User talk:Darkfrog24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Invitation[edit]

Faravahar-Gold.svg

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[edit]

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[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
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[edit]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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.

unblock[edit]

No, don't forward any emails. Please follow the email links in the block notice, Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee or arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org). I guess an official response to your UTRS is on its way too. Sorry, I cannot help.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Darkfrog24 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #23312 was submitted on Nov 19, 2018 23:49:40. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Darkfrog24 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #25463 was submitted on Jun 04, 2019 02:50:50. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Darkfrog24 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #25512 was submitted on Jun 07, 2019 11:43:46. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Darkfrog24 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #25570 was submitted on Jun 12, 2019 19:21:36. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Darkfrog24 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


UTRS appeal #25581 was submitted on Jun 13, 2019 17:49:59. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Restore user talk page access[edit]

Your appeal at AN has been closed as no consensus to unblock. I have restored your previous block settings. You may next appeal on 25 August 2020 or later. Mkdw talk 00:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your appeal has been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock appeal by Darkfrog24 for review by the community. For the purposes of disclosure, the Arbitration Committee has agreed to facilitate your appeal to AN on the following agreed upon conditions:

  • The Arbitration Committee will post your appeal at AN.
  • The Arbitration Committee will restore your user talk page for the sole purpose of the appeal.
  • You will have the option to accept the community's decision/conditions for an unblock should it be offered, or you shall remain blocked under the previous block settings.
  • Should the community decline your appeal, you may next appeal in one year's time.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 19:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Issue raised by Seraphimblade[edit]

@Seraphimblade, Beyond My Ken, Mendaliv, and Cullen328:

Oh. I thought I'd made this clear in the appeal itself, but you know what, maybe I didn't:

I will stay well away from the Manual of Style and not discuss style issues on Wikipedia for as long as the topic ban is in force.

I thought that was clear because I've stayed away from the MoS since the topic ban was originally imposed, but if you need me to say it again, okay. That's not too much to ask.

I am also under the impression that I'm not allowed to talk about the topic ban itself or the way it was imposed on Wikipedia except in an "appropriate forum" per WP:BANEX, but am allowed to actually make style edits as explicitly stated by one AE admin at the time (we used to call it Wikignoming). If that's wrong, I invite you to correct me.

I will seek to have the topic ban lifted exclusively through official channels. If you want to talk about why I want it lifted, we can do that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


Response to Seraphimblade[edit]

This appeal is missing the crucial point: Darkfrog24 must indicate that they understand exactly what the topic ban imposed upon them means,

@Seraphimblade: If it means "Don't go to WT:MOS, don't make any edits to WP:MOS, and don't participate in discussions of style on Wikipedia," then we are good. If it also means, "You are not allowed to talk about the topic ban itself or the process by which it was imposed outside of formal channels," then again we're good.

To address your concern, I have obeyed the topic ban without fail this entire time. I have stayed away from WT:MOS; I have participated in no discussions of style anywhere on Wikipedia. For the purpose of contributing at RSN and 3O, and original articles, does it matter whether or not I understand why a topic ban on an unrelated subject was placed?

If the issue is, "Darkfrog24, we want you to do more than obey it. We want you to believe you deserved it," well, I've been open to the idea that I could have done something wrong at WT:MOS, but it most certainly was not the things I was accused of at AE, and the AE admins, like Spartaz, have made it clear they want me to stop asking them for clarification. I once asked Arbcom for a formal reading of the charges and they declined. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
As to why it looks like I don't understand ...there's a reason for that.
@Someguy1221 and Mendaliv: You two mention weirdness. YUP. Yes, there was a lot of weirdness. You can ask Goldenring if you want to. Yes, this has been unusual since day one. The short version, and I can give the long one if you want, is that the length limit at AE is 500 words, and the complainant for the original topic ban wrote 10,000. reading it took me a month, and I found it was almost entirely made up. There is no way the AE admins read the whole thing in the time they had, and two of them more or less told me they hadn't. I think the AE admins were overworked, skimmed something and found something they didn't like, but I never got a clear answer about exactly what it was—and they have made it clear to me that they want me to stop asking. I have to take no for an answer.
Also, the stuff I was accused of was really awful, immoral, yes-you-ARE-a-bad-person stuff, to paraphrase @TonyBallioni:. Being called a liar is the simplest one. The new guy I supposedly harassed came to one appeal and said I didn't harass him. One accusation was that asking someone "Are you okay?" is gaslighting if I'm the one who says it. I was genuinely concerned about someone I'd worked with for more than five years who'd been acting weird, so I asked if they wanted to talk about it, and I got accused of trying to hurt them. To the accuser's credit, he later withdrew that accusation, but even after that at least one admin still insisted it was true.
I've come to accept that I'm not going to get exoneration in the form of Wikipedia's admins ruling me innocent like in a legal system. It has to come the slow way, through years of edits that bear no resemblance to those accusations. But if the question is why I don't act like a repentant sinner, well, what if all of this is about a sin I didn't actually perform? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I specifically said I don't think you are a bad person and that you are genuinely acting in good faith in a way that you feel is not disruptive. I also unfortunately think that you are likely not going to see why others feel this way, and that discussing it likely won't change that now or in the future. I won't reply again since I don't want this to get long and it is at AN, but I sincerely wish you the best. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Well here's a question, this disruptive action that I did or didn't perform ....was any of it in the past three years?
Then look at your own and other people's contribution patterns and the way everyone acts on talk pages, good or bad. Does any of it change naturally over that amount of time?
I've heard that the style of discussion at WT:MOS and probably everywhere on Wikipedia, has changed since 2015, just naturally over time. Punishing me permanently over something that would have gone away on its own by now through the natural cycle of Internet culture? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding UTRS appeals[edit]

As for the UTRS appeals, I was worried this would come up:

  • First UTRS appeal: I applied a few days too early. That's on me. It was declined for that reason alone. At the time, I asked only for restoration of talk page access.
  • Second UTRS appeal: The admin who replied was under the mistaken impression that UTRS was not allowed to handle unblock requests that had once been AE/DS. I hit "email this user" and had a brief email conversation with the admin, sending her a link to the relevant policy. She didn't believe me, so I did some digging and found a copy of an email from ArbCom confirming my date of eligibility. The admin then said they had to go offline for unrelated reasons and instructed me to file a third UTRS request. All in all, I sent this person four emails. TonyBalloni later revoked my access to "email this user" for this reason, but what was I supposed to do, say "ArbCom must have been wrong"? Again, all I asked for was restored talk page access.
  • Third UTRS appeal: The responding admin said "We're not allowed to/don't want to just restore talk page access. Write a full unblock request." I don't remember whether Tony said they weren't allowed to just restore talk page access or whether he just didn't want to.
  • Fourth UTRS appeal: This one was turned down regular.

So it looks like half a dozen declined unblock appeals, Someguy1221 put it, but three out of four were technicalities. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Didn't see that I was mentioned down here, so I'll go ahead and post what I replied to you here since you seem to not be fully reflecting what I said. UTRS does restore talk page access for on-wiki appeals, that is the norm, but it is only done when it is believed they have a chance of being granted so not as to waste other people's time like you are currently doing. Your UTRS request did not address what you intended to say on-wiki at all and just said you wanted talk page access back. I explained to you that was unlikely to happen without additional details of your appeal. I am reproducing my response to you below. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
TonyBallioni's email in UTRS
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello Darkfrog24,

While you are correct that the AC/DS block becomes a normal block reviewable by other administrators, your appeal here leaves a lot to be wanted. You appear to be of the belief that you have a right to an automatic appeal. You do not. You need to convince an administrator that you understand the reasons for your blocks and that it would benefit Wikipedia for your talk page access to be restored. You have not done that.

Additionally, as it appears you are abusing the on-wiki email function, I am removing your ability to use it. You should use UTRS for any future appeals, and another admin will consider restoring your talk page access then. In your next UTRS appeal, I would suggest typing whatever you would say on-wiki so that the reviewing administrator can determine if it is likely restoring talk page access would result in your unblock.

Note that if you continue with appeals like the last two, you are likely to have your access to UTRS revoked for six months.

TonyBallioni
English Wikipedia Administrator

If anyone wants, I can post copies of the emails I exchanged with the second admin, so you can see for yourselves that there was nothing wrong with them. I think I would have to redact the admin's emails, though, for copyright and privacy reasons. Revoking my email address makes it harder for me to interact with other members of the community and to report abuse. I have, since this block was imposed, had to report abuse. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested transclusion[edit]

@Seraphimblade, Nick, Praxidicae, Steve Crossin, TonyBallioni, GoldenRing, Someguy1221, and Mendaliv:

I request that any available admin post this on the appeal page:

Seraphimblade, I thought I'd made this clear in the appeal itself, but I guess I didn't:

I will continue to stay well away from the Manual of Style and not discuss style issues on Wikipedia for as long as the topic ban is in force.

I see others among you saying that their biggest concern with my user access being restored is that I would immediately return to what they call relitigating the original accusations against me. As GoldenRing points out, I've been clearly ordered not to. I will not discuss the matter on Wikipedia outside legitimate and necessary dispute resolution such as we are engaging in right now.

My plan for the topic ban appeal, a year from now, to prevent relitigation, is to list my plans for future contributions but add a line at the end, "If any admin here wishes me to address the original accusations, I am prepared to do so." I don't expect anyone will take me up on it, and if so, that's the end of it.

Is that acceptable?

In my time since the original sanction was imposed, I have also taken several steps to explore conflict resolution and deescalation, with noted success at 3O and noticeboards, as you can see from my edit history during the previous six months when I was unblocked.

GoldenRing: I of course accept these conditions, but I have to make one caveat. If the other party in the IBAN behaves aggressively toward me, I plan to report it through proper channels, like I did last time when he did that ping at ArbCom[1], and request modification of the IBAN if appropriate. If he heeds the warning that NewYorkBrad gave him back then,[2] then this isn't likely to come up.

Steven Crossin: If unblocked I will stay far from the topic area of MoS until the T-ban is lifted through formal procedures.

I have edited Wikipedia in a conflict free way in all the topic areas mentioned in the appeal (mainly RSN, and adding material from Wikinews and the Spanish Wiki). I have shown I am an asset to the encyclopedia, as you can tell from the six-month history before the last appeal.

These topics are also far from MoS with no gray-area issues. An AE admin made it clear that I am permitted to do style edits (wikignoming) of Wikipedia articles generally, so long as I don't discuss the edits, and in practice that caused no problems.

Seraphimblade, do you feel I have addressed your concerns?

If there is something else I haven't addressed here please ask and I will respond. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Mentoring[edit]

So I have to do a few more things to regain the community's trust? Okay. I want to say "You'll see for yourselves," but being watched is actually conducive to that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Blackouts[edit]

The weather has taken a turn where I am and I am concerned the power may go out. If there are any questions or comments for me, lack of a prompt response may mean only that I can't access the Internet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I am having bad weather and internet issues. I hadn't intended on any questions but I do have some questions and concerns:
  • "IF" a mentor condition gains consensus there would obviously be other conditions. I don't know that it will pass but I "might" be on-board. At least three editors have serious concerns that this will not work. My concerns are amplified by the need to pursue a T-ban release at all. You presented that you would explain if asked and I am curious about you wanting to play near the well in which you apparently have fallen into, maybe twice. Another thing is that you seem to agree that you did, or may have done, something wrong. On one instance you are unclear but since it was at least twice there are concerns that with no remorse or understanding it will be a future problem. That you obviously did "something" to bring about some pretty harsh negative comments I don't see as debatable. I would find it hard to believe that you do not have a clue.
How can those with valid concerns be somewhat placated that you are not gaming the system or will fall into the well again when you get near it. I have no doubt that someone will try to push your buttons and while ignoring them would possibly be a better option, reporting the incident "before" you get to a conflict would obviously be the best. I also think at some point a dialog between you and the possible mentor would be wise. Words like "very short leash" was mentioned.
Finally, if you do indeed wish to return to the community what are your plans to ensure that you cannot fall into a similar pattern that resulted in this? I have a hint: I am not looking for rhetoric or some vague replies but something sincere and honest. I am not implying this might be the case but just a friendly note that on the first instance of likely or possible BS I will simply stop reading. Reading through your talk page there is one statement that gives concerns, "I specifically said I don't think you are a bad person and that you are genuinely acting in good faith in a way that you feel is not disruptive. I also unfortunately think that you are likely not going to see why others feel this way, and that discussing it likely won't change that now or in the future.". If any of the accusations against you are untrue as you present then I can see you at least having an issue with that but I cannot see that you are just being railroaded so you have to understand concerns and that "something" was done wrong or disruptive at some point. If not this would be like someone pleading a case for parole while maintaining innocence. The red ink will likely still show "denied". Otr500 (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Otr500:

Sincere and honest? I can do that. A bit of a relief to be asked. There's going to be some emotion in this...
How can those with valid concerns be somewhat placated that you are not gaming the system or will fall into the well again when you get near it.
The experience of being blocked has been extremely painful for me on many levels. I'm fully committed to doing this the right way.
What I actually want at some point is to clear my name. You don't get that by playing tricks or gaming the system, but I think I will do it by proving my worth through making good contributions, and that will take a long time. I have been told to stay away from WT:MOS for the immediate future until I can satisfy to others that I can make valuable contributions to Wikipedia, and possibly be allowed to edit that area down the road, so that's what I'm going to do.
what are your plans to ensure that you cannot fall into a similar pattern that resulted in this?
For the time being, my plans are to focus on topics from Wikinews and Eurekalert and update Wikipedia with content related to new events and work noticeboards like RSN. These are activities I think I've done with some success in the past. I've also been told that if additional restrictions are placed, such as by the mentor, I have to agree to them or I don't get unblocked.
From your comment, It sounds like you want me to admit that I did something wrong. While I don't necessarily agree with how some editors have characterized my past editing behavior, I do realize that I have to make some changes if I want to continue as part of the community. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I almost wish I had more information on the circumstances. I only have bits and pieces and I saw where the term gaslighting was used and that you objected to this. I am not a wall-papered intellect but have been around the block several times. To me that term is an insinuation or accusation of some grey area of narcissism. If it has another meaning on Wikipedia I am not aware of the use. I don't know enough about any of this to get into it, and I saw at one point where you sought clarification of what led to one block.
You translate articles or content from at least the Spanish dictionary and that is commendable. I saw one instance where you added 959 bytes of content to Thermococci, that only has one references and likely references from the "Further reading" section, but you didn't add any yourself and there are no inline citations. As a stickler for sourcing I would take issue with that. While you more than likely have the intelligence to know the accuracy of the information, it was "brought in from somewhere else, it was unsourced, and others can't see the proof. This would be considered WP:OR but apparently 26 other editors on the article didn't seem to share that.
While I think you might strive to "do things differently, the last two sentences still gives concerns. 1)- you plan to do things differently to be a part of Wikipedia. I think you have the knowledge to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. 2)- You make it seem that you either didn't do anything wrong or that you have no idea what you did do. I don't care if you "admit" to doing anything wrong or not. I didn't want a confession. If several people see a color as black it is hard to imagine one person seeing dark blue should argue that everyone else is wrong and needs to have their eyes checked. In all of this you surely have to have some idea of what "others" deem you did wrong. I have a serious issue with any hopes of you being able to correct something while alluding that you will do better but seem to not have a clue of what you need to "fix". A country boy look at this. A fox would never admit to being wrong in eating a chicken in a hen house. Nature and life would mandate the fox would be correct. If we could ask several of the other chickens for an opinion (consensus) I am sure there would be another side of the story. Somehow you need to step outside the box and examine this from another angle. As I stated, I don't know enough about the circumstances to even begin to form an opinion on the reasoning or rationale that led up to this. "IF" you cannot communicate what you "think" others might consider as some transgression or line you crossed, how you do feel you can avoid falling into the same pattern in the future or to be able to "rehabilitate", if you will. A redeeming quality for you to achieve the apparent goal of a continued presence on Wikipedia, at least from this point (there is always another year you can try) is to somehow show how you intend to "change" what "some others" has deemed as not an appropriate attitude or position. If you cannot see this, or maintain you did nothing wrong, how can you hope to "fix" anything?
Look, I am cannot be more neutral. I respect two editors that have/had a position not in your favor. One of them having a change of heart is the only reason I even became involved. The other one is still convinced that the quote above will come to pass and there are some others that agree. I would hope, and possible that editor, that his "prophesy" not come to fruition. One way would be to continue the block considering the net community benefit would not outweigh the risk. Another would be an experimental mentoring by a respected editor. That editor willing to take the time and risk has turn a totally negative response around some. His confidence is even inspiring.
I make longer edits so have an even lower "edit count" than you do, even though I have been around close to 10 years. I have been in controversial situations, been threaten with ANI and may have even been brought one time long ago. I was not "wrong" and it didn't go anywhere but it could have. That editor ended up being blocked later and is no longer here. I have never been sanctioned and think my past history (hopefully) would be a defense should I be placed in that situation. Since my goal is never to be sanctioned it would be detrimental and I am not sure the course I would take. I almost quit when one editor was banned by the WMF, in a strong arm attempt, but that seems to have been resolved to the communities favor. It sucks that we lost some good editors over an apparent power play. I was told once that there was not a snowball chance in hell what I wanted would happen. I backed of, waited around a year, and got the change. An end result is that the more common name (according to reliable sources) is now recognized as more correct than some "official" or project chosen name. This is contentious in the scientific world of species classification but since I feel the scientific name is important in many instances (actually more often than not) there needs to be "proof" that a recognized "common name" is not ambiguous. This may be one of the areas you work in. I have been involved in MOS and many times there are two different camps that struggle to be right. A decision and resulting mass name changes (of which I hold in disdain) caused me to lose interest. It is a see-saw that will likely be a perennial issue. Too much headache for me. Should you return I do think you should just avoid that area a good while.
I saw where on one instance a situation you were involved in was resolved through natural editing and time so you questioned being held responsible for something that became moot. That is a secret weapon. Almost nothing on Wikipedia is so crucial or important as to lead to war. I have very rarely reverted more than once. I may revert a second time on a BRD. "If" I deem it important at that point it is dispute resolution time. I have taken the position that I am not going to "battle" on Wikipedia. I feel I have studied the policies and guidelines, as well as practical and common use, and can be flexible. I have been considered long-winded (a fact) but can be persuasive. If that don't work I just go somewhere else. I was told one time there are millions of articles on Wikipedia so if severe controversies arise I can find somewhere else to play. That is an advantage of having ADHD. I am comfortable bouncing around and love many different areas of knowledge. I take issues with bullies and will champion "the little guy" (or gal).
Anyway, I wish you luck, and if not this time around maybe next year things may be different. I would really like to see this succeed for a change to the good, as well as a mentor receiving a high award for a seemingly impossible task (according to some), but there are some high hurdles to jump. Otr500 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a really substantial comment you've made here. I can see you've put a lot of thought into this, and thank you for that. Is it okay if I don't give a full response for a couple hours? I want to reread your post carefully and give the issues you mention here their due consideration.
As for details about the case... I don't know how much I'm allowed to tell you. Even if I mean to do no more than tell you what happened, it might look like relitigating to at least some people. I think I should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Goldenring knows a lot and you could ask them.
More later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
You have given me a lot to think about, and I think I may have to respond to your issues one at a time.
Regarding Thermococci, it's one edit from a year and a half ago. I don't exactly remember, so I took a look at the edit history. I didn't actually write Thermococci, just expanded it a little. I translated the content from my diff from the Spanish version of the article[3]. I checked the article's history[4], and it looks like the source was the English-language scholarly study by L'Haridon[5]. My best guess is I just didn't notice that the L'Haridon source wasn't already listed in the English Wikipedia article. It would be a simple matter to copy it over. I don't specifically remember, but I probably did read the L'Haridon article rather than just copying what the Spanish Wikipedia said.
That's probably the most straightforward of the issues you mentioned, Otr500. I will ponder the others further and plan a response. What could I say to you that would make you feel more confident that the unblock is a good idea? Would you like evidence from past actions? To hear my plans for the future? I've had plenty of time to reflect on Wikipedia conduct habits in these three years. Would you like to hear about that? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Otr500:
I have read your comment a few times now. This part stands out to me: "IF you cannot communicate what you 'think' others might consider as some transgression or line you crossed, how you do feel you can avoid falling into the same pattern in the future or to be able to 'rehabilitate', if you will."
Would you say that's a core concern for you? I may have an answer on that score, then. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Darkfrog, I don't need any more convincing. I actually am a "dumb country boy" with an unusually high IQ. I only chose that wording because I was forced to attend 21 schools (miltary brat) in eleven years (graduated early) and maintained mostly on the AB honor roll also mostly without studying. I chose marriage and higher paying blue-collar work at an early age so did not join the Navy as I was going to do or go to college. I am still married to the love of my life (43+ years) and still mostly make a good living so I have no complaints.
I actually was pretty much going to oppose unless "something" could jump out at me. For some damn reason I just feel that you are sincere and would like to return and contribute to Wikipedia. Even some of those that oppose this did not have anything particularly bad to say about you. While whatever led to this was deemed serious I did not see words like "egregious". ArbCom has given some leeway that can be presented as "conditions" (point #3 above from ArbCom) that you can be put on a short leash that could even include immediately reinstating the block should you not comply with these conditions. There are those that support a mentoring project and they give compelling reasoning for their support that includes the possible mentor. One editor in opposition even stated "I believe their editing behaviour, whilst absolutely good faith and well intentioned,..." (with some added negative comments). There seems to be no reason why these conditions cannot be presented to you, that would include a mentor and several editors in agreement to also monitor things, and if you agree, I cannot possibly see why others would not support a reinstatement. One never knows though. To me (just my personal opinion) someone mentioned gaslighting (that you took serious exception to) and this seems (again, my opinion) to be hinting at narcissism unless Wikipedia has another meaning of the word. If that were true you likely would not be able to pass any extended program with severe restrictions. There are some that would be happier if you did admit guilt, remorse, and "promise to conform". Since the full circumstances cannot be examined because of the gag order (I did not in any way mean to bait you by almost wishing I knew more) I feel it would be an insane expectation. Two editors wondered about the length of time you should be punished (I wonder also) and some think you as "hounding" for reinstatement as a problem. I am not so worried about that and in fact think you could be an asset to Wikipedia.
For these reasons I am trying to convince others to try this out. I have no idea if I can be persuasive or that my ideas can overcome the negatives. All I can do is try and hope for a successful outcome. As for the article I mentioned I just feel sourcing is important and hope you agree. Good luck, Otr500 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
That's really nice of you, Otr500. I wonder if Nick would change his mind if I showed him some of the collaborative work I did at Wikinews. I'm on the fence about it. Some people just think you're arguing with them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@BlackcurrantTea: I’d like to draw your attention to the progress I have been making since those March discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC) Yes, things got heated last March. The conversation between Ca2james, Gryllida and me became charged and repetitive. However if you scroll down later in the page you can see how I’ve been working with other Wikinewsies on these issues. Since March, I've been working on ways to minimize conflict on Wikinews talk pages. At the suggestion of Wikinewsie Gryllida, I started writing essays about my experience on Wikinews such as [6]. I also wrote two conflict resolution essays[7]. They didn't get past draft, but they got me thinking. If, for instance, I find myself in a two- or three-person conversation that has gone heated but is serving the needs of the project, simply writing up an answer and then waiting twelve hours before posting it slows everything down. Then heads are cooler and responses are more calm, productive, and even occasionally artistic.

Here are a few things I've tried since March:

  • If the conversation serves the needs of the project, tell the other person I need a break. "I wrote up a response to your post, but I think we need to slow down, or at least I do. Okay if I respond in 12 hours instead of now?" The other party responded well.
  • If the conversation's getting heated and not serving the needs of the project, then the trick is to get it to end: either let the other person have the last word, set the other person up for the last word, or give a last word that the other person won't feel the need to respond to.
  • I tried adopting a "let's do it together" response to anything that looks like a complaint, and it has seen some success.

I've tried all these things, and they work. I will add that Gryllida has been invaluable toward that goal, both through their deliberate actions and things I noticed about Gryllida passively. I hope you can see progress in my responses to this appeal also since the previous appeal - Nosebagbear at least has noticed with his "There are differences here from what we have seen before." This is an ongoing process. I can continue to move this way with help of friends like Gryllida on Wikinews and Steven as mentor here in Wikipedia. If I am unblocked then, as last time, I will be mostly active in the area of RSN and copying material into Wikipedia. Steven should have an easy time there as I have never gotten into any arguments on those topics. Unlike Wikinews articles, Wikipedia articles have no time limits. That makes it much easier to say "no thanks" and go work on something else. My plan for the future is if I ever notice myself going back and forth with someone else, and I feel the discussion might be getting even a little out of hand/uncivil, I'll step away, try some of the techniques I've been working on since last March, or both. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Would you please transclude this? I think perhaps you did not see it the other day. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Secondary request[edit]

Transclusion requested I would like to draw the community's attention to my secondary request. It's clear that if I become unblocked it will be with restrictions. I thought about it, and that might actually be better: I want to show the community what I'm made of, so the more people who are looking, the better. I aspire to bore you all to delight. But consider my request to just restore talk page access. The AE admin who revoked it said he would revisit it after three months, but then he left Wikipedia and no one else had the authority to make any changes. Restoration of talk page access was all I was asking for in those three UTRS requests anyway. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I have copied your secondary request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Secondary request to restore user talk page access. Mkdw talk 20:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.