Me Da Wikipedian

{{Date}}

I don't know what you've been doing to the {{date}} template on your articles recently, perhaps subst'ing it, but it's turning it into a parser function, which screws up the article by continually updating the byline date on it (so if an article was published today, on September 10, tomorrow it'd have a byline date of September 11 — it shouldn't). Heavy Water (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I have been substing, i've done that the whole time, never knew that was a problem...@Heavy Water Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Examples

You asked for examples of the kinds of problematic reviews that inspired my A/B category proposal. It was a long time ago, would require digging through some very very unpleasant memories, and involves 1) at least one person who still participates here on Wikinews (and might have improved considerably in the time that has elapsed since) and 2) another person who does not still participate on Wikinews because he is deceased. As in dead. As in he can't give his side of the story any more. I don't want to badmouth either of these people unless you are sure it will help your Wikinews process. Not if you're just curious.

Another problem is that a lot of those drafts didn't get published, specifically because there was a problematic review. I can't link you to a talk page that isn't there. I either took one look at the review and quietly abandoned the article OR I tried to explain and there was a huge fight. For example, the article on which I got the "say what kind of black they are" review did not get published: "US: Missouri police announce they are investigating Danye Jones's death as suicide," 2018. The reviewer was not from the United States, spoke English as a subsequent language, and did not at that time understand what "Black" means in English. (Since the 2020 Floyd Riots have happened since then, that person may well understand now.)

A lot of my experience on Wikinews has involved other people doing things without knowing why they're doing it. I don't mean anyone would consciously think "I'm angry at the SARS-COV-2 virus, so I'll be mean to another Wikinewsie, mya ha ha!" I mean that if someone has just spent six months working from a home office that they hate, watching their children fall behind in remote learning, is way behind on their bills and worried about eviction, just found out that their uncle died, and is surrounded by neighbors who think the virus isn't real and walk around breathing on everything, yes, they might take their anger out on another person without realizing that that's what they're doing.

So before I put myself through all that, I want you to think: Where are you on the dimmer switch of need-to-know vs just-curious? And which kinds of information do you need? What would you do if you saw the name of someone you know and respect, insisting something contrary to evidence? Would it help anything to find out they used to do that?

Think hard. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 I am pretty sure who the second user in question is and I think that part is less important. But what you are describing, pertaining to the other reviewer, what you are describing are very serious accusations that, unless said behaviour has changed, would probably warrant the removal of the reviewer permission.

So, I have a queston for you. Do you believe that behaviour has been resolved or that it still exists? Because if its the second I would think that it is in an issue that needs to be resolved and at a minimum needs to be known to the community at large. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't checked up on this person and don't plan to. And I wouldn't call it "behavior." That's a word that teachers use on little kids, and we're all adults here.

EDIT: Let me put it this way. If this person doesn't give impossible reviews and/or doesn't react negatively to proof that they're wrong any more, then they deserve a corresponding good reputation and it would be wrong of me to undermine it. If they do still do those things, then you'll see it for yourself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

w:Human behavior tells me that volunteering is a behavior. Gryllida (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

In this case I am using "behaviour" to mean "action". Many of our current reviewers will disappear for years on end, including one who hasn't reviewed an article since January 2012. @Darkfrog24 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 Admittedly much of the relevant information is lost, but from what I can dig up you seem to have been clearly wrong. I generally agree with 2 users in question. The only person there demanding changes that don't have consensus is you.

Please don't reply with rehashing the same lengthy and unproductive debates. I will just ignore it. You will clearly not be convinced and I find the 2 users in question's arguement to be much more valid.

You clearly feel that you are correct. But the "many" do not. And consensus is how this site's policy works. I notice you have also been blocked many many many times for not following arbitration decisions and edit warring. I think this issue is also related.

