User talk:Darkfrog24

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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.

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Public record

I'm posting this here because there seems to be some confusion about whether I quit Wikipedia on my own. I did not and have no intention of doing so. The ubiquity of Wikipedia in the modern Internet makes that pretty much impossible. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The text of my last appeal is here on Meta-Wiki.

I got this message from Gorilla Warfare today:

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered your appeal, and our decision is to decline your appeal at this time. We are concerned both that you do not seem to understand or accept why you were blocked in the first place, and that as a result of this, you do not offer any indication of how you will conduct yourself differently so as to avoid further conflicts.

In six months, you may re-appeal, but we advise that at that time you explain what how you would behave if unblocked, what you have learned from being blocked, and that you have not edited through sockpuppets in the previous six months. As we have gone back and forth quite extensively on this appeal with both you and Robert, we will not be considering appeals lodged within the next six months; as such, you may not receive responses to any emails sent to the Arbitration Committee within that time period. Please also note that we will only consider appeals of your account from you; appeals and arguments on your behalf from others will not be considered.

When contacting this committee or responding to any of our messages, please ensure that arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org is in the "to" or "cc" field of any reply you make to this message. Messages sent only to me or another individual arbitrator may not be read.

For the Arbitration Committee,

GorillaWarfare [Real name removed]

And here is my response:

you do not seem to understand or accept why you were blocked in the first place

If this is the problem, the solution is extremely simple: Tell me.

I have to ask at this point: Do you know why I was blocked? Are you not telling me because you don't know?

I was assuming good faith by not mentioning this but is it "SMcCandlish is a special editor and you were blocked as a favor to him"? Is it "Whenever a Wikipedia editor is punished for anything, they must act as if they did it even if they did not; they must act as if AE admins never make mistakes"?

have not edited through sockpuppets in the previous six months

That is what I mean by "zero attempts at block evasion." I have never used sock puppets in my life. I also haven't edited Wikipedia while not logged in.

Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Formal request to ArbCom

I've given this several days of thought. This is not an appeal. It is a request for information so that I can spend my time working the problem.

@Casliber:@DGG:@Doug Weller:@Drmies:@Euryalus:@GorillaWarfare:@Keilana:@Kelapstick:@Kirill Lokshin:@Ks0stm:@Mkdw:@Newyorkbrad:@Opabinia regalis:

I am formally requesting an official statement of the charges. Tell me why I am blocked, plainly and with at least two diffs.

If you think someone already told me, point me to that with a diff and say "This is the official interpretation. We're endorsing it. We want you to work from this." If you change your mind at some point, come and tell me "We've changed our minds."

Last year, Opabinia told me that you guys aren't trying to trick me or screw me over or even talk in code, but I cannot think of even one reason why you'd say that knowing why I was blocked is important and then withhold that information. When someone objects to a problem and to that problem's solution, something else is going on. The solution to "you don't know why you were blocked" is so straightforward. Not telling me seems so strange to me that I think there must be some fact that we're not on the same page on. It makes me feel that you just want to keep me blocked and this is some kind of wild goose chase. I'd love to learn that that's just my imagination. I posted some very reasonable guesses in my appeal. Tell me what I got wrong and if I got anything right. Am I getting closer at least? Which parts of my work do you see as progress? For all I know, I got something right back in my first post to Thryduulf but stopped talking about it because no one acknowledged it.

We're in the unfortunate position of having to deal with alternative facts in world politics. It's within our power to get them out of Wikipedia's disciplinary system. Last year they held me down and hammered a metal sign into my head reading "lying, gaslighting piece of absolute filth." I'm not okay with that. I know you don't care for the minutiae but it's messed up that I was even accused of some of this stuff, let alone sanctioned in response.

