User talk:De Wikischim

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I do not like to believe ill of people. However, you have been trolling the site for some time. I warned you when you stepped over the line, and you have responded by calling that a personal attack, claiming that I'd done so repeatedly, and calling it an abuse of the term "troll".

Your blatant edit warring over your desire to mess — gratuitously — with an article days beyond its 24-hour post-publish horizon — in defiance of policy that you know perfectly well is there and just personally have no respect for is a logically extension of your assault on the project. This all makes me just sad; I've spend months trying to convince myself that you weren't really trolloing the project, and I still hate to think it, but I find the evidence too compelling to ignore at this point. --Pi zero (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

(Addendum: this section was removed by the user; removing administratively significant text being abuse of talk page privileges, I'm reluctantly contemplating revoking right to edit own talk page. I would have already done so by now with most users. --Pi zero (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC))

Discussion with Acagastya[edit]

I had quoted the project policy and provided a link to it, see [1]. I mentioned it for the second time, "In any case, rephrasing after the 24 hour mark is not permitted. You edits also cause problems being too close to source" (see). Your edit summary "This is not too close to any source, I believe." indicates you had read my summary. Not following the policy after it being mentioned -- I don't think there is anything to add.
•–• 12:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I had not noticed well that part of your comment. Additionally, it was you who decided to start an edit war by this revert without giving the "no-edits-after-24-hours-rule" as a specific reason at that moment. As a result, I was already distracted. You could for example have pointed it out on me here on this Talk page before reverting, but you did not do that either. De Wikischim (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Still another thing: in one of the edit summaries, you accuse me implicitly of copyright infringement: You[r] edits also cause problems being too close to source. Copyvio is actually considered a crime. Can you perhaps try to be a little more concrete when making such heavy accusations? De Wikischim (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It is not an edit war if I am making sure the project policies are regulated. It is not my fault if you are going to ignore my remarks. While I am not in favour of indefinite block, you do need to reconsider how you voice your criticism. How about we wait for 24 hours? For the part being too close to source, your edit had a phrase very similar to that in the source. (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
[...] killing Rizwana by slitting her throat was surely not a phrase which was too close to one or more of the sources, otherwise it is coincidence. Or do you mean ...on the ground floor...? Well, it's maybe two or three consecutive words here which were similar to one of the given sources − if that's already a case of copyvio according to the rules, I regret it and am willing to apologize, though it remains rather far-fetched to my idea. De Wikischim (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

How about taking a day off, giving yourself a cooling time -- you have mentioned several times that you regret saying things when you were in a bad mood. Give a break. The more you let it affect you, the worse things will get. You do need to control yourself because we have been observing for months that your comments are often trollish. We will discuss about your block tomorrow. But now, for the collective good, please stop saying things that you say in anger.
20:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been blocked permanently, so what difference does "one day off" make? As you perhaps have seen, I have submitted an unblock request below. If Pi zero does not want to judge the request himself, no problem, he can just leave it to a colleague. I have submitted this request mainly because I consider my current block very, really very unjustifiable. For the rest, I have now explained to you that I started to edit India: Jodhpur police arrests man for 'sacrifice' of four-year-old daughter for Allah being unware of the "24-hours-after-publication-rule" which applies here on Wikinews-en; if I had known that rule in advance, I would not have made the initial change (called "messing with an article" hereabove by Pi zero). So instead of explaining it clearly here on my Talk page, you simply give a permanent block. As said, I have no proper words to describe this. De Wikischim (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Permanent blocks may or may not be permanent, and the way the user behaves determines what would happen next. A 24-hour block is justified for the edit-war, and violating the policy. I had mentioned the policy thrice, and you even read half of that summary. You can not claim that you did not know because I told you. But lot of your comments are trollish, and this is something we have noticed for months. In you calm yourself now, and raise the concerns tomorrow, that could be helpful. Believe me, doing otherwise is going to worsen the situation. We can discuss the block tomorrow when all three are awake.
•–• 21:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Not needed, I'm completely fed up with this project. I've removed my unblock request below and will not return here. Congrats, you have well succeeded in bullying someone away. De Wikischim (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, we waited for weeks, convincing ourselves that you are not a troll. Despite your unnecessary, unhelpful comments which were doing nothing other than other editors losing their time replying to you while they could have done something more productive. And despite the comments which were caustic for the project itself, misleading the newcomers, and what you did yesterday, even the edit summaries like "go to hell"; and if you want to remove the unblock request when the admins are sleeping.. I don't know what to say. You have the free will to.
•–• 10:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I admit I should not have written go to hell. I did it in a fit of anger, and apologize for it. The rest of what you're writing here about me consists of lies. I will not react on it further. De Wikischim (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been telling you not to react in anger -- don't react in anger right now, don't react in anger for any discussions. I have stopped doing it (even though there were several instances by other users provoking me). "Give yourself some cooling time, it will improve the situation for everyone." That is what I do these days.
•–• 10:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

(Readding the removed request for unblock)[edit]

