User talk:Akaibu

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Vininn126 (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Babel

Greetings, did you consider adding {{Babel}} to your user page? It's not mandatory, just useful. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Error, please be more careful

https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=---.._---..&diff=80657734&oldid=70691145 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

can we have a moratorium on adding topics?

Just because someone created a topic page doesn't mean we necessarily need the topic in our system. I need to review the changes you've made. In the meantime could you not add any more? Thanks! Benwing2 (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

please don't edit war

Hi, I reverted your change to al dente because there is no need for {{etystub}} to be added here; there is already an etymology that's just fine. In general it doesn't accomplish much to add such requests for etymology. Please don't edit war to try and get your way. Benwing2 (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Quotations

Reminding you here since my message on Discord has already gotten buried. You recently added some quotations to the entries xaliproden, xipamide, ambisonic, queerious, apathist, and acetophenetidin. The formatting is extremely messed up, specifically:

• The entry word should be bolded in the quotation text.
• Include a full sentence whenever possible — some of the quotations only have a fragment of a phrase and are incomprehensible.
• Remove the extra spaces between punctuation and remove link-breaking hyphens (unless the word is meant to have a hyphen anyway).
• Make sure the quotation metadata is correct.
• Make sure that the quotation template is preceded with #*.
• Make sure that the quotations are ordered chronologically.

By the way, if you're interested in adding more quotations, you might find Wiktionary:Quotations/Resources useful. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Akaibu (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Vininn and TKW for some reason have decided that my recent edits to PIE entries were warrant to block me because I confessed not have an intimate understanding of PIE, despite explaining the process i had in making those edits, which as of the writing of this appeal, have still not been reverted. Akaibu (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm honestly baffled why I was blocked for my edits, which are now seem to be reverted by @CitationsFreak because they "go against PIE editor consensus", which seems odd as they aren't a PIE editor as far I know so I'm not sure where they got that, also considering I was adding a new part of an existing template that existed for less than 6 hours, so how could i be going against something that doesn't exist? Another aspect baffling is that the convo on the discord leading up to my block was weird, to summarize:

- "hey i edited 20 pages of PIE to put make use of a new aspect of an existing template"

and they go "hey maybe don't?"

- "alright i'm done editing those but what's wrong?"

- "do you know PIE?"

- "does that matter? are my edits bad?"

they then go into the Dunning Kruger effect for some reason

- "that doesn't seem actually relevant and seems like gatekeeping"

- "okay that's it your not taking responsibility for your edits, you're blocked kthxbye"

I summarize this convo up because there seems to be this weird idea that you need to be an expert in a language to be able to edit it, when we actually have IPs edit the Reconstruction namespace all the time, how do we know that any of them "know" any of the reconstructed languages they edit? Like, isn't half the point of Wiktionary and Wikipeida and our other projects is that it is something anyone can edit? sure competence is required but being competent doesn't mean expertise. I feel like my edits were within my means of competence, as for example I wouldn't have edited the inflection tables of a reconstructed language or even an attested one as that's not something i'm familiar with.

@Chuck Entz @Koavf @This, that and the other hopefully someone can clear this up and explain how I was somehow in the wrong for doing what seems like standard practice. Akaibu (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you please provide some relevant diffs for context? I will also note that 1.) Vininn126 stated that you were not serious about analyzing or taking responsibility, and it's not necessarily clear from your tone that you're doing that and 2.) casually mentioning things like the Dunning–Kruger effect is really not constructive. Please consider how your comments may impact others and whether or not they are really helping make a case for you (and this is coming from someone who has knowledge of how not to talk to someone else on the Internet). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf I was not the one (initially) referencing Dunning Kruger, that was TKW (I believe, I've been kicked from the discord where the discussion happened and thus can't directly reference the convo verbatim), I was just refuting the relevance of it.

