|
Per this ANI thread, you are indefinitely topic banned from the Canadian monarchy, broadly construed. This applies to any discussion, article, or part of an article anywhere on the English Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, this is adieu to Wikipedia, then. That's my area of expertise and, if two decades adding to it dozens of articles and building up dozens more with hundreds of thousands of words and hundreds of reliable sources doesn't stand for anything against the, by comparison, small compendium of examples of my having exacerbated fractious disputes, and if even my fulfilling, over the last couple of weeks, my promise to modify my behaviour means nothing, well... I no longer see any logic in donating my time and effort to this venture; the complete lack of appreciation was already leading me to question how much I ought to keep giving. This topic ban seals the deal. Unofrtunate, as I was just in the midst of a few productive discussions.
Thanks for the 20 years. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 14:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You might consider waiting a while to cool down -- and I can well empathise with the frustration you must be feeling -- for a couple of weeks or months, and then perhaps appeal to AN or indeed yo Arbcom. Either way, all the best. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite cool over here; about eight degrees, right now. My decision was premediatated; I knew weeks ago a ban was a possible outcome and considered my reaction. And that was before I'd self-analyzed, explained at AN/I where my faults lay, promised to change, and then did, as demonstrated by all the discussions I've been part of over the two weeks since. The fact the ban has come today, regardless, not only shows it's personal, but, it also affirms my earlier suspicion that the balance between the work I've put into this project (inlduing work on myself; on my emotions and behaviours) and what I've received from it is way, way off. It's bad for one's mental health.
- I won't be appealing anything if the majority of the other guilty parties don't also change. There will never be a point to coming back for another hypocritical beat-down.
- The best to you, as well, 109. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I entirely agree about the mental-health aspect. Wikipedia is supposed to be a crucible of facts, not just of psychological endurance, as seems to what's actually the case in practice.. But moaning about that aside, for the people that have suffered as a result of it that should be priority for sure. Take good care of yourself, and ignore Wikipedia for as long as necessary. Including forever... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A shame. We had our differences on the Charles article but I always valued your contributions there. Hope one day you might choose to come back: if not, I wish you well for the future. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree this would be a loss to Canadian articles overall in my view. Moxy🍁 19:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to see you go, but I understand the frustration. I do hope you seek an appeal in future, but you need to do what is best for you. Being an editor can be a thankless job, but know that many of us appreciate many contributions you have made over the years.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to you, Tim, and Moxy for the remarks; your appreciation is appreciated. The thanklessness out there is one thing and could probably be pretty easily rectified; barnstars exist for a reason!
- However, when I spoke above of what I got from this place in return for what I put in, I wasn't lamenting a lack of kudos for my time and effort, I was referring to the harassment, personal vendettas, and biased use of power that came my way, on many occasions. For years, I'd feel anxiety when logging in here, dreading seeing that a certain stonewalling, gaslighting editor had started the 836th weeks-long conflict with me or which of those who hate me for personal reasons had jumped in to double, triple, or quadruple the resistance against me; and I mean resistance, because none of them ever showed a willingness to compromise with me. That resulted in the situations in which I felt I wasn't being heard, my reaction to which I admitted at AN/I was my error, not only insofar as exacerbating conflicts, but, feeding my opponents ammunition to use against me; I was helping continue the very cycle I despised.
- But, despite rectifying my behaviour and putting my time and thought into some productive conflict resolving, finding some compromises and working on others, I was still "rewarded" with my haters falsely accausing me of being disruptive and a topic ban (effectively a Wikipedia ban, for me) from an admin who doesn't do his due dilligence. I'll give for no thanks. I won't give for relentless abuse and toxicity.
- I'm sure you three and 109 will continue to maintain the Canadian monarchy articles to a high, factual, well-written standard. And trackratte, too; should he decide to fully return after what seems like a voluntary break of his own. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your not here...but if you happen to look here. Ten years ago or so we had some wording about "de facto head of state" at the GG article. Do you recall what sources corved this? The debate is back and i recall us coming up with context for this but cant find it. Moxy🍁 15:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- While I could otherwise assist, the terms of my topic ban disallow me from discussing this. Sorry. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
archive: 12/08 | 01>03/09 | 04>09/09 | 10/09>03/10 | 04>09/10 | 10/10>03/11 | 04>09/11 | 10/11>03/12 | 04>09/12 | 10/12>03/13 | 04>09/13 | 10/13>03/14 | 04>09/14 | 10/14>03/15 | 04>09/15 | 04>09/14 | 10/15>03/16 | 04/16>06/22 | 07/22>03/24