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 logical 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 trolling 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?

[[User: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 another sysop than user:Pi zero please have a look at the history of this talk page since June 16, especially #Discussion with Acagastya, 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.|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 another sysop than user:Pi zero please have a look at the history of this talk page since June 16, especially #Discussion with Acagastya, 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.]] has reviewed De Wikischim's request to be unblocked, and the result was declined.
The reason given by 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 another sysop than user:Pi zero please have a look at the history of this talk page since June 16, especially #Discussion with Acagastya, 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. was: {{{2}}}.
Further debate can proceed here, however, the administrator's decision may be final, and the result of administrative consensus.

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)
For any admin reviewing this case, note activity on on this page on August 11, which was mostly removed (with some residual changes, though). --Pi zero (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


  • In this unblock request procedure you are not really expected to initiate a discussion; instead you need to leave one message, which would lead to a judgment from an administrator.
  • In this unblock reason you are posing yourself as an important person. Instead it is necessary to do a different exercise. Consider yourself unimportant and not worth any attention for a moment; instead consider that Wikinews is important and all attention of the administrator reading this unblock request needs to be given to it.
  • Give an account of how your contributions are valuable for Wikinews, and how did they fall short of the expectations (what the block reason was - not what it wasn't).
  • Asking to be heard by non-Pi zero, and also being upset at Pi zero, and seeing Pi zero is the one who added your block. It is indicative of an unresolved conflict between you two. Even if your unblock is successful this conflict will still need to be resolved as well as any future ones. As he has the mop you need to either listen to him or have a conversation leading to a change of his opinion. For the unblock to succeed you need to promise to obtain and practice these two useful skills.

If you still wish to be unblocked, please write the proposed unblock reason again, within 7 days. Thank you. --Gryllida (chat) 11:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Goodbye. Given that you even have the guts to suggest that I "pose myself as an important person", this conversation is completely meaningless. De Wikischim (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi De Wikischim,
  • This phrase that you quoted is an an intrinsic human property: everyone considers themselves important. I'm sorry if the way I put it further offended you. It was my proposal that you discard this bit for a moment; it seems that the wording that I used worked to the contrary.
  • I suppose my question has expired.
  • What a shame: I was hoping for a constructive conversation, as is required for continued constructive interaction with human beings, each of which has a responsibility area (different from building your wellbeing; I did try to go towards it, however, building it is your task).
  • Closing this unblock request.
  • I recommend that if you wish to open an unblock request, then
  • you do so after no less than three months, and
  • you need to open it in a separate section (with a new unblock reason).
--Gryllida (chat) 21:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I want to complain again about the unfair policy here. I see user:SVTCobra, another sysop (I thought?) has again become active. I suppose he/she can at least confirm that I was not a vandalist at all in the period I was an active contributor here, and therefore should not have been treated last June as if I were one. De Wikischim (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
If SVTCobra would like to re-open this unblock request, I do not mind. --Gryllida (chat) 21:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
It is going to be some time before I am going to have anywhere near enough time to review things in this case. May I suggest the ArbCom committee? Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I will not do so, since I'm not gonna bow to the crazy policy here. De Wikischim (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
user:Pi zero, you're not the boss of this Talk page, I am. And I've decided I no longer want all this fuss here. De Wikischim (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually, De Wikischim, it can be restored, and protected if necessary, by the sysop as it is now on the project, and you do not "own" it. There is a lot of text which others have a copyright to, and it is hosted on servers that are not yours. I really would have hope that things would have gotten better, and the unblock request would have been closed as granted, and the anger thing we discussed before was taken into consideration, (not that I claim you have not), but if you don't want unblock request to do anything here, maybe just don't push the thread. However, one thing that might be done. @Pi zero: as far as I remember, "right to disappear" was for leaving the WMF's sisterhood completely. Is that possible for local projects?
•–• 20:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
You can't unmerge a global account (because of SUL), so not really. The options that come to my mind include globallocking or something akin to w:Wikipedia:RTV, but both of those options involve him giving up WMF completely. Leaderboard (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Let's not blow things out of proportion; changing visibility of talk page on the agreed condition to not use this account to edit enwn. And even if required, that would be through alternative account. That decision, as weird it may be, would still require a note somewhere for the record purpose. I can come up with ideas for my personal wiki, I can't set that criteria here.
•–• 20:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
This isn't rocket science. The principle involved is that while for most purposes a user has the right to get rid of stuff in their userspace, that doesn't apply to stuff that constitutes an administratively significant record. --Pi zero (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Relevant quote:
(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)) Gryllida (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

but surely isn't a monotheistic religion which would have ruled out the possibility for reaching out to that conclusion for the agreement.
•–• 21:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request (March 2019)[edit]

