User talk:Wekeepwhatwekill

Archives
Archive 1

F.A Q
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. Your signature is too ________ (fill in the blanks), will you change it ? I prefer to keep my signature as-is for now. After all, signatures should be individual, like our names. Some are fine with simple, basic signatures, others like artistic signatures. Mine fits into the space provided in preferences and does not feature images, nor does it use any template from any other page to add to it. Obviously, if any part of it breaks a page it's on, I'll be happy to fix that issue or any other code issue. Anything else relating to preference, color choice, font, I'm willing to discuss, but may not decide to make the change your asking for, it's ok to ask though. Don't worry, I'll likely change it sometime in the future. Please understand, I'm not trying to be a dick about it, I happen to like artistic signatures, that's my sole reason for having a flashy signature. Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and as long as my signature remains within the guidelines for WP:SIG, it's a valid signature and shouldn't need changing.

Hello Wekeepwhatwekill, just wanted to let you know that you can mark articles that fall under QD criteria for WP:QD. It saves time and I think doing so is important for the cases involving attacks and vandalism. You can mark pages for QD with the help of Twinkle too. Thanks and happy editing!-BRP ^ever 15:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @BRPever. I already spoke with the admin that removed my tag and even though I didn't agree with the tag removal, I understood their reasons and agreed not to tag that article again. I will keep this in mind for future articles, however.

Wekeepwhatwekill  ^Spe_ak! 21:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Clicky clicky #wikipedia-simple ^connect Operator873^talkconnect 20:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

I reworked your article as requested. If you don't like my changes, you may revert them. I won't mind and totally understand. These changes make the article simple and concentrate on the subject matter while leaving other subjects (like hexadecimal) up to other articles. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Operator873^talkconnect 00:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

In April 2018, you were site banned from the English Wikipedia under your previous account. That ban occurred due to a pattern of behavior that showed your competence was not up to the requirements of Wikipedia. In part, that lack of competence was shown by your misunderstanding of policies and procedures. In September 2020, you were warned about the ONESTRIKE policy here.

Your actions today, especially this comment here show that the competency issues continue. You are continuing to make your own interpretations of guidelines and procedures and lecture others on how it should be done. For example, you are saying that BRD is a policy; it is not. It is literally in the two sentences: The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of many optional strategies that editors may use to seek consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, except in the case of enforced BRD, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks.

Additionally, you are saying that you are allowed to edit other people's comments at noticeboards because anyone can edit anything and we should all expect that our comments can be edited at any time. That is not how talk pages work.

As it is clear that you are still creating your own interpretations and not following the accepted protocols, I have blocked you per our ONESTRIKE policy. An appeal may be made using the {{unblock|YOUR REASON HERE}} template. CountryANDWestern (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Following up a block for issues with interpreting our community guidelines and norms with an extremely weak take on INVOLVED doesn't help you at all. My involvement has been limited to expressing my opinion on a template you wanted to bring here, talking to you about your signature, telling you you should not edit my comments and split them apart, and advising you about your behaviors and how it relates to our ONESTRIKE policy. All of these fall under this aspect of INVOLVED:

...an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement is minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. (emphasis in original)

To your second point: your "calmly discussing" and lack of "drama" is not the problem; it's the fact that, in those discussions and in those actions, you demonstrated the same lack of understanding of policies and norms that is the problem. And, your lack of understanding what the problem is goes into the en:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT concerns that also contributed to your ban on the English Wikipedia.

I leave this to other administrators to review, but I believe you're just digging yourself into a further hole through your comments. CountryANDWestern (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Seeing this block is not really a surprise to me. We often get people here who have been blocked on enwiki and while sometimes things go well (we've had admins here who were blocked on enwiki), oftentimes they do not. I don't consider the blocking admin as "involved" as CAW's interactions have been as an admin and minor. What I don't like to see is people coming here who seem to want to demonstrate to enwiki that they can be unblocked based on their actions here. When I came here in 2008 it was because I found a project I liked better and most of the community feels the same. I'm not going to officially review this block but I support it and feel Whatkeepwhatwekill should wait a month, chill out, and then ask for an unblock. fr33kman 19:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am leaning towards declining also. If you have been on Wikipedia for as long as your history suggests, you should know better. I will let this sit for a second just in case any other admins would like to weigh in, otherwise I will mark it declined. I would like you to give the policies of this wiki a good read AND make an effort to understand their use in practice. As Fr33kman said, give it about a month and then appeal again. I don’t think you are beyond redemption by any means, and I urge you to avoid digging yourself in deeper. Garsh (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

This block is a serious overreaction and extremely counterproductive. This user simply moved a comment into a different section and made two reverts. If an admin has a problem with this, they should simply revert this user's edit and tell them not to do it again, and if needed, to threaten block if they do. Here we are just looking at w:Law of the instrument, where admins resort to blocks rather than anything else. canadachick (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

And the suggestion that this user was not understanding the policies, while the blocking admin has a far better understanding of the policies, to the extend a block is needed, is completely false. canadachick (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Canadachick you’re correct that what wekeepwhatwekill did in this instance alone would not normally result in a block. However, it is a part of a pattern we’ve all seen of grossly misunderstanding certain policies, as outlined above. Combined with his enwiki ban and evasion, this is enough for a block here. Also, these discussions are intended for admin use. Community input is better placed on simple talk or the admins noticeboard. Garsh (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply