User:Gymnicus/Edit requests

Because I am still locked, I cannot edit data objects. Nevertheless, I keep seeing errors or missing data, which I actually want to report or add. So that these edits are done anyway, I open this area here so that I can ask that these edits be carried out by another user who is not blocked. --Gymnicus (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't we be helping you block evade? I don't really see the logic of the block if you just end up filling project chat with edit requests. --- Jura 19:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1: You shouldn't ask me that question. Nikki has only blocked me from editing data objects, properties and lexemes so that I cannot delete references. But it also goes hand in hand with the fact that I can no longer improve the data objects. Since Bovlb also refused my request for unlocking despite a clear promise from me for reasons that I cannot explain, this is currently my only possibility to influence the improvement of data objects. I don't know whether this is in the interests of the administrators. You have to ask they that. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gymnicus: It sounds as though you are blaming the administrators who have blocked you for preventing your edits rather than acknowledging your own actions which have led to the block in the first place and directly speak against your desire to "improve the data objects". From a glance at your talk page I think you should consider the most recent comment where it seems you may have a possibility to be unblocked if willing to make some commitments.

On a related note, I'm concerned that you have been granted property creator rights because your actions make me question your judgement and ability to be objective (something needed when weighing consensus for creation). --SilentSpike (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Unlike English Wikipedia, I don't think Wikidata has an explicit policy against proxying edits for a blocked user. Nevertheless, I don't think this would be a good precedent, especially as you have a path to unblocking that you have chosen not to take. Bovlb (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

“Unlike English Wikipedia, I don't think Wikidata has an explicit policy against proxying edits for a blocked user.” – I have no idea what you're getting at. But I'm not really interested in that either. I have my account here and I now use it as I am allowed to use it by the administrators' decisions. That means that I can currently only give suggestions for improvement, which unfortunately have not yet really been implemented.

“[...] especially as you have a path to unblocking that you have chosen not to take.” – You know we disagree there. I do not have to or had to, as one would like to say, accept your offer, as I have already said the same thing through my offer. You saw it differently and then that's the way it is now. --Gymnicus (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Our purpose is produce a database of information. If it has become neccessary to block a person, but they can make useful contributions via a third party who will vetting and taking responsibility for such submissions, then in my view they should be allowed to do so as in the short term this will benefit the project and in the long term provide them with a means of "rehabilitation". For the record, I am blocked from the English Wikipedia and I have been disgusted by the high-handed action that certain administrators took in bending and abusing the Wikipedia rules with a total disregard of any real-world issues.

I would therefore be more than happy for any blocked editor to have a single area where they can make constructive suggestions. Martinvl (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Martinvl: Such an individual page would certainly be a very good idea in cases like mine and I would also support the idea. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"In cases like [yours]." I am not sure why you see yourself as somehow special here. I don't remember interacting with you before but reading through your talk page, it is clear the continued block is your own choice. You refuse to acknowledge what you did wrong or accept the generous proposal some of the administrators offered you to be unblocked. Giving you an area for you to evade the consequences of your block seems like it is enabling you to avoid dealing with the core problem. This is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: You are quite right - I do not believe that we have interacted before. You suggested me of trying to evade my block. If you are talking about this posting, the background is that some years prior to that message being posted, a Wikipedian with whom I had worked and who was in good standing in Wikipedia had died. Somebody posted a note concerning his death on his home page but that went unnoticed. His death was certainly not recorded at en:Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians. When I noticed this, I went to our local library and was able to get an authoritative reference about his death from en:Ancestry.com a package to which I had free access at our public library. I offered to share this information with whoever might be willing to add the deceased Wikiepdian's name to the WP:RIP page. What I got in thanks was that tirade by User:JBW. Do you understand why I used the word "disgusted"? Martinvl (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Martinvl: Sorry but I think you have misunderstood as I was replying to Gymnicus (you will note I was quoting their statement of "cases like mine"). The issue with Gymnicus is that they have been offered a route to get themselves unblocked if they acknowledge the original problem and promise not to repeat it. Their requests here for someone to make edits for them rather than deal with the problem causing the block is what I am opposed to. They should either get themselves unblocked and resume editing or stay blocked and not expect their edits to be processed. For your own case, I don't really know anything about it and I can't provide comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore:

“I am not sure why you see yourself as somehow special here.” – Then you probably know more users who were only blocked for three namespaces, like me. I myself only know blocks where you are blocked for all namespaces and then maybe you can edit your own discussion page. Nonetheless, that doesn't change my statement “in cases like mine”, because with this statement I just wanted to say that I think the idea of Martinvl is good in a case like mine, where you only has been blocked for the namespaces data object, lexeme and property. The statement was never there to portray me or my block as something special, but rather the statement was only there to indicate what kind of block I think the idea is good for. For what you interpret into my statement, I can not do anything.

“Giving you an area for you to evade the consequences of your block seems like it is enabling you to avoid dealing with the core problem.” – It's interesting that you blame me for not addressing the core issue. Of course, I'm dealing with the core problem. I have been planning an opinion for a long time, whereby the consensus that has arisen due to non-existent rules on sources is dissolved by clear rules on sources. Before this opinion picture can start, however, a larger discussion on the topic will probably start again after Christmas here in the project chat, so that the opinion picture can start in the new year.

“This is a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist.” – That may be your assessment of this section and also of Martinvl's idea. At the moment it also seems that my suggestions are of no use here because they have not yet been implemented. But that's not my problem in that sense, but rather an indictment for Wikidata, at least one could interpret it that way. On my last unlock request, I said exactly what Bovlb wanted from my point of view. But he saw it differently. I can still make a third unlock request today or maybe tomorrow with similar content to the second unlock request and then we will see whether I will be unlocked. --Gymnicus (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Can this please be moved to a user page instead of hijacking project chat? --SilentSpike (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  yes. @Gymnicus: please move this content to a user page so as to stop spamming the general project chat. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @SilentSpike, BrokenSegue: First of all, I don't see this as spamming or hijacking the project chat. Because what am I spamming here? According to the Duden, spam is the following: “unerwünschte massenhaft per E-Mail oder auf ähnlichem Wege versandte Nachrichten” (english: “unwanted masses of messages sent by e-mail or similar channels”) – In relation to this particular case, spam can perhaps be defined as "unwanted bulk edits". If for you as an administrator, BrokenSegue, edits in which suggestions for improvement of data objects are mentioned are spam, then I am a little concerned, I have to admit. Because with these suggestions, Wikidata, or rather the said data objects, is made better. Spam would go exactly the other way. In my opinion, one cannot speak of capturing the project chat because there is currently no special room for such a matter. From my point of view, the project chat is the first point of contact. Nevertheless, as I have already written above, I have nothing against a separate area for my concern. But I think a user page is the wrong place for something like that, because it is not “publicly” visible. But I don't mind if my request is moved to a “public” page that can be viewed quickly and easily. --Gymnicus (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  There are millions of good edits to be made to wikidata. Enumerating them here is unhelpful and disruptive. Please find a different place to put these. I suggested a user space page because it seems most likely nobody will spend time incorporating these particular fixes and you will have to wait until you get unbanned. But if you want to create it the Wikidata namespace I suppose that's fine. This page is for project chat. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @BrokenSegue: “This page is for project chat.” – I agree! This is the project chat here and where does it say that this matter doesn't belong here? Nowhere. That is why I have no obligation to look for another place for this concern. But you, as the one who doesn't want this here, should suggest a way and this can then be discussed here. --Gymnicus (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  A user page is perfectly publicly visible and the right place for a user to document their requests. Project chat is for project chat, if you keep updating this post it will stay here indefinitely - thus hijacking the page for your own intentions. SilentSpike (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @SilentSpike: It may be that a user page is also in principle public. But it is difficult to find and that is exactly the point. If these suggested edits are to be moved, they must or should be moved to a page that is easy to find. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  It is disruptive to have this continually-edited section here, especially when it doesn't seem to be of much general interest. Let's go ahead and move these to, say, User:Gymnicus/Edit requests. To make this page more visible, we can add {{Edit request}} to the top,. That way it will be visible to anyone working on the Category:Wikidata protected edit requests backlog. In the event that Gymnicus's current partial block is upgraded to a full block, we can deactivate the template. Bovlb (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mahir256: I agree with the proposal by Bovlb and would have implemented it. But not in the radical way you do. I do not agree with this procedure either and that is why I have undone your deletion of the section here. The processing suggestions belong on the page suggested by Bovlb. But the side has nothing to do with this discussion here itself. That's why I will remove the discussion from there during the day or during the week, see when I have time, and expand the page as I see fit. The discussion logically belongs here because it was held here. In addition, from my point of view, the previously proposed edits also belong here. Of course, these will then also be transferred to the page suggested by Bovbl. --Gymnicus (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)