User talk:Daydreamer888

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Rysdahl has been accepted
 David Rysdahl, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=David_Rysdahl help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! S0091 (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Explain a few things
Based on your IRC messages, it seems you might not understand why I took the action that I did. I wanted to come here and explain. The reason I never responded to your IRC messages is because of the lack of accountability and transparency that they provide. So to start the story from my end, you come into the unblock IRC channel. Instead of messaging the channel, you private message the first administrator you see on the list. I'm used to it by now that people just click on me because I'm alphabetical at the top, just something I have to deal with, but you don't interact with any administrators in the main channel. From there you proceed to complain about a user, how they are not blocked for essentially avoiding WP:SCRUTINY. This sets off a series of red flags. At this point, I block you. Just to be clear, it wasn't for being previously blocked, I didn't have evidence to that effect, though it was a possibility. You were blocked for being NOTNEW, and avoiding the scrutiny that would have been placed on whatever former account you had. The kicker here, is this is what you were reporting the other user for, and that's why WP:BOOMERANG came into full swing.
 * 1) You are in the unblock channel, where blocked users come to get unblocked/complain (especially if they can't message in the other IRC channels because they are banned) - so this gives immediate WP:NOTNEW vibes
 * 2) You are anonymously reporting someone else's behavior - often done by others so that WP:BOOMERANG won't apply to them. People who are socking and block evading will report each other, and I've been in the middle of that game before too many times. Because I have been in the middle of that game too many times, I did not respond to you via IRC.
 * 3) Your edit history further screams WP:NOTNEW by starting 2 new articles that are fully properly formatted: A Family Affair (2023 film) & David Rysdahl.
 * 4) Your edit history includes the topic area you are reporting someone else for.

As you later disclosed your old account to me (which I have not blocked), the above was confirmed even more given your previous involvement. I have chosen not to disclose it here in understanding this was just a poor choice. I also did not openly disclose this account to the AN thread where I took your concern, shielding you from the potential drama of it and putting my own name on the line to address the concern. This really should have been your original post, not mine, but for the accountability I'm required to show as an administrator and given this package was left at my doorstep, I couldn't just ignore it.

My writing all this is my accountability to you per the messages you were sending me, being transparent, in hopes you understand why I had to take the action that I did. I'm always open to an unblock request for this account, should you wish to continue editing, but it needs to be done here, in a transparent manner. This interaction we had only proves trying to backchannel your request because you don't want to be involved, but want action taken against another user when you could have addressed it, fails in so many ways. -- Amanda (she/her)  11:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm aware I tend to be a coward and that's not just part of my online persona. Yesterday was my first time using IRC. I went there, searched wikipedia and landed in the unblock channel but not because I looked for that one specifically. Prior to this my interactions with administrators have been via email.
 * To take accountability for my actions I want to disclose my other previous account is @Lily32241 . I used it to edit mainly on Harry Styles related pages. In January I decided to create a new account (to continue the Harry Styles edits but also on other topics) and not use the old one anymore, which I haven't.
 * The user I had issues with in the past didn't get a topic ban because they agreed to be mentored and supervised by 2 experienced wikipedians. When I noticed they started editing under a new account I realized those 2 wikipedians wouldn't be able to do that. In the past the user accused me of stalking them and I feared that if I'm the only one keeping track of their new account that would mean they're sort of right. So I kind of panicked. I should have been transparent about this and I should have filed the report myself. If I get given the chance to continue editing I promise I won't ask other users/admins to do something I should be doing myself and I'll be upfront about whatever concerns I may have and about my past as an editor. But if you choose to block me I will also understand why you did it and just hope it won't be permanent. Daydreamer888 (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to imply anything negative towards you, I'm simply attempting to point out a better path to take moving forward. It's common knowledge that English Wikipedia's procedures are excessively long, and we won't expect you to know all of them, as long as there is the same understanding that blocks aren't personal, but preventing further potential harm and can be required before a user is fully aware of what is going on. It's essentially just a learning opportunity. Basically if you are wondering if we have a policy for a certain behavior, 98% of the time we do. Like the stalking concern you note above, we have WP:HOUNDING to cover it. I am always willing and happy to point people to the relevant policies if they ask, so don't hesitate to stop by my talkpage if you need to know if we have a policy for something.
 * Beyond that, I think we now are both on the same page, and the preventative reason for this block is done, meaning I'm unblocking you. I would encourage you to at least review the paragraph of the section I linked on the links above to make sure you understand them. Essentially me linking them makes you aware that they exist and that could be a factor considered in your conduct moving forward (not that I think there will be future issues, but more as establishing yourself as a Wikipedian). -- Amanda (she/her)  18:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll try and do my best going forward. Daydreamer888 (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)