User talk:Enhancing999

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons for a week. The reason for the block is per discussion in AN/U (block log). If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Link to discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems&diff=prev&oldid=966250488 Taivo (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be confusing adminship with interface editing. At the proposal to do interface editing work, I was told to run for adminship (which I didn't). In any case, if there are concerns about me editing the interface, please remove my access to template/campaign namespaces. All the best.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should try reading again the discussion. Bedivere (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to your suggestion, which I don't think makes much sense. Another user seem to agree with that. Please stop commenting here.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You first. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to miss the whole point of the discussion, if you did read it again. And "Please stop commenting here" is not really... helpful to your situation. Cheers. Bedivere (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bedivere: Maybe you can answer the question I had as to your suggestion about interface editing here?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should avoid editing your talk page if it isn't for requesting your unblocking? Your talk page access may be revoked if you don't. Bedivere (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo: Just so that I avoid doing it in the future: Who and when did I defame anybody? Or was that just an accusation people are at liberty to make to support block?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could be mistaken, and Taivo may of course answer for himself, but I don't remember anyone saying you "defamed" anyone. You are blocked for persisting at great length in matters related to CfDs where you are clearly a minority of one (of very close to it), which eats a lot of other people's time, and by being rather uncivil when doing it (I haven't closely reviewed this myself, but I seem to remember you questioning closures by admins when things were well past "snowball's chance in hell" level).

Sometimes consensus is going to go against you. I've certainly been in that position myself. There are areas of this project I just stay away from, because I know the prevailing consensus in those areas is one I can't work with. There are matters I bring up every few years to test the waters and see if the old consensus really still holds. But what you were doing was so beyond that as to be qualitatively different.

I personally would suggest you wait out your block and don't try to keep discussing these issue while you are blocked. Wait till you are back, don't feel like you need to go full bore the day or even week you return, and if you are seriously interested in knowing what exactly people want you to change, when you are back as an editor in good standing would be a better time to ask than now. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were actually just two CfDs in that matter, closed with two different arguments. After the first, the community reviewed the question of systematic deletions.

As for the defamation allegation, it seems to be me to be done by the same person you thought should have been blocked for incivility. However, your vote there was overridden by an admin who is difficult to see as impartial in the matter.

Let's see what's Taivo's view on this. Maybe people are ok to make such comments to support blocks.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to dogpile, but Jmabel is right here. Even if the facts are on your side the only thing that will happen if you continue pursuing this is that you'll eventually get indefed. I'm not a big fan of how you communicate myself, but you do some good work otherwise and your contributions are valuable in other areas. Pick your battles. I've certainly burned through a lot of my creditability on here arguing over things that didn't ultimately matter myself. No one likes someone who can't get the point or accept an L once in a while. Take Jmabel's advice. Just drop it for now and test the waters in a few years to see if the consensus has changed. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. Actually, there was a community discussion on the point. It's just that most of the somehow involved users that asked for my block didn't bother participating so we didn't amend our policy in own way or the other.

As for the gap between Yann's statements and reality, I think eventually somebody else will follow up on that. If I found one several times in row, chances are there is a more general problem.

Anyways, I hope Taivo can resolve the other issue.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand where your coming from. I can be blocked or topic banned for something like doing DRs purely because someone like Jeff G says I should be, even though I have a couple of hundred thousand edits in the area at this point and all he does is collect hats by leaving two word comments on random talk pages. The fact is that they just don't care if the people calling for a sanction have any experience in the area, actual knowledge about the issue, or have participated in anything even slightly related to it. Jeff G can have literally zero experience or participation history with something but his opinion about it still matters more then yours or mine does regardless of how much time we've put into it. That's just how it goes on these types of projects. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: Where do I "have literally zero experience or participation history with something" where I rendered my opinion? Keep in mind that I have been here for 17+ years, am a Grandmaster Editor First-Class on enwiki, and am an Admin on three WMF wikis. I also hold a BS degree and have professional certifications, and have been reading English critically for 40+ years. Regarding my comment above, Enhancing999 wrote that Admin Bedivere should "Please stop commenting here." That is rich coming from a blocked user, as it is abuse of Talk Page Access (TPA). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: You must have missed where I said "someone like Jeff G." Regardless, you've certainly voted multiple times over the last year to have me blocked for things that you weren't involved in and clearly didn't look into. Sorry, but your experience as a Grandmaster Editor First-Class on enwiki or whatever doesn't matter if your not actually involved at all in the dispute or thing that your commenting on. I have almost 500,000 edits on here at this point but I still mostly stay away from conflicts and discussions that I'm not already involved in or knowledgeable about.