{{unblock|My block has lasted for almost a year now, but a permanent block of my account does not serve any reasonable purpose. About two years ago, I started editing this wiki with the only purpose to add and improve articles. About the deletion policy: I still do not agree with it, but promise I'll accept the guidelines from now on, not starting any new discussions about it anymore. The main reason I was blocked permanently last year was because I kept on commenting the deletion policy in a way that did not appeal to some other users. So there's no reason to keep my account blocked, as I've now decided to stop giving this kind of comments. Another reason for the block was an edit war in June 2018 on the article India: Jodhpur police arrests man for 'sacrifice' of four-year-old daughter for Allah. At that moment, however, nobody here had warned me in time I was no longer allowed to edit the article because it had already appeared on the front page. Finally, user:Acagastya already insisted shortly after my permanent block was imposed last year that it would be undone, but this request was denied by the same sysop who had blocked me.}}

I see this message coincidentally. I knew of his block of course, but I didn't want to interfere on another wiki. Actually a shame of myself as well, because it's really a disgrace that De Wikischim was given a permanent block here where one week would yet have been disproportionate. Please get rid of it. What he did, wasn't bad for the wiki. Ymnes (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
It has been, and is, my intent to comment on this request, as the blocking admin, providing my perspective. A convergence of time and concentration is called for, so I won't be able to do so immediately. I note meanwhile, that in this request for unblock, the representation of the reason for blocking is not altogether in line with my recollection of the incident. Re the "not bad for the wiki" assessment, my disagreement with that is indicated by the fact that I applied the block. --Pi zero (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
You may have applied for it, but we're talking about a permanent block from 0 to 100 in once. That is unacceptable by all means. Ymnes (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Not permanent, indefinite. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, but preventative; blocks of finite-duration (for registered users) are in the nature of warnings mean to invite the blocked user to reconsider their behavior. In my judgement at the time, the long-term behavior was not plausibly going to be remedied by a finite-duration block, which would be interpreted punitively and create resentment rather than remedy, and we'd just have to go through a new protracted period of increasing disruption each time a finite-duration block expired. (I went through a process like that on en.wb last year, and it was an ugly mess that would only be even worse on an even smaller project.) I reckoned a finite-duration block would therefore be the wrong tool for the job, and I still think I was right about that.

