User talk:Gtoffoletto/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gtoffoletto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

F110 Burner Can

Hello there, excuse me for bothering you, but I recently wrote an article on the Italian Wikipedia about the GE-F110 Engine and I would really like to use your photo in the article. Unfortunately you didn't upload it on the wikipedia Commons so I can't use it directly. Would it be possible for you to upload it there? Thank you very much! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC) P.s. I'm drooling over your 2000 hours of flight in an F-14 :-D

I spent a considerable amount of time uploading MY images that were also in the US DoD archives (DVIC) therefore released by me AND in Public Domain only to have Wiki Admin(s) delete them (one in particular with a very poor understanding of copyright continually waste my time arguing about it. Since it is a total waste of my time to share images here, I elect not to share any more. If you make your request on the Tomcat Sunset forum, I will gladly send the entire series to youHJ (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Saw your note. Send me a PM on Sunset Forum! Cheers, HJ HJ (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience and biographies

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Bishonen | talk 14:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC).

February 2020

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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see this ANI post for a detailed block rationale. Bishonen | talk 16:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC).

Wikipedia:No legal threats

You have made a legal threat here. This is not appropriate and may result in a block. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Doc James I wanted to personally apologise. I hope you have understood that it was simply an exaggerated expression and not a threat in any way. I still believe the topic is serious but we will discuss in more appropriate places and I'm sure we can reach a science based consensus as we have in the past. Sorry once again for inadvertently alarming you. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gtoffoletto and I look forwards to working together. Believe me, we all understand that this topic is critical. My concern is regarding us implying that this is airborne and thus the general public using N95s when not needed and none being avaliable to healthcare providers for intubations. COVID19 is not known to be generally airborne as far as we know right now. And we are running out of N95s. We need to be cautious. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. And I share your concern which is indeed grave. A better compromise is possible (see your talk page for my proposal). --Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

For the record we have reached a compromise on Doc James's Talk Page here's hoping for broader consensus!--Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

General Sanctions - COVID 19

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EvergreenFir (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I am aware thanks User:EvergreenFir. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

EvergreenFir (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Crazy days

I don't know if other people can see something we can't or if they're just going with the presumption that the claim was correct. But you're not alone – I can't see the darned phantom quote marks either. Schazjmd (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Whew, mystery solved! It was the preceding text, A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released., is verbatim from the source and should be in quotation marks. Schazjmd (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Coming here rather than continuing on El C's talk page. The text before the quote you added was verbatim from the NYT article (see the caption for the video in the article). The caption reads: Videos filmed by Navy pilots show two encounters with flying objects. One was captured by a plane’s camera off the coast of Jacksonville, Fla., on Jan. 20, 2015. That footage, published previously but with little context, shows an object tilting like a spinning top moving against the wind. A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released. The second video was taken a few weeks later. The article read: It shows what has been described as "an object tilting like a spinning top moving against the wind." A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released. So, A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released is verbatim from the article and must be quoted and attributed. So when you ended the quote after "wind", you left verbatim quoted text without quote marks. Schazjmd (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I am aware of this (I wrote all of it). But it is not what the user is disputing. He is disputing the following sentence saying I included in quotes text that I wrote which is false. What you point out might be why the user is not comprehending my edit and explanations (or pretending not to). Very superficial by all involved and problems will persist with this user. I'm just worried nobody will take the time to read when inevitably things will go south. This is already the second incident and last time I was blocked for similar misunderstandings. Everybody just assumes he is right (which is demonstrably false). Thank you for taking the time to help me out with this though. At least I know I'm not insane. Very much appreciated.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, well, I agree that he didn't communicate his objections clearly. From his explanation on the fringe board, it really seemed like he thought there was a missing close-quote that put according to the New York Times in the quote. Anyway, probably best to just edit elsewhere for awhile. Schazjmd (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd The article has been edited introducing nonsense... Really baffling. I'm trying really hard to be clear but nobody seems to read properly what I write every time I'm dealing with users on the Fringe boards. Infuriating and tiring. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I get that. But you're not going to be able to get anything done right now. Give it a few weeks then look at it again and start a discussion at that time on the talk page for any changes you'd like to make. Schazjmd (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I wonder: why should others be allowed to edit directly without even taking the time to properly read the sourced text they are modifying while my careful and precise edits are not allowed? I don't shy away from intelligent and thoughtful discussion (at all. I relish it.) but lazy editing should not be tolerated. Oh well. I have a bigger issue with a critical edit on the COVID-19 page to attend to...--Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Any input for Puddleglum's The Signpost article?

Hi Gtoffoletto, Tenryuu from Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19. A fellow collaborator, Puddleglum2.0, is looking for editors to answer some interview questions regarding editing and COVID-19. If you're interested, please leave your thoughts over at User:Puddleglum2.0/WPR. Cheers! --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 18:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for answering my questions for the WikiProject Report! I really appreciate it, and I hope you also had a good time answering. Happy editing! Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 23:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:Puddleglum2.0, glad I could help. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Your recent editing history at Ufology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 20:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey User:Roxy the dog thanks for keeping an eye out on those pages. I'm trying really hard to avoid an edit war with User:ජපස but he constantly reverts most of my edits, usually just referencing guidelines with no explanation, so I am not able to resolve or discuss his issues with my edits appropriately. Could you help me communicate with him that if he explains better his reverts I may be able to improve upon his criticisms with less discussion? I have asked him many times but to no avail. As you can see I am working quite a lot on those pages and this user often reverts some of those edits without clear explanations. I've started half a dozen discussions asking him for explanations but he just keeps following this approach and often resorts to aggressive and uncivil personal attacks. (some examples [1][2][3][4]). It's mostly just me and him on those pages so we can't start and RfC or post on noticeboards for every edit obviously. We need to figure out a way to work together but some external help would be appreciated. It's really hard to collaborate with this user and simply being more verbose in edit messages or applying WP:ROWN would resolve all issues as I've tried to explain to him many times. Thanks again! --Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Two more reverts to add:

third revert in 24h by the user just saying: WP:TOOSOON There is nothing to discuss. [5] (I asked him to explain/discuss twice already)
third revert in 24h by the user just saying: Poorly worded WP:POVPUSH [6] (I asked him to explain/discuss twice already)

--Gtoffoletto (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know, in as friendly a way as possible, that I think you shpould have been permanently blocked from editing this project by now. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 18:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Very friendly thanks User:Roxy the dog --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It did take a lot longer than I expected. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 14:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Stop now: block warning against further forumshopping

You stated today at the Wikipedia:Teahouse that you "have started half a dozen discussions asking him for explanations". Him refers to User:ජපස. Yes, that, in a nutshell, is the problem. Stop forumshopping now. Don't drag ජපස to any more noticeboards. I'm not impressed by the examples you give of what you call his incivility and personal attacks here: [7][8][9][10]. BTW, it would be a lot easier to follow your accusations if you used specific diffs rather than linking to whole sections; I don't know what it is in those discussions that you consider personal attacks. For how to create diffs, please see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide.

Please go to the policy Forumshopping and read it carefully. Also please take on board the good advice that you received at the Teahouse. If you open yet another passive-aggressive discussion against ජපස at some noticeboard in, say, the next six months, you will be blocked. Also, you are not entitled to have the essay WP:ROWN that you are so fond of applied to ජපස. It's not a policy or guideline, and IMO it's pretty opinionated. Stop pushing it in everybody's face. Bishonen | tålk 20:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC).

Hey User:Bishonen thanks for following this. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding but that was not what I meant. I was referring to a dozen discussions asking him for explanations on talk pages of articles where he keeps doing frivolous reverts forcing me to start useless discussions (such as: [11]). Forum shopping is absolutely not my intent. In any case I have read carefully the forumshop policy when you blocked me last time but I will do so again. The only non article related "noticeboard" I have posted to is the teahouse where I am asking for advice from more experienced users to resolve this in a friendly way (as I stated). I have received some precious advice. Is it inappropriate?

