User talk:JaredMcKenzie: Difference between revisions

Line 91: Line 91:

:::Also I see you constantly help other blocked editors too and try to set them on a better path. I think I sometimes forget that you are just a volunteer like everyone else and I did not mean to seem overly entitled of your advice. In fact, that’s the last impression I wanted to make. It’s just when I got TBed, I wasn’t seeking conflict but it felt difficult to navigate what seemed, to me, like an unfair situation. But you were a rare editor who at least gave the impression of impartiality or the feeling I wasn’t a bad editor that had to be culled. And I think having at least one editor willing to be friendly or fair, goes a surprisingly long way in helping de-escalate periods where frustration is running hot. That mattered more than you probably realise. You were also the first and only one to congratulate me after my first article was published. I never thanked you for that but I should. Such small gestures makes a real difference on wiki for newer or struggling editors. It’s possible we won’t interact again – there isn’t really much I can think of that I need to raise with you in the future, now after this question has been answered – but I didn’t want to leave without properly expressing my thanks. So from the bottom of my heart, thank you for just being there in the harder times. With appreciation, and wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. 🙂 [[User:JaredMcKenzie|JaredMcKenzie]] ([[User talk:JaredMcKenzie#top|talk]]) 06:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

::::Aw that means a lot, I don’t edit the main Wikipedia much but I’ve found I’m good at de-escalation and spending time that admins don’t have to explain things, so I’m glad it helps! Same to you! [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 06:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

== Brainstorm Policy Essay: On Topic Blocks and the Need for Clearer Awareness ==

===Intro===

I been topic blocked and one cited reason is arguing against community consensus. Except I truly don’t even know how that applies to me. I probably should ask to clarify tho. But the purpose of this essay is not to ask for an immediate appeal. It’s to share a perspective from real world examples that may help editors understand what led to a block and how to improve. After having asked a trusted editor for advice, I am aware realistically admins are volunteers who gets heaps of drama. Realistically my chances of appeal is better if I focus on gaining experience, in being more diplomatic on talk, reading all the rules in a noticeboard, and learning to be brief on talk. Over time, when I feel I got this under wrap – I will appeal.

===The problem===

The issue is when you are told to improve but not sure if all sides have the right idea. I am fairly sure I have ”unintentionally” broken two DRN rules, and repeated myself too many times on talk and that catapulted my topic ban. But is that really the reason why I got topic blocked? Just for that? These things seems like rookie mistakes that should have resulted in a warning first. And a block if then ignored.

The thing is the mind can go wild thinking but it could just be better if the Wikipedia community ensure to list all the reasons why the topic block is being applied to them. Even more so if that person believes some of the charges are based on wrongful impressions.

===My case===

For background of my case – the following events happened.

1. On talk, I had a disagreement over an edit. One of the issues was another claimed my proposed edits () failed original research and apparently some other policies in which I just cannot agree at all. So I filed a DRN Case.

2. Some time later, I see another editor revert edits on the page that aren’t disputed but they say it need to be all rolled back to pre-dispute version. So I sent them a message on talk, explaining those edits aren’t disputed and the disputed edits hasn’t even been restored. They instead insult my integrity on their talk and we couldn’t agree. I believe they were overreaching so I reported them on ANI to let community decide if it’s overreaching.

3. However by just reporting on ANI, I simultaneously violated DRN rules that stipulate no reporting of anyone on ANI in relation to a disputed article. Also no editing of the article. I really didn’t know these rule but it was a rookie mistake.

4. But from my end, I tried to do everything by the book. (Albeit failed)

5. On ANI, some listed reasons for topic block was that I harass people until they get tired and that I repeat myself too much. I am aware I could benefit from being more diplomatic in talk and not be so blunt when I genuinely think others are wrong on policies like original research. I can learn to respond without repeating myself too many times. But besides these two failings (which I can admit to), what exactly else am I meant to convince the community that I won’t do again?

6. I previously created a draft appeal[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JaredMcKenzie&diff=prev&oldid=1321417381] where I had listed some possible reasons for my block that are wrong. On ANI, people claimed I ”knew” my proposed edit failed content policies and so my tactic was to tire others out until they can’t argue. That’s unfair and not true at all – as after we reached an impasse, my last message to them was “we cannot agree so I will take this to DRN for the mod to resolve for us”. And I did. What else was I to do when we could not agree?