I note that the widely popular strategy of gradually-increasing-duration blocks does not always work well; in some cases, a user really doesn't belong on a certain project and the gradual strategy merely increases the likelihood of perpetuating their negative influence by teaching them to avoid the penalized superficial behavior. En.wn is centrally concerned with an individual's earned reputation, and once they've earned a bad reputation here, we ought to be convinced there's reason to expect better of them before letting them loose on the project again, rather than letting them loose here for some bureaucratic reason. --Pi zero (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you wish to completely avoid reverts in the future except for vandalism and spam? --Gryllida (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Is that a strict condition for me to get unblocked − not doing any revert of a non-vandalistic (but still maybe controversial) edit? Anyway I'm willing to promise to avoid reverting as much as possible − but that's still not enough, apparently? De Wikischim (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I think unlike Wikipedia where up to three reverts are considered acceptable, at Wikinews there is more focus on finding an improvement quickly so that the article can be ready for publication as soon as practically possible. I thought this was worth pointing out as it was not clear in your unblock request and may be related to the reason for it. I am glad that you are willing to do this. I hope that Pi zero can share with you anything else that is needed; he is also responsible for a lot of reviewing work so this may take a while, please be patient. --Gryllida (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
See what Pi zero writes above: [...]I reckoned a finite-duration block would therefore be the wrong tool for the job, and I still think I was right about that. So if you decide to leave the further handling of this request fully to him (you're completely free to do so, of course), I do not think this request will have any chance to be granted. That's why I already asked some months ago explicitly the other sysops here to have their own look at it. De Wikischim (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
So, let's shift gears here:What are your hopes and plans to help make EN WN a better place??--Bddpaux (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Better turn it around and don't let abuse of power go on. This should never have been a block longer than 1 day on a decent wiki or 7 days on this one. Quit the block and stand the fact that people that don't share the opinion of the stockholders are blocked for -practically- allways. What is the difficulty here really? Ymnes (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Duly noted. However: I'd like to hear from De Wikischim. We need reporters here. Will you bring REPORTING to the table? If so, how? --Bddpaux (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
You can just have a look at the edits I did here in the main space, especially in the period between September 2017 (the first time I tried to write a news article of my own here) and May 2018. I wrote several news articles (most of which, however, have been deleted so they are no longer visible). De Wikischim (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Ymes about indefinite blocks in general being bad. My time on Wikipedia has given me a low opinion of them.
De Wikishim says he just didn't know the rule about doing reverts after the 24-hour limit. Even if we assume he's absolutely lying about that—and I don't think he is; it's just a thought experiment—it still proves beyond any doubt at all that he does know the rule now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Since folks evidently prefer to pester about this rather than waiting for me to find a non-disruptive moment to research the history in-depth, I'll make a preliminary remark, subject to future research when I do have time. The form, if not specific occasion, of this block action was shaped by long-term-abuse behavior, consistent with the blockee reflexively heckling whenever policies differing from nl.wn arose —which is pretty much all the time because nl.wn policies are evidently stupifyingly alien from en.wn ones— rather than learning and working within the policies of the project they're ostensibly contributing to. It's entirely consistent with this both that they would have been unaware of the specific policy and that they would be, even now, unaware of their own long-term behavior that shaped the form of the block action. --Pi zero (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you've already made your opinion on this point well clear several times before on this talk page. Actually there's no need to repeat it in just somewhat different wordings. Please give the other sysops here a good occasion to express their own opinion on the duration of my block. De Wikischim (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
De Wikischim, seeing the above remark I would be greatly interested in your account of the disagreements and differences between en.wn and nl.wn. Gryllida (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not the main issue of this discussion, which is about the justification used last year by Pi zero to give me an indefinite block. You can discuss the differences between the two projects further on nl.wn if you want to do so. De Wikischim (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Pi zero says you applying nl.wn policies to en.wn was the reason for the block. Is this not the case? Can you show me why he could possibly say that? Gryllida (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know, Pi zero used the fact that I had made some changes in an article which had already been published on the front page (unaware at that moment that this was not allowed, as I already explained in detail above) as a justification for the indefinite block. For the rest, I think you should ask Pi zero himself if/why he said so. De Wikischim (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I am interested in your view specifically - hoping it would help with ruling this situation out sooner. Thank you for the explanation, in it you say you were
  • unaware at that moment that this was not allowed
but Pi zero said
  • It's not credible that you were unaware of the policy that you have been aggressively attacking for a long time.
in one of the discussions above. Is this incorrect? Why do you think he would say that? Gryllida (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
A blocked person not having a clear idea of why they're blocked? If Wikipedia is any guide, this happens all the time. Block discussions can be clustercruds. EDIT: Okay, I reread the block notice. Yeah, it explicitly says it's about the 24 hour thing and makes some vague mention of Pi zero believing that someone is trolling. Pi zero has accused me of trolling when I was doing no such thing, so it's possible there was no trolling.
DW, did you spend a lot of time attacking English Wikinews policies? Pi zero, if you get here first, can you link us to any of the stuff DW did that you think is trolling?
Or, to save a lot of time, we all know we're short on people here, anyone want to give DW a one-month unblock just to see what happens? He's had plenty of time to cool down and think and forget and I know from personal experience that making people crawl and grovel and say "thank you for punishing me like I deserve, Noble Master" just makes things worse. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Gryllida: I do not understand this last question well. Why do you think he would say that? › As I already remarked yesterday (see above), I cannot speak on behalf of Pi zero. Only he himself can.
@Darkfrog24: I surely never "attacked" the policy here, that's rubbish. It's true I criticized some aspects of it last year, especially those regarding article deletion (because I did and still do believe it's bad for this project's future), but especially Pi zero did not accept this criticism, calling me several times a troll because I did not (fully) agree with it. De Wikischim (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you have an answer for BP's question? What do you plan to do if unblocked? Got any sweet news threads you're following? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
If you have a look at my other edits, especially those on the Dutch Wikinews, you'll see that there are many news threads which I follow on a regular basis in order to write about them. Of course this was as well the only purpose which I had when I started editing here. It's less visible here in my edit history because most of the articles which I started have been deleted. De Wikischim (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Gryllida, can you finally give an update on this? Do you wish to treat me as a vandalist, or can you at last undo this block (which has lasted for more than a year now)? De Wikischim (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
My two cents: We just need more people. De W already knows the ropes. We can always reblock him if he does something wrong. I don't even remember what he did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
No, we don't just need more people. We need people willing and able to (or, at least, willing and able to learn to) submit articles that will conform closely to the principles of the project so they're easy for reviewers to vet with positive outcome, thus maximizing high-quality output per unit review effort. De Wikischim's long-term negative behavior was actively contrary to that; the block was at the time a net benefit to the project. An unblock ought to be based on credible belief that there would not be a recurrence of the long-term-persistent disruptive behavior that led to the block (as spelled out at the top of this page). I find it remarkably hard to sort out the above discussion to figure out just how much of what the evidence indicates about DW's likely future behavior. The request for unblock started out sounding plausible, with additional clarity wanted, but then things got less clear rather than more. There are a bunch of assertions above that are either dubious or flatly false, but at least some of those were by other users commenting in ostensible support of DW; and there are some expressions of bad attitude that would also be disqualifying had they been expressed by DW (given the trolling concern) but I suspect combing through it all one would find most, perhaps all, of those were also not actually said by DW. Meanwhile, Gryllida asked one or more well-chosen, relevant questions, that DW dismissed as not relevant here; not at all encouraging, as evidence of understanding/intent. --Pi zero (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
It's all too clear that you are the only one who is in favour of an indefinite block of my account, see all the comments on this Talk page. However, imposing your own policy as the only one on this project isn't justified. Now I'd appreciate it highly if you'd at last stop posting your denigrating comments here and give others a normal chance to express their own views on the situation. De Wikischim (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Should this user be unblocked?