Sorry but this is my first time having such problems with another user in over 10 years (I consider myself patient and pragmatic. I like editing and constructive discussion - bickering is useless) and I'm trying to receive guidance from more experienced users on how to avoid all this waste of time. I am receiving some good advice but sadly also a few threats of being banned (and my first ban which you know about). Most people seem to watch these pages just to block people instead of participating in discussion making this a problematic 2 user discussion. When uninvolved users join in the discussion usually all issues are resolved very quickly (and, I would like to point out, not always in my favour!). How about joining in the discussion or maybe you know some user personally that could participate? We could use some help.

Comment about diffs noted. I am aware there have been many misunderstandings such as this one. The problem is that this is a very messy situation with a very fragmented discussion across many talk pages. There is no single "smoking gun" to report here. Collecting diffs is therefore an excruciating process and very time consuming. I am doing my best. In any case some progress has been made today. I hope it's a good sign. Once again it only took one other user to break the deadlock across multiple pages [12]. I think that is the main issue here. Thanks again. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

P.s. I agree with WP:ROWN but it is just a suggestion of how I think we could resolve those issues peacefully and constructively with the other user. I don't feel entitled about anything. Just a friendly request. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:ROWN has been "just a suggestion" and "just a friendly request" from you, has it? That's not how it has come across. "Simply being more verbose in edit messages or applying WP:ROWN would resolve all issues as I've tried to explain to him many times", you say. Yeah, it's the "many times" that do it. Can you really suppose that jps is not by now extremely aware that you strongly recommend WP:ROWN? Do stop going on about it.

I see above that what's happening is not, according to you, so much about you starting useless discussions as about somebody else forcing you to start useless discussions. I complained about this notion of being forced to go on at, and about, another user as early as here. You seriously aren't forced to do anything on Wikipedia. Walking away is often a superior alternative. As for diffs, yes it's a pain to collect diffs, for everybody, not just for you. We do it for clarity and for other people's convenience. Bishonen | tålk 16:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: You have said before I sound "passive aggressive". I'm sorry that's how I come across. The reason I didn't appeal your ban (although it saddened me significantly and I thought it was caused by a misunderstanding) is I recognise I showed frustration several times and chose (as you say) to "walk away". Nobody is perfect and I accept my responsibility in this (at the time I was also very sick and sometimes incoherent e.g. [13]). I'm trying my best but this whole ordeal is very frustrating both for me and the other user (clearly [14] [15]). We have very different approaches and it's a constant 1vs1. I'm working on "recruiting" additional editors interested in the topics. I hope more will join as the pages get linked/edited and added to watchlists. My intention was to simply propose a constructive solution to our problems. Not to "impose" myself on the other user. I would have gladly accepted any compromise from his side but, alas, none was brought forth in what I perceived as stonewalling and moving on to provoke and bait me with another edit and another discussion (e.g. [16]).

My work on Wikipedia is clearly voluntary (like everyone) and a hobby. I do it because I like to research in depth a topic and contribute to significantly improve how it is treated. In that sense I cannot "move on". When I treat delicate issues (e.g. my work on COVID-19) I think wikipedia is very important for the world and have little tolerance for errors and misleading statements. In that way I take my editing very seriously (sometimes too seriously) and spend months researching sources and working on those pages (example of my notes for creating USS Theodore Roosevelt UFO incidents [17]). I'm doing my best and I think that's often enough (as the overwhelming majority of my edits shows). But as I said: nobody is perfect and I am not a machine. But I think I can recognise my mistakes and improve. I hope you are not suggesting I should give up on editing. Because, in all honesty, my ban has already made me consider it. If I was a different kind of person I would have probably given up entirely on wikipedia by this point. But I like to think my work on wiki is important and can help people.

One question: have you discussed this with the other user as well?

Thanks again for your time handling this. I know we are all just trying to do our best for the project. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Gtoffoletto! You created a thread called Struggling to collaborate with another user. What should I do? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Fermi paradox, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Please stop this WP:FRINGE now. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: I've added a template. Absolutely not a test but a very deliberate edit. I've started a discussion in the talk page if you wish to elaborate on your reasoning. How can a template be WP:FRINGE I wonder. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I tried to answer this question, which I think you are making in good faith, at the Fermi Paradox page. jps (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: we might need to restructure that template a bit. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Ufology

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: Thank you for stepping in. I would like to point out I have not breached WP:3RR (I doubt the other editors have as well. They are very experienced with turning wiki into a WP:BATTLEFIELD, just look at their block logs, and extremely careful with this). However I agree that an edit war is in progress and that it needs to stop.

I normally never revert other users as a personal policy but it is impossible to do so in this case as the involved editors refuse to engage in discussion and are allowed to edit the article with total disregard of the work and consensus of others (you being one of the editors being silenced I would like to point out). This needs to stop and users should be invited to participate in discussion instead of editing the article. This is why I proposed the introduction of the disputed NPOV banner some days back. Exactly to avoid users editing without participating in discussion. [18] would you reconsider your position over that addition of the tag to "cool" things down and move back all the involved editors to discussion? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Gtoffoletto I see you are part of Project Paranormal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal I have never joined a Wikipedia project before How do I join?Driverofknowledge (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Driverofknowledge! That project is half dead so it would be helpful to get new editors! Anyone can join a wikiproject. All you do is simply add your name to the list of active participants here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Paranormal/Participants and join in on the discussions and other project activities. You can join as many projects as you want.

I also recommend adding the project talk page [19] to your watchlist so you can see when a new discussion is started. See you there! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for Showing me!Driverofknowledge (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Driverofknowledge Thank you and welcome! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 00:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Banned from my usertalk page

Because of your intransigence, you are now banned from my user talkpage. You are not allowed to post there except for required notifications.

jps (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: Ok, sure. Please review the policy I have notified you about. Failure to adhere to WP:CANVAS can lead to blocking. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I will be referring you for a topic ban from all UFO-related articles fairly soon if you don't stop with this behavior. jps (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I would support such a proposal. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: Sure. But stop infringing WP:CANVAS. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

