EXPECTING MARGINALIZED PEOPLES TO DISREGARD THEIR OWN EMOTIONS TO CALMLY EDUCATE YOU IS THE EPITOME OF ENTITLEMENT.[change source]

Your recent comments[change source]

Hi there. I'm just giving you a little advice here. Rather than treating the deletion discussion as some kind of battle to discredit anyone who disagrees with you (as you have done with Camouflaged Mirage, Quakewoody, and now me), it may be more useful to give reasons as to why you believe the subject is notable, providing reliable sources. Your comments so far are not likely to convince the closing admin of your argument, as you seem to be commenting more on the delete voters than the article content. Best regards, --IWI (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY and I am not really interested in wasting time defending article in a hostile environment and to individuals whose bahaviour I find problematic. Sometime it is more important HOW and to WHOM, then just What... IWI

https://cishits.tumblr.com/post/101947378588/expecting-marginalized-peoples-to-disregard-their Zblace (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that is exactly how you need to be on an encyclopedia. If you can't be neutral about a subject, you shouldn't be on that subject. Quakewoody (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Quakewoody I love getting lessons from a person that is banned on major Wikipedia instances like yourself. ;-)

Zblace (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Properly Updating Pages[change source]

Hi Zblace! I have noticed you have been making big strides on the article QueerSportSplit, however two things stand out to me. You are marking all of your changes as minor. Please do not mark them as minor, as they are not. Minor is used for if you correct a spelling error on a word or add a word. Not for when you delete or add huge sections. Secondly, Please use the edit reason appropriately, just keeping simplification is not a good reason as you should list more (i.e. simplified 3rd paragraph). This allows us to quickly identify anything needed to address on the vandalism side so we don't have to go through all the edits. Same with minor. If you mark everything as a minor edit, it throws a giant red flag at us. Thanks for understanding. PotsdamLamb (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that. Just assumed that it is change of style and being reductive *(hence no new content) - thanks for info on your perspective. Zblace (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add another opinion here. If you're only simplifying (e.g. QSS is organizing -> QSS does) then I think it's fine to be marked as minor, but if you are removing content as well as that then it is not minor. Hope this helps. Thanks, —Belwine (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I am removing some non-essential constructions, but not any structure and references. Zblace (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[change source]

With regard to your comments on QueerSportSplit: Please see "Wikipedia:No personal attacks". Talk about changes editors have made, not the editors. They are also not allowed on your talk pages, others talk pages, or in private email. Personal attacks damage the community and scare away users. Please note that more personal attacks will lead to you being blocked for disruption. Thank you. PotsdamLamb (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PotsdamLamb I apologize, but I am bad a following norms in the face of unjust behavior. Good luck with work here!

Zblace (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block[change source]

You knew this would be an issue, I attempted to warn you, and at this point there is no option other than to block your account. Your behavior on this project has been utterly unacceptable. Basless accusations against anyone and everyone who disagrees with you is in clear violation of established civility policy. Vermont (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont I am sorry to say but I do not mind as it is not the project I would want to contribute. I feel bad I contributed before also. So much protection of casual accusations and remarks, so much Anglo-centrism of people who speak no other languages, let alone support non-native speakers. It is a pity that projects purpose is lost and suppression is tolerate if wrapped in courteous and neutral language. Choice is easy. Take care and good luck! Zblace (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...what? The RfD was closed as kept (by me) and Quakewoody was blocked (by me). I happen to agree with you on a lot of things, but that is independent from my administrative actions. The manner in which you deliver your views very frequently involves personal attacks. That is patently unacceptable and there is no choice for me to make other than to place a block on your account. Vermont (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure @Vermont I appreciate you left the article stand and that Quakewoody was blocked, but for me it was never a matter of this single article or single person. I was rather focused to see what is the overall atmosphere of Simple Wikipedia and if it is place where I want to invest much more of my spring time and bring others from CEE region effort for cross-language proxy-translation on topics that are feminist, queer, de-colonizing and anti-racist *(for CEE Spring 2021 translation campaign). Unfortunately it did not work out. I do not want to have this kind of struggle (also hunting down deletions on Commons and Wikidata, while SH and HR article stands) or relay on you as admin to save or not article, because someone in Simple English is into hard core policing like IWI was this time. I really hope you find your way to be more inviting (I never even got a welcome on Talk page ;-) Take care -- Zblace (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is irresponsible for you to attempt to frame this as you determining that the Simple English Wikipedia is a place with a bad "atmosphere". Let me rephrase my block message: you are not welcome to contribute to this project when you frequently and blatantly attack other editors. Vermont (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont now I think you take it personal. I think the atmosphere is not good for me and what I wanted to do.