Gryllida has reviewed De Wikischim's request to be unblocked, and the result was declined.
The reason given by Gryllida was: Please see below..
Further debate can proceed here, however, the administrator's decision may be final, and the result of administrative consensus.

Being unaware of some policy or rule or guideline does not make edit warring a successful conflict resolution strategy. In the next unblock request I hope to see a more forward-going approach in which you acknowledge that while some people may have made it frustrating for you to continue, and may do it again (hopefully not), you are going to set some stricter boundaries on the conflict resolution tactics which you utilize in the future.

(Please ignore the last paragraph of the unblock-no template, it does not apply here.)

Best regards, --Gryllida (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gryllida: Does this mean you want me to abstain fully from reverting others' edits in the future? If that's a strict condition, OK, I am willing to accept it. Any chance you can just reconsider this now-closed request with this in consideration? I cannot keep on discussing the same interminable issue forever, so otherwise I will not look on this page anymore and consider my involvement in this project as definitively terminated. I will not submit another unblock request as it takes me too much time and energy already now.
I'd still like to recall that except for Pi zero, everybody who has commented on this talk page supported more or less my unblocking. Does that still mean anything for you, or is it only the formal policy here which counts? De Wikischim (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request (August 2019)[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: "This is a resubmission of my previous request, which has been declined by user:Gryllida in spite of the broad statement I gave of the preceding facts, my newly made promises, and notwithstanding the fact that most of the others who commented here were highly in favour of an unblocking of my account.