And now I'm going to request that you no longer ping me. Thanks. jps (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure you watch this page. Just don't use this excuse for continuing to act like you WP:IDHT. You have been notified of the guidelines you were infringing and are now expected to adhere to them. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You just posted to my talkpage. I have removed your post. If you would like to discuss our agreements/disagreements while honoring your topic ban, I am happy to engage here. Please honor my request not to post on my talkpage. jps (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: Miss me already? Cute. Stop being a bully. And don't talk about me behind my back. I am topic banned so I hope I won't have to engage with you ever again. The last few months tolerating you have been sufficiently a nuisance for a lifetime. I am now beyond assuming your good faith. I know what you are. Enjoy posting your deranged opinions freely around the encyclopaedia. You have been given a free pass by the admins. And remember: don't cite any sources! Ciao! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. Immediately above here I asked you not to ping me any more. Please try to adhere to the things to which you agreed. In spite of all this, I hold absolutely no animosity towards you. I simply think your editorial philosophy is misguided. If you ever want to talk about that, I'm happy to do so, but it will probably have to be off-wiki to avoid violating your topic ban. jps (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: I ping you out of courtesy since I am talking to you (you should learn to do that). If you write on my talk page: you get pinged. Don't write here if you don't like it. I think your editorial philosophy is disgraceful. You post constantly your opinions and not statements supported by sources. You only engage in discussion when an AN/I report has been opened regarding you. I have tried to engage in conversation with you for months. You asked me not to talk with you anymore in any way. And now you want to "help me out" sanctimoniously? Don't make me laugh. Your are a deceptive, false, and manipulating editor. I think you are a menace to this project and I pity the fact this is what gives you joy in life. Have fun destroying Wikipedia! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, I don't need you to ping me, and I asked you not to do so. You agreed not to do this above! Now you're doing it again and have the further audacity to tell me how I should be discussing things with people. Then you put words in my mouth You asked me not to talk with you anymore in any way which are not true. I am going to chalk this up to hurt feelings, but please understand that it makes communication difficult when you won't engage with your disputant on anything but your own terms. jps (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried talking with you several times. I opened several discussions with you on your talk page. You "banished" me from your talk page. Now you want to talk? You are rubbing it in. Not discussing. And maybe you are also posing for the admins because there is an AN/I report and you exposed yourself a bit too much. You know you behaviour is unjustifiable and unexcusable and you are worried they will ban you too (as they clearly should). Has one of your admin friends told you to do this to shift the blame on me for the edit war you caused? This is all highly suspect and makes me trust you even less. I renew my assessment of you: your are a deceptive, false, and manipulating editor. If you want to recognise your role in this, and apologise for your past behaviour I will accept you excuses and instantly bury the hatchet. A public admission in the AN/I thread and I will retract all of my accusations and support giving you another chance (although you've had many in the past). Otherwise I will do my best to see that justice is served. P.S. as a sign of goodwill, no ping for you. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you not pinging me. I am sorry you don't trust me, but I am not surprised. I assure you, no one is asking me to communicate with you. I just know having been on the other end of enforcement measures that it often helps to have people talk to you in these scenarios, and so I'm open to talking. What I'm not going to do is acquiesce to any demands that you make or worry about the threats (implied or real) that you seem to be making. I am very willing to have a discussion about why I think you find my approach so upsetting, but I'm not sure we can do that if you have so little trust. If you want to talk, just let me know. jps (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course you are not surprised. You know you are totally untrustworthy. You have a history of lies and deception that goes back decades. Give me one good reason I should trust you?

You didn't seem to be willing to talk many times in the past [20] [21] I tried diplomacy with you. You rejected it many times. I begged you to be clear in your edit descriptions and to discuss topics in talk pages. You never listened despite me opening dozens of discussions on all those talk pages. You never (purposefully) engaged and just continued edit warring. The fact you want to talk now, with no admission of guilt whatsoever is just you trying to dance around the grave of your opponents. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I shudder when I think of the tens of thousands of edits you have done on Wikipedia. How many other valid editors have you turned away from Wikipedia? How much damage have you done? You have no concept (or ability?) of sourcing material correctly and constantly push your own deranged opinions as if they were universal truth. The fact this is tolerated is beyond me and has proven to me that this project is doomed to fail. You are certainly very skilled at falsifying the truth and you have your friends covering for you. But you behaviour is as clear as day and an admin should be able to realise this. We are far far FAR away from the pillars of Wikipedia and admins support this drift. Who the hell made them admins in the first place!? -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ufology sprawling edit war

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ufology sprawling edit war. --— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: Once again: I thank you for stepping in here. This is clearly out of control. Dealing with the other users is beyond my ability for discussion and compromise I'm afraid (although I think I have demonstrated a lot of patience) and too few editors are willing to deal with this mess. Thanks for being reasonable and willing to talk (despite our sometimes differing views). -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions related to UFOs and ufology, broadly construed. You are welcome to appeal this ban in three months' time.

You have been sanctioned for persistent ~~pro-fringe POV-pushing~~ disruptive editing in the subject area. (Changed 11:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC) after discussion with Gtoffoletto.) Compare this ANI thread.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 20:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I probably should have pinged. I left a comment at the ANI thread, in case it can persuade you to still edit on other topics. —Paleo Neonate – 12:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this notification PaleoNeonate and for your interest. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you go. ANI was definitely a little harsh in my opinion. ~ HAL 333 15:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you HAL333. Nice user name and signature! At least my "sacrifice" brought new users to those pages. I'm glad. Keep up the good work! And remember: do not accept opinions instead of sources. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

@Bishonen: no reply yet [22] so I'll repost here for tidiness: "You have been sanctioned for persistent pro-fringe POV-pushing. Compare this ANI thread." There is no evidence in that message. Also in the AN/I thread there aren't any DIFFs regarding my "persistent pro-fringe POV-pushing" I am accused of repeatedly by you and other admins. Have I missed it and it is there? In other discussions some editors [23] have said that it exists, but that they may not point me to it. Could you do that? The questions I am trying to answer are:

Based on what evidence have you topic banned me? I cannot improve if I am not aware of what made me get sanctioned.
The other editors have not been investigated so far (or have they?). Why? Do you see nothing wrong with their behaviour? Several discussions and diffs have been provided. Should I take their behaviour as a model for my future editing?

Thanks, -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 00:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Your request for diffs/evidence is reasonable. I have some RL stuff, but I'll answer as soon as I can, hopefully today. Bishonen | tålk 11:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you. No rush at all. Take your time. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Warning

ජපස is obviously prepared to accept some attacks from you towards him because you are understandably upset. I have accepted it too. But my tolerance for it just ran out, on reading the exchange above.[24] Time to stop. If you call ජපස or anybody else deceptive, false, manipulating etc again, and/or accuse them of deliberately damaging Wikipedia and so on, I'm going to block you for personal attacks and character-assassination. And @ජපස: please don't post on this page again. If Gtoffoletto wants to talk, they can ping you. Bishonen | tålk 11:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC).

Fair enough. I agree we have reached the limit and will stop it here. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

P.s. if you agree @Bishonen:: I am believer in the Right of self-defense. In fairness to ජපස, since I have made some accusations against him, I think it would be fair to allow him to reply if he wishes to respond. If he does I won't reply and the conversation will end there. I've said more than enough. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

Your agreement below my warning just above, "Fair enough. I agree we have reached the limit and will stop it here", apparently wasn't worth the pixels it was using.[25] I have blocked you for 48 hours for extreme inability to drop the stick, despite my warning and your own agreement with it. Surely you didn't think another attack on jps would be OK because it was couched as sarcasm, or because it was on my page rather than your own or jps's? As far as your ABF claim that "he has managed to get me topic banned", was it jps that took you to ANI? No, he didn't even take part in the ensuing discussion. How exactly did he "manage" it — by remote control of the user who did open the thread? And when you return from the block, I want to strongly suggest, especially per your posts on Johnuniq's page, that it would be a good idea to either appeal your topic ban, or stop discussing it. See WP:BANEX for the exceptions to topic bans: asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, and appealing the ban. Those are the only exceptions. It doesn't say "complaining interminably about the ban" anywhere in there. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 11:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Woah. I didn't think that was an attack... but... um... OK! The other user has been baiting me for months. I assume both you and me know very well what is going on here unless you haven't reviewed any of the discussion related to that incident (as other admins have admitted to have done). If you haven't then this just demonstrates this is being handled hastily. As you are reading on Johnuniq's talk page I am afraid this whole ordeal reflects very poorly on Wikipedia Admin's ability to accurately investigate and judge those matters. I am trying to assess what I have been blocked for (no evidence was provided so it isn't very clear to me) and why the other users are not being investigated and their edit warring is being apparently justified. I have reasons to believe this has not been a fair process and I have serious doubts that an appeal would be anything but a waste of my time at the moment if this is how matters are decided. When I have a more clear understanding of what is happening here I might appeal. Your actions are reinforcing my belief that something is wrong with Wikipedia's handling of this dispute (and in general) I'm afraid. I don't intend to appeal this block (which is your third on me by the way...) for the reasons above. I'm not editing Wikipedia anymore outside of my attempt to understand what is happening fully. Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

FGS. You are trying to assess what you have been blocked for as no evidence was provided? You were blocked for the post that I linked to in my block notice. That would be the evidence, together with my discussion of that post. No evidence? And how is it my third block of you? See your block log. I'm done here for now. Appeal this block or not, it's up to you, I'm indifferent. Bishonen | tålk 12:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I'm sorry but you are very rash in reading what I say and in reacting to it. I am sometimes not as clear as I would like and if you help me by reading carefully what I write and by assuming god faith we will avoid silly misunderstandings and exaggerated reactions.

