User talk:York4044

This user is a student editor in York_University/Ethics_and_Economics_(Year_2019-20) .

Racialised Woman Discovering Wikipedia is a Hub of Bigotry Like Everywhere Else

It seems many editors like to engage in bigoted behaviour but draw the line at you calling them bigots. Of course you are to blame, angry Black woman you are. I am free to chat with other racialised women editors but I am not surprised women and racialised folks keep disappearing. I don't blame them. If you can see this, my account has not been blocked yet or some editor hasn't come to tell me I am violating the status quo err I mean Wikipedia policy.

PS: I keep my queries (misogyny, racism etc) up so you know what I have dealt with in the past but sometimes it is used against me — Preceding unsigned comment added by York4044 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External Reply

You misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. You might be happy if you could post what you wanted in articles, but what about other people who would like to post their ideas which might contradict yours? To resolve this, Wikipedia follows a set of policies summarized at WP:5P. I came here to post a standard notification which I will do very soon. Any further edits such as at Christopher Langan will result in a block, possibly indefinite judging by comments on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Christopher Langan opposes interracial marriages and believes in white genocide. Please explains how that is not a bigoted view?York4044 (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The world has seven billion people and many of them are bad. There are plenty of websites where you can post your views but Wikipedia is not one of them. Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq All I did was change the heading on the page from "views" to "bigoted views". I didn't know it was not common knowledge that racism was bigotry on Wikipedia. I will leave it alone though. Very tiring. York4044 (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, York4044, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, European exploration of Africa, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Nelson Mandela. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit

Hi! You should only mark something as a minor edit if you're doing something like fixing a grammatical error. Any time you add or greatly change content, it's not seen as minor. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at D'banj. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mahveotm (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly said allegations. York4044 (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of defamatory content

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to D'banj, especially if it involves living persons. Would you quit edit warring & adding poorly sourced content to the article. The last tweet/statement from the official Twitter page of the so called survivor admitted everything was a mere hoax / stunt. You have been warned previously by a different editor & now I’m warning you please be more careful next time when handling WP:BLP’s Celestina007 (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not defamatory content. York4044 (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to D’banj, especially if it involves living persons. Your second warning from me & your third all put together. Please stop or you may be blocked. Celestina007 (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is the content still defamatory exactly? I changed survivor to woman and used "allegations" and "alleging". The woman literally posted an account saying what I typed. It is okay if you want to edit it more but I don't get removing it entirely as though it never happened. What precisely is defamatory? York4044 (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at D’banj, you may be blocked from editing. Celestina007 (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol I want to know what you will give as the reason and "defamatory content" when there is "allegedly" literally everywhere. If you are so concerned, edit it yourself instead of removing it entirely. York4044 (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

York4044, till you show you are here to build an encyclopedia & follow simple instructions I’d continue to remove the defamatory Bullshit you keep adding to that article. What you are doing is beginning to constitute as vandalism. Keep it up & invariably you would be blocked. Celestina007 (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add defamatory content, as you did at D’banj. This is your 4th warning & 5th all together asking you to refrain from adding defamatory content from that article but rather seek consensus first at the talk page of that article if at all any of that controversial content be included but you have blatantly continued to disregard due process & act as though you have sovereign grand command. Celestina007 (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the defamatory content? Does allegedly have a different meaning these days? York4044 (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to know what your reason for blocking would be. You can go ahead and explain what exactly is defamatory. I have asked you multiple times but I am the one "POV pushing". Quite amusing. York4044 (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at D'banj. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note You need to step back and familiarize yourself with our policies regarding editing biographies of living persons and the addition of controversial claims of fact before you even think about reposting that stuff. See also WP:SUSPECT. We don't post gossip or unproven allegations that can result in serious damage to person's reputation. If this needs to be addressed again there is a very real chance that you will be blocked indefinitely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2020 (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).

York4044 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

dispute was reasonable and also reported by multiple sources York4044 (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as multiple requests are open at once on the same talk page. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:30, 1 July 2020 (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.

"Allegations" were used in the text and editor was being condescending. York4044 (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You have been blocked for one week from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

You are not permitted to call a fellow editor a "rape apologist" without providing indisputable evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 29 June 2020 (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).

York4044 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

valid call out York4044 (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I concur with Cullen328. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:33, 1 July 2020 (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.

Calling a rape apologist a rape apologist is not a personal attack, it is a statement of fact an wll deserved. The person blocked me for demanding that sexual allegations of a popular musician be included on the page with appropriate legal language of course. If they were not a rape apologist and just a stickler for Wikipedia rules, they could have edited what they thought was wrong instead of siding with the person who removed it especially in this political climateYork4044 (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC). If you don't want to be called something, don't engage in such behaviour.[reply]

Hello @Ad Orientem, Cullen328, & TheSandDoctor. I suggest this user should probably be indeffed for definitely not being here to build an encyclopedia. If they cannot abide by the spirit of consensus, follow very basic instructions, be civil, be remorseful when wrong, have a neutral & non biased point of view, then they should just be blocked. Celestina007 (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, this is a one week block, and the editor now has a last chance. York4044, you are in the wrong here, and egregious personal attacks like you made are simply not permitted on this website. There are plenty of websites where you can shoot off your mouth but this is not one of them. If you resume that unacceptable behavior, you will be blocked, and the block will probably be indefinite. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 @Celestina007, Ad Orientem, Cullen328 and TheSandDoctor This is definitely quite amusing. Reading this out of context, I would definitely believe I put Nazi memorabilia up here instead of what I actually did- which was insisting that the words of an alleged victim accusing a popular Nigerian singer (D'Banj) of raping her not be erased. Neutrality does not mean erasing the words of the underdog especially when publications like the Guardian (standard of Westerners) had written about it. That is defined as "shooting your mouth off" on Wikipedia. Very interesting. I have made it clear what my thoughts are and remain to be. The icing on the cake is that the said allegations are presently accepted on the page. I will rather be "disruptive" than err on the side of an alleged rapist.  York4044 (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution of June 2020 D'Banj Page

A couple of editors suggested lack of civility pertaining to D'Banj, an alleged rapist's page which I insisted they put his allegations on with a back and forth ensuing. I was blocked instead for 3 days and the icing on the cake? Those allegations were put on the page and I never got an apology.York4044 (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ―

Susmuffin ^Talk 10:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you mind moving this signature down the page a bit? I'm guessing it belongs at the end of your most recent comment, but where it is now overlaps the section header. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, someone else already did it. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Susmuffin Talking about my experiences as a racialised woman on Wikipedia on my own page is a problem to you? This is beginning to feel like a specific type of harassment. Can't seem to put my finger on it. I don't want to report you so please leave me alone.York4044 (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

York4044, I'll tell you what I told him: your userpage is not a blatant attack page and, so, does not qualify for speedy deletion under criterion G10; however, it may be seen as a violation of WP:POLEMIC.

More in general, let me say that I understand that it is annoying to feel unheard or to feel that your experience is being brushed aside, but Wikipedia has long had rules mandating neutrality and prohibiting what we call "original research". In the end, you'll have to make a choice: either you work within the rules or you're likely to end up indeffed. By all means, if you want, you may try to get the rules changed, but be ready to accept that consensus may be against you (which I fear it'll be).

Salvio

13:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano Thank you for the heads up. It is nice to be talked to instead of talked at. In this case, I was on my own user page talking about gender and racial bias here not editing an article. I appreciate your clarity. I saw something on your page about mentors. Any suggestions or a nudge in the right direction for them are welcome if it is not too much troubleYork4044 (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

My talk page is always open, if you wish. I don't guarantee that I'll necessarily have anything useful to say, but I generally try. More seriously, we need to have diversity and as a black woman you bring a perspective we sorely lack at the moment, which is why, as I said, I hope you'll find a way to work within the rules, because your contribution can be important to fight our current systemic bias.

Salvio

14:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano Thank you for that. I doubt that more each day. I see why so many women and racialised people leave. It becomes masochistic to try to dismantle the master's house with the master's tools. York4044 (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a difficult time finding something useful to say...

Wikipedia was never really meant as a tool for advocacy; it was basically conceived as an online encyclopaedia and, as such, it was (and still is) supposed to be a tertiary source. That means we do not innovate, we simply summarise what reliable, secondary sources report about various things. In this, we do need diversity: there are vast swathes of knowledge that are underrepresented here. Including more black people, LGBT people, people from the Global South is supposed to help us to correct that imbalance (and, to be frank, I'm not sure our policies are fit for purpose, in that we have a very specific notion of what sources are appropriate or what qualifies for inclusion). That said, even welcoming diverse voices is unlikely to lead to much change unless the perspective of people of colour is covered in academia and, in general, in reliable sources, considering the limitations of our current format.

So, back to square one, I'm having a difficult time finding something useful to say.

To my knowledge, at the moment, we unfortunately do not have a collective of black feminists.

Salvio

15:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano That's exactly the problem. This is not about advocacy but literally me existing in a certain body which is supposedly not neutral from the get go. Yeah the policies. Very obvious bias there. Thank you for taking the time to engage.York4044 (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black feminist collective

Hi! I'm a Canadian woman of colour, just dropping by. I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives Matter. It's not a Black feminist collective per se, but some of the people involved are feminist. At last weekend's Cascadia region social on Zoom there was at least one woman who had joined Wikipedia to contribute there and she seemed pretty happy with how things were going. Unfortunately I didn't catch her name, or I would introduce you. Let me know if I can help on your Wikipedia journey. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clayoquot This is so cool. Definitely interested. Thank you so much.York4044 (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely for editing for repeated disruptive editing. Specifically, per the ANI thread linked in the block log and a perusal of your talkpage and past contributions, you have demonstrated a repeated refusal to get the point that this is not the place to rail on about perceived injustices and attack perceived enemies.

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 ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, indefinite in this case does not mean infinite. York4044, if you can show you know how to properly source material instead of adding your personal opinions to articles, and are willing to agree to drop the stick with editors who are civilly disagreeing with you, I would be more than happy to see you unblocked. I have my eye on this page and will respond as necessary, no need to ping me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Blade of the Northern Lights I literally told a so-called enemy to leave me alone so if that is not "dropping the stick", I don't know what is. Also, you are late because I have resolved issues with editors so I am not sure where this delayed block is coming fromYork4044 (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2020 (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).

York4044 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Indefinite Block is Paradoxical to Solution York4044 (talk) 10:10 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. only (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2020 (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.

only I stated what my block was about pertaining to supposed disruptive editing and even gave examples. Could you kindly elaborate on how it did not address the block or something along those lines? York4044 (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made efforts to listen to people who did not approach me in a condescending manner as seen on my talk page. The fact is white/white-Adjacent men especially will never understand. Me changing the headings of people who believe in white genocide from "views" to "bigoted views" is not a form of advocacy. The fact that I have not edited those incidences away from my talk page is because I want the evidence of Wikipedia's systemic bias to be apparent. Furthermore, my last edit on my Talk Page was me thanking a Canadian woman of colour for directing me to editors that will not antagonise me. Imagine my surprise after taking time to resolve disputes to realise my page has been blocked. What message does that send? Challenge editors and get blocked or take their advice and still get blocked. Me being blocked creates a paradoxical situation.York4044 (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the ANI thread. There are ways of making Wikipedia's systemic bias apparent, such as creating articles about neglected topics (I've forayed into it myself on occasion, see Zoya Phan, inau, and Noh Poe), but inserting your personal comments into articles isn't one of them. You've proved that you can collaborate with people who agree with you, which is good (not sarcastic), but to edit here you will come into contact with people who have different viewpoints. Accusations of racism and racial bias don't generally make people more willing to collaborate, which is a fundamental problem in a project based on collaboration. I don't think you're "not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" (the NOTHERE people are tossing around), but I do see a lot of people trying to work with you and you lashing out. An unblock request should deal with how you intend to resolve disagreements, and if (as you say) you've recently done so it'll help if you can link to them (if you need help with that I'll do my best). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Blade of the Northern Lights Just so we are clear. Your solution to systemic bias on Wikipedia is to create articles outside of the areas it is happening and direct my energy elsewhere? I did not know referring to bigoted views as bigoted views was my own opinion and not a consensus we have made as a society. I don't have a problem with different view points, I have a problem with bigotry being presented as something to debate. I have not lashed out at anyone who has approached me in good faith. You can check for yourself. It is on my talk page. Also on the Administrators' notice where I saw you make a comment, I believe. My "defamatory" edit that I was blocked for earlier which was on D'Banj's page about sexual allegations is presently on the page now which I have not received an apology for and that same editor came to find me in reference to this matter but has not be sanctioned.

Your unblock request didn’t address how you were intending to rectify behaviors that led to your block but, rather, seemed to justify those behaviors. It was in no way convincing that you understand the reasons you were blocked and what’s expected of you going forward. A future unblock request needs to convince of that understanding. only (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

only Thank you for clarifying. I disagree but I will submit another one paying attention to your tips.York4044 (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2020 (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).

York4044 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

New Strategy involving editing certain topics York4044 (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You still seem likely to rail on about perceived injustices instead of editing collaboratively. PhilKnight (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2020 (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.

PhilKnight Perhaps you may want to refrain from using language like "perceived injustices" when the topic is systemic bias. Makes it appear as though you don't believe in it and sends the wrong impression even though that may not have been your intention. York4044 (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may disagree with some Wikipedia policy on what constitutes neutrality as a racialised woman. I understand that if I want to remain on this collaborative platform, I have to refrain from upsetting the status quo and calling editors bigots as it constitutes a personal attack. I do find this reasonable as individuals are not wholly reasonable for systemic bias. This will manifest as me ignoring mainstream articles that may tempt me or accepting reverted edits despite disagreement. My solution henceforth is to stick to articles that have to do with matters of the Global South, Black feminism etc supported by external resources to avoid clashes and accusations of pushing an agenda. This was a path that I started on when I was unceremoniously blocked a couple of hours later after engaging in correspondence with a member of a group that dealt with such. I would at least like to pursue this on a probationary period if necessary. York4044 (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey York4044, this more recent unblock request is also not going to work. (I am not an admin, just speaking from experience.) Let me know if you'd like some help or advice crafting one that is more likely to succeed. (For reference, here is the first time I was blocked & unblocked, and here is the second.) --JBL (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JBL Hello, definitely really cool of you to reach out. Thank you. You are a mathematician so that increases my odds lol. The solution is clear, I must apologise and pretend that there is no systemic bias on Wikipedia.I must note though that on both occasions you were blocked for a period of 24 hours. My first offence was 3 days block and this second one is indefinite. If anything that confirms my gendered and racial bias assertions. I am closer to writing an article about this kind of behaviour on Wikipedia than renouncing my accurate comments. I would delete my page but I definitely want people like me to see the observations even if I can't edit. Perhaps it is for the best that I do not participate in this system. Thank you again so much for offering to help. Fantastic formula, I must say. Feel free to come on my talkpage anytime since I can still edit that. York4044 (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance for the length of this message. You're welcome. You wrote Perhaps it is for the best that I do not participate in this system -- as just some random person on the internet, I am in no position to say what is best for you, but I think that Wikipedia would benefit from having you as a member of its community.
You're right that my blocks have been shorter. One factor you didn't mention is what I was blocked for -- both times (actually, all three times -- I was blocked more recently, as well) it was for edit-warring, which is a very localized kind of problem. Because edit-warring is localized, people are rarely indefinitely blocked for it, without it being related to some other complaint; it's also easy to express in an unblock request what one will do differently ("I will stop editing that page for a few days") that could reduce the perceived problem.
In your situation, exactly what to say is maybe less clear. Let me try and make a constructive suggestion, which you are of course free to take or leave as you like. Rather than pretend[ing] that there is no systemic bias on Wikipedia, I would encourage you to identify in the comments of The Blade of the Northern Lights (or on ANI) the specific actions you took (rather than the motivations for those actions) that are being criticized/attacked, and build an unblock request around avoiding those actions. In my case, that meant "I will stop editing the page"; in your case, it will probably have to be something about how you respond when someone reverts an edit you make, and probably about avoiding conflicts on talk pages, and maybe something about referencing as well. This won't require you to agree that there is no systematic bias on Wikipedia; but it will require you to sometimes walk away from an instance of systematic bias without resolving or improving it.
This comment is much too long already, but: you can search my username and profession and figure out pretty easily that I am a straight cis white USAian male with degrees from elite educational institutions. So I am not bringing a whole lot of diversity or unheard perspective into the spaces that I occupy. I don't know if WP is ever going to be a great community for people not like me; right now, it's reasonably good at keeping (say) explicit white supremacist views under control, but also very open to anti-anti-racism. Any improvement on that front is likely to be slow and incremental, unfortunately. --JBL (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on the other end, handling unblock requests, and my advice would be this. Explain how you'll focus on the content of articles and not the ulterior motives of the people writing it. Barring obvious trolling (which I've helped purge at different times) the best policy here is to assume the best of people unless there's explicit evidence to the contrary. Show how you'll approach a situation where someone disagrees with you, i.e. instead of making personal remarks you'll explain what you think the sourcing problems are. I share some of your concerns about bias, and Wikipedia thrives off different perspectives, so I want your voice to be a part of building it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Blade of the Northern Lights I am not surprised that you would suggest separating the content from the ideologies and not recognise that as a form of violence. If my edits of bigotry like changing "views" and describing them as bigoted views, those are not my personal opinions unless of course Wikipedia thinks racism should not be referred as bigoted. I honestly did not know that was up for discussion. If someone is constantly defending an alleged rapist and I am blocked for wanting the allegations to be there with secondary sources, I am supposed to assume the best of that person? Finally, pardon me if I am sceptical about you sharing concerns about bias on Wikipedia when you literally blocked me indefinitely. Especially on the recommendation of an editor who holds a grudge against me after all loose ends had been tied and I finally found projects to do and articles I was going to edit which I indicated in my block request. Focusing just on content instead holistically examining how they came to be is an example of systemic bias by the way. Referring to people's humanities as "disagreements" and "personal remarks" is exactly the problem. No one was arguing about if hot dogs should be classified as sandwiches for instance. These things have been about rape, racism and sexism. Again, you literally blocked me indefinitely which means there is an uneven power dynamic ergo the easy way out would be to tell you what you want to hear but considering I was defending my humanity versus intellectual exercises others are having, there are different stakes. That needs to be recognised. I stated my concerns about content et al in my unblock request. The decision is yours. York4044 (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Unblock Request here voluntarily as no longer interested in editing on Wikipedia due to toxic environment*

For future reference: I may disagree with some Wikipedia policy on what constitutes neutrality as a racialised woman. I understand that if I want to remain on this collaborative platform, I have to refrain from upsetting the status quo and calling editors bigots as it constitutes a personal attack. I do find this reasonable as individuals are not wholly reasonable for systemic bias. This will manifest as me ignoring mainstream articles that may tempt me or accepting reverted edits despite disagreement. For instance if edit has been reverted twice, I contact edit on their talk page and engage in dialogue instead of proceeding to edit war. Additionally, my solution henceforth is to stick to articles that have to do with matters of the Global South, Black feminism etc supported by external resources to avoid clashes and accusations of pushing an agenda. This was a path that I started on when I was unceremoniously blocked a couple of hours later after engaging in correspondence with a member of a group that dealt with such. I would at least like to pursue this on a probationary period if necessary. Especially as an indefinite block is a massive overreaction.York4044 (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