I'd like another sysop, i.e. one who wasn't earlier actively involved in this whole case, to judge whether there's any justification of my permanent block, given the edits I did here in the main space before June 2018, as well as the fact that I have declared to be willing to abstain from doing any reverts in the future. "

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}}

Update: if nobody here is apparently willing to reconsider this request, I ask for permission to blank this talk page (as I already did several times earlier, but it was reverted "for administrative reasons") so my departure here is "formal". Since long I've been completely fed up with all this fuss but am still forced to look at it every time I log in on this Wikinews. De Wikischim (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Blanking this page would not be acceptable. I don't know of any reason you'd have to look at this this page each time you come to English Wikinews. --Pi zero (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
It's not very useful for me to look anywhere else on this project, since I cannot do any edits due to my block except on this talk page. De Wikischim (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I 'd prefer if you'd stop posting comments here, unless to discuss a suspension of my block. De Wikischim (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019[edit]

Well, I knew this would happen eventually. I am the least involved Sysop on this project (in this situation) who is also reasonably active. I have glanced at it with considerable dread over the last two months. And since I am newly minted as a member of ArbCom, I shouldn't be seen avoiding hard topics. I had an idea for a proposed resolution about a month or two ago, but I think I need to do more research. This could easily take more than a couple of weeks; I do not want to dedicate all my efforts on the project into this. It seems clear I need to read more than just this page, but also review edit histories, etc. I hope you all have some patience. If it becomes October and I have said nothing, definitely ping me about it. --SVTCobra 00:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

It bothers me to think that De Wikischim is managing to suck time from active contributors to this project even without write privs beyond this one page. It bothers me more to think how much more damage they could do without the block.

My perspective:

  • Blocks should be preventative. This block has successfully prevented, and continues to prevent, the behavior it was meant to prevent (notwithstanding the aforementioned time-sink on this page).
  • Afaics De Wikischim has shown neither contrition for, nor understanding of, the problem behavior for which they were blocked; only continued aggression. There is, therefore, no supportive evidence that they wouldn't repeat the behavior the block has successfully prevented.
(Btw, technically there is no unblock request here since, presumably by oversight, De Wikischim has the template disabled via {{tl}}.) --Pi zero (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, I intend to find out. And as much as it bothers you that it sucks time from me, I don't want you to let it suck any more time from you. So as I proceed on this journey, I will not make further updates. And even if I post here to ask User:De Wikischim a specific question, I don't want you to read it. Not that you aren't allowed to, just don't think about it. Do the more important things for the project and I will handle this. --SVTCobra 02:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
@user:SVTCobra: nice, thank you. I think you do realize that I was at least not a vandalist when I contributed here in the main space. Anyway, do not hurry yourself and take your time, I for my part have plenty of time (and meanwhile I still have more than enough work to do at other projects ;). De Wikischim (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I have exceeded my own deadline, but I haven't forgotten about this. While it is impossible for me to read every post and I wasn't active myself for quite a bit (if not most) of the controversial time period, I do think I am gaining some context for what happened. --SVTCobra 06:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this edit history can help you a little: [2]. Please note that at the beginning of the edit war, I was not aware of the rule that articles are no longer to be edited once they've appeared here on the front page (an important rule which, however, nobody here had notified me of thus far). De Wikischim (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a simple answer to this: give the block an expiration date. If whatever De Wikischim did happened so long ago or was so small that no one remembers what it was, then he doesn't need to stay blocked. If it was edit warring or editing published articles, De Wikischim has already said right here that he's not going to do it again. If reading De Wikischim's edit history is a time sink, as @SVTCobra: puts it, then give the block an expiration date and tell De Wikischim to wait it out instead.

In my experience, people's editing habits change naturally over time. Wikinews changes over time. De Wikischim would not be returning to the exact same environment and would have different experiences himself. It's likely his editing would be different just because of that.

Also in my experience, when someone is shown proof that they're wrong about something, they will never say "Oh thank you for showing me how stupid I am, I'll do it your way from now on!" but a lot of the time they do quietly change the way they're doing things to match the proof, kind of like how Jenny McCarthy never came out and said, "Vaccines don't really cause autism. I'm sorry" but she did shut the heck up and stop saying they did cause autism.