Apparently a "topic ban" is not a "block". I have no experience with those things so from my perspective there is no difference. I was counting that also in the three blocks imposed by you on me (two blocks, 1 topic ban to be precise.). When I'm saying it isn't clear why I was blocked I was not referring to this block by you (which is very clear, I wasn't purposely trying to keep the feud going and thought it was just a minor comment.. but I probably should have avoided it given the circumstances. In any case it's a short block so I think that - while in my mind it is an exaggerated reaction - it is a fair one.) but to the topic ban you have imposed on me.

In that case you told me: "You have been sanctioned for persistent pro-fringe POV-pushing. Compare this ANI thread." There is no evidence in that message. Also in the AN/I thread there aren't any DIFFs regarding my "persistent pro-fringe POV-pushing" I am accused of repeatedly by you and other admins. Have I missed it and it is there? In other discussions some editors [26] have said that it exists, but that they may not point me to it. Could you do that?

The questions I am trying to answer are:

Based on what evidence have you topic banned me? I cannot improve if I am not aware of what made me get sanctioned.
The other editors have not been investigated so far (or have they?). Why? Do you see nothing wrong with their behaviour? Several discussions and diffs have been provided. Should I take their behaviour as a model for my future editing?

Thanks, -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

You need to appeal this 48-hour block here, not continue arguing about your topic ban. If you wish to appeal your topic ban, you have been told how to do that several time at different pages (but you have repeatedly said you won't appeal). But you can not do that while you are blocked. So right now, you need to address this block and this block only. The reason for this block is explained above, and you can see the logged summary at Special:Contributions/Gtoffoletto. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok I see now how it works thanks for clearing this up Boing! said Zebedee. I'll say no more for 48h then if this is how it works. @Bishonen: all I've said above does not relate to the current block but the previous topic ban. If it isn't appropriate for you to answer now due to the block I will post them again in 48h. If you reply before (would appreciate the clarity) I'll wait 48h to reply myself (we should probably keep this separate and continue the thread above "Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction"). Thanks! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the link Boing! said Zebedee: I now see the full reason behind the block. Much more clear now thanks. And I agree with the block. I guess no matter how hard I try I caught the proverbial WP:BAIT here once again [27]. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested specific grounds for your topic ban from UFOs and ufology

OK, here we go, compare [28] above. I'd better start a separate section, since I'm afraid it's rather long, to the point of using sub-sections... that's because I want to be explanatory, and hopefully clear, rather than just listing diffs. I'm going to focus on your editing 1 May — 10 May, i e the last ten days before your topic ban. Note that there are some questions in my text — basically, requests for evidence from you for things you've said. They're not rhetorical questions. If you do after all intend to appeal your ban, it would be a good idea to answer them. That's just advice, not an attempt to give you orders.

Talk:Ufology

The talkpage section "Lead Section", subsection "Proposed improvements" is exhausting just to read. You seem to believe that it's inappropriate to edit the lead during the discussion, and tell people off if they do, and generally try to direct what they can talk about and where. You object strongly whenever other users edit the part of the article that you're discussing, and scold them for it. When I say "other users", I actually mean you object when jps does it; I think you generally accept it from Steelpillow. In my opinion, and that of most users, offering a suggestion for the discussion by actually editing is normal practice. Depending on how it's done (and at Ufology it's done properly, by experienced editors who are used to working this way), an article edit + a talkpage comment is often simpler than insisting on hashing out every word on talk before anybody touches the article. See these examples of edits + comments:

You immediately protested jps's article edit 1, and also told him he was in the wrong section: "The discussion for the lead is above. Why are you editing the lead independently?... Wait for consensus before editing.". You reverted jps's article edit 2 with an angry comment: "I have reverted those edits. It is unacceptable that you do not engage in discussion and then swoop in to impose your view over the hard work of consensus building by others."

You protested when your NPOV tag was removed. Both Roxy and Steelpillow said it did not belong on the article, but you insisted it did: "I'm sorry but I disagree. The discussion is ongoing. ... I would however like to invite everyone to remain calm and patient. ... No need to constantly make aspersions over other editor's intentions. Let's focus on the content remember to WP:AGF." The complaint about "aspersions over other editors' intentions" must refer to some other section, I suppose, as no aspersions are visible in Roxy's or Steelpillow's comments in the section you're editing (surely?). I honestly don't know what aspersions you refer to.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Elizondo

I won't give particular diffs here, except this egregious assumption of bad faith towards the nominator (jps): "Proposing the page for deletion is just an escalation WP:BATTLEFIELD.". But it's more the whole thing: you simply bludgeon the discussion altogether.

ANI

In the ANI discussion you make some accusations which I believe to be unreasonable, but perhaps you can explain them. (Of course your posts in the thread after I topic banned you aren't of interest here, and I have not mentioned them below.)

Your introductory statement at 13:07, 10 May:

1. You call Roxy's posts just above yours "shameful" and "a disgrace". I don't understand why. Are you implying that Roxy is attacking Steelpillow? But how?

2. In the same diff, you link to off-wikipedia harassment of jps. (I won't give that off-wiki link here, but it can be found in your original diff if you care.)

3. You state that jps, Roxy and LuckyLouie edit "with constant threats of topic bans and admin reporting. Almost 90% of my edits is reverted by those users." No examples of those constant threats are provided, and I can't find any. I may have missed them; can you give me a few diffs?

4. You offer, presumably as evidence of Roxy's disruptiveness, links to two ANI reports against him, [29] and [30], both of which were quickly closed with the closers criticizing the original reports. I'm really surprised you should think these threads are evidence against Roxy.

5. "Sometimes a third party arrives and is able to bring the discussion back to reason. But usually the discussion is so sprawling and filled with WP:PA that no-one bothers with it." Filled with personal attacks? From whom? Diffs please.

6. "In the mean time the page remains defaced as I consciously try to avert more warring by waiting for more editors to step in." (Continuation from 5.) Defaced? Seriously? That's a PA if I ever saw one. Your wish for more editors to step in is something you express frequently, along with statements that you have tried to "recruit" such editors — I see you say as early as March 30, above on this page, that you are " working on "recruiting" additional editors interested in the topics." I haven't seen you work on it on the relevant talk pages — no RfCs or requests for third opinion — where did you do this work, on user talkpages? Examples, please?

Altogether, you appear as very combative in the ANI thread, e.g. "Levivich: You are making uninformed comments on this whole fiasco. It's a complicated situation that requires careful review of what happened and no gut reactions. I'm sorry but hasty comments like yours without reviewing the material fully are not helpful and may be used to distort this process." I can't fathom why you would assume Levivich is uninformed concerning this subject — that seems quite random — or why you'd make such a personal comment instead of addressing the points he makes.

General remarks

You sometimes give rather patronising advice to editors far more experienced than yourself — advice that might have been more appropriate towards a new user. To Levivich at ANI: "However please do not include your original research but only statements supported by sources. ... That's how wikipedia works. Sources. Not original research.." (Your bolding.) To Roxy and Steelpillow at Talk:Ufology: "I would however like to invite everyone to remain calm and patient", etc. To Steelpillow at Talk:Ufology: "One step at the time or we won't get anywhere... Let's end the irrelevant opinionating and get back to the sources please". See also the edit summary. To jps: "I have reverted those edits. It is unacceptable that you do not engage in discussion and then swoop in to impose your view over the hard work of consensus building by others." And in response to a detailed, thoughtful suggestion by Steelpillow, you write "I'm sorry but we are straying far far away from the Wikipedia:Five pillars", and rather unexpectedly add "I will ignore the obvious WP:BAITing by other users and focus on the content." I don't know what the "obvious baiting" is. Unless you feel baited by the way jps sometimes responds directly to Steelpillow while ignoring your comments?

