User talk:Donald Trung

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Wikimedia-logo-meta.svg
This page can be found at Commons:User talk:Donald Trung
This is an interwiki redirect.


Block

@MarcoAurelio: What was wrong with symbolic voting? I just shared criticism of the way I was treated. I was "trolling" at all. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 19:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Also can you not blank my user page? as I don't want to make one for every small wiki I am active at.


(Edit conflict.)


Your recent contributions after your global lock was lifted cannot be considered positive in any way, not even assuming the highest quotas of good faith in the wiki world. Feel free to request an unblock should you feel this block is innapropriate. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Only on Meta or in general? --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 20:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
If my comments about stewards and admins are the issue I can stop as I wasn't planning on even bringing up stewards after this election, but I am not sure how criticism of a lack of communication can be seen as either "bad faith? Ot "trolling". --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 20:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
So you think opposing all the running steward candidates to prove a point isn't disruptive? 212.117.188.19 20:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I just don't agree with the current culture, and how did I oppose -revi? --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 20:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Also if I had just voted "no" with no reason given )as some users fo) it would seem personal while I made it very clear that it wasn't. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 20:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Also if that comment is in general then I could say that I am one of the most active members on Wikimedia Commons which not exactly being "unproductive". --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 20:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
what a charming confirmation of what you were complaining about. yet another drive by infinite - dissent = "'ad nauseam' trolling". i.e. "i don't want to hear it." the blocks will continue until the attitude improves. and threats of block for talking about mass deletions.
but no, they will not reform from within, (they will censor dissenting voices) it will require some imposition of a standard of practice from without. don't get mad, organize. Slowking4 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

email

Just curious but why block my ability to e-mail if I don't even have an e-mail account linked to my Wikimedia account? Just ask at enwiki since my unlock I haven't e-mailed a single user.--Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 20:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Email can be blocked for a number of reasons. If you have the potential to send spam emails after attaching an email account, then your email may be blocked. Some admins always block email when blocking editors. Just understand that they are just doing everything they can to stop disruption. Ups and Downs () 20:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Conditions

@MarcoAurelio: I will accept any reasonable conditions for an unblock, if y'all don't want me to comment about stewards as a group anymore then I won't, if I am not allowed to mention my global lock on Meta anymore I won't, but if I'm blocked here I probably won't be able to request user rights on Commons so I will understand a "last chance" for editing here and won't break it. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 20:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You've already had your last chance when your lock was lifted. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I still have a language version to propose and request for comments here affect all other projects, is my account now getting globally locked again because of this block? Also I didn't herass anyone or "trolled" anyone.--Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 20:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
No, your account won't be locked. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
And if the issue is regarding my comments about stewards why not just let me edit other parts of Meta such as proposed wiki's? Or RFCs? --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 20:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to ask if this block could expire in November or something so I can participate in the next Community Wishlist survey? --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 20:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No. You are playing the system and creating disruption again and again after warnings and (not only one) final chance. If you continue misusing the talkpage access to continue with drama then we have to revoke the access as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not trying to deliberately stir up drama against anyone, the previous warnings were against my signature and I changed it, if there is something wrong with how I am currently using my talk page then I will stop doing that. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 20:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
If you seriously believe you need to be told every little thing you're doing wrong is wrong, then I will have to point you to a good old enwiki policy. Your votes had nothing to do with the candidates' qualifications to becoming a steward. I'm not expecting mine to pass at this point so your vote doesn't really matter on mine, but fowling up other candidate's with a blanket principle oppose is nothing but disruptive. If you wanted to voice your concerns, the neutral vote would have been best, or the talk page of the elections page.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, or I could've opened an RFC, and for the entire duration of 2017 post my unlock other than the comments made about my signature my editing on Meta wasn't seen as disruptive, this is mostly about the Steward elections and my previous warnings were about the global ban policy vs. Global locks which was explained to me and I didn't comment on that in general, and I've changed my signature. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 20:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
But an indefinite block is excessive, in case I would get unblocked I wouldn't repeat any of the mistakes that lead to it, and I haven't kept my old signature when consensus was against it and have tried to follow policy as closely as possible, just look at my conduct on other wiki's, I've had no issues on Wikimedia Commons or after my unblock om the English Wikipedia other. If the issue is with my comments regarding stewards then I won't comment about stewards. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 21:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Did you know my very first block ever was an indefinite block? And it wasn't just an indefinite block, I had to go through ArbCom to get myself unblocked. I promised to them that I learned my lesson and wouldn't do what I did again, and they gave me another chance. I was unblocked 4 days later, and now I am an administrator there. If I can get myself blocked like that and get out of it, and stay out of it, that means so can others, and if you can't, then it would suggest that you haven't yet learned your lesson. The point is your behavior is disruptive in general. I think I've only ever seen you make disruptive edits here. Another good example is the question you asked all of us. How would you figure any steward candidate would possibly have any insight on that user that led to their lock, if they weren't there. They would have to research a lot of backstory, some or most of which aren't even visible to them. Thus the question does not allow any of the candidates to demonstrate their qualifications to be a steward. That's why every answer you got, including me, said a lock and a ban are not the same thing, without any comment on the specifics for that user. You got to think, "Will my actions be seen positive or at least neutrally by the general community?", and "Does this help the project overall?" If you can answer yes to both, it's likely okay. I'm no sysop here, but honestly you have dug a hole for yourself. You've been blocked for sockpuppetry there and disruption here, and have even been locked. If I have to be blunt about it, your word at the moment isn't carrying much weight, sorry.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 23:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I also felt pretty bad about that question. I envied the other candidates that were not involved in the user you mentioned. I was involved in that case, so yes my answer was different. I had to be very cautious with my answer, that is I said very little really, that was not public knowledge, knowing full well the whole backstory of that very loaded question. However it was mostly under privacy rules. Hypothetical situation are fair enough, and I am not saying I did well in one of those. But at least it was hypothetical. Your bringing up of a very specific case that had a lot of ramifications was very unpleasant for me, as the one candidate I am guessing who had been involved in the case you mentioned. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
People like cyberpower678 can change by learned their lesson on the mistake issue, and even be a good admin on English Wikipedia. If you can't, then very sorry for you. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I was later informed of the circumstances that lead to the lock I had made a question about here by a steward but I did not know how to retract the question, also I had participated in the community wishlust survey without much complaints (well, other than adding too much suggestions but I had later retracted the ones I saw as less pressing), I see that my comments on the stewards are the reason why I'm banned and don't have much intent on commenting about stewards beyond this election as I had simply wanted to bring to light the issues I see with the current culture where there is very little communication by the stewards, and aren't there any clear rules on when global locks should be used or not. I am happy that there is no Global ArbCom, but there should br a global UTRS or ban appeals committee as most successful unlock requests are filed by other users, not the locked ones. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 06:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe a condition where I would be allowed to open 1 RFC regarding the issues I see with stewards and then simply respect the outcome by the community and never mention it again, and never comment on stewards on Meta after the RFC closes. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 06:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I personally see no reason to unblock you or to continue the perpetual exercise of dealing with the disruption you have caused ever since your rather generous unlock. I think we should just revoke your talk page access and simply move on. Nihlus 11:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
But I have no intent in bringing up the subjects that lead to my block again, and I will accept an indefinite block with no TPA if I were to break it, but I have adapted to every warning given, I changed my signature. If I were to only restrict myself to proposed projects, languages, and RFCs? Meta is more than only stewards and I will avoid any subject related to stewards including elections. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 11:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Just let it go. If someone has proof of sockpuppetry or other issues and blocks you there's a valid reason. You issued many remove votes against stewards here and here] simply because they would not respond or help you remove your lock. I'm sure many community members would (normally of course there are exceptions) not look favourably upon a user who has been previously locked for cross wiki abuse (sure people change but your past history does raise issues with some). Just let it go and move on since there are other things which might suit you better. Continuing to push your case after it has been closed often doesn't result in favourable outcomes for the pusher (personal experience on phabricator and other places) --Sau226 (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Unblock

@MarcoAurelio: I will leave Meta alone for a week, if you think that there are reasonable conditions for an unblock I will return after that week and request an unblock then, feel free to list those conditions below, because I don't want ro lose the ability to gain any user rights on other wiki's because of an indefinite block on Meta, and I have no intent on arguing about steward policy and global locks, if you think that a shorter block (a month or two) can also be used to sufficiently warn me against ever repeating that behaviour too then I will not comment on my talk page for the entire duration of a finite block.--Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 22:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Votes

Just a note that I have started a conversation at Talk:Stewards/Elections 2018 about whether the votes that led to the blocks should be struck. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I endorse the struck. SA 13 Bro (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
SA 13 Bro, I think the best place to have this discussion would be on the talk page I mentioned above. I notified Donald in case he wanted to make a response here for others to see. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni:, I would understand for the copy-paste votes that were not directed at the individual, but it would give an odd impression to retroactively remove votes as other editors have voted "no" on multiple candidates without justification and f my votes were simply "no" with no other text accompanying them then this probably wouldn't have lead to a block in the first place as user Hindustanilanguage also massively voted against certain people in a previous election. I honestly have no intent in reading a conversation I am not allowed to participate in so I will not comment on the content of the conversation --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 06:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Sure other editors voted "no", but they did not mass vote candidates no like you did. Ups and Downs () 03:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I know that those votes lead to my block and if unblocked (based on that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions) I could manually change my own vote based on studying each candidate, and make arguments as to why I would or wouldn't trust them, I can't recall anyone ever being banned for "voting wrong" before but I can see how a blanket vote can be seen as disruptive. I had just hoped that by seeing those comments someone would be inspired to bring the current policies up for discussion, but starting an RFC would probably be a better idea. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 10:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Or a full topic ban on anything related to stewards as I haven't been disruptive in other areas, I will fully respect the topic ban if that were to be deemed acceptable, a topic ban and a reduction of my block to a finite period (3 months or whatever is deemed necessary), as there are other areas of Meta where I would like to continue editing and I will not mention anything related to stewards or global locks on Meta ever again. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (Articles 📚) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) 12:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Commond deletion bot requirements

I'm contacting you because you supported the Commons Deletion Bot proposal in the 2017 Community Wishlist. The Wishlist team has finalized the draft specifications for how the bot will work, and are seeking review in confirming or discussing the plans for the bot. If you have some time, please take a look and leave a comment. Thanks, happy editing to you. - Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (May 2018)


Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access, accounts to research and tools as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials on the Library Card platform:

  • Rock's Backpages – Music articles and interviews from the 1950s onwards - 50 accounts
  • Invaluable – Database of more than 50 million auctions and over 500,000 artists - 15 accounts
  • Termsoup – Translation tool

Expansions

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including Baylor University Press, Loeb Classical Library, Cairn, Gale and Bloomsbury.

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 18:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Learning Quarterly: June 2018

L&E Newsletter / Volume 5 / Issue 16 / June 2018
Learning Quarterly

Stay tuned
blogs, events
& more!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)