=== Why A Possibly Better Way?===

I acknowledge I do have failings. I am aware of two things to work on – to improve to be more diplomatic in talk and keep talk messages brief. But I am just not that convinced these two things alone are serious enough for a topic block especially for a first time block. That uncertainty is why it may be ideal to ensure topic blocked editors minimally know all the things they done wrong so they can be aware, in order to improve. Additionally there may be certain rules they are not aware of, let alone if they broken it.

I can understand everyone is a volunteer and it can be complicated to just request ”neutral” parties to review and explain every details as it can be time consuming and complicated. My block also wasn’t made from a single editor but the community, which included certain familiar editors that I sincerely cannot trust to be impartial. However in certain cases, greater clarity can help editors learn.

[[User:JaredMcKenzie|JaredMcKenzie]] ([[User talk:JaredMcKenzie#top|talk]]) 05:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

:It all sounds very complicated, but it isn’t.

:It comes down to this: On any topic that’s even a little bit complicated, a person can legitimately “do their homework” – research, study, experience, everything – and still accidentally reach wrong conclusions. As topics get more complicated, the number of accidental wrong conclusions goes up.

:Nobody is immune to this. Top people in every field have made seriously wrong conclusions about subjects they’re experts in. But they’re usually not hurt by that, because they usually know what to do next.

:The people who are hurt the most by this problem are the ones who haven’t yet found good ways to react when they find out they’ve reached a wrong conclusion, and who maybe haven’t seen for themselves that responsible intelligent diligent people who have done their research are very often wrong on important points. The people getting hurt often treat complicated topics the same way they treat simple ones: find the one single answer that is right, and all other answers must be wrong.

:Complicated topics can’t work that way. They have multi-part answers that depend on a lot of different things, and there’s no such thing as the one right answer. They’re full of “if” and “but” and “depending”. Reducing them to simple yes/no and right/wrong, getting the ambiguity out of the picture, feels really good and refreshing, but is a complete failure.

:The way we find out we’ve made wrong conclusions on complicated topics is when other people tell us “you’re wrong about that part”. It’s unpleasant, but it’s the way it goes.

:And here is exactly the one thing you personally need most out of all this:

:On Wikipedia, you are surrounded by hundreds and hundreds of people who have ”all” done their homework ”just as carefully and correctly as you have”. More correctly and more carefully, in fact, on certain topics (yes, that one especially). Maybe less on some others. The point is, they’re your actual equals, in every single way that counts. They are just as skilled as you, and just as intelligent, and just as perceptive. When a group of them strongly agree that you’ve reached a wrong conclusion on a complicated topic, it’s not because they haven’t done their homework; it’s because your own homework was inadequate and needs correction and expansion.

:None of them has anything against you personally, as far as I can tell. They all qualify as neutral, in the way that word is really used. (I think you might be using “neutral” to mean “didn’t disagree with me”, which is not going to fly.) If any of them does actually have a prejudice against you now, they’ll be eager to cut themselves out of any discussion anyway.

:And sure, idiots are on Wikipedia too. But I’ve seen some of the conflicts you were involved in here, and not one of those people was an idiot. In fact, not one of them was even a tiny step below you in any way. (Maybe some idiot picked a fight with you when I didn’t see, but I saw quite a few fights and no idiots.)

:The stuff they said in those discussions was all true. There’s nothing for you to interpret, because “exactly everything they said, exactly how they said it” IS the interpretation. They were very careful to not be misunderstood. So don’t interpret. Don’t wonder how to filter it. Learn from ”their” words, instead of making up other things you’d prefer to learn.

:(Wishing I could add audio of Thelonious Monk’s “Straight, No Chaser”.) 🙂 [[User:TooManyFingers|TooManyFingers]] ([[User talk:TooManyFingers|talk]]) 07:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

