Can I Log In prefers to receive notifications. Please use {{ping}} or {{reply to}} when you reply to him on other pages. No talkback messages are needed.
If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, linking to me ({{Ping|Can I Log In}}), so that I will be notified.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Can I Log In}} on your talk.
The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Can I Log In. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Since March, which is when you truly became active, and in only looking through your talk page archives, I see a pattern of disruptive editing across a wide range of Wikipedia.
Then there are more serious problems you've had including reverse engineering a script to do mass edits. You have also spoken to other editors in a way that merited a formal notice by TonyBallioni who had previously left you a warning after you disruptively edited policy/guideline pages.
No single incident is on their own troubling. But there are patterns of problems (including signatures, technical editing you do not do correctly, and attempting to dive into project space tasks which you lack the background and/or skill to do successfully), a wide range of these problems, and a discussion style that is confrontational and not in the collaborative spirit of this project. On the plus side, after a rocky start, you do seem to do a good job with copy editing. However, that positive is not enough to outweigh all the negatives or enough to show that you have the competence required to edit Wikipedia. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 I would like to address the concerns in no particular order, particularly the early ones.
Raced to include information without a source—I haven't done that any more, and I've been strict on the sourcing.
Templating regulars—That one I've learned to not needlessly drop by. That note about the protection was intendle to be a note.
Restored vandalism—I didn't know about TW enough to understand the restore button, even though it meant restore. I haven't accidentaly done that since that.
Signature—not as much of a severe problem as it was before.
RfD template—I believe you were referring to this one. I though the "hard" redirect was actually supposed to be there. That one I have learned from.
Had an RfC close over turned—while the consensus was correct, weeks/months later, I see how it was a bad close.
Clerked a PERM page—my bad, should've never gone it.
Inappropriately joked at UAA—I never joked at UAA. What that thread was about was my TW edit summar "Twinkle Twinkle Little Start".
Used a script cross wiki which was not capable of being used cross wiki and which use could disrupt English Wikipedia—never happened since I don't have (auto)confirmed status on wikis that would load it.
Attempted to edit a gadget—the thread was about if it was editable by only administrators or interface admins.
Incorrectly attempted a G6 because "I just hate it when I see people not follwing RBI for TikTok trolls"—I should've never done that in the first place
OK so I made my statement. I just wanted to address the issues, and now here we are. What is next to move forward?
Ultimately you need to address the reason for the block. As I wrote the problem was not any individual incident, it was the total picture presented by all these different things when looked at together. So replying about each diff presented isn't actually responding to the concern. In terms of the block being lifted you have a couple options. You can discuss with me what will be different if you were to be unblocked. If I can be assured that you will be able to edit competently I will lift the block. Or you can use the unblock template to get a different administrator to look at things. Choosing one of these options does not prevent you from doing the other one in the future. But the first step is to do as the blocking template instructs and read the guide to appealing blocks. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 I'll summarize the block in 2 words. recklessly bold. While being bold is desired to article related content and its related talk page, not a good idea in the "behind the scenes". This means if I were to be unblocked, I would have to be extremelySTRICT on what edits I make in project space unrelated to article content (WikiProjects, other article clean-up related task). I would define strict as anything in project space that are
stuff I'm currently working on pre-block
incidents or discussions I've been involved in or explicitly invited to make a comment
anything that would TRULY be productive comments or replies that help in moving forward a discussion, legit questions
and if necessary for some super strange and unusual IAR rationale, well IAR.
In short, don't be bold in project space. I can just sit back and see what's going on behind the scenes, but not intervene without the good strict reason.
Now in my opinion, this doesn't really cover the current user-interaction concerns. The main problem with this piece of the block is that some of my comments are be construed differently than I intended; this is definitely a major concern. This is probably another don't be bold thing and do what I said above.
An unblock with or without a mandated restriction is discretionary, but I will have to voluntarily abide by the above if I am going to be unblocked. I won't ask for another opinion on this right now; my words above I stand by.
Can I Log In, this is on the right track of how I can be assured that you will be able to edit competently. I am glad we're off to a productive start. Before I respond more substantively, I want to understand what you're proposing. What do you see as stuff I'm currently working on pre-block and can you give me a diff that would be an example of you offering anything that would TRULY be productive comments or replies that help in moving forward a discussion and a diff of an example of what you see as legit questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For one, a content dispute over with Primfac on whether {{Edit partially-blocked}} should function like other protected edit request template such as {{edit semi-protected}} or just merge it with {{request edit}}, the COI edit request template. I'm not explaining that dispute in further detail, nor will I explain its background, but once it would be over, slowly "advertise", but not disruptively, the template (add links to related pages and templates) (this part of the unblocking may be blocked). Other than that, there isn't really much about stuff I'm currently working on pre-block, so that would go away quickly within estimate a month.