"Show contrition" bothers me. It suggests that De Wikischim committed some kind of immoral act, like stealing or hurting someone, and I really doubt that's what happened. This isn't a criminal court or a school where the little boys and little girls need to be taught what "lying" and "stealing" mean. The unblock process shouldn't be a meaningless humiliation ritual. (And YES my experiences on Wikipedia are part of how I draw my conclusions here.)

It's okay if Wikinews is different from Wikipedia. So if we say "We don't have a big pool of admins to handle a long thread discussing your 'behavior' and 'contrition' and assessing your acting skills as you pose in ashes and sackcloth, so we're just going to give you a multi-year but not indefinite block with an automatic endpoint instead—and we expect you to go away and leave us alone in the meantime," well, why not? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, you're mistaken about several things (some of which are appalling cans of worms that really need to be opened and dealt with — though hopefully not today); but most immediate to this situation, De Wikischim has persistently misrepresented the reason they were blocked. They chronically trolled the project, and then edit-warred. The edit-warring was the straw that broke the camel's back; and it wouldn't be any less edit-warring if they had been unaware of the specific provision of policy that caused their edit to be reverted (although, since they'd trolled our policies, one might have hoped they'd have read our policies). Subsequently they have sought to bury the evidence of why they were blocked (both written evidence and human testimony). --Pi zero (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Pi zero, can you tell me why De Wikishim was blocked? I'm an uninvolved party who knows the site well, so if I ask "What did he get blocked for?" what's your answer?
If you think "Wait, didn't I just do that?" the answer is no you didn't. He did something that you personally read as trolling. What was the something? You ascribed a value judgement "This action counts as trolling" to an action, but you did not say what the action was. You specifically have mistaken sincere and constructive actions for trolling before.
The reason I'm asking is that it is completely unrealistic to expect De Wikishim or anyone to say, "I was a dirty, smelly troll and thank you for punishing me until I turned into a human, my saviors!" but De Wikischim appears very willing to say, "I promise not to move paragraph A below paragraph B any more," with no value judgements. Frankly, who cares if he thinks he was right forever so long as he doesn't do anything that messes up the site?
You said yourself that these punishments (all sanctions are punishments even if they are also something else) are meant to be preventative. The most important thing about preventative punishments is identifying the problematic action. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I did just tell you. There's further information earlier on this page, iirc (should be up there somewhere). Btw, you've several times, in essence, falsely accused me of accusing you of trolling. If you think I ever said that —in the sense conveyed by an unadorned accusation of trolling— I suggest you likely didn't read what I said carefully enough; but I'm not telling you to go back and reread it, for the same reason I'm not going to drop everything (including review) to spend the next several days compiling lists of everything De Wikischim has ever said on the project (including deleted talk pages, which is where a bunch of it probably is): it wouldn't be a good expenditure of time. --Pi zero (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
You don't remember accusing me of trolling? ...this could actually be the case of quiet changes over time like I'm trying to describe!
1) I'm not messing with you, you really did call my work trolling back in March. We don't need to revisit it. I just need to establish that I'm not falsely accusing you of anything.
2) You probably forgot using the term because it was such an inaccurate way to describe the situation.
3) Without making any claims about reading your mind specifically, it's possible that a person might change their mind about whether an essay is trolling, quietly decide to themselves that they won't call similar essays trolling in the future, and then forget that they called an essay trolling in the past. All without an "I'm so sorry I wickedly and [self-deprecating adverb] called that essay trolling! I'm such a bad boy!" The human mind is an amazing thing!
Back to DW, I did scroll up and reread a lot of this page right after I made that last post. Something about "attacking policy," which DW says he didn't do. I also went through DW's user history a bit at random to see if I could find anything (didn't read the whole thing of course) and I can't find anything bad he's done. The closest thing I could find to conflict was back on that Syria article that SVTC just deleted about how he was feeling tired, acknowledged he had ideas that differed from yours and other Wikinewsies and wanted to take a break for a while. Gryllida and one other person said "No no, stay stay" or something. But that's not blockable and I don't think it's what he got blocked for. [3]
Well, I'm not the person who decides whether DW gets unblocked, so my knowing why is not necessary; it's more of a would-be-nice. I hereby express my bystander support for unblockage or commuting to a punishment with an expiration date. He's clearly willing to stop doing anything that we clearly tell him he has to stop doing, and if he's not willing to grovel, I've got no problem with it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I stand corrected, Darkfrog24; evidently I did characterize your action on that occasion as trolling. If I said it, I meant it; most likely I would still agree with the assessment if I went back and researched it in detail again now. Not that I have any great wish to do so. If I'm following you correctly, your point (2) suggests I might have forgotten because I didn't want to remember having said something I thought was grossly inaccurate; that doesn't sound at all like me: if I thought I'd said something grossly inaccurate, that would fix it in my memory rather than pushing it out. It's plausible I would put it out of my mind because I considered the incident closed. --Pi zero (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall asking for comments, suggestions or help when I posted that my review was not yet finished. It ought to be clear to everyone, involved or not, the edit-war was the proverbial straw which broke the camel's back. If I have questions, I will not hesitate to ask people directly. Unsolicited comments are not all that appreciated, although I can't stop anyone. I urge people not to create another layer of drama. --SVTCobra 20:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

