User talk:Nfitz

Welcome!

Hello Nfitz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! HGB 01:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment policy - If you comment on this talk page, I will respond on your talk page, irregardless of what your policy is. Please then reply on my talk page or tag me or else I may not notice.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for defending "William H. Moravek" when it was nominated for deletion. Much love! Ashkaan232 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mesfer Al-Qahtani

No evidence this is the same person, no evidence he is notable. Yet another pointless AFD to go through while you continue your crusade to retain non-notable articles. Kudos. Giant Snowman 23:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+ 1... JMHamo (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So where's this evidence? Where's the significant coverage in reliale, third-party sources? Giant Snowman 23:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where is the evidence in reliable sources that he has played "for years" in FPL? Giant Snowman 00:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different DOB; different spelling; not an uncommon name. Need I go on? Giant Snowman 00:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not listed at any of Al Hilal's squads over the past 5 years. Giant Snowman 00:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Gudey and Arseni Zakharov

The claims are unverified, and as I'm sure you're well aware there is plenty of AFD precedent to show that scraping through NFOOTBALL is not sufficient when the article fails GNG so comprehensively... Giant Snowman 14:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to verify the claim to notability I'll remove the PRODs myself. Giant Snowman 16:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, just seen you have - I've removed them. Giant Snowman 16:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Nfitz/Wagner Santos Lago 2011

User:Nfitz/Wagner Santos Lago 2011, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nfitz/Wagner Santos Lago 2011 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Nfitz/Wagner Santos Lago 2011 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hey, that edit summary to The X-Files miniseries page was not really called for. Let's try to remain civil here.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

As promised, your personal attacks have been reported at ANI; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Accusations of misogyny. Number 5 7 22:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of your first few posts was very clear, and your attempts to backpedal are not going to hide that. Your request for an apology is a joke. Number 5 7 22:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks + invitation

Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles. I thought I'd let you know about the Women's Football/Soccer Task Force (WP:WOSO), a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's football/soccer. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

Sergio D'Autilia

Hi Nfitz, Are you able to find sources for any other fpl appearances for this player because those you have provided indicate a career total four minutes of fully professional action. Doesn't really seem to satisfy GNG but the article indicates potential notability. Don't want to rush to AfD if there are other sources out there but will do if you can't locate them. Fenix down (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can see. Certainly not in 1996/1997 when he was with Inter (19 appearances on the bench in Serie A, plus one in the second leg of the 1997 UEFA Cup Final). Though I was still looking - I'm a bit mystified where he was for over a decade! Nfitz (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, carry on looking if you want. Seems like the sort of player who would be notable. Unlikely you would make an appearance for inter and then never play in any of the top four Italian leagues again. Thanks for finding the initial source by the way. Fenix down (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth United F.C.

The article has nothing on it, firstly it was not founded in 1888, it was founded in 1944. Unless there is any real evidence, or an article is constructed. It should be deleted. Govvy (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Toronto_rapid_transit#Requested_move_25_August_2016

The discussion on the name of this article has been reopened. Ground Zero | t 17:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nfitz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moves of SvG sport articles from Draft to mainspace

Hi Nfitz. Many thousands of sportsperson articles have been moved to Draft by Musikbot per http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Fram, with agreed cleanup guidelines as a result of the closing decision at User:Aymatth2/SvG_clean-up/Guidelines. Under the circumstances, closure at AFD regardless of notability is not grounds to move (and furthermore, the AFD was opened after the ANI closed).

I've added a cite for Pedrolia Martin Sikayun's club as that wasn't supported by the existing cite. At least some of the other pages you've reverted to mainspace have similar issues of missing sourcing, for instance Aye Aye Moe and May Sabai Phoo (2014 team membership?), Fadathul Najwa Nurfarahain Azmi (club membership?), or Luisa Marques (debut appearance?). Unsourced material should be sourced or removed if the articles are to remain in mainspace. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert ANI

Hi Nfitz. You might be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Johnpacklambert re the sports AFDs. With his refusal to discuss on the talk page there isn't much else we can do. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just noticed that, after I commented on his talk page. I've commented there as well. Nfitz (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please....

... don't presume to apologize for me again - I'm perfectly capable of apologizing for myself if I think it's necessary. The 184 IP is a disruptive editor, most probably a sock, and you're just feeding it.

And while we're on the subject, who the heck are you? You appeared on the noticeboards a couple of days ago and suddenly you are all over the place. You've had an account since 2005, but you have a paltry 8,500 edits, only 36% of which are to articles, barely more then you've made to Wikipedia space (30.8%). I don't think you have the experience to be offering advice and opinions on AN and AN/I, and should instead spend your time improving the encyclopedia, which is the purpose we're here for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE?

Maybe I misinterpreted the edit as an attempt to offend, but other editors seem to agree that it was clearly a (potentially hit-and-run) vandalistic edit that should have received a much smaller warning. I don't believe WP:BITE applies here. And while Saw might be a horror film, the villain wouldn't be called "the devil" given that he is usually portrayed as a self-righteous borderline anti-villain. Dark Knight 2149 22:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy. If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read.

Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(copy of what I posted at BMK talk page, as they'll surely delete it shortly)

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that allows you to ban me from your talk page. It's generally accepted that you can make that request, and that I should follow it as per WP:NOBAN, though is not policy, it is a guideline, and is not mandatory. But a ban is something else. There is no policy, or even a guideline, that exists for this one-way interaction ban. The English Wikipedia's banning policy, which states that individual editors, including administrators, may not directly impose bans. Nor is there any policy, guidelines, or such, about pinging - obviously endless pinging could be seen as harassment - but I have no intention of doing that. Nice try though. Other editors at the meeting did warn me that you'd probably do this.

People have your number. I think User:Furry-friend described it best at [1]. You did however, also request that I not post in the thread above. And I will accede to your request. I know you've got a long history of not being WP:CIVIL - how you get away with it I don't know given the pillar of WP:5P4 - but I hope that you can come to love yourself enough to one day be civil to your peers here. I wish you good luck in why we are here - improving the encyclopedia. Nfitz (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, if you really would like to help Wikipedia retain editors you should try participating at the Teahouse - It's not secret Wikipedia has a problem retaining editors, but I honestly think you're wasting your time on that IP. In many of your arguments you mention the pillars of Wikipedia, and respect to contributors - something this IP editor has ignored from the very beginning (I was the first editor to interact with this IP, and I tried your approach first to no avail). This IP visibly does not WANT to work with people, so please stop trying. I understand what you are trying to do, and it is admirable - but this IP is looking for food, so let's let the admins deal with it for now. Garchy (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The section above

Nfitz, both unwanted user talkpage posts and unwanted pings come under WP:COMMONSENSE, and the wikilawyering which you repost here after BMK removed it from his page (or in anticipation of him removing it) is unimpressive. Obviously "banned" means you're not welcome there; isn't that enough? Also, in particular, I'm not surprised BMK warns you off his page when you post offensive psychobabble there such as "I hope that you can come to love yourself enough to one day be civil to your peers here", and supercilious advice about "improving the encyclopedia". Do you repost those things here on your own page because you're so proud of them? If it was me, I'd be glad they'd been blanked. Incidentally, what's this about your "policy" stated at the top of your talkpage that requires you to respond on the other person's page? (Per this edit summary. How can a principle you made up yourself require you to do anything? And more to the point, does it really require you to repost the other person's post on theirs, as if they had written it there, which is quite confusing? And then, on the assumption that he'll remove it, you repost your own post here, supposedly to illustrate "long-term issues of Beyond My Ken", leaving your "principle" full of holes. Leave BMK alone. I don't only mean don't post on his page, I also mean don't troll him on yours or elsewhere. Feel free to reply on my page if you prefer, but no reposting back and forth of my original post, please. Bishonen | talk 00:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

ANI

I'll be the first person to admit that I probably hang out at ANI more than I should, and there are definitely threads there that can benefit from the input of non-admin but experienced editors. But it's not necessary for any one person to comment on nearly every thread there, and none of us, not even admins, should reach the point where drama boards constitute the majority of our time editing. You seem to be quickly approaching that point, and some of your contributions seem a bit more geared toward arguing with others for its own sake, rather than making a contribution that actively moves the thread toward some kind of resolution. So, just a heads up that this trend is becoming...noticeable to others. TimothyJosephWood 12:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I'd like to make an observation/request: Posts such as yours here [2] are unhelpful IMO in several ways: (1) The non-permalink RFPP link goes dead within a few minutes of the protection being done. (2) You could have closed the thread, with a clear and detailed explanation (what kind of protection, for how long, who made it), when you made that observation. (3) Not closing it forces someone else to figure out what has actually happened. (4) Since the non-permalink RFPP thread is a dead link and the article itself is not even linked in the ANI thread, the closer must copy+paste the article name to search for it, go into the article's history, and see what kind of protection was placed and for how long. My request would be: If you are going to post the apparent resolution to a thread, do so more thoroughly, precisely, and completely. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips! I was unsure if it was kocher to do a non-admin closure - but you've answered that one. Thanks again! Nfitz (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but only by very experienced editors. And only if the thread has been resolved by an admin, and only if you fully explain the resolution in the close, and only if you add the template {{nac}}. Softlavender (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again!. Nfitz (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive

I really been impressed for your answer to my little question, but it is just a big question because it has to do with what they term vandalization, but you justified me right, 'everyone has write to edit to correct misspelt or direct a paragraph. Thanks 197.210.24.231 (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cole

Is unambiguously notable, notwithstanding the AfD. You say "None of the references are from after the last deletion discussion", but that has no bearing whatsoever on anything. I suggest that you go to a second AfD should you wish for deletion, since the case for general notability is unimpeachable, and the subject's appeal is of little or no standing given the well-referenced state of the current article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mozambique non-existent stadiums

Hi Nfitz, thanks for bringing back the need to delete these articles about non-existent Mozambican stadiums. Are they going to be deleted this time? Keep the good work! Teixant (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tubuia

Hi Nfitz, have CSD the article, agree with you a probable hoax. Tubuai is an island in Tahiti which RSSSF shows is the base of a number of minor clubs, but I can find nothing to indicate there was ever a team representing the island as a whole in any Tahitian competition, nor that there has ever been a third tier of Tahitian football operating at a national level. Thanks for flagging. Fenix down (talk) 13:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Fenix down are virtually every article ever created by sockpuppet User:Mozaikka, User:Waidoer, and User:Shtraker. Sadly though, some have since been partially fixed, and others managed to pass a mass AFD because the teams were notable (ignoring that the content was entirely fictional other than the team-name). Contemporary attempts to clean up the mess were stone-walled by do-gooders ... I tripped over it in a recent PROD by someone else. Nfitz (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not something I was aware of to be honest, but will have a look through and try to review. If a hoax, then I will delete, if not then the article should just be reduced to xxxx is a football club from yyyy competing in the zzzz league to show notability. Fenix down (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to go through them slowly using a combination of prod, AFD, and simply removing most of the suspect text, as appropriate. Each article is a little different story after 9 years of various attempts to fix, improve, and neglect. Nfitz (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	This is the absolute spirit of the project. I just hope someone listens. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Language competancy

Copying the deleted comment from the user's talk page (I've no idea why we are stifling discussion ...)

@Nfitz: You have gotten it all wrong. The indeffed user was completely oblivious to multiple attempts by a variety of independent editors to point out to them that their English was far below WP:COMPETENCE. Further, when faced with actual consequences the user reacted in a self-destructive way that has nothing to do with any action of any editor. Go and look at the extensive history of these attempts - and during that process, be aware that the user selectively deleted postings from the talk page, in what can only be seen as deceptive behaviour. Happy editing. Lklundin (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lklundin I certainly looked at some of them - perhaps there was a particularly egregious example I missed? He's been here 10 years, and suddenly this is an issue? His English seemed reasonably understandable to me. Someone just needs to come along and edit. At least that's what I think. Nfitz (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Talk pages

If you don't like my administrative actions, take me to ANI. Otherwise, stop disruptively editing Talk pages of blocked users, or you risk being blocked. And don't spout "policy" to me, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2017

I don't see your reversion of my comment at User talk:A Great Catholic Person has anything to do with your administrative actions, as it wasn't your action. Any user is allowed to comment on a block unrequest, as per WP:BLOCK. Presumably this also applies to making comments before the inevitable request is made. I'm not sure why you call referencing a policy you seem to be unfamiliar with, or don't understand is "spouting" policy. I also don't see how this is disruptively editing talk pages. You seem to be failing to follow WP:AGF here. Also, many of your edits seem to be unnecessarily aggressive or rude. This violates WP:CIVIL and WP:5P4. Please remember that those guidelines are paramount, and perhaps take some time to review those policies, and follow them. Thanks! Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a complaint about an admin action, take it up at their talk page or at ANI - but stop disrupting blocked editors' talk pages. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Boing! said Zebedee Just saw this to save us both from having to deal with a block unrequest process, can you explain this further to me? You reverted my brief comment about the block on User:Moltenflesh on their talk page, and then blocked me for 31 hours with the reason of persistently making disruptive edits? How is commenting on the block, which any user is allowed to do, as per WP:BLOCK making disruptive edits? As I only restored this comment once, after the previous editor deleted it without comment, directly referencing the policy such comments are allowed under, how come you didn't address my comment in my restoration of this edit? I don't see anything in WP:DE that directly addresses comments on blocks. Can you explain why my comment on this block was deleted - when WP:BLOCK clearly states that anyone can comment on a unblock request? (Bbb23 and I also disagreed on another block, however as there is no current block unrequest, I'm not challenging that) Nfitz (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you make an unblock request and another admin disagrees with the block, they are welcome to unblock without needing my approval. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: Fair enough. Though I don't really want to start that process without a better understanding for the reason that you blocked me - I have to think I'm missing something here, given the clear words in WP:BLOCK that explicitly permit comments such as mine on User:Moltenflesh's unblock statement. So in order to understand the reason you blocked me, I'm asking you to clarify the action. As it currently stands, I'm liable to repeat my error without a better understanding of the reasons for my block. I'm a reasonable person - if I can understand the reason for the block, I'm not going to waste everyone's time with a pointless unblock request! BTW, I realised that my original query to you above is horrifically written - even I'm having difficultly understanding what I said! I can rewrite it for clarity if you would like. Nfitz (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that repeatedly adding criticism of a checkuser's "sloppiness" when a) you have no idea of the evidence they have seen and they are not allowed to explain it (and therefore cannot defend it) and b) you have been asked to take it to more formal channels (where others who can see and examine the evidence that you can't will be present) is disruptive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound like I'm in the habit of criticizing checkusers' sloppiness - I've never done so before. My comment didn't even challenge the sloppiness of the actual checkuser itself. It challenged the sloppiness of them concluding it wasn't a slam dunk, but failing to record this in either the block log, the user page, or making any entry at all in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Perfect Orange Sphere. There's nothing in what I said that requires anyone to examine any actual checkuser evidence (though Bbb23 has already asked for that). I don't see how commenting on this, in the so-far ignored unblock request is wrong - in fact, surely it's the perfect place to question a block based on an admission of not entirely clear evidence given that there's no need for others to check the evidence. Whatsmore my comment was removed without an edit summary; there was a comment on my talk page saying If you don't like my administrative actions, take me to ANI which is hardly the civil response justifying their actions that administrators are expected to provide. Nfitz (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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

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

Request reason:

I was blocked by User:Boing! said Zebedee for "disruptive editing of blocked editors talk pages". I tried to get clarification on this (above), and it's related to questioning a checkuser's work in the wrong forum. The edit in question was a comment on an unblock request by User:Moltenflesh (a request that as far as I can tell, has been ignored—Moltenflesh was blocked by User:Bbb23 for sock puppetry). As WP:BLOCK clearly and simply states that Any user may comment on an unblock request, there was no reason to remove my comment. The comment was first removed by Bbb23 without an edit comment; I restored it noting that such comments were allowed as per WP:BLOCK, and shortly after the comment was again removed by Zebedee, and I was blocked. As the comment I made is allowable under WP:BLOCK (as any user may comment on an unblock request), and was not disruptive, but was in all good faith criticism of the block, then there is no basis for Zebedee blocking me, and I request that this block be lifted. Nfitz (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've been thinking this over again, and I now think I was too impatient. Instead of blocking, I should have come here and spoken to you about my concerns. I've unblocked you with what I hope is an acceptable message, and you have my apologies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) While I cannot speak for BsZ, I suspect the block has a locus around your contortionist levels of being over backwards to assume good faith on behalf of editors who have demonstrated disintrest in playing by the rules of Wikipedia. Your commentary on the AN boards gives the impression that you would rather give people third, fourth, or twenty nineth attempts to reform before receiving a sanction. From the surface your commentary doesn't help resolve the issue it only disrupts the dispute resolution process. For this reason, I suggest you re-think your actions and ask if they really bring a improvement to the community. Hasteur (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasteur:So I shouldn't assume good faith? There does seem to be a trend I don't like at WP:ANI of experienced editors and admins violating WP:5P4, which is far more fundamental than many of the issues they are very quick to block and alienate mere users over. And very quick to attack and bully those that merely seek due process. I didn't comment on this particular case at ANI - it was there only for a few minutes before a user blocked it. I don't disagree with you though, however, I think the group of editors who have demonstrated disinterest in playing by the rules of Wikipedia includes many of the denizens of WP:ANI. Nfitz (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree here - while you may have WP:AGF on the mind I see many of your actions coming across as "trying to hard" to see the good. Sometimes things are as they are, and it looked as if you were still waiting for a comment from the user even AFTER they made it abundantly clear they did not want to comment. I respect that your outlook tends to be conservative, and that you want to make sure we are not being heavy-handed with punishment - sometimes punishment is heavy handed and needs to be re-checked and modified, but it appears that you question many more outcomes than I would consider in that margin of error - it creates a situation where an editor like me may initially negate your comments, even in a case where it is fruitful. I would especially walk away in a case where the punished user has showed a certain degree of apathy to the situation as well. Just my thoughts - save your cape for a user who really needs it! Garchy (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Garchy: I do have concern when there is potential there, and in the case of AGCP, evidence of some good work, that we back them into some kind of red tape corner, and alienate them, as they perceive the process very differently than we do - particularly in cultures where we seem to be shaming people. Hmm and I've started to wonder if that bizarre racist comment was some kind of death by cop thing, rather than an statement of their beliefs. Nfitz (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the user is actually racist (although they haven't said otherwise) - my feeling is, since the user has self-identified as autistic, that it is most likely a communication issue. The problem I had is that there were multiple attempts to let AGCP know that they have a chance to say something and explain their edits/actions, but they chose not to. I certainly hope they come back and contribute positively as they have, but I know that certain behaviors would have to change and they would need to communicate better, or at least attempt to converse with other editors! Garchy (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Wish there was better way to deal with these cases. Almost need some kind of interception team, to take to different process, without going nuclear. Particularly where there are cultural sensitivities; where a block history is seen an unimaginable dishonour one can't ever live with, and building a new persona is seen as the more honourable option. Nfitz (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone needs to be able to check up on how people are issuing blocks this is ridiculous Moltenflesh (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand I agree. One the other, it's a tough and often thankless job - and to keep it under control, you do have to move fast. Normally he get's it right. As long as there's a process to sort things out, then I think we have to live with some mess. Life is messy. Democracy is messy. I reacted because I thought he was ignoring it. I later realised he was taking it very seriously. I do wonder though if there should be some kind of flying oversight group, which would just keep an eye out for things, have a second thought. Anyone is free to start a discussion on process change. Nfitz (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

This edit to Stephen Miller (political advisor) (your only edit to the article or talk page ever) reverted all of my recent edits which included my removal of unsourced and poorly-sourced claims, in a BLP. You justified this in your edit-summary with "The last series of edits seems to have some bias in them" without identifying which edits and what bias, and by questioning the suitability of Fox News as an RS (it undoubtedly is.) Fair warning: repeat this behavior and I'll file a complaint immediately. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

public figure

Dude, seriously, don't refer to public figures, Trump or otherwise, in those terms, especially in edit summaries (as these can't be reverted and must be rev-del'd). It's a potential BLP violation and will land you in trouble quickly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Language

Hi - I'm stopping by in response to an ongoing thread on WP:AN/I regarding the goings-on at Stephen Miller (political advisor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Some of the language you're using, particularly with regard to Trump, is unhelpfully inflammatory when it comes to trying to edit collaboratively. Everyone has his or her political views, but on Wikipedia one's expression of those views needs to be tempered by the need to maintain a productive editing environment. What I'm saying is: please tone it down several notches. If you feel too strongly about the subject to do so, then it's probably best to avoid editing the articles in question. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Block for BLP violation

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Swarm ♠ 05:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just label living persons "sexual predators" on this project. Given the fact that you did so after two admins already stated that a block was appropriate for your behavior at ANI, I think this block is exceptionally lenient. Swarm ♠ 05:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And no, the claim that your label, which was at best contentious, at worst defamatory, is "common knowledge", does not make it okay. Swarm ♠ 06:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And see my comment at WP:ANI for extended rationale, as the link was cut off in the block log.[3] Swarm ♠ 06:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, as your comments deal with a highly politicized topic, I will preempt any suggestion that this has anything to do with me disagreeing with your stated opinions: I very well may agree with everything you said, and I may well take your side on another forum. But I would never be at liberty to express such opinions on this project, nor would I ever, nor have I ever. Nor were you ever at liberty to do so. This is quite simply not a matter of whether or not your opinions are shared by myself, or even the vast majority of people around the world. Your comments are quite simply not acceptable on this forum. Adherence to BLP is a very serious thing and there is little tolerance for violations, and most users would not have been given the slack you were to make these comments in the first place. You were provided with more than enough leniency to make more inappropriate comments than was ever tolerable. Escalating your shockingly-flagrant BLP violations after the warning of an imminent block, with outright accusations of criminality, against more than one subject protected by BLP, is something that cannot be ignored. Swarm ♠ 06:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Swarm here. I first saw that dispute yesterday and at the time it was already a bit of a mess but wasn't so long. Still I saw you comment "both a bigot and a misogynist - and I'm unaware of any person who meets those criteria who then is not a piece of shit" and thought, well seems someone is going to be blocked. Frankly I'm surprised it took so long. Probably one factor in your favour was that the views are shared by many and the person considered is very high profile so there is less impetus. Still that doesn't many of us think it's acceptable. It's not. As you were advised in a thread above, if you feel this strongly you probably should just stay way from the topic but at the very least you need to cut such comments like that out. Not only are they forbidden by BLP, but they also serve no purpose. They don't help resolve any dispute or form consensus about what articles should be like. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really User:Swarm? In what way is the comment about Bill Clinton either not NPOV, verifiable, nor Original Research? He was stripped of his licence to practice law in relation to the lies he told, after being sued by one of his victims? I have to say, of the comments I made that I thought might lead to an Administrator blocking me - this one wasn't even on the list! Particularly as I simply had only repeated the comment made by James J. Lambden, who received no sanction, and provided evidence [4] [5] [6]. I do owe James J. Lambden an apology though (and probably User:Hidden Tempo as well) - he is clearly correct, and there does appear to be two standards here - in fact, he over estimated what one has to say about a Democract to get blocked, given my comment was neither made repeatedly, nor with any intent to offend. Clinton was quite rightfully impeached for his crimes - can you tell me how me simply noting them is poorly sourced, sensationalist, the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, or raises the possibility of harm to living subjects? Also, can you clarify who the two admins were? Both User:Drmies and User:Objective3000 seemed more concerned that an over 2000-year-old phrase about a shovel became racist after spade allegedly became an ethnic slur in some banana republic (why, is it because they are discriminated against with poor jobs, and you see them shovelling along the road?) - which is surely in violation of WP:SPADE. (BTW, Objective3000 - etymology fascinates me. I did search carefully for a definition of spade in the online OED (3rd edition, updated to 2017 at [www.oed.com]) for this, and cannot find this entry - what were you looking in? Do you have the entry number? I'm looking at entries 185449 through 185455, which provide 4 entries as noun, and 2 as a verb - but the newest entry dates to the 1600s (which is an obsolete probable spayed, meaning eunach); we are dealing with the Noun1 entry 185449 here, which dates to AD 725 in (Old) English - though presumably much further back to PIE; entry 185449 includes to call a spade a spade which dates to 178 BC, and to call a spade a (bloody) shovel which dates to 1919.). Overall, I am concerned that BLP is being used for things it wasn't designed for; the concern was the publication of unverifiable material about living individuals; not repeating well documented verifiable information - or even allowing the project to eliminate Fair comment of public persons on talk pages. And in particular it does seem to being used by centrist and right-wing Americans who support the Democrats to beat down extreme right-wing Americans who support Republicans.Nfitz (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Objective3000 - etymology fascinates me. I did search carefully for a definition of spade in the online OED. 1986 OED Supplement Volume IV page 380. Origin is U.S., first use in Claude McKay’s Home to Harlem. Several other uses are isted, including James Michener's Chesapeake. Sorry, I don’t have access to the online OED. I have a print version at home – six feet long. The shelf is starting to buckle. :) Objective3000 (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also rereading your comments? You said with outright accusations of criminality, against more than one subject protected by BLP. I have no idea what this is referring to - the only accusation I made of criminality was of Thomas Jefferson, who as far as I am aware, is dead, and no longer covered by BLP. Can you please explain what this is about - perhaps there's been a misunderstanding. Nfitz (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "...Both User:Drmies and User:Objective3000 seemed more concerned...": no. I was not more concerned with that, as indicated by the parenthetical nature of the comment. This is not the way to help yourself. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - One could read it another way. I thought you were talking about the hypothetical repeated use of WP:SPADE rather than my comment, given the context of what you wrote. You wrote that it was uttered and explained in a very public forum; if you are referring to my alleged well-sourced description using the letter S in an acronym, then it wasn't in a public forum, it was buried deeply in a comment on a user talk page, and somewhat later in an edit summary on a user talk page - as such your description of that didn't match my actions, so in context, I assume you were referring to the implying the black people use shovels thing (which makes no sense to me). Okay, fair enough, in a way that makes more sense - but you seem to think I uttered and repeated it in very public place - and I don't think a user talk-page meets that description. One question though User:Drmies - can you explain what you mean by "this is not the way to help yourself?". I'm asking questions to clarify the block, to decide if it's worth challenging it or not - how is that not the way to help myself? I could very well agree with the block, if it made sense to me - which I've noted above in my questions to User:Swarm - hmm, and looking at his edit history, may very well not appear again until the block has expired - that doesn't seem to be cricket! Nfitz (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - With "forum", of course I wasn't talking about the spade comment. Maybe Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX, which goes to the same place, makes it more clear. I said you're not helping yourself because this rather aggressive line of questioning suggests your block is somebody else's fault. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see my line of questioning as being aggressive - I'm sorry you perceive it this way. Quite frankly, I find your responses somewhat aggressive, with unnecessarily complex English structures such as "as indicated by the parenthetical nature of the comment" and "With "forum", of course I wasn't talking about the spade comment". (not to mention the use of "forum" in the first place). Your language, I'm afraid, is often not particularly clear to others, I'm afraid. Quite frankly, I really don't know what you mean by forum; I've discussed this on no forum - I haven't even looked at those forums (that seem to trash some prominent admins and other ANI-hangerson quite viciously) - which one is this User:Drmies, perhaps I'm being impersonated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs) 16:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Block Clarification

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not asking for an unblock (yet at least), but I'd tried to ask User:Swarm some questions to understand the reason he blocked me - but I've realized they are a very occasional editor, and looking at their edit history may well not appear before the block is long over. As WP:GAB doesn't address this, I'm sorry to use the unblock template this way - but don't see the alternative. User:Swarm took exception to my edit [[7]]. In particular, I don't understand his comment above ... with outright accusations of criminality, against more than one subject protected by BLP, .... I'm not aware of making ANY accusations of criminality yesterday or in the preceding fortnight (or heck years) against any living persons - let alone multiple people. As this seems to be central to the block, I need someone to explain to me what accusation of criminality I've made - as that certainly wasn't my intent! Nfitz (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've had your answer, whether you like it or not. Please observe that during your block, your talk page access is solely for the purpose of proper unblock requests. Favonian (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Sorry, but while I'm here I might as well say "I don't get it". I don't get it: sexual predation, in most civilized countries, is a crime. Calling people "sexual predators", therefore, is accusing them of crimes. Which is a BLP violation. You can call Clinton and others whatever you want on other websites--but Wikipedia is not a forum for such utterances. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual predation is a crime? Since when? I just searched our criminal code[8], and the word "predator" or "predation" doesn't appear; UK criminal law is a bit tougher to search, but this seems to mostly about foxes, fish, and businesses ... a more specific search doesn't yield any law or regulations, just references in various documents that don't speak to the criminality of a sexual predator. I think you may be confusing the term with "sexual offender". My gosh, if sexual predator was a crime, they'd have to lock up every cougar or male teenager in the nation! That has to be one of the oddest comments I've seen. Looking in the OED, I also don't see any reference to "sexual predator", and word "predator" hasn't got criminal overtones. There's absolutely nothing criminal about being a sexual predator - certainly not in the English language. I really think you (User:Drmies) have the wrong end of the stick here. I'd have never have used the word "sexual offender", and there's nothing in "sexual predator" that implies any criminality, or as far as I can tell, violates BLP, given how well sourced the predatory nature of such individuals are! Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! OK, please stop pinging me. Thank you! Drmies (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I thought that pinging was the appropriate thing to do these days when you reply to someone on your own talk page, rather than the traditional replying on their talk page. But hang on. So you agree with me? Sorry, it's not clear. If not, you've made a fundamental error here, as with your mistruth that sexual predation, in most civilized countries, is a crime you've leapt to Calling people "sexual predators", therefore, is accusing them of crimes. Which is a BLP violation - which it most certainly not, as sexual predation is not a crime in any civilized country that I'm aware of! And therefore no one was accused of crimes, nor is there a BLP violation. I'm not sure how much clear-cut that could be. Which if this is the basis for the block, means it's completely unjust! Nfitz (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that's what I feared User:Drmies, if I don't ping you, you don't actually account for your actions in any reasonable timeframe. You stated that sexual predation, in most civilized countries, is a crime. Calling people "sexual predators", therefore, is accusing them of crimes. Which is a BLP violation. . And then since then, everyone seems to simply says "what he says". However, I've found no indication that sexual predation is a crime in most countries - in fact, I'm yet to find an English-law based legal-system where it IS a crime. Our own sister project meanwhile defines a (wikt:cougar). (Canada, US, slang) An older woman who actively seeks the casual, often sexual, companionship of younger men, by implication a female “sexual predator”. This matches my understanding of the meaning of cougar and sexual predator - and clearly many, if not most, sexual predators aren't criminals. Therefore, your logic is faulty, and noting someone is a sexual predator is not accusing them of a crime. I've also shown that prominent world leaders have used the term "sexual offender" to describe both the living persons in question - one even has used it to describe themselves. So not only is there no accusation of crime, there is verifiability ... enough at least for there not to be an over-reaction of blocking someone for idly repeating it on a non-main space talk page, after someone else provided 3 supporting references! I do note though, that with some research does seem to be used somewhat differently in some regions of the USA, where it seems to have more of a meaning of sexual offender - however, this doesn't seem to be a common in most countries, or any country I've ever resided - nor does it seem to be historical; the push seems to have come out of how things have been phrased in recent years in the US legal system, unlike the English law system in use in most English-speaking nations (for sake of argument, I'll assume that these are all civilized, despite some of their leaders (of course, I refer to May's alliance with the creationist-DUP here :) ).

To be clear, the question is, in which civilized countries is sexual predation a crime (I'm assuming that even the USA isn't jailing cougars yet); and given that it appears that statement is erroneous, how is repeating the very public, considered, words of the US President, and US Vice President, and many other well known leaders a BLP? (right-wing Prime Minister Campbell, one of our most respected former leaders wise words come to mind - who is a lawyer, former justice minister (i.e. attorney-general), head of the Supreme Court Advisory Board (yes here, the centrist government actually appoints right-wing leaders to things), and good grief, the chair of the steering committee of the World Movement for Democracy). Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, staying away from here is exactly what I wanted, since blah blah blah--I have no interest whatsoever in discussing this stuff with you. It's kind of redundant to anyone but you, but I have made no actions, nor do I need to account for them. That you misread my comments and are now playing dense is no concern of mine: I'm not the one trying to get unblocked. The only one whose actions need accounting for are yours. Good luck with that. Drmies (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Favonian can you clarify your response? Two things: a) With the blocking Admin likely not available until after the block expires, what process do I use to ask questions, if I can neither ask them, or use an unblock template for clarification, or ping uninvolved Admins. Is there a different template I should use - I didn't see any reference in WP:GAB. b) you are agreeing that "sexual predation, in most civilized countries, is a crime"? I've never heard of such a thing before, nor can I find any reference to this in either Canadian or UK law; or in the dictionary. There's nothing criminal about predators or predatory - businesses and people are predatory by nature, taking advantage of opportunity and weakness; it's sexual offenders that are criminals, not predators - for what teenage boy isn't predatory? Nfitz (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're really going so far as to make the bizarre, pedantic argument that "being a sexual predator isn't a crime", therefore it's okay to label people as sexual predators, then it's clear that you have some sort of much more serious problem competently adhering to BLP than even I thought. In any case, I'm not going to argue whether or not or why your comments were a BLP violation, if you're actually unable to understand after everyone's comments above, there's really not much more than can even be said, and a very glaring competence issue at play. The block and underlying reasons have been explained to you, and are not negotiable. If you are not okay with this being the way Wikipedia works, then this is not the project for you. Swarm ♠ 17:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I don't actually believe you're incompetent. I think you just let your behavior get out of control and now you're trying to argue your way out of the block, arguing that you did nothing wrong, or that the block wasn't well-reasoned to you. However it's not going to fly this time. Like I said, BLP is non-negotiable, and the sooner you accept that, and modify your behavior, the better. We will not allow you to use Wikipedia as a forum any longer, and we will not tolerate BLP violations. Swarm ♠ 18:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I was arguing about the POS comments, which I knew I was skirting the issue (but was well documented), you'd might have a point about trying to argue myself out of a block. But to be perfectly honest, it didn't even cross my mind that discussing Bill Clinton as a sexual predator could be a BLP violation, given that it's not criminal (I have no idea where that meme is coming from), and how widely the issue has been discussed. The President of the United States of America himself went on record and said Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women to ever sit in the Oval Office. He was a predator . There is no end of headlines to this effect, such as Bill Clinton is a sexual predator: Donald Trump (I'll save you the many more, can we just take that as written). And this isn't new, over 3 years ago, Rand Paul noted that [Bill Clinton a sexual predator, Rand Paul says]. I assume this is all about Clinton, given Trump's past history, comments, and admissions going back over a decade - not to mention Vice-President Biden went on the record last year and said that Biden: Trump is 'sexual predator' but Bill Clinton conduct 'shouldn't matter' Donald Trump ... has acknowledged that he has been a sexual predator.. So I assume this is really about Clinton; but hang on - I wasn't the one that made the Clinton comment; go back, someone made it - with references, and I simply agreed, adding many other dead Presidents ... and Trump.

There's two issues here. The primary one is that the predatory nature of the individual in question is well documented, and the phrase is used, by the most important people in the world. And then secondly the alleged criminal aspect - when it's quite clear a sexual predator isn't necessarily criminal (though it doesn't preclude criminal activity). Would you ever say a cougar wasn't a sexual predator - that's pretty much the definition - but I've never seen anyone call something between two consenting adults criminal (well, not since the famous There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation back in 1967 from a future world leader). Nfitz (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Was looking at definitions for 'cougar'. Oddly missing from the OED (other than the mammal), presumably because that entry hasn't been updated in near 30 years. But it is in Wiktionary, where it says (wikt:cougar). (Canada, US, slang) An older woman who actively seeks the casual, often sexual, companionship of younger men, by implication a female “sexual predator”. This matches my understanding of the meaning of cougar and sexual predator - and clearly many, if not most, sexual predators aren't criminals. Nfitz (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As others have mentioned, you need to take a long hard read of WP:BLP as no where does it say only accusations of criminal behaviour are a problem. Frankly you probably should stop replying before you talk yourself into a longer block. At the very least, I'm strongly suggesting you stay away from any BLPs, or mentioning any living persons in any of your comments from now on both now and when you're unblocked, if ever. Yes accusing someone of a crime is a more serious BLP violation (generally) and you weren't the only one to bring it up but ultimately arguing over the definition of a sexual predator and when it is and isn't a crime isn't going to help you in any way, it's only going to cause more problems. Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you should also reread WP:NOTAFORUM as you seem to think it's okay to use wikipedia as a place to discuss and express your own personal opinions of people (and I guess other stuff). It's not. There's some limited tolerance of comments which is forumish and not related to improving wikipedia, but in BLP cases this is very limited. Especially when the content is often seen as highly negative, regardless of who else has said it. (That said, someone who keep saying all the time that Trump is the best president of all time who is going to make America great again is going to have problems eventually.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) As a final comment, in case you still don't understand, this means it's generally okay to discuss in an appropriate talk page whether or not to include the words of Campbell or Biden or whoever on whoever. It's not okay for you to go around repeating them all over the place, whether in your own words or quoting the other person. This means BTW that calling someone either a sexual predator or a piece of shit is a problem. In a very limited cases, especially when what you're saying is in wikipedia voice in the article, it's generally okay to mention something. E.g. it's not likely you'll have problems for saying Rodney Alcala is a serial killer. (Although if you keep bringing it up in irrelevant contexts you may have problems probably more for NOTAFORUM and/or soapboxing reasons depending on the context than BLP.) But if in doubt, just don't do it. And given you don't seem to have any inkling of what is and isn't acceptable, you probably should just never do it. P.S. As has already been mentioned to you, the purpose of talk page access while blocked is to allow unblock requests so really you shouldn't reply. Still while not an admin, I personally wouldn't advocate blocking you for a reply unless your comment itself is problematic since I don't think it's fair that you have no right of reply (one of the reasons posting on a blocked editors TP can be a problem), even if I haven't said anything that IMO really need reply. I'm not likely to be reading the response anyway, and actually maybe don't bother pinging me. Frankly I probably shouldn't have come back, but I admit I was nosey since I got the feeling getting through to you was going to be difficult, one of the reasons I posted even though I wasn't actually saying anything new, and was wondering if I was right. Your responses were though worse than even I expected. I'm not sure if any of this is going to get through to you but it really needs to since as I've said, if you keep up at it you should expect your time here to be short. P.P.S. Seems you've lost TP access. I'll post this anyway since while your responses have been bad, they don't seem to indicate to me that it's a case of you need to be left alone to cool down, rather you need to understand how we do things here on wikipedia. I hope I'm right and this doesn't make things worse for you. Sorry if it does. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I thought I had sufficiently made my point but it appears you didn't take in anything anyone said. Your above comment exemplifies the exact reason you were blocked, and I addressed this issue to begin with. "But I'm undoubtedly right, and it's well documented" may justify you holding that view, and it may justify you expressing and arguing that view on virtually any forum where free discourse is permitted. However, this is not that type of forum. This is not a forum. This is an encyclopedia, and no contentious or negative labels of any kind are permitted to be applied to any living person, as a matter of strict policy. Like I said, I may completely understand and agree with what you're saying, so doubling down on how "right" your comments are isn't going to address the issue. It's the fact that you made them at all on this project. I will humor your continued insistence that "sexual predator" does not equal "criminality". If you must be so pedantic, you're technically right, "sexual predator" can have widely varying interpretations. However, let's not pretend the term, in its common usage, is not universally held to have a negative connotation, ranging from morally corrupt deviancy of the first order, to outright sexual criminality. Users are allowed to access their talk page during a block in order to appeal and discuss the block. Since you insist on continuing to use your talk page as a forum to state opinions that constitute BLP violations, it's clear that the block is not having the intended preventative effect, and you leave me no choice but to revoke your talk page access. Given the complete lack of acknowledgment of the very serious policy you insist on disregarding, as well as your continued BLP violations since the block was issued, I've extended your block to a week. After that, this needs to stop. Yes, I mean permanently. No, I'm not overreacting, and no, this is not excessive. Most of Wikipedias rules are flexible, the imposition of most blocks is flexible, but BLP is a hard line, particularly when it comes to longtime users who have no excuse. If you return to this project and continue to violate this policy, your next block may well be indefinite. Swarm ♠ 05:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block extension

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Swarm ♠ 05:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Unblock Request

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

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

UTRS appeal #18946 was submitted on Aug 09, 2017 07:48:53. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the UTRS ticket linked above, I have come to the conclusion that you are fundamentally unable to comprehend the WP:BLP policy. The fact that your unblock request actively boasted of how effectively you had been able to flout the policy is enough for me to have serious concerns about your ability to edit Wikipedia in accordance with the rules. I have therefore modified this to an indefinite block, unblocking being conditional on the demonstration of an adequate understanding of BLP. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second Unblock Request

(pretty much same as first, but clearly noting that there was no boast)

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

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

UTRS appeal #18949 was submitted on Aug 09, 2017 15:19:33. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respect

Nfitz, I generally and genuinely respect you as an editor, and I appreciate the positive contributions you've made to the encyclopedia. But this has got to stop, at least for now. I'm not commenting in depth to the complicated matter at hand, just the fact that the community has spoken, made it clear that there are not willing to see it another way, but you are still bludgeoning the process. You could very well be "right" in this whole matter, but I promise you that your continued unblock requests and inability to hear others is making the community lose faith in your standing each time you do it, and it's now bordering on abuse, whether that was intentional or not. I know you can't reply here so I'm not trying to write anything that would seem off-base or require you to respond - I would just take a short Wikibreak (not that you have a choice) and come back clearheaded with your unblock request once this has blown over. In my opinion this is just getting worse and worse each time you try to relay your point (3 day block to 1 week block, then talk page access removed, now indef). Best of luck, and please remember - this isn't the end of the world! :) Garchy (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. You comment about my continued unblock requests - and yet I've only made two. I deliberately waited over a day before making the first one, so I could properly understand the issue at hand. As I did not agree or understand the reason for the block, there was no point making the request, as there's no chance I'd not repeat the mistake.

As I commented in the unblock request, I now understand the piece of WP:BLP that I had previously failed to appreciate (WP:PUBLICFIGURE). I also noted that if anyone had calmly pointed to WP:PUBLICFIGURE and said "read the second example", then this would have ended this nightmare a long time ago; I can read WP:BLP many times, but there's always something new to grasp - I'm somewhat suspicious it may have changed since I first joined the project. :)

So once I comprehended the issue (unless I've completely missed the boat here - which like most people, happens), it was easy to write an unblock request. The response to that was that I was boasting? This seems to be in response to my closing comment, which was not a boast at all (when have I ever done that, it's not in my nature), but was expressing a concern that everything I've denied for a long time about there not being a bias against the right-wing at Wikipedia, may actually be true. (and to put that in context, I'm pretty centrist, sometimes a bit left, sometimes a bit right ... and a bit right of centre here, means right of Sanders, but left of Obama - even our right-wing government here protects things like free healthcare and same-sex marriage, let alone the centre-right!)

The second (and only other) block unrequest is simply a clarification that there was no boasting, and that "Once I realized the implication of WP:PUBLICFIGURE I was surprised that it appears that it is applied much more vigorously when making similar comments about Democrats compared to Republicans. I was trying to alert Wikipedia to this issue, in an attempt to improve the project."

Sometimes, it's almost as if someone like me who actually takes the process seriously, and makes sure they ask questions about the issue to understand it properly, so they CAN contribute constructively in the future, have a tougher time in this process than those who simply haven't gotten it, and say whatever needs to be said, to slip off the hook. Why following instruction, trying to ask questions, and understand the issue is treated with so much negativity and suspicion - instead of kindness, patience, and NPOV, I don't know. Yeah, sure I should have figured out where I had erred earlier - but hindsight is always 20/20 - the point is that I didn't - and that's why we are here. Normally the concept is there's no such thing as a bad question; instead we get blame for the user, for not having comprehended something or accusations of playing dense. You know - sometimes I'm just dense ... as are most people. Why did I miss it - probably because it never crossed my mind that WP:BLP might ever trump WP:V, so I didn't read that as carefully as I should have. Nfitz (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your UTRS message that lead you your indef block says, and I'm frankly not interested but I think your final comment shows once again why you're having so many problems. You said you finally understand the issue. But then at the end you suggest this has something to do with BLP trumping Verifiability. Except this isn't the reason at all, and it doesn't really. We are more stringent with our Verifiability requirements, but that's about it, and verifiability isn't the core issue here. The simple fact is if you go around continuously saying that country A is shit or that Genghis Khan and all his generals were sexual predators, you're going to find yourself blocked, no matter that BLP isn't involved or whatever multitude of sources you come up with that say this or how widely accepted it is around your water cooler. If you want to be allowed back, you really need to read up again our core policies more carefully and think about them carefully. It's sounding a lot like the problem isn't just with BLP, but a fundamental lack of understanding of even our most basic principles and guidelines. I can only assume from all you've said that you think WP:V means you can say whatever you want wherever you want provided you can source it, whereas no it does not. I'll get back to something mentioned to you a while back. What you may or may not do at a water cooler, no matter how widely accepted it is, isn't germane to what is and isn't acceptable here at wikipedia. BLP means we're far stricter with people talking crap about living people but that doesn't mean it's allowed in other cases. (Likewise when it comes to articles, BLP means we're stricter but correctly attributing content rather than mentioning it in wikipedia voice, and expecting that it's covered multiple sources when it's something that should have multiple source if it's significant isn't unique to BLP.) BTW, if you do ever make it back and you see BLP problems relating to right wing individuals (well any of course in reality), please do try to correct them or bring them to the attention of the community. Do not think it's okay to violate BLP yourself because it balances out some perceived unfairness in how BLP violations affecting left wing individuals are dealt with compare to right wing ones. The way we resolve any bias like you cite is by dealing with BLP violations that are being missed, not by allowing BLP violations to slide. Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Don't interpret my comment to mean that BLP isn't very important or that we aren't a lot more stringent with living people. It is and we are. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments User:Nil Einne. When I get around to it, I'll post my two UTRS unblock requests here for full transparency. Actually, I do get it - once I grasped the BLP bit that had evaded me, the rest all falls into place. BTW, I never went around saying anything continuously! It was merely an acronym on a user talk page that lead to this. Once in 12 years of editing. Everything since then has simply been part of the discussion about the original edit - which I had wrongly assumed was fine, it itself. Without all this happening, I could have easily gone another decade without another reoccurrence (well maybe not given current world politics! :) ). However, now I realised what I'd not grasped - it could go a lot longer than a decade now (Hopefully I'll be unblocked by then!). Oh, and I never did an edit to balance out some perceived unfairness - nor would I; besides, I was blocked by the time I realised my previous denials of unfairness may have been ... unfair.

BTW, how long does this UTRS process take? We are pushing the 30-hour mark now, and I thought the second one was pretty cut-and-dried - one way or another. Not that there's any particular rush - I've wasted far too much time on this, this week, and need to do real work! Though I'm a little troubled I don't seem to be able to edit on my phone - are there different restrictions on blocking Users on mobile devices? Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so impatient. In the real world the uterus process takes nine months. E Eng 21:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Oh great, the peanut gallery. I'd make a comment about how one communicates to children and co-workers in the real world, compared to the very hierarchical 1800s model here ... but I'm not sure it would help my case! :) Nfitz (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I'm just trying to lighten the mood a bit. The old Nfitz would have taken the opportunity to exhale for a moment. E Eng 21:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all the fun drugs they have me on these days, you never know which Nfitz you are going to get on any given day (or middle of the night thanks to the extra Eugeroic drugs to counter the drowsiness effects of the first groups of drugs)! Word to the wise - don't get old. (no, nothing life-threatening - they quickly tested and cleared me for those ... could simply be sleep apnea ....). Fortunately health-care here is free, and the weed will hopefully get cheaper with the next round of NAFTA negotiatons. On the bright side, I can pull all-nighters like I was 16 ... but I seem to keep forgetting stuff - like going to check my email about that unblock requset (doh!). Seriously though, the levity is appreciated - even if I often get into trouble with it myself (no, levity wasn't a factor here - well, apart from the implication that the US must lift restrictions on marijuana sales, as it's impacting our domestic markets. Nfitz (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP Block

Wait, I wasn't logged into my phone. It's the IP that's blocked. Hang on then how many of my IPs did you block? If you blocked the work one(s), you may have blocked dozens to thousands of users, depending on how our ever-changing internal network cache/firewall system is behaving this week. It doesn't draw a direct line to me, but it might allow someone with some creativity and abilty to check for recent blocks, to WP:DOX me. @Yunshui: @Swarm:. 21:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Second Block Response

I just looked at UTRS: you should have an email from Favonian that was sent about 10 hours ago. only (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I assumed there'd be something here, and I don't tend to check my home email much once I go to work. Oh, there's a closure notice here, but no result - I missed that with Nil's contributions just afterwards. I haven't opened up my home email yet, but I assume it's negative, given I'm still blocked. (sorry to leave this hanging a bit ... I've already had one edit conflcit trying to post my IP Block question). Nfitz (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's just a red tape response saying that because my talk page access was restored, that the second request is essentially voided, and I should submit a new request here. My gosh, I'm starting to appreciate why new editors just completely freak out when they are dragged into this Kafkian process - if I can't navigate a block after a decade, because I've misunderstood something, how is a new editor ever going to be able to get out of this process, without simply making up stories and promises of never doing "it" again. For a lack of a better word, the "Justice" system here, seems to be some bizarre attempt to implement WP:What Wikipedia is not! Nfitz (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) Best thing you can do is stop editing your talk page while you are blocked. The purpose of your talk page during a block is to request unblocks or compromises. In particular, don’t mention anything about politics or biases in any manner. The only thing admins want to hear from you is that you know that your behavior was improper and that it will change. Anything else is a distraction. They don’t want to read walls of text. They just want to know that you are here to contribute and understand, believe in, and will follow the guidelines. And, I suggest that you not respond to this. It will be my only edit here while you are blocked. Just my opinion based upon observation. Objective3000 (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Objective3000Yeah, someone said something similar the last time I was blocked, earlier this year - but I couldn't find any policy to support it; and it certainly seems very different to my understanding before that - and is in complete contradiction with leaving email open - which actually surprised me. Given my recent spectacular fail at reading WP:BLP properly, can someone point me to the guideline in question? I certainly don't want to confused someone to reivew. Quite frankly, if all they wanted to hear was that my behaviour was improper and it will change, then the first and second unblock requests were more than enough. I think we've both been here long enough to be aware that things don't work as advertised, and different sets of rules are being applied to different groups of people - which seems to be getting worse, and has now drifted into politics. I'm not sure if this is a function of Wikipedia, or the influence of the spectacular decline and failure of democracy in the nation that seems to be over-represented in the Admin area (I'd love to see a breakdown of admins per nation, and active editors per nation one day. Yes, I'm probably a little too verbose - ironically, this seems to be a side-effect of one of the first group of drugs - though I admit it only seems to worsen an existing condition :)

I too though want to keep the record clear. Which is why I haven't submitted a new unblock request today. I want to sort out the whole thing a bit, as it is a bit difficult to do now. Nfitz (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC) This whole thing is getting somewhat annoying - I frequently use Wikipedia throughout the day as I'm working, and will often make tiny edits whenever I see a typo or something ... there's been two or three now I've not been able to change. And likely never will. Nfitz (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nfitz, this must have been frustrating. What troubled me personally in both of the UTRS requests is that they were both seemingly contradictory to WP:BLPTALK. I've been following the discussion, and my understanding is that this has to do with NPOV without exceptions. If you can submit a new request addressing that concern, I'll be glad to review it. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 02:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Hmm, no, I haven't fully considered that either. Though what does contentious actually mean. Debatable? Causing an argument? If you take that to the extreme - well we'd have to block most people who ever post to ANI for a start ... :) I don't think most people would find what I said contentious at all ... though it does seem to create consternation in one particularly country that I do not live in. Either way, I haven't got the time currently to put together a new request. Especially as I'm kind of adsorbed by the issue below! In fact unblocking me now, might actually make that issue tougher to resolve. If you have any thought on this outing as well, please chime in. @Alex Shih: Nfitz (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent - Outed

Oh no. This is worse than I thought. I've been outed!. I need {{ping|oversight asap. I noticed if I try and edit while not logged in, I get a message

A user of this IP address was blocked by Swarm for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Nfitz". The reason given for Nfitz's block is: "reinstating talkpage access based on private email".

This block has been set to expire: 22:27, 11 August 2017. The block ID is: 7723353.

Even worse, I've just confirmed that every computer in the office shows the same IP. This means that if anyone in my workplace tries an anonymous edit, they'll probably realize who I am. How can this be? Can this be remedied asap? I'm not sure if it's just the dozens of users here, or the thousands in the country - I don't know which IPs have been blocked, or how our network is currently configured. @Yunshui: @Swarm: @Drmies:

Here is the unblock template recommended for use on the IP page. I'm not using it there, or identifying the IP for obvious reasons.

{{unblock-auto|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Nfitz". The reason given for Nfitz's block is: "reinstating talkpage access based on private email".|3=Swarm|4=7723353}}

I'll email oversight as well. How can this happen - surely this has come up before? Nfitz (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just thought of something. What do other logged in users with this IP see? Not having any other accounts, I don't know. Okay, I'm about to do something that breaks all the rules, and invoke WP:IAR and create a second account called User:nfitz2. I'll only log in, and won't actually do any edits, and see what happens. Please don't block this until I can post further in a few minutes. Nfitz (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did create a sandbox. But as soon as I tried to log into that nfitz2 account from my regular machine (nfitz2 was created by remote desktopping into a different machine in a different city, which is actually on a different internal network), with the blocked IP, I also could no longer edit, and my nfitz username was shown. This means that anyone who tries to edit Wikipedia from within my office can see the block. This is not good at all. Help. Heading home shortly, so you'll see some IP variance. Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih removed the autoblock, so no one's getting that message anymore. Now please, go home and get some REST. E Eng 02:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he emailed me, and I've tested successfully. (I'm okay actually - but I didn't wake until 10 hours ago ...). But I was going to leave shortly. Running some updates on hardware.

Bigger question is, is this supposed to work this way? There's some huge implications here. (which fortunately, I don't have to lose sleep over!). Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit it's a hole in the IP-identity veil that I'm surprised to see exists. Plenty of experienced people are no doubt watching here who can give the question attention if needed. E Eng 03:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking now as a friend, I think it will be a good idea if you don't post any more at all tonight -- not even to respond to this post I'm making now. Things will seem different in the morning, I promise. E Eng 03:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm ... surprised ... as well. If I wasn't very well versed in debugging, I think I'd have made a bannable comment by now! :) Thanks ... this isn't near the top of my list of real-world concerns (or else I'd have gone to check that email faster!). Thanks User:Alex Shih for dealing with that issue so efficiently and quickly! Nfitz (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an overreaction. Autoblocks are, by default, automatic for any and all blocks. We don't just block an account, the related IPs (all of which are logged) are blocked as well, obviously, to prevent block evasion. You are as responsible for the autoblock as you are for the block on your account. It was obviously working exactly as intended, having prevented an attempt at logged-out editing from your workplace. Outing is the exposure of a user's identity or personal information on Wikipedia. That simply didn't happen. No personal information of yours was divulged by the autoblock, period. In fact, if you click that first link, this very scenario is provided as an example of how an autoblock would typically work (i.e. a user's work IP being autoblocked and a coworker discovering the block). There are no "huge implications" here, in spite of the fact that autoblocking is news to you. If one of your coworkers was caught up in the autoblock, they would not know anything about the owner of the blocked account...without you having willfully revealed your own personal information. In other words, your coworkers would not know it was you unless you already outed yourself. Look, Nfitz, this is a trifling distraction, and the fact that you've thrown yet another tantrum to get your IPs unblocked rather than properly resolving the actual issue certainly does not appear to be helping your prospects of being unblocked. You've had your talk page access restored, but you still haven't issued a block appeal, apparently due to some sort of confusion on policy. That's fine, but keep the comments from here on out related to your unblock request. You will still have your talk page access disabled again if you do not do so. We're not asking you to jump through impossible hoops to get unblocked. You literally just have to read the GAB to know what you need to do. If you have any specific questions about BLP, feel free to ask, but we're not going to get caught up debating semantics such as "what does 'contentious' even mean?". You've already gotten yourself an indefinite block due to doubt about your competence. The onus is now on you to prove the doubt about your competence wrong. You will only do that by showing us that you wholly understand WP:BLP. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, you can choose to permanently commit to the permanent game of whack-a-mole that is block evasion. Swarm ♠ 05:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tantrum? You really think that was a tantrum User:Swarm? Please WP:AGF, remember the Golden Rule, be polite. Do not intentionally make misrepresentations and apologise if you inadvertently do so.

No, I'm not actually overly familiar with the Autoblock - I've only been briefly blocked before, on a weekend, overnight, or while on parental leave. Yes WP:Autoblock is an interesting page; I've never had reason to read it before. On one hand you are correct, it does seem to be working as intended. On the other hand, the page also says The only circumstances in which a user may be associated with an IP address, are certain policy violations detailed by the checkuser policy - and the text on the page that those in my office did associate an IP address to a user (and with some various tests of other offices machines remotely, I do think that it's only the machines in our one office sharing that problematic IP). How what happened doesn't violate that statement I don't know

And while I've taken some care to use a false name, and not provide any particular identifying information, or gender, over the 12-year editing history, and tried to avoid pages directly related to my narrow area of expertise, it's pretty easy to figure out my location and interests, and perhaps other places I've lived. The very fact I've been here for 12 years eliminates almost half the office, unless they were editing Wikipedia when they were 11. A couple more are eliminated by my fluency. A couple more are gone because they'd never been to my country when I started editing. A couple more are currently on vacation, 1 is on parental leave. 6 more are eliminated by backtracking the IP and knowing that they aren't routed through that proxy for security reasons (everyone knows which group doesn't have to use the proxy that drives the rest of us crazy). And that leaves 2 of us. Just looking at the edit times, you can tell which one I am - most people know which one is suffering from insomnia, and which one has a schedule like clockwork. Heck, you don't even have to start looking at which articles I've touched! So yet, I've been outed - and now I'm wondering why the top security person for a 10,000 person corporation, who just happens to have recently moved to our office, gave me a funny look this morning. And no, I have not willfully revealed my own personal information (it's not like you'll ever find many educated professionals in this entire city that don't share my beliefs about the 2 individuals who brought me down this path!). Thanks for the victim blaming though - that does indeed help to resolve the whole situation.

And how have I done this to get my IPs unblocked? I even asked further up NOT to unblock me, so that I could check further the implications.

You say It was obviously working exactly as intended, having prevented an attempt at logged-out editing from your workplace.. No actually, it stopped my from trying to edit my talk page from my mobile without having logged in properly - gosh. Later I realised I wasn't logged in, and I mentioned this above. About 5 hours later, I was about to go home, and I thoughts I'd check it out properly at the office, and realised the situation. There was no intent or attempt to edit anything other than my talk page (and that nfitz2 sandbox later on, as noted above). But thanks for WP:AGF. Have I ever shown any sign of using block evasion before? My own home IP changes everytime it reboots (as long as I don't use the company laptop, that still goes for that proxy) - I've always had the ability to easily do a small edit somewhere if I wanted to. Go scour my history - it's never happened (though I've certainly have done occasional IP edits, when not blocked, either because they were so trivial, I forgot to login, or something.

I've read both BLP and GAB and several other documents, probably much more seriously than I expect most people who have been blocked. To suggest there's a competence issue - that I can't read a document, and interpret the meaning, context, and implications, is laughable, considering that it's not only what my long education mostly consisted of, but has also been most of my over quarter-century quite successful career. Between my IPs, my email, my name, it's not difficult for any admin with access to IPs (is that only checkusers?) to figure out who I am, google me and confirm that I'm describing my education and career correctly (not that it needs to be done). Does it mean I don't make mistakes - gosh no - I make lots of mistakes. Everyone does - except perhaps those you are still too young to realize it yet ... and Wikipedia Admins perhaps ... and The Stig - I think we can all agree that The Stig doesn't make any mistakes.

You say that if I have any specific questions about BLP, feel free to ask - So I will assume good faith, and ask you a specific question:

"What does contentious actually mean in this context. Debatable? Causing an argument? If you take that to the extreme - well we'd have to block most people who ever post to ANI for a start."

You say I haven't issued a block unrequest yet. And yet I've already done two. I was literally half-way through my first one, when you yanked my talk page privileges - though maybe that's for the best, because in all honesty, I was missing the point still. Following that, in two consecutive days, I issued two though UTRS. The first one was rejected and the block extended from 1 week to infinite, on the claim I was bragging - which is absolutely untrue (did someone forget about fortnights, months, and 6-months?). How this meets the standard for a preventative block I don't know, given it took me over a decade to walk into this landmine, I don't know. I have no idea why you think that there's any chance to repeat this, given my very clear assurances in the block unrequests. And the second block unrequest sat there until the talk page access was restored, and then put aside without being considered.

There's enough information already provided in the two unblock requests, if one doesn't want to be pedantic or didactic. WP:BLPTALK is a bit of a red herring, as rigorously applying WP:PUBLICFIGURE (and maybe even WP:BLPCRIME) will catch it anyway.

It won't be fair for yet another uninvolved admin to come in and deal with this mess. I want to tidy up the talk page before doing the unblock request, as I've already noted above (no, I won't delete anything that's here). And carefully and considerably write the block unrequest. I just don't have the time to do this now. Nor am I likely to find it tomorrow. And my Saturday is pretty booked already. So quite frankly, it's going to be Sunday at this stage. (ironically, it would be faster if you yanked my talk page access again, as I couldn't clean the place up first, and 90% of the unblock request would then be recycled from the never considered second one!)

And quite frankly, I'm becoming increasingly jaded. I've been complaining for years about admins, who simply think they can ignore WP:5P4, and then have a tantrum if a mere user reciprocates. And as far as I can tell, it's getting worse. And I really don't get this, because they all seem very good at WP:5P2 - writing the actual project from a NPOV. But some seem incapable of actually dealing with real people from a NPOV. I may find a better way to spend my Sunday, if it's a nice day, than appealing to a self-appointed plutocracy and jumping through not a hoop, but an ever moving goal post. I'll jump through that goal post one day, on a day of my choosing. In the meantime, there are plenty of ways I can still contribute to Wikipedia, that this block doesn't cover, without playing whack-a-mole.

In the meantime, I am understanding how WP:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies. Nfitz (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]