You appear to think, for some reason, that it's quite unreasonable for the Wikimedia Foundation to decide that its servers are provided only for one specific purpose.

You have said "I can still make constructive edits in some way if I really feel the need to at some point, as I’ve done quite a few times while logged out on my phone." In answer to Yamla's question you have said that you did not mean that you have evaded you block in the past, but what you said is unambiguously a declaration that you are planning to do so in the future if the block is not removed. I can think of few more certain ways of guaranteeing that no administrator will ever remove a block than threatening to evade the block if they don't. In fact in 13 years as an administrator I must have seen hundreds of blocked editors doing that, and I don't believe I have ever seen one unblocked while the threat is in place.

I am on the autism spectrum. That means that at times I seriously misjudge how to interact with other editors, which leads to problems. It would lead to more problems if I didn't put a lot of work into thinking how to try to avoid them. Also other editors sometimes misjudge my motives because they don't understand the way my mind works. However, I never play the "I'm on the autism spectrum, so you have to allow me to do things that other people aren't allowed to do, and if you don't then you should be made to feel guilty" card. "I'm autistic, which unfortunately makes it more difficult to do things in accordance with the rules that other people find easy to follow" yes: "I'm autistic, so don't require me to do things in accordance with the rules that other people have to follow" no.

At least autism has some relevance, since it does cause difficulties for editors, but being a trans woman is, as far as I can see, completely irrelevant. If I'm wrong, and have missed something, then you are very welcome to explain why.

As I said above, I have put in the time and trouble it has taken to write this message in the hope it may help you to improve your chances of being unblocked. Obviously it is up to you to decide whether to take up my advice. JBW (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for the reply. That last part of my appeal was an attempt at humor in a way, I guess, while also acknowledging that there are other sites I can use for althist wikibox stuff (such as that mock elections wiki). I believe that is showing understanding of Wikipedia’s use as an encyclopedia compared to something else. As for the other topic, note I said constructive edits. If I were to see a relevant endorsement of a candidate in an election, would it not be necessary to add the endorsement? I don’t feel that I was threatening any sort of malicious intent, nor have I vandalized any page beside my sandbox (which I was not originally aware one could vandilize). Again, it has never been my intention to be a bad actor on Wikipedia. I would have assumed that edits while blocked are okay as long as they are productive. Please do inform me if that is not the case. Wikipedian770 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency’s sake, I don’t think I will bother editing my appeal. At the end of the day, it is only a 6 month block, and I have more stressful things to worry about irl, such as college – which could be going better :( – and moving later this month. I do enjoy reading Wikipedia in my free time, particularly pages about international politics and elections and I would enjoy actually being able to make positive contributions to this site, but I’ve been trying to reduce my media consumption lately anyway. Wikipedian770 (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what was said above, you have continued to edit without logging into your account. You may or may not have originally thought that doing so was acceptable, but following the comments made about it above you can not possibly have still thought that; you were knowingly and deliberately violating Wikipedia policies. I have therefore extended the block to indefinite. JBW (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]