User talk:XXeducationexpertXX
I have blocked you indefinitely for your WP:OUTING violation at Talk:Columbia University. I see nowhere on Wikipedia where this user has identified themselves by name and your linking to the website as you did violates our outing policy. I have suppressed the edits so only administrators can view them. As always, blocks can be appealed using the {{unblock|your reason here}} template. only (talk)
XXeducationexpertXX (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was not aware of this policy – however I have now read the policy. @Only: the user Karlmontague posted their own information: "I received my PhD in Middle Eastern Studies and Comparative Literature from Columbia University. I am mostly interested in initiating and editing articles about Iran's contemporary history and art, Art History, and Academic Institutions.". The WP:OUTING policy reads "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information...Personal information includes...job title and work organisation" If this is a misunderstanding of that statement I apologize, but this was clearly not done intentionally.
Decline reason:
You clearly demonstrate you still do not understand WP:OUTING. There's no ambiguity. Just because someone posts some amount of their personal information, that does not give you the right to post the rest. And I'm sorry, but this is clearly covered by WP:OUTING. Yamla (talk) 11:02, 1 October 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.
- @Yamla: Actually I do understand. I say clearly both in my reason and in the responses below that I have now read the policy and was previously not aware of its details. I additionally apologized for not being aware of it. The purpose of blocking is not to punish people. It's to stop them from disruptive editing. Now that I'm aware of this sub-policy of Wikipedia's harassment policy it won't happen again. Please reconsider this review please. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Him posting that general information about himself that you quoted here is not an invitation for you to post a link that lists his name, email address, and phone number. only (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- only, I don't disagree and sorry that I wasn't aware of the policy - but to your above point – I find it more of a moral and not policy-based justification. As stated – I was not aware of this policy and wouldn't have done it if I knew it was even a thing. However, now that I have read the policy it is clear that there is ambiguity. I agree it should be updated if the unspoken rule is that sharing of someone's information should be proportional to what they've already shared. He had posted his own information so I assumed he was openly identifying himself. As stated in WP:OUTING "job title and work organisation" is considered personal information and he decided to post exactly that. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
XXeducationexpertXX (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm doing a second unblock request because I don't believe the admin Yamla took an adequate amount of time to review the appeal. As stated above, I was not aware of the WP:OUTING policy details and I apologized for not being aware of them before. Clearly, as I am aware of them now, including links to personal information or personal information itself won't happen again. I reiterate the purpose of blocking clearly outlined on Wikipedia – blocking is not meant as punishment and instead meant to stop the behavior (in this case posting of personal information). Now that I understand policy we can move forward proactively. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
What was done WAS outing. You are trying to wikilawyer out of this and, outing is one of the most severe things that can be done here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:31, 1 October 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.
- only and Yamla, I am respectfully asking you to deny the second unblock request. If you review the user's talk page history, he/she/they seem(s) to be on a mission to change university shields with doctored shields that are at odds with universities' visual identity guidelines. His/her/their abusive practice of outing someone who is trying to fix their error just shows that this user has no place in Wikipedia. Karl Montague (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- I have already declined an unblock request from this user so can't review a second request from the same block. --Yamla (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- only and Yamla, I am respectfully asking you to deny the second unblock request. If you review the user's talk page history, he/she/they seem(s) to be on a mission to change university shields with doctored shields that are at odds with universities' visual identity guidelines. His/her/their abusive practice of outing someone who is trying to fix their error just shows that this user has no place in Wikipedia. Karl Montague (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
XXeducationexpertXX (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As stated above – I was not aware of the WP:OUTING policy until now. I am not trying to "wikilawyer" myself out of this. I understand now that publishing any kind of personal information regardless of what the user has posted on their talk page is not acceptable. For that reason, I ask that this block be reviewed. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
First, within a six-hour period, within 24 hours of the block, you made three appeals. This one came within 20 minutes of the second one being denied. You seem desperate. It comes across as if you care more about being able to edit again than you do about understanding what you did wrong (I know you think you mean it, OK? I'm not accusing you of being insincere, just not adequately self-aware). After Yamla saw right through your original request, you submitted another one that reflected that denial by being only slightly reworded to reflect the original denial. And so on with the second request ... can you blame us for accusing you of wikilawyering?
And really, to suggest in the first place—even if you did retract it—that because someone has posted part of their personal info you can post the rest? Having that understanding in the first place is deeply problematic, and the understanding you say you've reached (especially only after your unblock request based on being corrected on that was declined) is not enough right now for me.
But it's about more than this, alas ...
This wasn't the only thing you did. You were blocked once before for edit warring and personal attacks (after an EWN post that showed difficulties assuming good faith, another problem greater than the outing. I am most troubled in reviewing this unblock request by the unblock request you wrote in response to that one—it shows the same too-carefully chosen words, the same attempt to rationalize and distance yourself from your misbehavior, as these do, at greater length. From that I am not optimistic that you would be capable of changing your ways if unblocked at this time. Honestly, your unblock requests read as if you were trying to convince yourself that you're not the sort of person who would have done this.
And you have been blocked for outing. This is not vandalism, not genre warring. You are through it violating another user's privacy, a core principle of Wikipedia (and so much else on the Internet, but we actually mean it). We cannot let it be just about you, because it isn't, not if we mean any word of our privacy policy. Not when this required multiple edits be oversighted, something we rarely have to do nowadays, to clean up.
I really think the worst thing for any future here you could do now is go right back to editing, like a moth to the flame. You really could benefit from more time off to reflect on all these things, and whether or not this is something you can do and manage interpersonal conflict. I sense from your language that perhaps you are on spectrum? Certainly that could be part of the problem, and there are other editors here who have managed to address it. But I think you could and should start offline. If we were to let you continue I can only foresee this ending in a community ban—and we all should try to avoid that outcome.
(Since three requests is usually the maximum, at least for a while, it would not be a good idea for you to follow this with another request, not if you want to maintain access to this talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 23:08, 1 October 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.