Productive comments—I've been watching this ArbCom clarification request regarding the ARBPIA General Sanctions. One of the arbitrators made a comment which I believe was not the intention, so I made my statement with what I found from the ARBPIA3 case.
Non-productive comemnts—ANI or ArbCom, both are heated when there is an indepth discussion. So I found Why is this ok?, and uh, for one, that should be at village pump since there is no long-term or urgent user-conduct issues, and two, the productivity of that I find to be borderline. WIth my intention of don't be bold, if you're not certain, just don't.
Another example—ANI again. This is a genuine and legit question from what appears to be a new editor.
I'll stop providing example here. If you need more... OK I will. Those are some examples I found.
You are currently the only one who thinks that {{PBER}} should be changed, and I wish you'd drop that stick; partial block edit requests are essentially edit requests, because the page is (generally speaking) unprotected, so it falls in the same category. Primefac (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And as it functions, has needless parameters that I find unneccessary since they are designed for COI. {{request edit}} is a COI edit request; {{PBER}} is similar to protected edit request. Can I Log In (talk) 17:02, July 2, 2020 (UTC)
Can I Log In, do you have an example of a legit question that you have asked? I think that presents clearer sense of what is being talkeda about than another editor's question. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I Log In, thanks. That's helpful. After reading the diffs you provided, and considering the past issues, I agree with the general thrust of what you're proposing but think we need to look at a more radical version of it.
You stop all activities that are not related to content creation. Exceptions to this will be narrowly construed and need to directly involve your content work.
You may, following the lifting of the block, make one change to your user signature and you may make subsequent corrective changes if suggested by other users. Otherwise leave your signature alone for the length of these restrictions.
To give some parameters as to what content creation means, copy editing is a form of content creation so that can continue (I'll discuss the GOCE more in a moment). Recent change patrolling and other counter vandalism patrolling are important pieces of work but are not content creation so that stops. Responding to people on your user talk is obviously fine. Asking legitimate questions, like what you linked above, is fine and even encouraged. Templating, warning, or correcting editors is not necessary to content creation so I would expect your use of other's talk pages to be limited things like pointing them towards talk page discussions or asking legitimate questions. Speaking of which, using article talk pages is a core part of the content creation process and so using them is fine. You can use noticeboards as needed to report on users you came into contact with while doing content creation or to respond if you are brought to one. If for some reason you need help not permitted by this restriction (i.e. an article you've done content work on has been vandalized and nothing has happened after a reasonable amount of time and after you've posted on the article talk page) you may use the {{helpme}} or {{adminhelp}} templates.
The conversation you linked at {{PBER}} is an excellent example of a principle I don't think you've yet absorbed but are going to need to to continue here: there are other editors who understand Wikipedia and it systems better than you. You need to be asking more questions and making fewer changes and fewer statements about how things are or should be. Primefac is among our most respected editors; that respect led him to be chosen first as a sysop and then a bureaucrat. For him to stop a conversation because you're not listening to what he's writing says something and it's not about Primefac. Instead of getting into a disagreement that could have and should have been an opportunity to learn. That conversation plays out differently if you'd started with a question and then really thought and considered the answer and then maybe asked another question. If you do this, you are eventually going to learn enough to be able to starting really answering questions and having opinions and ideas that are not disruptive but which improve the encyclopedia. If you need a second example of what needs to stop, it would be telling me how unblock edit restrictions work. I have been trusted with the sysop toolset for a reason and part of the basis of that trust is because I know when I need to ask questions about something.
Without your GOCE work this would be a different story. That work has been the best, and perhaps only, evidence that you can be a positive productive Wikipedian. Without it I do not invest the significant time I have just done typing this all out in hopes of guiding you in a better direction; instead I tell you to file an appeal, knowing it probably gets declined, and you have to wait six months to ask for the standard offer. As it seems like you're doing good work there, and because you are seen as a positive, if you would like to participate in that project during this time of editing restriction that's fine. The idea will be to give you a space where you can demonstrate the new better you. A word of warning though: because things would be looking very different without the GOCE, were that project, or leaders of that project, to feel differently than they do today about your participation we'd have to re-examine whether or not you were a net positive.
