User talk:YonkerDonk

July 2023

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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm genuinely baffled by this block. I made precisely two edits. My proposal that @EEng: should be referred to ArbCom is a serious one. It was not made for the "lulz" nor am I socking. I have no confidence that people such as @Snow Rise: will ever achieve their aims through persuasion, not without the force of an Arbitration Case. EEng clearly treats everything as a joke, even the prospect he could be sent to Arbitration. Where does he get this confidence from, other than from knowing there are apparently Administrators on this project who don't really pay much heed to what policy says at all. Until of course they are forced to when an Arbitration is filed and telling incidents are given the gravitas they deserve, such as the horrific interaction @XAM2175: had with EEng. I am not socking, but I am an experienced user of Wikimedia projects with a deep knowledge of things like the Universal Code of Conduct. English Wikipedia is not my home project, nor is it some alien universe. If the intended message of this very hostile block is that I should mind my own business, I would appreciate that being clearly stated. A little more professionalism in explaining blocks wouldn't go amiss at all in fact, but that's just my opinion, I'm sure you have a local policy that normalizes this sort of welcome. Real friendly stuff. YonkerDonk (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It is big red flag when a new account runs to ANI and asks for something like an arbitration case, which the vast majority of new users are unaware of. Your global account history doesn't indicate any involvement in other projects, so it must be under another account(or without an account). If you don't wish to share your prior editing experience with us publicly for some reason, I'd suggest that you share it with ArbCom or a checkuser. No one here has mentioned socking other than you(another term that new users aren't usually aware of). If this is all legitimate somehow(could be, I guess), we still need to know, as noted below, what contributions you wish to make to this encyclopedia. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2023 (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.

• It's kind of odd, isn't it, that you deny socking twice when I didn't block you for socking. As for being "an experienced user of Wikimedia projects", you have zero edits at any other project besides this one...unless of course your experience stems from editing under a different username.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• I've reverted your "outline" of an arbitration case. If you do that - or anything similar - again, I'll revoke your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Nothing odd about it at all. You only offered me a single generic link to justify my block, and sensing from that that you probably wouldn't take kindly to being asked for a more specific reason that I can actually address in an appeal, even though that is my right, I decided to cover all bases and respond to all the items in that long list of possible reasons an Administrator might think I was "not here to build and encyclopedia".

Many don't apply at all because I literally only made two edits, but that still leaves several possible reasons (none of which as an aside seem to explain or excuse you blocking me immediately and without warning, but what is done is done I guess). One of which is "socking". It is there, so I addressed it. I'm trying to be be nice, under increasingly provocative conditions.

If you are formally asking what other projects I edit and under what names, I would like to know why you are asking before volunteering such sensitive information, since you just stated quite clearly that you didn't block me for socking. I'm always up for a pleasant chat with other movement members. Are we chatting here? Just two pals yacking? Forgive me for assuming this is not what this is.

I provided the outline because it helps people who might have thought you had blocked me under the item that speaks about people who come here making ludicrous requests. It demonstrates my proposal is perfectly reasonable and if anything it should shock them that it is apparently seen as a laughing matter. Rather than being aggressive why not try and assume good faith? YonkerDonk (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

YonkerDonk, let me see if I can help move this conversation forward. I am willing to assume that you sincerely believe the EEng topic-ban proposal should be referred to ArbCom. However, Bbb23 is correct that an editor with literally no prior edits on this project is probably not the person best situated to make this suggestion. That being said, if unblocked, would you expect to be editing on other topics, and if so can you give some idea of what sort of contributions you might make? I think this may assist the admin (it won't be me) who handles your unblock request. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Not being best situated is quite clearly very far removed from being prohibited. As an ex-Arbitrator on this project, what is your view of my outlined Case against EEng? Is it simply a sincere if misguided effort to improve this local project, a good faith suggestion to deal with an intractable dispute, or is it a ludicrous opinion to the point of being inherently disruptive the very moment it was posted? Please note that Bbb23's judgement that it was the latter, came after Administrator @Snow Rise: responded in a manner that views it as the former. I see no reason why Bbb23's judgement should (quite literally) over-ride Snow Rise. YonkerDonk (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've decided not to opine on the EEng issue in the ANI thread, so I'm not inclined to discuss the merits of his editing here either. Suffice it to say that while I'm not by any means convinced that this dispute is severe enough to warrant arbitration or is ripe for arbitration, in principle the idea of referring an issue on which ANI discussion is sharply split to ArbCom is not an unreasonable one.

While I can't speak for Bbb23, I think the question he is implicitly asking is along the lines of: "If you aren't an editor significantly involved in this project, why do you even care about EEng's behavior? Are you genuinely suggesting opening an ArbCom case against him because you believe it would benefit Wikipedia, rather than merely to stir up trouble and drama?" I know that question may seem to be assuming bad faith, but as a long-time arbitrator I can attest that there was at least one troll who filed a series of ArbCom case requests just for the fun of watching Wikipedians argue with each other while he sat back and watched and fanned the flames. The arbitration procedures do not include a formal doctrine of "standing," but they aren't meant to encourage drive-by case filings either.

I also think one thing that elevated the prominence of your ANI post, and perhaps others' perception that it was disruptive, is that you didn't merely suggest an ArbCom referral in an ordinary comment in the thread, but opened it as an "Alternative Proposal" in a separate sub-thread. That may sound like a minor formatting detail, and of course it is that, but defining a new proposal in a new heading often has a substantial effort on the flow and focus of the ensuing discussion, which again is not something that editors seemingly new to the project will ordinarily do.

For what it's worth, I personally would not have blocked you for your posts, certainly not without a warning and some discussion first. That being said, I'm less likely to block for most things than many admins, so that doesn't necessarily count for much. As I said earlier and as 331dot has agreed, before continuing the unblock discussion it would be of interest to know what other sorts of contributions you expect to make here if unblocked. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Newyorkbrad:. You have confirmed my suspicions that the block was likely made in bad faith, some of it quite extreme and insular in nature. Alternative explanations did exist and alternative actions could have been pursued. You can't speak for @Bbb23:, but it would serve this project well if people noted he has had ample opportunity to speak for himself. I have already outlined my likely editing interests. Are you expecting a specific plan of work, because that definitely feels unusual. YonkerDonk (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@331dot: I am still confused then. Even if we assume this red flag was sufficient to justify an immediate block, once I made it clear where my confidence to "run to AN/I" and knowledge of terms like socking comes from, namely experience elsewhere, why am I still blocked? Are you making it a condition of unblocking that I share my history with this projects local ArbCom? I find that quite improper. YonkerDonk (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can claim to have experience. Without knowing what it is, there is no way to verify this claim. I've said that if you don't wish to share it publicly that there are means to do so privately. Whether you do so or not is completely up to you. Personally I would want to see that before considering unblocking you, but if you can convince someone else to unblock you without revealing your experience, that's fine with me. You also still need to tell us what contributions you wish to make here. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@331dot: I have given a reasonable explanation in the face of a bad faith block. I have outlined future topic interests. Anything else is an abuse of the block/unblock power. With the help of Newyorkbrad, we can see an alternative approaches could and should have been taken, per local policy and movement principles. None end up with me being leveraged for personal information for reasons that are still unclear to me. YonkerDonk (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I have zero interest in your identity or nonpublic information. I'm interested in verifying your experience that you claim to have. (Feel free to examine my edit history, as any other person can.) I'm content to hear a comment from a checkuser or ArbCom that "YonkerDonk is an experienced user" with no details. As I said, you are free to make another unblock request for someone else to review, and if they wish to unblock you without verifying your experience, they can. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@331dot: That still entials giving my information to people who have no apparent need for it. Why are you asking for it? If I had never been blocked, if a different Administrator had been the first one to see my proposal and had taken an assume good faith and only block as a last resort approach, do you think it would result in me being asked this question? This is not theory. A different Administrator was on scene first, Snow Rise, and they did not block me or interrogate me to search for hidden motives. They engaged in good faith.

My proposal was live for 70 minutes, a very long time, before @Lepricavark:, who is not an Administrator and had already expressed a contrary opinion, unilaterally shut it down. It existed for another 28 minutes before Bbb23 removed it completely, offering no reason other than this block, now disputed. In all that time, the only disruption evident was EEng posting a joke through the hatting, and perhaps the hatting itself, which I was entitled to dispute but chose not to (because I did not come here with an intent to disrupt).