In addition, I most definetly oppose reforming the review process because of this 1 dispute. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Good luck, Me Da. I invite you to use my experience here on Wikinews as an information resource to improve the site. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 this account is now blocked. More info down here. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 15:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I saw that after my first response this morning. I don't quite know what to make of it yet, but it seems I'm not alone in that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked

User blocked for impersonating and attempting RfP of another user (will add details after the block).
•–• 03:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, given what happened today with Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Removal/Bddpaux which was an attempt to impersonate Bddpaux, a CU action was warranted. Through which, it was discovered that it was the same IP+UA (user agent) as Me Da Wikipedian from earlier this month. To summarise the actions of the impersonating account:

1. Created an account closely matching an admin+reviewer's username.
2. Misled others by redirecting their own user+talk to that other user's user+talk page.
3. Create an RfP on their behalf, trying to remove their privs.
4. Weirdly, they added this comment.

Given the nature of this offense/crime/action -- this account has been perma banned on this site.
•–• 03:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Socking

I'm disappointed in you. You ingratiated yourself into the en.wn community by doing good content work and learning fast. You seemed to be headed on the gradual path towards reviewership, towards contributing a lot to the project. Only to throw it all away by doing this. It's highly unlikely you'll make a response (well, an honest response), I'm just wondering why you did this, especially when there was no reason (from what I know) for you to have a grudge against Paul. Heavy Water (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This is simply bizarre - I cannot understand any reason for this behaviour, especially from someone who had really started to settle in here, from someone who had started to gain my respect. What was the plan? Stir up discourse? Just doing it for the laughs? It's laughable. This was never going to end in Paul having his permissions removed, so I just cannot see why you'd do this. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 15:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I observe that the impostor calls Wikinews a failure while posing as Bddpaux. So what we think happened is either that Me Da was a sincere Wikinewsie who suddenly flipped and performed an act of unambiguous and profound misconduct while making no obvious effort not to get caught or Me Da spent four months building a false persona here on Wikinews for the purpose of destabilizing it like a sleeper agent? The first would mean that the impostor is sophisticated enough to clean up the signature and redirect all the user and talk page links but somehow not sophisticated enough to know that checkuser is a thing. The second would require a level of patience that we don't usually see in people who make drama for kicks. Bizarre is the word. Is there some way to pass this further up the chain, check for cross-wiki multiple accounts? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 I did know that CU was a thing. As Acagastya said, I had used the IP only earlier in the month with this account, and forgot about it...good thing I did. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 Acagastya kind of did this already with the initial CU check, and as far as I'm aware, he did check with the stewards about this case before indefinitely blocking this user. It is possible to go further if needed, but I don't see the need at this time. Leaderboard (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to share my observation that those two are not the only possibilities, there can any other reason to. And it is understandable that this would infuriate the community; however, this does not undo the lack of honesty and integrity that is needed in this community.
•–• 10:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that you/Bddpaux/the community will ever forgive me or not (please be honest)?@Acagastya Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asheiou @Darkfrog24 @Heavy Water @Acagastya @Bddpaux (tell me if I missed anyone)

I would like to apologize for what I did, which was, needless to say, very wrong, especially to Bddpaux, who in no possible way deserved this. I would like to thank Heavy Water for catching this.

I never really had a plan and frankly I chose the user at random. I certainly wasn't planning this for 4 months. I honestly don't remember what I was thinking at the time, but I do remember immediatly regretting it. I was in the middle of writing a message stating that this was an imposter account and to ignore the request when I saw Heavy Water's comment (at which point I was no longer worried that an admin would action the request). (other note, the reason I couldn't retract the request is because I forgot what password I made for the sock account).

I'm honestly not totally certain why I did this, but I think that Darkfrog24 got it more or less right ("a sincere Wikinewsie who suddenly flipped and performed an act of unambiguous and profound misconduct").

Although it probably doesn't seem that way, I do sincerely care about Wikinews and always have. This wasn't a ruse and I hope you all can at least see that, I made a mistake but I do care about this site, still do, and still want to help fix it. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That quote is rather poor (mildly speaking; there could be stronger words said about it) at explaining the underlying cause. Gryllida (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida I agree, I don't exactly have a great idea of why I did it either... Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

If this user is blocked, what are they doing posting here on the project at all? All of this is so bizarre.--Bddpaux (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bddpaux when blocked you can still edit your talk page...and I was apologizing. I am really sorry, you in no way possible way deserved what I did to you. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock|See below}} As you can see above, I am really sorry for what I did (impersonation of another user, imposter RFP request, etc.) I would like to request a second chance. I know that I really don't deserve one, but I hope that you will believe when I say that all I want to do is to contribute helpfully again.

But, I doubt that you believe or trust me at this point, and that is my own fault. Hence I will instead make a logical argument here. So, I ask this question: What bad actions is this block currently preventing me from doing? I am blocked for sockpuppetry (using a different account for illegitimate reasons). This block in no way prevents me from doing that again, I could simply go to a different location. You know what this blocked does prevent me from doing? Well, look at my contributions. I have created 30 or so articles, 13 of them published, and conducted a similar number of pre-reviews. If I was only here to cause trouble, why would I have bothered to do that? If I was only here to cause trouble, why would I have spent days apologizing and now requesting an unblock? Clearly I want to help. That is the only thing this block stops. What I really want it to help this site. I made a mistake, but I hope you will forgive me and give me a chance to improve. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I know we don't require AGF here on Wikinews, but let's do it as a thought experiment. Let's assume everything Me Da Wikipedian said is 100% true: They're a sincere Wikinewsie who suddenly performed a destructive act for reasons they don't fully understand. Then this was an act of self-sabotage but one that could have pulled other people down too. The block should be set for at least as long as it would take for a reasonable person to work through that kind of issue, irrespective of whether Me Da does so. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry Darkfrog but I myself even had disputes with this user/users? BigKrow (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@BigKrow I don't remember any dispute with you (and by the way I'm one user) but how is that relevant? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 Honestly, it really couldn't have pulled down other people very much. Let's imagine that an admin actioned the request. Bddpaux's privs are wrongly removed. The next day, Bddpaux says "this wasn't me", someone discovers that it was not bddpaux but rather bdddpaux who made the request, and the same events play out as what happened irl. An annoyance, but not pulling someone down an incredible amount.

This is not to say that this is justified, that would be like a criminal saying "well I only stole $1000 thats not going to cause them to because homeless". Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 as well, I don't think AGF is required here (and I think assuming good faith of me given my actions might actually be completely against don't assume here). Can you think of a logical reason that I would have been here as a good contributor for 4 months if my goal was to cause destruction? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

We've had examples (in other projects) of admins being immediately banned after doing something like what you did (i.e, create a sockpuppet to influence something like what you did). So the fact that you contributed positively for months doesn't mean all that much. Leaderboard (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Well I think it does mean that I have contributed helpfully and hence if unblocked it is reasonable to assume I would do so again. @Leaderboard Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Seriously? You offered an explanation of and motive for your actions, neither of which make sense — for example, if you instantly regretted your actions, why did you make the replies at the FR/RfP to me you did, which muddied the waters about Bdddpaux's true nature, when you could've just not said anything (the fact that you didn't own up immediately once you regretted your actions would still have been a bad thing, but not as bad, and it would've made for a reasonable explanation) — "spent days apologizing", and now you think you should be good to go? The purpose of the block is to prevent you from causing disruption by any means, not just by socking. Also, the burden of proof is on you, to demonstrate you can be trusted to be unblocked, because you violated the project's trust. I don't have any impact on you getting unblocked, but I'd recommend you stop digging holes for yourself and maybe come back in six months to a year and re-request an unblock. Heavy Water (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@Heavy Water the replies were an attempt to cover up what I did (after I was reasonably certain the request wouldn't be actioned). I don't think that I should be "good to go", but I do think it is reason to think that I do want to help, otherwise why wouldn't I just abandon this account and create a sock...

I really don't know what more I could do to demonstrate that I can be trusted (other than not doing anything else wrong) exactly. Its like how exactly can a criminal demonstrate they will no longer commit a crime (except by not continuing to commit them). Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

This usually requires significant contributions on other WMF projects for a significant period of time (at least 6 months), a bit like English Wikipedia's standard offer. Leaderboard (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I have seen this talk page becoming a tourist attraction in the last few days. Something that I didn't want. I was refraining from commenting here because I don't want to give more attention to this disgusting act of betrayal. And now, there are just more and more things coming up. And a completely shameless unblock request as well. Which, as a sysop, I need to address.

To begin with, that is such a weak and petty apology for the actions that were committed. "I honestly don't remember what I was thinking at the time" when the actions were clearly malicious, and tried compromising a veteran wikinewsie, actively choosing the redirect the user page and talk to their page, actively faking their signature, actively making an RfP, actively lying about 15 years -- sorry but do you think we are stupid, Me Da Wikipedian? It would be an interesting thing to wonder, why, when you "immediately regrett[ed] it", why would you still proceed with it? But I don't care what excuse of an explanation you would come up with. I have no reason to believe that you are telling the truth in your apology (and others have noted how weak of an apology that was). If you had actually regretted the decision, you could have used your own account name, to say "It was me who was the imposter." But you didn't. I have zero reason to think you could not have resetted your password, or that you even forgot the password. I am inclining more towards that the intention was to not get caught while doing this. (I am not assuming this is the case, it is just not outside the realm of possibilities.) Because otherwise, if you had any remorse for the actions, or understanding how this hurts the community, you would have owned the action **BEFORE** the CU+admin actions were warranted.

Honesty and integrity is very crucial for this (or any wiki) to function and violation of that trust drains the confidence the community has in the user. Please stop calling it a mistake. With all that you have done, this does not qualify as a mistake, it wasn't unintentional or an accident. It was a deliberate action.

---

Now let me address things in this subsection, specifically "As you can see above, I am really sorry for what I did". No, it just does not sound like you are really sorry. But I will spare you the efforts to be actually sorry. The betrayal of trust that your actions were laced with, don't even bother writing another word, Me Da Wikipedian, it does not undo the damage, or reignite the confidence you had of the community. It is inexcusable. As you have answered yourself, you "don't deserve one", and rightfully so. This isn't some tiny offence which can be ignored for a redemption.

The attempts to make a "logical argument" is begging the question while establishing a false dichotomy. It is disappointing to see you say "I am blocked for sockpuppetry", when in fact, you were blocked for impersonating someone else, attempted to deceive the community in more than one ways (redirecting user+talk), faking the signature, making up lies for RfP). If you don't even fully understand the damage that you tried causing, and the reason why you were actually blocked, that further shows how oblivious you are to the reality, or how unimportant you think the seriousness of the damage was.

Pointing to the contributions does not undo the actions that happened. If you can point to previous work, so can we point to your previous sabotage attempts. "If I was only here to cause trouble, why would I have spent days apologizing and now requesting an unblock?" -- I have no idea, but I am not going to be gullible to this Begging the question. "Clearly I want to help" -- your edits as the importer points to something else entirely. "I could simply go to a different location" -- well, then logically speaking (and no way I am condoning this), you could just create a different account and continue contributing, right? Why do you really need this account? (Note: these are rhetorical questions, I won't be expecting any answers; I am simply demonstrating that logic swings both ways, and creating false dichotomy doesn't help your demands here.) The block also serves as a reminder that users who have demonstrated lack of integrity, honesty, and accountability are not welcomed here.

It is ironic to see you respond to DF24 saying "The next day, Bddpaux says", when in the sabotage attempt, you say how "If Bddpaux did in fact decide to retire, they might not be checking their talk page any time soon" -- which are two opposing if not contradictory ways of looking at the events, when you, of all people, knew the reality. Reaching out to a dozen sysops about this not only makes one think you were in on it, but also, how you take sysop's time, role and efforts for granted.

"Can you think of a logical reason that I would have been here as a good contributor for 4 months if my goal was to cause destruction?" -- it is not on us to guess why you did such a disgraceful act, you could have your own reasons. I mostly agree with HW's assessment in their comment, but I disagree with the "maybe come back in six months to a year and re-request an unblock". These things are not pardonable, you need to learn that. This isn't some harmless prank.

"otherwise why wouldn't I just abandon this account and create a sock" -- I am not a mind reader, noone on this project is. But I know for sure, such comments does not inspire any confidence that you would have good intentions of this community. Heck, I would be more concerned, because next time, you might use a different IP, be smarter about such actions to not get caught. I don't know who the next victim of such actions might be, when it would be me who could be targeted. Similar "logical" questions can be asked to you as well, that "give us a reason why your privs to edit talk page should not be revoked? And any request to unblock should be made via emailing the admin who blocked you." But that achieves nothing. Nor do I have any interest in flaunting sysop privs. But I will warn you, if you continue to downplay the seriousness of your crimes, and make this page a place of tourist attraction, I will revoke your privs from editing talk page, to limit any interaction with the community via EmailUser option only.

This isn't a case of sockpuppetry or block evasion, this is a case of sabotaging the project by impersonating, and thus, even if you contribute to other projects, the dissolution of integrity is well, very conclusive about how much your "attempts" to "fix" your "mistakes" will be given any importance.

When I CU'd MDW, I could see LuchoCR has made on the IP-range which had been abused. But the reason provided was blocked indefinitely for LTA after a CU, with the comment "Reincident". So even if you edit other wikis, with all that has happened (not just pointing to LuchoCR's investigation), it doesn't earn the trust that has been lost.
•–• 10:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't control who visits this talk page, and I don't think my responses have been disruptive. I'm assuming you disagree. Would you please tell me what I am doing on this talk page that is disruptive?

I regretted it after I did it. I was planning on owning it until I realized the requests wouldn't be actioned due to Heavy Water's comment. When I say "mistake", I mean "thing that I did that was very wrong". And, yes, I did in fact commit sockpuppetry, "abusing multiple accounts" (which is in fact what you wrote in the block log). I agree it was a particularly bad form of it. If you want me to use different words, I will, though.

I don't think this is some tiny offence that should be ignored nor do I think what I did was unimportant, and if what I said came across as that then that it most certainly not what I mean. You seem to think that I am downplaying what I did. Please explain how and were I did so. My response to Darkfrog24 was not a justification, that would be like a robber saying "well they have insurance so theyll get the money back, so robbery is okay". What I was saying was that this would never have resulted in the permanent removal of Bddpaux's privs.

My comments on the RFP were just attempts to confuse the situation in an attempt to avoid getting caught. What dozen sysops were reached out to by the way?

My "sabotage attempts" took all of 15 minutes. My good contributions lasted for about 4 months. Which sounds more likely to be a pattern vs. an abberation (note that what I mean by this is something differing from the norm, not that this was some random excusable thing). And the reason that "need" this account I don't want to do that. I don't want to sock, I don't want to be dishonest. That's my point. The reason I don't create a sock is because I want to help not to destroy.

Just to clarify are you saying that there is no curcumstance where you would ever be willing to unblock me? Please don't. All that I want to do is to contribute here again. Please give me some way to attempt to fix what I did.

The reason my TPA shouldn't be revoked is simple. By default, even when a user is blocked, TPA is enabled. Disabling it requires a good reason (some disruption or other reason). For the same reason it would be ridicilous for me to demand you prove why you shouldn't be blocked. Also, what does "flaunting sysop privs" mean?

While there is obviously no way to prove this to you, I will say that none of edits from that IP were me and that IP is in a public location (although it is one that I visit frequently). @Acagastya Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know if you are intentionally doing this, XOR not, but re "Would you please tell me what I am doing on this talk page that is disruptive?" -- when did I claim the action was disruptive? I saw begging the question, false dichotomy and now loaded questions as well.
• "I was planning on owning it until I realized the requests wouldn't be actioned due to Heavy Water's comment" -- so, if the request was declined and closed, without the CU you were not going to reveal who the imposter was? That looks problematic to me as well.
• "what you wrote in the block log" -- block log says "Abusing multiple accounts" (the list of reasons for block do not detail the whole things, and that's why a personalised handwritten note) + diff makes it very clear what the reason of block was.
• "I agree it was a particularly bad form of it" -- despite me mentioning it more than once that it was trying to impersonate someone, when you still make it sound like it is was sockpuppetry, again, does not inspire any confidence in your comprehension of the seriousness of this act. I don't want you to use different words, I don't want you to change the optics of what has happened.
• "Please explain how and were I did so" -- I have explained above.
• "My response to Darkfrog24 was not a justification", your explanation was still pointing to a very different understanding of the event as compared to your comment on that RfP. "Bddpaux would just comment it wasn't him" vs "if he is retired, unlikely to check his talk". That response to HW on the RfP makes it look like you were still in on the sabotage attempt, rather than clarifying the situation. (@Heavy Water: -- I am not looking for appeal to the popularity, but could you share your thoughts about that comment?)
• "My comments on the RFP were just attempts to confuse the situation in an attempt to avoid getting caught" -- so you understood it was wrong, and that you should not have done it, but you also wanted to escape from the situation. Does not look like someone who can take accountability.
• The dozen sysops you reached out to can be seen in this edit.
• Re "pattern vs. an abberation" -- what is to say the abberation was not part of the pattern? And any ways, since when did we use that as a means to evaluate the situation. This was a deliberate act. The time taken to sabotage something, no matter for how long you have played nicely does not help you minimise the impact of the actions. This is not a utilitarian calculus after all. (Let me use an example: I could have been an animal rights activist for many months, but if I try feeding poison to the street dog once, no matter how little of a time it took me to do that, that is end of the trust.)
• "I don't want to sock, I don't want to be dishonest." -- should have thought about it before you tried impersonating another wikinewsie. If you had spent four months contributing to this project and also volunteered your time on other wikiprojects, you should have known better not to do these things.
• "give me some way to attempt to fix what I did" -- your actions have led to the community losing the trust in you, and you need to learn to accept the consequences of your actions.
• "The reason my TPA shouldn't be revoked is simple" -- unlike other blocks, this is an attempt of impersonating, which is (still subjective) one of the worst things you can do to a community.