I'm going to quote you from last year: "We emphasize that imposing an AE sanction requires only that a reviewing admin finds sufficient disruption to warrant action and is not an endorsement of every individual claim that may be made by the filer." This is why the fact that you did not grant the appeal is not enough for me to tell by itself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The link in your block log provides you everything you need to know about your current block, whether you agree with it or not. The number of emails ArbCom has since received, at least since I have joined, have been exhaustive. You have continuously tried to re-litigate your case over and over, in multiple venues, to overturn your block. It is a problem outlined in the December 2016 motion and one that continues to persist. You have been made well aware of why you were blocked. It has been explained to you both on and off-wiki. You had an opportunity in November 2016, when the committee unblocked you to make a formal appeal. You filed a 4,000+ word ARCA and were given ample opportunity to make your case. This was immediately following a 2,600+ word ARCA appeal in April 2016 also regarding your block. You clearly disagree with the outcome but it does not entitle you to an endless appeal process.

The Arbitration Committee has made it clear when the next time an appeal will be heard. The fact that you are not getting it, intentionally or otherwise, factors into a part of the decision as a fundamental requirement for any unblock request. It has increasingly damaged your chances for a successful appeal outcome. You are welcome to continue to use your user talk page but continuing to use it to contest the grounds of your block, including requests for information, furthest contest of the appeal decision, or for appeals that fall before the timeline outlined to you, may result in your talk page access privileges being removed. Mkdw ^talk 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It has been explained to you both on and off-wiki. A diff would be helpful.

I am trying very very hard to figure out what action I performed that inspired you guys to make the decisions you did. It would help a lot if you could tell me what I was getting right and what I was getting wrong.

From what you say about relitigation, it sounds like I'm staying blocked because I'm appealing the block. I file appeals on my appeal dates. I don't bug ArbCom about this every day. On the flip side, though, I do get "'are you okay' is gaslighting if you say it" every day and "information from sources becomes lies if you quote it" thrown in my face every day, usually more than once. Is there something other than appealing that would get me unblocked, my name cleared or both, I'd love to hear about it. That's not sarcasm; I'm serious. Right now it's "appeal" or "spend the rest of your life with a sign reading 'gaslighting, lying $@#%' nailed to your head." Is there some third option that I don't know about? Because it sounds like that would be worth exploring.

They say I need to accept why I was blocked, but considering that gaslighting is a crime in some jurisdictions, it's possible I could face civil charges or even a criminal investigation if I did anything that could be interpreted as a confession. To use one of the AE admins' words, my integrity has been impugned to a degree far beyond acceptable.

I've been doing my best to obey the topic ban even though it's humiliating and based on false accusations, including studying AE cases to pick up on things that aren't written down at WP:TBAN. I want to spend the next six months showing ArbCom that unblocking me is the right thing to do. I would like it if you or they gave me the information I need to do that.

This whole mess has left me feeling like a need a lawyer (for our internal laws; this is not a legal threat) or at least a translator. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

link in your block log provides you everything you need to know about your current block

What I am getting out of your post is that ArbCom is wants me to use the post in that link you made to me and that I will not be penalized for disregarding other statements that may have been made to me that contradict or otherwise do not support it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

New study on evolution of whale size

@Dunkleosteus77: @Extrapolaris: @Fama Clamosa: I was checking Eurekalert and thought these new findings about the evolution of whale size (and the associated Royal Society paper) might do better as part of Wikipedia's coverage at Baleen whale. Interested? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems noteworthy enough to get at least a sentence, but make sure you cite the actual paper, not the news site   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: I was pinging you to see if you wanted to use this source or study. I'd do it myself but I'm blocked and my next appeal isn't for a while. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You can just write the summary here on the talk page underneath my comment, and if it checks out I'll add it on your behalf. I'd do it but I'm really busy for the next few weeks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

That's so nice of you, but I think it's probably a better idea for you to either write the text yourself or perhaps post the link to the Eurekalert article on the Baleen whale talk page. I'm pretty sure we're in the clear per WP:PROXYING because I've never worked on Baleen whale before and the spirit of the rule seems to be to prevent sanctioned editors from participating in the parts of Wikipedia in which their alleged misconduct took place, but I got blocked for making a post that I was more than pretty sure I was allowed to make. Best to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Email

I need to thank you for your message. You made some valuable points, which are much appreciated. I will take note! -Sb2001 (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thanks, and you may be interested in the recent thread on my talk page. Banedon (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Ha! It's funny because "ding dong" doesn't always mean bell noises! Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Help design a new feature to stop harassing emails