Special:diff/81552741 is probably representive of the edits I made though this should show all the relevant edits, my process was using this petscan query, which is looking for pages in the Category for Proto-Indo-European suffixes that contain the {{etymon}} template. Going through those, I actually checked each I went to go edit to see if they were in fact PIE suffixes, of which they were. After which I added the new POS parameter of the etymon template as "suffix". As well as doing this, I also removed the redundant use of the "from" derivation keyword where they were in use; as well as make use of the text parameter in cases where they could make the various etymology templates redundant, of which right now is only a very limited subsection of current etymologies, thus why that label is referred to as "experimental" in the documentation. Akaibu (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This is another good reason to never use Discord. Looking at this revision and this revision, they at least render identically and are in all the same categories, so it's not even clear what the change does. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf yes they were meant to be rather inconsequential edits, kinda like taking care of pages that show up on Categories with topic categories using raw markup, which again why I'm baffled I've been blocked for them. Akaibu (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vininn126: can you comment here? I don't see how this edit is blockworthy. Are there specific diffs of something problematic that this user did? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf This user has on multiple occasions 1) gone against consensus, i.e. with the placemente of templates and stated on Discord that they don't see how a few people making a discussion somewhere constitute consensus when this was pointed out, shifting the blame 2) When asked not make certain types of edits for fear of propogating mistakes (as the user is inexperienced with certain L2's or formatting etc.) they again shift the blame saying that it's not problematic or they just they "reflect what they see", without realizing that their edits have a certain impact, and not being able to explain the impact of those edits. The user also frequently is combative in discussions, and when confronted with problematic behavior, does not take responsibility. I do not trust this user to edit the website, as they clearly do not understand the impact of certain edits and just do it blindly. Vininn126 (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

When requesting other users to be aware of certain edits or when correcting them, the response is usually receptive. I have had such an an experience @Juwan lately, who recently asked for autopatroller, and when corrected on certain edits on Discord has been very receptive. Akaibu has not shown this behavior. @Benwing2 might also be able to comment on Akaibu's behavior. In short this user wishes to do what they want, ignore consensus, and when confronted to shift the blame and say "I don't understand why I could be blocked or criticized for this."Vininn126 (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Akaibu, based on what Vinnin126 wrote above and the fact that I have no idea what was actually said on Discord, my recommendation is that you 1.) acknowledge that there may well be consensus against your edits, whether that is reasonable or not, 2.) seek to find consensus prior to making any kind of systematic edit in the future, and 3.) wait out this block, which is in the grand scheme, not that long, but will give you an opportunity to formulate what kinds of edits you think would be appropriate in this namespace, make an argument for them, and post in a place that makes sense to seek consensus when you are allowed to edit again. At this time, I will decline to unblock, but I will leave it up to others to assess if the block should be shortened or removed. If you encounter admins using abusive language, please let me know in the future. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf Vininn126 brought up the Dunning-Kruger effect, not me, though I will say that it applies very well in this case. Theknightwho (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

He already explained that and now you're doing the thing I cautioned against him doing. There's no reason to talk that way or to be rude like you evidently were in the chat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf What does "I was not the one (initially) referencing Dunning Kruger, that was TKW" mean? That's what I was referring to. I also wasn't rude at all, but it's good to see your usual biases on show, Justin. Theknightwho (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You think that writing "you're blocked kthxbye" isn't rude? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's not go down this path.