----

Now, I would request the community to please not engage on this talk any further. And, MDW, learn to take accountability of your actions, and I can only hope that you don't do anything like this to other wikiprojects, wherever you choose to go and volunteer in future.
•–• 06:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Acagastya Yes, I wasn't planning on revealing what I did once I knew the requests wouldn't be actioned. I agree that is bad. I just really don't want to blocked (I know that is obviously not a justification). I used a sockpuppet to impersonate someone, hence it is both sockpuppetry and impersonating (and a whole host of other things).

The dozen sysops pinged were simply so that the "fake" request would be actioned quickly. I think that claiming that murder is the same as sockpuppetry and impersonation is well...not a valid comparision. I did know better and nobody is disputing that, but my point is this I did something very very wrong. But I want to do better. The reason I am not socking is because I want to do better. I am aware that the community doesn't trust me, otherwise I wouldn't be blocked. I am trying to get unblocked and hopefully, eventually, regain that trust.

I've asked you this a few times and you haven't ever directly answered the question: Is there anything from this point forward that I could say or do that would lead to you considering unblocking me? If the answer is no, then I want to know that, because this is a Unblock Request Thread and if the answer is no were just wasting our time. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The unblock request thread has already been closed as unblock-no, if you haven't already noticed. FWIW, the comparison isn't to murder, but the act of betrayal. And we don't tolerate such actions no matter how much you claim you want to help. You should have thought about it before you tried this. This is the consequence of your own actions. •–• 20:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Acagastya I'm aware of that. Some users suggested waiting 6 months and then requesting an unblock. I am asking if you would considered unblocking if I did that or is there anything that would make you consider it?

I know this is my own fault and obviously this should not be tolerated. Nobody is saying I shouldn't have been blocked, if the thanks button wasn't disbaled I would thank you for that action (and Heavy Water for their comment). I am asking for a second chance. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Me Da Wikipedian. Sorry, the point "will you re-consider in six months" is not discussable now any further than elaborated above. Neither is "sorry, dunno why I did it, it was very wrong and I want to be back". That's disruptive as my and many other contributors' time may be best spent elsewhere doing other tasks. It also builds on your record -- publicly viewable for years -- the more you repeat some of the above points, the more it may show a lack of integrity. I implore you to see reason in making the situation better both for yourself and for others: please pause your posting to this page for a while. Your access to post on this talk page may be revoked as a last resort. Gryllida (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida okay, will do. However, would somebody please answer either the word yes or no to "Is there anything that would make you consider unblocking me"? This isn't that difficult. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

No comment. Gryllida (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay then...@Gryllida Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Acagastya: Heavy Water: -- I am not looking for appeal to the popularity, but could you share your thoughts about that comment? Pretty similar to what you said, see above: "for example, if you instantly regretted your actions, why did you make the replies at the FR/RfP to me you did, which muddied the waters about Bdddpaux's true nature, when you could've just not said anything (the fact that you didn't own up immediately once you regretted your actions would still have been a bad thing, but not as bad, and it would've made for a reasonable explanation)". Heavy Water (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Heavy Water As stated earlier, the point was to muddie the waters, as you say, to avoid detection.

