Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Vector 2022. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 07:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I would suggest the same to you, i consider detrimental website upgrades with no opt out unless i use an account to be unconstructive to my usage of wikipedia. this isn't vandalism, this is protest. ban me all you like, you've lost a donator today who has contributed hundreds of dollars to wikipedia over the years. VoidseekerNZ ( talk) 07:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC) reply

So you think I like the update? The older skin is something I'm used to, so I'm more comfortable with it, and all the options are visible on the left side and top right. However you shouldn't protest like that, and someone will probably revert that anyway. —  Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 07:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC) reply

does it really matter what you like? you're currently the representative of wikipedia talking to me in an authoritative manner and i'm not feeling very cordial towards wikipedia as an org right now. decades of good will is currently being burnt up - hope whoever is up there in charge of this process is happy with the response.

and i don't see why my latest edit should be reverted, i'm just communicating information that isn't on there currently on the inability to revert from the new skin, so that other people like myself don't waste their time trying to find out how. if there is a formatting error or i didn't write it clear enough, then my apologies, but other than that i feel like it's a vauable contribution that is adding further info. VoidseekerNZ ( talk) 07:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I was referring to this edit where you changed "desktop" to "hackjob". —  Nythar ( 💬- ❄️) 08:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC) reply

I figure I should address the comments about donations and representatives. Your donations go to the WMF, which runs the servers. Not to Nythar or editors generally, who are volunteers. Nythar probably had no involvement in the WMF's decision regarding the new skin, nor are volunteer editors collectively part of an "org" - only a "community". CharredShorthand ( talk) 19:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

sure, but they are an active representatitve of wikimedia. VoidseekerNZ ( talk) 23:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC) reply

No: our volunteers are just that - volunteers. We do not represent Wikimedia, and we offer our views about conforming to community norms more on behalf of that community of editors, and not some organisation. Even as an administrator here, I still don't represent Wikimedia. I've simply been given the trust of the English editing community which gave me a few extra tools to help run this volunteer project for the good of everyone. I don't think from what you've said that you'll be around much longer, but you can always revert to the old skin by going to Preferences>Appearance and selecting Vector legacy (2010). Regards, Nick Moyes ( talk) 13:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

What makes you think they represent the Wikimedia Foundation? (I checked their userpage before my first reply here to see if anything there indicated that they were associated with the WMF - former board member? Former dev? I didn't see anything.) CharredShorthand ( talk) 14:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

im sorry but i dont even know what the wikimedia founation is, i keep hearing this term. i mean they are representing wikimedia and commenting to me to correct my behaviour like a spokesperson of wikimedia so i assumed they are a representative of some sort. VoidseekerNZ ( talk) 02:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

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 ~~~~}}.   ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 01:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

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).

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

---

Request reason:

hi there, my apologies for that arbitration post. i was just making a post on teahouse asking how to revert that as i needed assisstance so i am glad you noticed quickly and removed said post. that was a complete mistake and i was not intentionally trying to post that. i am sorry and i will stop touching things. i wasnt trying to post, i was simply trying to preview using the "publish changes" button as that was where the preview thing was but i think i hit the button too many times and it went live. as you could see it was unfinished and i still had not decided if i was going to publish it. from now on i will just stop touchig things and i will stop messing around with forms i dont understand. if you want to leave me banned then that is understandable but i want it known i was not intentionally trying to be disruptive and will be more careful in future. thank you for reading and sorry for bothering everyone VoidseekerNZ ( talk) 02:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

You said similar things following a block at Commons, and then proceeded to vandalize and abusively sock over there (after which your account was globally locked), so I am not convinced and presently believe this block is still necessary to prevent disruption to the project. If you successfully appeal the global lock, you may formulate another unblock request to convince us that there are good reasons to unblock you. DanCherek ( talk) 03:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply

---

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.

