User talk:3nk1namshub

Before posting here, please make sure someone has not already brought up the same issue you have. I frequently blank this page, so please also check the edit history. Thank you. 3nk1namshub (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sympathy

I am deeply sorry for the way you've been treated for the past few hours. There is no excusing it. The only solace that I can give is that editing on Wikipedia is not generally like this. You used a noticeboard to start a discussion that belonged elsewhere, and a bunch of editors callously tried to bounce you out (the usual process for misfiled discussions) instead of explaining where to voice your concerns. Wikipedia is a mixed bag. On the one hand you have what you saw today. On the other hand, it is miles better on pronouns than most places that aren't explicitly queer. I can explain more, and about the transphobic "humor" piece and the row over redacting it as well, but I don't want to overwhelm you with a wall of text that you didn't ask for. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your sympathy. However, I'm confused. This entire time I've had some admins telling me I'm very clearly in the wrong and need to stop, and on the other hand I've had some admins trying to tell me I haven't been treated properly. I'm not sure what to think or believe. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

They're not mutually exclusive. Let's be clear about what was inappropriate about your actions first: removing the comment yourself repeatedly was edit warring and violated WP:TPG, and WP:ANI is not the venue of first resort for issues. I am willing to offer myself as a resource for you to ask about the appropriateness of anything (WP:Mentorship, but not as formal).

That's all. Now, what others did wrong, and which warranted the above, is fundamentally WP:BITEing you. Just as I advised you to not assume others understand your perspective, other people need to do the same. We all need to. A lot of the comments you received were dismissive in their tone, especially as for those who don't take out the time to truly understand the situation (like @Rosguill: and I), your actions really do look tangential to Wikipedia's goals, and it was assumed that you were just another "crusader", i.e. "single-purpose account". That is why I recommended that you help us improve our articles on the topics that are your strengths, rather than litigating an old dispute. That deletion discussion wore out a lot of editors, so resurrecting the topic was sure to irk many people. But sadly, your topics of strength are also highly charged ones here, i.e. they are difficult as first topics for any new editor to start with.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Look, I'm pretty sure I'm about to get that permanent banhammer over what Guy is saying about me. Maybe that's not a bad thing; my being here doesn't seem to be healthy to anyone despite my efforts. Sorry. I shouldn't have signed up. At least I think I finally figured out how edit conflicts work. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 07:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If my first trip to ANI was any indication, not everyone who comments on your issue is going to be acting in your best interests. If you make an explicit commitment to working on content rather than drawing out old disputes like this, it is unlikely you will be indefinitely blocked. The key thing I see here is your willingness to communicate. Indefinite blocks usually arise when WP:IDHT or WP:CIR becomes a thing with the user, unless the user is doing outright bad-faith things like vandalism, spam, repeated personal attacks, or harassment, which I do not think you are doing. I want to help de-escalate this situation as much as possible, but please do your part: sleep on this (i.e. don't look at Wikipedia again until after you've had a good night's sleep, whenever that may be for your time zone), and let others put their thoughts into the ring. I know it may be intimidating with all the rest of us being far more experienced, but being experienced does not automatically mean being right (argument from authority).--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You more or less tripped across several third rails when it comes to raising issues on Wikipedia. Charitably, based on the comments I've seen, it looks like you were angry about a legitimately upsetting thing, tried to complain about it, had a bunch of people dismiss your concerns, so you got into a shouting match and also made some disruptive edits. Editors' knee-jerk reactions to the shouting and disruptive edits are to threaten you to stop immediately. Amid the sniping, some well-meaning editors made inadvertently rude statements, and when you didn't immediately welcome their support people jumped to the conclusion that because you refused a helping hand clearly you're up to no good. The community has a deficit of tact. The retaliatory disruptive edits do need to stop, but there's a better way to tell you that than the way editors have been.

I'd honestly suggest that you call it a night: less for the sake of any Wikipedia etiquette and more just because you could probably use the break. Wikipedia is slow, and even though you can respond to comments on a dime, there is no expectation that you need to do so. As tempting as it can be to try to get the last word, doing so usually just produces exhausting back-and-forths that accomplish nothing. In many discussions, the editor to walk away first is usually wiser. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rosguill: @Jasper Deng: I appreciate you both talking to me. I think I'm just gonna ask for an indefinite block or something. Regardless of their intention, Jonesey showed me how neurotypicals see me, and how they always will see me, and it's not good. Knowing how people see me, I'd rather just... not...

