Talk:Justin Knapp

Privacy activist?

Am I overlooking why this category has been added? I don't see privacy mentioned in the prose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 07:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, I'm not sure why the category "American members of the Church of the Brethren" has been added. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 07:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Another Believer, you are naive, my dear friend. I am a Knappologist, who has studied the methods and life of Justin Anthony Knapp for many a year, and I can certainly confirm our Koavfilicious friend is certainly a privacy activist and member of the Church of the Brethren. Please assume good faith next time, we must unite together to stop terrorism in all its forms! Dillon Goose (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No prose within the article confirms either claim. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have stricken the above comment by Dillon Goose because that account is obviously a sock of Cow cleaner 5000. Everymorning (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding of many categories

@Scientist of material: Why do you add so many categories to the page when they are not reflected in the text? DSCrowned^(talk) 07:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed some that aren't sourced in the article.--Malerooster (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The subject of the bio added back all the unsourced categories saying that he has indicated those publicly. They still need to be in the body and properly sourced it seems. --Malerooster (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Two adminship runs

I added that fact in this edit using Wikipedia as a source. In this case, I think it is a good source. It was removed in this edit by the subject of this article. Koavf, you are COI and shouldn't be editing this article, especially if that involves removing negative content. Furthermore, removing that content because the source is Wikipedia doesn't seem fair. Why not just remove the source and leave the content? I have restored the fact without the source. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Why would you add anything here other than common knowledge without a source? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I must say that I'm a quite surprised that you would remove the content and even challenge whether or not the content should be there without a source. After all, they were your RfAs.

And of course Wikipedia is a bad source for information that did not originate at Wikipedia. In this case, the RfAs are the origin of the facts, not some reporting of them from another source. What are you asking for, a news agency to notice and write about the RfAs and then we cite that news source? I think, in this case, the RfA pages themselves are fine sources. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I am leaning towards the subjects removal as the best position, although it is true they have a conflict here and it would have been preferable if they started a chat on talkpage. First problem is really they don't, shouldn't have a wikipedia biograpy, they are not actually a notable person, at best they were a minor one event issue, not a life story, not a biography at all, they deliver pizza... not a good idea either imho for the subject to want a biography either, I would vote delete in a request for deletion, anyway, the problem here is that adding the failed admin attempts, and they flopped badly, supported only to wikipedia itself is close to a BLP problem, if you add that then you can also add the thirty blocks for edit warring and all, creating an embarrassing primary supported naval gazing situation. If youall insist on allowing him to host a page here then you also need to accept thet the only focus is a million edits here and two failed admin attempts and thirty blocks is not worthy of reporting as is the case that others have not reported it either. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• There is no good way to handle an article like this. The proposed edit ("...unsuccessfully ran for adminship twice...") is classic cherry-picking of factoids from a primary source (even if WP:RS were satisfied) and should not occur. I can understand that an editor might have reason to think that the information would be of interest to readers, but imagine if I were to make a user subpage with links to discussions where an editor failed to get support—such a page would be deleted per WP:POLEMIC. More to the point, if no secondary source has written an analysis of discussions involving the subject, we should not do so either. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please understand that I have nothing against the user. I added the content about the RfAs in good faith because I thought it was relevant and needed in the section. I certainly do not see it as cherry-picking nor a factoid. In my view, considering that he is primarily known for his work at Wikipedia, shouldn't the section about that talk about what sort of work he primarily does, his accomplishments other than being #1 in edits, and any RfAs? An article about a New York Times writer would include those things, no?

Anyhow, this is why I asked for input here. I wasn't sure. I've said my bit, and will defer to the wishes of the community. If those wishes are for the removal of the RfA mention, I will certainly consider myself as having been wrong to add it in the first place. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I was using my pompous tone normally reserved for pages like Talk:Cold fusion—I know your edits are well intentioned. However, I don't think it is reasonable for editors to choose information such as an RfA that did not succeed or a barnstar that was awarded as of encyclopedic significance. Highlighting something that did not succeed in particular is problematic because the clear implication is that there was some defect, when we know that there can be many complex issues regarding RfAs—issues that would need a secondary source to show context. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't be sorry at all, my friend. Your tone was not pompous at all, and you make good points about awards and such. This is a first for me. If it were a NYT writer who was being considered for editor-in-chief but passed over, that fact would probably be noteworthy, right? But this is about a Wikipedian, so, "hmmmmmm" was my thought. I debated with myself and then figured it natural to be in the article. If he were an administrator, would that fact be notable enough to go in the article? Is this about adminship or the not passing? I still don't get why other sources would be needed and I also don't get the "context" thing either, but that's okay. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I would leave this out, especially if it can't be sourced, and as always, Wikipedia is not a reliable source to say the least. --Malerooster (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
• Purely my opinion. I think that "has been at RfA twice unsuccessfully" is a low-key neutral claim of fact that can easily be supported by a primary source, such as Wikipedia links to these pages in question. I don't think we can reasonably doubt the reliability of an RfA page for such a claim, and WP:BLPPRIMARY does allow the use of primary sources with extreme care.

Also reasonable would be to discuss the inclusion of such a statement in terms of WP:NPOV compliance, specifically WP:DUE. If nobody outside of Wikipedia has commented on the two RfAs (=if there are no out of Wikipedia sources available), are they really important enough to merit inclusion without giving undue focus on our internal processes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• • User rights For that matter, is me being a rollbacker noteworthy enough to discuss? The article is definitely about someone Internet-famous for editing Wikipedia but is not an exhaustive list of Wikipedia things that I've done. For what it's worth, to those who think the article should be deleted, it's been up for deletion several times and I don't even disagree in principle but if an article about me is trivial, then adding increasingly trivial information will only make it more trivial. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is almost entirely about your Wikipedia involvement. That is why you are notable. It talks about an article you worked on and what your username means. If those things are notable, then I still think your two RfAs are notable. And obviously being a rollbacker isn't notable. Also, considering your COI and natural desire to remove anything negative from the article, why is it that your voice at this talk page should carry weight? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: By all means, criticize me: I don't have a problem with that. To the extent that I have anything germane to say--in spite of definite COI concerns--I am appealing to one of the most basic principles of the project which is that information needs to be sourced. The fact that an admin is suggesting to add in statements without citations is confusing to me. If you want to talk about my failures and shortcomings on this bio, they are multitudinous and I will happily provide you citations for them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, your issue is with the absence of a source and not the notability of the RfAs or negativity? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I am concerned about both the sourcing and lack thereof: it seems like you have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how sourcing can and should work here. As far as negativity about me goes, that's fine by me. To the extent that anyone has written about me in reliable sources, then feel free to include negative feedback. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Still puzzled

@Govindaharihari, Johnuniq, Malerooster, and Jo-Jo Eumerus:

I promise I'll drop this stick. And I always follow community wishes. I would just like to understand what this article should contain.

As this subject is notable for, and almost entirely about, his Wikipedia involvement, please help me understand what this article should contain regarding that. Right now, it has:

• The million thing
• Being a significant contributor to George Orwell
• His categorization of albums
• His username and what it means

Those chronicle his Wikicareer, are positive, and possibly even trivial. I just don't see how two RfAs should be excluded because of the outcome or being trivial. At Wikipedia, an RfA is not a trivial thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak, I am more concerned about sourcing. Wouldn't this inclusion be using Wikipedia as a primary source for this material? --Malerooster (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but rejecting an RfA page as a good source for a Wikipedia article about an editor ran for adminship ignores the point of wanting secondary sources, right? See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, we reject or accept sources, whether primary, secondary or other, based on their reliability. An actual RfA page confirms the existence of the RfA. It must. Justin's RfAs contains a huge list of editors who all acknolweged that the RfA exists and then commented on it. How can they be anything other than completely reliable sources confirming that the RfAs exist? Rejecting such a source because of a category it falls into is absurd to me. Common sense supersedes the letter of the law. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Citing two policies:

• "...there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity..."
• Wikipedia used as a source: "...exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article..."

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Just adding my 2c here. I think that the topic of over a million edits is apparently more important than the topic of adminship. A clear indication of that fact is that the number of edits was picked by sources external to Wikipedia while his adminship status was not. Therefore, I think that we should stick with topics regarding Justin which are only covered by external sources. Another way to view this is, not being an admin is not a status. He is simply not an admin. How he ended up not being an admin is of no particular interest to people. Therefore, adding it to the article is really not necessary. Dr. K. 01:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

That makes good sense, Dr.K.. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete one event notability without any actual biographical reality Govindaharihari (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think this discussion does not qualify as an AfD. Dr. K. 01:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• So what,. two afd's and both keeps, I won't join in another one, total crap wikippedia lol Govindaharihari (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Consider an article for a politician. I could examine speeches made by the politician, or that mention the politician, and extract quotes to add to the article. Sometimes that might be reasonable where the information is straightforward and uncontentious. But what if I pick items that, in isolation, present the person in a manner that many readers would interpret negatively? That would be highly undesrirable, and the cure for such cherry picking is to require due material from secondary sources for things which are not simple statements of fact. For example, it may be a fact that the politician supported an oil pipeline, and in context, that may look negative with implications of disregard for the environment. However, a secondary source might have pointed out that the support was a political compromise to avoid an outcome that would have been worse for the environment. Just stating the "fact" would be misleading. Translating that to this article, a reader unacquainted with Wikipedia's strange internals would probably assume that the RfA information showed some negative characteristic of the subject who must be very bad in some sense. However, we know that is not necessarily the case. I have not looked at the RfAs in question, but there are a host of reasons why an RfA may be unsuccessful, for example, "no reason given to have the tools" or "not enough time spent in disputes for a judgment of temperament to be made". Articles about Wikipedians are awkward and the best way to handle them is to stick to information from external secondary sources. Failing that, stick to noncontentious material that is unlikely to convey impressions that may be misleading. Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, my my friend. You and the rest of the community make good arguments against. I'll drop the matter. Best wishes and thanks for taking the time. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Lede sentence and categories

I removed where the subject is from in the lede since this doesn't belong there. Also, the categories should be removed unless they are sourced in the body of the article. Also, the subject of this bio really shouldn't be editing it but Ill let others decide that. --Malerooster (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Disbelief, Investigation, Etc...

There's currently a Reddit thread that mentions Knapp, which is how I came here and frankly I disbelieve it. The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, etc... One million edits? 385 edits a day? Sorry, but no. I disbelieve, and if any Administrator saw an account doing 385 edits a day for even 3 days, there'd be an investigation. Not exactly sure what that might be in terms of the technical details, but one thing I'd wonder is if all the edits are coming from the same IP Address/IP Address range, if the times of the edits are from the same time zone, if the timing of the edits allow for sleep, if the quality of the edits indicate that someone is doing something constructive (vs. making edits for the sake of making edits), if there isn't some kind of bias or agenda that might be implied or intimated by the topics being edited and the general "slant" or bias of the edits, if the edits are "vanilla" in the sense that they are firmly in the center of Wikipedia Policies, or if there is a constant attempt at pushing envelopes, boundaries, definitions, etc..., if the "writing style" of the Editor(s?) is consistent, and who knows what all else. But I'm reasonably certain that "Rainman" doesn't exist and that a single person isn't constructively editing Wikipedia at a rate of 385 per day, or 16 edits an hour, 24 hours a day, etc... Mostly I'm curious if it's been investigated, who did the investigation, and what the results were. I'm posting this as a serious question about abuse and/or vandalism.

Tym Whittier (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tym Whittier: Can you show me any vandalism I've done? In fifteen years, you can do a lot of stuff if you put your mind to it, I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Have you been investigated? What were the results? One million edits divided by 385 edits a day, divided by 365 days in a year equals 7 years. It occurred to me that Knapp's home computer could be a proxy for other Users, so even if all the IP Addresses/IP Address range are consistent, that does not necessarily mean that the same person is making all the edits.Tym Whittier (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a CheckUser process and I've never been "investigated" on this wiki by it, no. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing identification

@Loksmythe:, nothing on WP:COI stops me from reverting you from removing identification in this article and you ignored the question I asked in my edit summary. Please answer it here and substantiate your claim. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: who introduced me to including audio files as identification. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a self-uploaded promotional-like audio recording. "I just try to help." Does not come off as encyclopedic. Loksmythe (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Loksmythe, How is it any different from any other audio introductions that anyone else has here? Why do you think it's better to have no audio to identify someone? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally, audio introductions is not something I've seen here at all. I mean, even individuals as well known as Barack Obama and Donald Trump don't have an 'audio introduction'. Loksmythe (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Loksmythe, It's not terribly easy to get introductory audio from the president of the United States. See Wikipedia:Voice intro project. Again, why do you think it's better to have no audio to identify someone? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I think identifying audio can be fine, in theory, but you're effectively promoting yourself in the audio. I think we should wait to let a third-party weigh in on this. Loksmythe (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Third party here. Restored; see Wikipedia:Voice intro project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Block