Hi VoidseekerNZ, looking at the timing of your 2023-01-19T07:01:10 complaint about the Vector2022 skin that was introduced a day before, and your 2023-01-19T07:08:17 attempt to revoke a free license, the impression of someone angrily attempting to remove their image from a website because of unhappiness about a design change arises. Please take a moment to confirm or correct this impression. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 02:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

hey there ToBeFree, sorry if i am replying to this incorrectly. i think i got that tag right. im sorry i totally understand that interpretation of events. but i did not know these photos were on here. it is terribly unfortunate timing and a bad outburst on my part. i understand that that was a bad choice and i regret doing it and have refrained from making any further edits of that nature regarding vector or any of that nature and have done my best to stay out of it and even avoid completely mentioning it in the other threads as it is not relevant despite me still being just as unhappy about vector 2022 as i was when i made the comments, but i am refraining from further outburts. i only discovered these photos on my account whilst clicking around my talk page trying to change the vector skin. i never uploaded this specific photo and did not know it was on the internet in any capacity, let alone in the largest resolution i own with zero watermark. please understand that i have limited understanding of this site and i am just frustrated at the moment and trying to find resolution so i can also leave this website in peace. for what it's worth i knew posting that arb request was a bad idea and i likely would have changed my mind had i not accidentally published. im sorry again for this latest mistake which was my fault, i will stop messing around with things i dont understand. i just hope someone takes pity on me at some point and helps me with my issues because i am still terribly upset and lost amongst this whole system and just want my photos taken down. thank you for your time sorry again if i did this wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by VoidseekerNZ ( talk • contribs) 03:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The tag is correct, only a signature was missing, so no notification was sent. No worries though: I am automatically notified about new messages in this discussion.

Okay, this is technically possible and not as absurd as I had expected any other explanation to be. It's plausible enough to me personally that I'm fine with assuming it's correct. Especially as the photo/license matter is more relevant to Wikimedia Commons than the English Wikipedia.

So let's focus on the English Wikipedia contributions that led to the block.

• You regret the Vector2022-related edits and assure that such disruption won't happen again. I do find this credible; there is probably no reason to expect further similar disruption after an unblock.
• You have accidentally published a request for arbitration regarding a license discussion on Wikimedia Commons. While Wikimedia Commons has no arbitration committee (see commons:COM:Arbitration), the dispute resolution processes of the English Wikipedia are unlikely to be what you're looking for.

I think the easiest way for you to return to editing the English Wikipedia is taking the following approach:

• Withdrawing the unblock request for now,
• waiting for the Wikimedia Commons license discussion to finish and the Vector2022 discussions to cool down, perhaps even for the current RfC about the skin to be formally closed after probably about 30 days.
• Taking the time to compile a small list of specific edits you'd like to make, but which are currently prevented by the block.
• Creating a new unblock request that addresses the following points:
  • Which actions led to the block?
  • Why can we be sure that this won't happen again? (This point should be easy to answer when the license discussion and the RfC have finished)
  • Which contributions are currently prevented by the block? Which improvements in which specific articles? The task center contains helpful ideas.

If you do so in a concise, specific way, there won't be a reason to decline the request.

All the best,
~ ToBeFree ( talk) 03:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

okay thanks for your kind and considered response. i didnt even realise i was on wikipedia arbcom. oops. i keep doing that, my mistake.

through the commons:COM:Arbitration link i see something that might actually relevant? should i ask for dispute resolution through that as that seems more relevant? or would you suggest i just don't touch that? if i shouldn't touch that then i categorically WONT touch that. but my issue is i keep asking people things and people dont tell me. i asked multiple times on discord and teahouse and other places for assistance in how i SHOULD be escalating this. i am not trying to create issues, these are all attempted good faith edits that i do not know how to do and am struggling to find help with. please note that now that i can neither comment in teahouse nor discord due to blocks or bans i have no sources of assistance and am completely in the dark. thank you VoidseekerNZ ( talk) 03:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Again, no worries. Especially as images uploaded "to the English Wikipedia" are automatically uploaded to Wikimedia Commons instead, this is a common confusion. If you believed you were writing to the (non-existent) Wikimedia Commons arbitration committee, and now understand that such an institution doesn't exist, this is one more reason for the English Wikipedia community to believe that there won't be further disruption here.