::@[[User:TooManyFingers|TooManyFingers]] It was just HEB alone uniquely saying my edit isn’t supported by sources, and I argued with him over this. But my disputed edit is supported by sources and this was also confirmed by my ”mentor” Aaron, who also said it is correct in spirit.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1315826401&title=Talk:Political_status_of_Taiwan] So there was already a 2-to-1 consensus that my edit was indeed supported. Regardless I consider this TB as a time-out period to learn the basics. HEB wasn’t an easy user to deal with. He is too experienced to believe my edit wasn’t supported by sources. As seen in this thread, there is a long list of complaints on him being a difficult user to interact with.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1326058240] To improve, I needed a set of rules specifically that can work even with the more difficult users as I cannot let others bait me or make me argue with them endlessly. If they say my edit isn’t sourced and I believe they are flat out wrong, I need to not bludgeon them by trying to reach them with explanations, or reply endlessly. I should follow these 6 rules instead.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JaredMcKenzie#My_6_rules] [[User:JaredMcKenzie|JaredMcKenzie]] ([[User talk:JaredMcKenzie#top|talk]]) 09:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe keep this essay in your sandbox for the moment? Since Talk pages are for editors to talk to each other, you’re going to get responses from other people whilst it’s up here. Since you want to knuckle down & get back to editing, this might be a bit too distracting for you 🙂 [[User:Blue-Sonnet|Blue Sonnet]] ([[User talk:Blue-Sonnet|talk]]) 12:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

== [[WP:AfC|AfC]] notification: [[Draft:Sprained wrist]] has a new comment ==

Archives

Hi JaredMcKenzie! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 08:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per community consensus established in this discussion at AN/I, you are indefinitely topic banned from the topic of Taiwan, broadly construed. As this is a community ban, it can only be revoked by community consensus, e.g. via another discussion at AN or similar. As such once you consider that your editing history from this point reflects adequately on your ability to edit non problematically in this area, you may ask the community for the ban to be undone. Mfield (Oi!) 05:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfield I thought I had it figured out. Don’t edit any Wikipedia’s articles on Taiwan and anything relating to it. However, could you maybe clarify on something? I just want to know what is the line, and what is meant by broadly construed as I do not intent to break the topic block. I written an essay where I reflected on politically sensitive topics on my own talk page, and talked about Taiwan and it appears I am not allowed to even do that? Can you maybe explain in finer details what I can and can’t do with this topic ban? Can I for example edit NVIDIA which has a manufacturing base in Taiwan and a Taiwanese CEO but is an American company. Is the topic ban even barring those topics or is it safe, despite it has arbitrary links? What about Feng Shui which is central to Chinese culture and also Taiwan (and probably mentions Taiwan). Just want to get a rough idea on how broad this is. And yes, I read this [1] but it’s not exactly detailed enough. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are basically not to discuss the issue anywhere on Wikipedia. Editing Feng Shui probably is exempt but it depends on what exactly you are doing there. Exact boundaries cannot be established in general, applicable to all cases, but testing out the boundaries is generally frowned upon. If I were you I would take this draft appeal, below, and put it in draft space, otherwise it’s very distracting. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @JaredMcKenzie, I’ve replied to your post on my Talk but didn’t realise you’d changed it to a basic list – I second the suggestion to move this to a draft or your sandbox so it’s not smack-bang in the middle of your Talk page for the reasons given on my own Talk. Good luck and have fun editing! Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your honest feedback. It’s harsh but what I needed to know. I felt others didn’t even care to validate claims and that frustrates. But I know how hard it is to read everything and know admins are constantly exposed to similar complaints of others feeling wronged. They need less drama. I trust your judgement. Realistically tho, it will be a while to build enough history, edits and good will. Possibly up to two years of work and maybe I will appeal then. Meanwhile, I will certainly try this Picasso reductive philosophy. Not just for editing but also to simplify life. I really like the way you described his style. 🙂 JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m glad I could help, I’m sure you’ll do great! Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add a comment here as I was off wiki for a few days and have looked through the interactions here since I returned. I would encourage JaredMcKenzie to forget the indefinite duration of the topic ban, and continue contributing to areas that do not encroach on that topic area. Furthermore not to look at the topic block in terms of a duration, rather in terms of when the community will accept they are once again able to contribute positively in that area. As such please don’t look at it in terms of time of what can I edit and for how long to remove this restriction, rather look at the spirit of the restriction. It was enacted for reasons that need to be addressed for it to be revoked. Some of those reasons include arguing against community consensus. The best way of addressing that is to try and contribute for as long as possible well clear of the topic ban area, in ways that demonstrate the ability to edit within the framework of a community editing project. Noting that getting into disputes is part of that, it’s how you are able to resolve them that is key. Mfield (Oi!) 07:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if you need any help, reach out and ask. If you find yourself getting into a argument about an edit, there’s always resources in the community, and uninvolved editors willing to help you work through it if you can remain focused on the core principles and keep calm. Mfield (Oi!) 07:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfield Your advice is excellent but there’s just one point that has been bothering me. You specifically mentioned “some of the reason include arguing against community consensus”. This was according to who? Maybe I have a wrong understanding and maybe you have the wrong impression. Am I indef topic blocked for something I didn’t do?