I made a positive change to Rebecca Heineman, I feel okay leaving knowing I actually did something good in the world. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a volunteer thing, so all participation is optional. That said, a rocky start does not preclude a productive editing career.

As I alluded to earlier, neurotypicals who are not trained professionals, and even some professionals, have a hard time taking perspectives of those with disorders. Dealing with that is a skill to learn in all parts of life and I'm willing to help.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That's really not what I mean, but thank you for continuing to try to cheer me up. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem defeated with that comment. I'd view the glass as half-full. Wikipedia isn't quite the right place to campaign for anything, but making our community more inclusive is something we can always use more of. Just don't make that be your only thing here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to leave you hanging but also this isn't something I should really talk about here. Thanks again. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (help!) 08:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You had me with this edit sumnmary: [1]. Everything since points to you being constitutionally unsuited to Wikipedia. I have posted this for review at WP:AN. Guy (help!) 08:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: There was an edit conflict. Sorry if I screw something up.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

3nk1namshub (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'll be honest, I don't remember even typing that. I'll admit, back when that was happening, I was absolutely unsuited to Wikipedia. I've got some problems (as if that weren't incredibly apparent by now), especially with socializing and communicating with people. I was given a 24 hour block for it to cool down, and I did. I apologized for my actions, and if I had remembered that summary, I would've brought that up as well. I don't know how blocks work here, if someone can be blocked for something twice or not. In the time since that original block, and in the past few hours here, I think I've begun to learn how Wikipedia works. The culture here is very different from the cultures I'm normally a part of, and it's of course on me to deal with that and not bother anyone. It's clear I've done a bad job with that. However, I've had a few other admins here vouch for me, and I think, after a week, maybe a month away, I could be useful here. I came in here and didn't read the rules. People pointed out WP:SPA and WP:RGW to me; while I disagree with them from a societal standpoint, I see that Wikipedia doesn't and shouldn't work like an IRL society does. I read your post on ANI, and I agree. I don't think now is a good time for me to be here. I've got a lot of issues IRL and I think it's pretty clear that they're coming out here. I know I probably don't deserve it, but I'd like to ask for one final chance. Please, give me a block for a week, a month, even a year; give me a chance to try and work on myself so I might be able to be useful here. If you're unwilling to do that, I understand. I've fucked up more than a little bit here. I've fucked up more than a lot here, really. I dunno. I'm sorry, I'm rambling, I haven't slept in a while, and I've had a rough night outside Wikipedia. Whatever your decision, I accept it, and I hope I will be able to learn from it. I know it's a bit late for apologies, but I'm sorry. I hope I at least made sense. Thank you all for everything. My experience here hasn't been great and that's completely my fault, but It's been important for me, I think. I've been living in a bit of a bubble for a while and this has helped pop it. I'm still rambling, sorry. I don't really know how to end this without repeating myself. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC) I want to edit something. I said "I don't know how blocks work here, if someone can be blocked for something twice or not". I misread/misunderstood the block reason at first and now see that the original edit summary had nothing to do with this block. Sorry if I caused any confusion. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

3nk1namshub, indefinite does not mean infinite. You are welcome to appeal the block, of course, but I recommend you wait a few months before doing so. You have just been too disruptive, so significant correction would be expected. I am otherwise declining your request, for now. El_C 14:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am happy to support 3nk1namshub's statement here. I think it was just a knee jerk reaction under pressure born out of frustration and not evidence of intent to cause disruption. I know because I did that a lot when I first started and I share a certain level of neurodiversity. I think this block should just be reduced to 24-72 hours, not indefinate and then see where we go from here. Looking at the discussion, I think this is a genuine inexperienced editor who is ready to learn how things work here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Dude, "back then" was less than two weeks ago. Guy (help!) 09:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I know, I wasn't sure how else to word it. Maybe you disagree, but I think people can change a lot in two weeks. Maybe it's just me or the large culture shock, but I really do feel that I've changed. I dunno, I think back to what happened with Rebecca_Heineman, and I feel kinda proud. I know it wasn't a great editing experience with the trip to DRN and ANI, but, in the end something changed for the better and nobody got too upset, right? I had an actual tangible change on something, I contributed to something bigger. I know it was technically a removal and didn't add any new information but, I dunno. I'm sorry. I just think back to that and I feel good and I want to do that again and maybe make Wikipedia better. Like I said, I'll accept any punishment that comes my way, and try to learn from it. Am I allowed to post here since I'm blocked? Sorry if I'm not. 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, at this time, you can edit your own talk page, as long as you don't create disruption here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If I can chime in, I would suggest taking the time suggested as in your unblock reply and walk away for a bit to let cooler heads prevail. I wouldn't be opposed to your return then, as long as you keep a level head while editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry to see this on my watchlist this morning. I've commented in the AN discussion around the block, but wanted to comment here also. While some of your behavior around this issue was disruptive (edit warring, etc.), I disagree that it warranted an indefinite block, particularly given you were already blocked for your behavior in the diff being used against you now, and you acknowledged the issue and apologized for it.

I really disagree with the folks who are trying to write you off as a troll. The Signpost piece was disgusting, and it's frankly embarrassing that there were not consequences for those who wrote and published it. It should have been deleted, and its preservation in the page history (along with all of the "keep" votes and similar at the MfD) remains a stark reminder of the editing environment that people who are different from the average Wikipedian^[a] are forced to endure here if they wish to try to contribute. Questioning that is not trolling, it's perfectly understandable outrage.

Speaking as a longterm member of the English Wikipedia editing community, it is uncomfortable to be confronted with questions like those posed by 3nk1namshub: why were attacks like this one on transgender people not only allowed, but defended by a swath of our community? Why is behavior like this—hatred against a group of marginalized people—not condemned by our community in the same way we (rightfully) condemn those pushing hatred against people of color? It's uncomfortable because I don't have good answers, and I think that is because there are no good answers to why we allow this. We ought to be strongly disavowing this behavior within our community, which is in direct violation of the wmf:Code of conduct policy, not accepting it as some sort of difference of opinion. Bigotry is not a difference of opinion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

^[a] This does not mention gender or sexuality, but I don't believe there is any question as to whether LGBTQ people are in the minority among Wikipedians.

GorillaWarfare, I strongly echo what you say above. The user has just gone about it inappropriately too often. But that doesn't lessen from the potency of your point. Which is of paramount import. El_C 17:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I fully agree with everything GorillaWarfare says here. The block should be undone. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I agree. My concerns were over the obsessive editing, not the original question, which was reasonable - but answered several times (albeit IMO in a way that makes us look distinctly shitty). I took it to AN precisely because I am not confident that I did the right thing. As I said, and Levivich also echoed, I think that with friendly support 3nk1namshub would be fine. Unfortunately I am not the right person for that because work is about to kick off. I'd hope that someone can step forward. But regardless, I am sufficiently unsure that any admin can unblock with my blessing. Guy (help!) 22:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Have Courage

"Perfer et obdura, dolor hic tibi proderit olim." (Be patient and tough; someday this pain will be useful to you.).

You are on the right side of history. Ignore the barbs; they are the yammering fools trying desperately to summon a relevance and respect they do not and cannot have. --Jorm (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Unblocked

3nk1namshub, I have unblocked you. Please take up GorillaWarfare on her offer of mentorship. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Acutally pinging GorillaWarfare after I fixed one typo from the preview and introduced a different one bringing the ping in the first message. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm pleased with this, because several people have offered to help and support you. You're interested in an area that is frequently subject to bad-faith comments, and I think a support network will help you here. Don't let the transphobes get to you. We have people here who seriously argue that JK Rowling is advocating for women's rights and that Graham Linehan is not a transphobe. We can't make them go away, and I don't think they will treat you with respect, so please take care of yourself and remember to ask for help if you feel angry or attacked. Guy (help!) 10:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

User:3nk1namshub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have removed This comment per WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please do not resume the behavior that resulted in your previous block.