At the moment, there is a deletion discussion ongoing on Wikimedia Commons, and starting parallel requests at other venues is unlikely to help anyone. If the discussion does not end in deletion and you would like to challenge the result of the closed deletion discussion, that is a new situation that should probably not be evaluated before it actually happens. If you give the Wikimedia Commons community some time to form a consensus, you can still take any appeal/escalation steps available on Wikimedia Commons afterwards.

Regarding your unblock request for the English Wikipedia, if you agree with taking the path described above, in the bulleted list, please write something like "I agree that requesting an unblock may be too early for now, and I'd like to create a new request in a few weeks or months". As there is no time limit on creating an unblock request, taking your time is usually beneficial. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 03:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

hi there this is not directly related to the block sorry, i just want to point out that there is a user who is taking advantage of my block to continue edit warring to add my image back into the wiki article despite the identity being unknown and contentious and multiple edits previously and a direct request to bring it to the talk page in future if they wish to reinstate the photo. please note they have ignored this and taken it upon themselves to add this photo which is currently clearly headed for consensus deletion. this is an edit war that this user is takin advantage of blocks to win, to upload misleading info, simply to prove a point and try spite me as they have made it clear in the deletion thread what their personal views of me are. i request wiki looks into this matter as regardless of what happens to my account, these actions erode the trust of large and pull unwitting readers who are just looking for knowledge into a misinformation fest that they dont deserve. thanks for your time, i hope you agree with me that this is concerning behaviour, im not trying to be petty i simply believe these actions are bad for wiki at large and these sorts of unconstructive edits need to be looked at. thank you

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Powelliphanta_patrickensis&action=history VoidseekerNZ ( talk) 21:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

While I think the intention of the policy exception is to allow sockpuppet contributions to be undone freely, the current wording of the edit warring policy is that "Reverting edits of banned or blocked users is not edit warring."

Again, please wait for the deletion discussion to be closed. There is nothing the English Wikipedia community can do to speed up this process. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 00:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply

also wow. i never saw the task centre on wiki til i saw your link just now. that looks fun. this is a shame. VoidseekerNZ ( talk) 04:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, if the task centre looks fun, that's ideal! There's no better way to appeal an "not here to build an encyclopedia" block than providing examples of encyclopedia-building that are prevented by the block. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 04:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

how do i make edits if i cant make edits though? also i understand sockpuppetry is not allowed. if i made a new account to make good faith edits doing nothing but task centre tasks will that get me in trouble VoidseekerNZ ( talk) 04:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

You don't actually make them. Instead, you can collect them in a text document on your computer. For example, such a text document could contain multiple lines like:

• [[Rainbow]]: Replace "meteoroloical" by "meteorological".
• [[Jupiter]]: The sentence "X" lacks a citation. Add "book Y, pages 123-124" as reference.
• [[Spam]]: The sentence "Y" is purely promotional. Remove it with an edit summary pointing to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Start a discussion on the article's talk page if someone disagrees.

You can later copy this list to an unblock request. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 04:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

you probably aren't the person to bother with these questions, sorry. i have one more though. where would be a suitable place to canvas editing advice for a user blocked on wikipedia and banned on discord VoidseekerNZ ( talk) 04:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

If the blocks on both platforms were completely independent of the idea you'd like to move to other platforms, we could perhaps think about platforms to recommend.

That's not the case, though, so the best advice is probably not to get blocked on even more platforms by raising the same question in multiple places again and again... ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 05:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

the reason im asking is so i can ask for advice about making constructive edits on wiki that have nothing to do with my deletion request VoidseekerNZ ( talk) 05:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Oh, sorry, I had misunderstood your question. While Wikipedia normally offers venues such as the Teahouse to new editors, you're currently in a situation where reading documentation (perhaps starting at WP:INTREF and clicking your way through the links) and searching for information yourself may be necessary. Policies and guidelines (with green and blue checkmarks such as at the top of WP:V and WP:RS) are worth having a closer look at. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 05:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

for what it's worth i have little interest in editing actual articles themselves, but i like the idea of all the organisational tasks i did not know wikipedia had. i will have questions arising around proper categorisation and organisation. but to my understanding i cannot use teahouse due to current blocks?

im sorry for spamming so much. i wish i still had discord but i dont even know if they take appeals. i will leave you alone, you have probably been the kindest and most reasonable person ive spoken to who has treated me most like human being throughout this whole experience and not like im some vindictive child. i really appreciate it. people like you are how i thought wikipedia admins would be like, calm, reasonable and able to listen and consider rationally. i appreciate your time and words. VoidseekerNZ ( talk) 05:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Help and a guideline about categories can be found at Help:Category and Wikipedia:Categorization. It is correct that asking at the Teahouse is currently not an option.