I'm going to AGF that handing out newbie-type advice and mansplaining is not something you do on purpose to irritate people. But please consider how it's likely to come across. And sometimes it does seem to be there for the purpose of changing the subject.

As for your second question, about the other editors: no, they have not been investigated, or not by me. I'm a volunteer with constraints on my time. If another admin wishes to investigate them and write up a report, with diffs etc, I'm sure they will. I do have an impression, which I have mentioned before: that jps and Roxy have not edited disruptively concerning ufology. I can't really advise you as to who you take as a model for your future editing. Bishonen | tålk 19:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC).

Request for clarification of exact reason for topic ban

@Bishonen: thank you for the thorough review and for taking the time with this. Really appreciated. I have read it carefully, and I will take some time to answer you questions and provide evidence for my replies. However, I am now even more confused. Could you clarify the exact reason for my topic ban? Those seem to be general "attitudinal" problems but nothing related to the subject of UFOs directly. I though my accusation was for "persistent pro-fringe POV-pushing". I see no evidence of that in your review above. Some of those general behaviours just happened to be on pages regarding UFOs. Thanks. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The exact reason for your topic ban is that you behaved in a hostile, uncollaborative, bludgeon-ly way in the context of UFOs and ufology, making editing those subjects difficult for others. Is your defence that you always behave like that? That would be a pity. I was hoping that with a topic ban, you would be free to edit other areas and demonstrate that you don't always behave like that — that you're able to edit collaboratively. Bishonen | tålk 20:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: I haven't been given a chance to defend myself so far actually. I'm just asking questions. I have more than a decade of edits as my public record. I don't need to prove anything in the future and I won't as I have stopped editing the encyclopaedia after those events. I would expect the onus of proving anything here would fall on you per WP:ADMINACCT. Am I mistaken?

The exact reason for your topic ban is that you behaved in a hostile, uncollaborative, bludgeon-ly way in the context of UFOs and ufology so why did you say: You have been sanctioned for persistent pro-fringe POV-pushing. in my ban notice? Was it a mistake? Could you correct it please with the proper reason. I still don't see the relation between your accusations of general behavioural problems with a specific topic. Your sentence does not seem to fit the crime. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, no, I will not follow you further down the rabbithole, I can't breathe there. Goodbye. Bishonen | tålk 22:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. Administrators should justify their actions when requested. WP:ADMINACCT As you have also stated: ‎Clarification: a reasonable request). I am asking for very reasonable explanations here in a civil and good faith way. I'm sorry you don't like my questions. But a reply by you is expected as an admin. I have no rush. I know you are a volunteer just like me and I value your time. Remember we are talking about an indefinite ban here. It's a pretty serious sanction with I would assume requires appropriate consideration and explanation on your part. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, you keep bringing up WP:ADMINACCT. But that does not require that an admin respond to multiple bludgeoning demands from an editor who, after having been given a reasonable answer, won't accept it and keeps demanding more and more. No, WP:ADMINACCT requires that an admin provide an explanation to a reasonable degree, and I think Bishonen has easily done that in the detailed explanation above. It is not necessary to provide an explanation to a degree that attempts to satisfy someone who clearly will never be satisfied. If you were to make a complaint under WP:ADMINACCT policy, I really don't think you'd get a lot of support. I think your only option is to make an appeal under the terms of the topic ban - though sometimes the secret of success in a volunteer community is knowing when to shut up. (Oh, and I'm now going to join the list of people unwatching this page and asking for no pings please, as I have no further interest in your bludgeoning.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Boing! said Zebedee: Bishonen's full report above is absolutely reasonable (incorrect in many ways and unfair I think but I haven't had the time to answer yet). But in any case: it is irrelevant and in contradiction with the reason that was given for my topic ban, as I've pointed out above. All I'm asking is for clarity and transparency here. Doesn't seem like asking much after an indefinite topic ban. I hear a lot of defensiveness in all the comments by admins on this issue. Is it that hard to provide clear evidence and a clear explanation for my sanction that is consistent with what I have been told in the past? It seems several admins are struggling to do this (you are the third admin involved at the moment, and I appreciate the time you took answering here). If mistakes have been made wouldn't it be easier to admit to them and fix them rather than constantly moving the goal posts to cover up past actions? I'm not asking for the ban to be lifted here. Only that it reflects the evidence and is clear so that my appeal (if there will be one) will be on topic and direct. If I am not given those items I think a complaint according to WP:ADMINACCT would be more than justified. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now disabled pings from you under the "Mute preferences" and will no longer receive them. I'm not responding any further, as there really is no point repeating the same mistake of trying to talk to someone who won't listen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure. You added that request while I was writing my comment [31] so I did not see it and my reply contained a ping. Sorry if it caused such a huge discomfort for you that you had to mute me. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment by PaleoNeonate

Topic bans and blocks are indeed preventative to deal with behavioral issues and unnecessary time sinks. What one believes shouldn't matter but their editing and source selection does as well as their ability to collaborate. I could point at examples of what appear to be promotion, of for instance To The Stars, improper interpretation and summary of various sources, as well as insisting to use some suboptimal sources. In fact, I have already commented on some of these instances in the past. In the context of the existing topic ban I don't think that it would be appropriate to rehash those discussions. My impression is that the ban was effected precisely to avoid constantly running in circles. As I have already recommended before, I suggest to move on and edit on other topics. Maybe a last note is about WP:CONSENSUS because I have the impression that it was misunderstood. The status quo of an article as well as the result of previous discussions and RFCs matter. When editing, reverts also matter, since they contest the direction we're going. Silence on a talk page also does not necessarily confirm consensus for new edits. Specialized noticeboard discussions often also take precedence when they happen (like at WP:FTN and other official WP:NOTICEBOARDS). I remember that you compared FTN to witch hunters or the like, but it's also related to WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE policies as well as important precedents like WP:ARBPS. Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, it is also different to journalism and papers/journals. —Paleo Neonate – 21:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: thank you for your interest. If you participate here please present evidence of what you say and not just unsubstantiated accusations. You say "promotion, of for instance To The Stars, improper interpretation and summary of various sources, as well as insisting to use some suboptimal sources". Where is your evidence of this? I take pride in my work and consider those grave accusations. I hope you can back them up with substantial evidence. And what the hell is a "preventative" ban!? Wiki admins see in the future a la Minority report and can act before any wrongdoing? Impressive. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It's in the previous discussions and edit summaries. I'm unwatching your talk page and am requesting to please stop pinging me. Enough time has been wasted. —Paleo Neonate – 10:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Nobody asked you to comment here it's your choice. It's in the previous discussions and edit summaries. Which discussions? Which summaries? I'm sorry, but your accusations, despite you constant remarks saying that clear evidence is at your disposal, remain completely unsubstantiated, unfounded and fundamentally unfair. If you choose to engage in discussions of this kind "throwing the stone and hiding the hand" is usually not well regarded. However that's your choice. Cheers, -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

My Reply

@Bishonen: thank you for changing the reasoning behind my topic ban [32]. The current reasoning is: disruptive editing in the subject area. Thank you for clarifying this and for allowing me to address your concerns in a more precise way. I will address your comments [33] as they relate to this new reasoning.