Yes, I agree that it is worse that I didn't immediatly own up once I realized that the requests wouldnt be actioned. I didn't say that I was perfect or that I did everything perfectly after the initial act. The truth isn't always what I wish it was... Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Me Da Wikipedian this comment was for Acagastya, not for you. Please stop writing on this page, or your talk page access will be revoked. This is a last warning. Gryllida (talk) 23:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

As I see it

Me Da, do you want my advice on your situation or shall I leave you alone? Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24, please note, as I wrote above, I have required that Me Da Wikipedian does not write on this page. This includes not replying to you here. (If you wish to dispute this decision, query WN:AAA.) I may suggest to pursue further communication with Me Da Wikipedian either privately or elsewhere. I hope you understand.

Have a great day. Gryllida (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I observe that you issued that order to Me Da Wikipedian twelve minutes after I posted my offer of advice here. We may even have been writing at the same time. As such, I could not take it into consideration at that time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I saw it and would like to advise you against posting the main content that you wanted to share here. That's what I am asking to be happily shared elsewhere, not here. Gryllida (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I personally would like your advice, particularly as you are the only Wikinewsie still somewhat active who was made a successful unblock request after being blocked for cause, but @Gryllida has requested I not engage in discussion here.

Question for Gryllida, when can I engage in discussion here? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Not currently. I've revoked your talk page access accordingly to the above notes. There is no expiry on either of the blocks. Gryllida (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Gryllida: It seems counterintuitive one would restrict a user from using their talk page under penalty of revoking talk page access instead of simply revoking talk page access. But in the first place, why would agreeing to take advice privately, not to mention asking about the restrictions they're subject to, be problematic? To be clear, I'm not disputing the idea of revoking Me Da Wikipedian's access for engaging in the sort of protracted discussion about the unblock request they did, not to mention had they continued after the warning. Heavy Water (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Heavy Water

Here are a few clarifications:

• They are free to take it elsewhere, or correspond in private, rather than responding to talk.
• I mentioned it clearly that replying here is not wanted. Twice.
  • While for the sake of transparency it is better to get asked, and clarify it on-wiki, that the block doesn't expire, rather than waiting for Me Da Wikipedian to email me; Me Da Wikipedian has been asking about restrictions for a few screenfulls above, and has already been advised that the incident is unforgivable, and that it wasn't the sock that was the issue but it was the impersonation.
• Yet this advice was not adequately heeded, the issue was re-told by Me Da Wikipedian in different words which illustrated lack of cooperation with provided information; and inquiries about forgiveness continued.

That's the set of behaviours that I claim to be unproductive, with at least two contributors (not counting myself) having expressed strong displeasure with it. As a result I have zero tolerance to it, and I'd've liked it to stop. Asking politely was my last hope and it didn't work.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or suggestions?

Regards, Gryllida (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Gryllida: I think I wasn't being clear when I said "restrictions"; I was referring solely to restrictions on use of talk page, not the block. Like I said, I agreed with the idea of revoking talk page access for "engaging in the sort of protracted discussion about the unblock request they did, not to mention had they continued [in relation to the block specifically] after the warning" (although I wondered why you didn't just technically revoke it straight away and stop the disruption). But you revoked their talk page access for the comment in this section, and the "inquiries about forgiveness" here were related to the talk page use restrictions. It's reasonable for one to revoke talk page access because a blocked user is causing disruption, but it doesn't seem reasonable to tell them, when they're causing disruption, that you'll revoke it for a reply that's not continuing the previous disruption, because the justification is not there at that point. Heavy Water (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean.

I guess based on the above, with Me Da Wikipedian, any restrictions would do as a cause for lengthy discussion. So did not matter what restrictions they asked about, the block or the talk page access. The result would be a lengthy discussion either way and it was wanted to avoid it.

Especially when new users joining discussion, it is bad as they could work in newsroom instead. It prompted my request. It did not seem useful to me to have a place on wiki where contributor likes to pick on any subject and lengthen it.

I am happy to know other interpretations. Gryllida (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)