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team plans to start develop of a new feature to allow users to restrict emails from new accounts. This feature will allow an individual user to stop harassing emails from coming through the Special:EmailUser system from abusive sockpuppeting accounts.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2016 Community Wishlist discussion or IdeaLab discussion about letting users restrict who can send them email.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

It is important to hear from a broad range of people who are interested in the design of the tool, so we hope you join the discussion.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

@SPoore: My general philosophy is "only create new rules or features if there is a problem that doing so would solve." We don't want things to get overengineered around here. If people are receiving harassing emails from new accounts, which I suppose are sockpuppets, then this is a good idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

On record:

I would like to be unblocked so that I can file my scheduled appeal at ARCA or some other on-Wiki venue of your choosing. I understand that I am not allowed to post anywhere on Wikipedia but ARCA and my talk page until the block is officially lifted. EDIT: And this includes J. Wales' talk page.

Alternately, because it has one year since the block was imposed (February 2016), and it was, at least at that time, an AE action, please consider declaring it a normal block rather than an AE block, and I will proceed to the normal unblock system.

It came up last time that there was some issue with it not being either an AE block or a normal block any more. If this is the case, if the jurisdiction has changed, please put a post on my talk page telling me the precise Wikipedia-rule status of my block so that I may deal with it per established regulations. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Just following up on the email you sent to ArbCom. As the portion of your block protected as an arbitration enforcement action has expired you are free to appeal your block as normal. That is, as a normal administrative block, either on your talk page (using {{Unblock}} or via UTRS. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Darkfrog24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am told I was blocked because the way I was seeking to have another sanction, a topic ban, lifted was disruptive. I will now seek to have it lifted through official channels as stipulated at WP:TBAN. If the relevant authorities believe I should have to do something not usually required of sanctioned editors, the thing to do is for them to log in and order me to do it. I've come to suspect I was instead/also blocked because of my interactions with a specific other user. He's posted to my userspace once or twice since then; I deleted his posts without answering. Either way, I have it covered. I have never contested that I am required to obey sanctions until they are lifted. I have made zero attempts at block evasion. I have never used sock puppets in my life, on any website. I have also not edited Wikipedia while not logged in. I've spent the time since being blocked making contributions to other parts of Project Wiki, all without disciplinary action. I translated most of the Euryarchaeota subcategory into Spanish, where I was unsolicitedly nominated for autoverificado status. I made corresponding contributions to Wikidata. I've drafted dozens of articles for Wikinews, where I was awarded the teamwork barnstar and one new guy wrote me a very nice note about how I made him/her feel welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request is stale. It has failed to convince any administrator to lift the block. You are welcome to make another, significantly different, unblock request if you still believe the block is inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@PhilKnight: Please scroll up to just above my appeal text and read the post by Callanecc. I was careful to confirm that this was a normal block before using the {{Unblock}} template. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

<facepalm> I'll undo my review. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. These matters can get complicated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: Hey, PhilK, the review looks properly reverted here on my talk page, but is this unblock request still showing up on the list or wherever it was that you found it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

(tpw) yep, when the review was reverted the unblock request was restored to Category:Requests for unblock which is transcluded to the admin dashboard and the backlog page. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder what it is, then. I don't know if I've ever seen {{Unblock}} take more than ten days before, holiday or no holiday.

I am wondering why you were the one to answer, though. According to Callanecc, this isn't an ArbCom matter. Why would you even know I'd asked Phil a question? Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Your talkpage is on my watchlist, given we've had previous conversations. Happy to take it off. And no, it's not an Arbcom matter. It's up to any passing admin who picks it out of the unblock queue. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so you just have a habit of putting people's talk pages on your watchlist whenever you have a conversation with them and it has nothing to do with me specifically. All right. Thanks for answering my question. And poor Philliphw; 22 days! Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yamla: I am at a bit of a loss as to what else is wanted. Can you give me any insight into what information might be missing from my appeal? I don't want to repeat the same content and bore everyone, but I don't want to leave out anything relevant either. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I checked your contribution history and judging by what you said to some other applicants, it looks like what your decline text is your standard boiler plate for long-waiting blocks and not any reaction for or against anything I said in my appeal. Is that the case? Because I did appeal right before a big U.S. holiday and I think that, not anything I did or didn't say, might be the reason no one dug in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Almost there