If you want an actual example of what I'm talking about me, Jmabel, and a couple of other people spent like two months discussing if and under what circumstances galleries should qualify for speedy deletion. There was also a discussion about it on the village pump. Then three months later Andy came along and took issue with the whole thing even though from what I remember they hadn't participated in any of the previous discussions or have any experience in the area.

So now the whole thing is essentially dead in the water purely because Andy is a well established user. I certainly couldn't derail multiple months of discussion if I disagreed with something simply because I have a BA in sociology, an associates degree and multiple certificates in computer science, and a bunch of other things. Nor would I. But if Andy want's to do it, cool. Screw the time everyone else put into it. How is that at all a functional way to do things? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should discuss your conflict further at an appropriate point. The blocking of Enhancing runs independently. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, is there no irrelevant thread where you won't try and make it about you, and a chance to snipe at me? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: I do sometimes references my own experiences on here when I have a question or comment about something. Your an almost non-exiting thing in that as far as I know though. Your just projecting and trying to stir up needless drama over none issues like usual. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also had the impression Adamant1 was referring to somebody else and I'd really appreciate if the two of you would sort out your differences elsewhere. Also, I wouldn't want to criticize someone who appears to be burdened by war to the point of flagging it in every conversation. PAX TECUM. Not entirely sure why one would want to insert themselves in a continued discussion among two other persons.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between Taivo and Enhancing999

I do not make decision about did you defame somebody or not. You were not blocked for that, but for going against community consensus. You created empty categories and they got deleted as obviously unusable, you objected and said, that they were usable. Community consensus is that wikidata item only does not make the category usable. Community practice is that empty categories are nominated for deletion very easily, sometimes without any proof that they are obviously unusable, and they get nevertheless deleted easily. The reason is that categories can be created easily if needed. Deleted categories can be restored easily. Such practice is not worth changing and you must live with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taivo (talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo So what to make of the defamation argument in the discussion? You closed it before it was sorted out. It came from a user who already before was about to be sanctioned for incivility weren't it for an involved admin to close the discussion. Do you feel it's ok to make such arguments or not? I don't and I find that incivil and I (and likely WMF) would expect admins to ensure users are not being exposed to such incivility. Will you follow up on this?
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the user refers directly to me, I would like to briefly comment on this. First, Enhancing's block runs independently of our disputes. At most, these have reinforced how the user behaves towards his colleagues. There are issues such as disrespect or the fact that Enhancing would like to have his colleagues blocked immediately and requests this immediately without seriously talking to people about it first. This behavior was criticized by many administrators and non-administrators. Yes, I accused the user of bad character for the reasons mentioned above; So an objective criticism. Several administrators and non-administrators also noticed this. Enhancing here refers to the opinion of an individual administrator. While he is welcome to do so, it does not reflect the fact that no one else requested such action and the matter was closed by a trusted administrator with whom I have no relationship. @Enhancing999: You are of course free to initiate a block application against me after your ban if you think it is necessary. But your ban runs independently and was supported by many different users, not just me. Lukas Beck (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the empty categories, what did you make of the community discussion after the first AN/U? The current policy and why it was written that way was discussed. BTW, I don't think anybody said I created "obviously unusable" categories.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has gotten ridiculous

There is no reason for this to be the site of a big argument. That is not why blocked users are allowed access to their talk pages. They are certainly not supposed to be undoing an admin's (my) effort to section of unnecessary, contentious discussion into a collapsed section. But it's not like others are being helpful here, either. So let me be very clear:

@Enhancing999: if you have an actual appeal of your block, yes, you can put that on this page. If someone comes here and asks you a question, you are welcome to respond. Other than that, if you post further here, I will extend your block and deny you access to this page.
@Anyone else: if you come here to continue to argue during the time Enhancing999 is blocked, I will file a report at COM:AN/U asking for your account to be blocked for a week.
@All: don't reply to this with assent. Just stop this. - Jmabel ! talk 07:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored User:Lukas Beck's remark. I do not think it is appropriate under the circumstances for User:Enhancing999 to remove it. Enhancing999: you are skating on really thin ice here. This is not a long block. What remains of it is certainly long enough that some complex process potentially leading to appeal is a waste of everybody's time, certainly mine and presumably yours. I am currently leaving you with the right to access this page so you can directly respond to any questions addressed to you, and can make an appeal (not engage in a bunch of discussion preliminary to an appeal, that has already gone far enough off the rails). Leave the rest of this until the block ends, or the block will become much longer with your access to this page locked for the duration. In other words: knock it off. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Enhancing999

Your account has been blocked

Discussion between Taivo and Enhancing999

This has gotten ridiculous

Navigation menu

Search