I apologise for the length of the discussion. I tired to be as brief as possible, but unfortunately you brought up a lot of points. I've asked a couple of questions to understand exactly what was the reason behind my ban and how I can improve. Thanks for taking the time to handle this.

Ufology

Talk:Ufology

You seem to believe that it's inappropriate to edit the lead during the discussion, and tell people off if they do, and generally try to direct what they can talk about and where. You object strongly whenever other users edit the part of the article that you're discussing, and scold them for it. When I say "other users", I actually mean you object when jps does it; I think you generally accept it from Steelpillow. In my opinion, and that of most users, offering a suggestion for the discussion by actually editing is normal practice. Depending on how it's done (and at Ufology it's done properly, by experienced editors who are used to working this way), an article edit + a talkpage comment is often simpler than insisting on hashing out every word on talk before anybody touches the article.

I'm confused here. You are supporting jps's style of "discussion" (accurately described here I think WP:EDITNINJAS) which is to edit the article how he pleases ignoring all comments and to leave a comment in the talk page. This behaviour has been reported as an edit war, with jps clearly reported as the main offender in the ANI thread by several users. Do you stand by your and at Ufology it's done properly, by experienced editors who are used to working this way? I was the one blocked while jps and the others weren't so I would like to clarify if their editing stile is the example to follow. Are you suggesting it's appropriate to just keep editing the article independently every time?

I'll recap the situation:

I edit with A.
Another editors reverts (and sometimes edits with B).
I start a discussion to talk about it.

What do you propose next?

To avoid an edit war I attempted to handle those indecents with the following approach:

4. reply to the discussion and attempt to find compromise while NOT editing the article ("The discussion for the lead is above. Why are you editing the lead independently?... Wait for consensus before editing.")
5. if 4 fails proceed with an RfC.
6. edit article with the consensus

You disagree with this approach? Is this what you find disruptive? If so I would appreciate the guidance. I was clearly frustrated after dealing with jps stalking my edits for months but I remained polite I think.

A lot of the discussions with jps stem from the fact that he does not accept step 4. He just ploughs through with his own edits completely disregarding all discussions and attempts at compromise like I told him many times: "I have reverted those edits. It is unacceptable that you do not engage in discussion and then swoop in to impose your view over the hard work of consensus building by others." On the contrary Steelpillow always made edits taking into account the discussion and in a polite way with a sincere attempt at compromise.

Also, as you say: The talkpage section "Lead Section", subsection "Proposed improvements" is exhausting just to read. but object to my "The discussion for the lead is above." where I was trying to maintain some orderly discussion. I think jps purposefully does not engage in discussion Current lede is fine. All the problems are in your head or perhaps a result of the language barrier. while belittling the other users and even insinuating there is a language barrier due to the fact that english is not my native language (despicable and discriminatory and by itself a reason to sanction him in my mind). He also tries to avoid any attempt at orderly consensus. I repeatedly asked him to try to maintain order in that and many other discussions to no avail. After so many attempts at having an orderly discussion I suspect it is a tactic he uses to muddle the water and obfuscate discussions/evidence against his extreme and not source supported POV. I clarified my comments regarding "where to discuss" saying "Just a suggestion. I'm just trying to make sure this doesn't turn into a useless and confused discussion." and presented several sources for my statements. He presented no sources and just pushed his POV relentlessly (despite academic papers clearly contradicting it) [34]. No discussion. No sources. Just his opinion. I find this disruptive editing. And the fact this behaviour was reported to ANI with jps as the main offender is indicative of this. Also, another user stated it was time for an RfC or DR [35] since the discussion was going nowhere (clearly). I think this is the only way to force jps to discuss things. Open RfCs for everything.

POV TAG

Regarding the POV tag. I believe adding it would have solved many of the issues we had (by stopping people form edit warring the page). Others disagreed. I don't see the problem with that. I just stated my position to attempt to clarify. I didn't place the NPOV tag again obviously once the consensus was against it. Roxy reverted assuming my bad faith: [36] That's why I was inviting everyone to stay "calm" and to assume good faith. Tempers were heating up. Nobody needed to be "disruptive" over such a basic disagreement in my mind. It was an attempt at de-esclating the situation. Seems reasonable to me and I think history proved me right (it escalated into an edit war). Any suggestions here? Is this disruptive?

Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Luis Elizondo

I agree I tend to bludgeon the process. I understand this can be disruptive. It has nothing to do with UFOs though. I'm trying to work on it. Do you believe it is so egregious that it warrants a sanction?

Regarding the Bad faith assumption that was also echoed by others. This was the culmination of an edit war with WP:CANVASsing by the user [37] It seemed to me jps was just attacking everywhere he could. I might have been mistaken here (the page was ultimately deleted and I somewhat agree with that decision all things considered). Consider the overall intractable editing style and extreme POV pushing of this user makes it hard not to "connect the dots" with his behaviour. His actions have spanned across multiple pages with a toxic approach towards other users.

AN/I

I'll reply point by point (the points are above [38]):

I was talking about Slatersteven not Steelpillow. My bad. They have similar names/signatures and similar roles in all this and I used the wrong name. Still applies. That attack by Roxy to Slatersteven was a shameful low blow against a neutral participant I have to say I feel all parties bare some blame here. So I would agree any sanction must be applied to all of them with out prejudice.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC) REPLY I think we should add Steven to the group of miscreants, and apply some sanctions without prejudice to him. -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 12:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Upon rereading this I still find it incredible nobody even discussed Roxy's behaviour in all this. What a total miscarriage of justice here. It boggles my mind.
I was unaware of some context with regards to that. I should have probably reviewed that source better. It was done in haste not with malice. I apologise.
Roxy: "Bad faith tagging reverted""I think you shpould have been permanently blocked from editing this project by now" or "I think you should start a blog""you ought to consider writing somewhere people wont tell you your ideas are silly.""a sole newbie setting a tag like that with no real justification". Jps: All the problems are in your head or perhaps a result of the language barrier. (this is not the first time JPS makes derogatory/discriminatory comments based on my nationality. I think this alone should warrant a sanction. Unacceptable to me.) I, and many others (see next point) could provide many more examples of problematic behaviour by those users. But maybe I should focus on myself at the moment since that's the topic of this discussion. If you wish to examine in more detail the damage I think those users are doing to the encyclopaedia I will help out.
I totally agree with those AN/I reports. The speedy closure of those reports is just as unfair as the lack of investigation of those users (despite the report being about them) in this case. Roxy the dog Edit Warring and Personal Attacks (again) was closed after 45 minutes! Even in that time some users supported the reports with additional (damning) diffs. Roxy the dog long-term incivility was closed after 4 hours. I sympathise with the reason for this closure. But together with all the other reports this is unacceptable. Some even objected and asked admins to reopen the case (Acroterion#User:Roxy the dog). Several admins stepped in to protect them. Are those users above any kind of reproach? Why are they "untouchable" and why do admins protect them? How many reports need to be filed against them before something is done? Not even a warning... once again: a total disgrace in my view.
A blatant example is this discussion here. [39] Where a factually undeniable and source supported edit was painted as "Your edits are clearly WP:POVPUSH and pretty blatant WP:ADVOCACY" or "Some of what you contribute is valuable. A lot of it comes from a credulity that beggars belief". Until a "neutral" editor stepped in to stop the madness and the editors took a step back in the face of their demonstrable detachment from reality and extreme POV. This is the behaviour I have been facing for the last several months and what Wikipedia's admins are endorsing.
I've been sharing links to those discussions with relevant projects in an attempt to bring in additional editors. RfC are something I should use more probably. Every time I propose an RfC to those editors they take a step back so I've never had to actually go through with one. I think they are aware their positions would not stand the scrutiny. An example of this are the users pointing out an RFC is needed in the Ufology page. I've been somewhat reluctant to use RfCs as I have never used them before (never needed to... I like to compromise without wasting too much time normally). But I think this was a mistake. No amount of compromise or discussion has worked with those users. Please also consider the grave CANVASsing problem those editors have especially in the Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard where CANVASSING seems to be almost encouraged. A systemic issue for sure. A problem arises and they "rally the troops" on that noticeboard to gang up on the "fringe lunatic". I think this is a major problem in this edit area that introduces an insurmountable bias in Wiki articles (clearly on display in the currently online versions of those pages which are just blatantly advocating against the subject matter and denigrating the people who take part in them).
I can't fathom why you would assume Levivich is uninformed concerning this subject — that seems quite random Can't you imagine the fact that having written those articles I may be substantially more informed of those topics than Levivich? Is that option so hard to imagine? :-) I did not address Levivich's inaccuracies since the discussion was not about content, but about behaviour. I didn't want to push the discussion off topic. His comment is factually incorrect (in a substantial way), unsourced, and reveals he is uninformed about the topic he is discussing. It is not meant as an insult. He is just misinformed and should take the time to study and find sources regarding the subject better before editing the articles. It resulted in two pages being merged over completely inaccurate information not based on sources [40]. While the merge might make sense, the encyclopedia has now lost information (not preserved in the merge) and is factually incorrect because of personal opinions not based on facts.