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive322#3nk1namshub

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

noted. i've changed it to be less confrontational, and more objective

3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If folks are using slurs, definitely point that out and we'll deal with that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

i did. if i remember correctly, i was told (by another mod iirc) to not mention it, as it would invite further harassment. i really don't want to bring up the drama from july again; it was upsetting enough then, i don't need to deal with it now. regardless, i have a whole list of reasons i do not wish to be part of wikipedia; though those are more appropriate for an essay off wikipedia. i just want to leave a message letting anyone discovering this profile that i am no longer a part of this site (and specifically why), in case they connect it to my real life identity 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I just went through 3nk1namshub's posting history and had a comment on same when I ran into this post:[2] I had forgotten that 3nk1namshub wrote that, and I apologize for not honoring 3nk1namshub's request. Sorry about that. I will now stop posting here and let others determine whether or not 3nk1namshub has resumed the behavior that resulted in 3nk1namshub's previous block. 3nk1namshub, feel free to delete everything I have written above.

Pinging: @Acroterion, Barkeep49, El C, EvergreenFir, GorillaWarfare, and JzG: --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

i appreciate your apology and thank you for respecting my request. as a final post (comment? reply?) here, i'd just like to explain my reasoning. clearly the wikipedia community has a much different set of important values than i do. there's nothing inherently wrong with that, it just means i should leave the community/project as i don't care to force myself to align to those values, not do i care to try and force my values on others here (and it would also be extremely rude and disruptive). the first edit earlier was certainly combative, and i appreciate guy for removing it. however as it currently stands, the text there is objective, non-combative, and doesn't even allude to a specific user or incident (though i can provide a diff if requested). i am leaving, and letting anyone stumbling upon this page know why. if a mod feels this needs to go to ani, feel free, but i won't be responding or checking. password's randomized and deleted. take care 3nk1namshub (they/them) (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

3nk1namshub, I definitely strongly echo what CaptainEek said. If someone told you to ignore that kind of despicable harassment, ostensibly, so as to avoid further harassment, they were dead wrong. That most definitely is not a stance which is representative of the community. Our position is zero tolerance (unambiguously) against anything like that happening anywhere on the project. El_C 04:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, looking at the sections above, looks like I was involved here with something that happened back in July. Which I have no memory of. That is not a good sign. Granted, a lot has happened since, but July was not that long ago. I see that I declined an unblock request, but then ended up striking it. Hmm. Still not coming to me, sorry. El_C 05:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately part of the issue, if memory serves, involved the Signpost article from 2019 (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour). The vociferous defense of it by some in our community, and the overall decision to blank but not actually remove it, in my opinion demonstrates that we as a community have a long, long way to go before we can say this community is actually welcoming or safe for trans people. I certainly don't feel like we can say we have a zero tolerance stance on transphobia, given that embarrassing display, and frankly I think 3nk1namshub's criticisms are deserved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoa! I just read that piece for the first time, GorillaWarfare, and you're right — that is truly unbelievable. I'm just floored. To have that happen less than 2 years ago, is indeed a dark stain on the project. To somehow imply that the dehumanizing act of calling a trans person it can pass for humor is just... contemptible beyond measure. And then to have that AfD filled with various apologia...? I'm just at a loss for words. My rose-tinted lenses are cracking, for sure. That makes me sad and angry. (Still unable to recollect what happened here on July 2020, however, which again, is not a great sign as far as my diminishing memory goes...) El_C 17:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

When I blocked 3nk1namshub back in July for ... extremely poor choice of wording concerning GorillaWarfare ... it was in the context of 3nk1namshub's justifiable outrage. That's why it was such a short block, and why it was resolved quickly. Acroterion (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Indeed. That incident shook my love for this project more than anything ever has, and the fact that the page has never been truly deleted or disowned by the community is a continuing embarrassment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What is also new to me, though, is the earlier edit war involving Jonesey95's bizarre note about 3nk1namshub's self-identification — which was totally out of line. And then to have multiple editors revert 3nk1namshub's removal of it...? What is going on? Well, at least Jonesey95 removed it, though. Eventually. That entire discussion, I should stress, is deeply disturbing to me. Like with Chris troutman (whom I recall being inches away from blocking recently for unrelated reasons) exclaiming about how we don't enforce a neo-fascist speech code, which is just beyond the pale. Those exchanges alone are beyond embarrassing. I am personally embarrassed to have played a part in any of that, unwittingly and otherwise. Wow, GorillaWarfare, you are right. This is dark. What a wake up call. El_C 18:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)