User talk:Wnt

For comments February 2008 to December 2010 see User:Wnt/Archive/1.
For comments December 2010 to December 2013 see User:Wnt/Archive/2.
For comments January 2014 to December 2014 see User:Wnt/Archive/3.
For comments January 2015 to December 2018 see User:Wnt/Archive/4.
For comments January 2019 to June 2019 see User:Wnt/Archive/5.

Please add new comments at the bottom, not here.

New Zealand shooting video threat

Just so we're crystal clear: If you ever come through on that threat to undermine the project in such a despicable way, you'll be indeffed so fast your head will spin. El_C 00:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Straight to indef if I were to add a single citation? Interesting. I hope that Jan Eissfeldt and his team will take a more nuanced approach to administering the site once they get the kinks worked out of their transition. Trust me -- after that last show of support, I have no further interest in supporting any protest action against their authority. This is their site and they will do what they wish with it. Wnt (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I considered indeffing you right on the spot. You can't use the crisis of confidence with the Foundation as pretext for such outrageous disruption. El_C 00:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

And then you even go on to have a play-by-play (redacted) of the video itself — what are you on about? El_C 00:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Normally I answer questions, but I was just threatened with being blocked if I continued expressing my disagreement with the posters there, so I literally have nothing to say to you. Wnt (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The question was mostly rhetorical, anyway. I don't expect you to say anything, just to listen and reflect. El_C 00:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Wnt, I have referred to this conversation at El C's talk, just to advise you of that. I have no wish to directly engage with you. cygnis insignis 02:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for your April 7 link to New Zealand shooting video It's one thing to discuss adding the link to Wikipedia, it's wholly another to actually do it. I realize that blocking you for something that happened a month ago is likely to be challenged, but in light of today's events, it is the last straw for me.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 03:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: - I don't quite agree that past events should be considered as last straws... starship.paint (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Let me put this way: had I known about the April 7 incident, I would have indeffed on the spot instead of issuing a warning. So it is a last straw, even if in reverse. Basically, there seems to be an unhealthy fixation with that video that raises alarm bells for me. El_C 03:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@El C: - I don't know about an obsession with that video, but what I can say is that Wnt is the most pro-transparency person I've come across, and that applies to the video, among other things. starship.paint (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

That may be so, but a line has to be drawn. Families of victims of that shootout deserve our protection from displaying their loved ones' final and horrific moments on this earth for all to see. El_C 03:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against that. Merely offering my take on Wnt. starship.paint (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I, too, believe in transparency, but my point is that there's red lines one does not cross. El_C 03:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Wnt, whether or not you decide to appeal, I hope you will be well. starship.paint (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Wnt, if there's anything I can do to help, please let me know in e-mail. My initial reactions would probably not be helpful. --Trovatore (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I was aware back in April that Wnt had added a link to the Christchurch shooting video. I thought at the time that this was poor judgment from an experienced editor. However, I do think that an indefinite block is harsh.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I hope the admin concerned to review the decision. I am not sure if this is fair to ban him/her indef over one count of transgression. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 05:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• This is a damn good (and necessary) block. I just came across his edits of today and shocking is an understatement. ∯WBG^converse 08:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have given this block some thought, and the truth is, I did commit the WP:Disruptive editing that it was issued for, and I did so foolishly. When the news of Fram's ban came out, some editors leapt into a People's Crusade to cause trouble for the WMF, T&S, and JEissfeldt (WMF) in particular. I owe them several apologies. I immediately projected my own thoughts for reform onto the group, imagining that since this was a reaction against "civility enforcement" they wanted some kind of 1990s-era internet liberty that in increasingly strong terms they told me they didn't want. Just before I was blocked I finally got the point (above) that this was always a battle over power, not principle, and that I should never have been involved in it at all. While being involved, several times I jumped into discussions that said "let's disrupt Wikipedia like this, or this, or this", and each time I started brainstorming "well, if you really want to disrupt Wikipedia..." I rationalized this by telling myself that if the idea gained consensus, it wouldn't be against policy; but in reality the entire WP:FRAM discussion can never create a consensus against the WMF, even if everyone voted for something. This was one of those cases. More specifically, I didn't "get the point", per WP:DE (which to be honest I hadn't read in ages), that the video wasn't wanted by other editors of the article, so re-proposing its addition, even on another forum, was violating the policy. I suggested the most contentious thing I could think of on the grounds that nothing could disrupt Wikipedia for the WP:FRAM mob better than that. Obviously, I need to stop participating in this disruptive anti-WMF action and to recognize its failure, both at the practical level, and in the more fundamental sense that the system the rebel editors want is not meaningfully different than what T&S would impose. Even if some admins are retiring, it is entirely normal for employees to move on when they realize their jobs will be phased out, and at this point, certainly none of my concern. The role of "protection" in this block is more difficult to interpret. WP:BLP has a short section on avoiding victimization that speaks of trimming sections back to the sources, so I did not think citing a source per se, especially on a talk page, would violate it. The policy has a section on images, but only in the sense of a "false light". The block policy speaks of defamation, and it doesn't seem like it is defamatory to be the victim of a crime. I bring this up because I have to be clear I have been engaging in similar behavior for a long time, and I don't know which of my behavior would be viewed as improper. For example, at Muath Al-Kasasbeh I added a Fox News article that includes the video of ISIS setting the man on fire; I was very clear about this in an edit in February 2015 (I don't know if it would be a blockable offense for me to link to the diff), and the source remains in the article today. I checked the video still works last night; it does, and it is still far more horrifying to watch than the other one. At Christchurch mosque shootings I added a reference whose archive still contains the shooter's full manifesto, which as some said is now illegal to read in New Zealand (a first for that country) and certainly is also propaganda, and still available at the archive link. I should disclose that the situation at that article had already escalated to an AN/I thread where a block had been "clearly rejected" for reinserting a primary link to the racists' take on the situation. I had assumed that if a clearly unsuitable source for the article was not blockable to return to the talk page, then an archive.org link to a video being discussed worldwide should be uncontroversial. That particular article had been the home of proposals I had never heard of for an encyclopedia article before, like that the murderer should not be named, and I did not take the critical voices in the AN/I as seriously as perhaps I should have. In the past I have thought of myself as a citizen of Wikipedia, even a "part owner", trying to push for it to keep true to what I thought were its fundamental ideals. Over the past two weeks it has become apparent that it is much like any other social media corporation. I could wish for the old Wikipedia, but it no longer exists, and it is pointless to try to speak to the dead. In this new Wikipedia, I am merely a social media user trying, like any, to figure out how the rules have changed lately. But I am not entirely above using social media now and then, though with much less enthusiasm than I used to have for Wikipedia. So I will request the unblock whenever you see fit because there are still some things I can do here you might find useful, and will try to take your advice. WP:DE mentions the possibility of escalating block terms before an indef is reached, so that's what I'll hope for. Obviously, I will not be reposting about the New Zealand video going forward, but you'll have to decide how to bring anything else I've mentioned into compliance with T&S and the informal community administrative process. I recognize now that this is not my site and it is not my role to tell the owners how to run it. I give up, really. I was already at my wit's end with those wacky ideas I was proposing before. Wnt (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:TLDR; please shorten your request and resubmit. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock request 2

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have given this some thought, and I did foolishly commit the WP:Disruptive editing that it was issued for. I failed to realize this was a battle over power, not principle, which I should never have been involved in it at all. Several times I jumped into discussions that said "let's disrupt Wikipedia like this" and brainstormed for more ideas, rationalizing that if they gained consensus they couldn't be disruptive -- but there can be no consensus against the WMF. The video was the most contentious thing I could think of ... but I didn't "get the point", per WP:DE, that the video wasn't wanted by other editors of the article, so re-proposing its addition, even on another forum, was violating the policy. I need to stop participating in this disruptive anti-WMF action and to recognize its failure.

The role of "protection" in this block is harder to understand. WP:BLP's section on avoiding victimization speaks of trimming sections back to the sources, so I didn't see how a source on the talk page could violate it. I also didn't see how being a victim of a crime would be a false light or defamatory. I bring this up because you should know I have been engaging in similar behavior for a long time. At Muath Al-Kasasbeh I added a Fox News article that includes the video of ISIS setting the man on fire; I was very clear about this in an edit in February 2015 At Christchurch mosque shootings I added a reference whose archive still contains the shooter's full manifesto. Both are still in the articles. An AN/I thread "clearly rejected" a block over a different objectionable link, and I assumed an archive.org source would not be a violation of policy as I knew it. In the past I have thought of myself as a citizen of Wikipedia, even a "part owner", pushing for it to keep true to what I thought were its fundamental ideals. I give up on that idea; I am just a visitor on someone else's machine. But I will request the unblock whenever you see fit because this is the Social Media we have now, and there are still a few things I could do you might find useful, and I will try to take your advice. WP:DE mentions the possibility of escalating block terms before an indef is reached, so that's what I'll hope for. Wnt (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim:Thank you for your encouraging words. I wasn't expecting an immediate unblock; what matters is if it can happen or not. My understanding is that formerly blocked editors are subject to much higher scrutiny, especially when there is this level of disagreement. I assure you that I have no intention of further WP:DE or WP:POINT violations, or any violations of policy. WP:POINT is a crime of passion, and my passion for this project is I think permanently diminished. This is a matter of trying to salvage what is left.

@Lourdes: makes a good suggestion of undoing disruptive edits, but so far as I know the worst of them were already cut out of the page, and the rest of my intemperate anti-WMF comments were archived. Given the higher level of scrutiny, I am hesitant to start editing talk page archives. I mean, I have some harsh words in archive 2 and 3, but I'm not sure if editing the archive is more disruptive than leaving it. What I do intend to do, if it is permissible, will be to make an apology on the active page, recant my involvement, and urge others to abandon disruptive actions.

@El C: The edit I was talking about was on February 9. Our present reference #34 links this video internally within the company under "WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC VIDEO"). I don't want to provide a diff here because linking to it seems nearly identical to the action I was just blocked for. If you think the page is violating policy at present, it is up to you to address that. Wnt (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Obviously, it's possible to do the wrong thing for what might appear to be the right reason. I might even agree with the reason. I almost accepted this, but I need fuller assurance that you will not disupt Wikipedia to make a point. My decline should not carry sufficient weight that the next reviewing admin should feel any trepidation at granting an unblock. Having said that, the insertion of a link to that video would be enough reason to block, though for how long is debatable. Hope to get you back soon, and it's sad that certain events have occurred to make this situation possible.   Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 03:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• I would probably request Wnt to add a line to their statement (suggested above by Dlohcierekim) that they will also in good faith attempt to undo all the past edits that they know are probably disruptive. Lourdes 06:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps if Wnt would add diffs to what they are talking about regarding Muath Al-Kasasbeh...? At any rate, it's clear that they do not grasp the gravity of adding a link to the New Zealand shooting video. We don't do that on Wikipedia for reasons that are too obvious to mention. Trying to wikilawyer about that continues a wrongheaded approach. Participants have suggested to Wnt what tone they ought to take —display some reflection and honest introspection— but I suspect that this will not be happening because Wnt doesn't actually believe that they did anything wrong. El_C 16:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest that it should not be a single admin's judgment about what is too obvious to mention that controls whether someone gets an indef block. --Trovatore (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

And you are more than free to bring this up to any forum of review you see fit. Displaying or linking to videos of executions is prohibited on Wikipedia. Which is, indeed, too obvious to mention. Oh well. El_C 17:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying there can't be (iconic) exceptions, but as a general rule — have I missed something about this being not being obvious? El_C 17:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you point me to the policy that says displaying or linking to videos of executions is prohibited on Wikipedia? Or is this your rule, which you want everyone else to agree is obvious? --Trovatore (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:OM, WP:DE — it is obviously disruptive and not encyclopedic. El_C 18:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

OM does not mention enforcement at all, as far as I can tell. Also it emphasizes the "principle of least astonishment"; the main concern seems to be avoiding giving offense to the unwary. The edit with the link has been revdel'd so I can't evaluate whether an unwary editor was likely to click it by mistake, but from the context around the discussion I would lean towards guessing that it was not likely.

DE does mention enforcement, in considerable detail, and has nothing at all about an indef block on the basis of a single admin's judgment about where the red lines are, outside of disruption-only accounts which is clearly not Wnt's case. --Trovatore (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not that interested to further debate policy interpretation or semantics at this time. I feel like my position has been sufficiently explained. But just to reiterate briefly, as the 2nd reviewing admin said: "the insertion of a link to that video would be enough reason to block." I argue that this, coupled with the threat to insert that link to scare of Wikipedia corporate donors and the like, justifies this block. El_C 18:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

As I suspected, the video linked in ref number 34 of Muath Al-Kasasbeh (FOX News) does not display any actual executions. Drawing parallels between it and the New Zealand shooting video is perplexing, to say the least. El_C 01:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Further digging shows that FOX News actually embedded the unedited video (Guardian) — shame on them. El_C 01:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I found (and redacted) an unedited footage of that ISIS execution, so thanks for bringing that article to my attention. I note that mainstream news organization chose not to show the video (Washington Post) — because of course they didn't! El_C 01:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• So, there are two issues here: advocating for WP:POINT disruption in protest to the WMF, and the actual linking of offensive content. The former is understandable. You admit you got carried away by the Fram hysteria. You'll drop it and move on. Great. The latter is what has not been sufficiently addressed. Can you explain why you've been pushing the inclusion of shocking and offensive content? I don't really understand that part. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Swarm: Please bear in mind in reading this that I am speaking of my motivations in the past, when I genuinely believed that Wikipedia had a policy against censorship. I am not suggesting any kind of defiance of your present requirements. In prior editing, for example, I followed copyright policy even though I don't believe in it.