Thank you very much for the kind feedback and all the best. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 14:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• I'll just chime in... looking at your comments made on Wikimedia Commons, your edits on Wikipedia, and your messages on the Discord server, you have a very combative attitude towards anyone that disagrees with you. I take it that you are impatient over waiting for your image on Commons to be deleted, but you have acted in a very disruptive and rude manner to the volunteers that make Wikimedia work. We do block users who are rude and hostile to others because this is incompatible with the collaborative, consensus-based nature of operation here, which can only work if we do not interpret disagreements as attacks and can remain calm and composed even when we feel like we've been wronged. I am a photographer myself, and I can understand your frustration, but you should not be making comments and remarks while frustrated, lest you make comments that you'll regret later (casting aspersions is not appropriate no matter how you look at it). You need to step back and calm down before coming back here to engage with the situation with a clear, rational mind. Right now, you are trying to solve the problem while angry and agitated, and it is only making the problem worse. — k6ka 🍁 ( Talk · Contributions) 03:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  —k6ka

  before i get into the meat i will reply to that point on "casting aspersions" with that diff link you provided. i want to point out that i was highly confused at that point as there was no possible way that part of the events were true, and it subsequently turned out they werent and i was right that there was no likely way someone would have noticed that photo before my deletion was prevented. that photo was only added to the ceb article *after* it was brought to wider attention. so my suspicions on something being amiss were entirely correct as the facts being told were false in this instance.

  "you have a very combative attitude towards anyone that disagrees with you"

  yes i know im sorry i have been very upset at times. but i do not feel everyone else has acted perfectly either and i feel the spirit and integrity of wikipedia as a good faith organisation based on trust and respect has failed me in this case. and i say that with all due respect and a lot of admiration and even true awe for what wiki and its editors have manage to accomplished. i have had ambitions of editing but do not understand the framework and it is very complex or else i would spend a lot of time here but i do not know how to even start learning the website. but anyway i am digressing here.

  yes i have acted poorly. and i am sorry. but i am terribly upset and i just want to leave myself. this is not the way i want to be spending my week either. i just want to be treated in good faith and not have aspersions of lying cast on my character by multiple people, including admins! i acted extremely poorly at the start of this interaction and this was all my fault. especially in the deletion threads. but i was incredibly frustrated as that was the point i learnt i no longer had control over my work and it was out of my hands whether or not my IP would be respected. and that is a painful feeling. i know people don't agree, but it felt like i had just been betrayed by a close and dear friend i have relied on for all my life through thick and thin, then they steal one of the most precious things i own (the friend here being wikipedia). im not trying to be accusatory there but im just trying to give context for my mindset and how i was feeling at the time. add to that my confusion with wikis deletion process and at first i did not even know everything i was saying was going public. and by the time i realised it was i was incredibly frustrated and felt like the hole was already dug and the situation had already spiralled quickly out of my control due to these poor and false statements on my part i never meant to be shared. at that point i felt like i was backed into a wall and i still have no idea how to get my IP back.

  now, justifying my poor actions aside, i am sorry for all of this. i have made a lot of poor statements. i never meant for this to happen, nor do i like fighting with people either. i understand why people are even requesting blocks against me, this event has been disruptive for people involved. that being said i also want a quick resolution, i have wasted more time on this than anyone else!

  so i recognise that i have not always been helpful and have been actively harmful to this deletion process in some instances. but please understand, i also feel at least an equal amount of harm has been done against me. and i do not even ask that you even agree or admit or concur that i have had harm. but i just want it known that i felt that way, with no conditions expected in return. and i humbly offer my apologies expecting none in return. thank you, sorry. VoidseekerNZ ( talk) 03:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC) reply