In the past I already asked Pi zero several times to stop posting his aggressive (not only towards me, but as well to Darkfrog24) comments on this Talk page, but he keeps on ignoring this request. De Wikischim (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I deleted here his newly repeated attack on my person, but he just put this back. De Wikischim (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, SVT. Like I said, I think my two cents are duly logged anyway.
DW, you're not supposed to add strikethroughs to other people's posts, even if it's on your own talk page because it looks like the poster put it there themselves. Most of the time you're allowed to just delete a post or a thread, but since this is an unblock request, I don't think that's one of those times. While I do have an opinion per the rest, per SVT's request, I will refrain from sharing it at this time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Another week has passed. I'm not really hurried but can you already tell when there'll be a new update on my request? De Wikischim (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, the drama eruption after my last update put me off the case for several days. But my work has resumed and I have put in more hours on it. I don't want to commit and raise hopes, but I estimate less than a week before I say anything meaningful. --SVTCobra 20:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. De Wikischim (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
And again there's only silence which follows. Well, actually I don't care - if everybody here prefers to maintain my block, so be it. I still have more than enough other useful things to do, with or without being able to contribute to this specific project. De Wikischim (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: It's almost a year later now. Do you still have the intention to make a decision about undoing my block? If not, this talk page can be locked as well as it has no further use. De Wikischim (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Request (removal of a false accusation)[edit]

If nobody here is willing any to consider a new unblock request from my side, OK. However, I request at least This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikinews due to edit warring, persistent trolling to be removed from this Talk page. I still consider this a completely untrue accusation and defamation of my person. De Wikischim (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Otherwise I'll just do this myself within some time, since I won't tolerate any insults on my Talk page. --De Wikischim (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

You do not have the right to remove the statement of the reason for the block, which is obviously part of the administratively significant record. You temporarily lost your talk-page privs once before (in July 2018) for removing administratively significant material, and they were restored on, ostensibly, agreement that you would not do so again. --Pi zero (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

German authorities confirm first case of novel coronavirus in Germany[edit]

This article has been overtaken by the most recent events, see [4] and the interwikis. I cannot do anything here in the main space, so I put this message here. De Wikischim (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

That article has been published. Either one can choose to update it within the 24-hour mark since publication, or one can write a new article. Pinging @Gryllida: regarding this.
•–• 10:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be easier just to update this article, than to write a completely new one. This is as well because the current article has already been linked on Data. De Wikischim (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what's the standard procedure for breaking news like this which changes rapidly within first 24 hours after publication, but I'll see if it is possible to write a second article for this update. (Tip: I would suggest to come to live chat for urgent questions. I was offline for the whole day yesterday, and could not respond to this.) Gryllida (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
OK. In the meantime, could a sysop perhaps consider finally undoing my block, so I can use the corresponding article talk pages to discuss matters like these, instead of my own talk page? --De Wikischim (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)