Even just the logistics of accepting to your request, finding a person I can trust, obtaining assurances from then about how they will use my information, figuring out how to prove to him that it proves what I say it does, it all seems like quite the effort, for what? What are you trying to reassure yourself of, that is the question. If all you have is a vague feeling something isn't right, a gut feeling, maybe you have simply been doing this for too long and you need a break. Because I think that once someone has entered that mindset, they can never leave it. They can never see someone do what I did, and entertain the possibility it was a legitimate attempt to improve Wikipedia. It is a shame. YonkerDonk (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, since I've been pinged and referenced here a few times, at this juncture I ought to respond. First, you should be aware I am not an admin, but rather just a rank and file community member participating in the discussion. That's why I was leaving the matter to en-mopped hands here, though now that you are saying you took me for an admin, it's important I clear that up. But while I am here, I'll give my broader perspective. Yes, I did engage with what I assumed to be a good faith (if ill-advised) proposal, but honestly, had I realized it was your first edit on the project, I would have been as skeptical as the others talking with you here.

And indeed, I'm even more skeptical now. While I will follow the path of tact already adopted by Newyorkbrad, 331dot, and Bbb23 above and say that it is technically possible you are being on the level with us--and indeed, I take WP:AGF very seriously as a general matter--I will also tell you truthfully that I feel like your story in this case does not add up. You're telling us that you have never edited on this project before, and yet the first place you found yourself was ANI? Not only that, but you were so incised by what you saw, and so certain that our local community policy standards were being broken, that you felt you had to make a community proposal? I mean, it's not technically impossible, but I'd be lying if I said the needle on my WP:DUCKometer wasn't off the scale. I think it's much more likely that you are a banned user (possibly one with an axe to grind against Eeng) who can't make the ArbCom filing themselves.

But let's stretch ourselves to consider the possibility that you are not: if that's the case, you still have chosen to enter this community's discourse by making a lot of noise about standards you can't possibly be familiar with (i.e. a WP:CIR concern) and then followed it up with a lot of going on the offensive (which is also something a sock would do in this situation, it is worth noting). On the other hand, I can't see what a sockmaster would get from continuing to push to rescue such a new account, other than maybe seeing if they could get away with it. But if this behaviour is instead because you are being forthright here...well, I think you've painted yourself into a corner with your original actions, followed by your aggressive responses to administrative action, and suspicious answers to inquiries, and your only solution at this point is to use the mechanisms available to you for relaying sensitive information, to demonstrate there is validity to your assertion that you are a movement veteran, but new to this project. You've simply succeeded in creating too much evidence to suggest you might actually be a block evader/LTA; personally, I haven't even touched upon everything I find suspicious here.

All that said, as to the proposal itself, even if you did make it in good faith as your first effort at participating in this community, it was a terrible idea and just more distraction that the thread did not need. If the community is !voting by a ratio of more than 4:1 to oppose sanctioning Eeng directly (with a significant portion saying Eeng did absolutely nothing wrong, though I personally think that is an exaggeration) there is effectively zero chance there was going to be consensus to make a "referred by ANI" case filing with ArbCom. As I said in my response to you in the thread, anyone (well, any minimally established editor in good standing with the community, anyway) can make that filing on their own initiative, if they wish. But your proposal was dead on arrival and only likely to stir up more division, so I understand why it was first closed and then deleted by concerned admins.

But I'll reiterate also what has been said you above: even if there is no effort at deception here, and your challenging tone is due entirely to frustration, and not an effort to bluff your way out of a block, then even by your own representation of events here, you are completely new, and not the person to be pushing ArbCom cases. If you do decide to disclose your original global account (which, by the way, why would you not be using that here in the first instance?), and you get your editing privileges back and decide to stay to lend a hand, please feel free to come make me eat some humble pie. But I'll tell you honestly: I'm doubtful. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not just a gut feeling. Snow Rise did pretty well explaining this situation. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see where you outlined your editing interests, maybe I missed it. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No you didn't miss it, looking back it must have failed to post somehow. My main area of expertise is fluid dynamics, so I guess I would start there. YonkerDonk (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Snow Rise:. Engagement is appreciated, so I hope you don't take what I have to say about your opinions the wrong way. I'm sure in real life we could be good friends. I was initially going to suggest you should run for Admin, then I was disappointed to read the rest of your post. The key to AGF is being able to step back and question your assumptions. I never said I was unfamiliar with this project, for example. I browse, I lurk. I will eschew further examples for brevity.