{{unblock|reason=This block happened after the 3RR issue/edit warring and regardless of the fact that De Wikischim knew about the rule or not, the block lasts for 24 hours. The other reason for blocking the account was for their "trolling" comments. While we do not appreciate trolls, and quite frankly, they got on my nerves sometimes, I think they deserve a second chance. After all, they can improve, and I am sure they will. Evidently, the user did certain things due to anger which they should not have, but they deserve a second chance. They have been blocked for far too long, and now enough is enough.}} (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts on this request.
  • This request is not by the blocked user. For whatever difference that makes.
  • The user was, as pointed out in different words somewhere in the extensive discussion above, not here to produce news. They harassed reviewers, they misled newcomers, and the final edit-war incident seems to have been closely connected to their failure to recognize the review-oriented nature of our basic workflow, which is characteristic of them. Frankly, it's been a lot less unpleasant around the project without them. This makes me sad, but is no less true for being sad.
  • The user has mentioned anger management. I absolutely don't wish discourage that; good anger management is valuable in all that one does in life. However, note, for the current purpose, the attitude problem I've described would seem to be mostly unaffected by more effective anger management. I see no indication from the user that any of those things I mentioned would improve; no recognition of those problems, no contrition for them.
My basic reflex here is, always, to pause to consider whether it would be better to let a different admin handle the request, meanwhile providing commentary that may be helpful to any admin considering it (including me, of course). Not that I would necessarily not handle the request myself, depending on circumstances, but that would not be something to do hastily. --Pi zero (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I would not lie, De Wikischim had provoked me on some occasions with their "trollish" comments, but I did not respond. Took a deep breath, and gave myself a cooling time. It really avoided getting things uglier from my side as well as theirs. And that would happen in half an hour or so. This gap is way longer than that. He had unblocked that spammer TribuneMan2018 despite doing absolutely nothing but spamming. On the other hand, De Wikischim has contributed to articles. There are differences in enwn and nlwn and it might be difficult for them to get it done. Three years ago, when I was a noob here, I thought, "How could this not be news, after all, it has happened just four days ago, and is important" -- later I learned that "despite things happening this week there is a difference between freshness and importance. Both together contributes to the qualification of 'news'". So giving a chance to TribuneMan2018, whose intentions were clearly to not write news here (I had warned you before, about it) and that is what happened. In all fairness, if De Wikischim learns to control their on-wiki frustration, (and takes time to learn how to control it, many of us took too much time to learn it) they would be way more helpful than 2018 Tribune-Men combined, or almost anyone who was given a second chance recently. On way to have that is by speaking to them more. I don't know how that will happen, but De Wikischim can and will learn. Give them a chance.
•–• 14:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Each case is individual; this is not about Tribuneman2018.
  • Your suggestion that "De Wikischim can and will learn" —I understand this to mean, learn about en.wn in order to operate within its framework— is inconsistent with acummulated evidence over a prolonged period that xe doe snot want to do so.
--Pi zero (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
That Wikitribune mascot was one of the examples -- and it is about giving a second chance, which De Wikischim deserves. We (as in "acagastya" and "Pi zero") do not agree on many things and sometimes have very strong opinions, for example, that IP who was blanking someone else's page. I don't agree with the enwn Mission Statement, it is misleading and should be amended. If De Wikischim can control things which differ from what we believe, and channel in such a way that it does not affect the smooth functioning of the project, then they should have the second chance to right the wrongs.
•–• 18:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I've made repeated overtures to De Wikischim, over a long period of time. This is not a second chance you're talking about, by a long stretch. --Pi zero (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

As I said we both differ on a lot of things. There was never a good communication with them to explain their problems. Either we did not have time to highlight it because we did not have time to, or we had to work on the other articles. But things can improve with a proper communication.
•–• 19:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Choice of words may be an issue, yes. But sometimes what we might think is "constructive critisism" might be "critisism" for others. Some might even take it as "troll" and this is trickier than someone spamming here.
•–• 19:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: I've disabled the above unblock request, as De Wikischim has clearly indicated disapproval of it and, in any case, submitted their own request below, which I've given a separate section heading. --Pi zero (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Renewed unblock request[edit]

Should this user be unblocked?

This user, De Wikischim has requested to be unblocked per the Wikinews Blocking Policy. (block log | autoblocks | unblock (remove global block) | contribs)

Request reason: "On June 16, I was not aware yet of the rule that articles are no longer allowed to be edited once they have appeared on the front page (see the revision history of India: Jodhpur police arrests man for 'sacrifice' of four-year-old daughter for Allah). So anyway, I cannot be blamed in particular for that. Anyway, I think I did not even remotely deserve a permblock. Could preferably another sysop than user:Pi zero please have a look at the history of this talk page since June 16, and judge whether an indefinite block of my account here is justified? I urgently request Pi zero not to react here anymore since he's the one who gave me this completely unjustifiable block, after which he has decided to keep his prejudicial attitude towards me. Thanks in advance."

Note to admins: If this request is declined, it should be replaced with: {{unblock-no}}
Note to admins: If this request is approved, it should be replaced with: {{unblock-ok}}

De Wikischim (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

  • It's not reasonable for you to request that the blocking admin not participate in a discussion of removing the block; that would defy common sense.
  • You are misrepresenting the reason you were blocked.
  • It's not credible that you were unaware of the policy that you have been aggressively attacking for a long time.
  • All of the above factors become far more disturbing when considered together with your removal, today, of a great deal of administratively significant past discussion on this page. The whole situation appears to be an attempt to dupe someone into unblocking you by falsifying the record.
  • Tbh, despite all of that I was hoping to write a set of comments summarizing my perceptions of the situation as blocking admin, so whoever considered the unblock request would have that information at their disposal, restore the removed material, warn the user that such removal is unacceptable, and step back. Unfortunately, I find I don't have that luxury. The user has already, within the current block action, removed administratively significant text, had it explained to them that doing so is unacceptable, and been warned that the potential consequence of such action is loss of user talk privileges.
Therefore, in accordance with and support of the previous warning, I'm changing the conditions of the block to revoke the user's talk privs. I'll restore the removed discussion segments shortly. --Pi zero (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Addendum: I have offered to restore talk privs if De Wikischim agrees not to further remove administrative discussion. --Pi zero (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Talk privs restored. --Pi zero (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. De Wikischim (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)