General remarks

I never "check" a user's background when having a discussion. Should I? I like to WP:FOC focus on the content and even experienced editors can make mistakes obviously and sometimes be uncivil and aggressive. What you report are my attempts at mediation and de-escalation which you seem to characterise as "passive-aggressive", "patronising" and "mansplaining" (that term has a sexual discrimination connotation I object to. I don't know or care about the sex of the other editors). Unfortunately tone is not easy to convey accurately when writing. But I am not trying to be aggressive. I would be glad for any suggestions to improve.

I think you comments reveal substantial misunderstandings. What I think I should do is try to be more mindful of how my words are (or could be) interpreted in the future by people reading them out of context. Also a problem I see with many of your questions is due to me "assuming" who is reading is aware of events/facts that didn't happen in the discussion just above. In the future I will be more careful to report the diff I am referring to directly in the message to avoid misunderstandings and mischaracterisation by editors who are not following the entire discussion. I tired to do the same above. I hope it works.

Final note: this whole ordeal has really damaged my belief in "the system". I am trying to use this experience to propose a solution to what I believe to be a terribly broken "justice system" on Wikipedia. I'm working on a V2 of my proposal at the moment after an initial version. I'll be glad to hear what you think once it is ready! Without reform in this key area I think the project is doomed to fail. Fortunately, I'm not alone in thinking this: Wikimedia Foundation Board announces Community Culture Statement, enacts new standards to address harassment and promote inclusivity across projects -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for laying out so clearly the sort of posts that justified the ban

I'm not trying to be rude, just saying that your posts exemplify the sort of thing that led to your ban. And no, I'm not going to respond to questions, I also am not going down that rabbithole. As to your question about a "preventative ban", I hope it's just a quibble about the two different spellings and not a serious question, because if it is, well that's a problem also. Doug Weller talk 11:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I am really shoked. You are I think the 5th admin to participate in those discussions? You are one of the top editors on Wikipedia by number of edits. You are Wikipedia in my mind. You were a legend to me. I am but one hobbyist asking for clarifications. Admins like you that voted against me on AN/I keep replying "that I should just get it". I am not getting it. I'm asking for explanations. Is it that hard to just answer coherently? If it is "so obvious" to all of you why won't anyone answer to me? You all have the time to post on this page with threats and accusations but no time to present evidence and clear explanations? I recognise I must be missing something since all admins (and not) seem to have a very clear view here (as I have posted on AN/I the admin consensus is clear). Some editors have written to me (mostly confidentially... now I know why) stating clearly I am not crazy here and I have been treated unfairly and harshly. I would like to be helped instead of receiving a constant stream of (not so veiled) threats. I have been topic banned regarding UFOs. The discussions above don't touch that subject. How can they exemplify what lead to my topic ban? Such coordinated admin response definitely reinforces in my mind the belief this is a systemic problem. Of this, I am very sad. I remember Wikipedia was once a welcoming, friendly, collaborative community. Not an inquisition where editors are afraid to speak and ask questions. Scary. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

In case you wish to appeal after all

Hi, Gtoffoletto. You have made it clear that you don't want to appeal and that you're leaving Wikipedia. But sometimes people change their minds, so I want you to know why I recommended you to wait three months before an appeal. That's because the people who assess your appeal (general editors at WP:AN, or uninvolved admins at WP:AE, or conceivably arbitrators at WP:ARCA) are going to be interested in what you've done during the ban. They'll be looking for evidence that you're able to edit constructively in other areas, without any of the problems that led to your ban. If you can show that, you'll have a very good chance of having the appeal accepted. If, by contrast, you simply stay away for three months and then appeal, that chance will be very slight. I also want to say, for the record, that I only recommend you to wait three months — I can't order you to wait. You're allowed to appeal at any time. It's just that the chance of an early appeal being accepted is even smaller. Bishonen | tålk 11:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC).

Thanks Bishonen. I have no experience with those kind of things so it's a very helpful explanation. At the moment I still don't understand the sanction you imposed on me so I could not appeal it on merit but only on procedure. As I've stated above I would appreciate direct examples of my "persistent pro-fringe POV-pushing" in the area of UFOs or a correction of the reasons for my topic ban. You've given me general tips regarding my editing (which I appreciate nonetheless as I think constructive criticism is very important). However they don't seem related to the topic ban directly. I've asked for your explanation in the discussions above [41] and hope I will receive them when you find the time to answer me. There is really no rush. On a final note: I'm sorry you've found this experience distressful. Just imagine how it must be for me and I'm sure you'll understand why at the moment I have completely lost faith in this project. Thanks! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Worldometers

Your input would be helpful at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Worldometers.info. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: thank you for your ping. I agree that in light of the CNN article it doesn't look particularly reliable. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

FYI

The success rate of people with 1500 edits trying to tell us that we are doing Wikipedia completely wrong and should adopt this entirely new and much more burdensome process instead is approximately zero percent. The last user who tried it ended up banned for disruption. Guy (help!) 09:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: hey. Not trying to "tell you" or anyone else anything. I'm proposing that we fix a problem that the majority of Wiki users perceive (see the data I included in the proposal page). I'm trying to figure out a solution collaborating with many users and have presented an initial (radical) proposal on the village pump to receive input and start a collaboration with other users (be bold? :-) ). Thanks to that feedback I'm working on a V2 which incorporates a lot of the comments I've received (hint: it will be a more incremental approach. I used the radical proposal to challenge and try and figure out the "boundaries" for the community). If you have the time to participate in this process it would be great. If you don't like something you see please try to focus you criticism in a constructive way so that we can improve (as you have in the proposal talk page, thanks for the comments). Also: I'm working on a V2 but it will take me a while (not a lot of time at the moment). If you wish to propose an alternative proposal I would be very curious to read it. My editing on Wiki is solely focused on this with a touch of COVID-19 when I see something major that needs to be fixed. Thanks again for the direct comments. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, and it's clear to me from the attempt thus far that you're viewing the problem from the perspective of an inexperienced editor disgruntled by the response to your own errors. As I said, we've seen this before, and it usualyl ends badly. Guy (help!) 12:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG absolutely my poor experience with AN/I made me aware of this problem and made me realise the project has an existential problem (that's my opinion of course). I am not surprised to find that the majority of users agrees that AN/I is inadequate (this is based on data instead). I hope Wiki's adminship will embrace a good faith attempt at proposing an improvement. Input from admins and more experienced editors is crucial to propose something effective. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 13:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The spectacular display of the failure to get the point and your refusals to stop contacting Bishonen about your topic ban after you were told no by several experienced editors and even when you were given other forums to address your concerns here makes me think that you need to be separated from the project. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: I'm replying to Bishonen's questions: Note that there are some questions in my text — basically, requests for evidence from you for things you've said. They're not rhetorical questions. If you do after all intend to appeal your ban, it would be a good idea to answer them. That's just advice, not an attempt to give you orders.[42]. After she changed her topic ban reasoning we had agreed I would reply to her once I was ready with a well documented reply. So I did and I waited a couple of weeks. When no answer was coming I just politely (I hope) asked her when she would reply. I am trying to receive clear guidance on how to improve and avoid more time loss with formal appeals etc. I don't see how this is harassment. If it is I am sorry. I am acting in good faith and just trying to improve and clear my name here. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