The indefinite block is clearly salient when he is notable completely because he is an editor on Wikipedia. DemonDays64 (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

IMO, it's WP:UNDUE unless independent sources take note of it. Schazjmd (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not going to happen, not unless a very reliable source comments on the significance of the event. Johnuniq (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems we're at an impasse. Any reader of the article will think he is still active, which is not the case, but we can't use evidence of his block as evidence of the block in the article. Seasider53 (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a highly-reliable source for him being banned? Very clearly yes. This is is Wikipedia being quoted about Wikipedia in an article about Wikipedia, which is a specific exception to WP:WINARS (i.e., "An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia" - emphasis added). WP:UNDUE concerns can be addressed simply by giving it low prominence in the article. The relevance of this guy not being an editor in good standing is clearly very high and not mere trivia. FOARP (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we need an RfC on this since we seem to be getting only vague input from watchers of this article. Seasider53 (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Request to edit spouse information

Hi are you able to include spouse information on a wiki page ? Davidkovac71 (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Information on Wikipedia requires WP:Reliable sources. CMD (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is he so special?

(Redacted) 174.78.6.142 (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not! Please stop with the libel, thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Extensive block history

See WP:NOR. Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Given the user's extensive block history (at least 20+ times), shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? See [1] for more details. WizardGamer775 (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC) And what are all the third party sources that have discussed this extensively? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this just a classic WP:BLP1E article?

The guy is notable because he made 1 million edits to Wikipedia. That's his sole claim to notability as far as I can see, because he isn't given SIGCOV in any other context.

Additionally, since we are using Wikipedia as a source for the "Justin Knapp day" claim I do not see why we cannot use Wikipedia as a source for him being banned at present. This is certainly verifiable information meaning it passes WP:V. It is not original research because it does not require any actual research. Concerns about it being WP:UNDUE can be addressed by adding it in a low-prominence way (i.e., only mention his most recent ban).

This is the equivalent of using an employer's website to verify information about the present employment status of the subject of an article (e.g., a university website for a university professor). It is exactly the kind of thing we would do very easily for any other BLP article and it would not be right for us to show favouritism to the subject of an article just because they are a wikipedia editor. FOARP (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Some believe he asks people to remove the banning information from his article when it gets added. He's banned from editing Wikipedia, not from reading it, after all. Seasider53 (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a pedantic and speculative take. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no interest in this article or the editor but I'm still watching because I believe that using Wikipedia to poke other people is a very bad idea. The options are to use WP:AFD to determine notability, or move on. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I also don't care about this editor, and have never interacted with them. I'm unimpressed with what appears to have been going on here though: the UN is used as a source for him attending a UN event, Wikipedia is used as a source for "Justin Knapp day" and for the number of FA nominations, XTools is used as a source for his edit-count, yet above, one fact that is clearly verifiable and relevant to the one thing this guy is notable for is omitted based on what appear to be vague hand-waves in the direction of OR/UNDUE/WINARS, without any explanation at all of why these should apply.

Instead WP:OR doesn't apply because this is not original research. The block-log and discussion in which the subject was banned are primary sources but it is OK to use primary sources so long as you are not synthesizing them to say something they don't say, and the source is reliable for what it is being cited for. WP:UNDUE can be addressed simply by giving the statement low prominence. WP:WINARS has a specific carve out for exactly this situation (citing Wikipedia about Wikipedia).

If this was a notable lawyer who had been disbarred, no-one would question a one-sentence statement supported by a link to the bar website to show it. If this were a CEO who no longer worked for the company they were notable for managing, no-one would question a one-sentence statement linked to the company website to show that. If this were a university professor suspended for misconduct, no-one would question a one-sentence statement linked to the university website to show this. This is just the Wikipedia version of these things and, whilst we should not engage in personal attacks (and indeed, no GRAVEDANCING on banned editors), we cannot just omit information of the kind which we would include in any other circumstance, as a kind of favour.