Drmies I was all set to unblock. It looks like the ArbCom sanction has ended. Is there anything I should know first.? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not that I know of, Dlohcierekim; Callanecc's Nov 17 email to Darkfrog on behalf of ArbCom (copied above) is the most recent thing I found. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Darkfrog24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am told I was blocked because the way I was seeking to have another sanction, a topic ban, lifted was disruptive. I will now seek to have it lifted exclusively through official channels as stipulated at WP:TBAN. I've come to suspect I was instead/also blocked because of my interactions with a specific other user. He has since been ordered not to speak to me and I have not responded to his few posts here. Either way, I have it covered. I will obey the topic ban until it is lifted. In the meantime, I have plans to return to my work at RSN, project Game of Thrones and I have a specific article I want to write. I have made zero attempts at block evasion. I have never used sock puppets in my life, on any website. I have also not edited Wikipedia while not logged in. I've spent the time since being blocked making contributions to other parts of Project Wiki, all without disciplinary action. I translated most of the Euryarchaeota subcategory into Spanish, where I was unsolicitedly nominated for autoverificado status. I made corresponding contributions to Wikidata. I've drafted dozens of articles for Wikinews, where I was awarded the teamwork barnstar and one new guy wrote me a very nice note about how I made him/her feel welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Based on this edit-- "And no, it's not an Arbcom matter. It's up to any passing admin who picks it out of the unblock queue., and in light of previous decline being procedural only, I am boldly granting the unblock, as the reason for the block appears to have ended. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, @Dlohcierekim:. I'm still pretty shellshocked from this whole matter. I wish you a pleasant December. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Good luck Darkfrog. Drmies (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: For reference, could you summarize or link to the editing restrictions that apply to Darkfrog24, so as to avoid any confusion going forward? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades This is all very confusing to me, in that I thought ArbCom was done with him. It would be helpful if someone familiar with the case could do that or point us in the right direction. Throughout this whole fraught unblock process, no one said, "maybe but these are the restrictions". Can you help us out with this, Darkfrog? You should know better than I. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I think I have it below. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Discretionary sanctions

"In January 2016, Darkfrog24 was topic-banned from from articles, discussions, and guidelines, explicitly including the manual of style, related to quotation marks and quotation styles, broadly interpreted". I presume this TBAN to still be in force. I presume that Darkfrog24 "either understand[s] the terms of the tban or agree[s] to stop disruptively relitigating it". I further presume them understanding, "They are very strongly advised to focus [any] appeal on their future editing interests in topics well separated from the subjects of their topic ban, and to appeal the topic ban itself only after establishing a successful record of productive contributions in other areas." -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Dlohcierekim as to the sequence of events. Darkfrog24 had filed an ARCA request in November 2016 to appeal their AE block. By declining to act then, and by allowing yesterday's unblock to be decided by admins generally, the committee seems to have given back the question of Darkfrog24's editing rights to AE and to the community. The remaining sanctions on Darkfrog24 come from AE. For those sanctions, see the three AE links included in the body of the motion, or look at the summary at Wikipedia:DSLOG#Article titles and capitalisation. The remaining topic ban is the one in DSLOG: Darkfrog24 is indefinitely topic banned from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including his and other's user talk pages. This may be appealed no sooner than 12 months from today (4 February 2016). Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

Since the 12 months have expired, Darkfrog24 could technically appeal their topic ban at AE now, though the committee advised them to first 'establish a successful record of productive contributions in other areas'. If Darkfrog24 were content to resume normal editing there shouldn't be much trouble, but the thing which seems to have led to their previous indef block was their campaign against the actions taken at AE. (The committee stated in their motion that 'the disruptive behavior, in the form of repeated relitigation of the circumstances of the topic ban, has continued'). Darkfrog24 would be well advised to put these matters behind them and get on with their work, if they can. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston, please note that WP:TBAN still says that it is improper to bait topic-banned editors. When you say "Darkfrog24 was campaigning," I feel you are trying to get me to say "No I wasn't." When someone says, "Darkfrog24 is a dirty liar who eats babies and deserves to be punished," they are daring me to say "No I'm not." When you make posts like these, I feel like you're trying to trick me into breaking rules.