You asked her when she would reply, and she said she "Never". That really was the point at which you should have stopped pushing. As for "If you do after all intend to appeal your ban, it would be a good idea to answer them. That's just advice, not an attempt to give you orders", I read that as advice on what to do in any unban request you make." And I'll add my advice for any unban request: Be concise, because big walls of text are rarely effective. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: thanks for the advice. I was replying to a long post myself and I tried to keep it brief but it wasn't easy (I tried my best!). With regards to my "pushing": I want to make it clear it absolutely wasn't my intention to harass anyone. I just wanted to make sure she remembered what had happened some weeks ago (some time has passed) before being forced to procede with other appeals. I think one may see that I am confused by what is going on here and not WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I've never been through those processes and I'm just asking honest questions. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and when you made sure she remembered, she replied. And that's where you should have left it. If/when you get yourself unblocked, it seems clear to me that you will then have only two options: Make a formal appeal of your ban, or shut up about it. Sorry to have to be so blunt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: I really appreciate your direct advice actually. I'm very confused by this whole mess. It just feels like whatever I do it will result in a block of some kind. I'm here to help out like everyone else and I don't like wasting the time of others and mine. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Request reason:

I hope I'm supposed to actually use this tag. At this point I really don't know. I think this is a misunderstanding. It was absolutely not my intention to harass anyone. I replied to Guerillero above with a short recap of why I was contacting Bishonen. I thought I was simply having an open discussion with the admin who had topic banned me (some months ago) and that it was appropriate. All I was asking was for guidance on how to improve and clear my name. I have no experience with administrative processes on Wikipedia and I feel like I'm inadvertently doing everything wrong. If she does not want to talk with me anymore I would understand and will stop contacting her immediately. I care about Wikipedia. And I think I've been a constructive contributor over many years. This whole ordeal keeps escalating despite my best efforts and this latest mark on my block log really hurts. [[User:Gtoffoletto|Gtoffoletto]]  ^talk 08:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were given clear instructions about the recourse that was at your disposal, but you ignored that. Now is the time to reflect on that. Now is the time to convince those reviewing this unblock appeal that you understand what the problem was and the steps you should take to avoid the reoccurence of these if you were to be unblocked. Yes, you commit to refrain from contacting Bishonen about this now, but what assurances can you provide beyond the immediate future? The above unblock appeal as well as the related exchanges do not convince me that you're sufficiently aware of the reason behind your block in order to address it in terms of long-lasting prevention, so I am declining your request. El_C 13:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

@El C: I've stated in my appeal I think this was a misunderstanding. I've sent three messages to Bishonen. The last one you seem to be referencing was the following: [43]. I was politely reminding her that her detailed message was sent before changing the topic ban reason and asking her if that changed her view. Our last exchange was from May (I've been busy in real life unfortunately) so I wondered if she had forgotten. This was not deliberate harassment. It was a good faith attempt at clearing things up. The last time I wrote to her directly was May 24 [44]. Your appeal decline means you believe sending that 3rd message was deliberate harassment? Maybe I do not know what amounts to harassment on Wikipedia. Could you or Guerillero help me understand? Is it appropriate to ask Bishonen if she thinks I was harassing her? If she feels that way I would like to apologise to her. We have disagreed many times in the past but I would never harass her or anyone alse. Neither here, nor anywhere else. Please consider my wikipedia account is public and clearly links to my real life identity. I try to be very careful in what I write or say publicly and would appreciate a chance to clear my name from what I consider very serious accusations. Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto, you were not careful enough, continuing posting on Bishonen's talk page, even after being instructed that this constitutes a violation. You were told what the proper recourse is, but you ignored that. That is a fact. That is the problem. Yes, an apology to Bishonen would be good, but even that is not enough. Your failure to recognize the problem results in the chances for the block being lifted continuing to remain low. El_C 17:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note, this will be my only response, Gtoffoletto. If you ask me to clarify or provide guidance on how you can improve or anything else, I will not. Please don't ask and we'll both be happier. You've sent three messages to me recently, indeed, but you nagged me interminably in May, on your own page and mine, and yes, I was disconcerted to see you coming back and what you call "recycling" one of the May threads on my page yesterday. I had hoped we were done, and I thought I expressed this hope clearly enough in my responses. If I were you, I would post a new unblock request saying something like "I will leave Bishonen alone from now on. If I decide to appeal my topic ban I will do it at (noticeboard of my choice). If I decide to complain about Bishonen per WP:ADMINACCT, I will also do that at (noticeboard of my choice)." IMO something like that should give you a good chance of being unblocked. No apology necessary. Thank you for not pinging me, that was well considered. Bishonen | tålk 18:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC).

Dear Bishonen, although you say it is not necessary, I'm still sorry you felt I was nagging you unnecessarily and I apologise. This experience has been very unpleasant for me as well and my frustration must have certainly shown at times despite my best efforts to stay calm. I would like to assure you that I have nothing against you personally and I respect you for the effort and time you dedicate to maintaining the project. I've had a hard time communicating with you and other users, and I accept responsibility for the shortcomings in my discussion style that have lead to some of those misunderstandings. I'm also trying to learn on the fly Wikipedia's administrative processes which I thankfully never dealt with in the past. As an inexperienced user in this area I have struggled to find guidance and it appears I have been too naive in my approach to such processes resulting in more harm than good. I hope one day you will choose to resume discussing content and editing the project with me. In the mean time I will stop contacting you. And thank you for your final advice. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 20:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Request reason:

As discussed with Bishonen above this was a misunderstanding. I will not contact her again. If I will ever appeal the topic ban she imposed on me I will do so at an appropriate noticeboard. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After reviewing your contributions, I don't think this was a misundrstanding. I think you should accept that you harassed Bishonen. PhilKnight (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

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

@PhilKnight: thank you for your review. I wasn't very explicit in my request as I wrote more detailed replies just above and wanted to follow her advice and keep it brief. However given your response I will try to clarify my position: this was a misunderstanding on my part that resulted in me harassing her and for this I have apologised to her directly. It was absolutely not my intention to deliberately harass her or anyone else. I understand however that my actions caused her discomfort and that I should have been more careful. I accept my blame and apologise. I will be more attentive in the future and this will not happen again. I understand that Bishonen does not wish to discuss with me any further and I will not contact her any further as stated above. If I will ever appeal the topic ban I will do so following WP:UNBAN. Does this answer your concerns? Thank you -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: - how do you feel about an unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: is the question meant for me or did you ping me in error? Thanks -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Oops. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@PhilKnight:: for a moment I thought it was some kind of deep psychological question I was supposed to answer :-) I had PTSD flashbacks of job interview questions! -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: - how do you feel about an unblock? PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: If you feel an unblock would be prudent, I will stand aside. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: - Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Unblocked

Following our discussion, I have unblocked your account. You have agreed not to interact with Bishonen. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: thank you for taking the time to review and discuss this. Glad to be back. -- {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)