User talk:2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA

Welcome!
Hello! I noticed your contributions to San Francisco Board of Education&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! EpicPupper 01:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@EpicPupper, Thank you! -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
Hello, I'm SunDawn. I noticed that in this edit to San Francisco Board of Education, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SunDawn (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@SunDawn, good point. I made undo, this time explaining why - to reinstate deleted content (in several sentences) regarding lawsuit alleging violation of California's open meeting law. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * While you indeed add contents about open meeting law, you also delete contents such as "Life of Washington mural removal" and "Programs Section" on the same edit. I have restored sections you deleted while also leaving any addition you made concerning the open meeting. Thanks. SunDawn (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @SunDawn, Thanks I was trying to reinstate those edits manually after the undo as I was only concerned with restoring the contents on the open meeting law. Thanks for getting it done for me.  I'll need to find out how to restore only certain parts instead of being limited to just using the undo button. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism accusations
Making a false accusation of WP:vandalism is a personal attack. Please don't make such accusations without foundation in the future. You may not agree with my edit, and you may or may not be right about that, but my edit is clearly not vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you continue to make personal attacks via your false accusations of vandalism. If you continue to do so, you should expect to be blocked, whatever the legitimacy of your edits since we don't tolerate personal attacks here. BTW, it's funny that you bring up WP:AGF. As far as I'm aware no one has accused you of not acting in good faith. (The closest seems to have been mention of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but that IMO isn't really an accusation of bad faith but instead a suggestion the editor misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia, at least when initially brought up.) However three times now you've accused me of not acting in good faith via your false accusation of vandalism. You also seem to have come very close to that line if not crossed it in other areas for El C and maybe BriefEdits. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne, * Your behavior on the noted article talk page (linked prior to this sentence) raises red flags as you use profanity and disruptive behavior on multiple occasions. WP:DISRUPT WP:F***. Help please. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior at WP:RFPP
This amounts to a Wikipedia version of frivolous litigation. If you do it again, I (or another admin) will block you! Favonian (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @Favonian I do not understand. Please explain. WP:DISRUPT. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Block
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for disruptive editing. The warning by Favonian was clear. If you lack the competence to absorb it, I'm afraid that's on you. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. El_C 15:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @Favonian Still, I do not understand. Please explain. WP:DISRUPT. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Try WP:OTHERPARENT on for size. Your behavior at RfPP and the pinging of several admins are cases in point. Favonian (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Still, the WP:OTHERPARENT link you've provided does not explain. I do not understand. Kindly requesting a logical explanation. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * @El_C, I do not understand why you blocked me. Please explain. WP:DISRUPT -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was for abusing WP:RFPP after being warned against doing so. Also, why do you keep having WP:DISRUPT right before your signature? I don't understand. El_C 16:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @El_CI put WP:DISRUPT as to reference the section title of the same name. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @El_C What did you consider "abusing WP:RFPP"? Please explain. WP:DISRUPT. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @El_C @Favonian could there be issues of WP:ADMINABUSE ? Hopefully not. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, three pings is too much. Anyway, I'm sorry to say, but I'm unable to make sense of your explanation about your usage of WP:DISRUPT . Oh well. In answer to your question: you inappropriately launched a second request for the same thing only a few minutes after the first one was declined. Favonian warned you against doing so, but you persisted even after that warning. The block was to prevent this disruption from continuing further yet. Hope that makes sense. El_C 16:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @El_C, thank for finally explaining. Asking you to be kind when requested for an explanation. Not everyone is experienced as you but even a WP:NOOB has a right to ask for explanation without being insulted. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You weren't insulted. Competence is required in order to edit here. Negotiating Wikipedia's learning curve should not be generating this much conflict. El_C 16:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @El_C, @Favonian, I was not aware that I was offending or being disruptive by submitting a second request on WP:RFPP. How is submitting a second request inappropriate? Is that how you've identified "disruptive"?  