  The original reason for including this kind of content was a general feeling that primary sources are important for a comprehensive and neutral point of view. If a politician is being accused of a sexist Tweet, and his defenders say it wasn't sexist, you can include two paragraphs of secondary sources and not get nearly as accurate an impression as if you simply reprint the Tweet. This feeling traces back to advanced biology courses where I was told always to go back and look at the original paper, see the gel, look at the constructs, examine the rationale of the experiment -- not just to trust reviews of reviews. Secondary sources are essential for Wikipedia, and primary sources can't often be used without them, but they aren't enough to do a topic justice.

  In the context of offensive material, I saw a situation where Wikipedia articles could be more informative than other sources. When media would avoid linking to a source, we, being "NOTCENSORED", could provide a more comprehensive view of the topic. The media's aversion to sources seldom feels genuine -- for example, Associated Press almost always avoids giving useful authorship information about science papers, preferring to say something like "researchers at the University of Bristol". This is because the media outlets don't want readers clicking away to read a primary source when they should be going on to the next advertisement.

  I have been aware of a greatly increased abhorrence, on and off Wikipedia, to "extremist" or violent content in recent years. I am aware of laws passed in Britain and Australia. I was under the impression that Wikipedia, being in the U.S., was not going along with that, and did want to try to help maintain the site's distinctive ancestral character by seeking out these links.

  To the extent that primary sources become hard to find, the absence tends to promote misinformation. For example, there is a conspiracy theory I was surprised to find hosted on archive.org today that claims that an ammo clip was left behind from a "previous take". The uncut video makes quick work of that deception, because the killer can be heard dropping it the moment before it is seen.

  Any retreat from this position was stalled by the lack of a notable change in policy, and uncertainty regarding where the change would come. Would it be a ban on descriptions of charas usage, which the Russians complained about, or synthesis routes for illicit drugs, or images of Rorschach blots, or Muhammad, or coverage of news now restricted under EU's Article 13, or leaked State Department cables, or links to Iranian or Venezuelan propaganda? We have had so many controversies over the years, so many times we had ultimately rejected restricting the content. But Brenton Tarrant has fundamentally changed Wikipedia just as he changed New Zealand. I was a bit surprised that El C did not remove the manifesto reference (#134) from the shooting article since it is as illegal in New Zealand as the video footage, but it is up to you to decide what the policy is.

  It is clear enough now that news source linking to video of people dying are no longer permitted by policy, and as I said, I have no intent to violate policy. I hope this has not been too lengthy a response; trim it if you like. Wnt (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Wnt, I find your (and your defenders) lack of basic human empathy for victims of a mass murderer to be mind-boggling. Your tendency to wikilawyer about policy and getting back at WMF when the issue is posting a video of human beings being slaughtered and calling it "bestgore" is frankly, unbelievable to me. I have no confidence that you even understand the line you crossed into frankly 4chan-type of behavior. I will not review an unblock request because I am admittedly appalled, not only at your efforts and suggestion to post this video but the fact that you can talk about butchery of innocent people in such a detached way. Typically, we see this behavior in trolls, not experienced editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Liz: I do feel empathy for them. What I don't understand is why looking at or sharing a video of a terrible injustice being done to them would reflect a lack of empathy. How is it empathetic not to be willing to see a person crying, or a person fighting back?

  You may also think it cold to be able to watch such a video. That is true: I know cold. I have had to help pull my mother naked from a bathroom floor, feeling the shattered bone grinding in her hip. When I waited for the diagnosis of her metastasis out in the coldest blizzard of the winter, it felt as warm as a day at the beach. I was colder than the heart of winter. There was no national day of mourning for Mom. The liars who built those machines to certify the "low-tar" cigarettes in the 1970s were never prosecuted. And that cold heart inside me thinks that Mom would have been very fortunate indeed to have died in a few seconds of turmoil, surrounded by thoughts of God and salvation. Nothing in that video was as bad as when I expected when I first hit Play; it was a relief compared to what my imagination had conjured up. Call me a troll; it is not wrong. But is it against policy to be cold? Wnt (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Based on the last response, can I request that talk page access be removed without going to AN/I? cygnis insignis 22:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Cygnis insignis: What do you feel I did wrong with that response? I am not seeking to violate any policies here. If an admin asks me a question pertaining the unblock, shouldn't I give a truthful answer? I certainly do not want to engage in "continued abuse of their user talk page", and could delete anything you think strayed from the present purpose. Wnt (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  I can only try mate. This is sort of discussion that led to the creation of video? I can't help from where I'm sitting, and my attempts in the real world are not professional and very limited in their success. cygnis insignis 22:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  There is a difference between NOTCENSORED and intentionally shocking and discomforting people, not to inform them, but to make a point. Just as I think we should have free speech, I also think people have a right not to listen - and that includes the right not to be bullhorned. Wether right or wrong, I have the impression that you are still trying to make a point, not to constructively engage with the others. I'm willing to consider an unblock, but I don't want whiny pretension of "I am right, but the world is unjust, and I will play by its crooked rules". I want a sign that you understand that your position is not the only possible or moral one, and that if in doubt you will not confront others with more shock and graphic violence (or sickness) than they should expect in this environment. Giving information is fine, but let others make the decision how much and in which form they want it. If in doubt, go for consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC) I'll also be mostly offline for the next 12-14h, so nothing I do will be quick. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Stephan Schulz: Thank you for this kind response. My response to Swarm was verbose, but at the end I said that I would treat video of death (also "graphic violence") as being against policy unless I have some very clear indication otherwise. I'm not sure what you meant by "just information" -- as I recall, my archive.org link led to a user profile that led to two uploaded videos each of which had a warning. So far as I can tell, any link that even indirectly navigates to such a video is considered against policy and my days of providing "information" are just about over. My feeling is that some people here would not at all mind to see me blocked again for any reason -- my account is precarious, and I am going to have to use it very lightly if I want to keep it for anything at all. (Sorry for rushing this response, but I'm not sure if I'll be allowed to post it later) Wnt (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  No worries. But what I see is more extrinsic motivation. "My account is precarious", therefore I need to be careful". I'd like to see some sign of an intrinsic understanding of the problem. To get away from the video: before my first post here I saw the shortish discussion on WP:ANI, I remembered you as someone with sometimes unusual ideas, but at least some that are usually worthy of consideration, and hence I decided to see what the situation is and if I could help diffuse it. I was expecting the usual - (maybe heated) discussion about Wikipolicies, maybe a bit of cussing, maybe even a bit of rational discourse (yes, I'm a bit of a Pollyanna). Instead, I get confronted with dead or dying mothers, broken bones grating, and metastasising cancer thrown around. I'm normally robust, but it took me half an hour or so to get that imagery out of my head before I went to sleep yesterday. I don't think I deserved this. In particular because I think it served no useful purpose. I'm a free speech advocate, and pretty much an absolutist. But if we all use all of our rights to the extreme limits, communities break down. Words have power, and with power comes responsibility. If I were to unblock you, I would need some sign that you will consider the effect of your words (and links, and whatever) on the readers, and try to maintain proportionality. Making German officials visit Auschwitz concentration camp after WW2 was proportional. Brainwashing Alex was not. In between there is a grey zone. My impression is that you are not very good at grey. But, like John Nash, we can sometimes overcome some of our weaknesses by using our strength. If you don't have a good intuition about what people find acceptable, be conservative, use your higher-level reasoning, and if in doubt, ask someone else before acting rashly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(←) Okay, so basically what I'm getting from your replies is that you felt that something like an actual video of an incident, however horrific, is an important primary source with legitimate academic value, and, per NOTCENSORED, should not be excluded purely because it is offensive. You're not obsessed with spreading that video or shock content in general to make some sort of point. Your advocacy for doing so at WP:FRAM to protest the WMF had nothing to do with your reasons for advocating for including it in the past. I do hope that it is understandable to you as to why an admin would see your comments advocating for horrific shock videos to be posted to disrupt Wikipedia, which is extreme by any measure, and then see that you actually have done so in the past, and interpreting it as willful disruption or vandalism. I certainly don't think El_C was unreasonable for thinking that you have an "unhealthy fixation with that video that raises alarm bells". Can't you see how horrible that looks? I mean, you're upsetting a bunch of people by even suggesting that we spread that video to troll the WMF, and then we find out that you've already posted the video on-wiki. If you had a nuanced, academic reason for doing so, you didn't present any that talk page, you just said "we should put a link" and then posted it. That's why you're blocked. There's going to be little tolerance for someone who appears to have an inexplicable fixation on posting a horrifying shock video of a mass shooting. It's not because we have some new zero-tolerance policy on offensive material. NOTCENSORED is an important policy, and above even that we have a Content disclaimer, which actually goes so far as to say that we may freely host content that is illegal outside of the US. The OM guideline is just a caveat to all that, which basically boils down to "within reason". Offensive material will be protected from censorship all day, but there has to be a good reason for it in the first place. We don't want you to treat offensive/objectionable content as a policy violation, because it's not, and that's not the point. You just need to understand that it's not unchecked, and the inclusion of such material needs to be based on weighing encyclopedic value against needless distress inflicted. This is subjective and a spectrum. It is not one extreme or the other. As you can clearly see, these situations can very quickly become highly emotional and should not be treated lightly. You can and should advocate against censorship, but such advocacy needs to focus on the encyclopedic value of the relevant content, which is subjective and can and should be reasonably discussed. These situations require nuance. If you want to include something that is offensive for an academic reason, that's actually fine. But you have to reasonably explain the underlying rationale, stay within policy, and avoid needlessly upsetting people. And if you're going to do that, you probably shouldn't simultaneously advocate for using that same content to disrupt the project. That's certainly not a good look. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: That is a far more sympathetic response than I had expected, and something I can agree with throughout. I will heed your advice. Thank you. Wnt (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Do you want to add anything to what I'm saying here? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but it still doesn't feel like Wnt actually feels regret or shame for what they've done — and it was regretful and it was shameful. Sure, now that they see which way the wind is blowing, they are coming across as more amenable to reform (makes sense), but fundamentally, I'm just not seeing it. El_C 02:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

So is it now to be about the user's emotional state? --Trovatore (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It is, in part, about reflection and honest introspection. El_C 02:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You yourself might benefit from that, Trovatore. Read what Liz wrote. El_C 02:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

While I cannot be sure of others' mental processes, my hypothesis is that in what Liz wrote, and perhaps also in your own reactions, there is a tendency to take the justified horror at the enormous crime that was committed in Christchurch, and to let it inappropriately color one's reactions to other things that are not strictly connected with that crime. We recoil at the shooting; we recoil at the fact that the videographer posted it apparently with approval. I hope and believe that all of us are on the same page on those facts.

It does not follow, at least not without further argument, that it is shameful to do anything that impedes the video from being consigned to the memory hole. Certainly I do not want to watch it. But it is, in essence, part of the public record, and as Wnt says, there may be elements of it that are useful in understanding certain aspects of the events. --Trovatore (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but including this kind of content is strictly dependent on academic considerations. This user was advocating for spreading the video around purely to disrupt Wikipedia. Then when you look into their history you can find them adding the video to a talk page, with no stated reasoning. I really can't blame El_C for having alarm bells go off. The optics are terrible, there's repeated attempts to spread the video, with no apparent academic advocacy behind it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Not displaying or linking to that video does not erase it from the historiography in any way. Wnt having linked to it was grossly inappropriate, which is not something I believe is in dispute here by anyone else. El_C 03:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(←) @El C: Of course. This is more than fair. I tried to properly explain the root of the issues, and the proper changes that should be made going forward, but it's your block, and I will not overturn it before you think the user is where they need to be. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to review my assessment and advice as a first step. I feel Wnt has generically satisfied the GAB, but has shown little sincere introspection or understanding. I've tried spelling it out for them. I think all the answers are in my statement. Wnt, please reflect on what I said. I believe you when you say that you can understand and agree with what I'm saying, and that you'll make the changes I suggest. And I'm sorry if this feels like you're being forced to jump through hoops, but you're not being singled out for harsh treatment. A genuine, sincere statement that shows both an understanding of what you did wrong and a convincing assurance that you will not repeat the problematic behavior is what we expect in any unblock request. That means you tell us where you went wrong in your own words, and, as I said, treating offensive content as a policy violation is not convincing because that's not the point. I'd be looking for an assurance that you will not add potentially-offensive/shocking content that holds no encyclopedic value, and if you believe any such content to hold encyclopedic value, you will rationalize and discuss the addition of such content before adding it. I don't think that's asking too much. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

My 2c:

• I believe that Wnt is completely sincere and well-intentioned in their beliefs given the consistency with which they have expressed them over the years, and is not trying to game the system to get out of the current block.
• However, my reading is that they believe that society has grown too coddled and that the reality of extreme and violent content should be thrust in their faces for its own good; see this and other posts in the section from 2012 or their contribution to Bestgore.com including this edit from 2014 for examples involving such content/argument.
• The problem, as I see it, is that this argument is essentially ideological and universal, as opposed to an argument based on reliable secondary sources for inclusion of extreme content in individual cases. To spell out the difference: we have a strong source-based reason for including "disturbing" content at The Falling Man, My Lai Massacre, Phan Thi Kim Phuc etc. And strong source-based examples and reasons to not propagate depictions of school- and other mass-shootings. Wnt doesn't seem to recognize the difference and the need for wikipedia to follow the example of secondary sources; you'll note that in the 2012 and 2014 diffs linked above, there is no secondary source cited!
• Finally, I don't really think we should be asking Wnt to demonstrate shame or regret. They are welcome to hold on to their ideological beliefs as long as their actions on wikipedia respect the policies and goal of writing an encyclopedia that summarize secondary sources. At the same time, I don't think asking them to simply "rationalize and discuss the addition" of violent content is good enough since that leaves them open to make purely ideological arguments and/or indulge in verbal imagery (refer to the 2012 diff, recent post at WP:FRAM, or the "mother" anecdote in this very section).
• I am too lazy to expand on this but note also problems with Alex Jones-ish posts, of which examples abound in wikispace, especially at User talk:Jimbo Wales.

All this is to say that if/when Wnt is unblocked it should be with clear conditions to temper their disruptive acts, while encouraging their useful contributions to encyclopedic content, which they are certainly capable of. A possible restriction would be a ban from wikispace and other discussions forums (with the usual exceptions) although I am not certain if that is completely necessary or sufficient. Perhaps @Swarm, El C, Liz, and Trovatore:, or Wnt, have some better suggestions?

PS: Apologies Wnt for talking so frankly about you in the third-person on your own talkpage; I know it sounds rude but I can't see how to rephrase to avoid it.Abecedare (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been mulling over whether to comment here or not, but I'd like to endorse basically everything Abecedare has said above. I recall very bluntly telling Wnt that "masturbating to gore porn does not constitute 'legitimate scholarship'" during the debate over whether the article on the Christchurch shooting should link to the video. Abecedare hits the nail on the head for when and why to include material that may be considered offensive. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "shame" is not the best standard to hold an unblock request to. Neutral policy consideration is the standard that we should hold Wnt to, not morality policing. According to policy, offensive content that holds encyclopedic value is permitted, but this is a highly subjective standard. There can be no blanket presupposition to allow or ban such content one way or the other. I think an agreement that he will preemptively rationalize and discuss such content rather than adding it outright, and only follow through with such an addition when it is supported by the local consensus, is a reasonable moderating check on future problems that is in line with the policy requirements. The next-best alternative would be a hard TBAN on adding offensive content. That would be assuming that Wnt's judgment in terms of offensive content is completely irredeemable. I'm not convinced that even that is necessary. Something like a full TBAN from the Wikispace would not seem to address the root of the issue, which is the overly-liberal introduction of offensive content in subjective situations. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Endorse Abecedare's comment above. starship.paint (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Which part do you endorse over my refutation? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh no. I got confused on some points, I'm sorry everyone. Reading all the above paragraphs, they all got jumbled in my head. I agree with Abecedare and Mr rnddude on when and why to include material that may be considered offensive. But I must have missed Abecedare's point about a total ban from Wikispace. I meant to agree with your suggestion, Swarm - to allow Wnt to preemptively rationalize and discuss such content rather than adding it outright. However, I do agree with Abecedare that Wnt should stop posting conspiracy theories on Wikispace, but I'd prefer a warning (or a topic ban from talking about conspiracy theories?) over a total ban from Wikispace. Anyway, I'm out, don't contact me about this! starship.paint (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: As I said, at this point I don't think "NOTCENSORED" is really a policy any more. In 2012 I posted that diff to Jimbo's page in front of an audience of administrators without even worrying about being blocked, let alone indefinitely. I thought of the diff in the Bestgore article as citing a primary source by the subject about himself, which could be debated in the normal course of article editing. But even in the midst of my ill-considered Fram rampage, I did not dare to post a comparable link to Bestgore, but only suggested doing so, and that was still much too much. User:Stephan Schulz above is telling me that even explaining my personal perspective in response to an admin request about my emotional state is too much. This is not the Wikipedia it used to be -- and to be fair, this is not the internet it used to be. The plus side of that for you is that I can say that my days of challenges and conspiracy theories about Wikipedia politics are behind me. Now that it is made clear by the block and many comments favoring it that the policy I care about is no more, why should I get worked up about any other?

Your proposal of a WP space ban disturbs me, since the Reference Desks and WP:Lua are some of the places I was thinking I might still be of use. I think the sources people are complaining about are spread throughout article, talk, and other discussion places fairly evenly. My impression is that what you are mostly concerned about is violent video, wherever I would post it, and also that you regard this as against policy no matter who does it. Why don't you just come up with a way to write more clearly into policy the things you don't want posted? It would be easier than placing restrictions on editors one at a time, and it would avoid giving other editors not yet restricted the idea that these links are acceptable for them. In the meanwhile, as I said, I do understand you regard these links as against policy and I won't defy your policy. Wnt (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

So those links were fine once, but now they're not? That is your argument? I'm not sure that's true, but, say it was, it would be to the project's discredit. Again, I was not asking for your emotional state, I was asking for reflection and honest introspection, which I'm disappointed but frankly not surprised is still absent. El_C 21:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Well, I don't think you would say I'm being dishonest, and I've been introspective enought to get a tl;dr notice and a request to have my talk access revoked. So the question is whether I'm reflecting on what you say. So far from what I could see, you've been saying or at least implying pretty consistently that anyone who posted the archive.org link that I did should be blocked forever, no ifs, ands, or buts. I've said repeatedly that I wouldn't dare post them going forward. Are you asking me to believe that these links are wrong, outside of the sense of them being prohibited on Wikipedia? Wnt (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to get you to appreciate why so many people are so upset — it's clearly not working. El_C 22:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: They don't usually say why they are upset, so I would only be guessing. Fox News, a major American TV network, still hosts that Jordanian pilot video you redacted recently, so the sentiment is not universal. Some may find the material disgusting, some are worried about claims that these videos lead to "copycats", some think they can defeat bad ideas by stamping out extremist material. I had originally thought that the formal illegality of the shooting video in Australia and New Zealand was the dominating factor that made this different, but I don't think you ever did remove the manifesto from the Christchurch shooting article, and nobody has mentioned it but me. Maybe the biggest thing is that I don't use social media to any significant degree, and I know that they have been restricting their rules every other month, so perhaps there is some acculturation going on I haven't been a part of. I don't understand some, maybe most of it. After I posted the idea I had somebody claiming to have cried for half an hour just from the thought that someone might be able to find the video, and that is truly a mystery to me. But does it matter why I think they don't like the content, as long as I don't use it? Wnt (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe you. I was hoping for empathy, if not, at least sympathy. But I'd take puzzled apathy if it's the honest truth. I get the sense, then, that, also intellectually —not just in the realm of EQ— you still fail to grasp the gravity of linking to that video. Sure, you realize it's prohibited, but the risk of you trying to push this envelop again at some point in the future, possibly to the detriment of the project's public image or legal liability, that's not a risk I am willing to take at this time. El_C 23:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Do you really think that the project is in that kind of danger at all, let alone from me? If I posted the link, it would be momentary, and then I'd be blocked again, and what would the point be? There's no use in carrying out a freedom of navigation exercise if there's no freedom of navigation! Anybody on Earth might do the same thing, and I don't think it would be the end of Wikipedia - it never has been before. It's not kiddie porn, and the project has had a fair amount of that posted in the past. And I've given you no reason (except the Fram debacle) to think that I routinely violate policy if I know it's a policy. I would think the biggest risk you are taking with this project is in not having a policy that spells out clearly what is prohibited for those among us who might have some trouble recognizing when it's innately wrong to mention an archive.org file on a talk page. Wnt (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Truthfully, I don't think there are that many who share that ambiguity for us to need to spell it out in policy. But it wouldn't hurt, I suppose. El_C 00:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Subsection 3

I could wish for the old Wikipedia, but it no longer exists, and it is pointless to try to speak to the dead.

I don't know what old Wikipedia Wnt is talking about above. I've been an editor for 15 years (and an admin for 14 of those), and as far as I am able to recollect, displaying or linking to graphic executions was never okay — again, some (iconic) exceptions notwithstanding. At any event, the argument as to Wikipedia not being therapy works both ways, in this case. Wikipedia is not bestgore and I don't know how healthy it is for the project to have users who approach it not being censored in such a manner.

Anyway, I don't need for Wnt to actually feel shame and regret for their shameful and regretful actions (their emotional state is, indeed, none of my concern), but failing to express reflection and honest introspection about these actions having taken place is a problem. Them merely saying the bare minimum needed to comply with the guide to appealing blocks, or even also agreeing to several proposed modalities that are meant to temper their predisposition to violate WP:OM so blatantly with unencyclopedic, offensive material — sorry, none of that works for me, and I continue to object to lifting the block on that basis alone.

And frankly, I'm surprised there is seemingly such a push to gently guide Wnt toward an unblock, seeing as what they've done is so beyond the pale. They're not the only one conveying longing for an old Wikipedia. But I suspect I do so for opposite reasons. El_C 10:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Just one comment from me, just to refute any idea that "Bestgore" is any sort of "real news, just uncensored" site. I've just taken a look (because it's unfair to criticize a site you haven't seen), and it blatantly isn't, as a quick glance at its selection of topics or at any of its captions/descriptions makes perfectly clear. It's a grotesque shock site, aimed at satisfying whatever it is its followers want from it (and I really don't know what that is). Anyone who sees it as any kind of legitimate journalism is, frankly, a disturbed individual. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: I really don't think I have ever cited a Bestgore item outside of (a) a talk space conversation or (b) about itself. I suspect all of my diffs about it may have been referred to here by now. On Jimbo's forum I was speaking in a broad, metaphorical, now archaic sense, the way that some used to say that Assange was a journalist. Wnt (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  Sorry, I might have synthesized something in my head after reading your references to bestgore together with what someone else said about the site after following up your edits to the Wikipedia article. I am, however, still disturbed by any suggestions that similar material is in any way appropriate for Wikipedia, and that prohibition of such material is something new and in opposition to NOTCENSORED. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Am going to be off-wiki for the next day and am perfectly happy with the involved admins deciding if/under-what-conditions Wnt should be unblocked. Hope the background I wrote above about the problem with Wnt's editing was of some help. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
• Wnt, I believe I gave a fully sufficient explanation about the difference between including offensive content because it is of encyclopedic value vs excluding offensive content with little to no encyclopedic value. You initially indicated that you understood this point, but when pressed to restate it in your own words, you've done about the worst you can do. I gave you all the answers. I did not ask for any sort of self-betrayal in the interest of political correctness. I simply asked for you to understand that it's a spectrum and that discussion and consensus may be required. Instead you're continuing to rail on about censorship and the "old Wikipedia" that no longer exists. It's not a great look. You could have been unblocked same-day, yet you're seemingly arguing against your own best interest. Seriously. I gave you the answers already. Get serious. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Swarm: I was able to agree with everything you said, but it doesn't sound like the others do. Abecedare wants me restricted from a large part of Wikipedia that I use for many other purposes. I don't think he or the others want me to "include something that is offensive for an academic reason" even if I "reasonably explain the underlying rationale, stay within policy, and avoid needlessly upsetting people." From what has happened, from how people are responding, I don't think I am going to stay unblocked (if I get unblocked) if I start opening up talk page sections asking people if they want to link this kind of video, let alone just adding it with a careful edit summary or a talk page explanation. Failure to realize that is a failure of 'reflection and honest introspection', I think. I didn't mean to dismiss what you said -- I value it, I wish it were true. I am also doubtless committing many strategic errors; I've never been blocked before and I don't know how the process works or very much about what people are expecting. My apologies - I know you are trying to help me with this process. Wnt (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

  On consideration, I think I dismissed something that User:El C said much too hastily. He talked about the possibility of some kind of legal action against the project for including the link. My first instinct was to wave a flag-colored sparkler and say no, that could never happen in America; after all, we have been allowed to watch videos of our own soldiers getting decapitated for nearly two decades. But the Assange prosecution illustrates how something deeply wrong, considered unconstitutional for an entire century, can now go forward. There is also the disturbing reality that archive.org, as best as I can tell, seems to have removed the full videos since the time I found them, even though it retains fragments of the video promoting highly offensive conspiracy theories that don't show anyone being killed. That footage is just as illegal with the Chief Censor in New Zealand, so by what standard did archive.org, normally an organization I would trust to preserve content, change its mind? How do I know if some creative prosecutor couldn't find a way to redefine "obscenity", itself an obscenity, to include violence also? If I had actually posted the link in the context of plain out and out mischief, I might well have gone beyond the sort of reasoned academic talk page discussion the Miller test is supposed to be reliable in protecting. And of course, there are an infinite number of other creative theories possible, in a world where so many other countries seem to have changed their core beliefs overnight. As a believer in free speech I should never have been nearly so blithe about the possibility of creating a terrible test case against myself and Wikipedia that would harm what I hold dear. For that offense against my own cause, I've decided I owe people here an apology and an acknowledgement of respect that so far I have denied them, because I don't actually know they weren't doing me a favor, even if I never get unblocked. They may have just been the messengers of something beyond their control. The world shouldn't be that way... but there it is. I should have been willing to listen to people. Wnt (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Look, man, I'm just trying to get you to check the boxes so we can all move on. You don't need to overcomplicate this with further ideological musings. I get that you've never been blocked and you're apparently not even sure if you can be unblocked, but that's not how indefs work. An indef block is as short as you want it to be, all that is required is a suitable unblock request. What is required in such a request is fairly objective, and spelled out in the guide, and spelled out by me here. An understanding of the underlying policy considerations, an understanding of where you went wrong, and a change that you will voluntarily make to prevent the issue from happening again. I'm going by what policy says and what the standard unblock process requires. I'm not worried about abstract ideology or emotion, I am objectively explaining the problem and the appropriate resolution to the problem. I'm not looking for blanket statements, or punitive sanctions, or musings about the way the world is, or even an apology. I will unblock you if you meet the standard criteria for unblocking. That's it. I have spelled out what to do to meet these criteria. It's literally all spelled out. All you have to do is affirm what I said, in a genuine statement that shows that you understand what has already been explained and will make a change to avoid continued drama. You can take it or leave it, but I assure you that it is the correct path. Read the guide for yourself if you don't believe me. Should you meet this standard, any other logical and reasonable policy-based concerns can be considered, addendums can be made if necessary, but ultimately I will guarantee that you will be unblocked. The only thing I don't think I've covered that other people are concerned about is for you to sound human. I mean, someone above has the impression that you "masturbate to gore". Someone else said you lack basic human empathy. I get it, people have morbid curiosity and become desensitized to these videos, and I'm not going to punish you for that. I don't know whether you truly lack empathy or not, but that's no one's place to say. Lack of empathy is an objective disorder that affects ordinary people. It is not a decision to be evil (although it is stigmatized and misunderstood as such). We are not the empathy police. We are enforcers of basic objective standards. I will unblock you over objections that are not in line with policy or demands that exceed the scope of the offense. But a simple acknowledgment that, ideology aside, you can actually comprehend the emotional backlash you've sparked would go a long way. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I just wanted to tackle what seems the be a major disconnect here.

What I don't understand is why looking at or sharing a video of a terrible injustice being done to them would reflect a lack of empathy.

Because sharing the video comes across as exploitative. It's being shared & viewed because it's taboo. The thrill of sharing/watching such a video becomes the primary purpose. Or, in your case, using it to disrupt the WMF as part of a cause. That is why people are objecting to its inclusion on Wikipedia, along with other videos depicting killings. Such material needs to be handled with care, or else it's simply exploitation of the dead.

Wikipedia isn't improved by adding the video, because we can't provide any valuable commentary beyond "it exists." Any use of that video for information or education has to be handled very delicately, and with guided purpose, or we're right back to this exploitation. It stops being about informing, and becomes about the spectacle or the way it affects the audience. Which brings me to the next point:

How is it empathetic not to be willing to see a person crying, or a person fighting back?

For one, many victims families aren't going to be suddenly comforted by seeing their loved ones killed, crying, begging for their lives, or even fighting back. Even to people not related to the victims, witnessing brutal murders can be traumatic.

So the idea that it's less empathetic to refuse to share/view such material is... unorthodox, to say the least. Regardless of how violent our entertainment media can be, we all know that it's just pretend... and even then, some people are uncomfortable watching it. Expecting most people to be alright seeing actual murders is a huge disconnect.

I work in a healthcare environment. I've seen a lot of deaths, including some very gory ones. And I still don't want to see videos like this one, because I empathize too much with the victims & their families. I don't need to see it to know how awful the experience would be.

And that's been Wikipedia's stance for the longest time. WP:BLP and other policies exist precisely because sharing everything possible can cause more harm than good.

I've seen you pop up on Wikipedia lots of times over the years I've been here. You do good work, but your unflinching stance on censorship has always struck me as naive at best. I wish it hadn't taken this for you to realize that Wikipedia was never the bastion of free speech you believe it to be. And I'm hoping this post helps you understand why you've always faced an uphill battle on that front. We can't just consider "is this informative?" but also "what impact does sharing this have on the victims, their families, and our audience?" Weighing those things is not easy, and we can't just treat WP:NOTCENSORED as the only goal. That route causes harm to real people.

It sounds like now you understand using that video to disrupt Wikipedia was never really going to help. Even outside the "power struggle" aspect you mentioned before, it was just going to make things worse. I'm hoping this explanation I've written helps you understand why this particular choice of topic was especially egregious. If that makes any sense, I hope it helps you form your unblock request & find your way forward in the future. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Amen. Well stated. Compassion is superior to reason for human beings. Every time. Not even close. :::Life is not a video game. People bleed and people die and those who loved them are left deavasted. 2600:100F:B11E:E9B3:4BB:E524:946C:D505 (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft unblock

@Swarm: Thank you for putting into a lot of effort into trying to find a way forward. There is still a good chance the following is insufficient, so per the guideline I'll ping you to ask if the draft covers everything I need to cover before putting an unblock template on it.

[unblock template goes here]
a) I understand that several of my edits to WP:FRAM were highly disruptive and not useful to build an encyclopedia.
b) I understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and that I failed to take the very strongly worded comments of fellow editors into consideration several times leading up to this, or to show them proper respect.
c) I understand that there is a large group of editors telling me that links to these graphic videos are excluded by some aspect of BLP policy or ELNEVER, even when used for encyclopedic reasons.
a) I will be more mindful of WP:DE in the future. In particular, it is not my goal to 'make a point' or 'fail to get the point' or otherwise play games with this issue that can only be counterproductive.
b) I will respect the need for civil discussion about contentious article changes.
c) I will consider links to videos or images showing the death of identifiable persons to be against overall Wikipedia policy, as evidenced by this block, unless and until I see a strong, widely supported consensus to the contrary. Judging by this discussion, I doubt that is going to happen. (By 'identifiable persons' I mean to exclude anatomical and surgical images of anonymous donors that I think are still widely accepted on the site)
d) I will bear in mind that there are fundamental emotional factors involved here that I don't understand, with a mutual perception of lack of empathy between some like myself and many fellow editors, and that my initial assumptions about why this is happening are unlikely to be accurate.

Going forward: images of death were only a tiny number of my overall edits, so there is still plenty of useful ground that I could cover if given the chance. Wnt (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• So sorry, Wnt. I'm fine with this. I'm still open to unblocking. Just ping the blocking admin and address any outstanding concerns. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  @Swarm and El C: Apart from the ping suggested I'm not sure what I should say at this point, except that whatever was going on with UTRS on this page I indeed know nothing about. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Wnt, when you write even when used for encyclopedic reasons, I'm wondering if you had a chance to read THTF extensive comment, in which they partially say: Wikipedia isn't improved by adding the video, because we can't provide any valuable commentary beyond "it exists." Other than that, I suppose your draft more or less checks all the boxes. I still have reservations, however, sorry to say. But I'm not going to stand in the way of consensus to unblock, either. El_C 23:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: My statement was that it is clear I need to treat the video as against Wikipedia policy regardless, so I shouldn't debate about criteria for what I said won't affect that. You can treat it as a hypothetical if you prefer. Wnt (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll repeat more tersely: did you get a chance to read THTF extensive comment? I'm asking because I think it's worth reflecting on. El_C 01:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I did read it, and my comment about fundamental emotional factors was based in part on what he said. The things that he and some others are saying carry a broad resonance and provoke wider thoughts about the nature of Wikipedia as a whole, but these stray from the currently permitted scope, I think. I cannot deny that using the shooting for a 'political' purpose is, as always, exploitative. Wnt (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: Is there something else I should do? Wnt (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

unblocked

I think Wnt has learned his lesson, so the block no longer serves a useful purpose. I have unblocked you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I questioned this action at the user's talk, they replied a day later that this was "unfair" to this user. I asked that they seek a review of their action in reply, yet note that their talk page says that replies will come in 72 hours. cygnis insignis 04:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Punitive. At this point, without any further issue, it is not possible to reblock without a sense of it being punitive. I think this is best dropped here. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not regard the block of this user as punitive and disagree with the characterisation of the action as administering a punishment subject to parole. cygnis insignis 06:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--wumbolo ^^^ 19:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Closed with no action. starship.paint (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back

I don't know what the fuck you were thinking, but it's water under the bridge. Go and sin no more, as the Jesus dude said. You might think about coming up with an off-wiki venting mechanism, it might save you from some grief. Wikipediocracy is there if you need it, but you will get the shit kicked out of you the first week, be advised. Anyway, all's well that ends eventually. best, tim //// Carrite (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back Wnt, I hope you have more success in avoiding trouble. starship.paint (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to get back. Hit me up when you do! Just want to know. starship.paint (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Glad you got unblocked, Wnt. I do not agree with the way you have been treated. I hope you will continue to contribute. --Trovatore (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Welcome back, sorry that took so long, happy to see King handled it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't appear to be very active, but since you're officially still here, I am celebrating. It was a devastating blow to have you gone, to be honest. There is a small handful of editors whose presence makes this place bearable, whose insight and opinions never resemble the cookie-cutter echo-chamber bullshit from the masses, and for me, you are one of them. Best, petrarchan47คุก 19:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't know exactly what you did, not sure I'd have a definite opinion on it anyway - except that it backfired as a revolutionary tactic. Regardless, I hope you readjust to the current reality, and that it is not so odious that you feel the need to throw yourself upon the wheels again - welcome back, be excellent! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Module:WikiLink

Module:WikiLink and Module:Xswitch have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the modules' entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

A book on brainwashing

I find it interesting. [1] You have done a lot, imo, to promote reality and thinking. That's the best thing anyone can do, these days particularly. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:FindFeatures

Module:FindFeatures has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Frequently asked questions regarding Jimbo Wales's user talk page

Got any more Q&As to add? Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:ATA

Module:ATA has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Wnt is back!

Welcome back!  :) . Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• If you're back, remove yourself from Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. starship.paint (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A new article you may be interested in

I looked at inlinks to Charlotte Figi and a comment you made at Jimbo's talk came up. Just thought you might be interested that the article exists now. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Amphetamine synthesis

Hello, Wnt. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Amphetamine synthesis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Hex

Module:Hex has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:TemplateTools

Module:TemplateTools has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

Hi. I came across now archived Village pump#MEDRS talk and wanted to let you know that I too faced instanced of misapplication of WP:MEDRS guideline but I haven't a chance to comment on. I suggest you to take a look at this ANI#Canvassing_in_Malassezia request and visit the Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Primary_sources_usage. I suggest you to put the latter on your watch list (but please leave no comment in there as the proposal is rather poor). Thanks!

Request

Hello sir, may I get the youtube video with this link allegedly connected with the norway attacks. -->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQOfH8Dj1mw. Thank you. --121.54.54.150 (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Why Wnt left Wikipedia

See here

Problem is, Wikipedia doesn't work. Their front page ad for today is for some arena battle video game I never heard of. Their article on Gab (social network) has a literal yellow Jude star next to it in a not so subtle condemnation of occasional failures to censor. They have elaborate networks of Wikipedia lobbyists and corporate tie-ins. Their good content is mostly left over from a bygone age. When we look at almost any of the great collaborative projects, they have been compromised to near uselessness by what appear to be paid saboteurs.

Count Iblis (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Link is no longer functional. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Ways to improve Calyx Institute

Hello, Wnt,

Thank you for creating Calyx Institute.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This page is looking really good but it's in a mostly-list format and could be better served by wrapping all the individual sentences into paragraphs

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Jessamyn}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Jessamyn (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Tardquote

Template:Tardquote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 09:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Feral rhesus macaque for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Feral rhesus macaque, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feral rhesus macaque until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Difficulty

Template:Difficulty has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hexagram

Template:Hexagram has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Historical usage

Template:Historical usage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Toke

Template:Toke has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:FormatTemplate

Module:FormatTemplate has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mtd

Template:Mtd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Qualifier

Template:Qualifier has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pseudo image

Template:Pseudo image has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of List of attacks on civilians attributed to United States government forces for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of attacks on civilians attributed to United States government forces is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of attacks on civilians attributed to United States government forces until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Longhornsg (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:AutoPortals

Module:AutoPortals has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Highlight

Module:Highlight has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)