York4044, hi. I stopped by to review this unblock request, as it's been open for a while now, but I'm having difficulty accepting it as it's currently worded. There are a few things I'd ask whether you understand:

First, we're not looking for you to avoid upsetting the status quo - we're looking for you to assume good faith about other people as far as you possible can, and to avoid making comments about their potential motivation or viewpoints altogether. I fully appreciate that doing that can be difficult at times, but it's the only way that we can maintain a collaborative environment. Please confirm that you are willing to collaborate without commenting on others' motivations or biases, unless you are reporting improper conduct on their part at an appropriate location.
Above you say that if an edit is reverted twice, you will reach out to the editor on their talk page - that is not good practice. If you are reverted once, the best thing to do is usually to start a discussion on the article's talk page, asking the other editor why they reverted - that allows other editors with an interest in the article to offer their views, and is usually the best way to achieve consensus on the best route forward. Edit warring is not restricted purely to breaches of WP:3RR. Please confirm that you understand this.

If you make these confirmations and undertakings, I'll reach out to the admin who blocked you to see whether they are satisfied. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 14:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

advice?

Hey, York4044! While your block is being reviewed, I was wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at an article I've felt for a while Wikipedia definitely needs to include, but which I really don't feel competent to write because I'm White. I've drafted it at User:Valereee/White gaze. Is that something you'd be willing to give me advice on, even if the advice is, "You shouldn't be writing this."? If your block is lifted, I'd be happy to either work together on it or let you take it over. —valereee (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—valereeeThank you for stopping by. I do think you should not be writing it. Very meta to be centering the white gaze and writing from a white gaze. For instance, you capitalised "white"- Black is capitalised because it is a political identifier and signal, doesn't translate the other way. Also, I am no longer particularly interested in editing on Wikipedia. It is exhausting to fight when I can just remove myself. I have enough fighting in real life. The article you are proposing cannot be written honestly per Wikipedia guidelines. It will be a cursory academic guideline at best. That is part of the problem. There is a BLM project somewhere though, perhaps someone there would like to take a stab at it. York4044 (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

York4044, I posted it there, no interest so far. I cap'd white because some ultra-progressive academics are saying that's a positive (that not capping white is what is most comfortable to whites, capping it points out the privilege. And I have to confirm that from personal experience, White is very uncomfortable to this white person.) But I totally agree with you that I shouldn't be writing this. It's just a problem. I'm sorry you're finding working on WP exhausting. If there's a way I can help, I'm willing to listen/help. Best to you. —valereee (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee No surprised there is no interest. We have all been tired for a long time and if something is not a priority, it gets relegated especially in a toxic environment. The discomfort is most apparent when Black is capitalised and white simultaneously isn't because it is difficult for white folks to articulate without being bigoted. I don't see anything subversive about replicating status quo. Thanks for your willingness to help but till I hear about significant changes to the Wikipedia environment, it will remain exhausting.

Should I take it from this discussion that you no longer wish to be unblocked? If so I will procedurally decline the request - that will have no effect on the likelihood of a subsequent request being accepted, should you choose to make one. We can't leave it hanging unanswered indefinitely, but after this amount of time I think it's clear that nobody is willing to accept it as it's currently worded; I'd personally been hoping that you'd be able to change it along the lines I suggested, but if you're no longer interested then I can't see any other option but to decline it. Best wishes GirthSummit _(blether) 14:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

_(blether) Already took care of it. Thanks.York4044 (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

York4044, FWIW, if you'd ever like to discuss getting unblocked, I'd be happy to talk with you. I would like to see your perspective here. —valereee (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—valereee Duly noted. Thank you.York4044 (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]