User talk:Itsjustluck

advice

Hi and welcome to wikipedia. Edits like this are not allowed. We do not allow controversial content to be added to

WP:BLPUNDEL applies (so you cannot revert the deletion), so you cannot re-add the content, you must discuss it on the talk page first. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GS

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in

cryptocurrencies. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Editing privileges revoked

Calling other editors, in a content dispute over BLP material, vandals, and ascribing the motivations to them that you did, is unaaceptable. Your editing privileges are hereby revoked, as is your talk page access as you did this on your own talk page. Uncle G (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #81036 is closed.

tl;dr, but user possesses/offers zero insight into their own behavior and blames others. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

adding ANI thread link -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum-- Please read and understand the content linked below. Two are policies, and the third an essay. Please be prepared to apply this knowledge to your conduct going forward and in any future unblock request. Thanks.

-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd better add

WP:NPA to your reading list. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi - I'm Girth Summit, another administrator. I am also a primary school teacher in real life, and I can assure you that I take about as dim a view as it is possible to have on child pornography. I took a look at the UTRS ticket, and wanted to offer you some advice, motivated by a desire to demonstrate to you that Wikipedia is not some cesspit full of child porn apologists, and to give you a better understanding of why your edits were being reverted, and why you ended up blocked.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; that is to say, it is a tertiary source of information. Our goal is to summarise what reliable secondary sources say about any subject. Our volunteers have a certain amount of editorial freedom in how to write about their subjects, but that is limited, and those limitations are more rigorously enforced when it comes to articles about living people (this is discussed in more detail at

WP:BLP

, and there are a lot of links to other useful policies and guidelines from that one). In short, when writing about living people, we are guided in what we say about them by what reliably published, independent secondary sources have already said about them. You might think that someone's views on child porn are significant, and I might agree with you, but we don't write about them unless reliable independent sources have already done so. To decide that something is significant and start writing about it after looking at someone's Twitter feed just isn't how we roll - we don't have a third-party basis for establishing the significance of their views, if we paraphrase them we risk misrepresenting them, or if we quote them directly we risk missing context that might potentially be important... basically, that's just not how encyclopedias are written. We cannot and do not rely on our editors to do analysis of primary sources (like Twitter), we rely on secondary sources to do the analysis for us, and then we summarise what the sources say. Until the secondary sources do the work, we stand mute.

So, that's why your edits were reverted. Please trust me on this, I've seen this kind of thing a hundred times and more, there is no ulterior motive, it was literally just experienced editors who recognised that an inexperienced editor was not abiding by our sourcing and content policies. What led to your block, however, was your failure to assume good faith (discussed at

WP:AGF

), and your wild accusations that the people reverting you were motivated to do so because they liked child pornography. None of our hard-working volunteer editors deserve to be subjected to accusations like that. I can appreciate that you were frustrated, but it is our duty as administrators to protect people from things like that; if you want to contribute here, you need to do so in a collegiate manner, and while you are learning the ropes you need to ask questions and listen to the answers, rather than assuming that you are surrounded by paedophiles.

So, in short: if you intend to make another UTRS appeal, do some self-reflection first. I know I'm just a random guy on the internet, but I say this from the heart: the people you were interacting with were acting in good faith, in accordance with our editorial standards. If I had a button I could press that would destroy all child porn in the world, and imprison everyone who had ever had a hand in creating it, I would press it in a heartbeat, but if I had seen what you had done today before Uncle G, I too would have blocked your account. Best wishes Girth Summit _(blether) 20:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]