Dunning-Kruger was not brought up as an insult, but rather to try and make the user aware that they don't know how much they don't know. Vininn126 (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf Something I never actually said. Akaibu's """quotes""" are actually summaries, not real quotes, so take them with a (heavy) grain of salt. Theknightwho (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Another good reason to not use Discord. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

i will actually defend on TKW here in saying that they were not combative in the convo and my "you're blocked kythxbye" was not verbatim but more my summarizing of the convo, but was basically how the convo went. I've had some problems with some of my discord posts being posted on site without my permission but if anyone feels like copying the convo over for context that would be fine by me.Akaibu (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding this sort of template (or new part) is something that needs editor consensus, even if it's new. CitationsFreak (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Koavf: Akaibu wasn't blocked immediately after making these edits — it happened after an argument ensued on Discord in which @Vininn126 and @Theknightwho asked Akaibu to avoid making potentially controversial edits to languages they aren't familiar with (|text= is "experimental", meaning that it could have issues or be changed in the future). I'm concerned that Akaibu was blocked for "diffs" that exist only on Discord, a walled garden that relatively few editors have access to. Ioaxxere (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's useful context. I've personally declined to unblock since the block is not that long and I don't see a compelling reason to lift it immediately, but I've left the request for anyone else who wants to intervene. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a fair point, but the user should also be aware that when asked by multiple users not to edit a particular language in a particular way (and asked passively by others as well) and then continues to ignore that, or ignores consensus generally, I worry that the user will continue to make edits asked not to. Vininn126 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Catonif (or if asking the newly minted admin is in not kosher, any other able admin who hasn't reviewed/responded to this case), I request once again an appeal of my block, mostly on grounds for its length for a first block (since my rather flabbergasted appeal at first, even if perhaps could be better phrased, still is the best arguments I have on the actual issue of my block itself). A month has already passed, is that really not enough? I don't believe 2 more months would really do anything to improve the odds on if I'm "rehabilitated" or not, only by giving me the chance to show that I have will. Akaibu (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

To interject, you may certainly ask Catonif directly and as another admin than the one who initially blocked you, I view blocks as something that should be proportionate to how much damage the behavior caused and their duration should be limited to a reasonable length that a person could understand or as you put it, rehabilitate inappropriate behavior. From what I re-read and recall from above, one of the issues was going against consensus, so if you're going to get a block shortened, it's probably best to at least acknowledge issues of going against consensus, pledge to seek it in the future, and particularly once you are unblocked, be sure to positively seek out consensus for possibly controversial changes before making lots of edits that may contradict it. I speak from experience here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I indeed concur that as a first block three months does seem excessive, and as soon as I knew about the block I did confess to the blocking admin that, despite the behaviour before and right after the ban (I particularly disagree with much of the choice of language and tone employed by Akaibu on his first unblock request here), I would have nevertheless started with a shorter ban, and I did believe a month to be the usual practice for this kind of occurrences. I won't of course take any action into my hands, as I am, as it stands, officially the least experienced of any admin (as a matter of fact, this is so early that adminship rights have not even been given to me yet!) and wouldn't dare to start out with a matter such this one, but I would like for other more responsible people here to just think a bit more over the length of the ban, which, as much as I (don't) know, doesn't appear to exactly follow our usual ban-incrementation practices.

I however can't abstain from mentioning the fact that you, Akaibu, appealing to me in particular, perhaps as you know that your behaviour personally does not bother me nearly as much as it seemingly bothers others, even if koscher, does come off as slightly desperate. A friendly face on the other side of authority won't single-handedly turn the tables around, and you ought to realise, as @Koavf neatly explains, that redemption does not lie in amending other people's opinion on you, it firstly lies on amending one's self. Sentences such as my rather flabbergasted appeal [...] still is the best arguments I have on the actual issue of my block and I don't believe 2 more months would really do anything to improve the odds on if I'm "rehabilitated" or not tell the reader that your current ideas are the same after one month (and you even go as far as claiming that they will still be the same even after three!), and this is the last impression you'd ever want to give on an unblock request, believe me. As a personal advice, instead of continuing to dismiss the admins' actions and words as wrong and to keep defending your behaviour as right please investigate on your own behaviour in those circumstances and try to understand what caused its consequences. Not all of us, certainly, have the same opinions and the same sensibility on everything, which is why getting behind opposing views instead of plainly dismissing them is a crucial part in parttaking in such a variegated community as our project's. Catonif (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)