I don't understand how simply making a second request is considered inappropriate and would be grounds for having an IP blocked. It seems to me WP:NOOB guidelines may have been violated by how unkind the response has been to honest questions by someone who's new to this. -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, please don't ping me again here. I think my explanation above suffices for the moment. If you wish to challenge the block (to be unblocked), you have the option of requesting that from another admin by making use of the Unblock procedure. El_C 16:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @El_C, @Favonian, Still I do not understand. WP:DISRUPT -2601:645:C001:4A40:7997:8D51:8B5D:3DA (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, if you WP:PING me again by adding @El_C or any variation therein that sees my username being linked, I'm going to disable your talk page access and probably extend your block significantly. El_C 16:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding the obvious: I do not wish to be ping'ed again either. Favonian (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * IP I don't know if you'll get this, one disadvantage with you editing with an IP. But you seem to think that WP:NOOB etc means that editors need to provide you a detailed explanation and if you don't understand the explanation you're entitled to do whatever you want and no action will be taken against you. As you've found out, that's simply not the case. We are not a bureaucracy and we don't require a specific policy or guideline which specifically says you can't do what you are doing, nor do we need to explain in detail why what you're doing is forbidden under our policies and guidelines and norms. I think it's clear to basically everyone uninvolved that your actions were disruptive and that's sufficient. The fact you're new here means most editors will be more generous with you and try to explain things in a little more detail than they normally would. Still you are also responsible for seeking help and also you need to be able to understand the advice given and our policies and guidelines.  If you are told stop posting these useless requests to RFPP, and you then proceed to post basically a duplicate request which was just denied by another admin (not the protecting admin), you shouldn't be surprised if you're subject to some kind of block. If you didn't understand that from what you were told, sorry it's on you.  (Frankly the inability of new editors to understand this is one thing which always mystifies me. Most areas of the internet, or indeed a lot of life tend to be much more a case of 'person in authority tells you to do something or not to do something you probably should listen'. There are very few areas of the internet you can basically ignore an admin or mod. Often at best you can try to discuss some action privately, and maybe if you're lucky it'll be reviewed by some other admin or mod. Wikipedia is one of the few areas where what admins say is often irrelevant unless it's backed by our policies and guidelines and norms. In this case, it wasn't irrelevant because they were right, but if your problem is that you're new, it mystifies me why you didn't just accept you had no choice but to obey. If you only life experience is with a court of law, then well sorry to say it's not very useful for navigating Wikipedia.)  I often suggest new editors who need more detailed help try WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk but sorry to say in your case I'm not sure if these will be of benefit. Sorry to say but it's hard for me to see how any more help could be provided to someone who's basically told, "don't do this" by an uninvolved admin, and then proceeds to do it anyway and then is surprised when they get in trouble.  Likewise, I'm still mystified by some of your actions on the talk page, like why you kept linking to a page about offensive content on articles, when that wasn't on contention. Are you actually reading the pages your linking to and that are being linked to for you?  Anyway while I said on that article talk page I'm withdrawing in part because I don't give a ..... about the board, in reality it's often best if editors don't really care about the subject matter. This is my first suggestion to you. If you want to edit here, I suggest you stop trying to edit anything related to the board or some other area you clearly care a lot about. Start editing articles where the subject matter isn't something you care much about. It could still be something that is of interest to you, but at least not something where you have a strong opinion about what's right and wrong.  Maybe when you do that, you will be able to better learn our policies and guidelines, and it will then be useful for you to seek help at the WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk when you are confused about something. After several months, maybe even a year or two depending on how much you edit, you may know enough to be able to come back to the board article etc and edit without getting into problems.  BTW, if you think people haven't been generous with you consider this. I'm fairly sure you violated WP:3RR on the board article. I don't know if you've ever been given a 3RR warning, I never gave you one in part because I felt it didn't seem appropriate to me given I was also involved in reverting you. I suspect no one else violated 3RR since most editors were experienced enough to avoid it. In fact, I was fairly reluctant to make my third revert when I simply removed that source which didn't mention the lawsuit since I prefer to keep it to two at most except in areas where 3RR doesn't apply. This meant one possible outcome was simply to block you and leave the article unprotected. Still no one suggested this and indeed I opposed any change to semiprotection which would have had a similar effect.  As a final comment, if you chose not to take my advice to stop editing those articles and edit something else, be warned that now your block has expired, you really should be using this time to resolve disputes over the board article and discuss any needed changes on its talk page. For example, maybe you can finally post all those many sources which talk about how nearly all elected officials condemned whatever it was. If you don't take advantage of this time, and instead just wait out the protection and then get into disputes when it expires, if you get lucky it'll simply be fully protected again. If you don't get lucky, you'll end up blocked or it will be semi protected.  Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)