Maybe I will regret or forget this, but violence and actions experienced were learning for me that focus was not on care, support and welcoming but on fast policing and self-centering. Once I compile documentation on all what happened (including velocity of actions beyond Simple Wikipedia) I will also share it with you. Please note that I am not claiming I was acting best possible, but what was teased out was also result at least partly of structural issues. Zblace (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are have already been several succesful collaborations regarding LGBT studies and feminism on English Wikipedia. The difference is that these people consulted the Wikipedia community beforehand instead of rushing through everything and telling people about said collaboration afterwards --Trade (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, given that almost no one knew anything, how did you expect this to work out? - Many wikis have "welcome bots", where some bot leaves a welcome message on your talk page. We don't use such bots. Also, the suspicion against anything sexually non-straight is still large, in many parts of society. We are a small wiki, with a limited number of contributors. Asking for reliable sourcing, and wanting to be able to decide an RfD without recourse to other wikipedias is not an outrageous demand. The way this was set up, it was impossible to be successful. So, what was the point? --Eptalon (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eptalon will email you off-wiki. Zblace (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is problematic here, is that Z.Blace is relatively new in our community and that we should be more welcoming. He does himseld admit he was not at his best", I do think that we should give time to people to adapt to the way arguments are "neutrally" formulated. Please assume goodfaith! He was only in his eyes proitecting LGBTIQ content! Now it seems what is happening is that we are again loosing a new contributor. And we are losing the potential for simple wikipedia to be promoted in CEE spring. I think now that Z was blocked he has paid enough and should not receive all these messages on his talk page. They are truly demotivating.- Nattes à chat (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I, and the rest of the community, are sure they were acting in good faith. However, they were warned numerous times about attacking other editors, and they continued. If they commit to not attack editors further, an unblock may be considered by the admin team and they could be welcomed back into the community. So far, this has not happened. I'll also add that blocks aren’t designed to make people "pay", they are designed to protect the encyclopedia and its community from damage. --IWI (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IWI! It has been 6 months since we were interacting and I can say that I commit not to attack editors on Simple. I will only edit exceptional and essential for my Wikimedia work as a whole. Would you now remove the block of my account on Simple?

Meanwhile please notice that though that as you said blocks aren’t designed to make people "pay", it was super costly on my work in other projects and in interaction with Wikimedia in general (I just had an unfortunate 6 week global lock by User:Tks4Fish that for terrible reasons only got discussed and resolved 3 days ago thanks to individual effort of User:Martin Urbanec).

If you and rest of the community really thinks that I was acting in good faith (as you said) I think it should not be hard decision or long decision process to make me unblocked on Simple. There is urgency in my work right now in Croatia with two wiki education projects that are halted and might be cancelled because of this (though they have no connection to Simple whatsoever). Thank you! --04:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC) Zblace (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, blocks are not punitive. It did, however, prevent abuse. Though you did evade the block on March 8 with the 2020W account, the block prevented any further incivility. And as it seems the issues around your sockpuppetry and incivility have been resolved, I have no objections to unblocking. As I was also the acting admin on Meta, I'll leave it to another admin here to do the technical unblocking if they agree. Best, Vermont (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zblace, I have unblocked your account. I think you've made it clear that you're not going to attack other editors again and Vermont says the sockpuppetry issues have been resolved. Welcome back to editing, please let me know if you need any help. --Ferien (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is all. --Zblace (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nattes à chat, insulting editors and admins (some of whom are LGBTIQ) and accusing them of being anti-LGBTIQ for !voting in a deletion discussion is not protecting LGBTIQ content, it is incivility and is not permitted on any Wikimedia project. Also, Z's pronouns are listed on their userpage, they do not use he/him. Vermont (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]