My normal editing includes WT:MoS. I look forward to resuming my work there as soon as the topic ban is lifted. Since there is no enforcing admin any more, I plan to appeal it at AE as stipulated in the standard rules. If there is something that you or the rest of ArbCom feel I must be required to do or should not be allowed to do, order me to do/not to do it. When you say "advise," it looks like you mean that it is up to me and I won't be penalized for choosing my own timeline. "Order" is another matter. So is it advice or is it an order?

@Dlohcierekim: I was blocked after making this post, which was addressed to the person who was then the enforcing admin of the topic ban. The AE thread in which I was blocked is archived here. If there is any other information you need, please ask, but I must request that you also specifically give me permission to answer you. Regarding the topic ban, I will add that I was specifically given permission to edit Wikipedia articles as I see fit, specifically including quotation marks and other style matters. So I am allowed, for example, to correct the punctuation of any article, but if someone asks me what the rationale was or which reference works I consulted, I'm not allowed to answer them on Wikipedia until the topic ban is lifted. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

If we check the DSLOG, it appears that User:Thryduulf enacted your last AE topic ban from the manual of style. Thryduulf is recently active. Why do you believe that 'there is no enforcing admin anymore?' EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

At one of my appeals, Thryduulf said he was quitting as enforcing admin. I asked him/ArbCom to appoint a replacement but no one did.

I note that your current post is all business. That is appropriate and I thank you for any effort it took. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Responding to the ping and message on my talk page, I don't understand from a very brief read of this section what is being asked of me (I haven't got time right now to read the other sections). If my input is required, please clarify what input is desired and I'll respond when I get chance (which might not be until Friday UK time). Thryduulf (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing has been asked of you. I'd rather you didn't post here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Darkfrog24. "My normal editing includes WT:MoS"? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this sounds perilously close to relitigating the TBAN and all it inherit. A TBAN does not require a cop watching your every move. In my understanding, the TBAN is still in effect. I should have been clearer. My conditions on unblocking you are that you act as if the TBAN is still in effect. That you do not seek to have the TBAN lifted until six months from now. That you receive no further blocks. That if anyone "baits you" on the matter that you not engage them, referring to this post as the reason. Please, please use this opportunity to edit any area of this vast encyclopedia not covered by these conditions. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I fear that Dlohcierekim may have been snookered just a little bit by the unblock request. Darkfrog24's most recent block (neglecting the various unblock/reblock cycles for appeals) comes from this AE filing, closed by User:Spartaz in February 2016 with the annotation,

Darkfrog24 is blocked indefinately until they either understand the terms of the tban or agree to stop disruptively relitigating it.

The December 2016 ArbCom motion simply imposed a moratorium on Darkfrog24's endless attempts to redefine and relitigate the minutiae of their topic ban, their violations of that topic ban, and their appeals of the ensuing blocks. While the ArbCom motion has now lapsed, the reason for the underlying indefinite block has not. The ArbCom's recent clarification served only to indicate that they had returned responsibility for decision-making (with respect to Darkfrog24's block and topic ban) to the community, not to nullify the existing block and ban. I suspect that Dlohcierekim may have over-interpreted statements regarding the lapse of ArbCom's restriction on Darkfrog24's appeals as an indication that the rationale for the underlying block had similarly lapsed.

Darkfrog24 should probably enjoy this early Christmas present, and just get down to constructive editing in compliance with their topic ban. The stubborn determination to ignore good advice unless it is phrased as an "order" does not bode well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: I hope not. Not snookered, I mean. This is a great opportunity to shake off the past and leap forward into a newer, clearer, brighter day! -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)