In case you are not familiar, this is a summary of talk[2] progress – there’s generally just me, Arron, Amigao and horse in talk. At first, nobody seem to claim info was wrong. But Amigao briefly mention my source is mere opinion. Both myself and Aaron do not agree with Amigao and request explanation.[3] In a middle of dispute, horse claimed edit violate WP:OR. But Aaron said my key source does say all this[4], and also is good in spirit but could benefit from some rewording.[5] Horse’s FINAL reply didn’t oppose Arron when he said my edit was supported by source and even agreed “could work” in spirit but then vaguely stated something about wording and makes a backhand comment that I am not able to be worked with and leaves conversation.[6] I ask them to clarify better but they don’t. (Technically a Consensus has formed that my edit was correct in spirit and is sourced) At that point, there was no sufficiently clear reasons to oppose. Now in hindsight, instead of DRN – I should have just reported horse to ANI for possible conduct. [7] But I had to assume good faith and maybe stupidly I wanted to be thorough. So I asked Horse if he agreed but they just won’t answer so told them I escalate to DRN and requested that they clearly explain any opposition so I can represent their position accurately.[8] They never responded but after waiting long enough, I filed at DRN as recommended via dispute resolution protocol.

The thing is if the driving reason I am topic blocked is because I had “argued against community consensus”. Then I am just not sure I even did that. No formal RFC or broader input ever states that my specific proposed edit is not to be added. From my pov, I wasn’t opposing consensus but working hard to create one through the proper channels like DRN.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To put it simply you are arguing against community consensus by attempting to re-litigate this community decision here rather than accepting it and moving on. This has nothing to do with the original argument. If you continue to do this, or to attempt to argue for a re-evaluation of your ban before one is likely to succeed, you are going to further test the patience of the community, possibly beyond repair. Nothing you post on your talk page is going to affect, or even be taken into consideration, in any future reconsideration of your ban, the only thing that will really be considered are your article space edits and contributions so I strongly suggest you focus all your attention on those. I note that since your ban the majority of your edits have been to your own talk page rather than to any article or other space. That is not exactly demonstrating your desire to contribute constructively to this community project. Mfield (Oi!) 06:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Sprained ankle and created and submitted a new draft article for Sprained wrist on my own, since my topic block. I am not asking for a parade but it’s not like I haven’t contributed sincerely. And I am still bit confused but am hesitant to even ask you now as you might just misinterpret it as re-litigating the case. You said reason for my topic block was for (arguing against community Consensus). Do you mean I argued against a community consensus in the ANI thread? And my topic block wasn’t for arguing against any (non-existent) community consensus opposing my edit for a wiki article? Is that correct or am I still misunderstanding? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s good that you’re sincerely trying to edit, it’s just that your time is much better spent on the main parts of Wikipedia rather than your own Talk page. If you want to challenge your block in the future and an admin sees that most of your edits are here instead of mainspace, it could potentially harm your appeal. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfield I wasn’t trying to start something. Maybe this is just a case of miscommunication but there’s a big difference between saying – (you got blocked because you had argued against community consensus) vs (after your block, please do not argue against community consensus for your block). I will assume you only meant the latter and not the former given your second reply to clarify. Unless I am mistaken, at the advice of Blue Sonnet (who I genuinely believe wants to help me) – I will drop it and focus attention on article space edits and contributions, as you recommend. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we’re drawing the line for a fresh start here! Lookie, here it is:

_____________________________________

Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simply be like Picasso[9] and focus on editing for a while, until ready to appeal.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also read research suggests that persuasion is most at risk of “backfire effect” (Belief perseverance) when another’s identity is being threatened by certain info.[10] However I do not want to lose my integrity. To convince editors in future, to accept certain info, I may need to be minimally learn to be less blunt and instead frame sensitive info in such a way that it won’t strongly activate that identity concept in others, and thus a better strategy of avoiding heated disputes in the future.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrote a personal essay reflecting on the block and outlining a protocol for handling disputes on Wikipedia.[11]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found insight that can potentially help deter disputes or resolve them more easily[12]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Observed and reflected on Wikipedia culture. Accuracy matters, but so do tone and a willingness to work within its established processes.[13]JaredMcKenzie (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I’ll be honest, when you removed my previous comment I was all but certain you were heading for an indefinite block on not here grounds, but the removal of the appeal and the rest of the stuff that had come above it is a huge step in the right direction. Perhaps there is yet hope for you. You got heart, and you got grit, what you need to learn is patience and tolerance, and with enough time and interaction with the community those should start to become second nature. It’s a frustrating thing – believe me I know, most of my early contributions were axed with my not having much say in them and my vicious defense lead to accusations of ownership and canvassing – but if I was able to overcome those pitfalls you can too. Hang tough brother, you’ll get through this, just take it slow and steady and you’ll find your groove soon enough. ~2025-32335-60 (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brah, who even are you? I will be blunt. If I plan to appeal, it may be up to 2 years. But I am not going to straight up ask in a few weeks. I build up enough edits and history first. As this ain’t my day job, it may take a while to find my new groove. Still may appeal on basis of injustice [14] But will rely less on admins’ empathetic bandwidth and more on my own hard work and grit.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you’ve asked, the temp accounts who left you messages here and here belong to me. I’ve been reluctant to log into Wikipedia of late due to persistent ongoing resentment over needing to log into email to obtain an access code prove I am who I am to get access to my account. Thought you might like to know 🙂 TomStar81 (Talk) 20:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t give my email to Wikipedia; I just rely on a password to log in. I do appreciate the friendly encouragement and always welcome experienced editors who come to advise me, not to undermine me. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 Blue-Sonnet Since both of you commented on my talk on TB and have expertise on the matter, I was hoping you could give me seasoned advice. I created this draft appeal for 1 or 2 years time, that simply just apologise and demonstrate through actions over a long editing period.[15] The issue is when I read that draft, it feels a bit silly and extreme to apologise for simply asking another editor to explain their position so I can relay it fairly to DRN. It doesn’t seem to warrant an indef or any punishment. A warning may even be a bit too much just for that. So am considering filing the below to WP:AN instead to appeal a block on the basis it’s illegal or overly harsh, and I am confident I got all the facts right here, to go through fair scrutiny from WP:AN.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review on basis of possible (Violation on TB policy)

I like to request a review of my TB on the basis it may be illegal, or overly harsh. The main reason for my TB – seems to be on “undue harassment and ignoring reasons for reverts of my edits”.[16] I am concerned most people who voted for my TB, who wasn’t even part of that dispute, just went along with such claims without fairly verifying it. It’s been a while so for those unfamiliar, I made a number of edits to an article. They all got reverted despite I believe there were no valid reason to undo them. I managed to resolve one revert with an editor.[17] But I had issues resolving others with a different editor. They said my sources were insufficient and also it was original research (for specific edit).

So I went to the RS noticeboard and they agreed I had sufficient sources, and one user – Gotitbro say the info I wanted to add wasn’t even controversial and it should be on any encyclopaedia.[18] My mentor, also confirmed the other editor was wrong for saying a specific edit is original research, and outlined that my sources does support all that.[19] However I think my righteousness got the better of me. After the persistent complaints on my edits were finally disproven by others, I indeed repeatedly asked that other editor multiple times on what other issues he still has with the edit. They refused to give one so I told him I will file a DRN and relay his issues to DRN, as he can’t stonewall and ignore the discussion.[20][21][

However my “strategy” was not wanting to tire them out but merely properly give a reasonable waiting time, and a reminder I would take this to DRN to resolve (and also I later did)[22], but wanted to give them a fair chance to explain their position clearly so I can relay that over to DRN. I believed that was the fair thing to do and don’t think that can be deemed as “Harrassment” or ignoring valid reasons to revert my edits.

Given all this, does my actions truly warrant an indefinite level TB or is that overly harsh? If it is harsh, I think my TB should be reviewed. I do admit I had also unintentionally broke DRN rules but that was not deliberate (just didn’t read all the rules) but I don’t think a first-time offence, especially one involving an unwitting breach of DRN rules – warrants an indefinite block.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, my poor line got squished…

I’ve spent 15-20mins looking through the original ANI thread to refresh my memory.

The majority of editors who voted for the ban are experienced, seasoned Wikipedia veterans, some with hundreds of thousands of edits under their belt. There are even one or two admins.

You’d essentially be saying that all of them are wrong and/or didn’t take the matter seriously when they made their decision. Those editors have been here long enough to understand the impact that a topic ban has on someone, and when it is/is not appropriate to use.

I see TBAN’s as sort of time-out – time away from a subject where an editor feels so strongly that they need external help to shift their perspective and work in other areas. Time to get back to basics and re-learn the fundamentals of editing Wikipedia.

Once they’ve been hard at work in unrelated areas for at least six months (longer is better though), then they can come back to AN and show that they can be trusted to edit productively in what used to be a problem area.

I’ll be totally honest for your own sake – it’s barely been a month and you’ve been doing fine so far. Since concerns were raised over the ability to let things go, I think that an appeal would be a spectacularly bad idea at this point.

Don’t shoot yourself in the foot when you’ve barely started running. Blue Sonnet (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue-Sonnet In that case, despite it feels harsh – I have decided on just letting the time pass by (a time-out), and showing that my block should be lifted on the basis of a very long proven editing history without issues. Rather than sending admins this righteous letter stating my block is illegal. Which I can understand may be a bit too confrontational. I am sorry if I had put you in an uncomfortable situation here.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, glad to help! Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I see you constantly help other blocked editors too and try to set them on a better path. I think I sometimes forget that you are just a volunteer like everyone else and I did not mean to seem overly entitled of your advice. In fact, that’s the last impression I wanted to make. It’s just when I got TBed, I wasn’t seeking conflict but it felt difficult to navigate what seemed, to me, like an unfair situation. But you were a rare editor who at least gave the impression of impartiality or the feeling I wasn’t a bad editor that had to be culled. And I think having at least one editor willing to be friendly or fair, goes a surprisingly long way in helping de-escalate periods where frustration is running hot. That mattered more than you probably realise. You were also the first and only one to congratulate me after my first article was published. I never thanked you for that but I should. Such small gestures makes a real difference on wiki for newer or struggling editors. It’s possible we won’t interact again – there isn’t really much I can think of that I need to raise with you in the future, now after this question has been answered – but I didn’t want to leave without properly expressing my thanks. So from the bottom of my heart, thank you for just being there in the harder times. With appreciation, and wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. 🙂 JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aw that means a lot, I don’t edit the main Wikipedia much but I’ve found I’m good at de-escalation and spending time that admins don’t have to explain things, so I’m glad it helps! Same to you! Blue Sonnet (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, keep up the good work! Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing and approving my article so quickly. I really appreciate your time and effort. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lately I been trying to be like Picasso or being more brief on talk threads as recommended by Blue Sonnet. I got to admit I still have room for improvement. [23][24][25]

But I did notice a pattern. Example is in the past when it came to an ANI discussion on TW, I could feel the crowd moving against me when I am a mere messenger of an unpopular truth. Subconsciously I want to disengage from that as already feel it’s a pointless discussion dealing with perceived political drama, while also need to explain why I am right to others.

But most overlong talk posts happen when I am doing two things at once:

explaining why I am right

also explaining why I am done talking

Doing both was always unnecessary and doubles the length.

To avoid this trap – I should follow a simple protocol – Decide first whether you want to persuade or disengage. Never try to do both.

If I want to disengage in the future, all I simply need to do is state only;

For example in a recent Borscht talk thread, I def didn’t do that but both disengaged, and also additionally explaining why I disengage and also why the article is not perfect lol.[26]

Can’t change it now as it’s been replied to, but what I should had done is simply say;

“I have reviewed the archives. Given the ongoing contention around origins, I am fine with the current article and won’t pursue this further”

There’s no need to add further, if you are done with that discussion, and moving on.

This is something I should had also done with key disputed talk threads too. If others for example – claim your edit is not supported by sources and you disagree. You can simply disengage and say you don’t agree. You don’t also need to explain why you don’t agree, if the discussion has reached its productive end. Doing so – results in endless back and forth discussions that goes nowhere.

Whereas if you wish to persuade, drop everything about the politics, emotions, motivations etc but stick only to the sources. Then stop. There’s no need for more than that, if it’s clear. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment