User talk:RoyZuo

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces (Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk) for WP:IDHT.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Valereee (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to any other admin unblocking if they feel they've gotten through to this editor. Valereee (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

first reason: so the blocking reason is "i dont understand wp:agf".
but in wikipedia or wikipedia talk namespace i didnt argue about my supposed misunderstanding of AGF in november. if there is any such problematic edit of mine, User:Valereee needs to give a diff as evidence.
Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals: "Blocks should not be used: to retaliate; to disparage; to punish; or if there is no current conduct issue of concern."
for example, all my Wikipedia talk edits are discussing the arbcom candidates and other topics https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=RZuo&namespace=5, nothing about AGF.
second reason: Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins: "editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved."
i disputed Valereee's claim that i assumed bad faith, and her understanding of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, then i was blocked.
third reason: by blocking me from editing wikipedia and wikipedia talk ns, i am deprived of the chance to go thru Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Noticeboards_2 and ask for help. Dispute resolution by asking other users to mediate is something User:Valereee as an involved sysop should also have done.--RZuo (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't see any significant retreat (ahem) from the battleground mentality you have evinced prior to the block here and elsewhere. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

RZuo (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like declining this as I've commented here before, but I don't see this a convincing request and believe it affirms Valereee's block. RZuo has a long history of CIR and tendentious behavior in various spaces, primarily Wikipedia: space. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

i didnt do what User:Valereee accuses me of: "assuming bad faith", because: #User:Valereee thinks i keep "assuming bad faith" for edits like Special:Diff/1165390786 ("there was no argument for why nyt was preferred over other news agencies to justify that edit.").

Valereee's edit"habit of assuming bad faith...here" #Wikipedia:Assume good faith: "Nor does assuming good faith prohibit discussion and criticism... Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." #all the accusations Valereee makes against me can be summarised as: ##User:Enterprisey said "I don't know for sure, but I vaguely recall that it might've been because AfC wanted it for their submission template, because they were already linking to a NYT search." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=1173631241 . ##i said, there was no discussion/consensus that led to the earliest addition of nyt in "find sources" templates and modules (without any reference to User:Enterprisey's name or his conduct). (the earliest addition https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Find_sources_3&diff=prev&oldid=217157307 , by a different user in 2008, predating User:Enterprisey's 2016 edit. so what i said, is not even exactly related to what User:Enterprisey said.) ##Valereee thinks, i am accusing User:Enterprisey of bad faith by saying something different from User:Enterprisey. #disagreeing with another user, is not assuming bad faith of that user.

disagreeing with another user, is not "attributing the actions being criticized to malice".

in fact, disagreeing with another user doesnt claim anything about that user's intention or conduct at all. #quoting User:Czar from Wikipedia_talk:Assume_good_faith#Title_misinterpretation: "Assumption of good faith" is often interpreted, especially by those new to it, as similar to a "blind faith". Most importantly with something like, "I do not have access to the source so I 'assume good faith'", even though that's not how it's meant to be applied.

in other words, "Assumption of good faith" does not mean that, users' claims (even if without evidence) are accepted unconditionally.

(otherwise, why does for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ask "Include diffs"? anyone makes a claim without diffs, then by Valereee's logic you should automatically "assume good faith" and believe any claim is true.) :i explained to the accuser four times why my edits made no judgement against other users nor other users' motives https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valereee&oldid=1187094370#sectioning . :yet my attempt to communicate not only failed but also got myself a block and a declined unblock.--RZuo (talk) 3:53 pm, 29 November 2023, Wednesday (1 month, 8 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Clearly you do not understand why you were blocked. Clearly, you are still editing in a tendentious manner, and clearly you have not addressed the reasons for your block. You might want to reread someof the comments you blanked and maybe that would help you understand. Please concisely and clearly tell us why you were blocked and what you would do differently.. And please, no illustrative allusions. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

lol, the situation in which i am blocked for, is exactly discussed by User:Czar and User:WhatamIdoing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Assume_good_faith&oldid=1174593776#Title_misinterpretation .

and also User:Czar's Wikipedia_talk:Assume_good_faith/Archive_9#Faith_and_verification in 2016:

I have seen, on more than one occasion, an editor citing "assume good faith" when another reader asks for help verifying a citation. This is to say that AGF—the behavioral guideline for assuming that others mean well and are not acting maliciously—is confused with simple "trust but verify" verification requests. So while we assume that editors add citations to the best of their ability (and mean well), AGF doesn't mean that we abdicate verifiability, especially when the editor has the source material...
— User:Czar

AGF should not extend to assuming any form of content is accurate without evidence.
— User:Alextejthompson

i disagreed with a claim by another user. i asked for evidence to back up the disputed claim. and then i was said (notably by a third-party but not the supposed target of my action) to be not assuming good faith.🥴--RZuo (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says above that the block is "for WP:IDHT" (=not AGF). That usually means that you are not showing the community that you know How to Win Friends and Influence People, or to collaborate in a collegial project. If you want to get an IDHT block removed, you usually need to demonstrate Soft skills. Depending on what the underlying dispute was about, that might sound something like "I can see that my effort to help by ______ might have been upsetting because _______ and ________. In the future, I plan to _______ to avoid problems like this. I understand that it's more important for us to work together than for me to get what I think is best right away". Of course, now that I've spelled it out, it'll be about as convincing as a little child who's been told to say 'sorry' for bumping into a friend, but perhaps that will give you an idea for a relevant response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's "WP:IDHT after repeated explanations of what constitutes ABF..."

the accusing and blocking user thinks i fail to understand their interpretation of ABF/AGF (assuming bad/good faith), but their interpretation is plain wrong. my 4 attempts to explain to them becomes "IDHT" aka "Failure or refusal to "get the point"", "the point" being their wrong interpretation of ABF/AGF.

am i the 1st person to notice this misinterpretation of AGF ("AGF = accepting claims without evidence")? no, you, Czar, Alextejthompson already said the same thing.

will i be the last victim of these sysops' misinterpretations? answer looks like "no" too.--RZuo (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In the future, I plan to _______ to avoid problems like this."

towards this misinterpretation and the resultant accusation, my initial strategy had been to ignore and avoid argument, then i got threatened with blocking, so i explained, then i got blocked. i say nothing? block. i say something? block.

i argue after i get blocked? soon i will be blocked further for "battleground". a million ways to get blocked.

the only recourse i can see, is Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Noticeboards_2, but i have already been preemptively blocked from all those pages.

i'm not concerned at all, after all, ja:wikt:悪事千里を走る "bad news travels fast". :) --RZuo (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RZuo, dispute resolution isn't where you'd need to take this, as it isn't a content dispute. You can take it to WP:XRV or to WP:AN. I or anyone else can post your appeal to one of those places; ping me if you'd like me to do that. Valereee (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prophecies

what will happen to this account: let's see. :) --RZuo (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Discussion

Hi, are you really sure you want to disclose all your votes on that page? Security poll is a tool that protect you from being harmed if you voted against someone, since once they got elected they will get the almost highest priviledge (Checkuser) on this project. Please take care of your actions. -Lemonaka‎ 11:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've hardly seen this kind of action, just a kind reminder. -Lemonaka‎ 11:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]