I have never edited here because I already have enough to keep me occupied on other projects. An LTA would go on the offensive in that situation, sure. So would someone who is being indirectly insulted by effective being called a moron, on the assumption that zero edits to his project equals zero knowledge of its basic aspects (AN/I, ArbCom). And indeed basic movement wide principles and standards, such as assume good faith and respect your fellow editors.

The very fact you want me to prove my knowledge comes from legitimate experience elsewhere not an undisclosed history here, is the very height of bad faith. There are perfectly valid (and indeed entirely innocuous) reasons why I did not use my other accounts to start this proposal or why I chose this to be my jumping off point. Has anyone even asked, and in a way that gives me confidence the answers would be taken seriously? No. Bad faith.

I aspire to the highest standards of keeping emotion out of my posts, but if I have failed here, my tone was surely set by being forced into a defensive posture by an extremely hostile immediate indefinite block placed with minimal explanation and zero prior engagement (all contrary to local policy). With your clarification, the default and seemingly immovable assumption is that doing what I did as my first edit, is proof I am a suspicious user, so everything I say in my defence, is surely a lie. It is insufficient to merely say you take AGF seriously, you need need show it.

My skills in reading a consensus are movement wide. Did you for example seriously give equal weight between people whose entire opinion was merely to parrot EEng's personal attacks, and those who said personal attacks are not humour? The former are zero weighted, the latter maximally weighted. This is movement level stuff. CIR stuff.

Local Administrators should be aware of this and respect it in everything they do. They need need do this even if it makes them deeply unpopular. Could you demonstrate this capability at RfA? If not, are you sure your have the right to question my right to be commenting at AN/I even if I proved experience elsewhere is the source of my confidence in my competence? Zero edits to this project does not make me a fool.

In that regard, I am interested in your specific take on one glaring issue. Put yourself in the shoes of a potential Administrator. In the face of criticism, even from opposers of Fram's proposal as presented, EEng's alternate suggestion that Talk:AN/I should be some kind of comedy interpretation facility for the humour impaired, was an eye opener. It reads to me as either an attempt to troll his own defenders or ironically a clear sign of his own CIR issues. Does that sit well with you at this time? Are you sure your views of EEng are sound? Evidence based?

I urge you to question your assumptions, especially the good faith of those who do seem to have franky had quite enough of the whole thing and think the time has long passed for negotiation and compromise. They are finding it farcical. A clear sign of major disruption ahead. Suggesting arbitration is not disruptive, it is a good faith attempt to compromise without compromising fundamental values. If the drama that is EEng@AN/I is preventing clarity of consensus, suddenly it doesn't seem so unlikely that a community referral is impossible.

If I was really only here to mess with people and waste their time, I would raise the possibility with you all that one way to test a local community's willingness to uphold movement principles, is to put them in a situation like this and se what happens. A situation where it is incredibly tempting and indeed in your own selfish interests to react to a newcomer with parochial aggression and virtually no adherence to even your own local policies, much less movement principles. But I truly am not that evil.

Do I absolutely know for sure that this level of disruption (seriousness times duration) is at the level where ArbCom would typically want to get involved? I guess not. But every dispute is different and is judged on its demerits. There are many here, with humour being only one source of friction with site policy. Edit warring, personal attacks, talk page archiving. All serious issues in their own right.

Perhaps this is still not enough for an Arbitration Case and I am in error. Does that mean I deserve to be instantly blocked and be required I show my credentials? For making one edit! Absolutely, one hundred percent not. It should suffice to point out the bad faith that underpins this block and the rather obvious fact the potential for disruption has disappeared. Or do you think me such a fool that the very first thing I would do when unblocked, is restore my proposal to the noticeboard?

The Foundation gives wide leeway. The assumption is that this freedom is used wisely.

YonkerDonk (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Assume good faith does not mean accepting things on blind faith in the face of inadequately explained odd behavior. If you aren't going to make a new unblock request for someone else to review, there is nothing more to do here. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

IP block

With regard to Yamla's block of the IP for block evasion, it seems to me from the context that YonkerDonk edited while logged out inadvertently, especially since there would be no reason for him or her to evade the block on his or her own talkpage. Whatever other issues may exist here, I believe the (subsequently reverted) IP edit should not be considered an infraction. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I don't think that anything this user does is inadvertent, irrational to legitimate editors perhaps, but not accidental. I also suspect that this user is WP:BKFIP.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bbb23: If that ID is the case, I'll freely concede that you were right here all along. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)