User talk:Blagamaga

December 2016
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't follow other users around solely with the intent to annoy them.
Please don't follow other users around solely with the intent to annoy them. It's annoying, unhelpful, and violates policy. So please consider this a friendly warning. Neutralitytalk 04:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Linda Sarsour
I see that you simply reverted my good-faith compromise effort; therefore I have reverted your BOLD changes to the article and request that you discuss your proposed edits to Sarsour's biography on the article talk page, so that the changes can be examined and an editorial consensus can form without edit-warring. Thank you NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "...my good-faith compromise effort" When did you do that? Blagamaga (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Linda Sarsour. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked
On March 10, I gave you the following caution: "Please don't follow other users around solely with the intent to annoy them. It's annoying, unhelpful, and violates policy. So please consider this a friendly warning."

Then, today, you made this edit today, linking to off-wiki websites (which, in your own words, "flame" a user), in can only be seen as harassment of an individual editor. (I consider it a personal attack as well).

I would be justified, under policy, in imposing a block for this kind of behavior. But I don't want to do that if I can avoid it. Instead, I want you to promptly (1) acknowledge that your recent comment on that article talk page violated our policy and (2) commit to not doing something similar again. Will you do so? Thank you. Neutralitytalk 23:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for harassing other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.


 * Actually, having actually followed the links &mdash; I'm finding that they go well beyond "flaming" and into much darker territory. I'm imposing a 3-month block because of the seriousness of the matter. This is a stop-gap measure, and I will be conferring with other admins to determine if further action is called for.


 * You can still edit your talk page, and I still want a response from you indicating whether you (1) acknowledge that your conduct was unacceptable and (2) commit that, if unblocked, you will not do anything like this again. Neutralitytalk 23:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * How did that segment of my comment constitute harassment? I wasn't the one who did the flaming on those threads, I wasn't endorsing what they/those conspiracy theorists wrote, and the real intent and motivation of my comment was to point out what I saw to be the tragedy of the editing approach and attitude that that user was employing throughout my debates with him, which was that it got him into shit like that even though there was a lot in the position that he took on those issues for which he was subsequently flamed that I actually agreed with/thought was praiseworthy. I am genuinely confused as to what it is that I've done to deserve not just a block, but a block with a penalty of this magnitude, and it would be appreciated it if you can tell me the reasons for your actions/reasoning behind your actions (which I'm assuming that you'd have no problem doing because if you did, then there wouldn't be a reason for you to ask me for my responses to your requests.) Blagamaga (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear I'm prepared to say yes to both (1) and (2), all that I ask for is an explanation of how it is that my comments constituted harassment. Blagamaga (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's harassment because it suggests that an editor "deserved" to be harassed by Internet trolls (i.e., "got him into shit like that"). That's a very troubling attitude - nobody deserves that and it's wrong to even hint to the contrary. The comment was also in no way related to article improvement, but basically seeks to disparage an editor (WP:NPA). There is also a chilling effect concern here - that by bringing up these kinds of things on talk pages and in other personal interactions, editors will be driven from the process. Finally, there is the concern about OUTING. Neutralitytalk 02:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to state for the record that the assumptions/suggestions that you and El_C imputed into my argument were absolutely not the ones that I intended to make when I wrote what I wrote. It wasn't an attempt to intimidate and it wasn't an attempt to out that user and had I known that what Wikipedia even had a policy on harassment that included OUTING I would not have made those comments. What I was suggesting in my comments wasn't that that user deserved to be harassed like that (afterall, you can logically deduce from what I wrote that I think that it is a fact that doxxing is shit) but instead the absurdity/untenability of the double standards of that editor's editing attitude and approach: he couldn't in good faith have accused me of not knowing how Wikipedia worked on the implied grounds that I did not grasp the principle that the inclusion of material should be done by editorial consensus when he was the one who had also unilaterally decided to delete/modify parts of my edits as part of his "compromise edits." Having said that, I'll admit that I should've phrased my comments in a better way so I won't dispute the reasonableness of your interpretation of my comments - if it helps, I'm willing to provide a statement of retraction to that editor as a matter of first-order priority when I resume my debate with him after you unblock me. If it also helps, I'd formally ask that you monitor the discussion/debate between me and that user to prevent something like this from happening again. Surely you can grant me some leniency than to let a block of this kind to stay on my account for a sincere lapse of judgment: after all, your first response to what I did was not to impose the block but forgo it. Blagamaga (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to decline the appeal after discussion with another admin. Posting those links was way, way over-the-top. If you wish to appeal further, see Appealing a block. Neutralitytalk 00:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)