User talk:Darkfrog24: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Unblocked: new section
Line 71: Line 71:
*ArbCom invited me to appeal to the community in 2019. I did, and it was unsuccessful. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive312#Unblock_appeal_by_Darkfrog24]
*ArbCom invited me to appeal to the community in 2019. I did, and it was unsuccessful. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive312#Unblock_appeal_by_Darkfrog24]
*It has been two years and seven months since my last appeal. I've spent that time constructively contributing to other Wikimedia projects and practicing being a team player. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24#top|talk]]) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
*It has been two years and seven months since my last appeal. I've spent that time constructively contributing to other Wikimedia projects and practicing being a team player. [[User:Darkfrog24|Darkfrog24]] ([[User talk:Darkfrog24#top|talk]]) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

== Unblocked ==

Per [[special:permanentlink/1081708006#Darkfrog24 unblock request|my close of this thread]], I've found a (weak) consensus to unblock you and have done so. All other topic bans remain in place—as per my comments in the close, I strongly advise you to collate a list of which bans you're currently subject to, both to make it clear to you which restrictions you're operating under and to make it clear to other people who may think you've violated a restriction that you've not in fact done so.

I reiterate my comment that this was a marginal close which could equally well have concluded with your remaining blocked. In the event of any future disruption you won't receive the benefit of the doubt; this isn't an order and doesn't form part of the formal close which you're obliged to follow, but my advice is not to engage in any conduct which any other editor could reasonably consider disruptive, and to stay away as much as possible from those editors with whom you've had problems in the past. ‑ [[User:Iridescent|Iridescent]] 04:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:22, 9 April 2022


Invitation

WikiProject Zoroastrianism

We invite you to join WikiProject Zoroastrianism. There you can also find and coordinate with users who are trying to improve Zoroastrianism related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the other participants or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 22:55, 26 March 2013‎ User:Amadscientist

Mail call

Hello, Darkfrog24. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DR/N

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Talk page access restored

Following your request to ArbCom, I have restored your talk page access to allow you to post an appeal here and ask for it to be posted to AN. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the text:


Upon unblock I will continue contributing to the encyclopedia as before: Working RSN, providing translations from other Wikis, and working biology articles such as Hadesarchea, though my activities have shifted more toward Hylidae. I have a list of articles from other Wikipedias that I plan to translate. I've spent the past years at the Simple English Wikipedia with only positive incident. I've been awarded several barnstars and participated in many editing events. I was given patroller rights there long ago. All is going well. I've started many articles there, including Alberto Santos Dumont, Green-eyed tree frog and Trolley problem. I was on the team for two Good Articles: simple:Tropical Storm Arthur (2020) and simple:Sento and helped a little on simple:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I helped organize Simple's branch of two edit-a-thons.

I recently witnessed a block experience on another website, and it gave me insight into how my posts must look to other people. The disciplinary system is more complicated than it looks on the surface, and that's not the worst thing in the world. I accept that it is the admins' job to interpret policy. I asked ArbCom about their decision to block me in 2018 as I was appealing a lesser sanction, and they answered me. I consider it asked and answered. I plan my next appeal of said lesser sanction to be qualitatively different from my last, as stipulated, and to continue to obey said topic ban until it is lifted. As I have always sought to do, I will work completely within Wikipedia's posted rules. If there is anything else that the adminship wants me to do or not do, they need only post on my talk page with my instructions.

I have never attempted block evasion in my life on this or any website.

What I want most of all is to put this in the past where it belongs. I realize that will take time and work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock Darkfrog24 has become an integral part of the Simple English Wikipedia community and garnered the respect of that community and the sysops there. I hope my support of this editor, without hesitation, may speak somewhat to that end. While simplewiki is not enwiki, I believe Darkfrog24 will prove to be an invaluable asset to the English Wikipedia when granted a fresh start by the community. Operator873 connect 18:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've collaborated with Darkfrog24 on the Simple English Wikipedia, where they are a very helpful, trusted, and community-involved editor whose volunteering is highly valued. I am in support of an unblock. Vermont (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied this request to WP:AN, as per the instructions provided by the unblocking administrator. Further discussion should take place there. RGloucester 18:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

Two parties at the thread have asked for a timeline of events and more information. I put this together today:

In assembling this timeline, I realized I'd actually forgotten a lot of this. I don't think this timeline has everything but it does have most of the major parts. To address Ivanvector's point about Wikinews, the answer is no, the situations are not related. What happened on Wikinews during the early days of the pandemic in 2020 was that I criticized an admin action by saying "it's overkill." This statement was deemed to violate WN:NEVERASSUME. If you want to read just one link that shows the core of my case, I recommend this ArbCom appeal from 2018: [1] What I did wrong and kept doing wrong was grossly misunderstand Wikipedia's system for handling blocks and other sanctions. I thought that appealing a block meant providing an elaborate, detailed, multi-part proposal for solving underlying problems ("I'm ready to be part of the solution!") with tons of links and diffs explaining why the original sanctions were wrong, and that is absolutely not how the Wikipedia system works. In fact, by trying to do things that way, I was driving people nuts! As one user put it, I was writing a "call for the annulment of the sanction, not a showing that it's [not] necessary." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

In early 2016, I fell under a topic ban for part of the Manual of Style. I don't know how to give more detail on that without saying anything that could be interpreted as relitigating it. Do I agree with the topic ban? No. Have I always done my best to obey it anyway? Yes. The site can't function otherwise. After the topic ban was placed, I thought the right thing to do was to ask the enforcing admin question after question after question about what was expected of me, what was and wasn't allowed, on and on. I thought that was establishing, "See? I'm willing to follow the rules and be a team player!" but what I was actually doing was exhausting the patience an already overworked volunteer. I'd actually planned to make monthly reports to him about what I was doing elsewhere on Wikipedia, as if he were my parole officer because that's what I thought was going on. At my formal appeal of said topic ban, I thought the right thing to do was to provide evidence that the original accusations were wrong. Again, that's not how we do things here.

In 2016 I was topic banned from the manual of style over WP:LQ, a rule that has to do with whether or not we're allowed to use American rules for quotation marks. As you can see from the Manual of Style Register this has been a subject of contention going back to long before I joined Wikipedia.

  • Initial complaint placed by RGloucester: [2]
  • Another complaint: [3] I don't really remember what this was about and I'd rather not reread it.
  • Another complaint by RGloucester. I remember this one. Someone invited me to a discussion involving my banned topic and I said what amounted to "I can't go because I'm under a topic ban," but I did also include a link that the admins said was a violation: [4] Like I said earlier, if the admins say it counts as a topic ban violation, then I have to treat them like a referee in a sports match. If I remember correctly, the part of my post that they considered a violation was visible for forty seconds before I reverted it myself, without being asked, before this complaint was filed.
  • Now the AE block... [5] I thought that WP:BANEX meant I was allowed to talk to the enforcing admin about these things, but the admins and ArbCom have decided it does not mean that.
  • Since it was an AE block, I appealed at ArbCom once in late 2016 [6] and again in 2018. But AE sanctions automatically become normal sanctions after one year. In my case it was a little longer, but I appealed again in I want to say 2017 through the normal unblock system.
  • I then spent the next six months working RSN and generally contributing to parts of Wikipedia that I hadn't been to before, staying fully away from the Manual of Style. I remember that time passing without incident.
  • I appealed the topic ban on my appeal date: [7] Didn't go well... I was very, very surprised.
  • I appealed that block to ArbCom, and the appeal was declined.
  • ArbCom invited me to appeal to the community in 2019. I did, and it was unsuccessful. [8]
  • It has been two years and seven months since my last appeal. I've spent that time constructively contributing to other Wikimedia projects and practicing being a team player. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Per my close of this thread, I've found a (weak) consensus to unblock you and have done so. All other topic bans remain in place—as per my comments in the close, I strongly advise you to collate a list of which bans you're currently subject to, both to make it clear to you which restrictions you're operating under and to make it clear to other people who may think you've violated a restriction that you've not in fact done so.

I reiterate my comment that this was a marginal close which could equally well have concluded with your remaining blocked. In the event of any future disruption you won't receive the benefit of the doubt; this isn't an order and doesn't form part of the formal close which you're obliged to follow, but my advice is not to engage in any conduct which any other editor could reasonably consider disruptive, and to stay away as much as possible from those editors with whom you've had problems in the past. ‑ Iridescent 04:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]