My proposal is just to add a sentence to the bottom of the Wikipedia section of the article saying:

As of November 2024, Knapp is serving a minimum one-year ban from editing Wikipedia imposed on July 24, 2024 for "persistent disruptive and combative behavior over a prolonged period, and exhausting the community's patience".

We do not need to go any further than this. This is not "poking", that is just doing the minimum to properly inform our readership. FOARP (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Aka, tell the world about the real deal that reliable sources forgot to cover. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources cover this guy being a Wikipedia editor. This is verifiable information relevant to that. This is not “righting a great wrong” (though it is wrong to omit this information), this is simply saying the same thing we would say in any similar circumstance. FOARP (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that has commented on the blocks? Someone might think it was WP:DUE to link to the block log, while others might think there should be a link to a page of barnstars. Standard procedure is to provide a summary of reliable sources rather than insert original research. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a reliable source for who is blocked/banned by Wikipedia. No original research is required. The proposed sentence is a summary of the present status of the subject as an editor of Wikipedia, a topic treated as notable by reliable sources. There's also the statements of the subject themselves, quoted in this interview/article with Zachary Crockett, a professional tech journalist and writer whose by-lines include Time and Vox:

"While Wikipedia is built on the tenets of free speech and democratic contribution, admins do enforce a general manual of style and a “neutral point of view” policy. Any editors that break these commandments face a week-long ban from admins. “I wouldn’t be surprised if I’ve been banned more than anyone,” laughs Knapps. “Usually, it was over something political, where I was bickering with editors who took a different stance, or soapboxing too much.””.

A revised version of the above proposed sentence would read as follows:

"Knapp, who has been the subject of multiple blocks/bans in the past and has said that they "wouldn’t be surprised if I’ve been banned more than anyone”, is, as of November 2024, serving a minimum one-year ban from editing Wikipedia imposed on July 24, 2024 for "persistent disruptive and combative behavior over a prolonged period, and exhausting the community's patience".

Now, I personally don't think we need an extra secondary source here because we already have secondary sourcing that treats the subject's status as a Wikipedia editor as notable/relevant, but here we have a quote from an interview with a professional journalist that appears to treat the topic of the article-subject being blocked/banned as at least minimally relevant. FOARP (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq@Seasider53 - I assume no objection to adding the above, or some modified version of it, since there is an interview/article produced by a professional journalist, quoting the subject talking about themselves. I'd agree that adding something verifiable in a primary source (or even a secondary source for that matter) that is completely irrelevant to the main topic of the article (e.g., a speeding ticket) is not something we should be doing in the BLP field, but this is directly related to the only thing the subject is notable for. FOARP (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

No objection here. I expect we'll get people weighing in when the edit goes live, even though they didn't feel like partaking here. Seasider53 (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, given the people who apparently have this page watch-listed and who have been quick to respond in the past, typically to request the kind of sourcing that has now been provided IMO, I too am surprised by the lack of any further comments. FOARP (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to this edit. It seems perfectly reasonable. My reluctance to contribute here may speak to the problem, which is that editing a page about a Wikipedian feels like a conflict of interest and a taking of sides in something more than a content dispute. And that is a problem for the whole page, which is only marginally notable in my opinion. Yet I doubt whether I would want to take part in a deletion discussion either. But if this were any other subject, I am pretty sure we would be uncontroversially placing this information, saying it was clearly due. It is clearly due that someone who is only notable for editing Wikipedia is currently blocked from editing Wikipedia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

• Support As Sifurboy notes, it's perfectly reasonable that in an article whose subject's only claim of significance is to have edited Wikipedia, it should mention when that ceases to be. It is disingenuous to demand reliable sources for the fact that he's been blocked when other major aspects of his career are happily cited to the same source. Per above, Wikipedia is used to cite his WP:WBFAN, is used to cite 'Koavf Day', an equally primary source is used to cite edit count so we can certainly use it to back the balder-than-a-bellend statement that the topic of the article is blocked. And since we now have a secondary source supporting the general block, even better. It is good that the material has been added, not being OR, gravedancing, BLPVIO, or any other such claims. SerialNumber54129 10:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)