Because I am a reasonable person, I will listen to suggestions you have about this, assuming you are agreeable to the overall principle and framework. I will gladly answer questions you have about it. But tread carefully with this - it is the first chance for you to demonstrate you're absorbing the larger message of this block. Assuming you are agreeable and get unblocked, I would see violations of this restriction, of which I'd hope there would be none, generally being met with a series of escalating blocks (if I'm the one doing it, I'll likely start at 3 days). As noted if problems are reported from the GOCE, however, that could be a very different situation. In terms of appeal, I would see us being able to revisit elements of this in as few as 3 months assuming there aren't problems (i.e. maybe you can start using your pending changes reviewer permission again which is a nice segue between counter vandalism and content work). If this gradual easing of restrictions works, I think in as little as six months (meaning maybe longer) all editing restrictions could be removed. What do you think? Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Can I Log In; I was quite surprised to see your account blocked but here we are. No-one wants to exclude you but the admins need to protect the project from disruption, intentional or not. Please treat the conditions of Barkeep49's offer above seriously. If you're unblocked, please concentrate on article work and stay away from obscure behind-the-scenes processes: with respect, you don't appear to have enough WP experience or the maturity to involve yourself in these areas of the project. On the positive side, your copy-editing has been good so I hope you'll stay active at the GOCE and continue working in article space to build up some editing experience. Copy-editing is a great way to learn about what's acceptable in Wikipedia articles and article-writing can build skills in researching, quoting and referencing, which are all useful skills outside WP. You could look upon this block as a learning experience; we all make mistakes sometimes. I hope we'll see you at the GOCE again. Cheers and good luck, Baffle☿gab05:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't expect to see this when I came to your talk page to say thanks about Koeri but I'll reiterate what Baffle gab says and I'll add my own endorsement that certainly in areas like copy editing you are going the extra distance. I declined to revdel a copyvio as I couldn't see enough of the source material (Google books snippet) so you made that extra effort to find me the necessary material so I could revdel with confidence. Stick to articles and stay away from policy and procedure pages unless it is to ask questions. Nthep (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm seeing here is a restriction to content creation and other maintanence work related to it.
There are 2 types of templates. Thoses used in articles, and those not used in articles. I once came a across {{CHE}} during a copyedit which had an annoying double space which I hated. I even tried to trace down the problem and then just plain abandonded it.
If I were ever to revisit this issue and found a solution, would I be permitted to file a TPER?
Any touching of templates for use in content is allowed right?
In terms of other article maintanence I do, sourcing, merging, bare URLs as refernces, just plain cleanup I find neccessary, and uh all the sudden if I find a copyvio.
I might find the MOS to be common encounter, and may ask on it's Wikipedia talk: page.
As with the pending changes reviewer, it's commonly known as another basic counter-vandalism user right, I just use it as another reviewing edit request. If the edit request part above is not permitted, you might as well revoke PCR from me.
As with IAR and exceptions to this, I hope I never have to use it, if it's very obvious and no one has done a crap about it after 10–15 minutes, I might have to break the restrictions with a possible post-action discussion. Not very obvious, like you said, the helpme templates.
I would not block you or support a block of you if you IAR and removed content which later had to be revision deleted under revdel reasons 2-4. However, it makes me nervous to put that in writing because I can imagine a scenario where you good faith remove something thinking it will be revdel'ed and then it turns out not to qualify. So let me be clear again on an essential point. I in no way doubt your good faith or sincere desire to improve Wikipedia. However, your good faith efforts have, nonetheless, resulted in repeated disruptive editing. Good faith alone will not be a defense. So sure IAR in certain instances of extreme vandalism. But you better be right. If you're nervous you might not be right use the help-me templates; in most situations 15 minutes is not make or break. Even several hours is not make or break.
The spirit of this restriction is to let you lean into what you've done well and go from there. Obviously you can use templates when doing your editing but creating/changing templates is not in the spirit of content creation under what I am suggesting. So no to TPER for now. If you encounter something like what is being discussed at AN right now about a broken ref template causing problems, ping me or use a help-me so the issue can be reported rather than trying to fix the template yourself.
Pending changes and edit requests are part content creation, part administrative action. So let's go back to the spirit of the restriction as I am proposing it. In that context, it is not building off your strengths and takes us back into territory, administrative type actions, for which there is evidence of problems. My idea of talking about a loosening of the restriction in as soon as three months, rather than a more typical six months is because this kind of work could serve as a nice bridge between where we're starting and resuming full editing. So far now leave them alone. If it helps I'm happy to revoke PCR until such a time as you could use it again.
Cleaning up BARE URLs and handling COPYVIO is a standard part of copy editing so both make sense. But exercise caution. For instance, I would look askance on something like you joining/doing CopyPatrol.
I don't understand what I might find the MOS to be common encounter, and may ask on it's Wikipedia talk: page. means.
Asking questions about the MOS is absolutely in-line with the spirit of this restriction. Proposing changes to the MOS is not. Does that help clarify. If you tell me that you agree to the restrictions as we've laid them out here, I will remove the block and revoke PCR. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Y and you are not going to see "a second wave". COVID-19 does not have a brain, I do. COVID-19 changes randomly, I can actualy change. Can I Log In (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can I Log In, you have been unblocked and I have removed PCR. I have formally logged the restriction. It refers back to this conversation as to the intent and meaning of the restrictions. Please do not hesitate to ping me with questions. I wish you good luck with your future editing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
