User talk:ToadetteEdit/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

ANI

I will be accepting the block from the project space and talk, with an appeal every twelve months. Unfortunately, though, because of you, I can not edit the encyclopedia the way I used to. It is such a shame to be put in the wall of shame where one needs to suffer. So it is my pleasure to apologize to everyone for all the inconvenience that I have caused you. Putting aside my maturity, I am a bit upset about this, but hopefully, though, I will be fine. I will be retiring from AfC, a project which I was a great contributor at, due to the recent issues, and it would be a great loss for a potential to leave the project that needs more participants. For now, I will barely edit articles only.

I did face similar incidents on Meta, where users (A09 and SHB2000 particularly) often criticized my comments, with the latter describing me as having CIR issues in general. What CIR issues exactly??? I have been editing articles and have been proven to be competent, as do anti-vandalism and reviewing articles. So what are the problems then. I am not mean to the user, but I believe that I have a clue and am not a jerk, so no problem!

As for my background, I was told that I have autism/ADHD. I did not realize that! But it may influence my so-called poor performance in the backstage pages. I have great ideas, but execute really poorly. I am under 18 years old, which might also be the reason for my performance and execution of ideas. I hope that when I turn 18, I'll hopefully appeal the ban.

So, to address the concerns:

• The first offense about RfAs. Well, I was not aware that we were not allowed to discuss the RfAs elsewhere and that I could not participate myself and was explicitly told not to do so. My activities were caught after posting the message on Floq's talk page, and I was like, "Come on, dude." Probably not the first choice, so the story closes.
• The NPP backlog thing, the ban also included a prohibition from joining any event. Actually, why? If the contest has monetary awards, and one wants to get the award, that could make sense. Also, some contests/backlog drives go towards improving content more than anything else. This led to a snowing tban appeal. Again, it's not the best way to do so. Going on
• No issues with the subsequent AN thread about narrowing the unblock condition, though it was not implemented. I was also warned that I was one footstep away from an indef, so I left the business immediately.
• The bad advice thing. Admins/experienced users give some form of "restrictions" to blocked users if they wish to be unblocked. Mines was considered to be way beyond that. The first comment was no issue. The second, however, poured some gasoline on the fire. Yep, it's not the best idea to comment on blocked editors' talk pages unless if I am involved as an editor. I understand the consequences and will avoid such actions.
• And now, the SPI that led to the current thread. I have been familiar with the SPI since at least May 2024, having seen multiple socks of the same family ever since. I have that page watch listed since finding the SPI page, so assuming no problems here. I was adding much more evidence that the recent user was a sock; at the time, I have not commented in any SPI case except filing one. I really do not really understand if supplementing any more behavioral evidence is a violation itself??? Anyways, the end of the line.

If anybody is interested, they can copy it over for review. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

This post places all the blame for what has happened on other people and not on your own behaviour- you literally say "because of you, I can not edit the encyclopedia the way I used to". That's not true! The restrictions were placed on your editing because of you- it's so immature to say that's somehow the community's fault. I strongly think you need to be banned from Wikipedia as a whole for several years until you're mature enough to participate here. Enough is enough. GraziePrego (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I strongly think you need to be banned from Wikipedia as a whole for several years until you're mature enough to participate here. Why? I have been describing my hardships, but hopefully, I understand that it was all my fault. If I hadn't posted the message in Jan, we would not be discussing this right now. I fully admit that I really apologize for my wrong undoing. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: I have edited the previous two responses to remove oversightable material and ask that it not be reinstated. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Which criterion actually falls under the oversight rationale?? As far as I know, threats of harm would qualify for OS if not revdel. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't have anything much to say here, except if you are under 18 years of age, why did you sign the ANPDP? (relevant diff at m:Special:Diff/26018308) --SHB2000 (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Addendum on my behavior

Yes, I am pretty concerned about the discussion shifting towards a CBAN. Forget about others, my behavior was not up to par. I understand that I am quite immature to do administrative tasks like advising blocked editors and will be accepting the TBAN. But allow me to continue editing articles for the time being so that the site can have more knowledge. I will really change my behavior from now on. No childish acts or any other dead giveaways. I was responsible for any (all?) drama that has impacted the community's time, and I really apologize for any inconvenience that occurred during that time. Feedback is greatly appreciated. ToadetteEdit (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Toadette, I am sorry things have played out as they have, because I do think you have made some helpful contributions. Since you asked for feedback, I'm wondering if you could explain in more detail what specifically is meant by "dead giveaways". I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. Could you please expand on this, and maybe provide some examples, when you find a moment and are not feeling too stressed? Thank you in advance. Netherzone (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

For example, if someone says that they would be upset, then that's a sign of a dead giveaway, let alone the so-called "childish acts." Same if someone would tell their parent for defense, e.g. filing lawsuits, though that's an imminent blockable offense. Again, if someone uses some "teen talk" then that's another giveaway of immaturity. WP:YOUNG pretty much applies in my case. ToadetteEdit (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Toadette. Netherzone (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Moving forward

Hi ToadetteEdit. I'm sad to see you in this position. However, indefinite does not mean infinite and there is a path forward here, even for a community ban. I would strongly encourage you to contribute at other Wikimedia projects; it would highly benefit any future unban request if you have a strong track-record of positive contributions at Commons, or at Wikisource, or at a different language Wikipedia, etc. You can a full list at m:Complete list of Wikimedia projects. Please do not engage in WP:Sockpuppetry on here. And remember: no one has doubted your passion and your desire to contribute. Curbon7 (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

As a personal note, I would also add that I would not recommend appealing your CBan as soon as you are able to. Wikipedia is not going anywhere, so please take as much time as you think you need. I understand you don't have TPA, so if you need further advice, feel free to reach out to me on my Commons talk page. Curbon7 (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

A summary, if needed

How this ban took place: per WP:CBAN, If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may impose a ban. The community refers to other Wikipedia editors. Why this ban took place: while other Wikipedia editors believe Toadette has good intentions, there are too many disruptions that affect other editors or Wikipedia itself. Key issues here: unhelpful comments and actions (including closures and relisting of discussions), careless acceptance of others' work, rushing into gaining powers, not taking on advice, not adhering to self-proposed commitments, and pushing the boundaries after being restricted, all of these have exhausted the patience of the community at this point. There are many discussions at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, as well as this and that. Regarding advice on how to appeal, see above by Curbon7. Additional advice: wait at least a year before appealling, when appealing acknowledge the mistakes made (please see above) and commit to not repeating them. This includes committing to stop pushing boundaries on restrictions, and follow through. Perhaps focus on improving articles. Listen more to advice from experienced editors. I wish you all the best, Toadette. This has been undoubtedly unpleasant for you. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)